|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property".
The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that.
It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? Show nested quote +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy
He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats.
As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US.
|
On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me.
It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that).
On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:
[quote]
I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect. That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US.
Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31]
|
United States10398 Posts
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards.
|
On October 28 2020 06:30 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:13 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 05:32 Nouar wrote:On October 28 2020 05:17 Danglars wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 03:32 Starlightsun wrote:On October 27 2020 17:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:20 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On October 27 2020 17:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 27 2020 17:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
[quote]
I don't subscribe to the GH revolution model of change, obviously. But I think that a lot of our problems will only be solved by shutting down the minority voices this country can't seem but to bend the knee to. A definite redesign of the constitution will only happen once the boomer generation is gone. The power they hold is too vast to overcome and then it begins with taxing wealth passed on to their children. If by revolution you mean a change of constitution, I'm all for it. And very skeptical it will happen. It goes deeper than the constitution. It's an academic level of change. The very fabric of what the country is, can be, and should strive for is what all who live here have to fight for. AOC, in my book, is the future of the country. People like her, within reason, can push this country towards a future where everyone is somehow or another taken care of. I don't follow individual politicians so much as the generality of their proposals. The change is unlikely to happen because there are a lot of people who either are comfortable with the status, complacent by inaction to change it, or they are too ignorant to understand that they are the very people who would gain the most. I've given up on most conservatives being rational actors in regards to a lot of things. Most is the keyword. Some still surprise me. I've stated that here before but I think the problem with the US is mainly its people and its culture. Politics just follows. If you ask me what's the most shocking about the country, I wouldn't start with the system or even Trump but with "in many parts of the country folks believe you should be allowed to shoot like a dog someone who trespasses on your property". The culture of violence, the obsession with money and the lack of compassion for poor people are in my opinion the three main problems with America. It's not worth dreaming of revolution if people think like that. It will take decades if not generations to change. I think this is true, sadly. The sickness of our politics is the result of our sick culture. But I guess it's much harder to think of trying to change an entire culture than some laws or even the constitution. As always, it's easy to throw out the vague "education", but can adults who are already damaged and warped properly teach the next generation not to be? I think many of us sense this on some level, hence the desire to form warring tribes and project our faults onto the other side. I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state. A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff. Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. Actually, you're pretty insightful. The real problem here is that citizens have these views and elect these people with viewpoints so hated from the thread, and a democratic system means these citizens cannot be so easily marginalized. The dominant narrative is that the millions of people that have these views are not an absolute voter advantage, and gain undue power from the system of states voting and the ancient compromise between big states and small states (to give big states not incredible power over the small states by means of the population differential). Incremental change is one solution, so far as it hopes to persuade the average voter to change their mind, and raise a new generation with different biases. The other is increased devolution of powers to states and counties; so you don't have to worry about the rural states since they have very little power over the functioning of your state with its huge urban centers. Of course, the progressive viewpoint is one of forcing everything to operate nationally in either legislative, executive, or Supreme Court actions that apply universally. I'm fine losing the fight locally and at the state level. I'm a Californian; most of my votes do not matter and my policy goals don't have a shred of a chance to succeed in my state in the next several decades. I'm very familiar with losing fights. The real argument, and it might reduce to a cultural argument, is to what degree is a simple majority of citizens across the United States able to trod on state rights and foist their grand plans on every state of the union. Particularly speaking, to what extent is the United States just United Citizens of America, states be damned? The second argument is to what degree does this justify a national divorce, so states that favor low taxation and low welfare systems can operate according to their wishes, and the big welfare states can have it their way too. Big states can force their citizens to fund extensive hospital subsidies, pre-pay medical "insurance," unemployment, poverty programs, housing, religious freedoms balancing, broad executive order, and the smaller states don't have to care about it because they're left alone. To what degree would the smaller states agree to be "left alone" and go further in poverty when they have a mainly subsidised agricultural/mining/industry economy, and seeing these subsidies dry up ? While what they produce is vital, it is urban centers and the tertiary bringing up the tax money. That would only serve to further the divide between rural and urban states, and empovering even more rural areas that would be "left alone" while they deserve investment. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2019/03/20/how-much-federal-funding-each-state-receives-government/39202299/While the intent is good, you then don't really have a country anymore. There is a need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it. If you don't, a lot of people will just leave and entire areas would die out. Imagine the USA without any (or at least a lot less) subsidies to agriculture or fossil oils ? Gonna be ugly, real fast. Smaller states now have a history of weighing the trade off of "left alone." If they want the subsidies delivered by the bounty of federal taxes, vote against the people that think all the other bullshit the fed wastes money on will outweigh it immensely every single time. You can already see the value of putting personal profits, or short-term economic gain, against other, greater values in the support for Trump's tariffs. The extent to which this is seen as punishing Chinese practices (don't give me shit about the extent to which tariffs don't achieve this, I'm making a different point here) has high support even considering the economic impact on their own soybeans, etc. The greater goal is rated higher. Look at several interviews conducted on the farmers affected by Trump's tariffs over the past years to seek this. I fundamentally disagree on the "need to redistribute wealth to areas that need it." That's assuming the premise that a country can't be a country without massive redistributory practices. A state should be able to choose against your premise, and bear the results. I can imagine a much happier midwest without massive agricultural and fossil fuel subsidies. I also find it quizzical on how lefties can actually attack corporate welfare with state low-income welfare policies, but hands-off the same corporate welfare for big agro-business and big oil. Freedom is the freedom to choose against major wealth redistribution and giant subsidy programs to select (favored) industries. If they want to bring back robbing Peter to pay Paul, see what their own tax base can bear, via a vote affecting their own tax base. I'm sure you'd still arrive with the smaller programs focused actual starvation poverty, the elderly, widows, etc. (The healing to THE DISCOURSE ALONE from debating within a state how much money to tax from themselves and their neighbors and redistribute to farmers would be well worth it) I'm not even sure how to take the fact that "let rural states be happier by being left alone" is even an idea after what happened in Europe when rural and mining areas were in fact left alone after mining receded. They died out and have a lot of empty or dying villages with old people, no youngsters, no shops, no services, no jobs, nothing. It's ugly. I'll just rebound on Trump's tariffs. Farmers are happy about tariffs ? Great. What do tariffs mean ? Products coming in from China are taxed. Let's take your soybean example. Several things can happen. - China lowers their prices to stay competitive in the US. US taxpayers pay the tax. US farmers are not better off and get billions in subsidies, funded by... the tax paid by american consumers. - China sells at the same price, less is imported. US taxpayers pay the tax on the imported items. Soybean prices increase due to the increased tariffs, US farmers get more competitive and can sell more soybeans in the USA. The bill has increased for US consumers, effectively subsidising the soybean industry by increasing prices across the US to give it to the farmers. In what scenario I didn't think of are farmers not receiving money from US consumers in the form of either US tax revenue, or increased prices ? Tariffs are a way to subsidise your local industry to favor it against foreign products. Subsidising local agricultural areas and products are an integral part of the equation for EVERY area on earth, because if your local agriculture dies, you're dependant on others for vital interests. If you remove subsidies/tariffs, your lose entire pans of it, and I really don't believe farmers will be happier... Those subsidies and tax revenues are their lifeline. These are the areas against taxation and subsidies, all for "leave me alone, I don't wanna pay for others", while they are the ones mostly living off it, and they know it. This is the thing I can't understand. It's not specific to the US.
I'm not too familiar with the European context. You guys have the supranational layer over the national layer, a larger welfare state generally, and a bigger slant towards left-wing politics from my vantage points. I don't really know enough to perceive both sides of the issue, much less ever read a debate for an against industry subsidies. I'm sorry for not being able to comment on how applicable the European example to the American context, but feel free to link me both the argument that subsidies could've saved these areas vs. they were there and made it worse, or no national government could have saved those industries, but other action could've been taken for the land.
Farmers are willing to consider other things besides their narrow economic interest over the short term. That was my point in bringing up tariffs. If agricultural subsidies also come with a lot of other problematic government overreach (insane federal regulations for air/water/land/agriculture, social policies & regulations, taxation rates), I would want rural midwestern states to have the choice of less compulsory federal programs/regs/taxes in exchange for less federal pork. The national government was not conceived to have the power to reward and preserve this and that state industry, and it's a major driver of Washington DC lobbyists jockeying for more handouts for this sector and that sector. It's atrocious.
I think you saw my disclaimer on not getting into the tariff example, as already it's marching off to become its own subject apart from state/federal monies. I'm not in favor of Kansas farmers lobbying their government to grant them tariffs, both from what you bring up on who bears the cost and how it affects the politician-special interest club. I've done my time on tariffs with respect to national security, intentional market-flooding by foreign competitors, what the market will bear, etc.
I want states with heavy farming industry to be able to give people like you the middle finger when you come around saying you don't think they'll be happier, that they better get used to your plans because you're a non-farmer but know better what's good for them. They currently do not have that choice with the degree to which the national government arrogates to itself the taxes to fund large operations and decides what portion to give back to the states in favored sectors. It would be better for states to act on their own budgets. Who better to decide if it's an insane idea to intentionally pay farmers to not grow crops? We're talking billions in farm subsidies, and the mal-incentive to own more farming land with no intention of growing anything on it, but rather to be paid not to do so.
|
On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 04:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I think people completely overestimate the weight of politics honestly. They think that if you do politics right, the world will be fixed on something. Thing is, societies are flawed because people - and cultures - are flawed, and politics is just a reflection of that state.
A good political system reflects the views of the people and so a society is only as good as its citizens. The main problem with the US political system in my opinion is not the views it doesn't reflect - that certainly IS a huge problem - but the views it does reflect.
That's why I am generally quite pessimistic and consider that incremental improvement is already a great result in the US. For the country becoming truly better we will have to wait for other generations; people less bigoted, believing less in violence, being less fascinated by wealth and money, being more compassionate, probably less religious, all that stuff.
Those things, no elections and certainly no revolution will fix; and if one really cares for the future of the country, the best advice that comes to my mind is, raise your kids to be good people with good values. That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe. It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication. EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime). I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise?
Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I would never vote for those people given a choice that is not kind of horrifying.
I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth.
Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. If I had to support someone right now in the US, it would probably be AOC or someone like that. But then again, listening to what people say or understanding nuances has never been your forte.
|
|
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 04:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That sounds nice in a vacuum (or 60 years ago when it was an extremely popular take), but totally unhinged with a limit on how long we can wait before cementing irreversible catastrophe.
It's like saying the only way to escape the box filling with water is a plan that requires you to wait until you're dead. Not a very functional prognostication.
EDIT: Just to be clear I'd love to be able to just write it off as something that will have to take decades to work out with incremental changes based in neoliberal philosophy while I live comfortably relatively unaffected but I respect the science that says the people of that time would be entering a ecological hellscape with the damage being irreversible by then (also sacrifices countless people in the meantime).
I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on. It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate. I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal.
You see
high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on.
EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises.
|
On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on.
It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate.
I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see Show nested quote + high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room" and so on.
Jesus you really can be quite thick. Those are policies that I advocate and I advocate politicians that pursue those policies. It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst".
I would vote for a progressive in the primaries, and if the election were between say, Biden and AOC, I would vote for the latter in a heartbeat.
It's not because I don't see the world in black and white with zero nuance whatsoever and no interest in any kind of realities that I am a neoliberal.
It's really worrying that you quoted me so many times and still have absolutely no understanding of my positions whatsoever.
|
United States10398 Posts
On October 28 2020 07:10 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards. That would be amazing. Instead, we shut down 21,000 Election Day voting locations during a historically high turnout, so I imagine these polling places having lines of hours and hours Wait, is Vice trustworthy on this? I don't recall reading much of anything coming from their political side https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdenn/the-us-eliminated-nearly-21000-election-day-polling-locations-for-2020
I don't exactly like Vice as a news source, but it's pretty clear there are a lot of stations being closed so I don't think Vice's numbers would be too far off the mark.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/voter-suppression-novembers-looming-election-crisis/613408/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09J
The reuters one is from last year, but if you can imagine that 2019 had polling stations shut down, it is a fair assumption that there are even more stations shut down due to the virus. It's going to be insane how they're going to try to count the ballots, and with so many constitutional issues with voting rights, I really expect for an overhaul of the system soon. It was already bad enough the past couple of election cycles, this year is only exasperated. We need major reform.
|
On October 28 2020 07:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though.
Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room" and so on. Jesus you really can be quite thick. Those are policies that I advocate and I advocate politicians that pursue those policies. It just happens no politicians that advocate those policies can win this election right now, and that I am not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst". I would vote for a progressive in the primaries, and if the election were between say, Biden and AOC, I would vote for the latter in a heartbeat. It's not because I don't see the world in black and white with zero nuance whatsoever and no interest in any kind of realities that I am a neoliberal. It's really worrying that you quoted me so many times and still have absolutely no understanding of my positions whatsoever.
I don't know how familiar with this kind of discussion (whether social democracy is functionally absorbed into neoliberalism through 'pragmatism' or whatever/+ Show Spoiler +not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"
I can assure you though, that the issue isn't that I don't understand your preference for social democratic policy.
|
Northern Ireland26779 Posts
If what I’m reading about your exchanges is vaguely accurate they’re not massively irreconcilable.
The difference appears to be on timeframe, both GH and Biff stress the importance of culture and the people within a polity. Change the culture and you change the structures that sprout from it.
Ultimately I prefer GH’s prescription, and Biff’s description. I think it’s totally possible to get to the former and I think it’s preferable for various reasons, but the culture in the States can’t even countenance paying for universal healthcare so what hope is there for more lofty ambitions?
|
|
|
Bisutopia19348 Posts
On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards.
In Florida, you can vote anytime you want a week prior to voting and the polling locations are extremely convenient. It took me 10 minutes to get in, vote, and get out and I had 4 month old baby with me. If other states aren’t doing this then I don’t know if citizens of that state should be more upset or if citizens in states like mine should be more upset at those states for making it harder for everyone to get their vote in. I’m saying this with a small amount of knowledge of how other states organize their voting process.
|
United States10398 Posts
On October 28 2020 07:51 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:28 FlaShFTW wrote:On October 28 2020 07:10 plasmidghost wrote:On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards. That would be amazing. Instead, we shut down 21,000 Election Day voting locations during a historically high turnout, so I imagine these polling places having lines of hours and hours Wait, is Vice trustworthy on this? I don't recall reading much of anything coming from their political side https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdenn/the-us-eliminated-nearly-21000-election-day-polling-locations-for-2020 I don't exactly like Vice as a news source, but it's pretty clear there are a lot of stations being closed so I don't think Vice's numbers would be too far off the mark. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/voter-suppression-novembers-looming-election-crisis/613408/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-locations/southern-u-s-states-have-closed-1200-polling-places-in-recent-years-rights-group-idUSKCN1VV09JThe reuters one is from last year, but if you can imagine that 2019 had polling stations shut down, it is a fair assumption that there are even more stations shut down due to the virus. It's going to be insane how they're going to try to count the ballots, and with so many constitutional issues with voting rights, I really expect for an overhaul of the system soon. It was already bad enough the past couple of election cycles, this year is only exasperated. We need major reform. Jesus, yeah I have no idea when this election is going to be able to be called. I 100% agree on major reform to voting. I very much hope it goes national so that there's a uniform application of voting and different states don't get to screw over voters or apply arbitrary rules to suppress votes.
I also think for federal elections like the presidency, it also falls on the side of a federal law that should create a national standard. Voting for the President is by nature a federal issue.
On October 28 2020 07:54 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards. In Florida, you can vote anytime you want a week prior to voting and the polling locations are extremely convenient. It took me 10 minutes to get in, vote, and get out and I had 4 month old baby with me. If other states aren’t doing this then I don’t know if citizens of that state should be more upset or if citizens in states like mine should be more upset at those states for making it harder for everyone to get their vote in. I’m saying this with a small amount of knowledge of how other states organize their voting process.
That's amazing. I think California might have something similar but not entirely sure on it. It's really upsetting to see how much people are trying to suppress the vote.
|
On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 05:34 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
I think you should learn what neoliberal means. In its loosest definition, it's small government, less taxation, less regulation, less worker protection and so on.
It's the exact, polar opposite of everything I advocate.
I know it's a fashionable term to throw around, but let's try to just be a little bit more rigorous and try to avoid just firing empty slogans at each other. I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though. Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see Show nested quote + high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises.
The bolded part is just simply wrong.
Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong.
Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you.
|
|
|
On October 28 2020 08:18 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 07:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 28 2020 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:44 farvacola wrote:
I expect Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio to be pretty bad shit shows on election day, so figuring in some delays in each of those makes sense to me. It's going to be quite a week no matter what the results are (some of which we likely won't be able to rely on being legally certified as-is until later than that). On October 28 2020 06:53 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:28 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 28 2020 06:11 Dan HH wrote:On October 28 2020 05:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm familiar with what it means. I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy/ies though.
Could start with how you self-identify and how your perspective diverges from the third-way democrat vision of neoliberalism? I gotta hand it to you, you got a lot more subtle at trying to push someone's buttons. And it might have worked on someone that wasn't Biff or Jimmi, but given the hundreds of times you quoted Biff on this forum this is quite the faux pas. I don't follow? We all know that you know that he's a social-dem. Saying "I'd be willing to reconsider my perspective of your apparent guiding political philosophy" aka "fine, I'll give you a chance to prove to me you're not a neoliberal" to a guy you quoted hundreds of times and whose views have been consistent throughout that time as if you never read any of his posts, is pretense at best. He's been a rather vocal advocate of self-described "New Democrats" in the context of US politics. Also doesn't this (from the wiki on third way/social democracy) sound sorta like Biff, at least in the context of US politics? A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way#Within_social_democracy He's been an advocate of 'lesser evil' in the context of Trump, his opponents happened to be both centrist Democrats. As for the wiki bit, it's another one of an endless list of international political terms that mean mostly something else in the US. Without dwelling on the nomenclature, I wonder if we can we agree that it's + Show Spoiler +A social democratic variant of the Third Way which approaches the centre from a social democratic perspective has been advocated by its proponents as an alternative to both capitalism and what it regards as the traditional forms of socialism, including Marxian and state socialism, that Third Way social democrats reject.[31] It advocates ethical socialism, reformism and gradualism that includes advocating the humanisation of capitalism, a mixed economy, political pluralism and liberal democracy.[31] a fair characterization otherwise? Because the third way is embodied by the likes of Blair, Schroeder or Clinton, and that they are all very far from my political preferences? I advocate high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. Calling me neoliberal is about as stupid as calling xDaunt a liberal. You see high taxation, highly redistributive economy, strong social services, equalitarian ideology, free education and healthcare, and so on and so forth. That's what third-way neoliberals are supposed to represent in the US. The disconnect between their ostensible political preferences and the policy/politicians they advocate is explained with words/concepts like "pragmatism", "incrementalism", "being the grown-ups in the room", "the only choices" and so on. EDIT: Obama and/or Clinton didn't oppose any of that (or so I was told constantly here and elsewhere) it was Republicans and the electoral realities that prevented them from more aggressively and openly pursuing those specific goals and instead settling on pursuing incremental reforms and compromises. The bolded part is just simply wrong. Like, undeniably, verifiably, unquestionably wrong. Even a cursory study of American political history should reveal this to you.
Which of those do you think Obama and Hillary opposed, rather than were not stupid enough not to see the difference between "really not my first choice but probably going to push the country the right way" and "the absolute worst"? so they advocated something more moderate?
|
On October 28 2020 07:54 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2020 07:04 FlaShFTW wrote:
Not gonna lie, I still don't get why, with a nation as large as ours and our polling stations being so lackluster, we don't just turn election day into an election week where you can go any time during the week. While the ballots are being tallied and then all the results are released the next monday or something. Seems like a whole lot better of a system so that stations aren't permanently clogged up on one single day to service thousands. Doesn't help when states are removing polling stations right now too.
Though, this is America so I guess we do a lot of things backwards. In Florida, you can vote anytime you want a week prior to voting and the polling locations are extremely convenient. It took me 10 minutes to get in, vote, and get out and I had 4 month old baby with me. If other states aren’t doing this then I don’t know if citizens of that state should be more upset or if citizens in states like mine should be more upset at those states for making it harder for everyone to get their vote in. I’m saying this with a small amount of knowledge of how other states organize their voting process.
It varies from state to state, and within that it varies from county to county, and within that it varies from city to city. Texas, for example, loves to close polling locations right before election day (as they did right before Super Tuesday this year), and they love to focus those closures in counties with high minority populations, and they also love to focus the closures in the cities where the highest percentage of minorities in those counties reside.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-polling-sites-closures-voting
Your experience very well might be because you live in an area where the general demographic benefits those on top. I know mine is. I live in a mostly white suburban neighborhood with a very conservative voting populace. Our polling places have expanded and I have never had a problem voting. My friends and family who live in areas with high minority populations not only have seen closures in their areas but also have poll workers trying to convince them that they are unable to vote. A poll worker actually tried to tell my girlfriend's sister that her Texas Driver's License wasn't good enough and that she needed an additional form of identification to vote even though Texas law states a Driver's License is all you need (and is what I presented to vote with no problems). They just so happen to be Hispanic and living in El Paso. They pulled up Texas' voting laws and threatened to call the authorities if they kept obstructing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
