|
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 February 27 2021 18:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 17:36 Jek wrote:On February 27 2021 17:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:59 Jek wrote:On February 27 2021 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege". I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view? I hate how the word is (now) used and dont think it should be used at all. But if you really want to use it, it should be something that's not "you are X therefore you have privilege". It's common usage is prejudice at it's finest. I'm asking how it was used correctly in your view before you hated how it is "(now) used"? When it's used as in it's classical sense, "I was privileged to work with highly competent co-workers" or when you know it for certainty "Millionaries are privileged by not having to worry about health insurance". I see. I thought you meant "white privilege" had lost it's meaning to you. Like you agreed "white privilege" accurately described the US under Jim Crow but it was gone now and shouldn't be a term people use to describe modern conditions.
Aahhh. I think I completely misunderstood your original post. It's not the concept of privilege but how often I see it now used as a buzzword. To be accurate my dislike of the phrase "X privilege" is how I see it used, in particular online, as a way to silence or discredit an opinion of someone from demographic X. White privilege can most definitely be used and make sense as a concept/description.
|
On February 27 2021 18:44 Gorsameth wrote:
So, incase some people are still confused about whether the GOP might be turning away from the far right.
The CPAC stage is in the form of yet another Nazi symbol...
Still blowing as hard as they can on that dog whistle.
that's... a stage, kinda weirdly shaped sure. but still only a stage. the amount of subtext necessary to even recognize this. just no way lol. think about who gets to view the stage from this angle and the amount of time it is shown from this angle - mainly during speaker change where ads etc are running and attention is low.
// ads like this one. thank me later ;D
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/cpac-video-describes-trump-as-american-samurai-mqFRGiSR
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On February 27 2021 18:48 Silvanel wrote:
There are certain kind of priviliges:
-being born rich
-being born in rich country
-being of certain ethnicity (but this depends on country -- usually white or asian)
-being of certain religion
Being white polish non-catholic born in poor family during cummunist times i have to say that my "white privilige" is extremly limited, litteraly everyone around me is white so it doesnt matter most of the time. The only thing i can think of is that i have it easier than brown people during traveling by plane (but only in EU - I had one extremely unpleasant situation in Beijing airport due to being white). Otherwise my "white privilige" is nonexistent.
And being noncatholic i had hard time since gradschool in Poland.
On top of that i am polish comming from poor faimly so i am extremly underpriviliges in economic area.
So when some rich Scandinavian or Brit who spends more on one meal than i earned in my first job in a month tells me to STFU because of "white priviliges", i am getting really angry. Because any "white priviliges" i enjoy is trumped by underpriviliges in other areas.
Then it’s really a case of people being idiots if they’re laying the charge on you. To a similar degree and one I’ve mentioned here, I don’t particularly benefit from white privilege (except on a global scale, although that could be framed as the privilege of growing up in a rich Western country) as Northern Ireland is very, very white indeed.
If you chose to migrate here, or especially to England of the U.K. nations, you’ll probably have better results than if you were some shade of brown.
On the other hand if you’d moved in the 5-10 years after Poland and other Eastern European countries first joined the EU you’d have found a rather more hostile populace, especially in Northern Ireland. Old-fashioned xenophobia combined with ‘stealing our jobs’ rhetoric is still very much a thing too.
That sentiment has by and large almost wholly dissipated from what I can tell, I’m sure elements of it exist but you don’t have frequent news stories about paramilitaries forcing families from the East out of their homes, and I don’t hear colleagues making disparaging remarks about them as I would have.
I’m not sure if that dissipates quite so quickly if people from Eastern Europe were a bit less white on average.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Democrats not forcing Manchin to do things:
People's perception of the relationship between Manchin and the Dems is backwards. You can't just threaten to primary him. I'm 99.999999999% sure that any Democrat other than Manchin would be crushed in West Virginia. It is easily one of the most conservative states in the country. Manchin is the only thing giving Democrats any ability to hold that seat, meaning he holds a lot of power against the party establishment.
|
Seriously, Manchin is fine.
He's never been the sole holdout on any issue. IE, if it were 49-1 he would vote for it. His existence gives cover to some other senators to say "oh, we aren't going to even try it" and they're the real problems.
Sinema is a much better target for a primary than Manchin.
Also, the house has passed the bill as of this morning. It goes to the senate now and we'll see how they deal with the minimum wage and if it gets stripped out (95% chance it does).
|
On February 28 2021 01:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:
RE: Democrats not forcing Manchin to do things:
People's perception of the relationship between Manchin and the Dems is backwards. You can't just threaten to primary him. I'm 99.999999999% sure that any Democrat other than Manchin would be crushed in West Virginia. It is easily one of the most conservative states in the country. Manchin is the only thing giving Democrats any ability to hold that seat, meaning he holds a lot of power against the party establishment.
It's not even about winning WV, but that the party shouldn't back Manchin if he doesn't give them the votes they need for policy Democrats campaign on. Especially ones that have 76% support and 60% support among Republicans (more popular than he is by a long shot) and help our least compensated workers (amid a pandemic that continues to kill thousands of people a day and require them to show up as essential workers).
On February 28 2021 01:55 Nevuk wrote:
Seriously, Manchin is fine.
He's never been the sole holdout on any issue. IE, if it were 49-1 he would vote for it. His existence gives cover to some other senators to say "oh, we aren't going to even try it" and they're the real problems.
Sinema is a much better target for a primary than Manchin.
Also, the house has passed the bill as of this morning. It goes to the senate now and we'll see how they deal with the minimum wage and if it gets stripped out (95% chance it does).
That's the crux of it really imo. Manchin is just a more visible open sore. I for one hope Bernie holds out strong on minimum wage ($15 in 2025 isn't enough even in WV as I understand it) and doesn't let Manchin just kill a similar amendment later.
|
On February 28 2021 01:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:
RE: Democrats not forcing Manchin to do things:
People's perception of the relationship between Manchin and the Dems is backwards. You can't just threaten to primary him. I'm 99.999999999% sure that any Democrat other than Manchin would be crushed in West Virginia. It is easily one of the most conservative states in the country. Manchin is the only thing giving Democrats any ability to hold that seat, meaning he holds a lot of power against the party establishment.
You can up that to 100% if you look at Swearengin's results in 2018 and 2020.
|
On February 27 2021 18:48 Silvanel wrote:
There are certain kind of priviliges:
-being born rich
-being born in rich country
-being of certain ethnicity (but this depends on country -- usually white or asian)
-being of certain religion
Being white polish non-catholic born in poor family during cummunist times i have to say that my "white privilige" is extremly limited, litteraly everyone around me is white so it doesnt matter most of the time. The only thing i can think of is that i have it easier than brown people during traveling by plane (but only in EU - I had one extremely unpleasant situation in Beijing airport due to being white). Otherwise my "white privilige" is nonexistent.
And being noncatholic i had hard time since gradschool in Poland.
On top of that i am polish comming from poor faimly so i am extremly underpriviliges in economic area.
So when some rich Scandinavian or Brit who spends more on one meal than i earned in my first job in a month tells me to STFU because of "white priviliges", i am getting really angry. Because any "white priviliges" i enjoy is trumped by underpriviliges in other areas.
I feel you're kinda missing the point here. Your white privelege doesn't mean that you, when born as a white person, automatically end up at the top of the food chain. It means that if you'd take someone with a comparable background to yours, who also happened to be black, chances are you'd end up on top compared to that person, simply because of you being white and the benefits that comes with it in white-hegemonic societies.
That said, white privilige is usually understood from an american context, where you can have people with entirely comparable backgrounds who are still treated different due to the color of their skin. This is typically not so in parts of Europe with more homogenous populations, of which I guess Poland is also. Finding your socio-economic peer anchored from Poland for generations back who is also black, then, is probably not easy, and as thus, the comparison doesn't work for you.
Edit: As for the scandinavian or brit spending more on food than you make a month - shouldn't you be pitying us for having to spend so much to eat, rather than using it against us? Cost of living is ridiculous up here.
|
|
|
On February 28 2021 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 01:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:
RE: Democrats not forcing Manchin to do things:
People's perception of the relationship between Manchin and the Dems is backwards. You can't just threaten to primary him. I'm 99.999999999% sure that any Democrat other than Manchin would be crushed in West Virginia. It is easily one of the most conservative states in the country. Manchin is the only thing giving Democrats any ability to hold that seat, meaning he holds a lot of power against the party establishment. It's not even about winning WV, but that the party shouldn't back Manchin if he doesn't give them the votes they need for policy Democrats campaign on. Especially ones that have 76% support and 60% support among Republicans (more popular than he is by a long shot) and help our least compensated workers (amid a pandemic that continues to kill thousands of people a day and require them to show up as essential workers). Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 01:55 Nevuk wrote:
Seriously, Manchin is fine.
He's never been the sole holdout on any issue. IE, if it were 49-1 he would vote for it. His existence gives cover to some other senators to say "oh, we aren't going to even try it" and they're the real problems.
Sinema is a much better target for a primary than Manchin.
Also, the house has passed the bill as of this morning. It goes to the senate now and we'll see how they deal with the minimum wage and if it gets stripped out (95% chance it does). That's the crux of it really imo. Manchin is just a more visible open sore. I for one hope Bernie holds out strong on minimum wage ($15 in 2025 isn't enough even in WV as I understand it) and doesn't let Manchin just kill a similar amendment later.
Giving Manchin the boot on principle would, in this case, literally hand the Senate to Republicans.
This is an utterly absurd trade for so many reasons.
|
On February 28 2021 03:37 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 02:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 28 2021 01:43 Stratos_speAr wrote:
RE: Democrats not forcing Manchin to do things:
People's perception of the relationship between Manchin and the Dems is backwards. You can't just threaten to primary him. I'm 99.999999999% sure that any Democrat other than Manchin would be crushed in West Virginia. It is easily one of the most conservative states in the country. Manchin is the only thing giving Democrats any ability to hold that seat, meaning he holds a lot of power against the party establishment. It's not even about winning WV, but that the party shouldn't back Manchin if he doesn't give them the votes they need for policy Democrats campaign on. Especially ones that have 76% support and 60% support among Republicans (more popular than he is by a long shot) and help our least compensated workers (amid a pandemic that continues to kill thousands of people a day and require them to show up as essential workers). On February 28 2021 01:55 Nevuk wrote:
Seriously, Manchin is fine.
He's never been the sole holdout on any issue. IE, if it were 49-1 he would vote for it. His existence gives cover to some other senators to say "oh, we aren't going to even try it" and they're the real problems.
Sinema is a much better target for a primary than Manchin.
Also, the house has passed the bill as of this morning. It goes to the senate now and we'll see how they deal with the minimum wage and if it gets stripped out (95% chance it does). That's the crux of it really imo. Manchin is just a more visible open sore. I for one hope Bernie holds out strong on minimum wage ($15 in 2025 isn't enough even in WV as I understand it) and doesn't let Manchin just kill a similar amendment later. Giving Manchin the boot on principle would, in this case, literally hand the Senate to Republicans. This is an utterly absurd trade for so many reasons.
There are several layers here. If we're talking about the here and now, the argument is just to not give him any political cover (Pelosi leaving $15 in was one step, Bernie not dropping it is another) and if Manchin and/or Sinema wants to kill covid relief to stop people getting paid $15 in 2025 then you go to the mat for it and win public opinion (the package already has 76% support from the public) and certainly never waste a breath defending Manchin's deplorable position on this.
For all Republican's faults, few would argue they didn't try (at least make a convincing effort) to get rid of the ACA despite political, moral, and legal roadblocks everywhere. Meanwhile Democrats can't get out of their own way to support policy more popular than they are.
|
I feel like the ACA fight is the least favorable example you could have mentioned. they failed 70+ times. not repealing and replacing it over a timespan of ~10 years lol.
if anything, the ACA example turns Rs into Ds here for how inadequate they are at fighting for what they supposedly believe in. way before, during and after the last R admin.
+ Show Spoiler +
"health care is 2 weeks away guys. believe me"...
|
Imagine Democrats spending the last 10 years arguing Republicans don't want to and aren't trying to repeal the ACA
|
well in turn I give you the example from earlier in the day - the hike of the minimum wage under Obama's first term! campaigned - won. try - shit's too hard implement - sorry guys!
isn't this kinda similar to how it turned out with Rs and and the ACA? just that they milked that cow way harder for every other election.
just want to point out the similarity of the situations.
|
On February 28 2021 05:25 Doublemint wrote:well in turn I give you the example from earlier in the day - the hike of the minimum wage under Obama's first term! campaigned - won. try - shit's too hard implement - sorry guys! isn't this kinda similar to how it turned out with Rs and and the ACA? just that they milked that cow way harder for every other election. just want to point out the similarity of the situations.
Now Republicans support Obama's minimum wage and the Democrat president has said he'd veto medicare for all.
|
On February 28 2021 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2021 05:25 Doublemint wrote:well in turn I give you the example from earlier in the day - the hike of the minimum wage under Obama's first term! campaigned - won. try - shit's too hard implement - sorry guys! isn't this kinda similar to how it turned out with Rs and and the ACA? just that they milked that cow way harder for every other election. just want to point out the similarity of the situations. Now Republicans support Obama's minimum wage and the Democrat president has said he'd veto medicare for all.
clearly that's what Obama had in mind. and still has in mind if you were to ask him today 
|
Bisutopia19368 Posts
On February 27 2021 23:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 17:11 StasisField wrote:
Can we all stop pretending the Democrats can't manage to consolidate their votes like every other political party on the planet is able to do on important votes? The Democrats are the party of incompetence because they choose to be. Want to know what the Democratic party looks like when they really want something? Look at how quickly and efficiently they rallied behind Joe Biden to stop Bernie Sanders from winning Super Tuesday and taking the party nomination this past election. When they actually want something, they make sure it gets done.
The moderate and conservative Democrats absolutely have to fall in line with what the party dictates because that's where all of their funding comes from. They can pressure Manchin and Sinema to vote however they need them to because there's no way they raise enough money for a competitive campaign without the party's backing. It's the "far left" part of the party that's not beholden to the party's goals because they're the ones who actually inspire voters and can raise campaign funds without the party's help, and the "far left" wing of the party aren't the ones saying they won't vote for the bill. Please, quit babying these fucking people. Citizens of this country are starving, losing their homes, and dying while these people pretend they can't come together for a vote on a bill that is essentially a slam dunk win in approval rating. Do you have any sources for this? I can't seem to find what parts of the parting drive the most fund raising and voting support. From the primary it appears the moderate candidates as a group raised more than the progressives as a group. I think what you are calling for is the same thing (but other end of the spectrum) that the reps who support Trump are calling for. If you are not 100% on board get out and you are the enemy. The reason they can't pull it off and the dems won't is because the progressives alone don't have enough support to win on their own, neither do the moderates. So compromise needs to happen even within the dems (and reps). Otherwise you get none of what either wants. We don't have a lot of moderate dems on this thread. I think Trump might have made FlaShFTW and BisuDagger ones (sorry if I'm wrong). And they might not want 15 dollar minimum wage or some sort of of other part. But maybe they swallow it because they like other parts. The moderates are not trying to fuck the progressives anymore then the progressives are trying to fuck the moderates. The goal of both should be to try to change their minds not force them out, since all that will do is have them vote with someone both see as worse. I'll take the moderate dems we have already and all the reps willing to leave the GOPQ. Yes it will lead to some dems candidates that are not who I support, but I do prefer them over reps. The issue is the policies we want still not having enough support to get 51 senators who support them to get elected. In more concrete terms. If the dems say fuck you Manchin, no more money and your not a dem anymore, the likely result is not a progressive senator for WV. It is Manchin winning again as a rep, or a diff rep winning who will block more parts of it than even Manchin has. I also would not support cutting funding from AOC if she does not support something Biden wants to put through. Alienating the dems who don't agree is a bad plan. Putting some programs and info out in WV to change their minds so that they still vote dem, but a more progressive Dem. Right now the reps want a more progressive candidate in WV, makes it far more likely that they win. And don't have Manchin blocking some of their more conservative policy.
Fiscally I’m still very far from being a moderate Democrat. But I am very much not part of the Republican Party either. I am a legit fiscal conservative with libertarian social values. When it comes to voting though, I will put the person I believe is right for the job in office.
In a 2024 election, at the present I would vote for Biden over Trump instead of voting libertarian like I usually do. I will also proudly vote Ron DeSantis for governor in 2022. He has done a ton for the environment and for education during his term in my state. Don’t trust mainstream news to see his value. I voted against him in the primary, but he really has been way more effective then R. Scott. Right now, the biggest issue I have with Biden is his foreign warfare in the Middle East. Maintaining peace and staying out of conflict there is a huge priority for me, so seeing how he proceeds in the next few months will have a huge impact on my voting for him over a libertarian.
|
I can't believe people STILL don't get Manchin. He is exactly the same as Susan Collins and why she completely curbstomped Gideon despite Gideon putting forward much better policies that would help Maine. It wasn't even close, Collins rolled her HARD despite being a huge piece of garbage. The split voting was insane in that senate race and the argument that Gideon was a bad candidate doesn't explain how much split voting occurred, something that doesn't really occur in huge numbers anymore.
The reason people vote for either is the same. They're both representing tiny ultimately insignificant states. But what these two senators do is give their states incredible power by showing some willingness to break the party line at times to vote for things that would benefit their state and therefore force people to negotiate with them.
Getting rid of either would mean putting someone who does nothing but add one extra Republican or Democratic vote. People from either state are never going to willingly give up that power. The party choosing to remove either of these senators is probably going to find themselves facing a whole lot of backlash. Small states want to feel important and these senators make them feel that way.
Not to mention both parties deal with both of their bullshit because they do vote party line a lot of the time and getting rid of them is incredibly dangerous even if you ignore the potential backlash risk. You're rolling the dice and trying to see if the state is as left or right wing as you think it is. Dunno about Maine, since New England is strange, but West Virginia would go for some random Republican without a doubt. Doesn't matter if you put in the ghost of George Meany as a candidate, the state isn't voting left wing or anyone pro-collective action.
The guy sucks but he's doing his job as a senator representing the state of West Virginia and the state seems to like him for it. We hate him, he doesn't care. I think West Virginia had double digit positive approval rating for Manchin in 2020 and that's all that matters to him.
Edit: Ron DeSantis' environmental record isn't good...? What on earth are you talking about. Florida's education handling during the pandemic peak was woeful as well. Miami is still going to sink into the ocean in the far future, the meager things DeSantis claims to have done (and has done in favour of financial interests) has been a tiny drop in the pond...merely done so he get people off his backs and say "I added a few pennies to conservation funds! What more do you want me to do! Fake news!". It seems to be effective, judging by your response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
