|
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 March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA.
Sinema literally claimed to support a minimum wage raise before this.
You also can blame the dems as an aggregate because they should be more than capable of whipping the party into unanimous vote when they've already got 80% of them supporting something (the Republicans sure as hell are). It's a political choice to not do so.
|
On March 06 2021 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA. Sinema literally claimed to support a minimum wage raise before this. You also can blame the dems as an aggregate because they should be more than capable of whipping the party into unanimous vote when they've already got 80% of them supporting something (the Republicans sure as hell are). It's a political choice to not do so.
Ehem "repeal and replace ACA 2017"...
|
On March 06 2021 18:49 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA. Sinema literally claimed to support a minimum wage raise before this. You also can blame the dems as an aggregate because they should be more than capable of whipping the party into unanimous vote when they've already got 80% of them supporting something (the Republicans sure as hell are). It's a political choice to not do so. Ehem "repeal and replace ACA 2017"...
Was it not the Dying-Of-Brain-Cancer John McCain with basically nothing to lose the reason they failed that?
To my knowledge none of the eight Democrat shitbirds that voted against re-including the minimum wage in this bill are suffering from a terminal illness that leaves them nigh impossible to whip.
|
On March 06 2021 20:01 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 18:49 Slydie wrote:On March 06 2021 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA. Sinema literally claimed to support a minimum wage raise before this. You also can blame the dems as an aggregate because they should be more than capable of whipping the party into unanimous vote when they've already got 80% of them supporting something (the Republicans sure as hell are). It's a political choice to not do so. Ehem "repeal and replace ACA 2017"... Was it not the Dying-Of-Brain-Cancer John McCain with basically nothing to lose the reason they failed that? To my knowledge none of the eight Democrat shitbirds that voted against re-including the minimum wage in this bill are suffering from a terminal illness that leaves them nigh impossible to whip.
There were 3 republicans voting against the repeal in 2017, not all of them had brain cancer. It also barely passed in the house.
Also, not a single republican voted for the minimum wage bill, so they should not gain too much from this.
|
John McCain was the deciding vote though, was it not 51 - 49?
Republicans gain huge from this because Democrats look awful, doubly so when the bill also reduced the eligibility for payments meaning 17 million fewer people will be receiving payments and lowered the unemployment benefits from 400 to 300. Democrats have spent all of this time negotiating with THEMSELVES to make the bill worse for people, this is phenomenal for Republicans because this whole shit show has made Democrats look weak and awful.
I wouldnt be surprised to see Warnocke get knocked out in 2022 seeing as this stimulus package was their big promise to Georgia in exchange for winning the Senate. We'd hope to see the likes of Ron Johnson of WI lose his seat but if Democrats depress turnout with their mediocrity he might keep it.
|
|
|
On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many?
Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies.
|
On March 06 2021 21:38 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 20:01 Zambrah wrote:On March 06 2021 18:49 Slydie wrote:On March 06 2021 18:33 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA. Sinema literally claimed to support a minimum wage raise before this. You also can blame the dems as an aggregate because they should be more than capable of whipping the party into unanimous vote when they've already got 80% of them supporting something (the Republicans sure as hell are). It's a political choice to not do so. Ehem "repeal and replace ACA 2017"... Was it not the Dying-Of-Brain-Cancer John McCain with basically nothing to lose the reason they failed that? To my knowledge none of the eight Democrat shitbirds that voted against re-including the minimum wage in this bill are suffering from a terminal illness that leaves them nigh impossible to whip. There were 3 republicans voting against the repeal in 2017, not all of them had brain cancer. It also barely passed in the house. Also, not a single republican voted for the minimum wage bill, so they should not gain too much from this.
Romney is one who has already taken advantage of this putting forth his own minimum wage bill. It's not impossible for Democrats to have so poorly handled this as to let Republicans be the party that delivers a minimum wage bill that can pass the Senate and force Schumer/Democrats to choose between denying workers a wage hike or giving Republicans the win for getting them one.
|
On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies.
And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want".
|
On March 07 2021 00:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies. And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want".
Its why deriving what Americans want from what their politicians vote for and say doesnt work.
Another good example are Florida's senators voting against including the 15 dollar minimum wage in the bill despite Florida literally just having passed a 15 dollar minimum wage. Voters have expressed enough interest in this policy in Florida to literally have passed it and yet their politicians vote against it.
Also funding is important, like if I tried to run against Abigail Spanberger for her House seat, she has the DNC's funding to run ads and do all that shit, but I have... what? No massive party infrastructure of huge sum of money to draw on. Operating outside of the two parties is exceptionally difficult, and even operating within the parties is exceptionally hard if youre not the orthodox moderate Democrat because Democrats definitely aren't going to support your campaign unless you're ideologically aligned with the fossilized leadership of the party.
America's system is fucked and fairly useless.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 07 2021 00:34 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies. And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want".
That is giving far too much credit to the presidency. Take this thread's favorite senator to shit talk, Manchin. In 2018 he was up for reelection and Swearengin, a progressive (15 minimum wage, medicare for all, drug legalization), tried to primary him. Manchin won the primary with a 70-30 split and went on to maintain his senate seat. In 2020 Swearengin ran again as the other senator of WV was up for election, but he's a Republican. She won the primary, but got dumpstered in the election again in a 70-30 split.
The conclusion you'll read in this thread is that Machin is the problem and democrats should primary him. Reality is that a progressive has tried to run for WV Senate and lost by a overwhelming margin each time and it isn't because they had the choice between Trump and not Trump.
On March 07 2021 00:53 Zambrah wrote:
Another good example are Florida's senators voting against including the 15 dollar minimum wage in the bill despite Florida literally just having passed a 15 dollar minimum wage. Voters have expressed enough interest in this policy in Florida to literally have passed it and yet their politicians vote against it.
Listen to BisuDagger who lives in Florida, voted for this policy, and is also against the federal minimum wage. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that minimum wages are better set at the state or city level than the federal level.
|
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On March 06 2021 11:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2021 11:05 Doublemint wrote:sure. it's just that the sting is a very different one if "your side" that is supposed to see things very much the same and also reach the same conclusions on how to fix problems are not with you on such a vote. that's also an explanation why the infighting among - generally - like minded coalition parties/groups is so fierce. centrist Dems and lefties - generic Rs and Trump wing. I agree, it is just that blaming "the dems" is not productive because not all democrats are the problem, and the ones that we would think are, disagree and think we are the problem. So the options are currently compromising with them left of what they want and right of what we want, or them compromising with the Reps and it being right of what they want, and way further right then we want. We should be mad that somehow there is way to many people who vote for people who think 15 is too much and figure out how to win the minds of more people. It is not about getting rid of people it's about convincing more people on why it is good for the USA.
What part of their minds needs to be won on this, and how? It doesn’t necessarily have to be in the form of a 15 dollar minimum wage but you’re balancing the needs of Americans who are really struggling in their day-to-day vs those who have a problem with working people not being on the poverty line, for various reasons. The stakeholders aren’t exactly equally impacted by this, or measures like them.
Governments are quite happy to push stuff through that isn’t publicly popular, sometimes for the good sometimes not, but especially in America have a real hard time getting the wheels going on things that are broadly popular or overwhelmingly popular with the public.
|
On March 07 2021 01:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 00:34 Simberto wrote:On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies. And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want". That is giving far too much credit to the presidency. Take this thread's favorite senator to shit talk, Manchin. In 2018 he was up for reelection and Swearengin, a progressive (15 minimum wage, medicare for all, drug legalization), tried to primary him. Manchin won the primary with a 70-30 split and went on to maintain his senate seat. In 2020 Swearengin ran again as the other senator of WV was up for election, but he's a Republican. She won the primary, but got dumpstered in the election again in a 70-30 split. The conclusion you'll read in this thread is that Machin is the problem and democrats should primary him. Reality is that a progressive has tried to run for WV Senate and lost by a overwhelming margin each time and it isn't because they had the choice between Trump and not Trump. Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 00:53 Zambrah wrote:
Another good example are Florida's senators voting against including the 15 dollar minimum wage in the bill despite Florida literally just having passed a 15 dollar minimum wage. Voters have expressed enough interest in this policy in Florida to literally have passed it and yet their politicians vote against it. Listen to BisuDagger who lives and voted for this policy and is also against the federal minimum wage. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that minimum wages are better set at the state or city level than the federal level.
I meant that more generally, maybe giving Trump as an example was a bad idea.
What i mean is that in the US, you can only vote for the whole package. If you care a lot about making abortion illegal, you can only vote republican, even if you disagree with their other policies. If you care about the environment at all, you can only vote democrat. And both of these are bad, because they mean that you have to vote for a party which in many areas you absolutely do not agree with, simply because you have no other choice.
I wonder what the US political landscape would look like in a proportional system. Maybe a social conservative, green and economically progressive party would appear. Or a socially progressive, pro-gun, economically conservative party. Two parties means basically no choice for most voters, which means that the parties don't really have to try to do the stuff their voters want, and most voters feel "meh" about their choices. Add to that the problem that in a two-party system, making the other guy look bad is just as good as making yourself look good, and your politics are basically completely broken and not really representative of what the people in the country want.
|
On March 07 2021 01:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 01:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:34 Simberto wrote:On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies. And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want". That is giving far too much credit to the presidency. Take this thread's favorite senator to shit talk, Manchin. In 2018 he was up for reelection and Swearengin, a progressive (15 minimum wage, medicare for all, drug legalization), tried to primary him. Manchin won the primary with a 70-30 split and went on to maintain his senate seat. In 2020 Swearengin ran again as the other senator of WV was up for election, but he's a Republican. She won the primary, but got dumpstered in the election again in a 70-30 split. The conclusion you'll read in this thread is that Machin is the problem and democrats should primary him. Reality is that a progressive has tried to run for WV Senate and lost by a overwhelming margin each time and it isn't because they had the choice between Trump and not Trump. On March 07 2021 00:53 Zambrah wrote:
Another good example are Florida's senators voting against including the 15 dollar minimum wage in the bill despite Florida literally just having passed a 15 dollar minimum wage. Voters have expressed enough interest in this policy in Florida to literally have passed it and yet their politicians vote against it. Listen to BisuDagger who lives and voted for this policy and is also against the federal minimum wage. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that minimum wages are better set at the state or city level than the federal level. I meant that more generally, maybe giving Trump as an example was a bad idea. What i mean is that in the US, you can only vote for the whole package. If you care a lot about making abortion illegal, you can only vote republican, even if you disagree with their other policies. If you care about the environment at all, you can only vote democrat. And both of these are bad, because they mean that you have to vote for a party which in many areas you absolutely do not agree with, simply because you have no other choice. I wonder what the US political landscape would look like in a proportional system. Maybe a social conservative, green and economically progressive party would appear. Or a socially progressive, pro-gun, economically conservative party. Two parties means basically no choice for most voters, which means that the parties don't really have to try to do the stuff their voters want, and most voters feel "meh" about their choices. Add to that the problem that in a two-party system, making the other guy look bad is just as good as making yourself look good, and your politics are basically completely broken and not really representative of what the people in the country want.
I'd settle for "doesn't do what I want, but does the bare minimum to stave of what the best available science suggests is catastrophic ecological collapse" currently.
Once that was the standard I'd be ambitious enough to hope for better. Democrats not clearing that bar is less of a personal aggrievance than fundamentally unsustainable and irrational to support imo. I think Democrats joining Republicans to deny essential (and other) workers a (sub-) living wage by 2025 is just particularly deplorable under the guise of political calculus or not.
|
On March 07 2021 01:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2021 01:07 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:34 Simberto wrote:On March 07 2021 00:27 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 07 2021 00:17 JimmiC wrote:
Why is the messaging on raising the.minimum wage doing so poorly with so many? Most people vote for social policy like religious freedom, gun rights, or pro choice rather than for economic policies. And only having two options makes this problem a lot worse. If the choice is between Trump and basically anything else, you have to vote for the other thing. In a multi-party system you could vote for what you actually want, but in the US, you cannot. You can only decide between "insane" and "doesn't do what i want". That is giving far too much credit to the presidency. Take this thread's favorite senator to shit talk, Manchin. In 2018 he was up for reelection and Swearengin, a progressive (15 minimum wage, medicare for all, drug legalization), tried to primary him. Manchin won the primary with a 70-30 split and went on to maintain his senate seat. In 2020 Swearengin ran again as the other senator of WV was up for election, but he's a Republican. She won the primary, but got dumpstered in the election again in a 70-30 split. The conclusion you'll read in this thread is that Machin is the problem and democrats should primary him. Reality is that a progressive has tried to run for WV Senate and lost by a overwhelming margin each time and it isn't because they had the choice between Trump and not Trump. On March 07 2021 00:53 Zambrah wrote:
Another good example are Florida's senators voting against including the 15 dollar minimum wage in the bill despite Florida literally just having passed a 15 dollar minimum wage. Voters have expressed enough interest in this policy in Florida to literally have passed it and yet their politicians vote against it. Listen to BisuDagger who lives and voted for this policy and is also against the federal minimum wage. There is no hypocrisy in thinking that minimum wages are better set at the state or city level than the federal level. I meant that more generally, maybe giving Trump as an example was a bad idea. What i mean is that in the US, you can only vote for the whole package. If you care a lot about making abortion illegal, you can only vote republican, even if you disagree with their other policies. If you care about the environment at all, you can only vote democrat. And both of these are bad, because they mean that you have to vote for a party which in many areas you absolutely do not agree with, simply because you have no other choice. I wonder what the US political landscape would look like in a proportional system. Maybe a social conservative, green and economically progressive party would appear. Or a socially progressive, pro-gun, economically conservative party. Two parties means basically no choice for most voters, which means that the parties don't really have to try to do the stuff their voters want, and most voters feel "meh" about their choices. Add to that the problem that in a two-party system, making the other guy look bad is just as good as making yourself look good, and your politics are basically completely broken and not really representative of what the people in the country want.
But what you're advocating for is a direct democracy. If you want all of your opinions to matter individually why would you have a representative at all?
You're saying that we need more political parties which I'd say I generally agree with. However, The 2018 example is that a progressive lost to a neoliberal in the democratic primary which seems to be all your parties would be. There isn't some three way FPTP split like Canada or the UK sees.
|
My main point is that FPTP sucks.
I was not really advocating for direct democracy, there is quite some space between direct democracy and FPTP. I generally like a proportional representative system. FPTP pretty much automatically leads to only two parties, which i think isn't a good setup due to the problems i described above.
In such a proportional system, you might have a progressive and a neoliberal party both on the same ballots, instead of forcing those two into the same list.
This allows for multiple different coalitions (maybe the neoliberals would coalition with the non-crazy part of the republicans over the progressives? Maybe a green party and a progressive party could coalition to get a majority?), and it means that peoples votes actually matter. A progressive party with 20% of the seats has a far better negotiating position when talking coalition with the neoliberals compared to being forced to try to get your progressive seat by going through the neoliberal party.
|
On March 07 2021 02:35 Simberto wrote:
My main point is that FPTP sucks.
I was not really advocating for direct democracy, there is quite some space between direct democracy and FPTP. I generally like a proportional representative system. FPTP pretty much automatically leads to only two parties, which i think isn't a good setup due to the problems i described above.
In such a proportional system, you might have a progressive and a neoliberal party both on the same ballots, instead of forcing those two into the same list.
This allows for multiple different coalitions (maybe the neoliberals would coalition with the non-crazy part of the republicans over the progressives? Maybe a green party and a progressive party could coalition to get a majority?), and it means that peoples votes actually matter. A progressive party with 20% of the seats has a far better negotiating position when talking coalition with the neoliberals compared to being forced to try to get your progressive seat by going through the neoliberal party.
While I agree more parties is much better, there are downsides. The main one is how far left/right and special interest parties can get disproportionate power if they have the votes on the bubble. Another one is parlament deadlocks where no government can be formed.
The parties usually form blocks before the election where you know more or less which parties are going to rule together, not too unlike a 2-party system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
