|
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 April 25 2022 07:43 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 04:31 Simberto wrote:
I think we need to stop conflating two issues here:
"Do they get stuff done"
and "Do I like the stuff they get done"
I think it is very obvious that the republicans are good at getting stuff done.
The stuff they get done is usually shitty and evil, but they do get it done. And there is often quite a lot of overlap between what they do and what they promised. (With the addition of lots of money for the rich, which they do but do not promise). They fight against abortion, against gay rights, for more racism and so forth. And they fight hard and dirty for these goals.
Meanwhile, the democrats seem to have a much harder time getting stuff done. Half the time, stuff that they try to do doesn't seem to manifest at all due to some Manchin or something like that.
And the stuff they do get done is usually some lukewarm middle ground. Much better than the evil shit of the republicans, but far from really amazing. Instead of public healthcare, you get ACA. Things like that. Sure, ACA is okay, and better than not having it. But compared to what you could have, it is not that amazing.
The results are not the same, but I don't really feel that enthusiastic about democrats. They feel like a party of shitty status quo minimal action. Which is better than what the republicans want. But it would be nice if americans actually had a party that would move them towards good goals. This isn't happenstance, it's the logical outcome in the current set up. Their population distribution makes it so the median person is somewhat to the left of the median state, but each state having equal representation in the senate makes it so only the latter matters in practice. The red line for how left wing the legislation they can pass is is how left wing the 25th-26th most left wing states are. It makes little difference what party their senators are even in, the only way for democrats to have say 60 senators is by having 10 senators that are even further right than Manchin or Sinema. The seats themselves are not very meaningful, this is a cultural issue, not an electoral one. I don't recall seeing even the most radical lefties suggest limiting/abolishing the upper house, so their only option is slowly culturally moving those median states to the left. On the social plane that does seem to be happening, but on the economic plane I'm not really seeing it, so I'm expecting to the same ol' misdirected frustration for the foreseeable future.. I support abolishing the Senate. It's not a magic bullet to fix everything or even close to enough to make perpetual Democrat incompetence/impotence acceptable, but I'm confident we'd be better off without it.
|
On April 25 2022 08:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 06:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 25 2022 04:36 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2022 04:30 Mohdoo wrote:On April 25 2022 04:24 Djabanete wrote:On April 25 2022 01:54 Zambrah wrote:On April 25 2022 01:46 Djabanete wrote:On April 24 2022 18:24 Zambrah wrote:
What an easy win the Child Tax Credit could have been but nooooooo, god, that'd be some piece of genuinely positive change Democrats brought about and we just can't have that. So you get it for one year and then under Democrat control it goes away, pissing off people who relied on it off far more than if they had just never gotten it. Did not 50 Senate Democrats (counting VP Harris) support the legislative package that would have extended the expanded CTC? Wasn't Manchin the lone holdout that they had to convince? Fifty Senate Democrats support the expanded CTC, fifty Senate Republicans oppose it, and the problem is both parties? People seem to forget that even though Democrats are embarrassingly divided, and only 90% of Democrats can unify behind useful lesgislation, 100% of Republicans are against useful legislation every. single. time. And the results are the same. And we've seen, even with a super majority in congress Democrats will only put forward extremely compromised legislation. They're, at their absolute strongest, still weak shit. The results aren't the same. Democrats with super majority + WH, you get the ACA. Democrats with ordinary majority + WH, you get the American Rescue Plan, which substantially affected the bottom line of households like mine (direct Covid relief and the CTC). Split between White House and Congress, you get no major legislation. Republicans with ordinary majority + WH, you get massive tax breaks for the rich (ACA nearly repealed). Republicans with super majority + WH --- fortunately we haven't seen this since before Obama at least Both parties spend money, but the results are different. Democrats make health care less expensive and improve the bottom line of working families. Republicans cut taxes on the rich. They're opposite approaches and they do actually happen in practice. Even if you wish the ACA did more, as we both do, it is just not true that the results are the same regardless of who's in power. To put it into simple terms, Republicans are so unified compared to Democrats that even a simple majority + WH ensures their whole agenda can pretty much get passed other than fringe stuff. In a world where Democrats were as united as republicans, BBB would have passed. This is one of my favorite genres of internet lefty post, that Republicans are always so united. It's like people forget they had bigger majorities in 2017-18 then dems do now and only got a tax bill passed that they had worked down to be relatively moderate, all things considered. GOP has Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (though AK is a red state). Dems have Manchin. But Dems also have blue senators in red states (MT and OH) but they still tow the party line. I think part of why what I’m saying sounds outrageous is where you draw the line of what is sufficiently conservative. Taking a few steps back and ignoring that nuance, would you at least agree republicans get more stuff done than democrats? Using your example of tea party crazies, the bill ends up passing. Republican BBB would have passed. I don't agree. Look at their attempt to kinda sorta repeal Obamacare. That failed too. The tax plan barely got everyone on board. If the "Republican BBB" would have passed, they would have done it. Or how about immigration. They didn't do anything about that either. So no, I don't agree. Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 07:15 Sadist wrote:On April 25 2022 04:30 Introvert wrote:On April 25 2022 04:03 KwarK wrote:On April 25 2022 01:47 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Plenty of dem presidents have made empty promises to the working class. It's very far from clear cut that trump was promising a unicorn while his opposition was promising a solution. Obama promised the entire world to his voters (hint, he was lying to get elected) and didn't deliver much. Obama got healthcare to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Why do you just come to this topic and lie about these things over and over? Do you think that nobody will remember the ACA? Obama also promised the millions of people who were (rightfully, it turns out) worried about losing their own plans that they could keep them. This blatant lie is part of what gave Democrats in 2010 one of the biggest losses in history. I've seen a number of people come out the Obama years more jaded and cynical. People believed the hype that Obama sold them. Combine that with him being president gaslight and he deserves all the derision he gets and more. He failed to live up to this high-flying rhetoric. "This was the moment" lmao + Show Spoiler + This is such a crock of shit. They had bad plans and were being scammed Anyone who lost their plan had a shit plan to begin with. ACA implemented minimum standards, thats why they lost their plan. I know this is how they've tried to spin it... "if you lost your plan it was because it was garbage." But of course even if this were true (it's not) it doesn't matter. Obama said over and over again that "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." People noticed that was false, there was no gaslighting that away.Similar to Biden's problem now, where they refused to acknowledge inflation was going to last and be a problem and then tried to blame Putin after the fact. People notice when things cost more or they lose what they have. Can't BS your way out of that, even if you can try to lie about why something is happening.
Its not spin its true. Tell me why someone would lose their plan from the ACA other than it being obsoleted for being below minimum coverage?
Also if you like your Doctor you can keep your Doctor is a dumb talking point. Doctors go in and out of network all the time. Employers change plans all the time. Its a bullshit attack that has nothing to do with the ACA. The ACA did not mandate people change doctors any more than the existing system already did.
|
United States24664 Posts
As I recall at the time, the issue was not that Obama lied but that he was incorrect. Of course, any time Obama was found later to be incorrect was blown out of proportion without regard for context or nuance.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Whether he lied or was mistaken, it's a promise broken. At this point the distinction hardly matters; the ACA was at best a patch job half-solution that turned Obama's sizeable Congress majority into a gigantic Republican victory in both houses. "You can keep your doctor" is as symbolic of the failures of ACA as "I did that" and high prices at the pump are symbolic of the inflation disaster that Biden currently faces. The quip doesn't have to be nuanced to carry the core sentiment behind the larger failure.
|
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
|
On April 25 2022 08:09 LegalLord wrote:It's interesting to see how often people aggressively blame the Senate for Republicans' dominance when, if you look at recent history it's the House if anything that the Republicans tend to be dominant in. The biggest majorities in the past, say, 30 years in either the House or Senate were held by Democrats, and the Democrats even squeezed out 60 briefly in 2009. But the one or two Senate majorities and House minorities that the Republicans had during Trump's presidency seem to have made people forget that.
Forty-one senators can block any legislation (except if it's done through budget reconciliation, which is limited).
Of course people blame the Senate. The entire game theory of the Senate can be summed up as "I will prevent you from doing anything and then blame you for your lack of achievements the next election cycle." And yes, the Senate skews Republican because it represents states instead of people. Blaming the Senate for being the graveyard of beneficial legislation is 100% rational.
BTW, the Senate can still be skewed Republican when Democrats have a majority in the Senate. Democratic Senate majority = even greater popular majority, given that blue states are more densely populated than red states.
Edit:
"Promises broken" is a way of evaluating leaders that easily results in sophomoric black-and-white thinking. "He said the meeting would start at 4pm. It started at 4:15pm. I'll never trust him again." What did they strive for? Whom did they serve? Did they do their best? What got in the way?
I don't care that Obama "broke his promise" to let people keep insurance plans that fail to meet minimum standards. I do care that he tried his best to get everybody covered.
I don't care that Trump "broke his promise" to build a wall. I do care that he tried his best to stage a coup d'etat.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is.
|
On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is.
Thats so disengenious. One party actively tries to make the world and the future a worse place. The other party has flaws surely but at least believes in a functional government.
GTFO with the false equivalency. Making a decision to shoot yourself in the head shouldnt be praised for "at least they made a decision even if it was a bad one"
Grow up
|
On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is.
Standard?
Let's keep things in perspective.
The next presidential race will be between a Democrat who wants to enact Democratic policies and a Republican who wants to end our democracy as we know it. It sounds like hyperbole, but those are just the facts.
The standard is a basic desire for American democracy to endure, and willingness to act on that desire. Can any Republican in a down-ballot election meet that standard?
|
On April 25 2022 10:50 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is. Thats so disengenious. One party actively tries to make the world and the future a worse place. The other party has flaws surely but at least believes in a functional government. + Show Spoiler +
GTFO with the false equivalency. Making a decision to shoot yourself in the head shouldnt be praised for "at least they made a decision even if it was a bad one"
Grow up
I disagree with this appraisal.
Both parties are actively trying to make the world and future a worse place. The important question isn't which is worse (it's Republicans), but whether either is acceptable. Which, when it comes to global ecological catastrophe that threatens life on earth as we know it, the scientific consensus says pretty definitively "No. They aren't".
They also both believe in "functional government". They disagree on what those functions are. Ultimately they are almost universally capitalists. As such, even the most socially liberal among them can't disentangle the brutal exploitation, alienation, and dispossession from the capitalist engine the US runs on fueled by the workers who get burned in the process.
A guiding differentiator between the parties would be their perspectives on social safety nets/public services and their source. Basically Republicans think the US underclass should be maintained through a misguided lens of natural selection, the so-called "free market", and charity while Democrats (at least the social liberals among them) think the underclass should be maintained through government by way of taxes.
|
Just to be clear on the history, the ACA was only one reason for Republican congressional success. The Tea Party started as a response to government bailouts after the financial crisis. People forget this but it is occasionally relevant. It began before Obama was even president. People try to spin it into Obama hatred but its beginnings predate his election.
|
On April 25 2022 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 07:43 Dan HH wrote:On April 25 2022 04:31 Simberto wrote:
I think we need to stop conflating two issues here:
"Do they get stuff done"
and "Do I like the stuff they get done"
I think it is very obvious that the republicans are good at getting stuff done.
The stuff they get done is usually shitty and evil, but they do get it done. And there is often quite a lot of overlap between what they do and what they promised. (With the addition of lots of money for the rich, which they do but do not promise). They fight against abortion, against gay rights, for more racism and so forth. And they fight hard and dirty for these goals.
Meanwhile, the democrats seem to have a much harder time getting stuff done. Half the time, stuff that they try to do doesn't seem to manifest at all due to some Manchin or something like that.
And the stuff they do get done is usually some lukewarm middle ground. Much better than the evil shit of the republicans, but far from really amazing. Instead of public healthcare, you get ACA. Things like that. Sure, ACA is okay, and better than not having it. But compared to what you could have, it is not that amazing.
The results are not the same, but I don't really feel that enthusiastic about democrats. They feel like a party of shitty status quo minimal action. Which is better than what the republicans want. But it would be nice if americans actually had a party that would move them towards good goals. This isn't happenstance, it's the logical outcome in the current set up. Their population distribution makes it so the median person is somewhat to the left of the median state, but each state having equal representation in the senate makes it so only the latter matters in practice. The red line for how left wing the legislation they can pass is is how left wing the 25th-26th most left wing states are. It makes little difference what party their senators are even in, the only way for democrats to have say 60 senators is by having 10 senators that are even further right than Manchin or Sinema. The seats themselves are not very meaningful, this is a cultural issue, not an electoral one. I don't recall seeing even the most radical lefties suggest limiting/abolishing the upper house, so their only option is slowly culturally moving those median states to the left. On the social plane that does seem to be happening, but on the economic plane I'm not really seeing it, so I'm expecting to the same ol' misdirected frustration for the foreseeable future.. I support abolishing the Senate. It's not a magic bullet to fix everything or even close to enough to make perpetual Democrat incompetence/impotence acceptable, but I'm confident we'd be better off without it.
The senate is essentially intended to artificially inflate the influence of the former confederate alliance. It is an abomination and does not belong in a modern society.
|
On April 25 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2022 07:43 Dan HH wrote:On April 25 2022 04:31 Simberto wrote:
I think we need to stop conflating two issues here:
"Do they get stuff done"
and "Do I like the stuff they get done"
I think it is very obvious that the republicans are good at getting stuff done.
The stuff they get done is usually shitty and evil, but they do get it done. And there is often quite a lot of overlap between what they do and what they promised. (With the addition of lots of money for the rich, which they do but do not promise). They fight against abortion, against gay rights, for more racism and so forth. And they fight hard and dirty for these goals.
Meanwhile, the democrats seem to have a much harder time getting stuff done. Half the time, stuff that they try to do doesn't seem to manifest at all due to some Manchin or something like that.
And the stuff they do get done is usually some lukewarm middle ground. Much better than the evil shit of the republicans, but far from really amazing. Instead of public healthcare, you get ACA. Things like that. Sure, ACA is okay, and better than not having it. But compared to what you could have, it is not that amazing.
The results are not the same, but I don't really feel that enthusiastic about democrats. They feel like a party of shitty status quo minimal action. Which is better than what the republicans want. But it would be nice if americans actually had a party that would move them towards good goals. This isn't happenstance, it's the logical outcome in the current set up. Their population distribution makes it so the median person is somewhat to the left of the median state, but each state having equal representation in the senate makes it so only the latter matters in practice. The red line for how left wing the legislation they can pass is is how left wing the 25th-26th most left wing states are. It makes little difference what party their senators are even in, the only way for democrats to have say 60 senators is by having 10 senators that are even further right than Manchin or Sinema. The seats themselves are not very meaningful, this is a cultural issue, not an electoral one. I don't recall seeing even the most radical lefties suggest limiting/abolishing the upper house, so their only option is slowly culturally moving those median states to the left. On the social plane that does seem to be happening, but on the economic plane I'm not really seeing it, so I'm expecting to the same ol' misdirected frustration for the foreseeable future.. I support abolishing the Senate. It's not a magic bullet to fix everything or even close to enough to make perpetual Democrat incompetence/impotence acceptable, but I'm confident we'd be better off without it. The senate is essentially intended to artificially inflate the influence of the former confederate alliance. It is an abomination and does not belong in a modern society.
At the constitutional convention, the southern slave states generally aligned with the large states (VA was the largest, or one of the largest states) in opposing a senate. The other slave states thought they would grow rapidly and did not want their power diminished. It was smaller New England states that demanded a house in Congress that was equal representation for each state. While James Madison was a southern slave holder, he opposed a senate vigorously as being too undemocratic. If he and other delegates of the future confederate states had their way there would be no senate. You should be thankful we had the senate from the beginning.
Edit: to be clear, their opposition was to a equal representation in the senate. Bicameralism was not really contested, from what I recall.
|
On April 25 2022 13:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:On April 25 2022 08:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 25 2022 07:43 Dan HH wrote:On April 25 2022 04:31 Simberto wrote:
I think we need to stop conflating two issues here:
"Do they get stuff done"
and "Do I like the stuff they get done"
I think it is very obvious that the republicans are good at getting stuff done.
The stuff they get done is usually shitty and evil, but they do get it done. And there is often quite a lot of overlap between what they do and what they promised. (With the addition of lots of money for the rich, which they do but do not promise). They fight against abortion, against gay rights, for more racism and so forth. And they fight hard and dirty for these goals.
Meanwhile, the democrats seem to have a much harder time getting stuff done. Half the time, stuff that they try to do doesn't seem to manifest at all due to some Manchin or something like that.
And the stuff they do get done is usually some lukewarm middle ground. Much better than the evil shit of the republicans, but far from really amazing. Instead of public healthcare, you get ACA. Things like that. Sure, ACA is okay, and better than not having it. But compared to what you could have, it is not that amazing.
The results are not the same, but I don't really feel that enthusiastic about democrats. They feel like a party of shitty status quo minimal action. Which is better than what the republicans want. But it would be nice if americans actually had a party that would move them towards good goals. This isn't happenstance, it's the logical outcome in the current set up. Their population distribution makes it so the median person is somewhat to the left of the median state, but each state having equal representation in the senate makes it so only the latter matters in practice. The red line for how left wing the legislation they can pass is is how left wing the 25th-26th most left wing states are. It makes little difference what party their senators are even in, the only way for democrats to have say 60 senators is by having 10 senators that are even further right than Manchin or Sinema. The seats themselves are not very meaningful, this is a cultural issue, not an electoral one. I don't recall seeing even the most radical lefties suggest limiting/abolishing the upper house, so their only option is slowly culturally moving those median states to the left. On the social plane that does seem to be happening, but on the economic plane I'm not really seeing it, so I'm expecting to the same ol' misdirected frustration for the foreseeable future.. I support abolishing the Senate. It's not a magic bullet to fix everything or even close to enough to make perpetual Democrat incompetence/impotence acceptable, but I'm confident we'd be better off without it. The senate is essentially intended to artificially inflate the influence of the former confederate alliance. It is an abomination and does not belong in a modern society. At the constitutional convention, the southern slave states generally aligned with the large states (VA was the largest, or one of the largest states) in opposing a a senate. The other slave states thought they would grow rapidly and did not want their power dismissed. It was smaller New England states that demanded a House in Congress that was equal representation for each state. While James Madison was a southern slave holder, he opposed a senate vigorously as being too undemocratic. If he and other representatives of the future confederate states had their way there would be no senate. You should be thankful we had the senate from the beginning.
That's interesting and clearly I had no idea. I know basically jack shit about history of anything. As much as it pains me to say it, I deeply wish the confederates had their way back then, lol.
|
On April 25 2022 11:04 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is. Standard? Let's keep things in perspective. The next presidential race will be between a Democrat who wants to enact Democratic policies and a Republican who wants to end our democracy as we know it. It sounds like hyperbole, but those are just the facts. The standard is a basic desire for American democracy to endure, and willingness to act on that desire. Can any Republican in a down-ballot election meet that standard?
Facts are things like "The US elects a president every four years". Things which can be verified and observable.
That the next Republican candidate wants to end democracy is an opinion.
If you state that as fact, then you have to also accept that "Democrats are about to bring communism to this country" as an alternative fact, and that's clearly not what most people would call a fact.
|
On April 25 2022 13:57 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 11:04 Djabanete wrote:On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is. Standard? Let's keep things in perspective. The next presidential race will be between a Democrat who wants to enact Democratic policies and a Republican who wants to end our democracy as we know it. It sounds like hyperbole, but those are just the facts. The standard is a basic desire for American democracy to endure, and willingness to act on that desire. Can any Republican in a down-ballot election meet that standard? Facts are things like "The US elects a president every four years". Things which can be verified and observable. That the next Republican candidate wants to end democracy is an opinion. If you state that as fact, then you have to also accept that "Democrats are about to bring communism to this country" as an alternative fact, and that's clearly not what most people would call a fact.
I forgot to include the word “likely.” The next presidential race will likely be a Democrat versus Trump.
Maybe it wasn’t clear that I was specifically referring to Trump, but it is verified and observable that he wanted to discard the results of the 2020 election. If more people had followed his will, it would have been a coup. He demanded that election workers STOP THE COUNT. His words. If you don’t count the votes, there’s no more democracy. Presumably you know all this and you’re just quibbling about semantics and/or it wasn’t clear that I meant Trump.
So, let’s leave aside the semantics. A basic desire for American democracy to endure is what I’ll be looking for in candidates running in 2024.
|
On April 25 2022 13:57 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 11:04 Djabanete wrote:On April 25 2022 10:11 LegalLord wrote:On April 25 2022 10:05 Sadist wrote:
Promise broken? So Democrats are only held to promises? Mexico will pay for the wall? The election was stolen? Its such bullshit that we treat one party with kid gloves and expect the other to fix all societal ills. Do we not believe the problems with shipping and logistics are not the primary drivers of inflation?
So is the standard to actually get stuff done, or to only seek to be no worse than Republicans? One of those two actually implies that maybe campaign promises actually mean something. For the other one I guess you can just talk about how bad the other guy is. Standard? Let's keep things in perspective. The next presidential race will be between a Democrat who wants to enact Democratic policies and a Republican who wants to end our democracy as we know it. It sounds like hyperbole, but those are just the facts. The standard is a basic desire for American democracy to endure, and willingness to act on that desire. Can any Republican in a down-ballot election meet that standard? Facts are things like "The US elects a president every four years". Things which can be verified and observable. That the next Republican candidate wants to end democracy is an opinion. If you state that as fact, then you have to also accept that "Democrats are about to bring communism to this country" as an alternative fact, and that's clearly not what most people would call a fact.
Facts require the backing of reality. "Democrats are about to bring communism to this country" is false, and therefore not fact. "A large group of Republicans, including Donald Trump, attempted to end democracy" is true. Whether the next Republican candidate wants to end democracy is unclear, since we don't know who will be the next Republican candidate.
The Republican party consistently chips away at democracy by rigging elections around the edges. (Voter suppression, gerrymandering, voter roll purges, skewing the census, felony disenfranchisement, mass disenfranchisement of citizens in Puerto Rico and D.C., overturning the Voting Rights Act, outlawing the counting of votes in Florida when it might cause Bush to lose, etc.) However, prior to Trump's coup, they only cheated by a few points here and there -- they could only rig a close election, so they could be beaten by more votes. Coups aren't stopped by votes.
|
It’s not a fact that “Trump wants to end democracy”. He has merely tried to before, which does not mean he will do so again, right?
But for real, Trump does not have the goal to end democracy in my opinion. Everything he does, seems to be taking basically any opportunity to enrich and empower himself and then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, ending democracy is one of the things he may do to empower himself, if he finds the opportunity.
Since his presidency is limited to two terms, I assume/hope the chances for this to happen are not as high anymore. After all, he might just prefer another path after his second presidency.
Either way, downplaying the risk of a Trump presidency is just dishonest.
|
On April 25 2022 17:33 smille wrote:
It’s not a fact that “Trump wants to end democracy”. He has merely tried to before, which does not mean he will do so again, right?
But for real, Trump does not have the goal to end democracy in my opinion. Everything he does, seems to be taking basically any opportunity to enrich and empower himself and then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, ending democracy is one of the things he may do to empower himself, if he finds the opportunity.
Since his presidency is limited to two terms, I assume/hope the chances for this to happen are not as high anymore. After all, he might just prefer another path after his second presidency.
Either way, downplaying the risk of a Trump presidency is just dishonest.
I think you've answered your own question -- bolded. It's not like term limits are exactly a failsafe, seeing as losing an election is not exactly a deterrent for him.
|
On April 25 2022 18:31 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2022 17:33 smille wrote:
It’s not a fact that “Trump wants to end democracy”. He has merely tried to before, which does not mean he will do so again, right?
But for real, Trump does not have the goal to end democracy in my opinion. Everything he does, seems to be taking basically any opportunity to enrich and empower himself and then deal with the consequences. Unfortunately, ending democracy is one of the things he may do to empower himself, if he finds the opportunity.
Since his presidency is limited to two terms, I assume/hope the chances for this to happen are not as high anymore. After all, he might just prefer another path after his second presidency.
Either way, downplaying the risk of a Trump presidency is just dishonest. I think you've answered your own question -- bolded. It's not like term limits are exactly a failsafe, seeing as losing an election is not exactly a deterrent for him.
Yep, kind of. I still think it’s not his goal and therefore not a correct description. With Trump, there is a considerable risk for all sorts of terrible stuff to happen. He has risked a war, abandoned allies and disclosed confidential information to Russians. That is all part of his impulsive and crazy character.
Now as for “ending democracy”, the close election was a low-risk and low-effort opportunity to stay in power, which he gladly tried to use. However, because of the term limit, there will be no election where he partakes, and therefore I deem the chance of something like a coup happening far less likely. A coup is risky, and I don’t believe he will take this path another time.
This is obviously wishful thinking. And again, Trump poses so many different threats that this discussion is useless. No sane person should prefer Trump over almost any other candidate...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
