EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3694
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Sadist
United States7328 Posts
On June 27 2022 11:42 JimmiC wrote: Whats the strategy behind not voting dem? It is not like that precludes you from doing anything else and the only other two choices on that day are spectacularly worse if these decisions upset them. Agree. I don't get it. Other than trying to primary someone I dont think threatening to not vote is a good incentive. You are fucking demonstrably worse if you don't vote for Dems. As I stated before, we have to play defense against Republicans and a Dem vote is the only vote that is actively anti-Republican. | ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10877 Posts
On June 27 2022 14:39 LegalLord wrote: It’s not clear if Democrats particularly care about doing something about this Joe v. Wade problem, or if they intend to use it as a wedge issue while merely paying lip service to doing anything meaningful about it. They’ve done the latter a lot; why not once more? Well... "We" don't know what the Democrats see or want with the issue (strategically) but we damn sure know what the Republicans want and do. This is really not hard. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6272 Posts
On June 27 2022 06:25 BlackJack wrote: In his concurrence John Roberts indicates he didn't want to throw out Roe/Casey. I don't think he is really happy with this decision but it was going to happen with or without him. Remember he sided with the 4 liberal justices to preserve the individual mandate in Obamacare. I don't think he likes to stir up shit in the same way that Thomas and Alito are probably giddy with what they just did. Thanks, and Simberto too for your answer. On June 27 2022 14:39 plasmidghost wrote: I honestly have no clue if this makes me a hypocrite or not given how much I hate electoral politics but I have voted in every primary and general election since I turned 18 in 2014. I remember in my first primary, I registered Republican to vote against the Tea Party candidates and none of the people I voted for won, and the outcomes I've wanted have been few and far between, but I still do it anyway That's how democracy often works sadly. In The Netherlands we have a parliament with 18 or 19 parties and none of them represent my views very well (unbelievable I know :p). So I'm stuck between voting for a party which I don't really like all that much and whenever they do anything I often don't agree with it. It's still better than having no voice at all. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8072 Posts
On June 27 2022 15:41 Velr wrote: Well... "We" don't know what the Democrats see or want with the issue (strategically) but we damn sure know what the Republicans want and do. This is really not hard. There is only so far that radical « assume bad faith » attitude can take one without dumbing it everything down to an unproductive vaguely cynical attitude. For all we know, democrats are horrified by what happened, but in LL’s book, they are always disingenuous, always lying and always cynical. Tells more about him than them really. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26734 Posts
On June 27 2022 15:41 Velr wrote: Well... "We" don't know what the Democrats see or want with the issue (strategically) but we damn sure know what the Republicans want and do. This is really not hard. The Dems had their shot to codify it and didn’t, so there is that. They may have made the calculation that the GOP would use Roe as a thing to whip up their base in perpetuity without having the means/will to actually make it happen, which to be fair I thought was what they would do. I thought we’d see things just continue in a form of stasis with both parties posturing as the defender/opponent of the Roe ruling in perpetuity for some political capital. Hindsight can be a wonderful, very aggravating thing at times. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26734 Posts
On June 27 2022 14:33 Mohdoo wrote: For races that already a lock for democrats, it makes sense to show your dissatisfaction by choosing to not vote for democrats. But when a race is competitive, I think the time to make your voice heard is the primary. If a progressive loses a primary to a more conservative democrat, I have a hard time blaming the party for that. It is kind of whiny to say "Well if my preferred candidate loses the primary, I'm gone". If conservative democrats did the same, we'd be in an equally bad situation. Once the primary is over, and if the race is competitive, it makes sense to just vote for the democrat. But I use my vote as a lazy form of activism if my preferred candidate doesn't win the primary. Is it easy to register and vote in primaries? I’m assuming it’s not too arduous but we don’t have anything that comparable over here, very much a gap in me knowledge. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On June 27 2022 15:41 Velr wrote: Well... "We" don't know what the Democrats see or want with the issue (strategically) but we damn sure know what the Republicans want and do. This is really not hard. It’s not that hard to suss out what the Democrat lines are if you look at states where they have radical control like in California. For instance, they don’t have statewide universal healthcare, they could it the Democrats believed in it whatsoever, but they don’t actually believe in it. Where do Democrats have power, have they acted in a way congruous with their stated beliefs with that power, that’s how you figure out what Democrats believe as a party, at least it lets you know where they draw their lines. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22291 Posts
On June 27 2022 20:10 WombaT wrote: When did the Democrats have a majority of members in the House and Senate who are pro-choice?The Dems had their shot to codify it and didn’t, so there is that. They may have made the calculation that the GOP would use Roe as a thing to whip up their base in perpetuity without having the means/will to actually make it happen, which to be fair I thought was what they would do. I thought we’d see things just continue in a form of stasis with both parties posturing as the defender/opponent of the Roe ruling in perpetuity for some political capital. Hindsight can be a wonderful, very aggravating thing at times. Because just a Democratic majority does nothing, remember that the parties are pre-formed coalitions with sometimes very different views. Not every Democrat is by definition pro-choice. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23905 Posts
On June 27 2022 20:39 Zambrah wrote: It’s not that hard to suss out what the Democrat lines are if you look at states where they have radical control like in California. For instance, they don’t have statewide universal healthcare, they could it the Democrats believed in it whatsoever, but they don’t actually believe in it. Where do Democrats have power, have they acted in a way congruous with their stated beliefs with that power, that’s how you figure out what Democrats believe as a party, at least it lets you know where they draw their lines. As far as I can tell folks are going to keep chanting that the only rational thing to do is vote Democrat even after Republicans stop counting their votes. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26734 Posts
On June 27 2022 21:01 Gorsameth wrote: When did the Democrats have a majority of members in the House and Senate who are pro-choice? Because just a Democratic majority does nothing, remember that the parties are pre-formed coalitions with sometimes very different views. Not every Democrat is by definition pro-choice. Well indeed. They can be the pro-choice party, or a broad coalition containing divergent positions on the subject. They cannot be both simultaneously. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22291 Posts
On June 27 2022 22:43 WombaT wrote: That's the fundamental problem of the Democrats no? They are to broad a coalition, united more by not being Republicans then by shared political views. That's why they have such trouble finding common ground and getting much done while in power.Well indeed. They can be the pro-choice party, or a broad coalition containing divergent positions on the subject. They cannot be both simultaneously. And there is really no natural force to resolve it because the more right wing Democrats can't go to the Republicans because that's strait off a cliff into fascism and the progressives can't split off without handing the country to the fascists. That's why America 'needs' a strong sane Republican party. So that political discourse can be about left vs right in a meaningful political discussion, and not left+right vs fascists where there is no discussion possible because the other side are literal fascists who wish to end democracy. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23905 Posts
On June 27 2022 22:43 WombaT wrote: Well indeed. They can be the pro-choice party, or a broad coalition containing divergent positions on the subject. They cannot be both simultaneously. Being the pro-x party while being home to enough people that oppose x that it can never happen is basically their schtick. They're going to keep it up until/unless enough people stop falling for it/defending it. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On June 27 2022 15:41 Velr wrote: Well... "We" don't know what the Democrats see or want with the issue (strategically) but we damn sure know what the Republicans want and do. This is really not hard. I dunno about that. Sure, that viewpoint has some good faux pragmatism appeal, and will be supported by weasels the world over who can be won out by a bit of cheap lesser evilism. But on the other hand, if the other guy wins, you'll live in a much more predictable world - they tell you what they intend to do, and then they do it, with superb efficiency. You could vote for the bad guy or do any number of other actions that run the risk of helping the bad guy (e.g. vote for only people who might actually make a difference but may spoil the electoral chances of the Democrats), and at least not sign up for personally supporting the party that wants to claim the moral high ground but not earn it. And at least we'll know exactly where that leads, rather than pretending we're doing something good by investing everything into a clearly ineffective attempt to hit the brakes and make believe that one day we'll try to reverse course. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23905 Posts
On June 27 2022 22:52 Gorsameth wrote: That's the fundamental problem of the Democrats no? They are to broad a coalition, united more by not being Republicans then by shared political views. + Show Spoiler + That's why they have such trouble finding common ground and getting much done while in power. And there is really no natural force to resolve it because the more right wing Democrats can't go to the Republicans because that's strait off a cliff into fascism and the progressives can't split off without handing the country to the fascists. That's why America 'needs' a strong sane Republican party. So that political discourse can be about left vs right in a meaningful political discussion, and not left+right vs fascists where there is no discussion possible because the other side are literal fascists who wish to end democracy. Important to recognize that this is/was a (recognizably bad imo) strategic choice, not some immutable physical law. | ||
| ||
