|
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 |
Northern Ireland23953 Posts
On July 07 2022 06:01 Simberto wrote:
You rightwingers are weird. Is the "Brandon" supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to make people mad? I don't get it. The only reaction i get is that you look like a fool.
And yeah, gas prices will remain high for a long time. Because there is a fucking war going on with one of the major oil producers, and everyone is sanctioning them. Also the oil concerns notice that this is a chance to make a lot of money. Saying anything else is idiotic.
Do you want your politicians to lie to you? Would that be better?
I am not a Biden fan at all, but are those really your critiques? Can you not do better?
The original was funny but, as ever the interpretation is ridiculously lacking.
NASCAR commentator on a live broadcast wants to pretend they’re saying ‘let’s go Brandon’ rather than ‘Fuck Joe Biden’ and it’s gloriously awkward television.
Somehow this become the ‘MSM’ wanting to ‘change the narrative’ in shouting down Joe Biden critique rather than the rather more obvious and sedate ‘live prime time broadcasts tend to not like swearing and deflect’.
They’re not exactly the brightest bunch out there though bless them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 07 2022 06:01 Simberto wrote:
And yeah, gas prices will remain high for a long time. Because there is a fucking war going on with one of the major oil producers, and everyone is sanctioning them. Also the oil concerns notice that this is a chance to make a lot of money. Saying anything else is idiotic.
Do you want your politicians to lie to you? Would that be better?
I am not a Biden fan at all, but are those really your critiques? Can you not do better?
If Biden wants to give up on serving the American people, by making excuses instead of solving problems, it’s only fair up for the electorate to in turn give up on having him and his party in office.
And yes, gas prices matter a lot, you’re not excused from dealing with it just because you found a scapegoat for a third of the price growth, and the little market fluctuations of 24 cents per gallon here and there don’t solve the $3+ growth of the past year.
This seems like a rerun of the time-honored “I don’t like X but I’m going to carry water for all of their bad decisions” game from the Clinton campaign years. You can prefer them to Trump or equivalent without shilling for poor governance.
|
|
|
I've seen gas prices around Houston drop about 50 cents a gallon over the past month and continuing to fall, and with the oil market tanking (currently at ~$98/bbl for West Texas (WTI) crude compared to the recent peak of $130/bbl), there will hopefully be relief at the pump for people as wholesale gas prices drop significantly over the next month.
Politically, I think that with gas going down and hopefully food prices with it due to cheaper transportation costs, we could see a small bump for Biden
|
On July 06 2022 23:32 NewSunshine wrote:
As an aside (though maybe not), while Fetterman has been well-positioned to beat Oz for the Senate in Pennsylvania, Republicans are now coming out to endorse Josh Shapiro for governor, rejecting Mastriano and his conspiracy theories. For some reason. Shapiro is currently in favor to win the governorship. PA might get to keep the right to an abortion, among so many other things.
I would be so fricken happy, because like you say, the Gov race is the only thing keeping it legal here.
|
On July 06 2022 23:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2022 20:18 pmh wrote:
Indirectly it effects everyone and everything to some degree but it doesnt effect most people directly.
And when it comes to voting people vote mostly based on things that do effect them directly or even worse,feelings alone.
They dont look further and they dont see the big picture. Not only because they can not see it,many people are not even interested in it.
I really do think the republicans will face no backlash at all from overturning roe. You already dont read anything about protests anymore in the media,at least not here in europe. The subject has left the frontpage in like 1 or 2 days. This was remarkable in itself and its a sign on the wall. I don’t think a subsiding in media coverage across the pond or protests is all that relevant. Outside of the type inclined to full time political activism, most regular folk can only get riled up enough to protest for relatively short periods of time. I’m unsure whether they’ll face a mid-term backlash, I agree there. But i dont see it mentioned on us news websites either anymore. There is no outrage,no fight. Its like,well that happend now lets move on. But I do think the issue will merely resurface and annoy people again when the elections are looming. Just because people don’t have the inclination to protest in perpetuity doesn’t mean they don’t care enough to be galvanised to go out and vote. It may, IMO be enough of a lever for the Dems to work around and avoid a massacre in the midterms, although I’m unsure if it’s enough for them to come close to avoiding losing. There is of course also the presence of those who lean Dem, or are independents who actively support a pro-life position, which will dilute any potential backlash to some degree.
Yes coverage in eu doesnt say all that much i have to agree. Though it has left us news websites as well at record speed.
No outrage,no fight. Within 1-2 days it was like:well that happend now lets move on.
The biggest telltale for me was the reddit worldnews and (us) news and politics subs. Overturning Roe was on the front page there for exactly one single day. The next day it was completely gone,no follow up storys,all the big threads disapeared. And it was not because it got pushed out by another big new event.
This was very weird to see and i have never seen something like this happen with any major news item before. Its anything but natural but it is what it is.
|
On July 07 2022 08:21 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2022 23:21 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2022 20:18 pmh wrote:
Indirectly it effects everyone and everything to some degree but it doesnt effect most people directly.
And when it comes to voting people vote mostly based on things that do effect them directly or even worse,feelings alone.
They dont look further and they dont see the big picture. Not only because they can not see it,many people are not even interested in it.
I really do think the republicans will face no backlash at all from overturning roe. You already dont read anything about protests anymore in the media,at least not here in europe. The subject has left the frontpage in like 1 or 2 days. This was remarkable in itself and its a sign on the wall. I don’t think a subsiding in media coverage across the pond or protests is all that relevant. Outside of the type inclined to full time political activism, most regular folk can only get riled up enough to protest for relatively short periods of time. I’m unsure whether they’ll face a mid-term backlash, I agree there. But i dont see it mentioned on us news websites either anymore. There is no outrage,no fight. Its like,well that happend now lets move on. But I do think the issue will merely resurface and annoy people again when the elections are looming. Just because people don’t have the inclination to protest in perpetuity doesn’t mean they don’t care enough to be galvanised to go out and vote. It may, IMO be enough of a lever for the Dems to work around and avoid a massacre in the midterms, although I’m unsure if it’s enough for them to come close to avoiding losing. There is of course also the presence of those who lean Dem, or are independents who actively support a pro-life position, which will dilute any potential backlash to some degree. Yes coverage in eu doesnt say all that much i have to agree. Though it has left us news websites as well at record speed. No outrage,no fight. Within 1-2 days it was like:well that happend now lets move on. The biggest telltale for me was the reddit worldnews and (us) news and politics subs. Overturning Roe was on the front page there for exactly one single day. The next day it was completely gone,no follow up storys,all the big threads disapeared. And it was not because it got pushed out by another big new event. This was very weird to see and i have never seen something like this happen with any major news item before. Its anything but natural but it is what it is.
Most of the protests were organized on the city specific reddit where they happened which don't reach the front page so I wouldn't put any value in what you're using as a metric.
|
On July 07 2022 09:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 08:21 pmh wrote:On July 06 2022 23:21 WombaT wrote:On July 06 2022 20:18 pmh wrote:
Indirectly it effects everyone and everything to some degree but it doesnt effect most people directly.
And when it comes to voting people vote mostly based on things that do effect them directly or even worse,feelings alone.
They dont look further and they dont see the big picture. Not only because they can not see it,many people are not even interested in it.
I really do think the republicans will face no backlash at all from overturning roe. You already dont read anything about protests anymore in the media,at least not here in europe. The subject has left the frontpage in like 1 or 2 days. This was remarkable in itself and its a sign on the wall. I don’t think a subsiding in media coverage across the pond or protests is all that relevant. Outside of the type inclined to full time political activism, most regular folk can only get riled up enough to protest for relatively short periods of time. I’m unsure whether they’ll face a mid-term backlash, I agree there. But i dont see it mentioned on us news websites either anymore. There is no outrage,no fight. Its like,well that happend now lets move on. But I do think the issue will merely resurface and annoy people again when the elections are looming. Just because people don’t have the inclination to protest in perpetuity doesn’t mean they don’t care enough to be galvanised to go out and vote. It may, IMO be enough of a lever for the Dems to work around and avoid a massacre in the midterms, although I’m unsure if it’s enough for them to come close to avoiding losing. There is of course also the presence of those who lean Dem, or are independents who actively support a pro-life position, which will dilute any potential backlash to some degree. Yes coverage in eu doesnt say all that much i have to agree. Though it has left us news websites as well at record speed. No outrage,no fight. Within 1-2 days it was like:well that happend now lets move on. The biggest telltale for me was the reddit worldnews and (us) news and politics subs. Overturning Roe was on the front page there for exactly one single day. The next day it was completely gone,no follow up storys,all the big threads disapeared. And it was not because it got pushed out by another big new event. This was very weird to see and i have never seen something like this happen with any major news item before. Its anything but natural but it is what it is. Most of the protests were organized on the city specific reddit where they happened which don't reach the front page so I wouldn't put any value in what you're using as a metric.
It's decidedly less prolific than the protests around the police murdering George Floyd which still didn't even cross the threshold for inducing tepid reforms nationally, let alone radical changes.
Not to dismiss the local and national efforts, but it's clear the country has already largely shrugged and added it to the list of injustices they occasionally let invade their headspace in their downtimes.
It makes sense given the proposed solution from Democrats is incoherent/indeterminate at best.
|
How likely is it that Rudy or Lindsey Graham will be able to fight and not show up for the subpoena?
|
|
|
On July 07 2022 06:01 Simberto wrote:You rightwingers are weird. Is the "Brandon" supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to make people mad? I don't get it. The only reaction i get is that you look like a fool. + Show Spoiler +And yeah, gas prices will remain high for a long time. Because there is a fucking war going on with one of the major oil producers, and everyone is sanctioning them. Also the oil concerns notice that this is a chance to make a lot of money. Saying anything else is idiotic.
Do you want your politicians to lie to you? Would that be better?
I am not a Biden fan at all, but are those really your critiques? Can you not do better?
Considering he seems to have been temp banned for it it must have succeeded in triggering someone
|
How far are we into Biden’s presidency and he still hasn’t even had weed rescheduled? This is such a train wreck lmao
|
twitter.com
Glenny Greenwaller giving good grifter will towards the fashionable fascist-leaning journalist of the century Tucker while promoting Bolsonaro despite ruffling feathers with the actual fascist. Good god grifting leaves a mark eh?
|
On July 07 2022 11:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 06:01 Simberto wrote:You rightwingers are weird. Is the "Brandon" supposed to be funny? Is it supposed to make people mad? I don't get it. The only reaction i get is that you look like a fool. + Show Spoiler +And yeah, gas prices will remain high for a long time. Because there is a fucking war going on with one of the major oil producers, and everyone is sanctioning them. Also the oil concerns notice that this is a chance to make a lot of money. Saying anything else is idiotic.
Do you want your politicians to lie to you? Would that be better?
I am not a Biden fan at all, but are those really your critiques? Can you not do better? Considering he seems to have been temp banned for it it must have succeeded in triggering someone
Or it was just stupid.
|
Banning for saying Brandon is extremely whack. Mocking Biden is a common trend among like 70% of the country. He’s literally the most unpopular president in history. It’s just a disrespectful way to mention Biden.
|
I've followed along with different polls and their aggregate from 538 from the Friday that Roe v Wade got overturned to now and the overall approval for Biden only dipped .4%. I was expecting a dip of at least 1%, so maybe things aren't quite as hopeless as I thought.
I've been seeing more and more accounts of cis women, trans men, and AFAB nonbinary people losing access to lifesaving drugs, with few if any medical professionals trying to help. I'm going to try to gather a few newer ones than what I posted a few pages back, but it terrifies me that they are going to die of lupus or cancer or similar, in addition to ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, and the like. I am trying so hard to believe that something will be done to help them survive, but things look abysmal at the moment.
Relevant experiences:
+ Show Spoiler +
Personal quibble: I've always found it weird how right-wingers will say stuff like Let's Go Brandon when every leftist I know and myself proudly say that Joe Biden should go fuck himself
|
On July 07 2022 06:10 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 05:34 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I doubt a majority do but that’s not really how elections work. Elections and especially midterms are about doing everything you can to get your maybe voters to become definitely voters. The number of democrats who will stay home if loans are forgiven are likely extremely small. Even if they don’t support it, they’re very unlikely to go vote republicans instead. On the other hand, asking students to resume payments suddenly takes a huge bite out of young voter turnout. It’s inconceivable I would show up to vote if Biden resumes loan repayments while billions are spent elsewhere. Both parties have shown “but the budget” isn’t a real concern and they will spend enormous money on things they deem worthwhile. If they decide young voters aren’t worth it, they’ve made their decision and they will absolutely lose What a disturbing display of egoism. Where’s the egoism? It’s just politics. Either find some genuine cultural and political ground with farsighted policy where people come together for the good of society, or just splinter off demographics to vote in a purely self-interested manner. Those are the options. There is no third option. Is loan forgiveness necessarily a good policy without further reform? I mean, imo no, but it sure would help my bottom line if I was over the States. Are ever-increasing house prices for an older generation with little or no student debt who tend to be already be property owners a good idea? Also no They vote and defend that ground and status quo tooth and claw. Every single election cycle. Without fail. Housing prices dropping are presented as a negative in political discussions in my country at the same time people are struggling to even get on the ladder. If you’re not going to do anything about that, not even try because it annoys boomers and ‘loses votes’, inflation is driving up prices. If Roe and other social issues have gone by the wayside, and you’re not doing the thing that could benefit me personally, why would I vote for you? In a crude order of preference I’d prefer a more equal, less cutthroat society and I’d be happy to pay more taxes for that. A distant second is don’t do that, but at least give me something.
Defending your interests is one thing. The student loan system in the US is also terrible.
Still, saying "this president did not make it so I do not have to repay the money I owe for loans I consciously took so I will not vote for his party" is something else. Especially since we see where this leads - I mean you mentioned some of the problems.
|
On July 07 2022 15:21 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 06:10 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2022 05:34 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I doubt a majority do but that’s not really how elections work. Elections and especially midterms are about doing everything you can to get your maybe voters to become definitely voters. The number of democrats who will stay home if loans are forgiven are likely extremely small. Even if they don’t support it, they’re very unlikely to go vote republicans instead. On the other hand, asking students to resume payments suddenly takes a huge bite out of young voter turnout. It’s inconceivable I would show up to vote if Biden resumes loan repayments while billions are spent elsewhere. Both parties have shown “but the budget” isn’t a real concern and they will spend enormous money on things they deem worthwhile. If they decide young voters aren’t worth it, they’ve made their decision and they will absolutely lose What a disturbing display of egoism. Where’s the egoism? It’s just politics. Either find some genuine cultural and political ground with farsighted policy where people come together for the good of society, or just splinter off demographics to vote in a purely self-interested manner. Those are the options. There is no third option. Is loan forgiveness necessarily a good policy without further reform? I mean, imo no, but it sure would help my bottom line if I was over the States. Are ever-increasing house prices for an older generation with little or no student debt who tend to be already be property owners a good idea? Also no They vote and defend that ground and status quo tooth and claw. Every single election cycle. Without fail. Housing prices dropping are presented as a negative in political discussions in my country at the same time people are struggling to even get on the ladder. If you’re not going to do anything about that, not even try because it annoys boomers and ‘loses votes’, inflation is driving up prices. If Roe and other social issues have gone by the wayside, and you’re not doing the thing that could benefit me personally, why would I vote for you? In a crude order of preference I’d prefer a more equal, less cutthroat society and I’d be happy to pay more taxes for that. A distant second is don’t do that, but at least give me something. Defending your interests is one thing. The student loan system in the US is also terrible. Still, saying "this president did not make it so I do not have to repay the money I owe for loans I consciously took so I will not vote for his party" is something else. Especially since we see where this leads - I mean you mentioned some of the problems.
"Party that could do one thing for me instead does nothing" seems like a perfectly valid reason to not vote for said party.
Were it not for the fascist hostage situation going on with voting in the US it'd be strange to do otherwise.
It's not that not forgiving student loans is the single reason Wombat is saying they'd not vote dem - it's the lack of positive reasons to vote dem. They certainly aren't doing anything major in the near future, so if they're not even going to bother throwing you a bone, why show up?
Of course, that question has an answer when you consider how batshit insane the Republican party is - but I can forgive someone getting tired of voting for things to get worse slower rather than faster.
|
On July 07 2022 15:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 15:21 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 06:10 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2022 05:34 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I doubt a majority do but that’s not really how elections work. Elections and especially midterms are about doing everything you can to get your maybe voters to become definitely voters. The number of democrats who will stay home if loans are forgiven are likely extremely small. Even if they don’t support it, they’re very unlikely to go vote republicans instead. On the other hand, asking students to resume payments suddenly takes a huge bite out of young voter turnout. It’s inconceivable I would show up to vote if Biden resumes loan repayments while billions are spent elsewhere. Both parties have shown “but the budget” isn’t a real concern and they will spend enormous money on things they deem worthwhile. If they decide young voters aren’t worth it, they’ve made their decision and they will absolutely lose What a disturbing display of egoism. Where’s the egoism? It’s just politics. Either find some genuine cultural and political ground with farsighted policy where people come together for the good of society, or just splinter off demographics to vote in a purely self-interested manner. Those are the options. There is no third option. Is loan forgiveness necessarily a good policy without further reform? I mean, imo no, but it sure would help my bottom line if I was over the States. Are ever-increasing house prices for an older generation with little or no student debt who tend to be already be property owners a good idea? Also no They vote and defend that ground and status quo tooth and claw. Every single election cycle. Without fail. Housing prices dropping are presented as a negative in political discussions in my country at the same time people are struggling to even get on the ladder. If you’re not going to do anything about that, not even try because it annoys boomers and ‘loses votes’, inflation is driving up prices. If Roe and other social issues have gone by the wayside, and you’re not doing the thing that could benefit me personally, why would I vote for you? In a crude order of preference I’d prefer a more equal, less cutthroat society and I’d be happy to pay more taxes for that. A distant second is don’t do that, but at least give me something. Defending your interests is one thing. The student loan system in the US is also terrible. Still, saying "this president did not make it so I do not have to repay the money I owe for loans I consciously took so I will not vote for his party" is something else. Especially since we see where this leads - I mean you mentioned some of the problems. "Party that could do one thing for me instead does nothing" seems like a perfectly valid reason to not vote for said party. Were it not for the fascist hostage situation going on with voting in the US it'd be strange to do otherwise. It's not that not forgiving student loans is the single reason Wombat is saying they'd not vote dem - it's the lack of positive reasons to vote dem. They certainly aren't doing anything major in the near future, so if they're not even going to bother throwing you a bone, why show up? Of course, that question has an answer when you consider how batshit insane the Republican party is - but I can forgive someone getting tired of voting for things to get worse slower rather than faster.
Sure, but unfortunately the Republicans are reality. So I really don't think this is a valid argument.
|
On July 07 2022 15:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2022 15:21 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 06:10 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2022 05:34 justanothertownie wrote:On July 07 2022 05:20 Mohdoo wrote:
I doubt a majority do but that’s not really how elections work. Elections and especially midterms are about doing everything you can to get your maybe voters to become definitely voters. The number of democrats who will stay home if loans are forgiven are likely extremely small. Even if they don’t support it, they’re very unlikely to go vote republicans instead. On the other hand, asking students to resume payments suddenly takes a huge bite out of young voter turnout. It’s inconceivable I would show up to vote if Biden resumes loan repayments while billions are spent elsewhere. Both parties have shown “but the budget” isn’t a real concern and they will spend enormous money on things they deem worthwhile. If they decide young voters aren’t worth it, they’ve made their decision and they will absolutely lose What a disturbing display of egoism. Where’s the egoism? It’s just politics. Either find some genuine cultural and political ground with farsighted policy where people come together for the good of society, or just splinter off demographics to vote in a purely self-interested manner. Those are the options. There is no third option. Is loan forgiveness necessarily a good policy without further reform? I mean, imo no, but it sure would help my bottom line if I was over the States. Are ever-increasing house prices for an older generation with little or no student debt who tend to be already be property owners a good idea? Also no They vote and defend that ground and status quo tooth and claw. Every single election cycle. Without fail. Housing prices dropping are presented as a negative in political discussions in my country at the same time people are struggling to even get on the ladder. If you’re not going to do anything about that, not even try because it annoys boomers and ‘loses votes’, inflation is driving up prices. If Roe and other social issues have gone by the wayside, and you’re not doing the thing that could benefit me personally, why would I vote for you? In a crude order of preference I’d prefer a more equal, less cutthroat society and I’d be happy to pay more taxes for that. A distant second is don’t do that, but at least give me something. Defending your interests is one thing. The student loan system in the US is also terrible. Still, saying "this president did not make it so I do not have to repay the money I owe for loans I consciously took so I will not vote for his party" is something else. Especially since we see where this leads - I mean you mentioned some of the problems. "Party that could do one thing for me instead does nothing" seems like a perfectly valid reason to not vote for said party. Were it not for the fascist hostage situation going on with voting in the US it'd be strange to do otherwise. It's not that not forgiving student loans is the single reason Wombat is saying they'd not vote dem - it's the lack of positive reasons to vote dem. They certainly aren't doing anything major in the near future, so if they're not even going to bother throwing you a bone, why show up? Of course, that question has an answer when you consider how batshit insane the Republican party is - but I can forgive someone getting tired of voting for things to get worse slower rather than faster.
The problem with voting as a solution is that the USA has so many veto points for any type of policy proposal. So while it's true that voting for the correct party helps in the creation of a unified state at least capable of positive change, any such project has to overcome a great number of hurdles. And that means that your vote almost always seems wasted, since after all you bothered to support one side and they didn't do anything, hence the temptation to just stay home next time.
Here is a list I was thinking of with regards to veto points:
Bills have to make it out of committees, pass the house, the senate and survive a presidential veto and filibuster. Then they need to be implemented by various agencies and the states, both of which can easily sabotage any such effort. Then it needs to survive court challenges even though the courts have become obviously partisan. Then there are the lobbying efforts of corporations, unions, stakeholders, the media, civil society and the public. In an extreme case you even have to worry about military coups or some sort of international opposition or intervention. Or the less extreme version of capital or labor strikes.
And once you have overcome all these veto points there are still factors such as resource constraints, inflation risks, implementation or engineering difficulties.
And even a party majority is not sufficient. For instance, the Democrats are not a traditional political party in the sense of, say, parties in the Netherlands. They don't have party discipline and members of congress ostensibly are representing their states even against the interests of a party. And they need to worry about re-election. That means that even if your party has a majority, if it's small enough, then any senator can become a potential veto point and weaken bills with special provisions and carve-outs.
And any change requires an expense of political capital, such that there is always an opportunity cost to pursuing any bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
