EPTI've had enough of all the hatred.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3722
| 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 | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9776 Posts
I've had enough of all the hatred. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45313 Posts
On July 09 2022 18:55 gobbledydook wrote: I think the problem is Buttigieg doesn't inspire. He just feels like the stereotypical telegenic politician. I think that can go a long way, if we're talking about viability as a candidate. Putting aside the fact that I don't perfectly align with Pete politically (he's not as progressive as I'd like, although obviously he's objectively more to the left than Trump or DeSantis, and a million times better for our country than either of them), I think Pete might not be the worst candidate to go up against Trump/DeSantis. He's not my ideal candidate, but I think he matches up decently well against Trump/DeSantis. The Democrats don't really have any shining stars at the moment that would auto-win against Trump/DeSantis, but I think Pete's optics are pretty good, especially on the debate stage: he's very composed, has a quiet charisma that can be disarming and reassuring to viewers, he's a veteran, and he comes off as bright and optimistic and a surely-welcome return to some sort of stability. Edit: With all the anti-LGBTQ+ bills going around, I think that might actually end up helping to garner support for Pete, in the same way that strong female candidates might end up gaining more traction from the outrage of overturning Roe v. Wade. People might be more willing to mobilize and vote, especially for them. On July 09 2022 23:43 JimmiC wrote: I was thinking calling the super old denocrats that are basically moderate republicans DINOs makes a hell of a lot more sense and is funnier than reps with Rinos. Think it will happen? Poll: Over under on a populist dem candidate calling old Dems "DINOs". Wont because its copying reps (4) After next presidential election. (2) Before presidential election. (2) 8 total votes Your vote: Over under on a populist dem candidate calling old Dems "DINOs". (Vote): After next presidential election. tbh I thought this was already a thing! | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28747 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26294 Posts
On July 10 2022 00:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think that can go a long way, if we're talking about viability as a candidate. Putting aside the fact that I don't perfectly align with Pete politically (he's not as progressive as I'd like, although obviously he's objectively more to the left than Trump or DeSantis, and a million times better for our country than either of them), I think Pete might not be the worst candidate to go up against Trump/DeSantis. He's not my ideal candidate, but I think he matches up decently well against Trump/DeSantis. The Democrats don't really have any shining stars at the moment that would auto-win against Trump/DeSantis, but I think Pete's optics are pretty good, especially on the debate stage: he's very composed, has a quiet charisma that can be disarming and reassuring to viewers, he's a veteran, and he comes off as bright and optimistic and a surely-welcome return to some sort of stability. Edit: With all the anti-LGBTQ+ bills going around, I think that might actually end up helping to garner support for Pete, in the same way that strong female candidates might end up gaining more traction from the outrage of overturning Roe v. Wade. People might be more willing to mobilize and vote, especially for them. tbh I thought this was already a thing! Do people want stability, and specifically what that entails though? As farv rather eloquently laid out a few pages back, the flaw/strength in Biden is his belief in bipartisanship and compromise. He’s got enough of a track record that, other criticisms aside I think it’s reasonable to ascertain that this is a genuine conviction. I think there was a genuine hope amongst many that the election of a more sensible bloke who’s more open to working across aisles would see the US snap back to something less antagonistic politically. I thought that was naïve at the time, it certain seems that in retrospect. Do you try and chase bridge building and consensus politics, at a time where that seems utterly unworkable, or do you zone into your base and their concerns and just try to work something with more narrow scope? I think that’s the real pertinent question for the party to consider, and various candidates under that banner. I could see Pete Buttigieg absolutely being electable, I’m not sure that necessarily makes him a good candidate. I don’t know enough about him and we’re a long way away from such things being in consideration anyway. What would a potential President Pete want to do, and how good is he at actually getting stuff done? Or any other potential candidate. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45313 Posts
On July 10 2022 00:32 Liquid`Drone wrote: Politics aside, Buttigieg is just what I want from my politicians. Well spoken, calm, knowledgeable, great in a debate. There are certainly others I prefer from a policy point of view (which is the most important) but I can't think of any american politicans I prefer from a 'appearance of competence' pov. Same here. On July 10 2022 00:43 WombaT wrote: Do people want stability, and specifically what that entails though? As farv rather eloquently laid out a few pages back, the flaw/strength in Biden is his belief in bipartisanship and compromise. He’s got enough of a track record that, other criticisms aside I think it’s reasonable to ascertain that this is a genuine conviction. I think there was a genuine hope amongst many that the election of a more sensible bloke who’s more open to working across aisles would see the US snap back to something less antagonistic politically. I thought that was naïve at the time, it certain seems that in retrospect. Do you try and chase bridge building and consensus politics, at a time where that seems utterly unworkable, or do you zone into your base and their concerns and just try to work something with more narrow scope? I think that’s the real pertinent question for the party to consider, and various candidates under that banner. I could see Pete Buttigieg absolutely being electable, I’m not sure that necessarily makes him a good candidate. I don’t know enough about him and we’re a long way away from such things being in consideration anyway. What would a potential President Pete want to do, and how good is he at actually getting stuff done? Or any other potential candidate. I think stability in terms of: is our president going to burn down our country; wreck our relationships with other countries; be a volatile, unpredictable leader; be a complete moron; bring us back to the stone age; undermine our democracy; spread an insane amount of misinformation; etc. I think someone like Buttigieg represents a return to slow-and-steady progress on a path that won't ruffle too many feathers (and, again, while I agree it's not progressive enough for my taste, I think that the optics of gradual progress makes people more comfortable with voting for him). We would definitely need to make a list of what we consider to be criteria for "a good candidate", as you put it; I was just thinking in terms of having a fighting chance against Trump/DeSantis on Election Day. I agree with you that Biden (and Obama) were sincerely of the (sadly, incorrect) opinion that bipartisanship and compromise could lead to fruitful discourse and governing. I don't know if Buttigieg has this same perspective, and I'm wondering if any popular, electable Democratic presidential nominee could keep the support of the moderate majority if they blatantly flipped off the Republicans and went full-on, Mitch McConnell -style, "we're gonna steamroll our party's agenda over everyone, by any (technically legal) means necessary, and god help you if you're someone who gets in our way", regardless of whether or not that's the best decision for our country. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35170 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
When one party is capable of taking so many steps back the party that takes one step forward tops isn’t making any genuine progress. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 10 2022 04:33 Gahlo wrote: Calling Democracts DINOS is dumb and should be avoided because a) clear "both sides, muh horseshoe theory" and b) everybody knows this is how Democrats act. Their behavior isn't a surprise. Their behavior should be discouraged though. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands22104 Posts
On July 10 2022 04:42 StasisField wrote: Calling them names isn't going to discourage them.Their behavior should be discouraged though. You want to change their behaviour? threaten their re-election. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23667 Posts
They are having to reconcile the harsh reality of the minimal electoral success with the legislative insufficiency of the "vote blue" mentality to even secure the ability to "vote blue" in the future, along with other basic human rights. It's much less a matter of "this person isn't progressive enough for my taste" and much more "this person isn't 'progressive' enough for me and/or people I care about to keep/get our basic human rights". Framing it as a matter of taste does everyone a disservice imo. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On July 10 2022 04:49 Gorsameth wrote: Calling them names isn't going to discourage them. You want to change their behaviour? threaten their re-election. Can’t, cause whoops Republicans. Republicans are a free excuse to be as useless as they want because they can always threaten us with Republicans. There’s no winning in American electoralism. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22104 Posts
On July 10 2022 04:57 Zambrah wrote: Threatening their re-election is what the primary is for.Can’t, cause whoops Republicans. Republicans are a free excuse to be as useless as they want because they can always threaten us with Republicans. There’s no winning in American electoralism. After that it is indeed a problem of choosing between the Democrats who are largely useless and literal fascists. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11755 Posts
On July 10 2022 05:01 Gorsameth wrote: Threatening their re-election is what the primary is for. After that it is indeed a problem of choosing between the Democrats who are largely useless and literal fascists. Which should be a case study as to why a two-party FPTP system sucks. In a multi party system, if party A is useless and party B are fascists, i vote for party C. In the US, i have to vote for party A, because party C doesn't exist or is irrelevant. But of course, you can't change that either, because to change that, you need to first win in the two-party FPTP system. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On July 10 2022 04:49 Gorsameth wrote: Calling them names isn't going to discourage them. You want to change their behaviour? threaten their re-election. I've found we can bully politicians AND threaten their re-election at the same time. In fact, I'd say publicly criticizing them for being awful helps threaten their re-election because it helps turn public opinion against them. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
There are so many barriers that keep Democrats conservative and shitty from their unbelievably deep pockets, to party connections, to being able to go “if this person wins the primary then the Republican might win so go with the conservative dirt bag also we’re gonna funnel them funds so they can heartily outspend their opponent so really it’s just the pragmatic choice guys!” At the end of the day what Democrats need in this country to do anything are a near impossible conflux of effective leadership, super majority of progressives, and to get these we need luck and competency from Democrats to promote effective leaders (lol that’s definitely not happening) as well as not just winning the popular vote which Democrats already regularly do, but acquire like 70+ Senate Seats and let’s be real, the American electoral system isn’t going to let that happen, especially when both parties, Republicans and Democrats, want to keep these things from happening. https://news.yahoo.com/brett-kavanaugh-forced-dc-restaurant-122834181.html This is the good shit, Kavanaugh harassed out of a restaurant by protestors, do this constantly and make all of their scumbag lives a living misery every time they leave their house. This is the kind of thing I’d prefer as a primary mode of action as opposed to praying your vote does anything once every few years and being powerless when it turns out no your vote doesn’t mean anything. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23667 Posts
On July 10 2022 05:01 Gorsameth wrote: Threatening their re-election is what the primary is for. + Show Spoiler + After that it is indeed a problem of choosing between the Democrats who are largely useless and literal fascists. They use the same scheme in primaries? Biden and Clinton were both products of how the "but Republicans" part gets Democrats to intentionally vote against their preferences in primaries in order to appease Republicans. Democrats have essentially convinced themselves that voting against their preferences is the most hopeful way to get them. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22104 Posts
On July 10 2022 05:11 Zambrah wrote: correct, which is why if your a progressive your better off escaping America then trying to change it.Primaries are crap for numerous reasons too, including the many, many, many ways the Democrats have to push their conservative favorites. There are so many barriers that keep Democrats conservative and shitty from their unbelievably deep pockets, to party connections, to being able to go “if this person wins the primary then the Republican might win so go with the conservative dirt bag also we’re gonna funnel them funds so they can heartily outspend their opponent so really it’s just the pragmatic choice guys!” At the end of the day what Democrats need in this country to do anything are a near impossible conflux of effective leadership, super majority of progressives, and to get these we need luck and competency from Democrats to promote effective leaders (lol that’s definitely not happening) as well as not just winning the popular vote which Democrats already regularly do, but acquire like 70+ Senate Seats and let’s be real, the American electoral system isn’t going to let that happen, especially when both parties, Republicans and Democrats, want to keep these things from happening. But calling them DINO's really isn't going to do anything. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On July 10 2022 05:20 Gorsameth wrote: correct, which is why if your a progressive your better off escaping America then trying to change it. But calling them DINO's really isn't going to do anything. I agree, no point to calling then DINOs. Call them much worse things outside of their homes and when they go out to eat or walk to their cars or walk between buildings at work, that’s got a real point. Or at least the threat of a point, the point of a potential pitchfork. | ||
| ||
