US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3734
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 | ||
gobbledydook
Australia2593 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21377 Posts
On July 18 2022 18:23 gobbledydook wrote: Doesn't matter if a senator is voting or scratching his ass. He still gets paid the same...It's a catch 22, because if you hold show votes all day then you get criticized for wasting the taxpayer's money on grandstanding. | ||
gobbledydook
Australia2593 Posts
On July 18 2022 18:25 Gorsameth wrote: Doesn't matter if a senator is voting or scratching his ass. He still gets paid the same... You're of course logically correct, but you could say the same for the guy who shows up to work and just surfs the net all day and does nothing useful. Both are wastes of time and money and you could argue they deserve to be fired. | ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21377 Posts
On July 18 2022 18:29 gobbledydook wrote: And when given the option Americans overwhelmingly vote to not fire them. Which goes back to where the problem lies, an 80% disapproval rate yet an 85+% re-election rate.You're of course logically correct, but you could say the same for the guy who shows up to work and just surfs the net all day and does nothing useful. Both are wastes of time and money and you could argue they deserve to be fired. Everyone is garbage, except my guy. | ||
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On July 18 2022 15:54 Djabanete wrote: Schumer seems to think it would be bad optics to say, “Okay, we’re going to vote once a week on simple, basic economic issues, starting with extending the Expanded Child Tax Credit indefinitely. In the coming weeks we’ll vote to peg the federal minimum wage to inflation / make capital gains regular income / make your rent tax deductible / etc. We’ll probably lose most of these votes, but at least you’ll all see what you’re missing by having all these Republicans in the Senate.” IMO they could easily keep up that pace from now until the midterms, and it would be great optics, but what do I know. Is Schumer not wanting to vote on those things or would the Republicans obstruct all of those votes with the filibuster and they'd never get voted on? Even if Schumer wanted to do what you're saying he couldn't force votes on anything. | ||
Zambrah
United States7124 Posts
If Democrats ousted Manchin and won every senate election in 2022 they wouldn't have 70 seats. Even an optimistic Democrat gain is something like 54. This is the strawmen that Jimmy is pointing out. The fucking point is that optimistic gains are made even more optimistic by Joe Manchin’s bull shit. Democrats can’t get the gains people keep asserting they absolutely need because Joe Manchin exists to deflate any enthusiasm Democrats might be able to generate by like, doing their fucking jobs. People can’t even begin to consider that maybe, just maybe, Democrats looking so weak and worthless is bad for their electoral prospects and that maybe, just maybe, trying to to bolster their future prospects in half a dozen or more states in the future might be worth losing that one senate seat that won’t even be blue in a decade, regardless of how much power gets ceded to Manchin? When Republicans take the Senate and the House there will be no excuses to keep Manchin, toss his bitch ass aside and fight for states that can actually be meaningfully blue without having to do aggressive work (because Democrats at their best can only ever do mediocre work anyways) Clinging to Manchins extremely temporary seat is shit long term strategy, not that the US has much of a long term given how Republicans are, so you know what sure keep him on board, stick with the Democrat orthodoxy and enjoy the hot water as the pot boils. Is Schumer not wanting to vote on those things or would the Republicans obstruct all of those votes with the filibuster and they'd never get voted on? Even if Schumer wanted to do what you're saying he couldn't force votes on anything. “Republicans block vote on [Good Thing] over and over” is easier messaging than “Democrats can’t get their own party on board for [Good Thing] so they gave up,” doubly so when the president is fuckin Joe “Bipartisan Deal Maker” Biden. These are enormous failures of optics. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 18 2022 16:13 Velr wrote: Or it would just paint the democrats as weak losers that can't get anything done. I feel like you understimate how much people like "winning". On July 18 2022 18:07 Silvanel wrote: Not as much as they despise "not even trying". There’s some kind of ‘happy’ medium between making continual stands of ineffective principle, and not trying at all. And there’s a huge divergence in how much people attention to politics on the daily, or how much they know about various structures etc. Or what their value systems are. It would be a tad arrogant of me to say what a shift in tack would actually look like across such a varied populace, I can only speak personally in finding the lack of ambition profoundly dispiriting | ||
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
For the Right, keeping people disaffected and recalcitrant towards government is the whole point. For Democrats, it's the product of a process where people could be reached, but the people who would reach them see that the Democrats just aren't delivering anything to write home about. Why go to someone's door to try to sell them a product that you're not even sure works properly? So I think there is a persistent issue the Democrats face, entirely of their own making, where their turnout is constantly depressed by some degree. Nearly every instance in my memory where a more active and progressive Democrat actually fights to get things done drives out support and turnout like fucking nobody's business, it's why Fetterman is gonna trash Oz for the Senate. But still they hang in there with their bullshit metrics like "electability", where they sabotage any chances of winning because they're afraid of losing. They're afraid of taking any risks or leaving any impression. They just don't get it yet. | ||
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 19 2022 01:16 NewSunshine wrote: I want to emphasize this point. If I were to attempt to go door to door canvassing for a Democratic party candidate for the Senate, I have no idea what positive ideas I could use to persuade people. There are no accomplishments - which is definitely part of the Republican strategy - but there are also no attempts at accomplishments. I can't even point to votes for bills containing things that would be popular, because Manchin or Sinema says "no" and they don't even bother with a cloture vote. All I can bring up to persuade people is how terrible the Republicans are, which doesn't motivate people as well unless you can make it personal somehow.I think it certainly doesn't help move the needle for folks to get deeply involved in politics, when the prospect for Democratic voters is basically you get a better understanding of just how little they're accomplishing, and that's about it. Contrast that with the Right-wing crowd, their whole schtick has been that everything they do is keeping it non-political. They've literally convinced their voters that issues of healthcare and identity are "just politics", and that "politics" is some dirty word that denotes a whole host of things that are basically just frivolous, as opposed to the reality of many people navigating their very real lives together. For the Right, keeping people disaffected and recalcitrant towards government is the whole point. For Democrats, it's the product of a process where people could be reached, but the people who would reach them see that the Democrats just aren't delivering anything to write home about. Why go to someone's door to try to sell them a product that you're not even sure works properly? So I think there is a persistent issue the Democrats face, entirely of their own making, where their turnout is constantly depressed by some degree. Nearly every instance in my memory where a more active and progressive Democrat actually fights to get things done drives out support and turnout like fucking nobody's business, it's why Fetterman is gonna trash Oz for the Senate. But still they hang in there with their bullshit metrics like "electability", where they sabotage any chances of winning because they're afraid of losing. They're afraid of taking any risks or leaving any impression. They just don't get it yet. | ||
mounteast0
59 Posts
I have hard time believing that the whole administration is completely idiotic / incompetent in pushing anything through. After all, those people are all "seasoned" / long time / experienced participant in the field, they don't rise to the top because they are totally incompetent. It is not like some kind of rookie that somehow overthrow the government but have no idea how governing works. The conspiracy theorist in me think that Biden is not really want to push for "progressive" agenda, and he bank on the fact that voters on the left have no choice other than voting for Dem, even if the Dem don't do anything for them, "because" otherwise the life of those minority will be even shitter under Rep rule. May be this is the rationale behind leaning toward "centre" / "moderate"? From my experience of observing my local election (not US election if anyone actually interested), the above strategy works for a while, after that, there will be enough voters get fed up that they will turn away, not voting or voting anyone else but them. I don't know enough of the US politics to determine if the same would happen, or if that would significantly affect the chance of Dem in election. Predicting if not trying is a better strategy than not winning is a hard one. Since we don't have parallel universe / controlled experiment, the definite answer may not be known / concluded.... | ||
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 19 2022 12:21 mounteast0 wrote: I think it might "worth considering" that what actually Biden administration want, not just what he said, may be they just want to be seen as doing something while not really interested in doing anything, especially regarding "progressive" issues. I have hard time believing that the whole administration is completely idiotic / incompetent in pushing anything through. After all, those people are all "seasoned" / long time / experienced participant in the field, they don't rise to the top because they are totally incompetent. It is not like some kind of rookie that somehow overthrow the government but have no idea how governing works. The conspiracy theorist in me think that Biden is not really want to push for "progressive" agenda, and he bank on the fact that voters on the left have no choice other than voting for Dem, even if the Dem don't do anything for them, "because" otherwise the life of those minority will be even shitter under Rep rule. May be this is the rationale behind leaning toward "centre" / "moderate"? From my experience of observing my local election (not US election if anyone actually interested), the above strategy works for a while, after that, there will be enough voters get fed up that they will turn away, not voting or voting anyone else but them. I don't know enough of the US politics to determine if the same would happen, or if that would significantly affect the chance of Dem in election. Predicting if not trying is a better strategy than not winning is a hard one. Since we don't have parallel universe / controlled experiment, the definite answer may not be known / concluded.... The line of thinking I find most compelling is that the current Democratic party leadership, including most of its elected officials, lived through Reagan and the fundamental change in American politics from "the government exists to help the weak," to "the government is a problem getting in the way of the strong," that led to Clinton cutting welfare programs and calling it a win. As a result they're traumatized, afraid of getting destroyed like that again and incapable of believing that progressive action will win instead of leading to another Reagan. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland23912 Posts
On July 19 2022 12:36 Kyadytim wrote: The line of thinking I find most compelling is that the current Democratic party leadership, including most of its elected officials, lived through Reagan and the fundamental change in American politics from "the government exists to help the weak," to "the government is a problem getting in the way of the strong," that led to Clinton cutting welfare programs and calling it a win. As a result they're traumatized, afraid of getting destroyed like that again and incapable of believing that progressive action will win instead of leading to another Reagan. I could see that dwelling in the psyche to degrees, for sure. I think part of the issue is, they were also forged in temperament in a time where average Americans were much more closely aligned around various unifying pillars, be they institutions, or in ideology. Of course, let’s not exaggerate there have been huge conflicts politically going back, the country wasn’t all linking hands and singing songs together. If you come from a time where the centre of the country is relatively reasonable, open to the odd compromise, generally trusts mainstream news, well that keeps the door open to compromise and bipartisanship. That’s patently not the case, but some seem to be approaching politics as if it is. Being able and willing to make deals is baked into Biden’s core, and indeed would be a strength if the political ground was primed for it. It’s like he and the Dems are bringing out their best WoL builds and wondering why they’re not working in LoTV. They may have been excellent for their time, but anyone more versed in the current game knows exactly why they’re not working Speaking of people being unreasonable, here’s an interesting snapshot of perception on the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon through time. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/25/how-the-watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/ As more information came to light, those thinking he should face censure and general disapproval climbed. Which is basically the opposite of the trend we’re seeing with the Jan 6th hearings. People’s response to the pandemic would also indicate the growth of these schisms. In terms of viable responses, if I could wave a magic wand and rebuild trust in mainstream centralist media that would be great. But I’ve no idea how one would do that, so I don’t blame the Dems for not knowing. I think that realistically leaves pushing for the rough status quo but fighting considerably dirtier, or go ambitious and aspirational and hope to punch through and make gains. | ||
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 19 2022 20:21 WombaT wrote: I think fighting considerably dirtier is also necessary for the second option. "They go low, we go high" ends up with Merrick Garland as attorney general instead of on the Supreme Court. Losing honorably is still losing.I could see that dwelling in the psyche to degrees, for sure. I think part of the issue is, they were also forged in temperament in a time where average Americans were much more closely aligned around various unifying pillars, be they institutions, or in ideology. Of course, let’s not exaggerate there have been huge conflicts politically going back, the country wasn’t all linking hands and singing songs together. If you come from a time where the centre of the country is relatively reasonable, open to the odd compromise, generally trusts mainstream news, well that keeps the door open to compromise and bipartisanship. That’s patently not the case, but some seem to be approaching politics as if it is. Being able and willing to make deals is baked into Biden’s core, and indeed would be a strength if the political ground was primed for it. It’s like he and the Dems are bringing out their best WoL builds and wondering why they’re not working in LoTV. They may have been excellent for their time, but anyone more versed in the current game knows exactly why they’re not working Speaking of people being unreasonable, here’s an interesting snapshot of perception on the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon through time. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/25/how-the-watergate-crisis-eroded-public-support-for-richard-nixon/ As more information came to light, those thinking he should face censure and general disapproval climbed. Which is basically the opposite of the trend we’re seeing with the Jan 6th hearings. People’s response to the pandemic would also indicate the growth of these schisms. In terms of viable responses, if I could wave a magic wand and rebuild trust in mainstream centralist media that would be great. But I’ve no idea how one would do that, so I don’t blame the Dems for not knowing. I think that realistically leaves pushing for the rough status quo but fighting considerably dirtier, or go ambitious and aspirational and hope to punch through and make gains. | ||
Simberto
Germany11340 Posts
On July 19 2022 23:27 Kyadytim wrote: I think fighting considerably dirtier is also necessary for the second option. "They go low, we go high" ends up with Merrick Garland as attorney general instead of on the Supreme Court. Losing honorably is still losing. Yeah, "they go low, we go high" only works with a population which values basic decency. If most of the population just says "lol suckers", then it doesn't work. | ||
Gahlo
United States35093 Posts
| ||
Mohdoo
United States15401 Posts
On July 19 2022 23:27 Kyadytim wrote: I think fighting considerably dirtier is also necessary for the second option. "They go low, we go high" ends up with Merrick Garland as attorney general instead of on the Supreme Court. Losing honorably is still losing. 100% agreed. Biden's outdated perspective on political discourse is hurting the country. Farvacola did a good job at explaining that in this thread previously. | ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On July 20 2022 05:44 JimmiC wrote: What is the logic in being against Finland and Sweden joining NATO? Its 18 Reps, so I instantly assume its hur dur everyone says this is good so itd bad hurdur QAnon. Every additional member of the alliance represents additional obligations and entanglement. Ukraine joining massively increases the risk of a NATO Russia war, for example. | ||
| ||