|
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 |
|
|
United States43776 Posts
On November 09 2022 12:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:38 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:59 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:55 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:51 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:49 plasmidghost wrote:
Looks like Walker wins outright in Georgia So much for the "party of christian values" lmao they show their true colors more and more every day. consider Warnock's... personal issues and lefty voting record, it's totally understandable how people could still vote for Walker. Warnock is awful. Christian values far better align with the progressive left. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something. Walker is the epitome of everything bad in politics and what people claim to hate about politicians but hey he has a fancy R next to his name and we have to own the libs amirite? Also Whitmer bad? Ok bud. See, you shifted instantly to "progressive left" and scooted past Warnock's own issues. and most evangelicials don't view abortion till birth as a particularly moral position, so when compared to Walker who promises to vote against that.. yeah, not hard. as for Whitmer, I meant a shame she will prob survive. Dixon is the less than stellar candidate. Vote against it, but pay for women carrying his child to get it, the true republican way apparently out in the open now. better than trying to force me to pay for it.
I don’t think anyone was advocating for that.
|
On November 09 2022 12:40 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:19 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 12:07 Introvert wrote:
niether of you are correct, but as I love election day, i'm going to just keep talking about that.
suffice to say, it's easy, if you try for a half a second, to understand why a pro-lifer would support Walker over Warnock. It really isn't hard. I am well aware as to the why. What I am saying is that their underlying ideas that supports those beliefs are garbage. I've already explained what two ideas those are (see reply to Kwark). You're still at least one to two levels too close. Closer to issue level than first principle driving reasons. In fairness, they are not easy questions. I think a fair number of voters aren't engaging ideas at deeper levels. Propaganda and Rhetoric do their job to condense things into easy to digest ideas that also can obscure the true intent behind them. Its a form of mental out sourcing. So while you can make that argument for the movers and shakers who are constructing campaigns I don't believe the average voter really grapples as to the why behind most issues.
Agree.
They are mostly following personal + group instincts, with a large dash of "tribal" style following.
Which, in fairness, is one of the reasons I don't think a full participation democracy is all that special, and why I tend to find it odd that we encourage "everybody vote" so much.
It seems to me much better aligned and incentivized if voting is restricted to ones domains of competencies.
I usually vote only on a few specific issues I feel particularly confident and knowledgeable on, and have put dozens or hundreds of hours of research into, and as someone who generally is pretty informed compared to the average voter, tend to find that unsettling. I also vote only on issues in which I have a direct stake (e.g. I would clearly pay consequences if I made the wrong choice).
Beyond that, democratic process as designed in most of the west tend to be very Molochian in behavior. In theory it’s optimizing for voter happiness which correlates with good policymaking. But as soon as there’s the slightest disconnect between good policymaking and electability, good policymaking has to get thrown under the bus (because we presently lack rule of law, and their are no penalties for reciprocity).
Also seems democracy has issues when you have very diverse populations. Democratic processes seem pretty good when you're voting on say...whether to move the clocks forward an hour or not. It seems less good when you're voting between diametrically opposed values.
But anyways....I kinda digress. Just killing time as we wait for results to heat up.
|
|
|
On November 09 2022 12:47 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 12:38 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:59 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:55 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:51 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:49 plasmidghost wrote:
Looks like Walker wins outright in Georgia So much for the "party of christian values" lmao they show their true colors more and more every day. consider Warnock's... personal issues and lefty voting record, it's totally understandable how people could still vote for Walker. Warnock is awful. Christian values far better align with the progressive left. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something. Walker is the epitome of everything bad in politics and what people claim to hate about politicians but hey he has a fancy R next to his name and we have to own the libs amirite? Also Whitmer bad? Ok bud. See, you shifted instantly to "progressive left" and scooted past Warnock's own issues. and most evangelicials don't view abortion till birth as a particularly moral position, so when compared to Walker who promises to vote against that.. yeah, not hard. as for Whitmer, I meant a shame she will prob survive. Dixon is the less than stellar candidate. Vote against it, but pay for women carrying his child to get it, the true republican way apparently out in the open now. better than trying to force me to pay for it. Who do you think pays for all the health concerns and orphaned children? Math is not on your side here, making it illegal does not make it stop happening.
you misread my underlying motivation if you think the relative cost is what concerns me. how you can miss that, I'm not sure.
but yes, I am talking about things like the Hyde amendment.
|
On November 09 2022 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:19 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 12:07 Introvert wrote:
niether of you are correct, but as I love election day, i'm going to just keep talking about that.
suffice to say, it's easy, if you try for a half a second, to understand why a pro-lifer would support Walker over Warnock. It really isn't hard. I am well aware as to the why. What I am saying is that their underlying ideas that supports those beliefs are garbage. I've already explained what two ideas those are (see reply to Kwark). You're still at least one to two levels too close. Closer to issue level than first principle driving reasons. In fairness, they are not easy questions. They aren't wrong about their preferred society being threatened by both serious socialist theory/praxis and to a lesser degree the bastardized social democrat versions. The problem for me is the society they want. The division between Democrats and Republicans as I see it is about how best to mitigate the threat to racial capitalism posed by those exploited by it. Democrats lean on bread and circus/inclusion while Republicans lean on fear and bigotry. Depending on how you measure, either could be right about how to most effectively perpetuate a US dominated hegemonic racial capitalist society. Ultimately, I believe both are dead ends in all too literal terms though.
Can I get a definition of racial capitalism so I know what you're seeing?
Obviously, I've got some guesses but I don't want to respond with something that I think it what you mean, but totally misconstrue your intended meaning. My guess is I'll agree with the observations of the issue, but probably not the causes.
I suspect that your characterization of D/R responses is decent to a first approximation, but I'll probably go a very different direction about how to handle it.
And probably a very important discussion of how we measure it (as that again goes back to the genetics question)
|
Yeah, lots of races that are still dead heats, with plenty seeming to go in both directions. Often someone will say a blue wave us coming, virtually every single time a conservative poster will predict a red wave, and yet neither is happening.
I feel like a "wave" of an election result means something very specific, and abnormal, but people chime in with it every time. It's gonna be another mixed bag, as they often are.
|
Ohio is projected to elect Vance as their next senator. Though OH-13 flips from R to D in a race that was favoured Republican.
|
United States43776 Posts
On November 09 2022 13:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:47 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 12:38 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:59 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:55 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:51 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:49 plasmidghost wrote:
Looks like Walker wins outright in Georgia So much for the "party of christian values" lmao they show their true colors more and more every day. consider Warnock's... personal issues and lefty voting record, it's totally understandable how people could still vote for Walker. Warnock is awful. Christian values far better align with the progressive left. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something. Walker is the epitome of everything bad in politics and what people claim to hate about politicians but hey he has a fancy R next to his name and we have to own the libs amirite? Also Whitmer bad? Ok bud. See, you shifted instantly to "progressive left" and scooted past Warnock's own issues. and most evangelicials don't view abortion till birth as a particularly moral position, so when compared to Walker who promises to vote against that.. yeah, not hard. as for Whitmer, I meant a shame she will prob survive. Dixon is the less than stellar candidate. Vote against it, but pay for women carrying his child to get it, the true republican way apparently out in the open now. better than trying to force me to pay for it. Who do you think pays for all the health concerns and orphaned children? Math is not on your side here, making it illegal does not make it stop happening. you misread my underlying motivation if you think the relative cost is what concerns me. how you can miss that, I'm not sure. but yes, I am talking about things like the Hyde amendment.
The Hyde Amendment that says that you weren’t going to be forced to pay for it? It’s really not clear what you mean. You’re saying that it’s better that Walker pays for his mistresses to get abortions than charges you for abortions because taxpayer funds already can’t be used to fund abortion services at planned parenthood? Can you phrase that again but without channeling Walker?
|
On November 09 2022 13:05 NewSunshine wrote:
Yeah, lots of races that are still dead heats, with plenty seeming to go in both directions. Often someone will say a blue wave us coming, virtually every single time a conservative poster will predict a red wave, and yet neither is happening.
I feel like a "wave" of an election result means something very specific, and abnormal, but people chime in with it every time. It's gonna be another mixed bag, as they often are.
Agree, to me a wave would be like a massive, landslide victory. Like...getting 60, maybe even 70% of the vote in an area that is normally neutral. A sign that the vast majority of the polity is against you.
|
|
|
I hope this causes people to dump Trump and his candidates, this worried me through the primaries and they are coming to fruition. they'll still take the house, and hopefully the senate, but the contrast with Florida is clear. time to move on.
at least I wasn't one of those predicting some red bulldozer. polarization is real.
|
On November 09 2022 13:09 plasmidghost wrote:
Given the economic situation, lack of enthusiasm from the Dems, and midterm trends, I don't see at the moment how this night is anything but a disaster for the GOP. They should've expected a 2010 rout but instead barely anything's happened
they should, under no circumstances, have expected 2010. they had too many seats already, and house seats are drawn to hold seats even more now than before.
that being said, still disappointing, but with the misplaced popularity of Roe, I've been wary that it wouldn't be wavy.
|
On November 09 2022 13:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 13:03 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 12:47 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:42 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 12:38 JimmiC wrote:On November 09 2022 12:01 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:59 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:55 Introvert wrote:On November 09 2022 11:51 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 11:49 plasmidghost wrote:
Looks like Walker wins outright in Georgia So much for the "party of christian values" lmao they show their true colors more and more every day. consider Warnock's... personal issues and lefty voting record, it's totally understandable how people could still vote for Walker. Warnock is awful. Christian values far better align with the progressive left. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling you something. Walker is the epitome of everything bad in politics and what people claim to hate about politicians but hey he has a fancy R next to his name and we have to own the libs amirite? Also Whitmer bad? Ok bud. See, you shifted instantly to "progressive left" and scooted past Warnock's own issues. and most evangelicials don't view abortion till birth as a particularly moral position, so when compared to Walker who promises to vote against that.. yeah, not hard. as for Whitmer, I meant a shame she will prob survive. Dixon is the less than stellar candidate. Vote against it, but pay for women carrying his child to get it, the true republican way apparently out in the open now. better than trying to force me to pay for it. Who do you think pays for all the health concerns and orphaned children? Math is not on your side here, making it illegal does not make it stop happening. you misread my underlying motivation if you think the relative cost is what concerns me. how you can miss that, I'm not sure. but yes, I am talking about things like the Hyde amendment. The Hyde Amendment that says that you weren’t going to be forced to pay for it? It’s really not clear what you mean. You’re saying that it’s better that Walker pays for his mistresses to get abortions than charges you for abortions because taxpayer funds already can’t be used to fund abortion services at planned parenthood? Can you phrase that again but without channeling Walker?
I'm saying Warnock would vote for federal funding of abortions, directly or indirectly, and Walker won't.
|
Lauren Boebert is currently losing by a little over 9,000 votes and it feels so good. There's still plenty of votes left to make up the difference but god damn is it nice to see so many people in her district reject her and her shitty politics.
|
On November 09 2022 13:03 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2022 12:19 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 12:07 Introvert wrote:
niether of you are correct, but as I love election day, i'm going to just keep talking about that.
suffice to say, it's easy, if you try for a half a second, to understand why a pro-lifer would support Walker over Warnock. It really isn't hard. I am well aware as to the why. What I am saying is that their underlying ideas that supports those beliefs are garbage. I've already explained what two ideas those are (see reply to Kwark). You're still at least one to two levels too close. Closer to issue level than first principle driving reasons. In fairness, they are not easy questions. They aren't wrong about their preferred society being threatened by both serious socialist theory/praxis and to a lesser degree the bastardized social democrat versions. The problem for me is the society they want. The division between Democrats and Republicans as I see it is about how best to mitigate the threat to racial capitalism posed by those exploited by it. Democrats lean on bread and circus/inclusion while Republicans lean on fear and bigotry. Depending on how you measure, either could be right about how to most effectively perpetuate a US dominated hegemonic racial capitalist society. Ultimately, I believe both are dead ends in all too literal terms though. Can I get a definition of racial capitalism so I know what you're seeing? Obviously, I've got some guesses but I don't want to respond with something that I think it what you mean, but totally misconstrue your intended meaning. My guess is I'll agree with the observations of the issue, but probably not the causes. I suspect that your characterization of D/R responses is decent to a first approximation, but I'll probably go a very different direction about how to handle it. And probably a very important discussion of how we measure it (as that again goes back to the genetics question)
My understanding is rooted in Cedric Robinson's articulation in Black Marxism. The wiki is an okay place to start and includes this brief summation capitalism "can only accumulate by producing and moving through relations of severe inequality among human groups", and therefore, for capitalism to survive, it must exploit and prey upon the "unequal differentiation of human value."
Also agree with the way Dr. Charisse Burden-Stelly puts it : modern U.S. racial capitalism [is], "a racially hierarchical political economy constituting war and militarism, imperialist accumulation, expropriation by domination, and labor superexploitation."
|
OH-1 flips to the Democrats. This was a seat 538 predicted would stay Republican 84-16. Wouldn't be surprised if this was due to Tim Ryan dragging some Democrats across the board, even if he did lose.
|
On November 09 2022 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 13:03 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2022 12:19 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 12:07 Introvert wrote:
niether of you are correct, but as I love election day, i'm going to just keep talking about that.
suffice to say, it's easy, if you try for a half a second, to understand why a pro-lifer would support Walker over Warnock. It really isn't hard. I am well aware as to the why. What I am saying is that their underlying ideas that supports those beliefs are garbage. I've already explained what two ideas those are (see reply to Kwark). You're still at least one to two levels too close. Closer to issue level than first principle driving reasons. In fairness, they are not easy questions. They aren't wrong about their preferred society being threatened by both serious socialist theory/praxis and to a lesser degree the bastardized social democrat versions. The problem for me is the society they want. The division between Democrats and Republicans as I see it is about how best to mitigate the threat to racial capitalism posed by those exploited by it. Democrats lean on bread and circus/inclusion while Republicans lean on fear and bigotry. Depending on how you measure, either could be right about how to most effectively perpetuate a US dominated hegemonic racial capitalist society. Ultimately, I believe both are dead ends in all too literal terms though. Can I get a definition of racial capitalism so I know what you're seeing? Obviously, I've got some guesses but I don't want to respond with something that I think it what you mean, but totally misconstrue your intended meaning. My guess is I'll agree with the observations of the issue, but probably not the causes. I suspect that your characterization of D/R responses is decent to a first approximation, but I'll probably go a very different direction about how to handle it. And probably a very important discussion of how we measure it (as that again goes back to the genetics question) My understanding is rooted in Cedric Robinson's articulation in Black Marxism. The wiki is an okay place to start and includes this brief summation Show nested quote +capitalism "can only accumulate by producing and moving through relations of severe inequality among human groups", and therefore, for capitalism to survive, it must exploit and prey upon the "unequal differentiation of human value." Also agree with the way Dr. Charisse Burden-Stelly puts it : Show nested quote + modern U.S. racial capitalism [is], "a racially hierarchical political economy constituting war and militarism, imperialist accumulation, expropriation by domination, and labor superexploitation."
Mmm, so looking at your sig + articles, what differentiates what you would like to see from capitalism then (since you would, presumably, advocate for markets)?
Presumably, your objection is going to be the (legitmate afaict), objection to exploitation potential that occurs when incentives are not aligned.
I guess you see it explicitly/most significantly along racial lines, but how do you distinguish exploitation from the differences in the genetic distribution of cognition and personality between races and between sexes?
|
|
|
On November 09 2022 13:41 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2022 13:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2022 13:03 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 09 2022 12:19 L_Master wrote:On November 09 2022 12:16 Slaughter wrote:On November 09 2022 12:07 Introvert wrote:
niether of you are correct, but as I love election day, i'm going to just keep talking about that.
suffice to say, it's easy, if you try for a half a second, to understand why a pro-lifer would support Walker over Warnock. It really isn't hard. I am well aware as to the why. What I am saying is that their underlying ideas that supports those beliefs are garbage. I've already explained what two ideas those are (see reply to Kwark). You're still at least one to two levels too close. Closer to issue level than first principle driving reasons. In fairness, they are not easy questions. They aren't wrong about their preferred society being threatened by both serious socialist theory/praxis and to a lesser degree the bastardized social democrat versions. The problem for me is the society they want. The division between Democrats and Republicans as I see it is about how best to mitigate the threat to racial capitalism posed by those exploited by it. Democrats lean on bread and circus/inclusion while Republicans lean on fear and bigotry. Depending on how you measure, either could be right about how to most effectively perpetuate a US dominated hegemonic racial capitalist society. Ultimately, I believe both are dead ends in all too literal terms though. Can I get a definition of racial capitalism so I know what you're seeing? Obviously, I've got some guesses but I don't want to respond with something that I think it what you mean, but totally misconstrue your intended meaning. My guess is I'll agree with the observations of the issue, but probably not the causes. I suspect that your characterization of D/R responses is decent to a first approximation, but I'll probably go a very different direction about how to handle it. And probably a very important discussion of how we measure it (as that again goes back to the genetics question) My understanding is rooted in Cedric Robinson's articulation in Black Marxism. The wiki is an okay place to start and includes this brief summation capitalism "can only accumulate by producing and moving through relations of severe inequality among human groups", and therefore, for capitalism to survive, it must exploit and prey upon the "unequal differentiation of human value." Also agree with the way Dr. Charisse Burden-Stelly puts it : modern U.S. racial capitalism [is], "a racially hierarchical political economy constituting war and militarism, imperialist accumulation, expropriation by domination, and labor superexploitation." Mmm, so looking at your sig + articles, what differentiates what you would like to see from capitalism then (since you would, presumably, advocate for markets)? Presumably, your objection is going to be the (legitmate afaict), objection to exploitation potential that occurs when incentives are not aligned. I guess you see it explicitly/most significantly along racial lines, but how do you distinguish exploitation from the differences in the genetic distribution of cognition and personality between races and between sexes? Basically for capitalism to survive, it must exploit and prey upon the "unequal differentiation of human value. Socialism and the markets associated with it do not.
Just as a heads up, I'm highly skeptical of your sociological inferences, they read like a modernized phrenology to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
