EPTWhatever it may be, it's ineffective and year after year I keep hearing: vote Democrat, it's the right thing to do, while the USA keeps sliding further into 'abortion is now illegal from conception onwards' territory and LGBTQ rights being challenged again. Strange.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4056
| 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 | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
Whatever it may be, it's ineffective and year after year I keep hearing: vote Democrat, it's the right thing to do, while the USA keeps sliding further into 'abortion is now illegal from conception onwards' territory and LGBTQ rights being challenged again. Strange. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
And you think accelerationists like GH are crazy... | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:11 Salazarz wrote: Is it the Democrats fault that Republicans openly support a fascist who tried to overthrow the government?So basically according to the Democrats here, the US is now a one-party state with no real elections because if you don't vote for whatever guy the Dems tell you to vote for, you're 'enabling fascism'? And the reason you must vote for their guy is that no matter what happens, at least they aren't 'that other guy'? And you think accelerationists like GH are crazy... | ||
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:10 Uldridge wrote: @Magic Powers: isn't it strange that 'the hard fought battles' of the Democrats can be so easily overturned by the Republicans? What does that say for both sides? The Democrats are weak? The Republicans are strong? Do they somehow have more power? Do they somehow have more insight in the nitty gritty of the constitution to annul all the seemingly feeble victories by the Democrats? Strange how somehow all these states can keep veering in more and more conservative territory, while the Dems can do nothing about it, but when they want to change things for the better, it's always such a difficult task. Why is that? Are they ill equipped? Are they less talented/verbose in the political warfare? Are they perhaps too high-horsed to stoop to the Republican's level? Whatever it may be, it's ineffective and year after year I keep hearing: vote Democrat, it's the right thing to do, while the USA keeps sliding further into 'abortion is now illegal from conception onwards' territory and LGBTQ rights being challenged again. Strange. It says that trying to take a step forward is more challenging than regressing by taking a step backward. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:18 Gorsameth wrote: Is it the Democrats fault that Republicans openly support a fascist who tried to overthrow the government? I don't think it matters whose fault it is, really. I just find the situation rather ironic, all things considered. I also think it's incredibly naive to believe that the Dems will do anything but the bare minimum to get your votes if people keep voting for them just to avoid having a Republican in the office. I feel like y'all managed to create a political system that has all the weaknesses of a proper democracy, and is now also taking on all the weaknesses of authoritarian / one-party systems while missing most of the strengths of either of them. It's actually remarkable just how awful the whole thing is, but there's basically no way any sort of meaningful reform can happen without some kind of a massive upheaval so what do I know. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:25 Salazarz wrote: I don't think a lot of people in this thread disagree with the notion that the US election system is god awful.I don't think it matters whose fault it is, really. I just find the situation rather ironic, all things considered. I also think it's incredibly naive to believe that the Dems will do anything but the bare minimum to get your votes if people keep voting for them just to avoid having a Republican in the office. I feel like y'all managed to create a political system that has all the weaknesses of a proper democracy, and is now also taking on all the weaknesses of authoritarian / one-party systems while missing most of the strengths of either of them. It's actually remarkable just how awful the whole thing is, but there's basically no way any sort of meaningful reform can happen without some kind of a massive upheaval so what do I know. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:22 micronesia wrote: It says that trying to take a step forward is more challenging than regressing by taking a step backward. That shouldn't be the case though. It should be as difficult to go back or forward from where you currently are. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:36 Uldridge wrote: That shouldn't be the case though. It should be as difficult to go back or forward from where you currently are. That's not been my experience. The path behind you is already tread and the bushes have been beat back. The path forward requires you to swing your machete around a whole bunch and test your footing. Similarly, it's quite challenging to build a high-quality house. It's not difficult to burn it back down and start over. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3849 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:10 Uldridge wrote: @Magic Powers: isn't it strange that 'the hard fought battles' of the Democrats can be so easily overturned by the Republicans? What does that say for both sides? The Democrats are weak? The Republicans are strong? Do they somehow have more power? Do they somehow have more insight in the nitty gritty of the constitution to annul all the seemingly feeble victories by the Democrats? Strange how somehow all these states can keep veering in more and more conservative territory, while the Dems can do nothing about it, but when they want to change things for the better, it's always such a difficult task. Why is that? Are they ill equipped? Are they less talented/verbose in the political warfare? Are they perhaps too high-horsed to stoop to the Republican's level? Whatever it may be, it's ineffective and year after year I keep hearing: vote Democrat, it's the right thing to do, while the USA keeps sliding further into 'abortion is now illegal from conception onwards' territory and LGBTQ rights being challenged again. Strange. It's horrific that there are now states that are so backwards as to make no exceptions even in cases of rape and incest. I think, instead of immediately focusing on reinstating full abortion rights, it's important for Americans to focus on that horrific injustice specifically. The overturning of Roe v Wade was only possible because 1) Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, 2) the sitting president was both Republican and willing to install pro-abortion justices, and 3) the Senate approved of Trump's choice of SC justices. To me that sounds like it was hard fought by the Republicans. Quite lucky from them. So I think it was very difficult for the backwards Republicans to get to this point. It took them almost 50 years. They certainly saw it as a major injustice and a blemish on their record for the whole time. The lesson for Democrats is that, clearly there are ways to circumvent public interest (such as even partial, moderate abortion rights), as demonstrated by the SC reform and the subsequent pro-rape and pro-incest laws. The lesson for US citizens is that Democrats are incompetent? I don't know about that, they fought tooth and nail. When they have to fight against what appears to be a feature of the system, I don't know how much more successful they really could've been. Should the conclusion be that the system is inherently a failure? Again, I don't know about that. It sure did fail the people this time, but does it generally fail them? Or is it just that good people don't always win battles? | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11458 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:25 Salazarz wrote: I don't think it matters whose fault it is, really. I just find the situation rather ironic, all things considered. I also think it's incredibly naive to believe that the Dems will do anything but the bare minimum to get your votes if people keep voting for them just to avoid having a Republican in the office. I feel like y'all managed to create a political system that has all the weaknesses of a proper democracy, and is now also taking on all the weaknesses of authoritarian / one-party systems while missing most of the strengths of either of them. It's actually remarkable just how awful the whole thing is, but there's basically no way any sort of meaningful reform can happen without some kind of a massive upheaval so what do I know. You are wonderfully formulating all the frustrations people have with the US system. It is a two-party system. Which is shit. But when one of those parties goes full fascist (and people still vote for them), it is even shittier, because now sane people have no choice. They have to vote for the non-fascists, even if they don't actually identify with anything else the party stands for. This system is clearly shit. But to change the system, you first need to win at the system. But if you win at the system, why would you change it? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:04 Uldridge wrote: Democracy is always under threat, there is no unburn able house. Your choice is between a guy with a match and a guy without. Sure the guy without a match is a right asshole and he has no reason to better himself while the other guy has a match, but it sure beats letting the house burn down. Especially when the guy with the match isn't going to magically disappear once he's burned the house down.You're basically saying the Democrats are incapable of being the preventative measure to burn said house down. So instead of being a fire retardant, what are they? An innocent bystander? | ||
|
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:04 Uldridge wrote: You're basically saying the Democrats are incapable of being the preventative measure to burn said house down. So instead of being a fire retardant, what are they? An innocent bystander? Actually no I don't think that's what I'm saying. Talking about if the Democrats can prevent the opposition from burning this particular house down is a separate topic you brought into it. We could compare the effort needed impede the builder against the effort needed to impede the arsonist, but again, that wasn't specifically what I was talking about. My comparison was between the effort to build the house and trying to burn it down. Building a house is hard. Burning it down is (physically) easy. My point was just that comparing GOP success at accomplishing their objectives to Democrat success at accomplishing their objectives is often not apples to apples. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
The carefully built houses are being set on fire one by one. The Republicans are desperately trying to either rebuild their old manors, or trying to put out the fires asap and fix the damage. So let's make it a bit more nuanced where houses are continuously being built and parts (or entireties) are set on fire. This applies to both parties. Now each side puts effort into preventing the fire from happening or by repairing the damage asap. Because saying GOP is just burning and Dems are just building is just another way of polarizing the conversation. It's all apples to apples, you're just looking at apples and saying they're oranges because you don't like the taste. I'm basically in the Dems camp (factually I'm far left leaning though). I'm just making an effort here to be the Devil's advocate, probably not really succeeding, because my logic may be flawed at times. On August 31 2023 19:19 Gorsameth wrote: Democracy is always under threat, there is no unburn able house. Your choice is between a guy with a match and a guy without. Sure the guy without a match is a right asshole and he has no reason to better himself while the other guy has a match, but it sure beats letting the house burn down. Especially when the guy with the match isn't going to magically disappear once he's burned the house down. The argument is that the guy without a match can either sit back and watch the guy with the match burn the house down or he can try to prevent the guy from lighting it on fire. I'm saying not enough prevention is happening, in fact, there's a passivity occurring which almost tends to look like complicity. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23113 Posts
On August 31 2023 18:11 Salazarz wrote: So basically according to the Democrats here, the US is now a one-party state with no real elections because if you don't vote for whatever guy the Dems tell you to vote for, you're 'enabling fascism'? And the reason you must vote for their guy is that no matter what happens, at least they aren't 'that other guy'? And you think accelerationists like GH are crazy... Oh god, definitely not an accelerationist, but that's a good point about the US effectively being a one-party state without any of the benefits and staying that way indefinitely as long as Democrats continue to get their way. On August 31 2023 18:25 Salazarz wrote: I don't think it matters whose fault it is, really. I just find the situation rather ironic, all things considered. I also think it's incredibly naive to believe that the Dems will do anything but the bare minimum to get your votes if people keep voting for them just to avoid having a Republican in the office. I feel like y'all managed to create a political system that has all the weaknesses of a proper democracy, and is now also taking on all the weaknesses of authoritarian / one-party systems while missing most of the strengths of either of them. It's actually remarkable just how awful the whole thing is, but there's basically no way any sort of meaningful reform can happen without some kind of a massive upheaval so what do I know. It really doesn't, particularly to the points I raised. It's not just that they'll do the bare minimum, they'll continue to pull "pied pipers" and to make their jobs ostensibly easier until it bites us all in the ass again like Trump (provided the country lasts that long running on copium). It's hard to imagine how it could be more clear (short of Republicans controlling the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judicial, which shouldn't be unlikely enough in 2024 for anyone's comfort) that the idea that we'll get anywhere near where we need to go anywhere near when we need to get there by infiltrating and coopting the Democrat party to enact social democrat reforms is dead on arrival regardless of whether people think socialism (revolutionary or otherwise) is a viable path. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:44 Uldridge wrote: If your talking about general policy then yes, sure. And if this was 20 years ago and Bush vs Gore or something your concept of the tug back and forth is apt enough.Now flip it on its head and think how Republicans are looking at your metaphor: The carefully built houses are being set on fire one by one. The Republicans are desperately trying to either rebuild their old manors, or trying to put out the fires asap and fix the damage. So let's make it a bit more nuanced where houses are continuously being built and parts (or entireties) are set on fire. This applies to both parties. Now each side puts effort into preventing the fire from happening or by repairing the damage asap. Because saying GOP is just burning and Dems are just building is just another way of polarizing the conversation. It's all apples to apples, you're just looking at apples and saying they're oranges because you don't like the taste. I'm basically in the Dems camp (factually I'm far left leaning though). I'm just making an effort here to be the Devil's advocate, probably not really succeeding, because my logic may be flawed at times. The argument is that the guy without a match can either sit back and watch the guy with the match burn the house down or he can try to prevent the guy from lighting it on fire. I'm saying not enough prevention is happening, in fact, there's a passivity occurring which almost tends to look like complicity. But Trump tried to end Democracy in the US. And he still has strong support of Republicans. If Trump on the ballot in 2024 its not a vote about policy, its a vote about the end of Democracy in the US. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote: The way to end this 'one party' problem is to have a sane opposition. But if I remember right the last time someone advocated for a sane Republican Party (was it Biden or Hillary?) they got blasted for it.Oh god, definitely not an accelerationist, but that's a good point about the US effectively being a one-party state without any of the benefits and staying that way indefinitely as long as Democrats continue to get their way. It really doesn't, particularly to the points I raised. It's not just that they'll do the bare minimum, they'll continue to pull "pied pipers" and to make their jobs ostensibly easier until it bites us all in the ass again like Trump (provided the country lasts that long running on copium). It's hard to imagine how it could be more clear (short of Republicans controlling the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judicial, which shouldn't be unlikely enough in 2024 for anyone's comfort) that the idea that we'll get anywhere near where we need to go anywhere near when we need to get there by infiltrating and coopting the Democrat party to enact social democrat reforms is dead on arrival regardless of whether people think socialism (revolutionary or otherwise) is a viable path. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3849 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:58 GreenHorizons wrote: Oh god, definitely not an accelerationist, but that's a good point about the US effectively being a one-party state without any of the benefits and staying that way indefinitely as long as Democrats continue to get their way. It really doesn't, particularly to the points I raised. It's not just that they'll do the bare minimum, they'll continue to pull "pied pipers" and to make their jobs ostensibly easier until it bites us all in the ass again like Trump (provided the country lasts that long running on copium). It's hard to imagine how it could be more clear (short of Republicans controlling the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judicial, which shouldn't be unlikely enough in 2024 for anyone's comfort) that the idea that we'll get anywhere near where we need to go anywhere near when we need to get there by infiltrating and coopting the Democrat party to enact social democrat reforms is dead on arrival regardless of whether people think socialism (revolutionary or otherwise) is a viable path. I'm not sure if I understand the conclusion. Why is socialism the answer to abortion rights and transgender rights? These are matters of bodily autonomy. Where's the connection? Socialism is an ideology of economics. It's about taxation, worker's rights, ownership of property, etc. That kind of thing. Bodily autonomy is a completely separate issue that works just as well (or as poorly) in a capitalist system as it would in a socialist one. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10668 Posts
Thats basically all someone needs to know about GH. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23113 Posts
On August 31 2023 20:02 Gorsameth wrote: The way to end this 'one party' problem is to have a sane opposition. But if I remember right the last time someone advocated for a sane Republican Party (was it Biden or Hillary?) they got blasted for it. Democrats have been ostensibly pining for a sane Republican party since they were calling Lincoln crazy. As I pointed out with the pinnacle Dem/Progressive legislation of the 21st century actually being legislation too far-right for Nixon era Republicans, they're going backwards. That's a serious problem for people that want to run on being the last line of defense between us and fascism. It's abundantly clear Democrats prefer railing against the specter of Republicans and ramming home how any critical thinking/long-term planning must be forsaken to stop them, than measure themselves in the public against sane opposition advocating (forget socialism for the moment) sensible policy they ostensibly support. If the Democrat party could pick Trump or Bernie as the Republican nominee they'd pick Trump even if they were more likely to lose to him. | ||
| ||
