EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4070
| 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 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19300 Posts
On September 25 2023 01:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: Who is the previous fiscally conservative american president/candidate? I'd argue non in our life time if you are under 40. (Edit: If we count both sides, Bill Clinton) | ||
KwarK
United States43356 Posts
On September 25 2023 01:44 BisuDagger wrote: Fiscal Conservative as a definition doesn't change, but what a party represents can. I don't vote for republicans so I'm not responsible for this either (or at least haven't voted for republicans that aren't truly conservative: Didn't vote for Trump or any other republican in the non-primary election for President since I turned 18). I think we need a new thread that helps support the politcal party homeless population like me. Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party to agree with you on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On September 25 2023 01:02 BisuDagger wrote: Fiscal Conservative speaking person here. I agree with you wholeheartedly and would like to make it clear Republicans aren’t conservative.  I need a political home.I have a question for you. Given that both major parties - Democratic and Republican - are not fiscally conservative, not focused on reducing the national debt or annual deficit, and are interested in spending significant taxpayer money on various platforms: would you prefer the platforms that the Democrats want to fund, or the platforms that the Republicans want to fund? | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19300 Posts
On September 25 2023 03:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I have a question for you. Given that both major parties - Democratic and Republican - are not fiscally conservative, not focused on reducing the national debt or annual deficit, and are interested in spending significant taxpayer money on various platforms: would you prefer the platforms that the Democrats want to fund, or the platforms that the Republicans want to fund? I agree with the majority of what my state funds in Florida (set aside your dislike for DeSantis, I voted for the other republican in the primary btw lol). So I pick Republican at the state level. I live in Jacksonville, and voted democrat for my Mayor because I believed in what she was for more then the Republican opponent. I disagree with a lot at the Federal level so I usually vote Libertarian just cause I still support the rights and freedoms of individuals, which I believe that party does well without sacrificing our tax dollars for other agendas. I’m very open to voting for any party I believe is represented well by a good individual. | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19300 Posts
On September 25 2023 02:42 KwarK wrote: Everyone is party homeless in a simple plurality system because the nature of political parties is forced compromise along the lines of least dislike. You rank your binary political divides in order of importance to you and then you go down the list until the two parties disagree on an issue. Then you pick the side that agrees with you. Congrats, you're in that tent. Let's say my issues were: 1. Kill all Jews. Against. 2. Devote 100% of the national resources to achieving Jurassic Park. Against. 3. Global warming. Against. 4. Banning abortion. For. I would go: 1. Both parties also against. Go to 2. 2. Both parties also against. Go to 3. 3. Democrat party against. Republican party for. Vote democrat. Stop. 4. NA. You're not expected to like the party. That would be unreasonable, you can't expect the party can't agree on every single issue. But the most important wedge issue for me in the above hypothetical would be global warming and so I must vote Democrat. I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
so for me it's like climate change -> most important issue by a significant margin -> im not happy with democrats here but they at least acknowledge that it's a real problem. to be fair some republicans do too but they're still in a 'so we have to force china and india to not pollute more' mindset. and a significant portion claims that it's a hoax. I think those people are mostly lying but that's arguably worse than actually believing it. So for me that's like a 50% of the total score and i'll give democrats 40/100 and republicans negative 10. gonna be hard to catch up. then I also care about redistribution of wealth/public services education (being a teacher) since 2016 - favoring democracy and living in the real world not being war mongerers and aside from the last one which might be a draw (almost all democrats were pro iraq) the equation ends up being a very solid 'not a huge fan of either but there's still no question that I favor one over the other'. Basically would be appreciative if you could make a similar list, it can be even less elaborate than what I just posted even. But basically I don't understand a 'there's no significant difference between the parties' mindset. If we're talking Bill Clinton vs Bush sr? Sure. Hillary vs Jeb? Maybe even then. But now? Aside from kwark's joke examples, it's hard for me to find issues where the parties actually agree with each other. | ||
|
lestye
United States4186 Posts
I used to be fiscially conservative, but if I belived that, I don't think I'd ever be able to reconcile my fiscally conservative ideals with the compromised civil liberties super religious culture war nonsense the conservative faction is addicted to. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
1) Try to get imprisoned due to violating gag order 2) Escalate to supreme court 3) Receive ruling that a presidential candidate can't be jailed due to first amendment 4) Evade all of his crimes by saying all of them are first amendment stuff | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18159 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11686 Posts
On September 26 2023 02:44 Acrofales wrote: Looks in the constitution. It says nothing about certain jobs or vocations being exempt from gag orders. So if Presidential Candidates are exempt, what about mayoral candidates for Buttfuck, Tennessee, where I'm sure they need a new mayor all the time and accept anybody as a candidate! Is there an actual requirement to being a presidential candidate? Could a random american mobster just put himself onto the ballot and become immune to all prosecution? | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On September 26 2023 02:46 Simberto wrote: Is there an actual requirement to being a presidential candidate? Could a random american mobster just put himself onto the ballot and become immune to all prosecution? You have to be at least 35, be a natural-born citizen, have lived in the US for at least 14 years, and must not be disqualified by the 14th Amendment. | ||
|
Branch.AUT
Austria853 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23515 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + (So far it's just Sherrod Brown and John Fetterman) Menendez seems to be under the impression he's going to be the Democrat senior senator + Show Spoiler + “I recognize this will be the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but I still will be New Jersey’s senior senator," | ||
|
AdrianaWilson
1 Post
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45176 Posts
On September 26 2023 06:39 StasisField wrote: You have to be at least 35, be a natural-born citizen, have lived in the US for at least 14 years, and must not be disqualified by the 14th Amendment. Fun fact: The 14th amendment of our U.S. Constitution includes the Citizenship Clause - the very first sentence of that amendment - which says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This has historically led to the conclusion of "birthright citizenship", which allows anyone born in the United States to automatically become an American citizen, even if neither parent is an American citizen. Vivek Ramaswamy, irrelevant Republican primary candidate, opposes "birthright citizenship", despite that being the exact way he became an American citizen and eligible to run for president. Vivek became a citizen by birthright, as neither of his parents were American citizens when he was born on American soil. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On September 26 2023 12:09 GreenHorizons wrote: If even Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC is saying Democrats look like fools with how they've treated Menendez, you know they are screwing it up big time. He's among those calling for Senators to demand he resign. + Show Spoiler + https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1705256069876928712 https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1705259030891896944 (So far it's just Sherrod Brown and John Fetterman) Menendez seems to be under the impression he's going to be the Democrat senior senator + Show Spoiler + “I recognize this will be the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but I still will be New Jersey’s senior senator," I think they are using it to inflate Fetterman right now. By having everyone else hold off on statements, they are letting Fetterman be the star of this anti-elite shtick he's building. - Fuck dress codes = anti elite - Fuck corrupt senators = anti elite - Generally "Joe Shmoe" image = anti elite Similar to how Greene is the republican ambassador to raunchy rural conservatism, it seems like the democrats are trying to build up Fetterman as a bridge to connecting with every day folks and helping to try to brand the democratic party as anti elite or more Joe Shmoe'ish generally speaking | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18159 Posts
I would never vote for the VVD. But I do agree with the basic idea that just because you took advantage of something doesn't mean you must ideologically support it. For instance, there are government subsidies that I vote against, and feel shouldn't exist, but as long as they do it just makes economic sense to use them. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26224 Posts
On September 25 2023 03:56 BisuDagger wrote: I am on board with that. Lately it feels like both parties at the Federal level are 90% suck on issues and I’m not happy nickel and diming the last 10%. What does a fiscal conservative untethered from more regular conservatism look like? Not bashing I’m just generally curious as to what your worldview is. Usually the two are intertwined as conservatives don’t like the idea of paying for various social programs for those pesky poor folks. Or alternatively libertarians just ideologically hate the idea of tax anything. So when I hear fiscal conservative I tend to prejudge one to be in either of those camps, which I don’t believe you massively to be in from your prior posting. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24751 Posts
| ||
| ||
