EPTMost importantly, it would shake things up. I don't see any path to Biden winning; if he could demonstrate that the debate was an aberration, he would have done so by now, and I think Trump is immune to October surprises. At this point the best bet is to go for a high variance play and cross our fingers. The worst that can happen is it fails and Trump wins, but changing nothing is going to have that outcome anyway.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4249
| 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 | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2588 Posts
Most importantly, it would shake things up. I don't see any path to Biden winning; if he could demonstrate that the debate was an aberration, he would have done so by now, and I think Trump is immune to October surprises. At this point the best bet is to go for a high variance play and cross our fingers. The worst that can happen is it fails and Trump wins, but changing nothing is going to have that outcome anyway. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5796 Posts
On July 08 2024 01:10 Fleetfeet wrote: Sorry to snip out the rest of your post. Christianity in NA is -fucked-. I would not cite it as an example of a sane, grounding force for one side. For one, Republicans (or, in my case, conservatives) do not have a monopoly on the christian god. It isn't true that liberals don't go to church, nor that conservatives have a unique, spiritual groundedness while liberals are just searching desperately for something to believe in. Most of us went to church growing up and were likely steeled against the church for its obvious preaching of fear and hatred, through exclusion and/or oppression of gays, challenge and avoidance of other religions, and (though rarer in my circles) occasional brimstone "If you do evil you'll go to hell forever!" The church uses fear to control people, uses exegesis to support its marketing strategy (Go visit a Roman Catholic church), and commonly has invasive methods of recruitment. Y'all in the US also came up with mormons and other obviously bullshit denominations. I could go on, but my points are these : There are good community churches and great religious people in the world. However, organized religion in NA is abhorrent, going to church does not mean you're a good person, and if god is real I very much doubt he'd be willing to call half the churches in NA home. Besides all that, arguing that both sides are delusional is GH's job. I'm sure he appreciates the help! You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. On July 08 2024 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote: Chris Murphy (Dem Senator) makes it sound like Democrats are giving Biden the next week to pull out of this with some town halls and press conferences saying "I take him at his word that he can do this" (a bit of paraphrase). www.newsweek.com Sen. Warner seems to be gathering the Dem Senators that would carry the message. www.washingtonpost.com Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
On July 08 2024 14:40 AmericanUmlaut wrote: I think the best bet for the Democrats is that Biden withdraws and there is a brokered convention. That means a week or two of candidates giving speeches and delegates voting and nonstop drama that will be catnip to the news media, providing enormous exposure to whoever comes out on top and denying Trump attention. It could result in a candidate who people are excited about, and it would wipe the slate clean with regard to the issues of Biden's age and potentially also his support of Israel's conduct in Gaza. Most importantly, it would shake things up. I don't see any path to Biden winning; if he could demonstrate that the debate was an aberration, he would have done so by now, and I think Trump is immune to October surprises. At this point the best bet is to go for a high variance play and cross our fingers. The worst that can happen is it fails and Trump wins, but changing nothing is going to have that outcome anyway. Looking at how desperate Trump and his team have been to delay his trials until after the election, I would say that the assumption that Trump is immune to October surprises is unnecessarily pessimistic. On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote: I think you should question your premise that people on the left must have a religious sort of belief in something, and that if it's not religion then they're finding something else to have faith in.You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2618 Posts
On July 08 2024 14:47 oBlade wrote: You have misunderstood the point, it wasn't that church makes people moral, it's that as your personal anecdote suggests, people who move away from religion - which you have to agree is the left - are those who are more likely to satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere - for example, the political realm. That's why when you look at progressives, you see the symbolism and imagery of sin, worship, devils, and so on, and why the latest generation of communists always sound like a ridiculous cult. Whether a force for good or bad or nothing by itself, it is on average a force of distraction, and it that sense, it has a moderating effect, is my point. I won't beat a dead horse by repeating it if you disagree, but it seemed like you were refuting something other than what I said. Also, there's no reason to try to memeify what people are saying instead of just reading it, especially when one of the people you are memeifying wasn't even in the conversation about this subject. Both sides are literally delusional, or do you think one is immune? Because I'm not going to give all my money to and elect in perpetuity a party, in a country responsible for 13% of anthropocentric emissions, with the promise that they have the ability and competence to change the temperature of the entire planet for me. Mark Warner should unironically be on the ticket, he probably remains almost universally liked in Virginia, was 100x better than the weasel Tim Kaine, and is probably the Democrats' most recent competent governor. Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16114 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11706 Posts
On July 08 2024 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm so fucking tired of Democrats man. I can't stand that there's no other valid option. It would be very nice if there were two sane parties in the US, that is true. But that is not the world we live in. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23547 Posts
On July 08 2024 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm so fucking tired of Democrats man. I can't stand that there's no other valid option. Democrats work hard in coordination with Republicans to make sure there isn't. It helps maintain the delusion that Democrats aren't monstrous themselves (despite the ongoing genocide they believe Biden is engaged in among plenty of other horrific things). But revolutionary socialism is a valid option, despite Democrats and Republicans best efforts to crush it (including, but not limited to, assassination) for decades. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10830 Posts
On July 08 2024 22:29 GreenHorizons wrote: Democrats work hard in coordination with Republicans to make sure there isn't. It helps maintain the delusion that Democrats aren't monstrous themselves (despite the ongoing genocide they believe Biden is engaged in among plenty of other horrific things). But revolutionary socialism is a valid option, despite Democrats and Republicans best efforts to crush it (including, but not limited to, assassination) for decades. Can't wait until you finally try to actually do something. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23547 Posts
On July 08 2024 22:30 Velr wrote: Can't wait until you finally try to actually do something. Like what? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10830 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On July 08 2024 20:00 Vindicare605 wrote: I'm so fucking tired of Democrats man. I can't stand that there's no other valid option. There are major issues, but I am honestly given hope by this whole “taking the keys from grandpa” situation. We are being shown a lot more clearly where the allegiances are and what causes the old shit heads to retain so much power and keep the party in a stagnant state. We now know a lot of back room conversations are saying Biden needs to go. And Biden is telling those people to go kick rocks. I would feel a lot more helpless and cynical if there wasn’t a pretty significant effort to force Biden off the ticket. It shows many people want this whole situation to function very differently and that there are logistical/structural problems with the internal workings of the party. These issues allow for old shit heads to accumulate excessive amounts of power and influence to where they become untouchable. Edit: I am going to offer my theory on why there is a surprisingly huge amount of congressmen/senators who are privately advocating for Biden's removal. I think there have been events here and there behind closed doors that have shown Biden is doing quite poorly. Something along the lines of a meeting with congressmen internally/privately where someone asked something about Trudeau and Biden truly did not remember who Trudeau was. Not some kinda gaffe or whatever, but like even after having a moment to think about it, no clue who he is. As if he has never heard the name before. I think there have likely been a couple recent events along those lines that are kinda "open secrets" within democrats in congress/senate. I think these private conversations decided if Biden can do well in the first debate, the situation is good enough to have a solid candidate throughout the November election. I don't think this whole effort was because of the debate. I think the debate was essentially the last chance for Biden to prove himself. And since it went extremely badly, they were all like "Alright, lights out, time to try to salvage this election". | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22028 Posts
And it would hardly be the first time that the true condition of the President has been hidden from the public. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23547 Posts
On July 08 2024 23:23 Velr wrote: Dunno, start your revolution? Don't know what you think that means, and clearly you don't either. Any successful revolution has to start with people recognizing its necessity and then working together on shaping it and making it happen. I can show horses the water, but I can't make them drink. You would think being on the verge of kneeling to King Trump they'd be more ready, but they've deluded themselves into thinking they'd just vote their way out of his monarchy. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On July 09 2024 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Don't know what you think that means, and clearly you don't either. Any successful revolution has to start with people recognizing its necessity and then working together on shaping it and making it happen. I can show horses the water, but I can't make them drink. You would think being on the verge of kneeling to King Trump they'd be more ready, but they've deluded themselves into thinking they'd just vote their way out of his monarchy. I agree with your description of the problem existing. But I have a couple disagreements with how it is actually manifesting. 1: Based on Water, RBG, Feinstein, and now Biden defiantly refusing to step down, and no one having any ability to do anything about it, we can see the root of the issue is that these ancient politicians are too powerful within the party 2: I think voters are delusional but the actual politicians are not. I think voters are basically being told to stay focused on defeating Trump and so they are consciously deciding to ignore what they are seeing because they are really panicked about Trump. I think the fear of Trump is making people pretend they don't see what is happening because they have been told Biden is the only option 3: We have all sorts of info recently highlighting major efforts to replace Biden. These conversations are happening among both congress and senate democrats. And based on what we have seen, many politicians within the party are likely almost entirely powerless against Biden. The big issue is that the party itself has been concentrating too much power within too few people. I am of course no fan of the republican party. But it is worth pointing out and admitting that the republican party has done a significantly better job at letting "the market of ideas" shape their party. Primaries are functional and it is common for pillars of the party to be ejected and shunned. In contrast, democrats function more like the general lore surrounding vampires. They appear to become more powerful with age in a somewhat absolute sense. The longer you survive, the more likely you are to survive even longer. And they will gain more power each year to the point where they simply can't even be removed when people are trying to. | ||
KwarK
United States43402 Posts
On July 09 2024 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote: Don't know what you think that means, and clearly you don't either. Any successful revolution has to start with people recognizing its necessity and then working together on shaping it and making it happen. I can show horses the water, but I can't make them drink. You would think being on the verge of kneeling to King Trump they'd be more ready, but they've deluded themselves into thinking they'd just vote their way out of his monarchy. If you can’t do a revolution then you need to come up with a better plan. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23547 Posts
On July 09 2024 02:09 KwarK wrote: If you can’t do a revolution then you need to come up with a better plan. We can do a socialist revolution though. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18172 Posts
On July 09 2024 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote: We can do a socialist revolution though. I thought you just said you couldn't make the horse drink? I must've misunderstood the metaphor, because I thought you meant that the US population (or at least, the tl.net corner of that population) is the horse and drinking is the glorious revolution. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1078 Posts
Let's examine that thesis. Many people who reject religion reject it because they try to follow a set of logic that does not allow for dogma. They reject political dogma for the same reason they reject religious dogma. The whole thing about being atheist is that you are a- (against or without) theist (religion). You reject religion in all of its forms. Do some people reject traditional religions but still seek dogmatic principles elsewhere? Sure. Plenty of crazy spiritualists on the left, especially as you go far left. But I'd suspect that if you look at a group of moderate democrats who are mildly religious or atheists, they're much less likely to believe in other dogmas than a religious person who has already proven to believe in one set of dogmas. I would propose that people who already believe in one set of dogmas will be much easier to convince of another set of dogmas. I'd even say that since people who believe dogmas lack a need for logical consistency, they can also believe two conflicting dogmas at the same time. For example, they can worship a guy who's the embodiment of the 7 deadly sins while proclaiming to follow a religion that is supposed to be against those deadly sins. My thesis would then be that if you can get people to believe one crazy thing (religion), you can get them to believe anything (right wing politics). The only comparable on the left would be the spiritualists with far left politics, which is still quite fringe (and they usually spend their time bashing Democrats, not supporting them). @all Re: Biden Strategy If Biden were to be replaced, waiting as long as possible is the best strategy. Generic Democrat beats Trump, however once you put a name to that candidate, the results get a lot worse. As soon as a candidate is announced, the right wing smear machine will go into effect and no candidate will come out looking good. If the Democrats can wait until the convention, then announce a new candidate, then go on an ad blitz pumping up that candidate, then they've got a shot. I still think the best shot is Biden himself. He won the primary. Nobody significant was even willing to challenge him. The messaging needs to change from Biden vs Trump to a team of people vs Trump. It's the "We, not me" campaign that should highlight his Secretaries and staff members and their competence. Compare them to Trump's choices from the past (many of which he now calls losers and they call him awful). Highlight 4 years of competence and what they've accomplished versus Trump's 4 years of chaos. Sure, the figurehead is an elderly man with questionable capabilities, but he's just a figurehead. It's the team that counts. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5796 Posts
On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote: Fair point on the memeifying. For what it's worth, I wasn't trying to knock GH's position - I generally appreciate their contributions and would rather see them have more allies than fewer. It's also unusual to see people other than GH claim that both sides are delusional without a followed 'but one side is MORE delusional', so it felt worth highlighting. That's all. As to the bolded, I literally do not know what you mean by basically any of that. You see the imagery of sin, angels, devils and worship because we're a christocentric culture who swear in on a bible, have "In god we trust" on (y)our money, and "God keep our land glorious and free" in our national anthem. It's part of our culture at large, so I don't see what you're driving at with asserting progressives use religious imagery, nor that modern communists seem like a ridiculous cult. I mean you may personally just be Christocentric which is why you've ironically misunderstood me to have been talking about Christianity specifically when concepts of angels and devils, sin and worship are almost universal. Progressives have created analogues of religious concepts and symbolism in their belief systems. Identity politics contains original sin. Certain beliefs cannot be questioned. Opponents are labeled as unholy apostates. There are screeds as would-be prayers. There are commandments and forbidden words. There are talking head priests. There is fawning over idols. Family members are cut off as found in cult behavior. People report their friends, their family, as sinners. That comes exactly from both the revolution in China and from Abraham being told to kill Isaac. If any belief system or ideology tried to come between me and my family, I would firstly stop believing it immediately, secondly tell it to fuck off, and then go to war with it if it didn't get the message. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote: The way you phrase things makes me feel like you believe Christianity should have a monopoly on spiritualism in North America. That's obviously bullshit, and people who 'move away from religion' are likely to 'satisfy a lust for faith elsewhere' by literally believing in other things like science or buddhism or meditation or therapy. They're not 'moving away from religion', they're just moving to different religions and/or beliefs. We are mincing words here, to put it succinctly in your phrasing, I believe spiritualism should have a monopoly on spiritualism. If they are moving to "different beliefs," then they are self-evidently moving away from religion, contrary to your claim that they are not moving away from religion. If, on the other hand, they are moving to different beliefs while simultaneously not moving away from religion, it means they are adopting beliefs that aren't religious as religions, which is another way of stating my entire problem here. People don't realize the extent to which they themselves, and their groups in general, have a social/personal need for dogmas. There is nothing wrong with science, therapy, or politics - except if you adopt them as religions. Then the whole thing goes to shit. Aristotle said "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits." In the case of sports, it's not a huge deal. In the case of fiction, it's not a big deal. People get a little too attached to their hobby, it can be a phase, or anyway not usually a big deal. Although if it were, I'd try to explain that in the US Sports Thread instead. In the case of politics, it's an issue that people have not even thought about how to think. On July 08 2024 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote: If your argument boils down to "Well, organized religion vis-a-vis Christianity is a useful tool for the right, because it helps us herd and control our idiots and prevent them from being distracted" then yeah, I can agree. My argument is I don't care if people are religious or not, but you have to be extremely careful about it because cultures have not often moved away from religion WITHOUT consciously making an effort not to simply substitute other systems as religions and then destroying themselves, and this affects the left more because New Atheism and everything was a staple of and flourished on the left. I do not see any such introspection, consideration, or rationality in the left's haphazard cycling of weird. More than mitigating the right, it has unleashed the left. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23547 Posts
On July 09 2024 02:29 Acrofales wrote: I thought you just said you couldn't make the horse drink? I must've misunderstood the metaphor, because I thought you meant that the US population (or at least, the tl.net corner of that population) is the horse and drinking is the glorious revolution. Correct, you misunderstood the metaphor. We need a socialist revolution to achieve ostensible liberal goals like equity and justice (like a horse needs water). People can show others what that socialist revolution looks like and where it is at (like one can show a horse water). But they can't force the horse to drink (join the socialist revolution). To say we "can't do a revolution" would be to condemn the entire Democrat party and tens of millions of people that don't support either party as hopelessly deluded. Democrats/their supporters may be willing to do that to themselves and countless others, but I'm not. | ||
| ||
