|
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 |
On July 07 2018 09:34 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example. This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. The GOP has been about social issues since probably around 1970. The GOP responded to the success of FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson by forming a new platform of focusing on social issues to most of their base and focusing on economic issues to their donors. Of course, the GOP itself was all about the economic issues. But the GOP base has been slowly taking over the party itself with social issues candidates, which had a faster effect on deeply red states. As evidence, we had red states statutorily banning same sex marriage as early as 1973 when Maryland banned it. By the late 1990s, over half the states had bans. The GOP has been actively trying to incite people to vote based on their social views for decades. A different take on why they desperately avoided talking about them is because they know that if they'd manged to pass laws restricting things like gay marriage or abortion at the federal level, they woudln't be able to use those issues to drive their base to the polls.
The left moves left in your time frame but this is all about the right... moving right? Politics at the time for the GOP was mostly dominated by defeating Communism, into which everything else was rolled. The conservative movement that began in the 1950s and culminated in Reagan was multifaceted, but again focused mainly on economics and foreign policy. I'm not saying social issues are NOT issues on which people vote, but Neb's division is wrong.
I more amused by the fact that you think they started it. I mean you could consider the decade before the one you mentioned.
|
On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example. This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left.
And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described?
|
On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example. This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described?
The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left.
In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out.
|
The Republicans have found over the years that social issues, like abortion and religious freedom to not sign gay marriage licenses, drive voters to the polls. That is why they lean into the culture wars so hard. And immigration, since that is an ever green issue for them.
The problem that the conservatives had with republicans is that they never followed through. Because, like we are seeing now, mass deportations and arrests at the border are not good policy or TV. And ending abortion in America could spell the end of the Republican Party(70% of America oppose overturning Roe). But that type of pragmatism isn’t appealing to conservatives. They want what is unpopular and drag this country kicking and screaming with them.
|
On July 07 2018 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example. This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described? The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left. In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out.
To your first point: I think that's a matter of perspective. I can how you hold it though, from your view there isn't a difference in economics, but to me (and most Americans) the parties are seen as being at odds over almost everything: taxes, spending, foreign policy (depending on who's in power), etc. The only thing they can seem to agree on is more debt!
I think you need to look from outside some "objective" scale. Maybe when looking from the distance of one extreme pole to the other, they seem close, but in to follow the analogy you'd say that in America we've hacked off both ends of the scale. It's a matter of perspective, and to the people living in it, they seem quite far a part.
To your second point, I think that has to do with the internet in general, perhaps the ages of the people involved, etc. In almost every poll, for instance, the economy is always chosen the most important thing to most Americans. These social issues are way down the list. I think arguing about the outrage today (SJWness) is just easier and more fun.
|
On July 07 2018 10:10 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:On July 07 2018 01:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
Neoliberal is left-of-center (from what I see) in the United States, something which I am pretty unhappy about; it's also left (enough) of most mainstream Republican views that it's an easy way to simplify discussion with people like introvert, because he would agree that they are left (of what he believes is the center).
The European center is what some European posters consider when speaking, and those positions are firmly left when compared to the average views of an American. I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example. This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described? The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left. In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out. To your first point: I think that's a matter of perspective. I can how you hold it though, from your view there isn't a difference in economics, but to me (and most Americans) the parties are seen as being at odds over almost everything: taxes, spending, foreign policy (depending on who's in power), etc. The only thing they can seem to agree on is more debt! I think you need to look from outside some objective scale. Maybe when looking from the distance of one extreme pole to the other, they seem close, but in to follow the analogy you'd say that in America we've hacked off both ends of the scale. It's a matter of perspective, and to the people living in it, they seem quite far a part. To your second point, I think that has to do with the internet in general, perhaps the ages of the people involved, etc. In almost every poll, for instance, the economy is always chosen the most important thing to most Americans. These social issues are way down the list. I think arguing about the outrage today (SJWness) is just easier and more fun.
From a leftist perspective all of this works fairly well together. As in the rest of the world people in the US care about the economy more cause that's what affects them, but in the US both parties offer mainly (neo)liberalism with some slight differences in degree and/or brazenness. If that's all you say most people are going to realize that there isn't a true alternative, so you need to distract them with some nonsense so that they can tear each other apart rather than unite. And that's where social issues come in, to make sure you have enemies of the same class to focus on while the system continues to be this hope-sucking tornado of neoliberalism... That's a bit schematic but you see the picture.
|
On July 07 2018 10:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 10:10 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:On July 07 2018 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:
[quote]
I'm not the best at semantics, but neoliberal to me (literally "new liberals") really came to prominence under Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" with the policy implications attached. It existed before that, but he and the Blue Dogs that took over the party really made it popular and mainstream. Republicans can call the Clintons commies or leftists all they want, but I would strongly disagree. The UK version of Clinton was Blair. Sure they are left of the modern Republican base, but that isn't saying much. There are a few Republicans that are well to the left of neoliberals though. Mike Norman is an example.
This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills. Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described? The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left. In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out. To your first point: I think that's a matter of perspective. I can how you hold it though, from your view there isn't a difference in economics, but to me (and most Americans) the parties are seen as being at odds over almost everything: taxes, spending, foreign policy (depending on who's in power), etc. The only thing they can seem to agree on is more debt! I think you need to look from outside some objective scale. Maybe when looking from the distance of one extreme pole to the other, they seem close, but in to follow the analogy you'd say that in America we've hacked off both ends of the scale. It's a matter of perspective, and to the people living in it, they seem quite far a part. To your second point, I think that has to do with the internet in general, perhaps the ages of the people involved, etc. In almost every poll, for instance, the economy is always chosen the most important thing to most Americans. These social issues are way down the list. I think arguing about the outrage today (SJWness) is just easier and more fun. From a leftist perspective all of this works fairly well together. As in the rest of the world people in the US care about the economy more cause that's what affects them, but in the US both parties offer mainly (neo)liberalism with some slight differences in degree and/or brazenness. If that's all you say most people are going to realize that there isn't a true alternative, so you need to distract them with some nonsense so that they can tear each other apart rather than unite. And that's where social issues come in, to make sure you have enemies of the same class to focus on while the system continues to be this hope-sucking tornado of neoliberalism... That's a bit schematic but you see the picture.
I've spent some time trying to respond but... where do I go from here? We at the point now where you saying,"yes that's what they say, and think about, but it's a trick!" I'm not even sure it matters, anyways. If this is how people are defining themselves, then I'm not sure how you can come in and say "well, how you really align is based on this."
Even if it's all a great deception by the neoliberal establishment, I'm not even sure that makes it wrong.
You are simply being too rigid. In this country, the political center lies somewhere else than it does in Europe. That doesn't make it a lie. You simply cannot say "well they are both neoliberal, therefore they are basically the same."
edit: and it's remarkable for one party to run for the hills on social issues while also trying to maintain the illusion. Would the GOP leadership not embrace social issue politics to keep up the distraction?
edit again: it is certainly possible to belive something about yourself and be wrong, I think that last line in the first paragrah above is unclear. I can clarify more if needed. I'm not about to go down the "your truth" road.
|
On July 07 2018 10:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 10:20 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 10:10 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 08:20 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
This is the most accurate description of what happened to the Democratic party coming from a progressive poster in some time. After getting crushed for three elections in a row from running on left leaning economic ideas, the Clinton's style of economics took over. Which was basically doing what the Republicans wanted to pass bills.
Now the reality is that the Democrats never valued charisma as a running characteristic, which is a big reason why most of their candidates bombed. But the shift to neoliberalism was because left leaning politics getting them killed across the US. Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described? The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left. In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out. To your first point: I think that's a matter of perspective. I can how you hold it though, from your view there isn't a difference in economics, but to me (and most Americans) the parties are seen as being at odds over almost everything: taxes, spending, foreign policy (depending on who's in power), etc. The only thing they can seem to agree on is more debt! I think you need to look from outside some objective scale. Maybe when looking from the distance of one extreme pole to the other, they seem close, but in to follow the analogy you'd say that in America we've hacked off both ends of the scale. It's a matter of perspective, and to the people living in it, they seem quite far a part. To your second point, I think that has to do with the internet in general, perhaps the ages of the people involved, etc. In almost every poll, for instance, the economy is always chosen the most important thing to most Americans. These social issues are way down the list. I think arguing about the outrage today (SJWness) is just easier and more fun. From a leftist perspective all of this works fairly well together. As in the rest of the world people in the US care about the economy more cause that's what affects them, but in the US both parties offer mainly (neo)liberalism with some slight differences in degree and/or brazenness. If that's all you say most people are going to realize that there isn't a true alternative, so you need to distract them with some nonsense so that they can tear each other apart rather than unite. And that's where social issues come in, to make sure you have enemies of the same class to focus on while the system continues to be this hope-sucking tornado of neoliberalism... That's a bit schematic but you see the picture. I've spent some time by trying to respond but... where do I go from here? We at the point now where you saying,"yes that's what they say, and think about, but it's a trick!" I'm not even sure it matters, anyways. If this is how people are defining themselves, then I'm not sure how you can come in and say "well, how you really align is based on this." Even if it's all a great deception by the neoliberal establishment, I'm not even sure that makes it wrong. You are simply being too rigid. In this country, the political center lies somewhere else than it does in Europe. That doesn't make it a lie. You simply cannot say "well they are both neoliberal, therefore they are basically the same." edit: and it's remarkable for one party to run for the hills on social issues while also trying to maintain the illusion. Would the GOP leadership not embrace social issue politics to keep up the distraction?
When I say that the political center is based on social issues it doesn't imply that people care about social issues more. You'll see that we talk about immigration a ton in Europe, that's a social issue. The parties that talk about it a lot are "far right" parties, because our center is based on economics, not on social issues, so the way we express our political beliefs says that having other ideas on social issues is extreme. That doesn't mean that people don't care about immigration, that's just how the system describes it.
The reason why I think that's how you have been aligned in the US is mainly based on the words you use. The economic positions of the main parties in the US all fall under liberalism. If you go on wiki and look for a definition of liberalism that applies more to US liberals specifically, you'll have to go under "social liberalism", not really to my surprise. When someone says they're very liberal in french (très libéral), they mean that they have strongly rightwing economical beliefs. When someone says they're very liberal in the US (or in english? I don't know how that works in the UK to be honest), they mean they have strongly leftwing social beliefs. Note that the purest form of economical liberalism is the rightwing form, with less government intervention and more privatization. So if we're talking about economics, how can a leftwinger be "very liberal"? That only works if the distinction is based on social issues.
I don't really understand why I couldn't say "well they are both neoliberal, therefore they are basically the same". That sounds like exactly what I should be saying.
I don't think the GOP is running for the hills on social issues at all when it comes to its rhetoric. Immigration is at the center, I hear a ton about political correctness, identity politics, cultural marxism, transgender rights, gay rights vs religious rights, christian values being under attack, so on and so on...
|
5930 Posts
Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses.
It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose.
|
On July 07 2018 11:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 10:40 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 10:20 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 10:10 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:51 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:44 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:22 Introvert wrote:On July 07 2018 09:12 Nebuchad wrote:On July 07 2018 09:05 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Ok, a LOT of laugh inducing things have been posted here today, but this is a good one. We just had 8 years where the Democratic party mindless supported a president they and the media treated like a super star. In fact, Obama knows it. It was nice of him to wait until his moment was gone though! Was I saying any of these? =) No offense, but I find your analysis of why things are the way they are here to be... wrong. As well as what could be. (Still don't know why you thought some random could unseat Feinstein.) For instance, I'm not sure that it's true that in America your right or left designation depends on your social views, at least not until 2014 or later, maybe. If we take the GOP as a proxy, then we can see this. The GOP pays lip service to social conservatives, but at the federal level espeically, they desperately avoid talking about social issues. They all try their hardest to talk about the economy, or foreign policy, or something like that. Because we have a two party system, you do find people in the right aligned party talking social issues, but those people are moved aside. That being said, there is a well defended theory that the popularity of people like Rick Santorum (in 2012, at leas) wasn't the religious side of his persona, but the working class kinda blue collar side. But looking at the people who run the party at the federal level you'd be hard pressed to say they define themselves on social issues rather than economic ones. At the state level there is more variance. But your sweeping pronouncement is wrong, even if we allow that you obviously don't mean it to apply to everyone. I think that objection can be integrated in the system that I offered pretty easily if you believe, like I do, that the GOP politicians aren't honest people. In that case the things that they focus on at the federal level would be dictated by their corruption: who gave them money and how much, how they can benefit from what they're saying and voting, rather than by their beliefs and political stances. If you look at economy alone you will find a lot less distance between the position of the two parties, ignoring progressives who, in this model, are the far left. And what makes you think the rank-and-file were/are the way you described? The main designations, for starters. Liberals as leftwing and conservatives as rightwing. This only makes sense if we're talking social issues, that's the only scale in which the liberals are going to be at the left. In my personal experience I've also described myself as very leftwing online and virtually all Americans immediately assumed that my "extremism" was related to social issues: that I was a social justice warrior, rather than an economical justice warrior. I'm both, so that's alright, but I didn't have to be. A lot of socialists aren't really into social justice, as I've come to find out. To your first point: I think that's a matter of perspective. I can how you hold it though, from your view there isn't a difference in economics, but to me (and most Americans) the parties are seen as being at odds over almost everything: taxes, spending, foreign policy (depending on who's in power), etc. The only thing they can seem to agree on is more debt! I think you need to look from outside some objective scale. Maybe when looking from the distance of one extreme pole to the other, they seem close, but in to follow the analogy you'd say that in America we've hacked off both ends of the scale. It's a matter of perspective, and to the people living in it, they seem quite far a part. To your second point, I think that has to do with the internet in general, perhaps the ages of the people involved, etc. In almost every poll, for instance, the economy is always chosen the most important thing to most Americans. These social issues are way down the list. I think arguing about the outrage today (SJWness) is just easier and more fun. From a leftist perspective all of this works fairly well together. As in the rest of the world people in the US care about the economy more cause that's what affects them, but in the US both parties offer mainly (neo)liberalism with some slight differences in degree and/or brazenness. If that's all you say most people are going to realize that there isn't a true alternative, so you need to distract them with some nonsense so that they can tear each other apart rather than unite. And that's where social issues come in, to make sure you have enemies of the same class to focus on while the system continues to be this hope-sucking tornado of neoliberalism... That's a bit schematic but you see the picture. I've spent some time by trying to respond but... where do I go from here? We at the point now where you saying,"yes that's what they say, and think about, but it's a trick!" I'm not even sure it matters, anyways. If this is how people are defining themselves, then I'm not sure how you can come in and say "well, how you really align is based on this." Even if it's all a great deception by the neoliberal establishment, I'm not even sure that makes it wrong. You are simply being too rigid. In this country, the political center lies somewhere else than it does in Europe. That doesn't make it a lie. You simply cannot say "well they are both neoliberal, therefore they are basically the same." edit: and it's remarkable for one party to run for the hills on social issues while also trying to maintain the illusion. Would the GOP leadership not embrace social issue politics to keep up the distraction? When I say that the political center is based on social issues it doesn't imply that people care about social issues more. You'll see that we talk about immigration a ton in Europe, that's a social issue. The parties that talk about it a lot are "far right" parties, because our center is based on economics, not on social issues, so the way we express our political beliefs says that having other ideas on social issues is extreme. That doesn't mean that people don't care about immigration, that's just how the system describes it. The reason why I think that's how you have been aligned in the US is mainly based on the words you use. The economic positions of the main parties in the US all fall under liberalism. If you go on wiki and look for a definition of liberalism that applies more to US liberals specifically, you'll have to go under "social liberalism", not really to my surprise. When someone says they're very liberal in french (très libéral), they mean that they have strongly rightwing economical beliefs. When someone says they're very liberal in the US (or in english? I don't know how that works in the UK to be honest), they mean they have strongly leftwing social beliefs. Note that the purest form of liberalism is the rightwing form, with less government intervention. So if we're talking about economics, how can a leftwinger be "very liberal"? That only works if the distinction is based on social issues. I don't really understand why I couldn't say "well they are both neoliberal, therefore they are basically the same". That sounds like exactly what I should be saying. I don't think the GOP is running for the hills on social issues at all when it comes to its rhetoric. Immigration is at the center, I hear a ton about political correctness, identity politics, christian values being under attack, so on and so on...
+ Show Spoiler +While it seems to me logical to say that people are most willing to attach to themselves to a single label based on what they care about the most, I'll grant your first section for ease. My argument is that it doesn't matter if they are all based on economic liberalism. There are still sides, and these sides are what people use when they decide if they are "right" or "left." When someone says they're very liberal in the US (or in english? I don't know how that works in the UK to be honest), they mean they have strongly leftwing social beliefs. The above is not the given you assume it is. This day and time, it seems that the word liberal has absorbed social liberalism, but that's still not what most people would think of if you asked them. Perhaps your internet interactions have distorted your perspective. Or, and I pause to say this out loud, it's that the left that is so obsessed with economics and distribution that they see everything as related to economics, at some level  but ignore that, cause many libertarians would do that too. For instance, if you ask people what defines a Republican, for decades they would have said "lower taxes, smaller government [or 'more efficient' government], and an aggressive foreign policy." That's what people would have said, that's still the stereotype, even if it's mocked. "That's what you claimed to be!" I mean sure the two ends of a yardstick are further apart than on a 1 ft ruler, but they still both have two ends. Right now is an interesting time, becuse Trump is a cultural figure, as was Obama. That, combined with the moving of social battles into the sphere of the courts, have caused a flexible moment to come about. But by and large, when someone defines themselves as left-wing in this country they are referring to economics, more often than not. And because there is a distinction there, between the two American sides, it would require compelling evidence that it was merely an illusion.
edit: I'm not sure if we are going to make any more progress. To summarize my position: By your standards, the two American sides are the same, therefore the right-left divide cannot be based on economics. I think that starting point is simply wrong, and therefore it makes sense to accept the explanation presented prima facie .
late edit: so no one misunderstands, I am NOT saying social issues don't matter. But they aren't the single, defining thing that makes someone left or right. There is a tradition in conservatism of people qho are less economically libertarian and more socially conservative, and they certainly belong on the right. But to say there is no difference between left and right in the US with respect to economics is wrong.
|
Well to be brutally honest economies in shambles are the best to exploit imperially with your mega corporations. China bends them over a barrel when it comes to deals over raw materials from siberia because no other industrialized nation is at the table.
Forget China Russia is the great untapped market. The EU looks longingly at it but the eastern states remember the jackboot mark on their throat and the northern states remember events from much longer ago.
|
On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose.
The Republican Party is the party of Trump. So we will ditch every ally we have known and give Putin anything he wants. They are going to look to the next eastern block state to liberate.
|
On July 07 2018 11:41 Introvert wrote:
edit: I'm not sure if we are going to make any more progress. To summarize my position: By your standards, the two American sides are the same, therefore the right-left divide cannot be based on economics. I think that starting point is simply wrong, and therefore it makes sense to accept the explanation presented prima facie .
The problem is that the divide in the mainstream is based off of fantasy. Essentially controlled opposition. On one side you have Democrats saying they can't support social policies without raising taxes to pay for them (while simultaneously meeting and beating Trump's ask for the military budget- no taxes needed). They, just like Republicans, call for reducing the deficit and eliminating the debt- and their supporters don't understand the consequences. Members of both parties call for a balanced budget amendment. Both support economics of austerity. Republicans don't understand the ripple effects of slashing or abolishing safety net programs (automatic stabilizers). They don't understand the purpose and function of federal taxes and have their members sign the Norquist pledge. They don't understand that their precious "free market" is heavily regulated by buffer stocks to provide price stability.
It's also important for the left (those that understand macroeconomics) to distance themselves from neoliberalism, and base economic policy off of truth and sound economics. For reasons plansix noted earlier. 
|
On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose. When you begin a trade war with the entire world you desperately start looking for an available market to save yourself.
Who else can they turn to but Russia?
(other then the obvious 'don't go to war with the entire world at the same time...')
|
On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose.
Unless the US wants to literally go to war with Russia... then what's the end game? Sanction Russia until the end of time? To what end?
The one part of Trump's platform I don't necessarily disapprove of is trying to get something sorted with the Russians. What we have now isn't working, and they're going to keep fucking with the West until we come up with something better. Not to mention, we do deals with far, far worse states and bigger enemies (Saudi Arabia, for example).
|
On July 07 2018 23:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose. Unless the US wants to literally go to war with Russia... then what's the end game? Sanction Russia until the end of time? To what end? The one part of Trump's platform I don't necessarily disapprove of is trying to get something sorted with the Russians. What we have now isn't working, and they're going to keep fucking with the West until we come up with something better. Not to mention, we do deals with far, far worse states and bigger enemies (Saudi Arabia, for example).
the thing is, we already tried to get thinsg sorted with the russians, it didn't work out because they weren't interested. there just isn't a deal to be had. doin deals with bad states requires objectives that are sufficiently aligned, and right now they just aren't.
sanctions may be far from perfect; but they're better than doing nothing. it's a good mild form of conflict, and focuses on a field of battle where we have greater relative advantage: economics.
|
On July 07 2018 23:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose. Unless the US wants to literally go to war with Russia... then what's the end game? Sanction Russia until the end of time? To what end? The one part of Trump's platform I don't necessarily disapprove of is trying to get something sorted with the Russians. What we have now isn't working, and they're going to keep fucking with the West until we come up with something better. Not to mention, we do deals with far, far worse states and bigger enemies (Saudi Arabia, for example).
The Cold War took a really long time. We are likely going to have to wait for Putin to die before we can try to have friendly relations with that country.
|
On July 07 2018 23:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2018 11:25 Womwomwom wrote:https://twitter.com/OKnox/status/1015373071241367553Russia's economy is relatively tiny and in shambles and will always be in shambles so I don't buy that argument that US businesses really need access to Russia's economy and businesses. It sort of begs the question of why Russia ever not intervene and interfere with US interests if this is the payoff? There's literally nothing to lose. Unless the US wants to literally go to war with Russia... then what's the end game? Sanction Russia until the end of time? To what end? The one part of Trump's platform I don't necessarily disapprove of is trying to get something sorted with the Russians. What we have now isn't working, and they're going to keep fucking with the West until we come up with something better. Not to mention, we do deals with far, far worse states and bigger enemies (Saudi Arabia, for example).
The US has far more leverage over Russia than Russia has over the US, especially with their EU alliance (or what remains of it). If Russia wants to play nice then you can start looking at easing tensions, but if they want to attack the US and its allies you don't roll over and say "Well ok, how can we appease you?" That is some bullshit.
The US needs to act from a position of strength, not weakness.
|
Trump's Nobel Peace Prize for North Korean diplomacy is quickly slipping away. I kind of waffle between the talks were actually unproductive, or if North Korean was conciliatory in private but are willing to tell a different story to the press to put pressure on the Trump administration which is likely quite desperate for a deal.
|
On July 08 2018 01:41 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/afp/status/1015601767353110528Trump's Nobel Peace Prize for North Korean diplomacy is quickly slipping away. I kind of waffle between the talks were actually unproductive, or if North Korean was conciliatory in private but are willing to tell a different story to the press to put pressure on the Trump administration which is likely quite desperate for a deal.
considering that the US hasn't gotten anything out of this other than lip service and that NKorea already got some things out of the US I think it's quite likely that Pompeo actually tried to play hardball there to get something for the US as well. Especially after the reports that NKorea has continued to build up their bases iirc.
The only way to come out of this looking good is if this lip service turns into actual realitiy, but NKorea knows they can already get things from the US by just dangling that promise in front of them.
With that being said... could still be both I guess
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
