EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4667
| 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 | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On December 19 2024 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote: I don't think they will. Felt the same way about Republicans after Bush though. So if Democrats have the sort of hostile takeover Trump did to Republicans maybe they could win it back, but I'm doubtful. Yeah I'm in the same boat now. The CEO shooting was the big push I needed to give up on dems. Changed my party affiliation and emailed the Oregon dems indicating Tim Walz being a oligarch bootlicker (I phrased it less callously, but also made it very clear the specific issue I had) was a critical deal breaker for me. I think a hostile takeover of sorts is possible. Pelosi shenanigans so soon after Walz licking CEO toes is all the evidence we need the core mechanics of the party will always side with the ruling class even when it couldn't be more obvious the voters want the opposite. What I can more reasonably imagine is for this to be a "Dark AOC" moment. I know AOC doesn't pass a lot of modern purity tests for leftists nowadays, but she did start out as way more genuine and fresh than she is today. After a lot of tension with the old guard, it seemed they managed to bring her to heel by providing her a path to make real difference. Or at least that's what they fooled her into thinking. I think she began to genuinely believe the whole "rebuild from within" narrative we all know is dogshit at this point. A 74 year old inside trader being chosen over AOC is just so blatant and arrogant. It shows they know they operate with impunity. After years of AOC obeying commands given to her, I hope this is a breaking moment for her. In my ideal scenario: Bernie is on his way out and AOC is invincible in her district. Bernie could pull a "no fucks given" career ending move and jump into some "new AOC party" to add legitimacy to it. A few would likely jump ship as well. And tbh I think once there was some other "not democrats" party other than the dogshit we currently have, a lot of left leaning members of congress would have a ton of pressure to jump ship as well. Green/Socialist party in the US right now are a giant mess and awful and I'd choose dems over either of them. But a party that essentially reflected a Bernie dream world would be appealing to me. Even though green and socialist claim to be similar, the ugly underbelly of both of them shows a level of rot similar to the dems I'm jumping away from. A new party with a better beginning and a better staff would be great to me. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On December 18 2024 03:43 BlackJack wrote: If you want to argue that health officials lying during the pandemic was the correct move, be my guest, but comparing it to parents telling their toddler children fairy tales might be the dumbest idea ever offered here. I mean I've seen libertarians on here trying to be serious and people still taking third parties as a legitimate idea so lets lower our standards on that a lot. We're okay with constructing a massive lie to our children as we raise them and just let them find out on their own at some point that they've been fooled into the system for their own good and that they need to perpetrate that own lie onto their children. What is the government suppose to do than operate in the best interest of the people they serve? If you're okay with lieing to people about santa then you need to be okay with the government lieing to serve your best interest. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10492 Posts
On December 19 2024 07:07 Sermokala wrote: If you're okay with lieing to people about santa then you need to be okay with the government lieing to serve your best interest. Makes perfect sense | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
On December 18 2024 23:03 oBlade wrote: So when I said "in no mythology that I know of is Santa Claus portrayed as a public enterprise" you took that to mean "Santa Claus is portrayed as a public enterprise." Super. He's not, and people don't, because people besides Democrats know not to stake their bets on the public sector. In a government of, for, and by the people, what you're describing would be people lying to themselves, which is delusion. In the case of a government not of, for, and by the people, I don't need to go any further to explain the problem with that situation. The government, unlike Santa Claus, is real. While the government is real, it remains of suspect utility as regards charity. Because they are fundamentally different concepts. Charity is about being generous to others with what YOU have. The government is about spending what EVERYONE had until it became the government's on a magic date in the middle of April. But I agree fundamentally you're correct, charity is the highest and only good in the world, which is why your door is open to homeless people to stay with you ad libitum. No I took "in no mythology that I know of is Santa Claus portrayed as a public enterprise" as you pulling public enterprise out of your ass when no one else mentioned that. If you seriously take no bets on the public sector you shouldn't be able to trust any food or water you consume so good luck on that gotcha. Santa is very real I don't know what hold on reality you have but I can pull up a lot of media on him right now and the concept of christmas is a very well known public concept. Do you need me to explain to you what santa is and how people celebrate christmas? Charity and the government fulfill many of the same roles, the UK has tried to roll over a lot more of its duties to charities, do you know how well that has gone? I don't know how you pay your taxes but I pay a tax on every weeks paycheck and on products I buy every other day or so. I don't know what a specific day in april is so powerful for you. Its really funny you want to look smart and use a latin word in your argument but lets google it for a second and let everyone learn just how dumb it is for you to use that word specifically. ad lib·i·tum: as much or as often as necessary or desired So yeah homeless people can stay with me as much as I desire. They can stay in my state as long as nessisary as well I'm happy to pay for them in my taxes. I have had people live with me when they didn't have a home to live in at the time. I'm well off enough and live in the sticks where I can afford a cheap large home. My local town has a muni bar and liquor store so we pay almost no taxes. They paved the road outside my home and I wasn't even assessed for it because they had cash for it. If you are homeless and have no job you can get free healthcare with mincare. I can teach you in a few weeks enough that you need to know to hold down a machine operator job. You can go to community college for free as well now in Minnesota. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13924 Posts
How much rat feces are you okay with in your cereal? Should the government inform you whenever they find even a little rat feces in your cereal or should they save it for when they find enough to go over their self-imposed bar for what is too much rat feces? There was actually a west wing episode on this. There was a positive case of mad cow disease on a farm and the president had to make the call to either warn everyone or wait for a second test to make sure it wasn't a false positive. If the government should never lie to the public they should inform them of every positive test for mad cow in America. I'm sure if they find out later it was a false postive everyone will be okay and there won't be any consequences. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On December 19 2024 07:04 Sermokala wrote: The CEO that was killed was from the state that walz is governor of and the med tech industry is really important for the state. I understand this and it helps to explain the situation. But I don't think it excuses it. It shouldn't be a given that he has to kiss the toes of business interests in his state when the specific company is so ethically abhorrent in so many ways the guy killed was directly involved in. On December 19 2024 07:04 Sermokala wrote: We have the best hospital in the world which is also the largest employer. I don't see how this relates. On December 19 2024 07:04 Sermokala wrote: I'm not empathetic for his death as much as the next person but this idea that hes a bootlicker is just wrong. Hes a union man for christs sake what purity test do you need? You can't be dumb enough to think splitting the democrats into two smaller parties will do anything but deliver a generation of easy national wins to the republicans. I'm familiar with his support of unions and it is a positive in my eyes. I think the issue of labor and the struggles of the working class are much broader than the distinction between yes/no union support. I am sure you are aware an equitable and fair life for the working class requires much more than support of unions. Did democrats not just deliver national wins to republicans? To what extent are democrats currently succeeding? Just to be entirely clear, I think "the establishment" giving us shit like a 74 year old inside trader winning over AOC is not a party I have any faith in winning the presidency any time soon. I don't think democrats will win in 2028 unless there is a hostile takeover of the party. The old guard has got to go. They won't go. We need to just move on and build something new without them. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7291 Posts
I think its more likely that they simply flip flop the presidency between parties while neither makes any meaningful change to people's lives and Democrats do nothing to change or rehabilitate their shitty image. Id say thats business as usual for my life time, but I imagine given the far right fascist rise in recent times that theres a strong change it enables republicans with dictatorial aspirations long enough for one of them to maybe actually stick the landing. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On December 19 2024 07:49 Zambrah wrote: I think its more likely that they simply flip flop the presidency between parties while neither makes any meaningful change to people's lives and Democrats do nothing to change or rehabilitate their shitty image. I think the simple explanation of "Harris lost because the economy sucks" is entirely possible. I'd probably lean towards its the most likely scenario. But hear me out. I understand I am (rightfully) viewed as a bit of an outlier, but the hopelessness people feel about the party right now feels lot more cemented than it was in 2016. Its all personal anecdote, but the hopelessness online and in person feels a more conclusive right now. There have been too many easy wins for dems that they have totally decided against for the sake of corporate interests and power retention. The geriatric dem leadership is simply too strong. The party does not want to adapt and it does not want to be flexible. People are noticing. I like many democrat politicians and I am mostly happy with Oregon democrats and how Oregon is run. But the key difference between dems and republicans is republicans are way more focused on actually winning. They are willing to give in to populism and throw meat at the masses when they see it as advantageous. Dems simply refuse. Dems are totally unwilling to bend to the evolving populist tilt the country is developing. I think a lot of it comes down to: Dem establishment does not need to win the presidency to retain power and accumulate wealth. I think they are able to have everything they want without giving an inch because they don't actually feel a deep need to win the presidency. It might be fair to say my decision to say "fuck it, I'm done" is more so related to dem leadership not prioritizing the presidency enough to make concessions or give up pockets of power within the machine. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10492 Posts
On December 19 2024 07:27 Sermokala wrote: How much rat feces are you okay with in your cereal? Should the government inform you whenever they find even a little rat feces in your cereal or should they save it for when they find enough to go over their self-imposed bar for what is too much rat feces? There was actually a west wing episode on this. There was a positive case of mad cow disease on a farm and the president had to make the call to either warn everyone or wait for a second test to make sure it wasn't a false positive. If the government should never lie to the public they should inform them of every positive test for mad cow in America. I'm sure if they find out later it was a false postive everyone will be okay and there won't be any consequences. There's a difference between not sounding the alarm until they've confirmed the facts and purposefully telling an untruth for whatever noble reason. You're trying to defend the latter with examples of the former. Also I'm not sure who is lying to us about rat droppings. I can go on my county's health department's website and see which restaurants have violations for rat droppings. If the government has a bar for how much rat feces is allowed in cereal then they are being transparent about that, aren't they? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7291 Posts
I think the simple explanation of "Harris lost because the economy sucks" is entirely possible. I'd probably lean towards its the most likely scenario. But hear me out. I understand I am (rightfully) viewed as a bit of an outlier, but the hopelessness people feel about the party right now feels lot more cemented than it was in 2016. There have been too many easy wins for dems that they have totally decided against for the sake of corporate interests and power retention. The geriatric dem leadership is simply too strong. The party does not want to adapt and it does not want to be flexible. I largely agree with this, my only contention is that I'm choosing to guess that the voters Democrats got in this election could constitute a base comparable to Republicans, people who will just vote Blue every time no matter what, and I think both parties bases are of comparable size and comparable voting regularity. You're totally right about the hopelessness, and I'd add that Democrats just aren't seen very favorably by people who should ostensibly be a part of their base, but theres enough polarization that I think they'll always have a large number of votes and it'll always be at least vaguely competitive with Republicans, at least competitive enough that we'll see swings in power based on who is in charge and how much worse they made/let life get. I like many democrat politicians and I am mostly happy with Oregon democrats and how Oregon is run. But the key difference between dems and republicans is republicans are way more focused on actually winning. They are willing to give in to populism and throw meat at the masses when they see it as advantageous. Dems simply refuse. Dems are totally unwilling to bend to the evolving populist tilt the country is developing. Yeah, when I look at Republicans I see the culmination of what seems like long running plans to grab power wherever they can, when I look at Democrats I see them flounder around and piss about and not actually accomplish anything comparable to what Republicans could do with similar power. It really just feels like theyre not invested in making things better or winning, they're just happy to play the game and rake in the colossal sums of money from playing it. To Democrat leaders even if they lose an election they're still basically winning at life. I think a lot of it comes down to: Dem establishment does not need to win the presidency to retain power and accumulate wealth. I think they are able to have everything they want without giving an inch because they don't actually feel a deep need to win the presidency. It might be fair to say my decision to say "fuck it, I'm done" is more so related to dem leadership not prioritizing the presidency enough to make concessions or give up pockets of power within the machine. I think a part of this is that Republicans/far righties seem to have real ideology they believe in and pursue, people like Peter Thiel aren't exclusively vying for power because they like it stable and want maybe a nice tax break, they seem to have horrible things they believe in and want to see changed and are happy pulling the levers of power to achieve it. Democrats don't seem to believe in anything at any level, their donors don't want things to change and thats about the only consistent belief I identify from Democrats. People like Bernie believe things, but hes sidelined, they sideline everyone who appears to believe in anything. And yeah, as someone who has spent their adult voting career voting for Democrats even when they suck, I'm pretty done with their loser asses, if they want my vote they can make an honest to god effort for once in their lives. Like, they don't even appear to try, and there are a lot of reasons why that might be, but when I look at what they say and do I come to a similar conclusion, they like money, they bend over for money, their values are a combination of civility and money, but only civility insofar as it protects the money. We likely won't see any meaningful change from them for the next ~20 years while the Bill Clinton fuckwits die off. It'll be a real scramble since they don't seem to make any real effort to cultivate up and comers or talent, maybe that'll be an opportunity for some half decent people to get power. Or we'll be subsumed by the tides of fascism and what not, hard to tell these days. | ||
micronesia
United States24676 Posts
A government shutdown Christmas week will not be popular. edit: can we make an orange Grinch image somehow? | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15686 Posts
On December 19 2024 08:18 Zambrah wrote: We likely won't see any meaningful change from them for the next ~20 years while the Bill Clinton fuckwits die off. It'll be a real scramble since they don't seem to make any real effort to cultivate up and comers or talent, maybe that'll be an opportunity for some half decent people to get power. I think this can be reasonably proven by examining AOC's career. Ignoring all the pros/cons of AOC, I think it is extremely easy for people to agree she totally fits the label of "young rising star in the party". To what extent has she been supported? To what extent as she been snubbed? If "developing talent" was a priority, a 74 year old with cancer would not have been given the position rather than AOC. How about addressing the geriatric issues within the party? Nope. Not even after our presidential candidate was allowed to stay in the race for an obscene amount of time and eventually the plug had to be pulled after a disastrous debate. When its not important to develop new talent, and its not important to address structural issues within the party, the party is not being led by people invested or concerned with the long-term success of the party. It all feels very similar to companies that are run into the ground after being pillaged by investors and executives. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25185 Posts
On December 19 2024 08:13 BlackJack wrote: There's a difference between not sounding the alarm until they've confirmed the facts and purposefully telling an untruth for whatever noble reason. You're trying to defend the latter with examples of the former. Also I'm not sure who is lying to us about rat droppings. I can go on my county's health department's website and see which restaurants have violations for rat droppings. If the government has a bar for how much rat feces is allowed in cereal then they are being transparent about that, aren't they? Why are you so vociferous on government being 100% truthful in these domains but so reticent to demand regulation of obvious lies in other domains? I’m not personally sure how I feel about certain government(s) messaging in COVID times to this day, I think there’s a pragmatic justification for some calls, equally a moral and indeed pragmatic case against it. Erosion of trust at the first pass will see worse results down the line. Is it just who’s saying it and a higher bar on governmental agencies or what? | ||
|
Billyboy
1009 Posts
On December 18 2024 23:49 mierin wrote: This is incredible logic. Lol over/under on when Democrats retake the presidency? It seems to me that all the most recent people in these roles are fairly hated, including people in their own party. Not to mention, even in this thread, when people talk about the bad parts of AOC it is about her compromising, which is fairly necessary for the position. I'd bet they win the next one. People are pissed about higher prices, Trump's big policy promise is tariffs. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25185 Posts
On December 19 2024 09:51 Billyboy wrote: It seems to me that all the most recent people in these roles are fairly hated, including people in their own party. Not to mention, even in this thread, when people talk about the bad parts of AOC it is about her compromising, which is fairly necessary for the position. I'd bet they win the next one. People are pissed about higher prices, Trump's big policy promise is tariffs. They might well do so, especially as Trump has no obvious heir apparent. Something of a consequence of hitching oneself wholeheartedly to that particular horse. Once it bolts what’s your plan B? That a lot of people might not care all that much is probably more indicative of these wider systemic problems and democratic disconnects. Still the same uninspiring and slightly less corrupt Dems, not really one to enthuse. | ||
|
Razyda
712 Posts
On December 19 2024 07:07 Sermokala wrote: If you're okay with lieing to people about santa then you need to be okay with the government lieing to serve your best interest. Ffs - let me explain the difference: Someone lying to kids about Santa takes the burden on himself, government is lying and puts the burden on everybody else. Your example would only be correct if someone lying to his kids about Santa came to you and said " dude my kids believe in Santa you have to buy them presents" | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25185 Posts
On December 19 2024 10:33 Razyda wrote: Ffs - let me explain the difference: Someone lying to kids about Santa takes the burden on himself, government is lying and puts the burden on everybody else. Your example would only be correct if someone lying to his kids about Santa came to you and said " dude my kids believe in Santa you have to buy them presents" Except the cultural burden of Santa is imposed by others and the wider culture. So this somewhat breaks down. It’s not something I sit down one day and decide ‘hey better tell kiddo about this guy Santa’ If you’re poor you’ve got two options, tell your kid Santa is bullshit and remove that pillar of childlike innocence and wonder and the reason their friends get better presents is because you don’t have as much money, or have your kid believe and think they’re at some kind of personal moral fault because Santa didn’t treat them as well | ||
| ||
