|
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 October 09 2018 00:48 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:44 Plansix wrote:
I don’t know how Bernie would fair in a more competitive primary. Cooker, Harris and Warren are all boring as fuck and have almost no following compared to Bernie. Kicking Bernie's operation into overdrive is a hell of a lot easier than convincing people to give a shit about anyone else. I also think that if Bernie runs, there will be extreme pressure for centrists like Booker to get the fuck out. I would be super fucking disappointed if Booker tried to defeat Bernie.
It is a long way off, but I really wonder if the centrist vs the left debate will really translate into results in Midwestern states and other parts of the country, or if it exist mostly online and in some parts of the US.
And the primary is a contest. Booker is going to try to bet Bernie because that is how it works. Clearing the road for people is how the Democrats got into this in the first place.
|
On October 09 2018 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:50 IyMoon wrote:
This may sound shitty, but I have real problems voting for a 79 year old to hold the presidency.
Bernie is just too old for me at this point. Maybe if he put in a really solid VP I could be okay with it, but at that age I worry if he will last So long as people have purpose, drive and sufficient medical care, I have seen a lot of really old dudes cranking shit out. Perhaps I have been given more opportunity to see this kind of stuff after hanging out in academia for a while. Emeritus professors push through a lot of bullshit and remain competitive. The trick is having purpose.
I am not saying he couldn't do it at that age, I am just saying I don't like the risk.
I get that he could serve out his term and rock it, I just don't have enough faith in it happening sadly.
|
I personally find Booker extremely uncharismatic (like the anti-Obama). His meandering, repetitive speaking style wears on me. He is also a little too melodramatic for my tastes. Harris is similarly grating to me. I think it come down to the old guys, Biden and Sanders, with Warren as the wildcard.
Edit: I should probably note that me not liking their speaking styles is not why I think they will not necessarily be the picks. Biden and Sanders have the name recognition while Warren is a loudmouth who fights Trump and will get a lot of attention.
|
On October 09 2018 01:19 On_Slaught wrote:
I personally find Booker extremely uncharismatic (like the anti-Obama). His meandering, repetitive speaking style wears on me. He is also a little too melodramatic for my tastes. Harris is similarly grating to me. I think it come down to the old guys, Biden and Sanders, with Warren as the wildcard.
Edit: I should probably note that me not liking their speaking styles is not why I think they will necessarily not be the picks. Biden and Sanders have the name recognition while Warren is a loudmouth who will get a lot of attention.
Same. Bernie and Trump showed us how much value is created by having a highly charismatic candidate. And while Bernie is not the usual type of charisma, he definitely has his own version of it. Trump's immunity to most scandals is created by his extremely dedicated fan base. Without the people who are obsessed with him as a person, he would lose a ton of his sway. Booker and Harris would not inherit this type of power.
|
On October 09 2018 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 00:50 IyMoon wrote:
This may sound shitty, but I have real problems voting for a 79 year old to hold the presidency.
Bernie is just too old for me at this point. Maybe if he put in a really solid VP I could be okay with it, but at that age I worry if he will last So long as people have purpose, drive and sufficient medical care, I have seen a lot of really old dudes cranking shit out. Perhaps I have been given more opportunity to see this kind of stuff after hanging out in academia for a while. Emeritus professors push through a lot of bullshit and remain competitive. The trick is having purpose. While I mostly agree, the Presidency is a job that weighs on you hard. Its a very different kind of pressure and wear soul then a professor.
|
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now.
|
On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now.
It sounds great, but we've got a lot of trash who only become involved in politics when someone gets them excited. Politics is more of an ad campaign than an election at this point. Either get someone with some fire or lose.
|
This whole story about the chief of Interpol resigning after disappearing for a week is a sign of the times. Apparently he has been in China during that time, was detained and then resigned after China exposed "corruption". Of course Interpol has asked for more details, which China hasn't provided. China apparently feels like the EU and US are to weak and unwilling to push back or punish them for basically taking the head of a muti-nation agency into custody and forcing him to resign.
Interpol President Meng Hongwei has resigned, after being detained by Chinese authorities who accuse him of corruption. The shocking turnabout comes days after Meng's wife said the career police officer had disappeared; one week ago, he left France to visit his native China.
Interpol said Meng resigned his post on Sunday, "with immediate effect." On the same day, his wife, Grace, told journalists in Lyon — where Interpol is based — that she had received a troubling text message from her husband's phone: a knife emoji. That was an ominous follow-up to an earlier message, which had asked her to wait for Meng to call.
China's Public Security Minister Zhao Kezhi said on Monday that Meng is being investigated for allegations of bribery — charges that he did not describe in detail. Zhao said his ministry supports the inquiry; he also spoke of the importance of loyalty to the Communist Party's ideals.
"We should deeply recognize the serious damage that Meng Hongwei's bribe-taking and suspected violations of the law have caused the party and the cause of public security and deeply learn from this lesson," Zhao said, in a translation by The Associated Press.
The extraordinary case has sparked headlines around the world. It also prompted Interpol, the world's largest police organization, to ask China for an explanation. On Saturday, Interpol said Secretary General Jürgen Stock had sent an official request to China, hoping to clarify the legal status of its president. One day later, Interpol said it had received Meng's resignation letter — cutting his four-year term in half.
Source
|
On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now.
We can't really afford boring right now, we're running out of time.
|
On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now.
I think such framing is dangerous. For the last few decades the GOP has been much more destructive while in office than the Democrats have been constructive. While it would be nice to have Obama in charge again, it’s not like he really did that much to prevent his accomplishments from being sabotaged by the GOP the moment they held some leverage. Neither did he achieve anything truly transformative during his first few years in office when he had a supermajority. I’d much rather have an “exciting” president given that last I read starting from 2040 climate change will make many parts of the world unlivable and will probably cause a global turn towards fascism. If there is a centrist Dem in 2020 who doesn’t drastically change the direction of the country, this could have dire negative effects two or three decades from now. In many respects it’s our last chance as a global community to meaningfully mitigate the effects of climate change.
If you think the GOP is cruel towards immigrants now, then just wait until there are 10 million refugees fleeing floods and famine in Central America. Or let’s see what happens if Bangladesh becomes unlivable and India and Pakistan start a nuclear war as a result.
|
On October 09 2018 02:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now. I think such framing is dangerous. For the last few decades the GOP has been much more destructive while in office than the Democrats have been constructive. While it would be nice to have Obama in charge again, it’s not like he really did that much to prevent his accomplishments from being sabotaged by the GOP the moment they held some leverage. Neither did he achieve anything truly transformative during his first few years in office when he had a supermajority. I’d much rather have an “exciting” president given that last I read starting from 2040 climate change will make many parts of the world unlivable and will probably cause a global turn towards fascism. If there is a centrist Dem in 2020 who doesn’t drastically change the direction of the country, this could have dire negative effects two or three decades from now. In many respects it’s our last chance as a global community to meaningfully mitigate the effects of climate change. If you think the GOP is cruel towards immigrants now, then just wait until there are 10 million refugees fleeing floods and famine in Central America. Or let’s see what happens if Bangladesh becomes unlivable and India and Pakistan start a nuclear war as a result.
How much of humanity was spared destruction because FDR was a good incarnation of American royalty? The guy was silver spoon his whole life and wormed his way into politics on his famous name. But he turned out to be a good liberal democrat as the rest of the world descended in totalitarian fascism and/or communism. What if we had a shitfucker like Trump in the face of global horror? I guess we got a taste of such awfulness with Bush2/911/terrible wars of choice and failure. Global horror would give Trump the political backing necessary to start doing some of the stuff he says at his rallies.
EDIT: contrast FDR's basic grip on reality and weight of his difficult and world saving decisions, with DJT's full of Alzheimer's grade fantasies:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Sorry, I should have made clear I was talking about Sanders when I said “exciting”.
|
The Great Depression was caused, in part, by the Herbert Hoovers policies, which lead to him being voted out of office. But not before the depression had gripped the entire US economy and would do so for a decade. FDR became the nominee for the Democrats(this is before primaries) because he had made a name for himself economic problem solver as Governor of New York.
|
On October 09 2018 02:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now. I think such framing is dangerous. For the last few decades the GOP has been much more destructive while in office than the Democrats have been constructive. While it would be nice to have Obama in charge again, it’s not like he really did that much to prevent his accomplishments from being sabotaged by the GOP the moment they held some leverage. Neither did he achieve anything truly transformative during his first few years in office when he had a supermajority. I’d much rather have an “exciting” president given that last I read starting from 2040 climate change will make many parts of the world unlivable and will probably cause a global turn towards fascism. If there is a centrist Dem in 2020 who doesn’t drastically change the direction of the country, this could have dire negative effects two or three decades from now. In many respects it’s our last chance as a global community to meaningfully mitigate the effects of climate change. If you think the GOP is cruel towards immigrants now, then just wait until there are 10 million refugees fleeing floods and famine in Central America. Or let’s see what happens if Bangladesh becomes unlivable and India and Pakistan start a nuclear war as a result.
I'm not sure if the US, and by extension, the world needs more polarization right now or if that's how you get the best results 30 years down the line. If a 'radical' leftie would become president there's a significant risk that the right would reply in kind four or eight years from now. If we depend on the next US president to turn the country on it's head I'd say we're fucked either way. What I'm certain about is that we can't afford another Trumpesque president in 2028.
That said, the dull and boring comment was more in regards to his or her ability to make new headlines on hourly basis, not about the ability to act.
|
On October 09 2018 02:40 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 02:14 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2018 01:52 Longshank wrote:
From across the pond, I'd say a dull and boring US president sounds pretty good right now. I think such framing is dangerous. For the last few decades the GOP has been much more destructive while in office than the Democrats have been constructive. While it would be nice to have Obama in charge again, it’s not like he really did that much to prevent his accomplishments from being sabotaged by the GOP the moment they held some leverage. Neither did he achieve anything truly transformative during his first few years in office when he had a supermajority. I’d much rather have an “exciting” president given that last I read starting from 2040 climate change will make many parts of the world unlivable and will probably cause a global turn towards fascism. If there is a centrist Dem in 2020 who doesn’t drastically change the direction of the country, this could have dire negative effects two or three decades from now. In many respects it’s our last chance as a global community to meaningfully mitigate the effects of climate change. If you think the GOP is cruel towards immigrants now, then just wait until there are 10 million refugees fleeing floods and famine in Central America. Or let’s see what happens if Bangladesh becomes unlivable and India and Pakistan start a nuclear war as a result. If a 'radical' leftie would become president there's a significant risk that the right would reply in kind four or eight years from now.
The opposite of that is true. The closer to the center your candidate is, the more the opposition has to be an extreme to distinguish itself from you. If you give the rightwing more room on the center right, they can try and attract the people there, and that gives your overall political map more balance.
|
The many of the sweeping victories(Nixon being the exception) in US history were caused by picking candidates that promised to make big changes to the way the US worked to address the problems in the era. From FDR to Reagan, all of them promised to reshape some aspect of US life. If the center is the status quo, Americans do not want more of the same with slight upgrades. However, it has also been shown that Americans love politicians that work across the isle and get results. Which is why my Republican Governor is one of the most popular governors in America.
|
On October 09 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:
The many of the sweeping victories(Nixon being the exception) in US history were caused by picking candidates that promised to make big changes to the way the US worked to address the problems in the era. From FDR to Reagan, all of them promised to reshape some aspect of US life. If the center is the status quo, Americans do not want more of the same with slight upgrades. However, it has also been shown that Americans love politicians that work across the isle and get results. Which is why my Republican Governor is one of the most popular governors in America.
Change vs more of the same is the clear reason Trump won
|
On October 09 2018 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:
The many of the sweeping victories(Nixon being the exception) in US history were caused by picking candidates that promised to make big changes to the way the US worked to address the problems in the era. From FDR to Reagan, all of them promised to reshape some aspect of US life. If the center is the status quo, Americans do not want more of the same with slight upgrades. However, it has also been shown that Americans love politicians that work across the isle and get results. Which is why my Republican Governor is one of the most popular governors in America. Change vs more of the same is the clear reason Trump won
That and all the FBI investigations and just wild leaks from the DNC hack. But the rot that created Trump already existed. And people wanted that rot gone. They see it and want it addressed. And Trump is the only one saying he would do it. It was a lie, but people wanted to believe it. People wanted to punch Washington and Trump was the fist.
|
On October 09 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2018 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:On October 09 2018 03:57 Plansix wrote:
The many of the sweeping victories(Nixon being the exception) in US history were caused by picking candidates that promised to make big changes to the way the US worked to address the problems in the era. From FDR to Reagan, all of them promised to reshape some aspect of US life. If the center is the status quo, Americans do not want more of the same with slight upgrades. However, it has also been shown that Americans love politicians that work across the isle and get results. Which is why my Republican Governor is one of the most popular governors in America. Change vs more of the same is the clear reason Trump won That and all the FBI investigations and just wild leaks from the DNC hack. But the rot that created Trump already existed. And people wanted that rot gone. They see it and want it addressed. And Trump is the only one saying he would do it. It was a lie, but people wanted to believe it. People wanted to punch Washington and Trump was the fist.
I mean Trump is the one exposing the rot, it's just that a lot of his supporters smell shit and call it perfume.
The partisan blinders are stronger than ever because of blind faith in a conman.
|
Amy Klobuchar would be the easy win candidate for the Democrats. A safe nice midwestern woman would secure The blue firewall that was promised in 2016. She's an incredibly hard target seeing how she even got Kavanaugh to apologize to her.
Booker would be an easy target for Republicans from being in New Jersey to being well lets be objective black (disclaimers about it being me saying he's bad because hes black I don't think being black means hes inferior I'm not saying that I'm saying that it would be easy to sling mud at him for the conservative base because hes black)
Warren would be an even worse candidate than Hillary. I don't know why she's considered a serious candidate for the presidency. She's probably pretty popular within her crowd but would die a death on any national campaign.
Bernie could give a candidate a rocket at the start of a campaign but I don't think the party could survive another Bernie Sanders campaign pulling the party apart (through no fault of his own)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
