|
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 17 2018 01:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats. That and disgustingly blatant voter suppression.
What, you mean extreme gerrymandering, requiring lots of ID, asking for citizenship in census to skew the House, and just trying to have minorities afraid to vote ? Republicans ? Bahhh, never ! They are the party of law and order after all ! (cough)
I nearly choked when McConnell told that he could confirm another Supreme Court judge in 2020. Because of course, "if we hold the Senate it is perfectly acceptable ! Only when the Senate is held by the opposition you can't do that and need to see who voters will elect !"
And he said that with a straight face ! Law and order hu.
About Trump/Daniels :
Source : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-threatens-lawsuit-against-horseface-stormy-daniels-3rd-rate-lawyer-michael-avenatti-after-ruling-in-his-favor
The court, on Monday, ruled in favor of Trump, noting the tweet “constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.,” according to U.S. District Judge S. James Otero's ruling. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.”
If only this kind of "Rhetorical Hyperbole, common in politics" was not protected by the constitution, to force politicians to tell a little less bullshit, things could be a little more civil ?
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 17 2018 00:03 farvacola wrote:
Warren's propriety as a candidate notwithstanding, the state of average household finances is absolutely a viable path of attack against Trump and his cohort of regressive taxslashing Republicans. That's a huge part of why Bernie is so popular in the first place.
As inflammatory rhetoric that would galvanize the apathetic sections of the Democrat voter base, I think it would be a lukewarm tactic at best. Wage stagnation, ballooning asset prices, and the shrinking prospects of middle class life and are trends that track even before Obama. People who suffer from them on a day-to-day basis don't see either party actively advocating policies to help them rise out of that pit.
On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats.
The basic conservative ethos is to preserve what has existed before, making minor alterations at best for incremental progress. Democrats don't get to use the same rationale. They need to be rallied behind a clear vision of the future by someone who earns their admiration.
|
Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats. The basic conservative ethos is to preserve what has existed before, making minor alterations at best for incremental progress. Democrats don't get to use the same rationale. They need to be rallied behind a clear vision of the future by someone who earns their admiration.
Please explain to me how completely overhauling the world order that has existed since WWII, saying f*** to most international agreements, and stoking fires here and there, risking open wars, are minor alterations for incremental progress. I do not understand why they are getting along with it, except to save their political futures. I feel that conservative ethos that I could somewhat get behind before, is now dead and buried. Same for budget sanity and deficit.
Or are they hoping that when POTUS leaves, they can resume business as usual after advancing a few positions like judges ? But it might already be too late, with the US world-leading position irreparably damaged. Some risks they are taking...
|
The fact that many folks do not think either party adequately addresses the problems underlying day to day household finances suggests that that is a policy area just waiting for an energizing message, a message that Dems who can pull their head out of their asses could capitalize on given who is in power right now. The "left behind" average family of blue collar workers remain an important swing group, but reaching them on just terms remains largely elusive, even for someone as demagogically successful as Trump.
|
On October 17 2018 02:16 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 01:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats. That and disgustingly blatant voter suppression. What, you mean extreme gerrymandering, requiring lots of ID, asking for citizenship in census to skew the House, and just trying to have minorities afraid to vote ? Republicans ? Bahhh, never ! They are the party of law and order after all ! (cough) I nearly choked when McConnell told that he could confirm another Supreme Court judge in 2020. Because of course, "if we hold the Senate it is perfectly acceptable ! Only when the Senate is held by the opposition you can't do that and need to see who voters will elect !" And he said that with a straight face ! Law and order hu. About Trump/Daniels : Source : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-threatens-lawsuit-against-horseface-stormy-daniels-3rd-rate-lawyer-michael-avenatti-after-ruling-in-his-favorShow nested quote +The court, on Monday, ruled in favor of Trump, noting the tweet “constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.,” according to U.S. District Judge S. James Otero's ruling. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.” If only this kind of "Rhetorical Hyperbole, common in politics" was not protected by the constitution, to force politicians to tell a little less bullshit, things could be a little more civil ?
Historically, that was the job of the voters. If politicians are known to constantly spread lies and bullshit, voters ought not vote for them. Trump seems to have found a psychological exploit that prevents that reaction.
|
On October 17 2018 02:46 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 02:16 Nouar wrote:On October 17 2018 01:27 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats. That and disgustingly blatant voter suppression. What, you mean extreme gerrymandering, requiring lots of ID, asking for citizenship in census to skew the House, and just trying to have minorities afraid to vote ? Republicans ? Bahhh, never ! They are the party of law and order after all ! (cough) I nearly choked when McConnell told that he could confirm another Supreme Court judge in 2020. Because of course, "if we hold the Senate it is perfectly acceptable ! Only when the Senate is held by the opposition you can't do that and need to see who voters will elect !" And he said that with a straight face ! Law and order hu. About Trump/Daniels : Source : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-threatens-lawsuit-against-horseface-stormy-daniels-3rd-rate-lawyer-michael-avenatti-after-ruling-in-his-favorThe court, on Monday, ruled in favor of Trump, noting the tweet “constitutes ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ normally associated with politics and public discourse in the U.S.,” according to U.S. District Judge S. James Otero's ruling. “The First Amendment protects this type of rhetorical statement.” If only this kind of "Rhetorical Hyperbole, common in politics" was not protected by the constitution, to force politicians to tell a little less bullshit, things could be a little more civil ? Historically, that was the job of the voters. If politicians are known to constantly spread lies and bullshit, voters ought not vote for them. Trump seems to have found a psychological exploit that prevents that reaction.
The tribal framework already in place in both religious and rural communities makes it very easy for someone to say "those other people are bad, and I need to do x y and z to stop them!". And since the same groups have an abnormally unwavering respect for figures of authority, it gets even worse.
|
Speaking of tribal loyalties ... turns out Trump was a real Republican after all. Trump is full on board with doing PR flak work for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This is the kind of spinning you could expect from an RT host. Truly, Trump is the ideological heir of Bush2. Much as all Republicans in the past ~40 years have done, Trump continues their tradition of defending KSA against reality.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 17 2018 04:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:Speaking of tribal loyalties ... turns out Trump was a real Republican after all. Trump is full on board with doing PR flak work for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This is the kind of spinning you could expect from an RT host. Truly, Trump is the ideological heir of Bush2. Much as all Republicans in the past ~40 years have done, Trump continues their tradition of defending KSA against reality. + Show Spoiler +
This might be up there with his dumbest tweets of all time. It's a foregone conclusion that MBS would "totally deny." Does Trump not know that fact? If he doesn't know it, what does it say about him?
|
On October 17 2018 04:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 04:06 Wulfey_LA wrote:Speaking of tribal loyalties ... turns out Trump was a real Republican after all. Trump is full on board with doing PR flak work for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This is the kind of spinning you could expect from an RT host. Truly, Trump is the ideological heir of Bush2. Much as all Republicans in the past ~40 years have done, Trump continues their tradition of defending KSA against reality. + Show Spoiler + This might be up there with his dumbest tweets of all time. It's a foregone conclusion that MBS would "totally deny." Does Trump not know that fact? If he doesn't know it, what does it say about him? It falls perfectly in line with Trump believing Putin when he says they didn't interfere in the election.
Did you seriously expect anything else?
|
On October 17 2018 02:32 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 00:08 dankobanana wrote:On October 17 2018 00:06 Mohdoo wrote:
If getting things done meant getting people to vote for you, we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. Our own nobility does us no good. Republicans landed 2 supreme court justices as a list 20 feet long of long-held objectives by gathering behind the guy they knew would win. the thing is, they get out and vote. and they vote because they are motivated by fear. fear mongering is how republicans operate and it would not work for the democrats. The basic conservative ethos is to preserve what has existed before, making minor alterations at best for incremental progress. Democrats don't get to use the same rationale. They need to be rallied behind a clear vision of the future by someone who earns their admiration. Please explain to me how completely overhauling the world order that has existed since WWII, saying f*** to most international agreements, and stoking fires here and there, risking open wars, are minor alterations for incremental progress. I do not understand why they are getting along with it, except to save their political futures. I feel that conservative ethos that I could somewhat get behind before, is now dead and buried. Same for budget sanity and deficit. Or are they hoping that when POTUS leaves, they can resume business as usual after advancing a few positions like judges ? But it might already be too late, with the US world-leading position irreparably damaged. Some risks they are taking...
You're not seeing the disconnect between the conservative intelligentsia/politicians vs the conservative base/voters vs. non-conservative right-wing. The conservative leadership is largely concerned with preserving the political structure as it exists now, with them in power, at the top, or working for a think-tank.
Whereas the conservative base/voters are more concerned with preserving the social and political order of twenty to fifty years ago; basically whenever they were children or young adults. It really is true that conservatives are often "progressives in slow motion".
And finally the non-conservative right wing is more focused on creating a new order entirely, just one that is opposed to the progressive new order. They see the success of the progressive, that yesterday's novelty becomes today's tradition, and they've decided that conservatism is not a tenable position right now. In some ways they could be called regressive to the conservative status-quo; but then that isn't quite right either. It's all very confused and vague, as most political movements are in their beginning stages. It doesn't help that it is largely without an intellectual leadership that this particular brand of American right-wing politics has sprung up. Also the various groups within this umbrella of non-conservative right-wingers are pretty disparate and some even mutually exclusive. The neo-Nazi is not the Christian traditionalist is not the apathetic ethno-nationalist is not the libertarian.
I think what happened with the Trump election is the conservative leadership was too heavily invested in maintaining their own power, and so they really didn't care if Hillary won and this was pretty obvious. They pushed Bush really hard and gave off the image that they were rigging the whole thing to lose. That turned off the conservative base. Then Trump came along and snatched up basically all of the non-conservative right-wing, who are usually a minority (20-30% of the Republican party) but were now voting in a block. The conservative base divided themselves up among their preferred flavor, but never coalesced, which meant they ended up having the unpleasant choice of either voting for Trump or losing to Hillary. Since they'd already decided to vote for Trump anyway, they figured they had to defend him when he was attacked from the Left. Constantly defending someone will have a psychological effect on ones brain and mind and one begins to see the object of their defense in a more favorable light than before. It also means they had to defend some of his ideas, which led to the same effect of becoming more favorably disposed to said ideas.
Then Trump started governing as 90% typical conservative and 10% right-wing populist which pretty much made everyone (on the right) happy but doesn't really translate as a coherent governing philosophy to most eyes and ears. It just looks like a mish-mash of right-wing stuff thrown at the wall and only some of it sticking. Add in the fact that the media made the critical error of opposing him categorically and, fair or unfair, true or untrue, it created the image that he was being persecuted and not given a fair-shake. This led to even more favorability-creating defenses and justifications. I think a lot of the "Trump has found a psychological exploit" stuff is referencing this. He worms his way into the discussion and forces the conservative to either defend him or lose something they want. They decide to defend him, which wires their brain into associating Trump with the thing they want, and also associating him with something to be defended at all costs.
*What the conservative politician gets out of it? Continued power and many of their particular short-term ideological goals.
*What the conservative voter gets out of it? Beating the Left in a culture battle, most of their particular short-term ideological goals, time to establish a foothold in the culture war, and some of their long-term ideological goals.
*What the non-conservative right-winger gets? Recognition of his philosophy as "legitimate", air-time for his beliefs. The possibility for ascendancy.
|
So, pray tell, how is it that you're able to recognize and explicate on all this nuance with regards to the makeup of various conservative/right wing sects and then unironically talk about how the Capital L-Left monolithically attacked Trump? Trump won for reasons inherent to the disparate and disjointed Left just as much as those associated with the various groups of people who claim to be right leaning.
|
Knowing the faults and complexities on your side more than the other side should be a fact accepted before you start a conversation. I know the rabbit hole goes deeper then proud boys but I'm not just going to poffer those examples because they make me feel bad even knowing that it gets an exponentially small minority the further right you get.
Its like religious arguments. I can't argue with atheists because I could argue their arguments better then them but I'm not on their team.
But exposing this paradox of knowing your sides weakness's more then the other side kills the ability to argue so I don't think you should go down that line.
|
Speaking of Native Americans...
So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places
|
On October 17 2018 06:42 Gahlo wrote:Speaking of Native Americans... So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places
Worth to mention that ID without a street addresses were accepted during the primary. They won't for the general election. I despise the guys who create these idiocies.
|
On October 17 2018 07:04 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 06:42 Gahlo wrote:Speaking of Native Americans... So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places Worth to mention that ID without a street addresses were accepted during the primary. They won't for the general election. I despise the guys who create these idiocies.
Matching a voting card mailed to your home to your government services card or drivers license is the primary way of verifying voters here in Canada. All 3 pieces will have your address on it so it's easy to match.
|
On October 17 2018 07:14 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 07:04 Nouar wrote:On October 17 2018 06:42 Gahlo wrote:Speaking of Native Americans... So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places Worth to mention that ID without a street addresses were accepted during the primary. They won't for the general election. I despise the guys who create these idiocies. Matching a voting card mailed to your home to your government services card or drivers license is the primary way of verifying voters here in Canada. All 3 pieces will have your address on it so it's easy to match.
Now good luck convincing Americans to support the idea of government-provided voter cards.
|
The thing one needs to realize when talking about it is that it is quite obviously all facade. Voter Fraud isn't a problem, it is an excuse. Certain parties noticed that some groups of people vote for them less than for the other party in the US. So they try to find ways to make these groups of people vote less often, because on average that means that they win votes.
If one were concerned about democracy, one would try to make voting as easy as possible for everyone. Other countries have already solved this problem. But in the US, that is not the goal. The goal is making voting as easy as possible for your voters, while making it as hard as possible for the other parties voters (Once again this problem is partially based in having a two-party system). No one is really interested in making voting easy for everyone. And even if they were, the other party is interested in preventing that.
If you want to make voting easy for everyone, just skip the whole weird voter registration and whatever else. Every citizen is automatically registered to vote. Send each citizen a voter card with the place that they are supposed to vote at noted clearly on it. Figure out how many people a giving voting office can realistically handle, and then have more voting offices. (Like, one polling station for every few hundred people or whatever makes sense, that should not be hard to figure out. Once again, other countries have managed to do that). Place that polling station relatively centrally among those peoples places of residence. Move voting to a sunday. Skip the whole 5000 different IDs thing and give every citizen a government-issued ID. Have a list of voters who are allowed to vote at that polling station at that polling station. Have them show their voting card which every citizen got sent by mail, and/or their government issued ID which every citizen also has.
If that is too expensive, just drop three missiles less on syria next time, this would be doing way more for democracy than any amount of missiles ever could.
Once again, this shit isn't hard. It is just that apparently in the US, people are not interested in making voting easy. They are interested in WINNING!!!!
|
Hoping for a strong showing out of Beto O'Rourke tonight in his debate vs Ted Cruz. I know Cruz is still the favorite, but hopefully the numbers close after tonight
|
On October 17 2018 06:42 Gahlo wrote:Speaking of Native Americans... So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Republicans first started talking about a voter fraud problem after they took power at the state level during the Obama years. That just happened to be when a massive wave of illegal immigrants started to vote in elections. /s
|
On October 17 2018 07:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2018 07:14 CorsairHero wrote:On October 17 2018 07:04 Nouar wrote:On October 17 2018 06:42 Gahlo wrote:Speaking of Native Americans... So for this election the voter suppression de jour says that an ID isn't enough, it has to be an ID with a street address. You know, for that voter fraud that doesn't happen. Apparently most reservations have a PO Box and don't use street addresses. So now thousands of people one by one need to call up their 911 coordinator to sign up for a free address so they have enough time to get the ID between now and election time. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/13/657125819/many-native-ids-wont-be-accepted-at-north-dakota-polling-places Worth to mention that ID without a street addresses were accepted during the primary. They won't for the general election. I despise the guys who create these idiocies. Matching a voting card mailed to your home to your government services card or drivers license is the primary way of verifying voters here in Canada. All 3 pieces will have your address on it so it's easy to match. Now good luck convincing Americans to support the idea of government-provided voter cards.
I mean federal mandated IDs would remove all the tic tac stuff, it would also free up companies to uncouple everything to your social security number which is very insecure means of verification. Too bad the people who push voter ID are the same ones that would oppose any federally mandated ID.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
