Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, soon said:

Just take a second to read the bold section in each of these quotes there 31.

You see the contradiction in what you are trying to say, right? Biden is clearly acknowledging that most of the Dems opposed a fence in 2006. So, no the party hasn't changed its views in reaction to Trump.

There is no contradiction. That was 2006. Today's democrats want the most progressive nominee possibe. Joe is/was more moderate, Just like Obama.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

There is no contradiction. That was 2006. Today's democrats want the most progressive nominee possibe. Joe is/was more moderate, Just like Obama.

 

Yes, the contradiction is you suggesting the the "the whole party has changed" since 2006 based on Biden voting for a border fence. But in the same breathe Biden states clearly that most of the dems didnt vote for the fence. So the party hasn't changed in reaction to Trump, like you are trying to suggest. You re in fact highlighting the exact opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 8:38 AM, soon said:

Yes, the contradiction is you suggesting the the "the whole party has changed" since 2006 based on Biden voting for a border fence. But in the same breathe Biden states clearly that most of the dems didnt vote for the fence. So the party hasn't changed in reaction to Trump, like you are trying to suggest. You re in fact highlighting the exact opposite.

I think the Dems have fractioned off a bit, but you are correct that the party hasn't had a major change. 

There are still the more moderate dems, and they are they majority of the party based on what we've seen in current 2020 polling.

The progressive left is much louder, mainly on social media, but have not made any major strides in making actual policy changes for the most part. You can usually see a slow drip in policy change though. 5 years ago income inequality wasnt as discussed as it is now. You could to an extent link that to occupy wall street and the increase in progressive candidates. The mid terms showed progressivism is not just online banter though, it CAN translate into votes.

This NYT article is a great summary. You see more of the progressive left on social media but the moderate dems tend not to be so loud, hence why it feels like you hear about progressive ideas a lot but Biden, a more moderate candidate, is polling ahead:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, bt88 said:

I think the Dems have fractioned off a bit, but you are correct that the party hasn't had a major change. 

There are still the more moderate dems, and they are they majority of the party based on what we've seen in current 2020 polling.

The progressive left is much louder, mainly on social media, but have not made any major strides in making actual policy changes for the most part. You can usually see a slow drip in policy change though. 5 years ago income inequality wasnt as discussed as it is now. You could to an extent link that to occupy wall street and the increase in progressive candidates. The mid terms showed progressivism is not just online banter though, it CAN translate into votes.

This NYT article is a great summary. You see more of the progressive left on social media but the moderate dems tend not to be so loud, hence why it feels like you hear about progressive ideas a lot but Biden, a more moderate candidate, is polling ahead:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html

Well said. I agree that new progressive voices are causing some fractioning. I just dont agree with the earlier premise 31 posted about how and why. In 2006 a majority of Dems voted against a border fence, and in 2019 a majority of Dems still oppose a border barrier - simple. And I also disagreed with his claim that Dems are being reactionary. Trump is in part a reaction to a person of colour becoming POTUS and establishing what was viewed as a progressive policy in the ACA, in my read, not the reverse. In 2015/16 the conversation was often about the notion of Trump and Sanders as mirror images in the sense that populism had taken hold and it was just a question of if the voters would choose Left or Right populism. These things were brewing for years and were unrelated to MAGA as such.

I agree there are new voices and that they are a minority. I dont think the new ideas are really all that jarring to the average person, medicaid and the climate crisis are things people agree need to be tended too. These initiatives do ring alarm bells for the Dem corporate establishment though. I think there is evidence that the regressive corporate dem leaders like Polosi are in fact causing a great deal of the fractioning by her infanalization of AOC and her pile on about Omars Israeli lobbying comments. The establishment seems threatened, so I would factor that into the equation. Biden recently calling himself to be the "most progressive candidate" comes to mind. We call it the new class, but old man Sanders was the one Biden spoke of. Sanders response was very gentle.

I note that the author of the NYT article, Nate Cohn, always writes as a moderating voice. He got his start at The Stimpson Centre, which may as well be called the "pragmatic moderate institute." I read him as fearing the fragmentation in the dems and trying to get us all focused on centrism leading into the election. While there is lots of accurate data and useful analysis I think his bias shows and is one that, ultimately, I disagree with. Great read and all. Thanks for sharing it! (unfortunately some of the graphs wouldnt show on my device but I believe I understood via the printed word and few graphs and charts that did show)

Because, yeah you are correct that the midterms showed that progressives are viable and don't scare voters. I agree that 2008 opened up the masses eyes to the issue of money in politics. This lead to Occupy. And when people look for politicians who are not in the pocket of big oil they discover progressives. Im very fascinated by the fact that the Bernie Bros arent present in the democratic new class. To me this suggests that there is a very widespread and decentralized pool of true progressives. Instead of Bernie Bros its women of colour from many ages forming the new dems.

On the issue of social media, I beleive the role of the progressive is to mainstream the most useful ideas from the Left. Social media allows that mainstreaming to happen a lot faster. Therefore income inequality as you point out is now a more common discussion the it was 5 years ago. So we see longer serving politicians embrace the new ideas in theory. Like Harris for instance, she pulled a full on Hillary when she went on The Breakfast Club to pander to black voters, claiming she'd always been in favour of legal weed, even though she hasn't. To your point and the articles point, its yet to be seen if and to what degree that rhetoric means to voters and to what actual policies she would pursue. Its all talk, mostly on social with some of these politicians.

That being said, I am strongly in favour of the Green New Deal, Sanders and AOC. I think that they have great ideas that make perfect sense to the average person.

 

 

Edited by soon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, soon said:

Like Tulsi for instance, she pulled a full on Hillary when she went on The Breakfast Club to pander to black voters, claiming she'd always been in favour of legal weed

That was Kamala Harris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -W.A.R- said:

That was Kamala Harris.

Thanks! I will make that correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, soon said:

Thanks! I will make that correction.

Also in fairness i don't think she lied about always being in favor (post the quote if im wrong). Here is a good article that explains the ordeal i believe you're remembering.

I would agree the whole thing was her "i carry hot sauce in my purse" moment and on your overall point that politicians are adopting progressive ideas they never fought for to keep up.

Edited by -W.A.R-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

Also in fairness i don't think she lied about always being in favor (post the quote if im wrong). Here is a good article that explains the ordeal i believe you're remembering.

I would agree the whole thing was her "i carry hot sauce in my purse" moment though.

Thanks for the link. If she didnt say it at breakfast club, I apologize. I cant do the entire 44 min ride this minute, but she certainly used her college story to deflect from her voting record on the subject, imho. 

From the article you shared:

Liberal critics have long had policy differences with Ms. Harris, saying her record on criminal justice and immigrant rights left much to be desired. Others have pointed out how Ms. Harris’s admission that she smoked marijuana in college flies in the face of her record as a prosecutor and the fact that she opposed marijuana legalization during her time as California attorney general.

I believe she has made the claim and blurred the lines elsewhere but in this moment I cant look into that. Pro-legalization is a newly held position for her that she is using to establish her woke cred.

But yeah, the entire thing was not a good look for her that morning on the breakfast club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 7:11 AM, soon said:

 

Just take a second to read the bold section in each of these quotes there 31.

You are claiming the opposite of what you are referencing.

Biden says "I voted for a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats — and some of you won't like it — I voted for 700 miles of fence," and then you say The whole party has changed. They want whatever Trump doesn't want. 

You see the contradiction in what you are trying to say, right? Biden is clearly acknowledging that most of the Dems opposed a fence in 2006. So, no the party hasn't changed its views in reaction to Trump.

 

Actually that in itself is a change. Back then most, not all dems, opposed building barriers on the Southern Border. Now, ALL (or 99% if I've missed an outlier), do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Actually that in itself is a change. Back then most, not all dems, opposed building barriers on the Southern Border. Now, ALL (or 99% if I've missed an outlier), do.

The minor shift in "most" to "nearly all" isnt really material to my point though. The context that 31 placed his claim on was that the party shifted to "not want" anything that Trump wants is the focus of my point. The party that opposed a fence when Trump was still a reality v star, still opposes a fence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, soon said:

The minor shift in "most" to "nearly all" isnt really material to my point though. The context that 31 placed his claim on was that the party shifted to "not want" anything that Trump wants is the focus of my point. The party that opposed a fence when Trump was still a reality v star, still opposes a fence. 

My point was more high level and highlighting that this is part of a change that has happened over many years. The left used to actually be more against large scale immigration due to it not benefiting it's working class base. I'm talking multi-generational change here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

My point was more high level and highlighting that this is part of a change that has happened over many years. The left used to actually be more against large scale immigration due to it not benefiting it's working class base. I'm talking multi-generational change here.

Yeah, I would say thats very much in line with what I've written in earlier on this page. I feel like I simply corrected a MAGAs nonsense and then that was widely read as some sort of position paper representing myself, lol. Maybe Im overreacting :lol:

I agree, and yet I would tease out the use of the word 'left' when discussing positions on immigration of past eras. "Labour" was leftist at the time and would perhaps better represent the ideology in question. Their were certainly some labour leaders who may have valid points within their own contexts and other times were also just white xenophobes. Populism has sadly all too often informed rank and file voters, producing anti-immigrant union leaders serving as reps at the 4th International. But there has also always been pro immigration leftists. Immigrants themselves being an obvious one - especially in the US scenario where migrants often had much more exposure to leftist thought than many multigenerational Americans. We can look to the Jewish, Irish and Russian Mennonite diasporas for examples of imported leftism. The historical narrative doesnt really include those lower on the internal hierarchies of leftism. Anarchists and those from the Paris Commune called for an end to borders during that same era. Today, now that labour is dead, it is indeed the broader leftist community representing a pro-immigration view. Progressives and liberals too!

I adore the novel Uncle Moses. It explores the capitalist import of workers v the imported marxist workers in the Jewish community in NYC back in the day. Really speaks to the conversation we are having. Family ties that the capitalist doesn't care about and yet facilitates v unliveable wages producing resistance to the capitalist who is reuniting families (even if just to exploit them). Different times, as you are speaking to. The fight for a living wage to allow oneself to bring ones family over, rather then the indentured servitude on offer from the capitalist labour importer. Too often the workers were short sighted and wanted scapegoats, just like everyone always.

Still white dinosaurs leading the labour movement where I live. They virtue signal solidarity with First Nations and then they sign a declaration demanding to run a pipe line through First Nations land. "Because white jobs" is the best analysis they've come up with yet :lol: The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

Im sure Biden would still love a fence. Would still love weed to be illegal. And he'd want at least a war or two. He just also wants the peoples vote and the people are starting to wake up a bit. Generational shifts, like you say. I think we need to be careful how we perceive changing policy positions of candidates going into 2020, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, soon said:

Yeah, I would say thats very much in line with what I've written in earlier on this page. I feel like I simply corrected a MAGAs nonsense and then that was widely read as some sort of position paper representing myself, lol. Maybe Im overreacting :lol:

I agree, and yet I would tease out the use of the word 'left' when discussing positions on immigration of past eras. "Labour" was leftist at the time and would perhaps better represent the ideology in question. Their were certainly some labour leaders who may have valid points within their own contexts and other times were also just white xenophobes. Populism has sadly all too often informed rank and file voters, producing anti-immigrant union leaders serving as reps at the 4th International. But there has also always been pro immigration leftists. Immigrants themselves being an obvious one - especially in the US scenario where migrants often had much more exposure to leftist thought than many multigenerational Americans. We can look to the Jewish, Irish and Russian Mennonite diasporas for examples of imported leftism. The historical narrative doesnt really include those lower on the internal hierarchies of leftism. Anarchists and those from the Paris Commune called for an end to borders during that same era. Today, now that labour is dead, it is indeed the broader leftist community representing a pro-immigration view. Progressives and liberals too!

I adore the novel Uncle Moses. It explores the capitalist import of workers v the imported marxist workers in the Jewish community in NYC back in the day. Really speaks to the conversation we are having. Family ties that the capitalist doesn't care about and yet facilitates v unliveable wages producing resistance to the capitalist who is reuniting families (even if just to exploit them). Different times, as you are speaking to. The fight for a living wage to allow oneself to bring ones family over, rather then the indentured servitude on offer from the capitalist labour importer. Too often the workers were short sighted and wanted scapegoats, just like everyone always.

Still white dinosaurs leading the labour movement where I live. They virtue signal solidarity with First Nations and then they sign a declaration demanding to run a pipe line through First Nations land. "Because white jobs" is the best analysis they've come up with yet :lol: The more things change, the more they stay the same I guess.

Im sure Biden would still love a fence. Would still love weed to be illegal. And he'd want at least a war or two. He just also wants the peoples vote and the people are starting to wake up a bit. Generational shifts, like you say. I think we need to be careful how we perceive changing policy positions of candidates going into 2020, though.

When is importing large amount of new labor ever not beneficial for the capitalist/ownership class? It just lowers the bargaining power of labor. The big money boys funding both parties in the US support this (Adelson, Soros, Kochs, Singer, etc). But because they virtue signal how much they love diversity, the people who should be opposing are either naive to what's going on or just bought off. The populist left and right have a lot in common and need to form a block against these vultures. 

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

When is importing large amount of new labor ever not beneficial for the capitalist/ownership class? It just lowers the bargaining power of labor. The big money boys funding both parties in the US support this (Adelson, Soros, Kochs, Singer, etc). But because they virtue signal how much they love diversity, the people who should be opposing are either naive to what's going on or just bought off. The populist left and right have a lot in common and need to form a block against these vultures. 

May I ask how you identify politically?

Its a quick read, Uncle Moses. If youre interested you can read it here https://archive.org/details/unclemosesnovel00asch/page/n3

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Economic populist, social conservative, anti-interventionist foreign policy

Woo hoo! Social conservative! That’s like the worst kind squared. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe diGenova: This is very serious business. For the first time I believe some of these guys are going to prison… Let me tell you something, Horowitz has already concluded that the final three FISAs were completely illegal. He’s now on the brink of finding that the first FISA was completely illegal. Durham has already used a grand jury in Connecticut. They’ve already gotten documents. He’s already talked to the intel people.

Laura Ingraham: How long has this been going on?

Joe diGenova: Durham’s been working for a couple months. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazey said:

Woo hoo! Social conservative! That’s like the worst kind squared. 

And snarky neo-liberalism is like infinity bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@soon I recommend never sharing a video from AOC again. She's a total nitwit, a joke and a constant meme on the internet. This doesn't help your point when you share her views. Her "green deal" was a laughing stock with no votes, because it's unrealistic, cost to much and can't happen overnight.

When I said the Party has changed, I wasn't just talking immigration or building a fence. It is absolutely true they don't want to support anything Trump proposes, and that's just a fact. They have went EXTREME left. Issues like supporting transgender rights, Obama tried to force schools to let children use whichever bathrooms they want. California's Jerry Brown so-called "law" can jail people for mis-gendering a person. Is this a joke? Also, trying to push Socialism off on America? Because it has worked so well in other countries. :facepalm: Plus, Medicare for all? Who's going to pay for all this? It all may sound just swell in theory, but I can't support anything the democrats propose because they have no clue what they're talking about. They just throw out ideas and see which one sticks. I can't do that. That's just a few reasons I could never vote democrat.

Edited by 31illusions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, 31illusions said:

@soon I recommend never sharing a video from AOC again. She's a total nitwit, a joke and a constant meme on the internet. This doesn't help your point when you share her views. Her "green deal" was a laughing stock with no votes, because it's unrealistic, cost to much and can't happen overnight.

When I said the Party has changed, I wasn't just talking immigration or building a fence. It is absolutely true they don't want to support anything Trump proposes, and that's just a fact. They have went EXTREME left. Issues like supporting transgender rights, Obama tried to force schools to let children use whichever bathrooms they want. California's Jerry Brown so-called "law" can jail people for mis-gendering a person. Is this a joke? Also, trying to push Socialism off on America? Because it has worked so well in other countries. :facepalm: Plus, Medicare for all? Who's going to pay for all this? It all may sound just swell in theory, but I can't support anything the democrats propose because they have no clue what they're talking about. They just throw out ideas and see which one sticks. I can't do that. That's just a few reasons I could never vote democrat.

Easily one of the most ignorant posts in this entire thread... And that's really saying something considering all the nonsense that's been spewed in the years I started this thread.

Anyone can post any video they want so long as they abide by the rules of this forum.

What I would recommend to you is to limit your comments to the merits of the arguments made by a person and not ground your opinion on whatever nonsensical meme you've seen on 4chan.  Someone who proudly boasts his support for Trump has no basis to disparage the character of anyone else.  If there's any joke present in your post it's not one you're clued in on.

As for the notion that there are members of the Democratic Party who are pushing socialism, please provide one example.  And do us the favour and explain what you believe socialism to be.  I'm fairly confident your understanding of socialism is about as accurate and as robust as Trump's understanding of tariffs and how they work. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And snarky neo-liberalism is like infinity bad!

Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy. I don’t see how your point is relevant. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, 31illusions said:

I recommend never sharing a video from Trump again. He's a total nitwit, a joke and a constant meme on the internet

Fixed it for you.

8 hours ago, downzy said:

Her "green deal" was a laughing stock with no votes, because it's unrealistic, cost to much and can't happen overnight.

Its called the Green New Deal, which is important to note so that you have the opportunity to go back and educate yourself about the sweeping and expensive investments that the original New Deal represented coming out of the Great Depression. And then also ask yourself how could we pay for WW2 right after that.

Its unrealistic not to act on the climate crisis. It needs to happen overnight because your leaders haven't stepped up to the task. Thank you, next.

12 hours ago, 31illusions said:

They have went EXTREME left

Nah.

12 hours ago, 31illusions said:

Plus, Medicare for all? Who's going to pay for all this?

All the other places that have public health care/medicaid or a comparable policy regulate the medical market to some degree, thats how. Simple.

Where I live in Canada, we regulate the market rather tightly but theres still rich drs and a billion dollar medical industry. Industry is welcome to opt out of our market - but they dont. Negotiations are ongoing on some areas of super profits - for innovations and new drugs, so profit takes place. And other areas, like dr visit rates, are regulated so that public health can be funded within the reasonable taxation regime. Hey, next time someone says that propaganda, you'll have an answer! 

And my country even still give's Trump style tax breaks to the wealthy corporations, but ideally dont do that either. Our regulations are designed to give no shelter to your countries vile Pharma Bros. You can let crony capitalism run amuck, with absolutely no benefit to yourself and your loved ones. Or your country can have medicaid. Simple choice.

12 hours ago, 31illusions said:

They just throw out ideas and see which one sticks. I can't do that. That's just a few reasons I could never vote democrat.

Wut lol. Looks like someone put fear where the facts are supposed to go. And Im sad for you. And Im angry at them. 

Edited by soon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Dazey said:

Neoliberalism is an economic philosophy. I don’t see how your point is relevant. 

Well ACKSHAWLY, when used in modern discourse neoliberalism doesn't just encompass economic philosophy, it also denotes a socially left/progressive worldview. Find me a neoliberal who doesn't have a socially left view, I'll wait. It also generally denotes a foreign policy that keeps the American/Anglo/Zionist/Wahhabist world order and is out to neuter countries like Russia/Iran/Syria/Venezuela. Neoliberalism works hand in hand with neoconservatism, which is neoliberalism with lower taxes. Look how easily a figure like Bill Kristol went from working with the GOPe to the Neoliberals in the Democratic party. He switched like it was nothing at all.

Edited by Basic_GnR_Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, soon said:

Its called the Green New Deal, which is important to note so that you have the opportunity to go back and educate yourself about the sweeping and expensive investments that the original New Deal represented coming out of the Great Depression. And then also ask yourself how could we pay for WW2 right after that.

Its unrealistic not to act on the climate crisis. It needs to happen overnight because your leaders haven't stepped up to the task. Thank you, next.

My take on the New Deal is that it didn't go far enough. If you're aware of the theory of Modern Monetary Theory, they needed to pump a lot more money into the economy than FDR did. Some say he was too friendly to big business and someone like Huey Long would have turned the economy around sooner and without a war.

Regarding the Green New Deal, my problem with it is much the same. Doesn't go far enough. Where's the Nuclear Power (only form of clean energy that can produce the massive energy needs that the US has, at this point in time with the technology currently available). Where's the immigration restriction part of it? Immigration is the only thing driving our population growth, which grows our energy needs and propensity to pollute. It's pure political correctness that keeps this out of the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×