The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I thought Biden's speech was good. Short and to the point. Now let's see how we Americans do to get the country on track again.

Went to Walmart today and most customers had masks but there were a few who didn't. Here we go again. I don't care as long as me and mine are safe. People need to be responsible for themselves and take whatever consequences there are.

This weekend Dallas celebrates St. Patrick's Day, not like NYC who do it on the actual holiday, the bars are open 100% and no masks required.  Oh to be young and stupid and most likely drunk the whole weekend.

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

On 3/11/2021 at 3:00 PM, downzy said:

And yet Rubio wants to somehow claim the Republican party is the party of the working class.

Good luck with that...

 

The Republican party is the party of signaling to the working class that they have their back, but screwing them royally on actual policy. Just watch, people like Rubio and Hawley's rhetoric will become increasingly anti-capitalist and anti big business, but the actual policies they sponsor or vote on will be the same as always.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The Republican party is the party of signaling to the working class that they have their back, but screwing them royally on actual policy. Just watch, people like Rubio and Hawley's rhetoric will become increasingly anti-capitalist and anti big business, but the actual policies they sponsor or vote on will be the same as always.

Agreed.

Always pay attention to how they vote, not how they talk.  

[TheGeneral]

Meghan Markle is considering a presidential run, if Biden chooses not to run again.

I am not an American. But what the hell is it with celebs getting in to politics?

It doesn't matter if you're Kanye, The Rock, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat. Just stay the fuck away from it. Feel free to voice your opinion but don't run for president.

If that woman decides to run and becomes the nominee against some Republican (not Trump or any of his minions), here's one German supporting a Republican for the first time. Although I can't vote, so my opinion is worthless.

[downzy]

Why admit you support a loser when you can just throw out the rules?

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

Why admit you support a loser when you can just throw out the rules?

Why has Max Boot not been banished to a small island somewhere?

[downzy]

52 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Why has Max Boot not been banished to a small island somewhere?

If they banned everyone who was wrong about the Iraq war there wouldn’t be too many left in Washington or in the media.

To Boot’s credit, he does acknowledge he was wrong on Iraq and has reformed his thinking in positive ways regarding American interventionism. 

[downzy]

How terrible of a person do you have to be to side with Putin over Biden?

 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

23 minutes ago, downzy said:

How terrible of a person do you have to be to side with Putin over Biden?

 

That short video clip didn't match what that guy is tweeting. Gaetz isn't wrong though, Putin would mop the floor with Biden in a debate, that's just the reality of the situation. Hannity's take that Biden is a socialist is laughable.

[Gordon Comstock]

At what point did they actively root for Putin over Biden? It's pretty obvious that Biden wouldn't do well in that debate... pointing that out doesn't mean 'rooting for' Putin. It's just acknowledging reality.

 

On a side note, I got a good laugh out of this

 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

That short video clip didn't match what that guy is tweeting. Gaetz isn't wrong though, Putin would mop the floor with Biden in a debate, that's just the reality of the situation. Hannity's take that Biden is a socialist is laughable.

You sure about that?

How many said the same thing about Trump beating Biden in the debates?

And what would Putin be able to counter Biden on, exactly?  That Putin is not a killer?  Good luck with that.

But let’s put things in context. Go to any douchbag rightwing website and you’ll find nothing but love for Putin.  It’s not lost why Gaetz and others on the right want to dunk on Biden in the context of Putin. Rather than defend and support Biden’s position on Putin, they’d rather tailor their comments to the Putin loving faction of their party because it’s good politics for them.   

1 hour ago, Gordon Comstock said:

At what point did they actively root for Putin over Biden? It's pretty obvious that Biden wouldn't do well in that debate... pointing that out doesn't mean 'rooting for' Putin. It's just acknowledging reality.

See my point above. 

[downzy]

Exactly what Gaetz and Hannity were engaging in. 

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

7 hours ago, downzy said:

Exactly what Gaetz and Hannity were engaging in. 

The whole frame on this is wrong. The country has already been harmed, by the elites that have been extracting obscene amounts of wealth at the expense of the middle and working classes for decades. It wasn't Russia or China who did this to America, it was America's own elites. So I think it's a sleight of hand both sides of the spectrum play (Liberals love to talk about Russia, Conservatives love to talk about China). And if you don't want foreign countries to propagandize your population and make any headway doing so, run a tighter ship and treat your people better. Does anyone really think the Soviet Union in 1960 could have done any type of operation on the American populace? No, because the average person didn't think their own elites were trying to constantly rip them off, at least not the extent people have thought that in recent decades.

And if someone's going to talk about foreign countries messing with the internal politics of the US and not mention Israel, I don't take them that seriously. Do I have to remind everyone when Netanyahu came to speak to congress, making Obama look like a second class politician and being treated like he was royalty by most Republicans and even some Democrats? Putin couldn't even dream of such treatment.

[downzy]

On 3/20/2021 at 2:42 AM, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The country has already been harmed, by the elites that have been extracting obscene amounts of wealth at the expense of the middle and working classes for decades. It wasn't Russia or China who did this to America, it was America's own elites.

I agree with parts, but disagree with your general assessment.

You're somewhat conflating many issues as if there aren't contributing factors or context that needs disassembly. 

The degradation of American politics and policy responses to modern day challenges and issues can't be placed solely on the "elites," as if this group is some sort of monolith or cohesive block.   If American policy was solely based on the support of the "elites," the philosophical economic and political underpinnings of the last forty years would have unravelled a long time ago.

To speak bluntly, I find it very difficult to accept this notion that America's problems are solely the product of 1 to 5 percent of the population.  This elitist escapism ignores the political reality that much of the American public are not engaged, are not informed, can't be bothered until long-term trends affect them personally, and could give a rats ass about being objective about politics and the general welfare of the general commons.  Many western societies have fallen ill to this mass disengagement from politics.  People by and large just don't care outside of justifying their own pre-conceived and self-serving notions.  You can see this both on the right and the left, but I'd argue the issue is far worse with the political right in American politics.  Only one party has fought for policies that actually serve the poor and middle class.  But most Americans who would positively affected by policies proposed by the Democratic party just don't see it.  They would rather focus their time and attention on cultural issues and evaluate any most economic and social policy through a racial lens.  It's why Fox News has been wall to wall coverage on cancel culture and Dr. Seuss books.  

At what point does the general public have to take ownership for the mess they're currently in?  To continue to rail against "elites" in my opinion is a cop out and excuses the agency that most Americans have over political outcomes.

On 3/20/2021 at 2:42 AM, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And if you don't want foreign countries to propagandize your population and make any headway doing so, run a tighter ship and treat your people better.

So by the nature any country that has internal problems is without standing to challenge foreign actors from involving themselves in elections?

One issue does not exclude the other.  It is possible to both take issue with how domestic leadership has failed its constituencies and also criticize foreign entities from involving itself in domestic matters, particularly elections.  It's not an either or proposition as you seem to want to make it out to be.

On 3/20/2021 at 2:42 AM, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Does anyone really think the Soviet Union in 1960 could have done any type of operation on the American populace? No, because the average person didn't think their own elites were trying to constantly rip them off, at least not the extent people have thought that in recent decades.

That's not really a fair or worthwhile comparison, is it?  There was no easy means to do so in the 1960s since information in the US and everywhere else was limited to three network news programs, several national newspapers, and local news coverage.  The ability to wage an misinformation campaign in a country like the US was non-existent back then and not comparable to what is possible with the rise of social media and the internet.

And sorry, I have to laugh if you think 1960s America wasn't ripe for what we're seeing today considering how the country was tearing itself apart on matters of the Vietnam War and civil rights.  There were large cleavages in American society that were primed to be taken advantage of had something like the Internet been around.  There is zero chance Richard Nixon resigns as President if something like Fox News was around back then.  It is a fantasy that America was somehow better position to thwart foreign influence back then considering it was a very different time and the means to do so are incomparable to what we see today.

On 3/20/2021 at 2:42 AM, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

And if someone's going to talk about foreign countries messing with the internal politics of the US and not mention Israel, I don't take them that seriously. Do I have to remind everyone when Netanyahu came to speak to congress, making Obama look like a second class politician and being treated like he was royalty by most Republicans and even some Democrats? Putin couldn't even dream of such treatment.

I would agree in that it was a terrible look and completely unacceptable.  But that said, it was one invited and welcomed by the Republican Party as a means to undermine a sitting US President.  Understand that support for Israel isn't some feverish dream perpetuated by a small group of well-connected elites.  It's something that receives broad-based support by both Democrats and Republicans (save for 25 percent of the hard-core Trumpers).  This is not a tail-wag-the-dog situation where the American public only supports Israel because that's what their party elders tell them to.  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

14 hours ago, downzy said:

I agree with parts, but disagree with your general assessment.

You're somewhat conflating many issues as if there aren't contributing factors or context that needs disassembly. 

The degradation of American politics and policy responses to modern day challenges and issues can't be placed solely on the "elites," as if this group is some sort of monolith or cohesive block.   If American policy was solely based on the support of the "elites," the philosophical economic and political underpinnings of the last forty years would have unravelled a long time ago.

To speak bluntly, I find it very difficult to accept this notion that America's problems are solely the product of 1 to 5 percent of the population.  This elitist escapism ignores the political reality that much of the American public are not engaged, are not informed, can't be bothered until long-term trends affect them personally, and could give a rats ass about being objective about politics and the general welfare of the general commons.  Many western societies have fallen ill to this mass disengagement from politics.  People by and large just don't care outside of justifying their own pre-conceived and self-serving notions.  You can see this both on the right and the left, but I'd argue the issue is far worse with the political right in American politics.  Only one party has fought for policies that actually serve the poor and middle class.  But most Americans who would positively affected by policies proposed by the Democratic party just don't see it.  They would rather focus their time and attention on cultural issues and evaluate any most economic and social policy through a racial lens.  It's why Fox News has been wall to wall coverage on cancel culture and Dr. Seuss books.  

At what point does the general public have to take ownership for the mess they're currently in?  To continue to rail against "elites" in my opinion is a cop out and excuses the agency that most Americans have over political outcomes.

The Dr Suess thing you brought up is a total side issue that blew up to a level it shouldn't have, I agree with you. But guess what, the decision to make that such a big hot button issue was from the right wing elites that run fox and right wing media. It's not Joe Public who decides what topics the big networks are going to run that day. So again, elites matter far more than the public at large.

But is CNN much better? They run on left wing cultural issues and rarely are talking about bread and butter economic issues. So this dumbed down fake culture war issue is something that right and left wing elites play into. And really, the elites from both sides have the same father, which is liberalism, it's basically ring wing classical liberalism vs progressive liberalism, so I argue how much they are really fighting eachother rather than putting on a show for the public. Whenever Democrats get into power, you get social liberalism, when Republicans get into power you get economic liberalism (free trade, deregulation, destruction of unions, lower taxes on the rich). Whoever is in charge, you get a form of liberalism. The left rarely gets the economic goodies they want, and the right never win on their cultural issues. Lots of angry people out there from all over the political spectrum, and I don't blame them for being angry.

Think about the whole thing this way, if you witnessed a classroom of students who weren't able to read or do basic math, do you blame the kids, or do you blame their teachers and parents? You know the answer to that one. And yes, I basically view the general public as overgrown children....newspapers are written at a 6th grade level for a reason. They have to be led by better elites than the ones we have.

 

Quote

So by the nature any country that has internal problems is without standing to challenge foreign actors from involving themselves in elections?

No, but when the internal problems get so massive, don't expect the public to give a crap about whatever country the elites want them to attack next. 

Quote

One issue does not exclude the other.  It is possible to both take issue with how domestic leadership has failed its constituencies and also criticize foreign entities from involving itself in domestic matters, particularly elections.  It's not an either or proposition as you seem to want to make it out to be.

That's not really a fair or worthwhile comparison, is it?  There was no easy means to do so in the 1960s since information in the US and everywhere else was limited to three network news programs, several national newspapers, and local news coverage.  The ability to wage an misinformation campaign in a country like the US was non-existent back then and not comparable to what is possible with the rise of social media and the internet.

And sorry, I have to laugh if you think 1960s America wasn't ripe for what we're seeing today considering how the country was tearing itself apart on matters of the Vietnam War and civil rights.  There were large cleavages in American society that were primed to be taken advantage of had something like the Internet been around.  There is zero chance Richard Nixon resigns as President if something like Fox News was around back then.  It is a fantasy that America was somehow better position to thwart foreign influence back then considering it was a very different time and the means to do so are incomparable to what we see today.

I would agree in that it was a terrible look and completely unacceptable.  But that said, it was one invited and welcomed by the Republican Party as a means to undermine a sitting US President.  Understand that support for Israel isn't some feverish dream perpetuated by a small group of well-connected elites.  It's something that receives broad-based support by both Democrats and Republicans (save for 25 percent of the hard-core Trumpers).  This is not a tail-wag-the-dog situation where the American public only supports Israel because that's what their party elders tell them to.  

I said 1960 for a reason, not 1969. The American government took a very large public relations hit and general trust in government (and in turn, in elites in general I would argue) went way down in the mid 60's and really has never recovered to prior levels since (save for a few moments like briefly for Desert Storm or right after 9/11).

Edited March 22, 2021 by Basic_GnR_Fan

[downzy]

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The Dr Suess thing you brought up is a total side issue that blew up to a level it shouldn't have, I agree with you. But guess what, the decision to make that such a big hot button issue was from the right wing elites that run fox and right wing media. It's not Joe Public who decides what topics the big networks are going to run that day. So again, elites matter far more than the public at large.

To a certain extent I do agree that "elites" can dictate the focus and boundaries of discussions.  It is not an accident that Trump was able to repudiate much of traditional Republican dogma during his 2016 campaign and still win not only the nomination but the election (though, he then chose to govern like a typical Republican in terms of policy).  So I'm not completely discounting what you're saying here.  Those with the biggest platforms and largest megaphones do take some of the responsibility for what keeps people's attentions.

But having said that, it's not as though the people aren't completely blameless.  Are too many Americans fat because there's a McDonalds on every third corner?  Sure, McDonalds and other purveyors of fat and unhealthy food have a hand it America's weight problems, but let's not pretend that people don't have free agency and discretion for what they shovel down their throats.  It's not as though the information isn't out there, that healthy alternatives and options aren't out there or unknown.  People, by and large, just love eating crap.  It makes them feel good.  

It's the exact same dynamic with news, information, political support, and overall views on various policies.  The information is out there.  The problems are obvious.  But the work is hard.  And in the last several decades or so, a certain and growing segment of the American population (though this dynamic is present in other countries as well), don't want to do hard.  They are adverse to facing the truth.  Too often they willfully ignore (at best) or show disdain (at worst) for the most effective policies that would affect real positive change. 

What Trump tapped into more than anything, and the reason why he still holds such command over so many Americans, is that many Americans are entitled in their belief that they are owed everything but think it's others who are holding them back or taking it away. 

This speaks to an emotion or sentiment that is already present; it's not something that Trump is conjuring or instilling in his supporters (though he is a master at stoking it). 

Americans have spent decades thinking they live in the best country in the world and are entitled to a reality that fits that narrative.  But too many don't want to take responsibility for the fact they are uninformed; that their entitled attitudes are not reflective of reality, and aren't willing to work as hard as people from other countries to preserve a way of life they believe to be natural and ordained.  Again, this is not the product of some narrative imposed upon them by elites.  This is something many feel in their core. 

And I don't mean to pick on Americans exclusively because I see it here in Canada as well.  The difference being though that most Canadians didn't grow up with the unrealistic or deluded belief that they live in the greatest country in the world (since our neighbours kindly reminded us of this fact).  

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

But is CNN much better?

Yes.

And I say that as someone who doesn't like CNN (though I'll listen from time to time when I'm in my car). 

They don't ignore political developments the way Fox does.  They don't downplay news to the same extent that's at odds with the sensibilities of their viewers.  CNN is certainly a sensationalist in their approach (everything is Breaking News) and they can certainly stay on a story for way too long (they love a good plane crash); but it is night and day when it comes to Fox.

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

They run on left wing cultural issues and rarely are talking about bread and butter economic issues

What left-wing cultural issues?

Last time I checked, it was CNN who has spent considerable time on the most recent Covid relief package that will predominately go towards the poor and middle class.  

Why do you think Fox has spent so much time on Dr. Seuss and zero time covering the Covid relief package (despite it being popular by both Democrats and Republicans)?

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

it's basically ring wing classical liberalism vs progressive liberalism, so I argue how much they are really fighting eachother rather than putting on a show for the public

Sorry, but I think this is gross misrepresentation of the differences between the two sides.  Democrats, liberals, and progressives are certainly not without their faults, but to say that they are a different side of the same coin is not how I see it at all.   When you say Democrats support "social" liberalism, what do you mean by that?  Are Democrats economic policy not different than what's offered by Republicans?   Only one party fought to push through a child tax credit, raise the minimum wage, increase EI payments, send cash directly to most Americans.  Only one party supports a national childcare program and wants to support strengthen the social safety with respect to Medicaid, food stamps, and financial relief for higher education costs.  

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The left rarely gets the economic goodies they want, and the right never win on their cultural issues

True, but is that a result of policy choices or a constraint of the American system of governance?

That's why I'm in favour of abolishing the filibuster.  If that happens, be prepared to see a far more effective and reflective governance at the federal level. 

I would say that the right wins on cultural issues at the state and local level (where such cultural issues are popular), just not on the federal level because it would make them a minority party in perpetuity.  The truth is the country as a whole isn't as left or right as either party.  The problem too often is that people listen to the loudest voices despite them not being reflective of the general sentiment.  This holds true for both the left and the right.  It's why I criticized many who came into this thread anointing the supremacy of Bernie Sanders as the saviour of the Republic.  

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Think about the whole thing this way, if you witnessed a classroom of students who weren't able to read or do basic math, do you blame the kids, or do you blame their teachers and parents? You know the answer to that one. And yes, I basically view the general public as overgrown children....newspapers are written at a 6th grade level for a reason. They have to be led by better elites than the ones we have.

I'm sorry, but I have zero sympathy or respect for this line of reasoning.

You get the country you deserve (for the most part). 

If America is nothing more than Never Neverland populated by Peter Pans and the Lost Boys, then it's day in sun is done. 

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

No, but when the internal problems get so massive, don't expect the public to give a crap about whatever country the elites want them to attack next. 

And again, then the problem is with the public.  Why are those "elites" still in a place to control the story?  Why are the same politicians re-elected time and again?  Why did America go back to Republican rule in 2016 when it did an absolute shit job in 2000 through 2008?  I'm sorry, you get zero sympathy from me with respect to the public being duped by the "elites."  If a general population can't remember how bad things get under the leadership of one group only a few years later, the problem isn't with the elites, it's the people.

Moreover, foreign election interference should be a massive concern to everyone regardless of what the "elites" are saying.  Aligned concerns with the elites is not something that invalidates the severity of a problem.  I think it's foolish to think that just because Biden says Russian interference is a problem that this somehow lets the public off the hook from not caring because there are other bigger problems.  It's possible to be concerned about more than one problem.

8 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I said 1960 for a reason, not 1969. The American government took a very large public relations hit and general trust in government (and in turn, in elites in general I would argue) went way down in the mid 60's and really has never recovered to prior levels since (save for a few moments like briefly for Desert Storm or right after 9/11).

I would agree with this assessment; faith in government certainly dropped as a result of the Vietnam War and Watergate.  

But it still doesn't translate into why Americans are divided.  Anti-elitism has permeated into every facet of American life.  Climate change, national and international health emergencies, economics, poverty reduction, etc.  In so many aspects of American life, elite and educated perspectives are shunned if they appear anathema to their attitudes, comforts, entitlements, faith, or identity.

And I disagree that America was not susceptible to a similar mis-information campaign in 1960 as it would have been in 1969.  Those divisions didn't come solely from the public being lied to about Vietnam.  They were always there under the surface waiting to come out, largely as a result of America's inability or unwillingness to rectify its issues around race.  The match has always been there; it's only been in the last decade or so that it's actually been lit.  

[Basic_GnR_Fan]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

If America is nothing more than Never Neverland populated by Peter Pans and the Lost Boys, then it's day in sun is done. 

 

I don't have the energy to reply to everything , but I'm agreeing and amplifying this point right here. America's time as the top dog is on the way out, as China (which is a more serious country) has already surpassed America in terms of GDP by Purchasing Power Parity. It's only a matter of time before they have the military advantage. This very much reminds me of Germany overtaking Great Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as the real power in Europe. Except this time, I don't see two world wars occurring and knocking China off it's perch.

America, from the 30,000 foot view, is a large shopping mall masquerading as a county. It's a country of many nations squabbling with each other, while the billionaires who run the thing just constantly rip everybody off. I would recommend no countries try to emulate what America is. So, in a way, I think it's probably a good thing America will become more of a regional power rather than THE world power.

[downzy]

On the one hand, she is right: no reasonable person should have accepted anything she said about voter fraud as anything close to the truth. 

On the other hand, are you fucking kidding me? 

Amazing to think the premise of her legal defence is based on the idea that dumb people only have themselves to blame because they’re dumb.  

[SoulMonster]

5 hours ago, downzy said:

On the one hand, she is right: no reasonable person should have accepted anything she said about voter fraud as anything close to the truth. 

On the other hand, are you fucking kidding me? 

Amazing to think the premise of her legal defence is based on the idea that dumb people only have themselves to blame because they’re dumb.  

Scandalous. I hope she won't get away with this.

[downzy]

6 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

Scandalous. I hope she won't get away with this.

You have to figure a judge of all people might not take that line of reasoning all that seriously considering Powell’s accusations weren’t simply intended for the general public but also served as the basis for legal action.

Who the hell would files lawsuits based on claims that the the plaintiff themselves view as nonsense?

On this matter, she’s fucked. 

[SoulMonster]

30 minutes ago, downzy said:

You have to figure a judge of all people might not take that line of reasoning all that seriously considering Powell’s accusations weren’t simply intended for the general public but also served as the basis for legal action.

Who the hell would files lawsuits based on claims that the the plaintiff themselves view as nonsense?

On this matter, she’s fucked. 

And deservedly so. The same goes for any other figures of power who spread this conspiracy theory. Come to think  of it, did Trump spread it or does him reptilian brain - small but with some instinctive cunning - prevent him from putting himself at legal risk? 

[Dazey]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

You have to figure a judge of all people might not take that line of reasoning all that seriously considering Powell’s accusations weren’t simply intended for the general public but also served as the basis for legal action.

Who the hell would files lawsuits based on claims that the the plaintiff themselves view as nonsense?

On this matter, she’s fucked. 

So her defence against the defamation suit is that she knowingly committed perjury?  

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

So her defence against the defamation suit is that she knowingly committed perjury?  

I guess if you have to choose between keeping your law license or your house, you’re going to opt to keep a roof over her head. 

I would say what an idiot, but I’m starting to think she might suffer from some mental illness. 

[downzy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

And deservedly so. The same goes for any other figures of power who spread this conspiracy theory. Come to think  of it, did Trump spread it or does him reptilian brain - small but with some instinctive cunning - prevent him from putting himself at legal risk? 

Good question. I can’t recall how specific his claims were with respect to voting machine companies.  It would seem Symantic and Dominion are going after the most flagrant offenders where liable is easily proved.  But something tells me civil litigation around election claims is the least of Trump’s worries considering the criminal cases he’s likely to face in the next 12 to 18 months

[downzy]