Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Corporations and rich people? Terrified of Sanders and AOC which is why they attack them so much. When it was reported that Amazon would no longer have its second headquarters in NY, an organization that receives funding from the Koch brothers put up a billboard attacking AOC for denying NY thousands of jobs. I've had conversations with people that are mildly engaged in politics and dispelled those attacks based on the Amazon HQ, the 70% marginal tax and the conspiracy theory that she's actually rich.

The problem being that most of the Democrats politicians would rather have Trump win for a second time then let people like Sanders or AOC have power. They're doing fine under Trump's tax cuts. When they criticise Trump, it's usually in the wrong way, like why isn't he bombing Assad or North Korea. It is easy to not be socially conservative (though the Republicans can't even clear this hurdle). It is much harder to advocate for something that may be a detriment to yourself for the good of most citizens.

13 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Says who? I'd argue that in the current state of affairs, more people in the US are left leaning than there are right leaning.

It's more like what they label themselves as. You can have a self-described staunch conservative go down the list of criminal justice reform, non-interventionism, medicare for all, legalising marijuana federally, higher taxation of wealthier people, money out of politics (anti-corporate corruption) and agree with all those traditionally left wing positions. They just won't call themselves liberals or progressives.

The difference is people in charge most of the time do not represent these views, Democrat or especially Republican. Conservative politics has had a dominant position in American politics for a very long time by shouting the loudest, not necessarily the most numerous.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since I'm probably the only one that's heard of Gabbard outside of her presidential nomination. . .I'm gonna say "not this time".  She has three things working against her:

1. She's young.  Not a bad thing by itself, but. . .
2. She's a woman.  Big things can be predicted by small things, and as someone who's relatively young and a woman, it can be a gigantic pain in the ass to get older men to take me seriously.  Even if it's not overt, sexism still exists, and IIRC it's the older generation that votes more than the younger ones (back when women were viewed differently, and not in a good way).
3. She's Hindi.  The conservative Christian block will be against her just for that.  If Trump is any indication, this section is a non-trivial number of voters.  Combine it with the first two points, and she'll be in a giant uphill battle.

I'd realistically go with one of Sanders/Biden, because it'll take out sexism and racism entirely.  Perhaps in 20-ish years, someone like Gabbard can upset things.  But I don't have a lot of faith in the conservative Christian sect to look beyond religion. . .which means the progressive Christian side needs to start speaking up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From listening to Tulsi Gabbard, she said a lot of things that made sense in terms of foreign policy.

But unfortunately, most of the questions she seems to get are either about her religion, why she is unpatriotic because she doesn't like war despite being ex-military, or how "unrealistic" her policies are. You can kinda see how the status quo approaches someone like that.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'm gonna probably go for Beto O'Rourke when the primaries come around. He almost won in a deep red state. I've heard people from Texas say they don't like him, but they all lean far right anyway, so their opinion of him doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I think I'm gonna probably go for Beto O'Rourke when the primaries come around. He almost won in a deep red state. I've heard people from Texas say they don't like him, but they all lean far right anyway, so their opinion of him doesn't matter.

I really want to know why you think he would make a good president

Because it sounds to me like you are voting him just to spite Texans. Is that how you intend to spend your vote? To spite people whose opinion you don't even care about? Can you list what he has supported and proposed in the past?

Edited by Tediz64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eclipse said:

Since I'm probably the only one that's heard of Gabbard outside of her presidential nomination. . .I'm gonna say "not this time".  She has three things working against her:

1. She's young.  Not a bad thing by itself, but. . .
2. She's a woman.  Big things can be predicted by small things, and as someone who's relatively young and a woman, it can be a gigantic pain in the ass to get older men to take me seriously.  Even if it's not overt, sexism still exists, and IIRC it's the older generation that votes more than the younger ones (back when women were viewed differently, and not in a good way).
3. She's Hindi.  The conservative Christian block will be against her just for that.  If Trump is any indication, this section is a non-trivial number of voters.  Combine it with the first two points, and she'll be in a giant uphill battle.

I'd realistically go with one of Sanders/Biden, because it'll take out sexism and racism entirely.  Perhaps in 20-ish years, someone like Gabbard can upset things.  But I don't have a lot of faith in the conservative Christian sect to look beyond religion. . .which means the progressive Christian side needs to start speaking up.

Gabbard has her own policy problems in that she's, well, not very much aligned with the rest of the party (notably some anti-LGBT stuff and her approach to the Middle East). I don't think her being young, female, and Hindi are a problem, I mean people vote for AOC if she were old enough. I agree that America has a major sexism/racism problem but it's worth remembering that Hillary still won the popular vote despite her campaign issues, and Obama won in a landslide.

Currently, my top pick is still Warren, but I don't have high expectations. That said, I won't mind if she loses the nomination since she's an amazing senator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that her past on LGBT issues is a bad stain on the record and deserves to be critcised, but Hillary Clinton (and no, this is not just to say Hillary Clinton is bad, it's an honestly baffling part of her not being aligned with her party either) didn't come out in favour of gay marriage until 2013 after opposing it for a decade and she was the frontrunner for the party, and has a similar record. As far as I know, Gabbard has been supportive and voted in favour of gay rights consistently since her election in 2012 and probably before.

Evidently, a poor record on this is not a reason against why you can be a Democrat general candidate.
(Not that I think she will)

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I really want to know why you think he would make a good president

Because it sounds to me like you are voting him just to spite Texans. Is that how you intend to spend your vote? To spite people whose opinion you don't even care about? Can you list what he has supported and proposed in the past?

. . .that's kind of a jump in terms of logic.  Let the guy you quoted explain first.

2 hours ago, Johann said:

Gabbard has her own policy problems in that she's, well, not very much aligned with the rest of the party (notably some anti-LGBT stuff and her approach to the Middle East). I don't think her being young, female, and Hindi are a problem, I mean people vote for AOC if she were old enough. I agree that America has a major sexism/racism problem but it's worth remembering that Hillary still won the popular vote despite her campaign issues, and Obama won in a landslide.

Obama went up against an unpopular Republican party (the political sentiment in 2008 was a muted precursor to now).  Hillary winning the popular vote isn't helpful if she won certain states by a landslide - whether the vote be 51% or 75%, the electoral votes will go to her.  Due to how America votes, a candidate needs to win states, not individual hearts in a place where the majority will vote a certain way (like Hawaii).  Thus, sexism/racism/stupid religious arguments are exactly what Gabbard would have to fight through - otherwise, she loses states.  Lose enough states, and the election is lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tediz64 I want to vote for him not because I hate Texas, but because his message was well received in a region that has been historically conservative to the extreme. He almost won that election to the Senate, which is impressive in Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

Evidently, a poor record on this is not a reason against why you can be a Democrat general candidate.
(Not that I think she will)

Agreed. It's definitely not a good sign if most people only recognize you for negative stuff you did over a decade ago though

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Obama went up against an unpopular Republican party (the political sentiment in 2008 was a muted precursor to now).  Hillary winning the popular vote isn't helpful if she won certain states by a landslide - whether the vote be 51% or 75%, the electoral votes will go to her.  Due to how America votes, a candidate needs to win states, not individual hearts in a place where the majority will vote a certain way (like Hawaii).  Thus, sexism/racism/stupid religious arguments are exactly what Gabbard would have to fight through - otherwise, she loses states.  Lose enough states, and the election is lost.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't think sexism/racism/etc are going to cost a female/POC/etc candidate the election. Furthermore, I think buying into the argument that the Dems can't afford to run anyone other than a white man is effectively giving in to the sexists/racists/etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Johann said:

I guess the bottom line is that I don't think sexism/racism/etc are going to cost a female/POC/etc candidate the election. Furthermore, I think buying into the argument that the Dems can't afford to run anyone other than a white man is effectively giving in to the sexists/racists/etc.

I see it more as a matter of whether or not America can afford four more years of Trump.  There's two different ways of doing it:

1. Get the younger population to vote, to the point that they outnumber the older generation.  If that happened, then I'd be more willing to go with a candidate that's a little more out-there, demographics-wise.
2. Take away excuses.  The political Christian sect will need to come up with something more creative than "this candidate isn't a Christian".  Sexists can't internally justify their choice if both candidates are male.  Etc.

Don't underestimate the hive mind of the groups that support Trump.  I'm not sure if you've had a chance to watch a televangelist. . .and I'm hesitant to recommend it.  It's a very eye-opening experience, when it comes to understanding their mentality, and the tactics they use to keep their followers in line.  The first step to changing a mind is figuring out what said mind is thinking, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I see it more as a matter of whether or not America can afford four more years of Trump.  There's two different ways of doing it:

1. Get the younger population to vote, to the point that they outnumber the older generation.  If that happened, then I'd be more willing to go with a candidate that's a little more out-there, demographics-wise.
2. Take away excuses.  The political Christian sect will need to come up with something more creative than "this candidate isn't a Christian".  Sexists can't internally justify their choice if both candidates are male.  Etc.

Don't underestimate the hive mind of the groups that support Trump.  I'm not sure if you've had a chance to watch a televangelist. . .and I'm hesitant to recommend it.  It's a very eye-opening experience, when it comes to understanding their mentality, and the tactics they use to keep their followers in line.  The first step to changing a mind is figuring out what said mind is thinking, and why.

Oh, I know how shitty they are, I've seen that stuff before, it's disgusting how they operate. I think that faction is never going to vote Dem anyway, no matter who it is, and catering to them in an election is a wasted effort. Instead, the nominee would do best if their campaign focuses on getting non-voters and swing voters excited (as your first point suggests), which is something anybody could (potentially) pull off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Johann said:

Oh, I know how shitty they are, I've seen that stuff before, it's disgusting how they operate. I think that faction is never going to vote Dem anyway, no matter who it is, and catering to them in an election is a wasted effort. Instead, the nominee would do best if their campaign focuses on getting non-voters and swing voters excited (as your first point suggests), which is something anybody could (potentially) pull off.

The evangelical faction is. . .fascinating. . .fascinatingly nauseous.

There's the more well-known face, which is the slimy televangelist side.  Luckily, tuning into such things doesn't automatically make one a Republican voter.  By taking away excuses from the televangelists, they'll need to become more creative when it comes to "vote Republican candidate".  There's a small section that is fairly liberal, and that's the first chunk that IMO should break away. . .but for that to happen, the slimy televangelist side needs to be on air, showing their slimy side.  It's a lot easier to look devout by saying "this candidate isn't Christian", which appeals to the group-think.  Take away that argument, and it will most likely boil down to "because God told me so", which is less likely to fly with the fringe group (which also happens to be on the younger side, and most likely has bad memories of parents saying such things).

I've had to deal with mentally dishonest people before.  The best luck I've had is to take away every last socially-acceptable excuse for their behavior - either they go away, or they show their true colors.  I have yet to see a televangelist that doesn't make me sick to my stomach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, eclipse said:

I've had to deal with mentally dishonest people before.  The best luck I've had is to take away every last socially-acceptable excuse for their behavior - either they go away, or they show their true colors.  I have yet to see a televangelist that doesn't make me sick to my stomach.

I'd argue it's near impossible to enter any internet place of discussion without encountering mentally dishonest people. We've had our fair share of disingenuous trolls pop up in this very thread, after all. Given how serious the impacts caused by their rhetoric can be, as soon as it's clear what they're doing, I don't hold back on them. Taking away their platform to speak is pretty important too, because even if you're proving them wrong or exposing their dishonesty, they can still have an influence on others who are reading their stuff and thinking "you know, maybe they're on to something"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Johann said:

I'd argue it's near impossible to enter any internet place of discussion without encountering mentally dishonest people. We've had our fair share of disingenuous trolls pop up in this very thread, after all. Given how serious the impacts caused by their rhetoric can be, as soon as it's clear what they're doing, I don't hold back on them. Taking away their platform to speak is pretty important too, because even if you're proving them wrong or exposing their dishonesty, they can still have an influence on others who are reading their stuff and thinking "you know, maybe they're on to something"

Those that devolve to trolling get kicked, because this is a private site, and we mods have better things to do with our time that deal with that.  However, I'm hesitant to slap labels on people.  Instead, I assume that they genuinely believe their rhetoric, and act accordingly.  Why give the outlier a group identity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Those that devolve to trolling get kicked, because this is a private site, and we mods have better things to do with our time that deal with that.  However, I'm hesitant to slap labels on people.  Instead, I assume that they genuinely believe their rhetoric, and act accordingly.  Why give the outlier a group identity?

I agree that one shouldn't deplatform people based on what they say. If they truly believe what they say and you deplatform them, it just leads to them looking for places with people similar to them and bunching together.  A good example is probably the incel community on reddit moving to their own forums after r/incels got shut down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, eclipse said:

Those that devolve to trolling get kicked, because this is a private site, and we mods have better things to do with our time that deal with that.  However, I'm hesitant to slap labels on people.  Instead, I assume that they genuinely believe their rhetoric, and act accordingly.  Why give the outlier a group identity?

Well, I'm no mod so I don't have any power to deplatform, but the degree to which they believe the stuff they're saying doesn't really matter in light of what that message is and does

28 minutes ago, The Chad Sharpy said:

I agree that one shouldn't deplatform people based on what they say. If they truly believe what they say and you deplatform them, it just leads to them looking for places with people similar to them and bunching together.  A good example is probably the incel community on reddit moving to their own forums after r/incels got shut down. 

Deplatforming is just as much destabilizing their community as it is taking away their message. I'm sure taking away their subreddit screwed with their numbers since fewer people (new or old) would find/go to that newer forum, and the incel "community" is sustained by reinforcing negative thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, eclipse said:

I see it more as a matter of whether or not America can afford four more years of Trump.  There's two different ways of doing it:

1. Get the younger population to vote, to the point that they outnumber the older generation.  If that happened, then I'd be more willing to go with a candidate that's a little more out-there, demographics-wise.
2. Take away excuses.  The political Christian sect will need to come up with something more creative than "this candidate isn't a Christian".  Sexists can't internally justify their choice if both candidates are male.  Etc.

Don't underestimate the hive mind of the groups that support Trump.  I'm not sure if you've had a chance to watch a televangelist. . .and I'm hesitant to recommend it.  It's a very eye-opening experience, when it comes to understanding their mentality, and the tactics they use to keep their followers in line.  The first step to changing a mind is figuring out what said mind is thinking, and why.

I spoke to my conservative uncle who voted for Trump in 2016. He told me I'm going to vote for Trump again if the Democrats put up Warren or Sanders or Harris. I will not support a leftist. Biden is reasonable. I will vote for the Democratic ticket if they put up Biden.

...then I spoke to one of my leftist friend who didn't vote in 2016... 

He told me I'll stay home again if they don't put up Warren or Sanders. Centrist Democrats act like they're better than Republicans, but they're the same corporate shills.

There's the double-bind.

Put up a candidate who can get the leftists that refused to vote for Hillary, and you lose the center. 
Put up a candidate who can get the centrists that flipped for Trump, and you lose the left.

What to do?

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:

I spoke to my conservative uncle who voted for Trump in 2016. He told me I'm going to vote for Trump again if the Democrats put up Warren or Sanders or Harris. I will not support a leftist. Biden is reasonable. I will vote for the Democratic ticket if they put up Biden.

...then I spoke to one of my leftist friend who didn't vote in 2016... 

He told me I'll stay home again if they don't put up Warren or Sanders. Centrist Democrats act like they're better than Republicans, but they're the same corporate shills.

There's the double-bind.

Put up a candidate who can get the leftists that refused to vote for Hillary, and you lose the center. 
Put up a candidate who can get the centrists that flipped for Trump, and you lose the left.

What to do?

 

I actually don't think this one is complicated and would definitely say the leftist holds the weakest argument here.

Now I'm not saying "well if we can win conservatives who are sick of Trump, we should totally just give the nomination to Biden" here. I'm saying that the decision to vote for the Democratic nominee because it isn't Sanders or Warren is just flat out stupid if you're in a swing state.

"Centrist Democrats act like they're better than Republicans, but they're the same corporate shills" argument falls flat when you look at which party is pushing for the HR1 bill. Not voting in a swing state for the Presidential election because the leftist you wanted didn't get the nomination isn't technically on the same level of hypocrisy as the Republican voters who continue to put Republicans in office who have no interest in anything other than redistributing more and more wealth to the rich and themselves but if Trump ends up getting reelected then the result is the same with the difference being semantics.

In short, leftists who refuse to vote in swing states will unquestionably be part of the problem.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

What to do?

Depends on the nature of your state.

1. If you're in a swing state, vote the Democrat.  Unless said leftists wants four more years of Trump.  Then they can honestly say "I voted against Trump" instead of looking like a tool.
2. If you're in a state that's more-or-less decided to give their electoral votes to the Democratic candidate (like mine), then remind your friend that third parties exist, and make perfect protest votes.  Your friend can be confident that he's being a hipster and protesting the system, while exercising his right to vote.  Having a voice is better than staying silent.

As for your uncle, see if he's willing to take one of those online quiz things that shows which candidates align with his values.  The results might be surprising (apparently, I'm aligned with Jill Stein, and would've voted for her last election if she didn't pander to the anti-vaccination crowd).

Edited by eclipse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alabama's a red state and the last Democrat to have won there was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Trump vs Hillary

2018 Midterm results

Essentially, unless they've been turned off by Trump and Sessions, we can expect the state to stay red and likely see that Democrat Senate seat from them flip to red. 6/7 of the districts had pretty sizable wins there so it's rather safe to say that Trump will win that state again.

Maybe new findings of Trump's crimes could change the vote but I wouldn't put money on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Alabama's a red state and the last Democrat to have won there was Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Trump vs Hillary

2018 Midterm results

Essentially, unless they've been turned off by Trump and Sessions, we can expect the state to stay red and likely see that Democrat Senate seat from them flip to red. 6/7 of the districts had pretty sizable wins there so it's rather safe to say that Trump will win that state again.

Maybe new findings of Trump's crimes could change the vote but I wouldn't put money on it.

Do I still vote Democrat or third party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's really only about 10 states where your vote "matters" in the general election, under the electoral college system, because there's a close enough margin between voters that consistently vote (R) and voters that consistently vote (D) for minor fluctuations in voter turnout to flip whether the state goes Red or Blue:

Like--Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina matter.

I live in New Jersey. My vote doesn't matter.
Eclipse lives in Hawaii. Her vote doesn't matter. 

The electoral college makes it so that you have to live in a state that actually has a reasonable prospect of flipping for your vote to matter.

This is one of the reasons why I really don't like the electoral college. 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...