Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, XRay said:

I still do not want it to be near me though, and I definitely do not want it in my home.

There's a real possibility it already is in your home or someplace you go regularly, not to mention some products you use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, America. So determined to become a laughing stock. I mean....sure, the gun culture or the phobia in regards to healthcare may seem silly to other countries but you can at least explain it as part of America's culture. But Asbsetos? That stuff causing cancer isn't some radical new discovery. Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago. Putting it into buildings around here would probably result in some pretty hefty lawsuits if discovered. 

Edited by Etrurian emperor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Oh, America. So determined to become a laughing stock. I mean....sure, the gun culture or the phobia in regards to healthcare may seem silly to other countries but you can at least explain it as part of America's culture. But Asbsetos? That stuff causing cancer isn't some radical new discovery. Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago. Putting it into buildings around here would probably result in some pretty hefty lawsuits if discovered. 

And thus, Winston Churchill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Just about every civilized country probably outlawed its use decades ago.

You'd be surprised to learn it's very much legal in a lot of countries (particularly developing ones), and most places where it's banned have only done so in the last 10 or 20 years. Canada was one of the major producers up until a few years ago, and are only now banning it. These days it's pretty much all coming from Russia, China, and Brazil (even though Brazil has since banned it's use I believe). It IS something of a wonder material due to how strong and fire resistant it is, and it's certainly in many buildings across the US. If there were a way to ensure that the fibers couldn't become airborne ever, it'd be perfectly safe, since it doesn't do anything to you if you touch or even eat it.

Pretty sure it's used in brake pads still too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Trump Jr. apparently discovered photoshop. Look closely on Trump's 50% approval number.

Study on the alt-right

Kavanaugh confirmation hearings soon

Quick breakdown of Laura Ingraham's recent demographics monologue

American Renaissance channel referenced in previous video. Couldn't help but cringe when I saw their welcome video.

Melania Trump's immigration lawyer calls out Trump on chain migration

There's also a claim that CNN planted an anti-trump on a panel of "Trump voters" to chime in on how they feel about him. Do note that this source is alt-right and it is rather questionable but this particular story actually seems like it could be legit.

Who would've fucking thought that Americans would want a better minimum wage, healthcare and college?

Stephen Miller's own uncle calls him a hypocrite when it comes to immigration and compares him to Nazis.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/10/2018 at 6:41 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Donald Trump Jr. apparently discovered photoshop. Look closely on Trump's 50% approval number.

That is not fake news, that is being smart at using a computer and rounding up properly.

 

- - - - - - -

 

This is just a random thought that came to me, but is it okay to plagiarize Trump's campaign? Specifically, I want Democrats to take their MAGA motto. Melania plagiarized Michelle's speech, so there is a precedent for copying your opponent.

I like the the motto MAGA, because I think it sounds nice and patriotic. It is also pretty vague and void of meaning, so you can basically attach that to any agenda you want. While Democrats do not have a reason to use MAGA before, Democrats do have a reason to use that motto now because America is clearly not so great anymore: our standing in the world has fallen; our stock market's performance is stalling; and while our economy looks great on the surface, wages are stagnant, people cannot afford to buy homes anymore, and all of our export oriented industry are in jeopardy due to trade wars with agriculture seeming like they may need taxpayer bailouts.

There was some discussion among Democrats whether we should focus more on flipping red voters blue or changing non voters to voters, and with some saying that it is not a binary choice and we can actually do both. I guess taking the MAGA motto would be more along the lines of flipping voters and speaking their language.

Instead of framing MAGA around fear like building walls and "protecting" American industry by slapping tariffs on everyone, Democrats can frame MAGA along more positive policies, like reinforcing ACA to help combat the opioid epidemic, actually spending money on infrastructure in rural America, and provide job training to people in dying industries and maybe even help them relocate to better job markets.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was ever a good time for Democrats to use "MAGA" as part of their campaign, I'm not sure if that is now, I think it'll hurt them more than help. Besides, "Make America Great Again" resonates more on the Republican side as it was probably meant to appeal to people who think Reagan was the best.

The other slogan that Trump used (although not as frequently) is "America First" and to that the answer is simply "just no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I am just slightly annoyed that Republicans got the cooler sounding motto while Democrats got like... nothing.

It is kind of like how the pseudoscience astrology got the better -ology suffix, while the science astronomy is forced to use -nomy.

Democrats need a rallying cry in my opinion. Maybe something like SAFE: Save America from evil. Does not sound as powerful as MAGA, but the acronym is a real word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats don't need a fancy slogan, what they need are good candidates who can actually inspire people to vote.  They need more to run on than "At least we aren't Republicans" to draw in the left wing vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Geek said:

The Democrats don't need a fancy slogan, what they need are good candidates who can actually inspire people to vote.  They need more to run on than "At least we aren't Republicans" to draw in the left wing vote.

Having slogans help though, at least in my opinion. You got to appeal to the crowd and sell yourself to get the votes. Not having a slogan is not a big deal I guess, but it never hurts to have one.

Just having something in common to chant can help foster unity and solidarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jim jefferies did a bit on that

I don't like slogans but throughout history they've worked so

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems problem is a simple and easily fixable one--the party is being run by an over-the-hill and out-of-touch generation of leadership that should have passed the baton a decade ago. And that in recent memory has done absolutely nothing but protect their own--drifting further and further away from the voting base of a party hungry for real progressive reform.

-Hillary's "corporate democrat" brand was rejected in 2016. 

-The Dem that just won a house seat in a Pennsylvania district that went double-digit for Trump in 2016 did it by promising that he would oppose Nancy Pelosi and will vote against her for Speaker, if Dems retake the House in 2018.

-Obama was a glimpse of the electoral supermajorities Democrats can command when they have a next-gen, young progressive who breaks from the scripted orthodoxies of the old guard and legitimately presents as a forward-thinking progressive reformer. (recall that in 2008 Obama was the outsider candidate in the Democratic Primary, with pretty much the entire party leadership sans the late Tedd Kennedy backing Hillary as the party's choice candidate + casting Obama as too young and inexperienced for the White House)  

_______

Get the stagnant old-guard out. Get young, hot-blooded progressives in.

That's literally all Dems have to do to reinvigorate the party.

     

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manafort's defense ends with no witnesses called. Now, I would assume that means it's probably an open and shut case and Manafort's just cooked but I'm ignorant when it comes to the subject of court cases where the defense puts up little to no fight so is the assumption correct or am I missing something here?

Trump supporter argues Omarosa's lying, new tape comes out proving who's really lying and the follow-up is simply fantastic, on FOX NEWS of all places!

I didn't think the Omarosa tapes would matter much but so far it's been hilarious. Alone, these tapes really aren't anything new from what we already know of Trump and his character but people defending Trump because of them is only making them more powerful. If these keep coming like this, the WH and all Trump cronies will be on constant defense further proving that arguing in support of Trump puts you in a position no moral , logical or ethical ground, you're just automatically throwing yourself in a pit hoping that your opponent doesn't bury you in Trump's dirt.

Btw here's a small gem from the Op-Ed by Stephen Miller's Uncle:

Quote

I would encourage Stephen to ask himself if the chanting, torch-bearing Nazis of Charlottesville, whose support his boss seems to court so cavalierly, do not envision a similar fate for him.

11 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Get the stagnant old-guard out. Get young, hot-blooded progressives in.

That's literally all Dems have to do to reinvigorate the party.

     

In moderation. If too many such progressives were to be introduced for this midterm election, the midterms will be setup for more Republican wins. Today, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pretty much a win in the midterms because of the district she's running in. Other states and locations are against her because fact checkers are on her due to the immense popularity since her win over Crowley and she's drawing the some skepticism because of the fact checking. The skepticism is perfectly fine but this is all stuff that Fox News and the like will use to smear her and it's going to work outside of New York.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

In moderation. If too many such progressives were to be introduced for this midterm election, the midterms will be setup for more Republican wins. Today, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is pretty much a win in the midterms because of the district she's running in. Other states and locations are against her because fact checkers are on her due to the immense popularity since her win over Crowley and she's drawing the some skepticism because of the fact checking. The skepticism is perfectly fine but this is all stuff that Fox News and the like will use to smear her and it's going to work outside of New York.

Sorta? In red districts, going straight to the socialist platforms would probably backfire considering that quite a few of them have a chance of flipping with how Trump's turned out. I'd argue that they should run as many as they can in 'safe' blue seats as they can, considering that their voter base has demonstrated both good motivation/energy and a clear desire for more left-wing politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. As much as I want the moderate "neoliberals" who keep flopping to just go away and let young blood try something new, we should start with just getting progressive/DSA candidates in blue strongholds, then go from there. We know to some level that these messages can resonate with rural/red areas, as Bernie was really good at that, but jumping both feet in with "Free healthcare/college/universal basic income/equality for everyone" probably won't flip as many districts that are on the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want to share some good news I found instead of the usual shit show. Despite the toxicity in Congress, it actually does one thing well, and that is passing spending bills.

According to the article, Congress usually does it last minute with one giant spending, but it is much better now and bills are made smaller and passed more quickly.

On 8/15/2018 at 11:44 AM, Slumber said:

As much as I want the moderate "neoliberals" who keep flopping to just go away and let young blood try something new, we should start with just getting progressive/DSA candidates in blue strongholds, then go from there.

Not sure if I am a neoliberal, but I am little skeptical of the far left on economic policy regarding spending and taxes.

I personally do not mind being taxed higher in return for having more benefits, but I am skeptical of how they go about that. Like, who is going to pay for it and can we even make them pay for it? How much lobbying money do we need? Do we need to make cuts elsewhere in order to have enough money? What if we cut spending on the military, and what impact would that make? How would that impact our economy, will our GDP go up or down, etc.?

I prefer to have rich people pay more, but I am not sure how that is going to happen. Even if it does happen, what if they just leave? Will the amount they pay even matter?

I am not sure where else we can cut spending, and only the military comes to mind. I am not sure if we are offering subsidies to fossil fuels, but if we do, I guess we can cut that, or at least tax them higher if we are not offering them subsidies.

As for cutting military spending, I have no opinion on that since I am not sure if the Pentagon was ever audited, so I do not want to just lower or increase spending without more information. If we are spending more money than most because we are the primary ones keeping trade routes open and researching new weapons, I think that is fine and I would not mind increasing it a bit more as necessary to keep up with inflation. If we are spending it on overpriced supplies, contractors, and shit like that for no apparent reason, then we definitely need to cut spending and fine businesses and officials for corruption.

I think our GDP might be about the same or a bit lower if we nationalize health care? Even if is slightly lower and older Republican voters who benefit more, I am fine with that. I believe having one less thing to worry about helps people pursue their happiness more. I think free, high quality education is necesary though. If not free, then at least make it affordable or have some sort of work study program to help students earn their education. I am not sure how good our education system was in the past, but I think it has to be at least decent since we did win against the Soviets. Not sure about universal basic income.

Sorry for the long rant. I just wanted get my thoughts out to try to organize it. It is kind of jumbled in my mind.

Share this post


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

As for cutting military spending, I have no opinion on that since I am not sure if the Pentagon was ever audited, so I do not want to just lower or increase spending without more information.

What is kind of nice about military spending -- which mainly indicates to me that it's merely inefficiently used rather than bad -- is that it funds plenty of scholarships and research grants. It's a hell of a source of employment an education.

I'm kind of speaking anecdotally though -- my undergrad was backed by the NSA to some extent, and my grad school is being funded by the Air Force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, XRay said:

Not sure if I am a neoliberal, but I am little skeptical of the far left on economic policy regarding spending and taxes.

I personally do not mind being taxed higher in return for having more benefits, but I am skeptical of how they go about that. Like, who is going to pay for it and can we even make them pay for it? How much lobbying money do we need? Do we need to make cuts elsewhere in order to have enough money? What if we cut spending on the military, and what impact would that make? How would that impact our economy, will our GDP go up or down, etc.?

I prefer to have rich people pay more, but I am not sure how that is going to happen. Even if it does happen, what if they just leave? Will the amount they pay even matter?

I am not sure where else we can cut spending, and only the military comes to mind. I am not sure if we are offering subsidies to fossil fuels, but if we do, I guess we can cut that, or at least tax them higher if we are not offering them subsidies.

Note that when talking about tax cuts that blow a hole in the deficit, or deregulation or social welfare checks to corporations to bail them out when they crash their own economies, or for voting for expanding the military budget even further when there's already a bunch of wasted funding, voted for by both Republicans and Democrats, or for funding continued military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, or for a stupid wall project (the money comes from Mexico, honest!) nobody is ever asked 'where the money comes from', because it is the norm. Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. Only left economic policies are challenged in this fashion, and it's disingenuous.

For Medicare for All, for example, a recent study funded by the Koch Brothers and libertarian Mercatus Center (who aren't in favour of left-wing economic policies at all obviously), had to conclude that a single payer system would cost slightly less than the system currently in place in the US, due to it being a middle-man gouging mess. $34 trillion compared to $32 trillion over the next ten years. And that's with a source with a bias against such a system. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

In some ways, I do think it's a little more nuanced than that. When implementing the NHS in the UK, cost exceeded initial expectations. But ask any regular civilian in the UK and they'll tell you the NHS is one of our, if the not the biggest achievement for our country. It may require some form of hike in taxes, but it eliminates rising premiums for regular people, and the worry if you are going to go into debt just because you got sick. It is worth it. Which is why the medical industry doesn't want this, because they make major bank over people not be able to pay when they are severely injured or dying. Americans should be a little more concerned with life over money.

And as for GDP spent on healthcare, well:

350px-Health_care_cost_rise.svg.png

and

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health

I'm a little less enthusiastic on other areas like tax-funded college compared to healthcare, but America could absolutely do it if they deem it worth it. Scotland manages to do it for citizens. Another idea would be just to put money into education in general - this is why there was a teachers strike earlier this year - and these weren't in liberal states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_teachers'_strikes_in_the_United_States

Cutting the military is still a good idea, considering a) waste of resources in many areas and b) less intervention presence from US military around the world, something the American people generally want too.  The US has 800 military bases around the world in 80 countries that cost $100 billion annually to maintain.

Edited by Edgelord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Note that when talking about tax cuts that blow a hole in the deficit, or deregulation or social welfare checks to corporations to bail them out when they crash their own economies, or for voting for expanding the military budget even further when there's already a bunch of wasted funding, voted for by both Republicans and Democrats, or for funding continued military intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else, or for a stupid wall project (the money comes from Mexico, honest!) nobody is ever asked 'where the money comes from', because it is the norm. Republicans aren't fiscally conservative. Only left economic policies are challenged in this fashion, and it's disingenuous.

For Medicare for All, for example, a recent study funded by the Koch Brothers and libertarian Mercatus Center (who aren't in favour of left-wing economic policies at all obviously), had to conclude that a single payer system would cost slightly less than the system currently in place in the US, due to it being a middle-man gouging mess. $34 trillion compared to $32 trillion over the next ten years. And that's with a source with a bias against such a system. 

https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

In some ways, I do think it's a little more nuanced than that. When implementing the NHS in the UK, cost exceeded initial expectations. But ask any regular civilian in the UK and they'll tell you the NHS is one of our, if the not the biggest achievement for our country. It may require some form of hike in taxes, but it eliminates rising premiums for regular people, and the worry if you are going to go into debt just because you got sick. It is worth it. Which is why the medical industry doesn't want this, because they make major bank over people not be able to pay when they are severely injured or dying. Americans should be a little more concerned with life over money.

And as for GDP spent on healthcare, well:

350px-Health_care_cost_rise.svg.png

and

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health

I'm a little less enthusiastic on other areas like tax-funded college compared to healthcare, but America could absolutely do it if they deem it worth it. Scotland manages to do it for citizens. Another idea would be just to put money into education in general - this is why there was a teachers strike earlier this year - and these weren't in liberal states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_teachers'_strikes_in_the_United_States

Cutting the military is still a good idea, considering a) waste of resources in many areas and b) less intervention presence from US military around the world, something the American people generally want too.  The US has 800 military bases around the world in 80 countries that cost $100 billion annually to maintain.

i truly do not understand the logic behind being against welfare but for big bank bailouts (especially in 2008, after they took advantage of the american people and crashed the economy for nearly a decade). if a fiscal conservative can explain the reasoning to me articulately, please do.

23 minutes ago, Life said:

If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.

maybe to those wanting to stop the clock or turn it backward...

a far-right winger's opinion on what left-wing strategy should be is also a funny concept.

Edited by Phoenix Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Life said:

If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.

Who do progressives turn off that they need to win elections?  The Democrats should care about the "white working class" in the same sense they should care about the working class in general.  Obviously, they don't give a shit about them because they're a center right party, but the more you care about the working class, the more left wing you are, almost by default.  Not sure how you're putting these things at odds with each other.

 

And yeah, as Phoenix pointed out, the funniest fucking thing in the world is "yeah I know I'm absolutely your political opponent, but trust me, I'm giving you some advice from the bottom of my heart on how to win.  here's the trick, just do the things I want".

Share this post


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

And yeah, as Phoenix pointed out, the funniest fucking thing in the world is "yeah I know I'm absolutely your political opponent, but trust me, I'm giving you some advice from the bottom of my heart on how to win.  here's the trick, just do the things I want".

It's especially annoying when you consider that in terms of actual politics, the Democrats are already by far more working-class friendly than the Republicans, who make a big song-and-dance about being the party of the working-class, yet when in power do literally everything they can to fuck them over in favour of corporate sponsors.

Besides, what exactly does 'appeal to the white-working class' even entail, considering that the phrase is almost always used to refer to the Republican base i.e. people who vote based off of what they hear on Fox News and Conservative talk radio, in which case 'appeal to the white working-class' would entail 'tell women, minorities, and poor people to get fucked and become a carbon-copy of the Republicans'.

Edited by Time the Crestfallen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Life said:

If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.

Progressives is a broad term that may not by itself really distinguish between left social & economic priorities. For example, is Hillary Clinton a progressive? With Christian Conservatives, you generally know what you are getting and their positions. That said, you're not necessarily wrong - I just would say that the Democratic Party needs to reform the way they present their economic policies, and then support (and more excitement to vote for the Democrats) from both white and minority working and middle classes will follow - but it depends on what you mean by 'going farther progressive'.

7 hours ago, Time the Crestfallen said:

Besides, what exactly does 'appeal to the white-working class' even entail, considering that the phrase is almost always used to refer to the Republican base i.e. people who vote based off of what they hear on Fox News and Conservative talk radio, in which case 'appeal to the white working-class' would entail 'tell women, minorities, and poor people to get fucked and become a carbon-copy of the Republicans'.

While there's not necessarily a shortage of people that would think that, that aren't going to vote anything other than Republican, so-called 'progressive' policies are generally favored in the country, especially when you drop the label that they are "left-wing" or "liberal" and present them independently.

Edited by Edgelord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Life said:

If you ask me about Democrat strategy, they need to start caring about white working class instead of going farther progressive. Progressives turn people off the same way that Christian Conservatives turn people off.

...what you described is being more progressive. It's the centrists who are focusing overmuch on social issues.

Share this post


Link to post
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...