Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

It isn't a matter of "wanting" those countries. But if that country is a failure and in shambles plus the leaders are worthless, then maybe we should just add them to our land. I mean the earlier example I gave was parts of Central America. An absurd amount of people are fleeing and it is super obvious those leaders are never going to take the country in a good direction. They should just abdicate and become one our territories. The alternative is to keep letting people flee for their lives from there and to let those perfectly good resources and land go to waste under the management of incompetent leaders. Like Mexico is a pretty good example. That leader is nothing more than a puppet. It is obvious the government is ruled by the Cartels. Why wouldn't they want to join us? What do they have to lose? Their poor way of life? The endless amount of families that starve and barely get to eat meat once every two weeks or sometimes worse, once a month? The fact that they pimp out their young teenage daughters to have food for a month? I want a pretty good list of reasons why, joining us is a bad thing. Considering the fact that tens of thousands of them keep trying to cross over and live over here or at least come over and do business with is. We mine as well plant our flag over there and then tax them. We could bring good reform that would help those people.

If Mexico wants to join the United States voluntarily, then sure, we can add them in. However, we should not go planting our flag in foreign countries without permission if they do not want us to. The time to do that has been long gone. We had the opportunity to take and keep quite a few of Spain's former colonies and maybe a few other territories, but we failed to.

What Mexicans have to lose is their national identity. As for starving families and pimping out daughters, the United States is no better because we have a lot of them too. Some parts of the South are notorious for forcing their daughters to marry their rapists and keep babies the victims do not want.

4 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Like you said earlier, context matters. Please don't distort my words. I meant other joining us with good will and intent. But there are some people that are fed up of taking refugees from places that should have gotten their shit together long ago and they are most certainly not laying the ground work for improving even as we speak today. Some people are advocating using force. I want to put the option on the table to begin discussing. 

As for preventing the people from sneaking in over here after they refuse, how is that not reasonable or sensible? What is wrong with blocking them from coming over? Please elaborate. I want to hear your logic and reasoning. If not to be convinced that maybe I'm being unethical or unfair. 

Technically, there is nothing wrong with that as any country has the right to do so, but America is not just any country. I believe in American exceptionalism, and that America has a duty to go above and beyond of what other countries do to help the world. As the leader of the free world and defender of democracy, we need to act like it. As the Statue of Liberty puts it, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Great powers comes with great responsibility. America has unquestionably the greatest power right now, but to maintain that power also requires us to maintain and keep our responsibilities. Large parts of the world look up to America for leadership, and it is through our commitments and ideals that they see us as leaders. The moment we step away from that and start petty trade wars with allies or engage in isolationist tendencies, our reputation and soft power drops. Because of Trump, parts of the world no longer look to us for guidance and have turned to our enemies for support.

4 hours ago, Dayni said:

With the news of Nunes's almost certain involvement in the scheme (Though this probably should have been sooner), I feel we need a new name for the socalled Grand Old Party:

Gabby Onerous Projectors.

I think that's a fitting name (also it's a shame that there no C in it for an easy pick). It's depressing they aren't a fucking small bunch of angry old men shouting at everything for the sake of it.

It might be a huge embarrassment for Republicans, but I doubt that matters to their voters at this point. They will stick with Trump no matter what unless Trump does something absolutely physically horrible like raping and shooting a child or something.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, XRay said:

Technically, there is nothing wrong with that as any country has the right to do so, but America is not just any country. I believe in American exceptionalism, and that America has a duty to go above and beyond of what other countries do to help the world. As the leader of the free world and defender of democracy, we need to act like it. As the Statue of Liberty puts it, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

To be entirely fair, the woman who wrote that sonnet (Emma Lazerus) was also rich as shit and could afford to say things such as "sure, we must take in everyone". It's like Hollywood actors saying the same thing but not willing to house those same people in their own gated neighbourhoods. She was also mostly referring to Russian Jews who were fleeing pogroms and worked almost exclusively for Jewish immigrants to America.

Maybe if she had been working class, she would have had a different opinion.

Edited by Life

Share this post


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

No, you and your blatant racism don't belong in this thread

Lol. I had to respond to this cause it is so precious. I mean, you don't even know me yet you can claim I'm racist? Against which race? First of all, do you even know what my own race is? This is hilarious. What are you? 14 years old? So when you can't formulate an educated argument you throw around random cards and claim your opponent is some sort of bigot? Get lost key board warrior. I'm staying right here and I'm going to continue to have productive conversations with the real mature adults in this thread. I actually want to grow and learn unlike you. You seem to make light of our country and its problems. Now where was I? 

 

42 minutes ago, XRay said:

What Mexicans have to lose is their national identity. As for starving families and pimping out daughters, the United States is no better because we have a lot of them too. Some parts of the South are notorious for forcing their daughters to marry their rapists and keep babies the victims do not want.

I won't deny this fact. It is a blight in our country's record. If I was a judge, I'd be making good use of the Death Penalty here in Texas to bring these scum to justice. Child molesters deserve the harshest punishments.

 

45 minutes ago, XRay said:

Technically, there is nothing wrong with that as any country has the right to do so, but America is not just any country. I believe in American exceptionalism, and that America has a duty to go above and beyond of what other countries do to help the world. As the leader of the free world and defender of democracy, we need to act like it. As the Statue of Liberty puts it, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Great powers comes with great responsibility. America has unquestionably the greatest power right now, but to maintain that power also requires us to maintain and keep our responsibilities. Large parts of the world look up to America for leadership, and it is through our commitments and ideals that they see us as leaders. The moment we step away from that and start petty trade wars with allies or engage in isolationist tendencies, our reputation and soft power drops. Because of Trump, parts of the world no longer look to us for guidance and have turned to our enemies for support.

Restoring our reputation isn't going to be easy but it can be done and will be. We just have to be patient untill we remove our current leader, and pick someone better. If the world can just be patient with us till we fix the mess we are in. I've heard a few leaders from other countries mention they don't want to do business with us until after President Trump leaves offices. This is bad news but also good news when you read into it. Basically what they are saying is, they'll come back to the table later. I'm sure we'll have to make alot of concessions and make amends to show our good will, but it isn't all hopeless. We still have some of our more important and strongest allies on our side.

If we can get more people to support Buttigieg or Gabbard then maybe we'll have a chance of making progress. The DNC needs to see that they aren't going to win with leaning extremely to the left. Moderate people don't want that. 

Speaking of which, I recently saw ads on Facebook. Yang's ads. It is shocking considering that we just heard President Trump had a dinner with Facebook's CEO Zuckerberg. I'm shocked his ads were the first to start popping up. And so early too. He must have paid a fortune to get that ad on there. I didn't think he was serious but if he paying for ads on Facebook, he must seriously be polling pretty good. I mean I haven't even seen a Biden, Warren, Harris, or Bernie ad on Facebook yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Life said:

To be entirely fair, the woman who wrote that sonnet (Emma Lazerus) was also rich as shit and could afford to say things such as "sure, we must take in everyone". It's like Hollywood actors saying the same thing but not willing to house those same people in their own gated neighbourhoods. She was also mostly referring to Russian Jews who were fleeing pogroms and worked almost exclusively for Jewish immigrants to America.

Maybe if she had been working class, she would have had a different opinion.

Just because we have the poor and homeless in America does not mean we should not also help people from other countries. If anything having more people come in would help increase the size of the economy. Per capita GDP would go down in the short term, but it should grow faster to make up for it in the long term once their children gets settled and start contributing to the economy. Having immigration will help stave off a shrinking population, as a shrinking population is extremely detrimental to the economy which then affects our military with smaller budgets and a smaller population to draw recruits from.

15 minutes ago, Tediz64 said:

If we can get more people to support Buttigieg or Gabbard then maybe we'll have a chance of making progress. The DNC needs to see that they aren't going to win with leaning extremely to the left. Moderate people don't want that. 

I do not see the far left winning. Democratic voters as a whole are more moderate than what the media portrays. I do not see anyone other than Biden, Sanders, and maybe Warren standing much of a chance. Biden is the most estblishmenty of the group, and also seems the most experienced and moderate, so I am going with him. If he does not make it, I will have to do more research on Sanders and Warren, but I lean slightly towards right now Warren since she seems more tough against our enemies.

Share this post


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

It might be a huge embarrassment for Republicans, but I doubt that matters to their voters at this point. They will stick with Trump no matter what unless Trump does something absolutely physically horrible like raping and shooting a child or something.

You're either giving them too much credit or just picked a bad example. This was posted last page-ish but it bears repeating

They wouldn't say "wow I had no idea he would kill somebody", they'd say "Well I need more information. Why did he shoot him?". And before you say "that's horrible, how could American voters be so morally bankrupt on the subject of death" I've seen this same reaction from my folks when they encounter a local story of a cop (often ex-cop or off-duty cop) executing somebody in public with an open carry weapon. They'd read the report and say "oh, his family was there so he was protecting them. Well there you go." And in my head it's like "well you gotta be a special kinda stupid to antagonize somebody with a gun on their hip...but also why do you need a gun to protect your family in a grocery store?" Sure supermarkets can get robbed, but it's a much more difficult prospect for a lone robber compared to smaller establishments and wouldn't happen in broad daylight with such a wealth of witnesses/911 dialers/security cameras. And if there's a gang of twelve robbers suitable for such a big place, good luck getting them to stand down or take them out like you're Jack Reacher. I'm neither a cop nor robber but even I see the failing logic of expecting to be robbed midday at that kind of place.

As for whether the reactions would be similar in a rape case, well, if you've ever heard of victim blaming as it relates to sexual violence then I don't need to explain the likely responses to that. When women testify to their attackers, we don't put rapists in jail, we give them a job on the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

I didn't phrase it like that at all. Plus I didn't even use the word refugee. I mean I guess if you are the most cynical person as can possibly be and put it under the most negative spotlight you could, I'd imagine that is one way to interpret it. 

You didn't phrase it like this, but it's 100% the logical conclusion to what you were suggesting. And considering what you follow this paragraph up with, I was being very kind with my paraphrasing.

12 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

It isn't a matter of "wanting" those countries. But if that country is a failure and in shambles plus the leaders are worthless, then maybe we should just add them to our land. I mean the earlier example I gave was parts of Central America. An absurd amount of people are fleeing and it is super obvious those leaders are never going to take the country in a good direction. They should just abdicate and become one our territories. The alternative is to keep letting people flee for their lives from there and to let those perfectly good resources and land go to waste under the management of incompetent leaders. Like Mexico is a pretty good example. That leader is nothing more than a puppet. It is obvious the government is ruled by the Cartels. Why wouldn't they want to join us? What do they have to lose? Their poor way of life? The endless amount of families that starve and barely get to eat meat once every two weeks or sometimes worse, once a month? The fact that they pimp out their young teenage daughters to have food for a month? I want a pretty good list of reasons why, joining us is a bad thing. Considering the fact that tens of thousands of them keep trying to cross over and live over here or at least come over and do business with is. We mine as well plant our flag over there and then tax them. We could bring good reform that would help those people.

"Good" is very subjective to what you're saying.

America HAS absolutely dabbled in trying to take Central American countries in very proxy ways. We're not going over there and planting our flag, but we've propped up people and groups in Central and South America that were supposed to align with US interest. Are you aware of us funding the anti-Sandinista Contras in Nicaragua that was meant to overthrow Nicaragua's government and instill one more like ours 35 years ago? How'd that turn out and how's Nicaragua doing right now?

How about our recent meddling with Venezuela and now Chile? Venezuela certainly isn't doing any better, and I'm sure Chile's not going to be better off after their protests.

If Greenland, a territory that isn't nearly as foreign culturally or ideologically as Central/South America is laughs at the idea of being owned by America, how the fuck do you think places like Mexico would take having us as their rulers?

Have you considered at all that Mexico, right now, is one of the countries with the lowest opinions of America IN THE WORLD? How do you suggest we get a hold of Mexico without a violent take over or massive riots and protests from over 60% of the population that fucking hates America? Have you considered that not all of the people in Mexico are poor, starving, homeless, underage prostitutes controlled by the cartels, and that most of the people in the major cities like Mexico City, Guadalajara and Toluca don't experience most of the shit you just claimed about Mexico, and that just trying to take over their country unwillingly would absolutely ruin their relatively normal lives? And when we eventually lose(Because America never wins wars that are not on home turf by themselves) and retreat, leaving Mexico even worse off than they are now, what would you call the people who don't want to be there but refugees? And a whole wide open path for the Cartels to control even more of one of our closest neighbors?

Do you not see a problem at all with your line of thought?

And, last of all on this issue, have you ever even considered that there are other ways of helping out places and doing "Good" besides just slapping an America sticker on countries that need help?

12 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

Like you said earlier, context matters. Please don't distort my words. I meant other joining us with good will and intent. But there are some people that are fed up of taking refugees from places that should have gotten their shit together long ago and they are most certainly not laying the ground work for improving even as we speak today. Some people are advocating using force. I want to put the option on the table to begin discussing. 

You need to educate yourself if you think countries would willingly join America at this point. Especially when the other option is an absolute 0 tolerance to immigration. You're implying we take a very "Us vs. them" mentality on the world stage.

We barely acknowledge Puerto Rico as a part of the US, what makes you think we'd be any kinder to other places that became part of the country? Do you really think "Oh come on, you'll be just like Puerto Rico!" would be a good selling point to any country on the planet? Or, as I laid out, who in the world do you think would willingly join the US? And you still seem to be implying that we'd still use force as a last resort when taking over countries(If your idea is just "an option on the table"), which, I'll tell you right now, would result in a whole fuckton of refugees. That we're now not going to take any responsibility for.

12 hours ago, Tediz64 said:

As for preventing the people from sneaking in over here after they refuse, how is that not reasonable or sensible? What is wrong with blocking them from coming over? Please elaborate. I want to hear your logic and reasoning. If not to be convinced that maybe I'm being unethical or unfair. 

This shouldn't be a hard concept. Just because a country acts one way doesn't mean every single person in that country agrees with how the country is acting, or that they still wouldn't rather be somewhere else. Do you not realize how many Muslim immigrants have come to America after all the wars we engaged in the middle east? Can you not connect the dots and see what would happen in your scenario here? Do you not know how many Vietnamese and Hmong immigrants came to the US after we failed to find Uncle Sam a house in Vietnam? Those people generally didn't come here until after America was rejected in those areas. By your own suggestion, it'd already be too late for those people. Fuck 'em. Their leaders didn't want us so they can just rot in the war-torn countries we left behind. Blacklisted.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're changing tracks. Big mod hat on, no backchat, your presence on these forums is a privilege and not a right.

Edited by Parrhesia

Share this post


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

Don’t sleep on Pete Bettigieg 

Do you really think he stands a chance though? I am always a bit skeptical of first time runners who have little name recognition winning the nomination, although Obama was a first time runner with little recognition too, but I think he is more of an outlier than the norm.

Bernie is no longer a first timer runner and he built quite a name for himself, so I think he stands the second best chance in my opinion. I am not sure about Warren; she does have some level of name recognition amongst Democrats, but I am not sure how well known she is to independents and Republicans before she announced her run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Buttigieg's biggest strength is that he appeals to the 90%+ white populated states that are first in the primaries so the dude's gonna stick around for a while and will be one of the 3 foils the mainstream media will push on people to go against Bernie (the other 2 being Biden and Warren). The next thing being that the media loves the dude because he's vague on policy and isn't pushing the better Medicare for All option from the consumer's perspective.

Warren's biggest hurdle is that like the other candidates, she doesn't seem all that knowledgeable on Foreign Policy. Neither is Trump mind you but the visage he got of "being tough and just saying what he thinks apologetically" and his public bantering with Warren has made her look weak due to her apologizing. Oh and there's the misogyny among male voters and conservative women.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Bloomberg is officially running now. He plans to self fund the entire campaign. I am not sure if he stands a chance or not? When I was young, I have heard of Bloomberg magazine and that it is some sort of financiallish company when I first started college as an accounting student, but I did not know Michael Bloomberg as a person who founded his media company and that he was a mayor of New York until I started to devour more stock market news around after I got my Associates and began preparing to move to New York.

If I was not an accounting or some type of business student, I probably would not have heard of Bloomberg magazine or paid any attention to it, so while he might have recognition with people who have a business background, I do not think he has much recognition with Americans in general? Is that a safe assumption? Kind of hard for me to say whether or not he has real name recognition.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloomberg has no chance and is the perfect target for Warren to attack on the Democratic primary and cement her message of taking on the rich. The man will also draw criticism from conservatives, moderates and Trumpists for things that also apply to Trump.

It's his money and the man can do whatever he wants but you'll no doubt find instances of people pointing out how he could've used that money to solve problems like the Flint water issue instead of dumping it on an inevitably dead campaign.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope to God Bloomberg just eats into Biden's base. He won't go far, but as long as he can disrupt the notion that Biden is the "safe, establishment vote", a notion that already seems to be slipping, I'll be happy.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Slumber said:

I hope to God Bloomberg just eats into Biden's base. He won't go far, but as long as he can disrupt the notion that Biden is the "safe, establishment vote", a notion that already seems to be slipping, I'll be happy.

Biden seems like the one who is most willing to cross the aisle and he was the VP of Obama, so that is a pretty big deal I think. Bernie and Warren have been working a long time too, but Biden feels more establishment and experienced and seems to be the most moderate. I am a bit iffy on Bernie and Warren because their positions are more left than Biden so I am not sure if they appeal to conservatives and independents as much. I prefer electing someone as palatable as possible to as many people as possible.

Share this post


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

Biden seems like the one who is most willing to cross the aisle and he was the VP of Obama, so that is a pretty big deal I think. Bernie and Warren have been working a long time too, but Biden feels more establishment and experienced and seems to be the most moderate. I am a bit iffy on Bernie and Warren because their positions are more left than Biden so I am not sure if they appeal to conservatives and independents as much. I prefer electing someone as palatable as possible to as many people as possible.

The candidates themselves don't because most conservatives are in the Fox News bubble and just buy into the bullshit from the Opinion pundits. Some of the ideas brought up by the likes of Bernie, AOC and Warren like taxing the rich do poll well among Republicans. 

M4A has seen polls where Republicans favoring it are over 50%, here's a poll back in August of last year

Here's a Fox news poll showing that people want to tax the rich, some of them even suggesting tougher taxes than what AOC has suggested.

The policies that are being described as "going too far left" are supported by the voters but because of the stigma towards the person proposing it, some show hesitation or are even changing their tune. If Trump scrapped Obamacare and reintroduced it the exact same way as it was before he successfully scrapped it and just dubbed it "Trumpcare", said "I have Replaced Obamacare with something beautiful just like I promised" and then all of Fox News got together and decided that nobody, including Chris Wallace, be allowed to say it's the same thing as Obamacare, Trumpists would be singing a different tune.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


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

Biden seems like the one who is most willing to cross the aisle and he was the VP of Obama, so that is a pretty big deal I think. Bernie and Warren have been working a long time too, but Biden feels more establishment and experienced and seems to be the most moderate. I am a bit iffy on Bernie and Warren because their positions are more left than Biden so I am not sure if they appeal to conservatives and independents as much. I prefer electing someone as palatable as possible to as many people as possible.

You're correct. Biden is the one most likely to work across the aisle.

However, that stops being a selling point when one of the sides of the aisle has outed themselves as a party of psychopaths who are 10,000% in the "Party over country" mindset. What good does Biden working with republican politicians do? They sure as shit aren't going to let him challenge anything Trump has put in place, which will just lead us down the path to another recession.

Obama bent over backwards to try to appease them, even before they went off the deep-end, and they took advantage of that at every opportunity to game the system.

We need a president who will challenge republicans, not treat them with kiddy gloves.

Plus, I do not think Biden is mentally fit enough to run a country right now. It sucks, but his gaffes are a totally different beast than past president/presidential candidate gaffes, barring our current one. These are like Trump gaffes.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Slumber said:

You're correct. Biden is the one most likely to work across the aisle.

However, that stops being a selling point when one of the sides of the aisle has outed themselves as a party of psychopaths who are 10,000% in the "Party over country" mindset. What good does Biden working with republican politicians do? They sure as shit aren't going to let him challenge anything Trump has put in place, which will just lead us down the path to another recession.

Obama bent over backwards to try to appease them, even before they went off the deep-end, and they took advantage of that at every opportunity to game the system.

We need a president who will challenge republicans, not treat them with kiddy gloves.

Plus, I do not think Biden is mentally fit enough to run a country right now. It sucks, but his gaffes are a totally different beast than past president gaffes.

Agreed. Campaigning on issues and propositions that the people support and highlighting Republicans that are obstructing laws the people want implemented in order to oust them is the way to go against these assholes. Obama already tried working with them and as Mick Mulvaney conceded on an interview, they simply had no interest in giving Obama and legislative success. You don't work with these people as all they'll try to do is sneak in additions into bills that was favor the rich. The solution is to destroy as many Republicans as possible, get rid of the filibuster and take steps to make Congress functional again like getting rid of money in politics.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


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

You're correct. Biden is the one most likely to work across the aisle.

However, that stops being a selling point when one of the sides of the aisle has outed themselves as a party of psychopaths who are 10,000% in the "Party over country" mindset. What good does Biden working with republicans do? Obama bent over backwards to try to appease them, even before they went off the deep-end, and they took advantage of that at every opportunity.

Not every Republican is like that. There are still people like Susan Collins on the right, and maybe Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush if they count? They seem more moderate.

3 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Agreed. Campaigning on issues and propositions that the people support and highlighting Republicans that are obstructing laws the people want implemented in order to oust them is the way to go against these assholes. Obama already tried working with them and as Mick Mulvaney conceded on an interview, they simply had no interest in giving Obama and legislative success. You don't work with these people as all they'll try to do is sneak in additions into bills that was favor the rich. The solution is to destroy them.

Is that actually pragmatic and realistic though? Maybe after two or three more censuses, Democrats will have enough numeric advantage by taking Texas and make the Republican Party irrelevant that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to harshly criticize and discredit centricism (not to call it perfect- the 1950s "consensus" against pushing race relations too far) and "working across the aisle", but I remember reading this a couple months ago.:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/9/16/20857281/the-west-wing-20-anniversary-primetime-podcast-episode-bartlet-biden

This passage caught my attention:

"But, as many on the party’s leftmost flank would now argue, the failure of Barack Obama’s administration to win over Republican legislators, despite having one of the most gifted orators in generations behind the bully pulpit, would seem to unseat The West Wing’s ideals, to firmly prove you can’t solve all society’s ills with the right speech and a little politesse."

 

What to do then? Win the presidency and 50+ in the Senate while holding the House, that seems about the only thing that can be done that'll get good done. Whatever is best, I just humbly hope it happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, XRay said:

Is that actually pragmatic and realistic though? Maybe after two or three more censuses, Democrats will have enough numeric advantage by taking Texas and make the Republican Party irrelevant that way.

Pragmatic? Yes. If you want anything to get done in this country, you will achieve that by destroying a political party that has no interest in changing its platform to appeal to voters, maintains its current base via the Southern Strategy, misinformation from right-wing media and latches on to power by cheating and being against the removal of things like Gerrymandering. Those so-called moderate Republicans can claim that all they want but when they consistently vote with their corrupt party for garbage that even Republican voters aren't interested in, they're on the chopping block too.

Realistically? It's not something we'll see for a while because we do have corrupt Democrats to deal with and the career Democrats tend to fuck up their offensive and think that Republicans are owed respect at times when that is not the case.

A Democratic controlled House, Senate and Presidency (that isn't Biden) opens the door to remove the problems with our politics. A Republican controlled House, Senate and Presidency has already been observed under Trump's first years. It was garbage that did nothing but try to repeal Obamacare and pass those stupid tax cuts.

There's Democrats that don't want to do away with Gerrymandering and money in politics? Primary their ass out.

Edited by Dr. Tarrasque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, XRay said:

Not every Republican is like that. There are still people like Susan Collins on the right, and maybe Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush if they count? They seem more moderate.

"Seeming moderate" means jackshit when they still vote almost in lock-step with the party.

And appealing to Jeb Bush doesn't mean anything. He holds no political power. Do we really want a democrat who will compromise forward-thinking legislature to potentially appeal to three republicans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

What to do then? Win the presidency and 50+ in the Senate while holding the House, that seems about the only thing that can be done that'll get good done.

Not sure about consistently holding the Senate, but we can consistently hold the House and Presidency once the population overwhelmingly gives Democrats the advantage.

Before that can happen, I think we should still reach across the aisle anyway. I believe unity is what we need.

22 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Pragmatic? Yes. If you want anything to get done in this country, you will achieve that by destroying a political party that has no interest in changing its platform to appeal to voters, maintains its current base via the Southern Strategy, misinformation from right-wing media and latches on to power by cheating and being against the removal of things like Gerrymandering. Those so-called moderate Republicans can claim that all they want but when they consistently vote with their corrupt party for garbage that even Republican voters aren't interested in, they're on the chopping block too.

But do you realize it is that language that also creates division and scares moderates, independents, and conservatives? As much as I dislike the Republicans, lumping them all together as if they are trash is like Republicans lumping all Democrats together as communists. My own harsh language against Trump no doubt creates division too.

Before we can work on things like abolishing gerrymandering and reducing or removing money from politics, we need to save the Union first as Lincoln puts it. I do not think our country is on the verge of civil war, but I think our country is politically dysfunctional and divided, and that needs to be addressed first before we can advance any significant policies from the left.

1 minute ago, Slumber said:

"Seeming moderate" means jackshit when they still vote almost in lock-step with the party.

And appealing to Jeb Bush doesn't mean anything. He holds no political power. Do we really want a democrat who will compromise forward-thinking legislature to potentially appeal to three republicans?

I am pretty sure there are more than just three, those three just pop into the top of my head.

The problem I see with electing a more verbally combative candidate further left is that they would fail to win enough support to even win a nomination or election. Democrats as a whole are more moderate than far left. If those candidates cannot win, they cannot push progressive legislation. The further left they are, the less likely I see them as having a chance at winning. And once they do win, they have to rely on Congress being under complete control of Democrats in order to do things, and we simply do not have the numeric advantage right now to consistently do that.

Walking across the aisle and compromising with the other side is the most effective way to get things done in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Not to harshly criticize and discredit centricism (not to call it perfect- the 1950s "consensus" against pushing race relations too far) and "working across the aisle", but I remember reading this a couple months ago.:

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/9/16/20857281/the-west-wing-20-anniversary-primetime-podcast-episode-bartlet-biden

This passage caught my attention:

"But, as many on the party’s leftmost flank would now argue, the failure of Barack Obama’s administration to win over Republican legislators, despite having one of the most gifted orators in generations behind the bully pulpit, would seem to unseat The West Wing’s ideals, to firmly prove you can’t solve all society’s ills with the right speech and a little politesse."

 

What to do then? Win the presidency and 50+ in the Senate while holding the House, that seems about the only thing that can be done that'll get good done. Whatever is best, I just humbly hope it happens.

Barack is black, well half anyways, no way Republicans were going to listen to them.  Instead they had the stupid birther accusations, accusations of him being Muslim and other dumb shit.  If it is a centrist who is a white man, then maybe Republicans would be able to be convinced.  

Bloomberg is kind of right there doesn't seem to be a clear favorite.  Biden is established but his memory has come into question as well as his age.  Elizabeth Warren is a woman, and already has that Pocohantes nickname which is why Trump isn't worried about her he'll just be able to insult her and make her look bad.  Bernie is great but he's a Jew, and he also is old, he also (like Warren) appear more far left which scares conservatives and many moderates.  

Hopefully yeah Democrats flip the Senate, the winner of primary wins the presidential election and go full fucking force and ignore and block the dumb Republicans.  Get as much done as possible while they can.  Then when the country is infinitely better it will be hard for Republicans if they get back into power to repeal the laws that are passed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, XRay said:

I am pretty sure there are more than just three, those three just pop into the top of my head.

The problem I see with electing a more verbally combative candidate further left is that they would fail to win enough support to even win a nomination or election. Democrats as a whole are more moderate than far left. If those candidates cannot win, they cannot push progressive legislation. The further left they are, the less likely I see them as having a chance at winning. And once they do win, they have to rely on Congress being under complete control of Democrats in order to do things, and we simply do not have the numeric advantage right now to consistently do that.

Walking across the aisle and compromising with the other side is the most effective way to get things done in the meantime.

It's really not more than those 3. The republicans vote distressingly in unison. Bare minimum in the senate, republicans vote with the president 70% of the time. And that's accounting for the few outliers, who you would call "moderate". The vast majority of senate republicans vote with Trump over 90% of the time.

You're arguing for unison and cooperation in a senate where that's absolutely not going to happen. There's not a chance the senate republicans will cooperate with a democratic president to help pass any meaningful change. The Overton Window has shifted drastically to the right for the republican party since Barack Obama took office. These are not the same republicans we grew up with. Well, physically, many of them are, but on the inside, they're absolutely not.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is out of the hospital, thank god. Justice slots have been opening up once per year this administration so I'm sure even she's disturbed at the thought of who might take her place if her health took a turn for the worst.

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...