Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

326 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      105
    • No
      135
    • Maybe
      86
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      66
    • No
      135
    • Indifferent
      54


Recommended Posts

Republican politicians will never concede or falter on their positions, no matter how unpopular they may be. They still have people who want to repeal same-sex marriage. They still are against legalising marijuana. They still support tax cuts for the rich. They still despise labour unions. They still pander on religion, abortion and guns.

Even Republican voters may oppose some or all of those positions, but the politicians? They earn their far-right status as a representation of the party, but they are not interested in compromising to bring in moderates, and haven't been in some time. 

As sad as it is, if the Democrats were as ruthless politically as the Republicans for what they actually believed in, there would be significantly more chance at progress.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Republicans have been pandering to the loudest, more conservative voices of the party for as long as we've been alive. They don't know how to govern but that's apparently not a requirement they need to win lmao

It is true that knowing how to govern is not necessary for winning, but Democrats do not stand a chance of winning without moderates. Knowing how go govern is pointless until you know how to win.

45 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Tit for tat is the only option unless you're fine with being a doormat.

There is a time and place for tit and tat, and I do not think now is the time for it. Expanding the Court will only give Republicans another bullet to use against us in the future. Republicans are not going away anytime soon, and they will be back in power whether we like it or not, and giving them additional tools to swing the pendulum hard their way is not a good idea in my opinion.

15 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

As sad as it is, if the Democrats were as ruthless politically as the Republicans for what they actually believed in, there would be significantly more chance at progress.

And I think there are ways to do that within in the current framework by fixing things rather than trying to introduce new problems that can spiral out of control.

Getting rid of gerrymandering, increase ease of voting, increasing education funding and standards, etc. are ways to do so that does not give Republicans easy ammunition to use against us.

I rather get rid of the Electoral College than expand the Court, because at least getting rid of the Electoral College would not cause drastic political swings that Court expansion would.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


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

It is true that knowing how to govern is not necessary for winning, but Democrats do not stand a chance of winning without moderates. Knowing how go govern is pointless until you know how to win.

You can't seriously expect me to buy this after the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that you can indeed win without moderates. You can't seriously be arguing we must continue doing the same thing and hope for a better result and another chance to actually implement governmental reform with a party who literally exists to just oppose everything we offer them.

We don't know how to win because we see "independents" hand-wringing about how hard it is to decide between the party who stands behind a cheeto-colored unapologetic fascist with the temperment of an irate toddler and the party that picked the most milquetoast moderate Democrat ever over the actual Democrat-Socialist, and we believe their concerns have actual merit. We listen to them and, gasp, we still lose.

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

There is a time and place for tit and tat, and I do not think now is the time for it.

When is the right time for it?

Stop worrying about potentially giving Republicans ammo. If they don't have any, they make it up.

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

And I think there are ways to do that within in the current framework by fixing things rather than trying to introduce new problems that can spiral out of control.

Insisting on working within the current framework doesn't work with an opposition party that has absolutely no interest in being civil or playing fair, and they're actively breaking the framework.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans can't win without support from moderates(well, maybe they can these days) and neither can democrats. The republicans are just much better at closing ranks around their guy. (And they simply need less votes to win)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moderates too appalled with either choice stay home and forfeit the decision to the voters who can be bothered to show up.

Moderates worth their salt either don't remain moderates, or put aside their mild discomfort to choose the clearly better option for whatever goal they wish to pursue. If they're more comfortable with Trump and his crazies, they will vote that way. But I can't say I'll miss them or want to hear any of their advice on anything ever at this point.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with what you say, but as far as I'm aware the democratic moderates are flocking to Biden in droves. It's the nutjobs who happen to be on the left who are swearing not to vote Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I don't disagree with what you say, but as far as I'm aware the democratic moderates are flocking to Biden in droves. It's the nutjobs who happen to be on the left who are swearing not to vote Biden.

If they showed up and voted for Bernie I might actually be concerned about them. I'm sure they went for Jill Stein in 2016, too.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Excellen Browning said:

Almost all I personally know voted for Clinton despite their misgivings.

But they're not voting for Biden this time around because...?

Share this post


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

I personally think Bernie losing the primary fair and square broke their brains.

unfortunately I don't think there's a cure for broken brain  

Share this post


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

If they showed up and voted for Bernie I might actually be concerned about them. I'm sure they went for Jill Stein in 2016, too.

I feel attacked. I went for Jill in 2012 when the election wasn't nearly as dire and she wasn't loudly courting anti-vaxxers.

But I went for Clinton in 2016, and I'll go for Biden in 2020, even though I hate both of them as people and as politicians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crysta said:

You can't seriously expect me to buy this after the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that you can indeed win without moderates. You can't seriously be arguing we must continue doing the same thing and hope for a better result and another chance to actually implement governmental reform with a party who literally exists to just oppose everything we offer them.

Democrats are not Republicans. Republicans have gerrymandering and electoral vote advantage. Democrats need moderate support much more than Republicans

8 hours ago, Crysta said:

When is the right time for it?

Stop worrying about potentially giving Republicans ammo. If they don't have any, they make it up.

We will go for tit for tat using established tactics. Government shutdowns, impeachments, having states lead a lawsuit, etc.

If Republicans make it up, we will clamp down on it or use it in the future against them.

8 hours ago, Crysta said:

Insisting on working within the current framework doesn't work with an opposition party that has absolutely no interest in being civil or playing fair, and they're actively breaking the framework.

We are cracking the Republican party and independents right now with compassion, patience, and moderation.

Texas is in the process of going purple right now. Cindy McCain is voting Biden. What is left of the moderate wing of the Republican donors are campaigning against Trump via the Lincoln Project.

Share this post


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

But that isn't what I am saying at all and is a complete strawman of my position. It also ignores that I have stated that I am pressured more and more into attempting tactical voting which would result in not voting 3rd party rather than voting for the person who actually represents me.

It sounds more like a measure to completely negate check and balances so that any party that happens to not have a lame-duck government can be completely dictatorial and force through whatever policies they want regardless of constitutionality or even possibly the will of the people. It would further politicize the court and remove what little legitimacy it happens to have left. It is basically the opposite direction we want to go. Rebalancing the court could potentially be part of further reforms to the court to fix the politicization, but the ideas I have seen bandied around are less fixing the rules so that we don't have such issues in the first place and more flipping the board because one side are frustrated they lost their gamble. Going back to FDR who got to fill 8 seats in the end, If the republicans of the time had gained both branches right after FDR should they have packed the court with 8 extra seats to restore balance? Though you would have thought that would have been a wake up call that something wasn't right and that the system needed to be looked at. A single president really shouldn't be getting that/this much influence over the supreme court.

If the democrats get congress he will be rather limited. Conversely if Biden gets the presidency and congress is republican then he would be rather limited. If a party doesn't have both they are "one that is weak or that falls behind in ability" compared to a party when they do have both. Kinda the definition of lame duck. I am not using the more specific terms of lame duck president or lame duck sessions which are rather more pointed terms. But rather lame duck in the general sense. Clearly I wasn't clear that that was my intent and I'll try to avoid the term in the future, even though it is naturally comes to me, since it appears to cause confusion.

1) the person who actually represents you is your member of congress. You can't realistically expect people to represent their own party let alone 350 million people. Regardless, 2 presidential terms in the 21st century didn't even represent the popular vote, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

2) A measure to negate checks and balances? So like literally what the Republicans did by stealing Garland's seat? Or not voting to convict Trump for Burisma? If anything it's to do something radical to *restore* checks and balances.  6-3 court is not a check or balance.

3) It doesn't matter if Congress is limited, we've seen what the president can do and we've seen how much he can just destroy things on a whim. We have 200k deaths and you think any chance of another Trump term will be a lame duck? Even if something veto proof passes, this cracker won't enforce any laws.

A lame duck presidency would at least give us COVID relief. This is far, far, far worse than a lame duck no matter what the circumstances of his election are.

12 hours ago, Crysta said:

GOP: We stole the court
DEMs: We're gonna steal it back
GOP: That's not fair
Pundits: Not fair
GOP: We'll just steal it more
DEMs: Ok we won't do it
Pundits: Dems avoid destroying America
GOP: We're gonna steal it more
DEMs: Fuck!
Pundits: So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt
Voters: ThEy'Re BoTh BaD hOw CaN i ChOsE

I'm done with moderates, quite frankly. I was one myself not too long ago, but their fingerprints are all over this and I don't need any further reminders of how terrible at actual governance they are.

Republicans do not exercise restraint and they're never expected to in the same way the Democrats are. They do not limit themselves because others have chosen to. They exercise every ounce of power they possess. The only reward for abstemiousness is failure. 

can we pin comments lol

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Without moderates, Democrats do not stand a chance at winning. You cannot govern if you did not even win the election.

This is 2020. This is not 2050. Texas is still purple at best and plenty of boomers are still alive and kicking. Expanding the Court by two every four or eight years when the political pendulum swings the opposite direction does not seem like a good idea in my opinion.

What is the point of expanding the court when Republicans can do the same thing next time during the next election cycle and undo the Court's previous decisions?

I think what Crysta calls a moderate and an actual political moderate are two very different things. Crysta's more aiming at the radical "both sides are the same" bullshit moderates.

Regardless, if republicans won't stop expanding it, democrats will continue afterwards. The whole thing is a looming and vague threat meant to stop the Republicans from jamming through a nominee.

11 hours ago, XRay said:

There is a time and place for tit and tat, and I do not think now is the time for it. Expanding the Court will only give Republicans another bullet to use against us in the future. Republicans are not going away anytime soon, and they will be back in power whether we like it or not, and giving them additional tools to swing the pendulum hard their way is not a good idea in my opinion.

And we should be no longer afraid of this. Republicans can figure out any single bullshit anywhere to justify themselves. It doesn't matter what Democrats do; they just shouldn't excite the GOP base.

2 hours ago, XRay said:

If Republicans make it up, we will clamp down on it or use it in the future against them.

It doesn't work. Their hypocrisy behind SCOTUS isn't making waves for this election at all. It should be plainly obvious to all of us that the Republican Party is a force that needs eradication, not reconciliation.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


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

I feel attacked. I went for Jill in 2012 when the election wasn't nearly as dire and she wasn't loudly courting anti-vaxxers.

But I went for Clinton in 2016, and I'll go for Biden in 2020, even though I hate both of them as people and as politicians.

i feel compelled to attack you on principle but at least it wasn't 2016, i guess

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Democrats are not Republicans. Republicans have gerrymandering and electoral vote advantage. Democrats need moderate support much more than Republicans

we need to vote in the swing states

and we need to stop being so insistent on playing by a different set of rules because that thin veneer of respectability and righteousness gives us absolutely nothing

12 hours ago, XRay said:

We will go for tit for tat using established tactics. Government shutdowns, impeachments, having states lead a lawsuit, etc.

I'm sure all that will work this time.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

If Republicans make it up, we will clamp down on it or use it in the future against them.

Yeah re-tweeting all those clips of Republican lawmakers blatantly contradicting themselves has really made them stop and think.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

We are cracking the Republican party and independents right now with compassion, patience, and moderation.

No we're not.

This is what we tell ourselves when we want to feel less guilty about our impotence lol

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Texas is in the process of going purple right now. Cindy McCain is voting Biden. What is left of the moderate wing of the Republican donors are campaigning against Trump via the Lincoln Project.

All this is happening because Biden is not Trump, not because we're kind and morally superior individuals and all the Bush era Republicans have seen the light and changed their ways. It is rather telling that we apparently need the Lincoln Project to change minds.

10 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I think what Crysta calls a moderate and an actual political moderate are two very different things. Crysta's more aiming at the radical "both sides are the same" bullshit moderates.

idk they're both pretty bad, but it's the latter that actively annoy me more, yes

The actual political moderates still love to complain very loudly when the Republicans do Republican things without their consideration and can't bring themselves to twist arms because that would be mean and alienate people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the problem is the talking point of "Only moderates can get elected" keeps getting regurgitated every election cycle. And only democrats keep believing in it, even though the results have been pretty hit or miss.

Hilary presented herself as a moderate in three election cycles, and she lost in every single one. Even the one where she made it past the primaries. Biden's positioned himself as such every time he ran, and we're still waiting to see if he can win against a literal authoritarian fascist.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Crysta said:

we need to vote in the swing states

and we need to stop being so insistent on playing by a different set of rules because that thin veneer of respectability and righteousness gives us absolutely nothing

Standing on the moral high ground absolutely gives us an edge. Biden is able to maintain his lead over Trump nation wide for the whole year by respecting democratic institutions, traditions, and norms.

9 minutes ago, Crysta said:

No we're not.

This is what we tell ourselves when we want to feel less guilty about our impotence lol

If you are making that claim, then bring evidence to support it.

The polls says otherwise. Biden has been leading over Trump for practically the whole year.

15 minutes ago, Crysta said:

All this is happening because Biden is not Trump, not because we're kind and morally superior individuals and all the Bush era Republicans have seen the light and changed their ways.

We are not morally superior people, but we are morally superior compared to Trump. The people can see that and we are making inroads into the Republican party.

19 minutes ago, Crysta said:

It is rather telling that we apparently need the Lincoln Project to change minds.

It is rather telling that Democrats need to raise money at all to bring awareness and convince people.

I would not take the Lincoln Project lightly and be unappreciative about it. They are our allies.

21 minutes ago, Crysta said:

idk they're both pretty bad, but it's the latter that actively annoy me more, yes

The actual political moderates still love to complain very loudly when the Republicans do Republican things without their consideration and can't bring themselves to twist arms because that would be mean and alienate people.

There are times when you need to escalate things and there are times when you should not.

Alienating people is the last thing we need right now. Going hard left and screaming "Republicans are all Nazis" will cost us an election and drive moderates away from us.

4 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Hilary presented herself as a moderate in three election cycles, and she lost in every single one. Even the one where she made it past the primaries. Biden's positioned himself as such every time he ran, and we're still waiting to see if he can win against a literal authoritarian fascist.

Other moderates have won. Clinton and Obama were moderate Democrats. I have not seen a far left Democrat win yet. Not only do they need to win the Democratic nomination, they also need to win the national election.

Share this post


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

I think a lot of the problem is the talking point of "Only moderates can get elected" keeps getting regurgitated every election cycle. And only democrats keep believing in it, even though the results have been pretty hit or miss.

Hilary presented herself as a moderate in three election cycles, and she lost in every single one. Even the one where she made it past the primaries. Biden's positioned himself as such every time he ran, and we're still waiting to see if he can win against a literal authoritarian fascist.

The issue is that, so far, it's not proven that a candidate other than a moderate can really rack up the votes. Even this year, Sanders lost by an even greater margin than four years ago; at this point, if a progressive can't win their own primary, how do they expect to win a more hostile general election?

Regardless, it's all a matter of framing. Is he a moderate or is he a coalition builder? Clinton was not a coalition builder, and she tried to market herself as progressive in her most recent election. She was also considered more progressive than Obama during their campaign against each other. Obama himself was a moderate too...

It's just hard to make that a data point. I mean, the issue really is that our elections have natural gerrymandering to them, because a 3 million vote advantage in the popular vote shouldn't translate to losing an election...

15 minutes ago, XRay said:

Standing on the moral high ground absolutely gives us an edge. Biden is able to maintain his lead over Trump nation wide for the whole year by respecting democratic institutions, traditions, and norms.

A good chunk of respecting norms is reversing them when they're outdated or changing them when they're abused. Norms have been abused then later thrown out the window.

Truthfully, there's not much you really need to stay on the moral high ground in modern America. The issue is whether or not people accept it as the moral high ground; 40% of the country has made it clear they're fine with destroying principles of democracy if they can maintain their minority power, so it's almost a moral necessity to completely flip the system upside its head because of how much it has been corrupted.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


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

Other moderates have won. Clinton and Obama were moderate Democrats. I have not seen a far left Democrat win yet. Not only do they need to win the Democratic nomination, they also need to win the national election.

Clinton is fair, but he also had Gore as his running mate, who is much closer to the left than Clinton was. But Gore wasn't running and he wasn't crazy lefty, so that's besides the point.

And Obama certainly was not a moderate during the primaries. Certainly not actually a huge leftist, but even within the democratic party, he was labeled as a radical leftist compared to Clinton, who was seen as the safe bet for the election. He ran on ideas like universal healthcare(Which he later altered to a public option), something Biden doesn't fully support 12 years later, he rejected PAC and lobby money, was anti-war, was pro-choice and supported stem cell research, supported a public healthcare option, supported more aggressive taxes for the rich and easing taxes on the poor and working classes, and was for aggressively tackling climate change.

Some of these seem like common sense now, like tackling climate change and some form of affordable health care, but those were not the overall opinions of the democratic party in 2007-2008. Hell, it was still 50/50 on whether the Iraq war was a good idea, even when there was ample evidence that Cheney, Rove and Bush just lied to get it to happen.

He had some more moderate opinions on things like gay marriage, but his very first primary campaign was not focused on courting moderate voters, but again, it was a more progressive stance than many of his democratic peers at the time.

If the argument boils down to "Only moderates can win, because one single moderate democrat has won in the last 40 years", then I really don't see it.

Edited by Slumber

Share this post


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

Standing on the moral high ground absolutely gives us an edge. Biden is able to maintain his lead over Trump nation wide for the whole year by respecting democratic institutions, traditions, and norms.

If you are making that claim, then bring evidence to support it.

The polls says otherwise. Biden has been leading over Trump for practically the whole year.

Sure.

jZnfAc0.png

Source

If we're going to get into why they're voting for him, I think you need to do better than just pointing at the polling.

 

 

Share this post


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

Clinton is fair, but he also had Gore as his running mate, who is much closer to the left than Clinton was. But Gore wasn't running and he wasn't crazy lefty, so that's besides the point.

I was talking about Hillary. Bill was known for being a third way Democrat at the time, and that was the only way to be competitive against the 90s GOP.

14 minutes ago, Slumber said:

And Obama certainly was not a moderate during the primaries. Certainly not actually a huge leftist, but even within the democratic party, he was labeled as a radical leftist compared to Clinton, who was seen as the safe bet for the election.

But their platform wasn't very different. Clinton was a wonk, Obama was an organizer. But they did not differ noticeably in platform.

14 minutes ago, Slumber said:

He ran on ideas like universal healthcare(Which he later altered to a public option), something Biden doesn't fully support 12 years later, he rejected PAC and lobby money, was anti-war, was pro-choice and supported stem cell research, supported a public healthcare option, supported more aggressive taxes for the rich and easing taxes on the poor and working classes, and was for aggressively tackling climate change.

Biden supports universal healthcare, he doesn't support M4A.

Either way, you're calling all this leftist when the non-war stuff was Clinton's platform in 2016 and Biden's platform in 2020. So is Obama/Clinton/Biden's campaign leftist or are Obama/Clinton/Biden's campaign moderate?

14 minutes ago, Slumber said:

He had some more moderate opinions on things like gay marriage, but his very first primary campaign was not focused on courting moderate voters.

If the argument boils down to "Only moderates can win, because one single moderate democrat has won in the last 40 years", then I really don't see it.

Yeah, again, the Obama admin didn't really come out as pro-same sex marriage until after Biden pretty much said it first.

Your description of Obama's campaign seems to be far divorced from the reality of his campaign, and if it's not far divorced from the reality of his campaign then it appears to be far divorced from the reality of the other campaigns you are criticizing. If Obama was a radical leftist for all those positions in 08, then Clinton and Biden were/are too right now...

 

Regardless, the Democrats in the 80s were getting blown out for being Democrats and not Reagan. I can also reframe this argument as "moderate" democrats winning the popular vote in all but one election in my lifetime. At some point you wonder if the system is more at fault than the party. I also posit that if Obama in 08 wasn't a moderate, nor were Clinton in 16 and Biden in 20, just based on what you stated.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


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

Sure.

jZnfAc0.png

Source

If we're going to get into why they're voting for him, I think you need to do better than just pointing at the polling.

 

 

And when people think of the word "Trump", they think of corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and incompetence. Biden might not be the shining city on a hill, but he does stand on a much higher moral ground compared to Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XRay said:

And when people think of the word "Trump", they think of corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and incompetence. Biden might not be the shining city on a hill, but he does stand on a much higher moral ground compared to Trump.

even with court packing he will still be far above it

let's not kid ourselves. Any governance by someone who isn't a republican will be shit on by the right wing of this country, and bothsides'd by every other media outlet.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XRay said:

And when people think of the word "Trump", they think of corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and incompetence. Biden might not be the shining city on a hill, but he does stand on a much higher moral ground compared to Trump.

It's strange that when I show you proof of what people are actually thinking, you still manage to spin it.

"Values" ranks 6th among his own voters. I'm guessing a good portion of the independents/previously undecideds/Never Trumpers aren't onboard because he's such a grand guy who follows the rules, but because Trump has shown himself to be an even bigger blatant moron than they previously thought and an active threat to our own national security, and electing a tomato can would be less harmful to the country.

As for why moderates are the only ones who win... well it's because they're the only ones who are nominated. And they're nominated not because they hold the views of most of their constituents (because lol Biden doesn't), but because we're afraid of alienating the middle and the Democratic establishment is essentially moderates themselves. So they always will nominate a moderate unless the left wing of the party can leverage enough clout to make them nominate something else.

And of course the moderate is vilified as a radical socialist bent on destroying our American way of life anyway.

 

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...