Jump to content

U.S. Politics megathread (merged)


trex

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

This is a good post, @Justin Z.

 

Maybe get that pint eventually. 👍

 

It is.

 

And I sure hope so. I sent my passport off a few weeks ago and it did actually arrive at the processing centre. It'll take months to be completed. Americans still probably won't be allowed to travel to basically anywhere at that point, but at least I'll have a fresh ten years and can maybe apply for a UK tourism visa as a stopgap in the meanwhile.

 

It's all just such a mess. Off topic, whereas I always hoped from my heart for Scottish Independence once I became educated on the subject, it's now all that's left to pin my hopes on to be able to emigrate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JFK-1

    2793

  • Maple Leaf

    2200

  • Justin Z

    1584

  • Watt-Zeefuik

    1485

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

3 hours ago, Sharpie said:

I can understand our American Jambo who is torn how to vote in the election, to vote for one of the candidates could be seen as enabling, a vote for someone who has no hope of election is equally bad, the vote is sacred, but like sometimes in life you wonder what do I do now.

 

Thank you, Bob.

 

3 hours ago, Sharpie said:

The rioters seem to be those composed of BLM believers and those with an alternative view. Common to both was looting and unrelated damage to private property.  The type of thing we used to see in the real old days in countries none of us had yet visited or had been motivated to see.

 

As Dr. King said, "riots are the language of the unheard". I do think it's worth pointing out that American billionaires' wealth has increased by hundreds of billions of dollars during this pandemic. Any single one of these people could repair the damage from riots a hundred times over and still spend, every day, more money than any of us will make in our lifetimes and not run out. The riots are great for media sensationalism, but the real looting that's been taking place for decades doesn't get nearly the attention it should.

 

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

Whatever the flaws of Biden/Harris may be they're nothing beside the insanity of Trump and his crazed cult. He's trampling all over the norms of American democracy while not even trying to hide it. And given the chance will push the country ever further into dystopian authoritarianism.

 

I do wonder who the next Trump is going to be, when we rubber stamp this use of fear against us as a voting public.

 

I do also wonder just how little voting actually matters in a place like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Boof said:

If Biden wins (where if = surely to **** they can't let that ****ing lunatic loose for another 4 years) how long is it going to take him to undo all the shit Trump has done and actually get on with being the President?

 

Frankly, I feel like the combination of silence and outright mocking we saw from liberals regarding the rigging of the Democratic primaries and widespread voter suppression, versus their outrage at Trump right now, shows you exactly how they will act under a Biden administration. That is to say, it's entirely possible nothing is getting "undone", because just like Republicans, most dyed-in-the-wool Democrats are happy to watch terrible things be done as long as it's "their" guy doing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

Thank you, Bob.

 

 

As Dr. King said, "riots are the language of the unheard". I do think it's worth pointing out that American billionaires' wealth has increased by hundreds of billions of dollars during this pandemic. Any single one of these people could repair the damage from riots a hundred times over and still spend, every day, more money than any of us will make in our lifetimes and not run out. The riots are great for media sensationalism, but the real looting that's been taking place for decades doesn't get nearly the attention it should.

 

 

I do wonder who the next Trump is going to be, when we rubber stamp this use of fear against us as a voting public.

 

I do also wonder just how little voting actually matters in a place like this.

 

It's been a corporatocracy for a very long time. People need to demand a change to the 'donations' system. There needs to be a limit and every penny must be transparent. It's bizarre that they're pretty much the only high income nation with no proper healthcare system and they just accept it.

In fact not just accept it, still insist they don't want that 'communist' socialist healthcare. Unbelievable. I know an American now living in the UK who went there with that view. Thinking if I get sick I wont be able to see a doctor for months and i'm going to die.

Then after experiencing it was astounded at the level of lying about it he had been exposed to and believed. In fact he made a funny comment about it. One day he's sitting a doctors waiting room for his appointment. He waited around 15 minutes which he found to be much faster than US waiting times.

While sitting there he heard two older women talking. Complaining about I have been waiting here 10 minutes already as if that's entirely unacceptable. His thought was they were saying something along the lines of  complaining that this Rolls Royce is going too slow.

The healthcare is one of the reasons he will never go back. Takes a lot of stress out of his life knowing if his kids get hurt or are sick it's not going to be a financial burden. He can lose a job without worrying. Change jobs without worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose rampant corruption and voter suppression is well documented, is alleged to have shoved a 16-year-old volunteer campaigner for her opponent, who was handing out cards to potential voters in their district. The primary is on Tuesday.

 

If a progressive candidate had done this, it would be everywhere. No sign of it in any media I can see as of now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose rampant corruption and voter suppression is well documented, is alleged to have shoved a 16-year-old volunteer campaigner for her opponent, who was handing out cards to potential voters in their district. The primary is on Tuesday.

 

If a progressive candidate had done this, it would be everywhere. No sign of it in any media I can see as of now.

 

I'm somewhat puzzled at your attempts to try to equate anything including an article over 3 years old regarding some non entity of a staffer to the obvious and current reality of Trump.

Even many  Republican voters have now acknowledged that Trump is a dangerous maniac who has to go even though that means them having to vote for Biden when they have never voted Democratic before. That's how bad this orange maniac is. He's an even greater disaster waiting to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I'm somewhat puzzled at your attempts to try to equate anything including an article over 3 years old regarding some non entity of a staffer to the obvious and current reality of Trump.

Even many  Republican voters have now acknowledged that Trump is a dangerous maniac who has to go even though that means them having to vote for Biden when they have never voted Democratic before. That's how bad this orange maniac is. He's an even greater disaster waiting to happen.

 

This was just a convenient place to mention it, rather than dig up the Democratic primaries thread. She's a corrupt establishment Dem in a primary fight, but whether she gets elected or not has essentially zero bearing on Trump being reelected or not.

 

So yeah, there's no equating going on, it's treating this more as a US politics thread than a Trump thread for the purposes of that post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

She's a corrupt establishment Dem in a primary fight, but whether she gets elected or not has essentially zero bearing on Trump being reelected or not.

 

Then again, maybe it does. The more progressive candidates on the ballot in swing states like Florida, especially ones who have beaten corrupt incumbents, the more energised progressives will come out and vote, and then begrudgingly tick the Biden/Harris box while they're at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Then again, maybe it does. The more progressive candidates on the ballot in swing states like Florida, especially ones who have beaten corrupt incumbents, the more energised progressives will come out and vote, and then begrudgingly tick the Biden/Harris box while they're at it.

 

I'm no expert on it but as a sort of outsider looking in it comes across as an archaic system in need of massive overhaul. Which again as a sort of outsider looking in might not be happening because they hold the 'founding fathers' in such reverence.

They seem to view these guys in some ways almost like the religious view the God of the bible. All knowing  super beings who can construct a system that will be perfect down the ages into eternity. Any suggestion that things might be changed is met with roars of blasphemy against the all knowing infallible founding fathers.

And that's aside from the insane eternal electioneering and buying off of 'favours' for donating money in this non stop electioneering. It's almost guaranteed to encourage corruption. And perhaps one reason it's so polarised. It's a never ending election.

In Britain as you know the election comes around every 4 to 5 years. It's announced maybe 6 weeks prior to the actual vote. Six weeks of feverish activity giving little time to give a shit about who smoked what and when in college or whatever. It has to focus on policies.

Then it's all over and the world moves on. Their world never moves on.

Edited by JFK-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

They seem to view these guys in some ways almost like the religious view the God of the bible. All knowing  super beings who can construct a system that will be perfect down the ages into eternity. Any suggestion that things might be changed is met with roars of blasphemy against the all knowing infallible founding fathers.

 

You're right. They were a collection of smart guys and they had some pretty remarkable foresight sometimes. They were also far from infallible, but American Exceptionalism requires that reality to be denied in the strongest terms.

 

The problem of money in politics you brought up has been made a million times worse by the result of the Citizens United Supreme Court case, in which it was essentially held that corporate money = speech, and campaign finance is therefore protected by the First Amendment. An utter nonsense only possible via another nonsense, that corporations are legally "persons".

 

Every time I think about things like this it reminds me why I would not be sad to see the entire thing burned to the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

You're right. They were a collection of smart guys and they had some pretty remarkable foresight sometimes. They were also far from infallible, but American Exceptionalism requires that reality to be denied in the strongest terms.

 

The problem of money in politics you brought up has been made a million times worse by the result of the Citizens United Supreme Court case, in which it was essentially held that corporate money = speech, and campaign finance is therefore protected by the First Amendment. An utter nonsense only possible via another nonsense, that corporations are legally "persons".

 

Every time I think about things like this it reminds me why I would not be sad to see the entire thing burned to the ground.

 

I saw Bill Maher say in an interview that he thought the system was broken beyond repair and that in his view a parliamentary system would be better. But he didn't see it ever happening because that would be blasphemy against the founding fathers.

Edited by JFK-1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heidbangers in the USE forget that their HOLY UNTOUCHABLE CONSTITUTION is not set in stone like the Commandments.

 

The word "amendments" is a clue.

 

It can, and does, get changed on a semi regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Cade said:

Heidbangers in the USE forget that their HOLY UNTOUCHABLE CONSTITUTION is not set in stone like the Commandments.

 

The word "amendments" is a clue.

 

It can, and does, get changed on a semi regular basis.

 

Yeah, and the only pre-set Constitutional way we have to figuratively "burn it all down" is a Constitutional Convention. Which has never been called and probably never will. A shame because it would present an opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Yeah, and the only pre-set Constitutional way we have to figuratively "burn it all down" is a Constitutional Convention. Which has never been called and probably never will. A shame because it would present an opportunity.

 

Blasphemy. No wonder you want to get out of there. You will be burned at the stake for such blasphemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Primed to start at a point where he makes a comment I just made. Regarding never ending elections. This is from 2015. He got his election winner guess wrong but to be fair who didn't.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unknown user

I listen to my gut feeling, and I cant help feeling we'll never see President Biden. I have nothing to back that up, and I hope I'm wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

I listen to my gut feeling, and I cant help feeling we'll never see President Biden. I have nothing to back that up, and I hope I'm wrong. 

 

I just saw at a glance that they're more or less even in battleground states.

 

You just know he's gonna find a way to blow it. The easiest electoral task of all time, followed closely by 2016, and the Dems are going to blow both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I appreciate your post, especially this bit, and doubly especially the bit in bold. You've admittedly probably nailed what I'll do, at least up to the "move overseas" part. I tried that, and here I am stuck back in the desert, amidst a pandemic. That's a big part of why this is so personally frustrating, but that's neither here nor there.

 

Either way, can't wait to get our "leftists" back in office, eh?

EfjbVkwXgAY1-IM?format=jpg&name=medium

$7.25—equivalent to about £5.50—in a country with no universal healthcare and few other social benefits/safety net, and in a place with a relatively high cost of living/rent index (the 14th highest in the world)

 

Everything you wrote is spot on, Norm. Having even a glimpse at the transformation we wanted to see snatched away from us in both 2016 and 2020 by a corrupt DNC will have been the final straw for a great many people who will simply not vote for Biden now as they have had it with the Dems, and as I said, I think the establishment are perfectly okay with that.

 

Ah well, no matter what I do, my ballot will doubtless "get lost in the post" anyway :lol:

 

It's much, much worse than that. If you are in a 'service' job (cleaner, waiter, bar staff, etc) the actual minimum wage is about $2/h. That's the reason that tipping is such a big thing here. The vast majority of their wages come from pooling tips at the end of the night. They certainly aren't earning anywhere near the numbers above. 

 

The reason for this? They are exempted from minimum wage because they are 'tipped employees'. However, if the rules were changed to allow them in, then tipping would become a bonus, as it should be, and not the basis of their ******* wage. To highlight the stupidity of this, consider a bar that has a quiet night, or even an empty night. For a full 8 hour shift, the barman/maid would go home with $16. That wasn't OK in 1920, let alone 2020. 

 

Also, i'm not sure what your point above is. That just shows that in 7 years of 'leftism' nothing changed, but also in 4 years of 'rightism' nothing changed either?

 

There needs to be wholesale changes to American society, this is just one tiny part of it, and it shouldn't be politicized by either side. It's bullshit, and it needs to be addressed by whoever happens to be in power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I just saw at a glance that they're more or less even in battleground states.

 

You just know he's gonna find a way to blow it. The easiest electoral task of all time, followed closely by 2016, and the Dems are going to blow both.


I don't think it's so easy when there's a campaign using federal institutions such as the post office to suppress voting. I have a notion that if the post office are left alone to do their job this may be a Democratic landslide.

The reason I think that is that Americans are notoriously lazy when it comes to voting. Ranked 120th in the world on voter turnout. But in the years prior to this election Trump has proven to be such a dysfunctional, insane, rambling lying maniac that people are actually concerned rather than the usual whatever attitude.

Plus mail in voting being an option countless numbers of them will not have even thought of before it's feasible that many who usually don't vote at all will vote in that manner. Sending off a letter is a lot easier than standing in a line even when there is no pandemic.

As for Trumps vacuous rambling about the post office being unable to move a hundred million or so pieces of mail that's absurd. During the Xmas season the post office moves BILLIONS of items. This election is nothing in comparison to that.

All the Democrats have to do is get out there into their constituencies and make sure people are requesting a mail in vote. Can probably be done online. If people just actually vote Trump has absolutely no chance. It would be a humiliating landslide.

All providing there is no interference with the post office or the mail in voting system overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, trotter said:

It's much, much worse than that. If you are in a 'service' job (cleaner, waiter, bar staff, etc) the actual minimum wage is about $2/h. That's the reason that tipping is such a big thing here. The vast majority of their wages come from pooling tips at the end of the night. They certainly aren't earning anywhere near the numbers above. 

 

The reason for this? They are exempted from minimum wage because they are 'tipped employees'. However, if the rules were changed to allow them in, then tipping would become a bonus, as it should be, and not the basis of their ******* wage. To highlight the stupidity of this, consider a bar that has a quiet night, or even an empty night. For a full 8 hour shift, the barman/maid would go home with $16. That wasn't OK in 1920, let alone 2020. 

 

Also, i'm not sure what your point above is. That just shows that in 7 years of 'leftism' nothing changed, but also in 4 years of 'rightism' nothing changed either?

 

There needs to be wholesale changes to American society, this is just one tiny part of it, and it shouldn't be politicized by either side. It's bullshit, and it needs to be addressed by whoever happens to be in power. 

What's the price of living difference between The USA and the UK. You can't just say $7.25 is the equivalent of £5.25. 

What can $7.25/5.25 buy you in both.

 

As for the tipping culture, that's they're own fault, the people allow this. I'd never take a job that paid £1.50 now. I did when I left school (£35 a week) and had no bills to pay, while sponging off ma Parents. Fortunately it was only temporary until I started my apprenticeship with council. God I didn't half pish a fortune up the wall. :(

 

Anyway, Justin's philosophy is good, (But less aggressive would help) but it's the reason Bernie didn't stand a chance. Land of the Free, aye! But make sure it's not for free. 

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sawdust Caesar
On 14/08/2020 at 00:24, Justin Z said:

 

Well and that's sort of the point, right? Just saw someone say this and it resonated: "They're not the lesser evil. They're the more effective one."

Buffalo Bill

 

It puts the Biden on its skin or else it gets the Trump again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, JFK-1 said:


I don't think it's so easy when there's a campaign using federal institutions such as the post office to suppress voting. I have a notion that if the post office are left alone to do their job this may be a Democratic landslide.

 

Your notion is a decent thought, but . . .

 

image.png.92f8b439c65d0f7a0b8876e5ef8807a9.png

 

Wow, what a "VP bump" he got from picking a cop while the country is protesting police, eh? "I don't actually stand for anything but I'm not Donald Trump" really seems to be a winning strategy. Look at his numbers soaring as he doubles down on rejecting Medicare for All, forgiving student loan debt, has said basically nothing will change, and made only efforts to appeal to Republican voters.

 

Really think even more strongly now, he's going to blow it. Dems have learned **** all since the disaster of 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Your notion is a decent thought, but . . .

 

image.png.92f8b439c65d0f7a0b8876e5ef8807a9.png

 

Wow, what a "VP bump" he got from picking a cop while the country is protesting police, eh? "I don't actually stand for anything but I'm not Donald Trump" really seems to be a winning strategy. Look at his numbers soaring as he doubles down on rejecting Medicare for All, forgiving student loan debt, has said basically nothing will change, and made only efforts to appeal to Republican voters.

 

Really think even more strongly now, he's going to blow it. Dems have learned **** all since the disaster of 2016.

Sorry Justin if you think I'm picking on you - I'm absolutely not, but you are raising good points that resonate with me so I feel the need to respond to you directly.

 

Regarding highlighted bit above - didn't Donald run on a somewhat similar platform of "I don't actually stand for anything but i'm not Hillary - lock her up" and it worked pretty effectively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trotter said:

Sorry Justin if you think I'm picking on you - I'm absolutely not, but you are raising good points that resonate with me so I feel the need to respond to you directly.

 

Regarding highlighted bit above - didn't Donald run on a somewhat similar platform of "I don't actually stand for anything but i'm not Hillary - lock her up" and it worked pretty effectively?

 

No not at all 😄 I appreciate the dialogue.

 

Trump did use that strategy, and it did end up working out, and he was aided mightily by James Comey coming out with more "but her emails" stuff like three or four days before the election. He was coming from what was, polling-wise, a position of weakness, and most importantly, he was appealing to—and energising—a base that had been conditioned by decades of right wing talk radio and media to view the Clintons—but especially Hillary Clinton—as the literal devil.

 

Democrats are speaking to an entirely different base and constituency and the biggest core group they can make efforts to appeal to at this point to earn votes, is progressives. Progressives who despise Trump, but understand that the deep-rooted structural problems here didn't start with him, and who largely believe Trump is a symptom of those problems—many of which are Democrat-caused. The Dem establishment are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing if they wish to appeal to that base. So mirroring the Trump 2016 strategy doesn't and can't work.

 

And indeed, even from non-progressives, the energy level shown in Biden's polling is exceptionally low. His favorability is averaging lower than his unfavorability by about 2%. Some people will vote for him because he's not Trump, but many won't.

 

It's not those many's fault if he doesn't get elected. It is his, and the DNC and establishment's fault for not earning their votes, or for energising enough "safe" Dem voters to come out. But progressives will absolutely 100% be blamed, as like I said above, the Dem establishment has not learned a thing since 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Your notion is a decent thought, but . . .

 

image.png.92f8b439c65d0f7a0b8876e5ef8807a9.png

 

Wow, what a "VP bump" he got from picking a cop while the country is protesting police, eh? "I don't actually stand for anything but I'm not Donald Trump" really seems to be a winning strategy. Look at his numbers soaring as he doubles down on rejecting Medicare for All, forgiving student loan debt, has said basically nothing will change, and made only efforts to appeal to Republican voters.

 

Really think even more strongly now, he's going to blow it. Dems have learned **** all since the disaster of 2016.

 

Are you aware that Republicans themselves have admitted even before Trump that if people just voted they would never win an election again? And with that in mind when have people ever had greater incentive to vote?

An obvious idiot is in charge and to compound his idiocy is an obvious mental case and to compound all that is an obvious crook and probably treasonous.

How much more incentive does anybody need to put an envelope in a mail box? In a situation like that all I would need to vote Democratic would be those facts. Wouldn't matter to me if Democrats never campaigned at all.

This orange wacko is a full scale disaster waiting to happen while a pandemic disaster already plays out. It's that simple. Unless the Democrats were declaring a policy of we're going to burn your house down and kill you all then it's a no contest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Are you aware that Republicans themselves have admitted even before Trump that if people just voted they would never win an election again? And with that in mind when have people ever had greater incentive to vote?

An obvious idiot is in charge and to compound his idiocy is an obvious mental case and to compound all that is an obvious crook and probably treasonous.

How much more incentive does anybody need to put an envelope in a mail box? In a situation like that all I would need to vote Democratic would be those facts. Wouldn't matter to me if Democrats never campaigned at all.

This orange wacko is a full scale disaster waiting to happen while a pandemic disaster already plays out. It's that simple. Unless the Democrats were declaring a policy of we're going to burn your house down and kill you all then it's a no contest.

 

You're preaching to the choir with a lot of this, but none of it changes the underlying point that Democrats are largely to blame for us ending up with Trump, not just in 2016 but for decades prior. Continuing to rail and rail and rail about "orange wacko" and everything else is all well and good, but ultimately you're not listening. Much like the Democratic establishment. People are saying "yes we know, but all the other presidents lately have done similarly terrible stuff, they just put a nice face on it, and that's why we ended up with a system where a nutjob could roll in, not put a nice face on it, and wreak so much havoc. Why should we vote to prop up and perpetuate that system, and to reward you for your own electoral shenanigans and not giving us a real choice?"

 

And the numbers don't lie. They're up there. Plus, even putting an envelope in a mailbox may not be a safe bet now. So you'd think under circumstances like that, that the Dems would want to ensure as much of a buffer as possible if they really cared about defeating Trump. Apparently not.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

People are saying "yes we know, but all the other presidents lately have done similarly terrible stuff

 

I have seen nothing like this in my lifetime. This is another level of full blown crazy. He's nothing like any other president. That would be a bit like Germans in the 1940's if they had the chance to change things saying well we have had autocracy before. The Nazis are just another version. Let's roll with it all the way to total destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I have seen nothing like this in my lifetime. This is another level of full blown crazy. He's nothing like any other president. That would be a bit like Germans in the 1940's if they had the chance to change things saying well we have had autocracy before. The Nazis are just another version. Let's roll with it all the way to total destruction.

 

I think there's an analogy in there somewhere, imperfect though it may be—but the bottom line is, continuing to ignore voter anxiety about the undeniable fact of Democratic responsibility for our current predicament is at Joe Biden's peril.

 

At this point, we can basically either die mad about it like this, or acknowledge it and question why they seem utterly uninterested in appealing to these voters.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

No not at all 😄 I appreciate the dialogue.

 

Trump did use that strategy, and it did end up working out, and he was aided mightily by James Comey coming out with more "but her emails" stuff like three or four days before the election. He was coming from what was, polling-wise, a position of weakness, and most importantly, he was appealing to—and energising—a base that had been conditioned by decades of right wing talk radio and media to view the Clintons—but especially Hillary Clinton—as the literal devil.

 

Democrats are speaking to an entirely different base and constituency and the biggest core group they can make efforts to appeal to at this point to earn votes, is progressives. Progressives who despise Trump, but understand that the deep-rooted structural problems here didn't start with him, and who largely believe Trump is a symptom of those problems—many of which are Democrat-caused. The Dem establishment are doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing if they wish to appeal to that base. So mirroring the Trump 2016 strategy doesn't and can't work.

 

And indeed, even from non-progressives, the energy level shown in Biden's polling is exceptionally low. His favorability is averaging lower than his unfavorability by about 2%. Some people will vote for him because he's not Trump, but many won't.

 

It's not those many's fault if he doesn't get elected. It is his, and the DNC and establishment's fault for not earning their votes, or for energising enough "safe" Dem voters to come out. But progressives will absolutely 100% be blamed, as like I said above, the Dem establishment has not learned a thing since 2016.

Good good, glad we can talk civilly about it - something which absolutely cannot be done in the US anymore!!

You are absolutely correct in that 8 years of Democrat leadership put this country on the course it is now. Now Trump didn't start it, but he sure as shit has done nothing to help it, in fact he has openly promoted it in order to 1) get power, and 2) keep power. The US right now is more divided than it's ever been. I've only been living here for 8 and a bit years, but even in that short time I've noticed that the general atmosphere has changed massively. 

 

Going back to 2016, Republicans were not only just distrusting/hating/choose an adjective of Hilary, but also deeply resentful of what was perceived to be an Obama-led descent into Socialism. IMO that's the real reason everyone hated Obamacare. It had very little to do with 'paying for someone else' and everything to do with being the first step on a steep slope. It's also why Bernie lost so badly to Biden in the run-up to where we are now. Even Democrats don't like the idea. That's fair, it's been shown time and again that it doesn't work, but I got into a huge argument the other night with the missus (very much a red girl) when I pointed out that things like the welfare system and veterans programs are by definition socialist so why doesn't she have a problem with them?

 

Like any problem with only a binary solution set, the answer I believe is neither red nor blue, but rather somewhere in the middle. A red-style version of governance with minimal oversight on your day-to-day life and a corresponding conservative attitude to fiscal policy, but coupled with a blue-style version of federal programs to help the people who actually need it, not those just milking the system, but also to keep an eye on corporate America so it doesn't run roughshod over everything in the pursuit of profit. 

 

What say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weakened Offender
On 16/08/2020 at 17:32, JFK-1 said:

It's bizarre that they're pretty much the only high income nation with no proper healthcare system and they just accept it. 

 

Give it a year or two and there'll be another nation with similar simpletons accepting it. 

 

I'm sure there will be a thread on here split pretty evenly about it too. You'll recognise those accepting it from this thread. 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, trotter said:

Good good, glad we can talk civilly about it - something which absolutely cannot be done in the US anymore!!

 

:thumbsup: Sadly true.

 

43 minutes ago, trotter said:

What say you?

 

First . . .

 

6 minutes ago, trotter said:

Going back to 2016, Republicans were not only just distrusting/hating/choose an adjective of Hilary, but also deeply resentful of what was perceived to be an Obama-led descent into Socialism. IMO that's the real reason everyone hated Obamacare. It had very little to do with 'paying for someone else' and everything to do with being the first step on a steep slope.

 

Right wing talk radio and media generally have been pushing this propaganda for decades now. The response, which I think is the appropriate and correct one, is "if they're going to call our candidate a commie socialist anyway, we may as well nominate a commie socialist". It's the only way to keep this from happening:

 

1973858977_lesserevillongtermvoting.thumb.jpg.6660f2e74a4f0bafc7c62768b9ccb0c0.jpg

Considering where the Democrats lie as a party now, the accuracy of this is depressing.

 

7 minutes ago, trotter said:

It's also why Bernie lost so badly to Biden in the run-up to where we are now. Even Democrats don't like the idea. That's fair, it's been shown time and again that it doesn't work, but I got into a huge argument the other night with the missus (very much a red girl) when I pointed out that things like the welfare system and veterans programs are by definition socialist so why doesn't she have a problem with them?

 

This, I take great issue with as I don't think it's borne out by what we know. We do know this:

 

- 87% of Democrats support Medicare for all

- As of the end of April, 69% of all Americans supported Medicare for All—including 46% Republican support

- Both Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agreed the 2016 primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders

- At bare minimum, and aided by a complicit corporate media, collusion against Sanders occurred in 2020, with Barack Obama stepping in and making phone calls probably the most blatant of it. There was plenty of documentation of voter suppression in all sorts of Democratic primary races, even though they're constantly accusing Republicans of it (rightly, but still).

 

35 minutes ago, trotter said:

Like any problem with only a binary solution set, the answer I believe is neither red nor blue, but rather somewhere in the middle. A red-style version of governance with minimal oversight on your day-to-day life and a corresponding conservative attitude to fiscal policy, but coupled with a blue-style version of federal programs to help the people who actually need it, not those just milking the system, but also to keep an eye on corporate America so it doesn't run roughshod over everything in the pursuit of profit.

 

For what it's worth I feel like this is an appeal to the middle ground that isn't necessarily supportable. Even if the idea were, in this case, with the two parties the US currently has that's a middle that's between centre-right and extreme right wing (as in the diagram above). Getting in depth on all that is kind of outside the scope of this though, although it's worth pointing out that as a lawyer, in the classical sense I'm quite conservative when it comes to lawmaking—I consider many laws to be just plain bad, I wish all laws had sunset provisions (expire after X years), etc. Because of that, I kind of make the point that socialism ≠ big government necessarily. That's especially true of libertarian socialism (with a little L, since Murray Rothbard transformed the big L version into what I consider a complete joke).

 

I appreciated what you said to your lady about just how much of the American system is, as yet, social democratic (not really socialist, tbf). Reminds me of the folks I'd hear interviewed—"Oh I hate Obamacare and socialism, but this Medicaid (poor people gov't health insurance) expansion we got really saved our bacon!" Yeah pal that is part of Obamacare 🤦🏻‍♂️

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That chart is an accurate reflection of what has happened in American politics in a mere 30-odd years, since the Reagan administration.

 

1973858977_lesserevillongtermvoting.thumb.jpg.6660f2e74a4f0bafc7c62768b9ccb0c0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

At this point, we can basically either die mad about it like this, or acknowledge it and question why they seem utterly uninterested in appealing to these voters.

 

I feel you might be over analysing it. You having been born in the country will have more of an insight into how the people think than I do with only 8 and half years experience of living here but I don't see anything that marks the masses out as deep thinkers.

What got Trump elected? Some elaborate presentation of attractive policy? Absolutely not. It was nothing more than a couple of slogans. 'build that wall' 'lock her up'. That's it, that's the depth of the masses in this country.

They could beat Trump with little more than a couple of slogans saying something like 'build that jail' 'lock him up'. It needs no deep analysis to beat this bumpkin in this country. As I said, they're not deep thinkers. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I feel you might be over analysing it. You having been born in the country will have more of an insight into how the people think than I do with only 8 and half years experience of living here but I don't see anything that marks the masses out as deep thinkers.

What got Trump elected? Some elaborate presentation of attractive policy? Absolutely not. It was nothing more than a couple of slogans. 'build that wall' 'lock her up'. That's it, that's the depth of the masses in this country.

They could beat Trump with little more than a couple of slogans saying something like 'build that jail' 'lock him up'. It needs no deep analysis to beat this bumpkin in this country. As I said, they're not deep thinkers. 
 

 

I think it was HL Mencken who said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public? You're right of course, in general, but like I just pointed out to Trotter above, the "unwashed" tend to skew Republican Red.

 

At least from where I'm sitting, there's a significant enough chunk out there for the taking that if the Democrats wanted, they could appeal to, and ensure a Biden victory. To this point, they have shown no inclination to. Meanwhile, the not-so-deep-of-thinking they are counting on are watching them get flanked from the left by Trump from time to time on things like financial relief. Bleeding votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I think it was HL Mencken who said nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public? You're right of course, in general, but like I just pointed out to Trotter above, the "unwashed" tend to skew Republican Red.

 

At least from where I'm sitting, there's a significant enough chunk out there for the taking that if the Democrats wanted, they could appeal to, and ensure a Biden victory. To this point, they have shown no inclination to. Meanwhile, the not-so-deep-of-thinking they are counting on are watching them get flanked from the left by Trump from time to time on things like financial relief. Bleeding votes.

 

I presume the Democratic electioneering will change somewhat as the clock ticks down. We just pretty much agreed the masses are not deep thinkers,  limited attention span. Anything said now will be forgotten after a circuit of the bowl so to speak.

I can envisage nothing Trump could say or do that would alter the perception of him. He doesn't have the capacity to adapt even if a brilliant 'cunning plan' were presented to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

I can envisage nothing Trump could say or do that would alter the perception of him. He doesn't have the capacity to adapt even if a brilliant 'cunning plan' were presented to him.

 

Agreed, but this is an odd strength at times. He has zero political principles, so he's free to do whatever he wants. "We should cut some taxes and get people some money", doesn't matter that the President can't really do that, and that his idea wouldn't actually help. People who don't pay much attention see "President pushes relief measures while Congress goes on vacation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Agreed, but this is an odd strength at times. He has zero political principles, so he's free to do whatever he wants. "We should cut some taxes and get people some money", doesn't matter that the President can't really do that, and that his idea wouldn't actually help. People who don't pay much attention see "President pushes relief measures while Congress goes on vacation".

 

Incidentally are you returning to Scotland when it becomes practical to do so? When international plague sanctions on the US are lifted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

Incidentally are you returning to Scotland when it becomes practical to do so? When international plague sanctions on the US are lifted?

 

I would sure hope to. At the very least I need to come back for a wee bit if nothing else to sell my house. But I'd much prefer to just stay. I think I will plan on applying for some sort of tourism visa and see what happens. If things flare back up in the US whilst I'm there, I might apply for a waiver to let me stay in Scotland for longer if that's made available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I would sure hope to. At the very least I need to come back for a wee bit if nothing else to sell my house. But I'd much prefer to just stay. I think I will plan on applying for some sort of tourism visa and see what happens. If things flare back up in the US whilst I'm there, I might apply for a waiver to let me stay in Scotland for longer if that's made available.

 

When I came to the US I came on a tourist visa and had no intention of going back home. The visa gave me 6 months but I had no problems getting a green card before that time expired.

 

I doubt you would have any problems getting permission to stay. Would you be considering British citizenship in the future? I have never applied to be an American citizen and never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

I doubt you would have any problems getting permission to stay. Would you be considering British citizenship in the future? I have never applied to be an American citizen and never will.

 

Well, I had six months following the end of my master's programme last September to find work and was unable to. Nearly every company I applied to, they didn't want to deal with the hassle and cost to bring on a foreign worker in the UK immigration system. The few that did bring me in for an interview, every one of them seemed reticent about it, and I never got an offer.

 

I would hope if anything I'd ultimately apply for Scottish citizenship, if you catch my meaning.

 

Edited by Justin Z
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Well, I had six months following the end of my master's programme last September to find work and was unable to. Nearly every company I applied to, they didn't want to deal with the hassle of the UK immigration system. The few that did bring me in for an interview, every one of them seemed reticent about it, and I never got an offer.

 

I would hope if anything I'd ultimately apply for Scottish citizenship, if you catch my meaning.

 

If you manage to get back might be in your interest to apply for citizenship before looking for jobs. I have no idea how difficult that might be but it was easy for me to get permanent resident status here. Not cheap but easy.

In fact it was so easy the lawyer I hired commented to me afterwards that he had never seen anything like it. The homeland security guy didn't ask my wife or I a single question. In fact he didn't even ask the lawyer any questions. He basically looked at me, looked at the form, British citizen, and more or less began ticking boxes. All done in 5 minutes.

Should be mentioned I suppose that my lawyer who was quite a young guy had only ever dealt with Central and South Americans going through this process before. Apparently that's an entirely different experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

If you manage to get back might be in your interest to apply for citizenship before looking for jobs. I have no idea how difficult that might be but it was easy for me to get permanent resident status here. Not cheap but easy.

 

You can't do that under the current UK immigration rules, I'm afraid. Prior to the Cameron government? I basically could've waltzed in.

 

2 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

In fact it was so easy the lawyer I hired commented to me afterwards that he had never seen anything like it. The homeland security guy didn't ask my wife or I a single question. In fact he didn't even ask the lawyer any questions. He basically looked at me, looked at the form, British citizen, and more or less began ticking boxes. All done in 5 minutes.

Should be mentioned I suppose that my lawyer who was quite a young guy had only ever dealt with Central and South Americans going through this process before. Apparently that's an entirely different experience. 

 

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest. We had a poster not too long ago trying to argue  that ICE and DHS are not at their core racist. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Kalamazoo Jambo changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (title updated)
  • Maple Leaf changed the title to U.S. Politics megathread (merged)

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.




×
×
  • Create New...