Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 16 released September 13th)
Polls: Romance (Results), 1951 (Results), 500<400 (Sep 23rd), 2008 (Oct 4th)
Challenges: Animation, Silent Era, Russia/USSR
Film of the Week: Durak, October nominations (Sep 25th)
World Cup S4: QF Schedule, Match QFC: Germany vs Italy (Oct 1st)

US Politics thread

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: US Politics thread

#17961

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 5:27 am

St. Gloede wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 10:58 pm
Dolwphin wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 9:46 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 6:55 am
I don't undersatand your argument, Dolwphin.

Could you clarify, please.

From your reply to Knaldskalle it seems that you actually do support electoral politics and see it as an avenue for change, which very much confuses me, and seems to leave only one option: that you genuinly believe a third party can win.

Is that the case?

If you were in Sweden I would of course agree, you can vote your conscience, so can I, and our parties will get 4-10% of the vote (hopefully more in the future) and have an impact - but this cannot happen in the US. Do you have reason to believe it can?

Secondly, I already showcased how this argument is wrong, as you can primary Dems with better candidates, a strategy that is working (unlike any Green party strategy). Working within the Democratic party has shifted the overton window (which you opened up with stating was one of your main concerns) and has gotten left-wing/left-leaning candidates to the congress and the senate. So you are not closing electoral politics as an avenue of change, you are opening this avenue. It is the other way around.

I already countered your talking points above - incremental changes are not instantly removed, Biden - while yes, an evil, will lead to improvement as opposed to less decay, i.e. those voting for Biden will not be voting for less decay, they will be voting for actual improvements to society.

Please clarify what you believe voting third party can achieve in the US.
I already said I don't vote strategically; unless the stakes would actually be existential. You can notify me when this Sam Harris hypothetical becomes reality. It is not that relevant who "wins" of the two wings of the same party. If you are deeply invested in that spectacle that would obviously change things. Change won't happen because a 3rd party magically "wins" the election either. But you would voting for your preferred candidate, and that could theoretically have positive effects over time.

The Overtone Window has moved (for now) and some (relatively) leftist Democrats from NY have been elected to Congress. I can see why you think this is positive and encouraging.

I see you are riding with Biden. SAD! :down:

Why does it have to achieve anything? (Everybody stay away from the vicinity of Gloede's hospital. He is about to save five precious lives!) Also: What leverage/power does leftist have to pressure Democrats to enact a globally centrist policy agenda if we always offer our unconditional support?
You just contradicted yourself - and to an extreme extent.

This is what you wrote yesterday:
I think there is validity to the idea of harm reduction. But there could be negative consequences over time too, such a voting strategy won't stop the decay -- you are closing the avenue of electoral politics as a vehicle for fundamental change.
You made claims here that seemed to matter to you - I made the case you were wrong and showcased why - you ignored it and replied with the above. A little lazy, no? ;)

You make the case here that the outcome of voting is irrelevant to you, - you then throw in a material claim to back up your choice based on outcome - which I already discredited above - i.e. that the left can get leverage in not voting. This is simply false, as demonstrated earlier - and made even more ridiculous by you consistently ignoring the fact that you can vote for good platforms in the primaries.

To be fair, most of what you say seems to be a joke, and as neither of us are Americans, neither of us will voke, and this is only a philosophical conversation of no real relevance, I suppose that is ok. :lol:

Though if you were in the US and refused to vote for possible positive changes saving thousands of lives, and for no reason whatsoever, that would be pretty sad.

That said, I am very happy I do not need to be ridin' with Biden - my sympathies to all of the US.
You claim that objectivity and logical arguments is possible. This is very problematic because objective truth is a mythology. Behind such universality always lies toxic white supremacy. Check your privilege! Swedes are more oppressed than Norwegians, thus I should be given interpretive precedence about this subject. Sorry I don't make the rules!

Also, didn't the great logicians of antiquity support SLAVERY and PEDOPHILIA ? Hm, doesn't sound like very good ideas to me.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17962

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 5:36 am

Joking aside. I know you like to play logic and semantics game in this thread St. Gloede, despite that resulting in you actively misunderstanding what people are trying to convey. I have not made any contradictory claims and you have not demonstrated any "talking points" as false.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17963

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 6:04 am

Kublai Khan wrote:
September 9th, 2020, 11:32 pm
Today, the news is that Trump specifically knew how bad the coronavirus would be and he deliberately downplayed it. Easily tens of thousands of lives would have been saved if he had been honest and acted decisively from the beginning. Also, he's been deliberately silencing his leading expert on infectious diseases.

He's also told his supporters to vote twice and slandered the legitimacy of the voting process. He is actively recruiting volunteers to "poll watch". In addition to slowing down the US postal service to discourage voting by mail.

He's also planning on nominating Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz as federal judges.

But I'm sorry, I interrupted Dolwphin who was busy lecturing us on how both sides are equally bad from his Scandinavian ivory tower.
Never said equally. That is why have mentioned marginal differences all the time. The question is whether that is enough to justify supporting evil. Chomsky and other leftist intellectuals say it is the morally right thing to do. I don't feel comfortable with this principle -- thus all hyperbole hypothetical match-ups. I'd rather vote for my preferred candidate. It is debatable if this is strategically wise, but that is a secondary question. I think both choices (D/Green) have almost non-existent chance of resulting in fundamental change, but leverage/power in Presidential Elections won't be achieved if the Left unconditionally supports Corporate Democrats.
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17964

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 7:17 am

Dolwphin wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 5:36 am
Joking aside. I know you like to play logic and semantics game in this thread St. Gloede, despite that resulting in you actively misunderstanding what people are trying to convey. I have not made any contradictory claims and you have not demonstrated any "talking points" as false.
Express yourself clearly, and I won't misunderstand you. If you think I have misunderstood a point, just clarify, it is easy. ;)

How can it for instance be that you want elections to be a portal for change, but you refuse to vote for change. That seems like a pretty extreme contradiction.

I made clear cases against each of your points above, you did not respond to them. Feel free to.

(For instance I showcased how Ralph Nader's success in 2000 did not push the Democrats left, and that the Dems tend to go for Moderate Republicans and "swing voters" as opposed to the left. 5% or even 10% going to another party would not matter as they can just swing right. This should demonstrate that your point of leverage is fairly moot, unless you have a counter).

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12116
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17965

Post by Armoreska » September 10th, 2020, 11:50 am

If 3/4ths of non-voters voted for a 3rd party, it would have won.
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo


User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17967

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 12:32 pm

Armoreska wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 11:50 am
If 3/4ths of non-voters voted for a 3rd party, it would have won.
And if a much, much, much smaller amount voted for Sanders, he would have won - but it just doesn't happen. If there was a way to change that, fantastic, but if you can't even activate a small fraction - with two races and a massive platform - what can any 3rd party do?

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17968

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 2:04 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 7:17 am
Dolwphin wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 5:36 am
Joking aside. I know you like to play logic and semantics game in this thread St. Gloede, despite that resulting in you actively misunderstanding what people are trying to convey. I have not made any contradictory claims and you have not demonstrated any "talking points" as false.
Express yourself clearly, and I won't misunderstand you. If you think I have misunderstood a point, just clarify, it is easy. ;)

How can it for instance be that you want elections to be a portal for change, but you refuse to vote for change. That seems like a pretty extreme contradiction.

I made clear cases against each of your points above, you did not respond to them. Feel free to.

(For instance I showcased how Ralph Nader's success in 2000 did not push the Democrats left, and that the Dems tend to go for Moderate Republicans and "swing voters" as opposed to the left. 5% or even 10% going to another party would not matter as they can just swing right. This should demonstrate that your point of leverage is fairly moot, unless you have a counter).
Well, I see you dislike Satantango and yet you still claim that movies can be a portal for insightful and creative expression. That seems like a contradiction to me. Why not be an adult and read Shakespeare or listen to Beethoven instead?
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17969

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 2:16 pm

Always the jokes/trolling, never clear communication, and you wonder why you are "misunderstood".

You made a case for the importance of elections leading to changes - you then stated that you do not care if voting has any effect, and that this is not relevant to you. This is a contradiction - unless the first claim was simply musings irrelevant to your actual position, or that your reply: "Why does it have to achieve anything?" was simply a joke in itself.

It is hard to tell with you.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17970

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 5:29 pm

Gloede is good at trolling, refusing to understand the most simple of things. Electoral politics could achieve noteworthy improvements [movies] but the current enforced dichotomy choice does not IMO [Satantango] AND if you accept that premise (which you don't) it is not "contradictory" to vote for a 3rd party (regardless if you do it for the intrinsic value or possible utility it achieves).
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17971

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 6:31 pm

So, to clarify, all your arguments above were distractions, and your stance is simply: there is no significant difference between the candidates, so it doesn't matter what you do.

That is indeed simple, exactly what I understood your argument to be before....

I countered, asking if thousands of human lives saved, people convicted for marijuana possession getting a new lease on life, etc. mattered to you. You dismissed this with the incorrect (and still irrelevant) point that such changes are rolled back (thousands of people would be saved even if rolled back) - and then you entered many more distractions of no relevance to your actual stance.

You could simply have stated that thousands of human lives being saved, etc. does matter to you in the bigger picture - or that the variables are too big, etc. Your position would have been clear and the discussion would have been over.

Clarity, Dolwphin, clarity. Stop the jokes, the masquerades, the lies, etc. Or not? I guess this is entertainment.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 4417
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#17972

Post by Dolwphin » September 10th, 2020, 7:12 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 6:31 pm
So, to clarify, all your arguments above were distractions, and your stance is simply: there is no significant difference between the candidates, so it doesn't matter what you do.

That is indeed simple, exactly what I understood your argument to be before....

I countered, asking if thousands of human lives saved, people convicted for marijuana possession getting a new lease on life, etc. mattered to you. You dismissed this with the incorrect (and still irrelevant) point that such changes are rolled back (thousands of people would be saved even if rolled back) - and then you entered many more distractions of no relevance to your actual stance.

You could simply have stated that thousands of human lives being saved, etc. does matter to you in the bigger picture - or that the variables are too big, etc. Your position would have been clear and the discussion would have been over.

Clarity, Dolwphin, clarity. Stop the jokes, the masquerades, the lies, etc. Or not? I guess this is entertainment.
Finally you understand and get it!
Top 250 | RYM | Letterboxd

Member of the Experimental Mafia | What's My Line? #1 Fan

User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12116
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17973

Post by Armoreska » September 10th, 2020, 8:11 pm

Image
*means - if ends justify the means of voting for the establishment (acting according to consequentialism)
ends - if they don't (sticking to deontology)
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4872
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17974

Post by Onderhond » September 10th, 2020, 8:20 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 6:31 pm
I countered, asking if thousands of human lives saved, people convicted for marijuana possession getting a new lease on life, etc. mattered to you.
What it boils down to is whether you believe the short-term benefits will be greater than the long-term destruction.

On an abstract level, I support voting for an candidates that have no chance of winning but propose thorough change, as ultimate it's much better when politicians align with voters than the other way around. Tactical voting really is the dumbest thing a population can do, unless you're too far gone already. The worst thing that can happen right now is Trump winning, but when Biden wins and people consider that a victory, it's still a pretty shitty outcome for the US. You'd hope that the moment Biden wins his voters will turn against him, but that'll never happen.

It's a tough, if not impossible decision and I don't think it's weird that there are opposing ideological stances, since the outcome is way too complex to comfortable predict.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17975

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm

Onderhond wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 8:20 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 6:31 pm
I countered, asking if thousands of human lives saved, people convicted for marijuana possession getting a new lease on life, etc. mattered to you.
What it boils down to is whether you believe the short-term benefits will be greater than the long-term destruction.

On an abstract level, I support voting for an candidates that have no chance of winning but propose thorough change, as ultimate it's much better when politicians align with voters than the other way around. Tactical voting really is the dumbest thing a population can do, unless you're too far gone already. The worst thing that can happen right now is Trump winning, but when Biden wins and people consider that a victory, it's still a pretty shitty outcome for the US. You'd hope that the moment Biden wins his voters will turn against him, but that'll never happen.

It's a tough, if not impossible decision and I don't think it's weird that there are opposing ideological stances, since the outcome is way too complex to comfortable predict.
Just to be clear, I respect the position of voting for Trump or abstaining/voting Green on the calculus that it pushes through the idea that a corporate Democrat can no longer win, that it will continue to activate people politically and make it possible for a candidate pushing M4A in 4 years. (This was certainly a very promising option 4 years ago when it was clear Sanders would run again

I also respect those abstaining because the long-term calculus is too difficult, including the terrifying possibility of what the reaction to Biden will be - I outlined this above, and it was not what the conversation was about.

.-

I disagree with the premise that it boils down to whether you believe the short-term benefits will be greater than the long-term destruction. If I understand it correctly, you posit that there will be more long term damage if Biden is elected than if Trump is re-elected. This is not a given - you can even believe the short term benefits of Trump are better, ie it keeps the current anti-government protests alive, etc. while a Biden victory could lull people back to sleep - which is a real concern. There is clearly a benefits analysis either way.

To be clear about the above, the discussion was specifically on the validity of third party voting, and I outlined why I think the majority of the reasons given do not hold up to scrutiny. I also think primarying is the only successful strategy at present, and when benchmarked by 3rd party success (especially 3rd party success from the left) the difference is night and day.

(Re: tactical voting - If you referring to voting against your interests on a realistic candidate to "optimize" your odds I agree completely).

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4872
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#17976

Post by Onderhond » September 10th, 2020, 9:37 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm
If I understand it correctly, you posit that there will be more long term damage if Biden is elected than if Trump is re-elected.
No, I meant there might be more long-term damage when Biden is elected by people who voted tactically rather than for a third party they preferred but had no way to win. A movement for change has to start somewhere.

But again, it's always a gamble.

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9931
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#17977

Post by Knaldskalle » September 10th, 2020, 10:02 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm
Just to be clear, I respect the position of voting for Trump or abstaining/voting Green on the calculus that it pushes through the idea that a corporate Democrat can no longer win, that it will continue to activate people politically and make it possible for a candidate pushing M4A in 4 years. (This was certainly a very promising option 4 years ago when it was clear Sanders would run again
That was tried in 2000, when Ralph Nader played 'spoiler' and Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Did not end well.
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17978

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 10:17 pm

Onderhond wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:37 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm
If I understand it correctly, you posit that there will be more long term damage if Biden is elected than if Trump is re-elected.
No, I meant there might be more long-term damage when Biden is elected by people who voted tactically rather than for a third party they preferred but had no way to win. A movement for change has to start somewhere.

But again, it's always a gamble.
I guess theoretically "anything is possible", but I'm afraid to say I find that proposition impossible - the odds of the Gamble paying off would be 0, or extremely close to 0. (I could of course be wrong).

If you look at Sanders, he had 4 years to build up a massive name and he ran on the dem ticket with a colossal movement behind him, and not even that could activate the voters to give him the nominations. The strategy was still highly successful, and shows that an inside the Democratic Party run has a higher reach and greater impact than 3rd parties, and, as showcased - people have won their primaries and gone on to win the Congress elections within the Democratic Party. The Green Party, nor any other 3rd party has managed this.

Even if they were to get 5%, it would be irrelevant, and as the Liberal/Conservative media controls the narrative, there is even less hope. After a long line of less devastating 3rd party losses they would scare enough back in line with nothing gained - or they stay as a semi-relecant "spoiler". The best case scenario would be forcing the dems left, but they are more likely to to run right. I see nothing to gain in practical terms from voting 3rd party in the US - especially when there is, for the "first time" is a demonstrated, successful path for left wingers to get to Congress.

-

That said, non-electoral politics, such as insurrection, movement building, strengthening unions, etc. is likely to have a greater impact at present - and this is where the left really needs to get together - there are potential benefits, with both Trump and Biden that can be exploited for positive results.

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11209
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#17979

Post by St. Gloede » September 10th, 2020, 10:45 pm

Knaldskalle wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 10:02 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm
Just to be clear, I respect the position of voting for Trump or abstaining/voting Green on the calculus that it pushes through the idea that a corporate Democrat can no longer win, that it will continue to activate people politically and make it possible for a candidate pushing M4A in 4 years. (This was certainly a very promising option 4 years ago when it was clear Sanders would run again
That was tried in 2000, when Ralph Nader played 'spoiler' and Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Did not end well.
If that is a reply to "Corporate Democrat, I agree, and I made that case above with Nader as the prime evidence - it just does not work.

Though to be fair to the argument, especially the latter part, it is not the same scenario. M4A was not on the table, and you did not have a visible left (which is stronger than ever). However, as Sanders won't run again there are not many progressives likely to have the ability to win in 2024, and Biden is already set to be a 1 term President.

If there was a clear and strong left leaning politician with the mass appeal and experience ready to jump in this position would be stronger, especially as two supposed safe options losing would be ammunition to sway voters to vote for their interests - as the main attack on them will be electabity. Are these few bonus points worth 4 more years of Trump however, especially as X politician will still be able to run in 2024 regardless - and Sanders could already point to Clinton's failure without any apparent impact?

Also, if this is a losing cycle, which it quite possibly is, how many republican administrations does it take before the "in 4 years gambit" loses its value as a practical argument for real change/long term harm reduction.

I Do understand the fear of Harris cementing herself as the continuity candidate though, and possible securing 16 years (if not more) before there is hope of universal healthcare. Then again, Harris originally supported M4A, so it could actually happen through her - especially if the pressure is strong enough.

P. S. To be fair, Gore "won". ;)

User avatar
Knaldskalle
Moderator
Posts: 9931
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: New Mexico, Trumpistan
Contact:

#17980

Post by Knaldskalle » September 10th, 2020, 11:22 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 10:17 pm
If you look at Sanders, he had 4 years to build up a massive name and he ran on the dem ticket with a colossal movement behind him, and not even that could activate the voters to give him the nominations. The strategy was still highly successful, and shows that an inside the Democratic Party run has a higher reach and greater impact than 3rd parties, and, as showcased - people have won their primaries and gone on to win the Congress elections within the Democratic Party. The Green Party, nor any other 3rd party has managed this.
I was about to write something very similar, so thanks for saving me the trouble. I think people have realized that it's easier to "subvert" one of the existing two parties than it is to create and "make room" for a third party. If nothing else, this should give both "establishment Democrats" and "establishment Republicans" pause. Perhaps they'll even start making it easier for third parties to avoid having their parties taken over? Nah, who am I kidding?
ImageImageImageImage

Please don't hurt yourself, talk to someone.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17981

Post by xianjiro » September 11th, 2020, 1:26 am

Knaldskalle wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 10:02 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 9:09 pm
Just to be clear, I respect the position of voting for Trump or abstaining/voting Green on the calculus that it pushes through the idea that a corporate Democrat can no longer win, that it will continue to activate people politically and make it possible for a candidate pushing M4A in 4 years. (This was certainly a very promising option 4 years ago when it was clear Sanders would run again
That was tried in 2000, when Ralph Nader played 'spoiler' and Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. Did not end well.
Really? Thought everyone loved the War on Islam.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17982

Post by xianjiro » September 11th, 2020, 1:52 am

Onderhond wrote:
September 10th, 2020, 8:20 pm
The worst thing that can happen right now is Trump winning, but when Biden wins and people consider that a victory, it's still a pretty shitty outcome for the US. You'd hope that the moment Biden wins his voters will turn against him, but that'll never happen.

It's a tough, if not impossible decision and I don't think it's weird that there are opposing ideological stances, since the outcome is way too complex to comfortable predict.
I don't think it's a tough decision unless one thinks the current President has had little effect on the state of things. Best I can read, at least 80% of Americans either fall into Best/Worst President Ever camp, probably along a 35%/45% split. The other 20% have all sorts of views - apathy, confusion, antiestablishment, and maybe even "mixed bag" with the current administration.

So the real key to this election isn't "what will advance the progressive agenda" as that is really only a concern for about a quarter of the populace (that tends towards the east and west coasts as well as urban centers elsewhere) and younger (who traditionally are the least reliable voters as an age group). TBH, the larger agenda group is conservative at roughly 35% of the population though they are split between social and economic drivers (abortion/religion and government spending). That leavea 40% holding a mix of views on the myriad issues facing us today, however it would would be fallacious to say they and the right don't care a great deal about liberal democracy as it is practiced in the "Shining Beacon to the World" and other assorted jingoistic claptrap.

If Biden wins, all the majority of American will do is sigh in relief with a hope that normality will return. Of course right behind that is what happens in Congress. I'm really unwilling to make any predictions, but won't be surprised to see Rs control one house or maybe Ds holding the Senate by at most a couple votes.

Gridlock will continue and no matter how milktoast and placatory a Biden administration is towards the right, the culture war will continue as it has for the last two decades. Shit, just look at treatment of racial minorities and immigrants: most Americans really don't care as long as nothing changes for they themselves. Yes, most Americans want policing to be 'different' but there is no agreement on what that actually should look like let alone what steps will be needed to enact a better tomorrow.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17983

Post by xianjiro » September 11th, 2020, 1:59 am

Oh, the other thing I forgot to mention is there really isn't such a thing as a Biden fanboy or true believer. For the vast majority he's just the guy who's got the chance and again, he represents "normalcy". Nothing more really. Don't believe anyone has great expectations.

And I have a single response to the idea that Harris has a lock on the future - Dan Quayle.

If Trump's still alive in 2024, don't be surprised if he's not on the ballot again (even as an independent/spoiler). Not sure if the Rs will turn on him or what. We'll just have to wait for that history to be written.

Harris' future is entirely dependent on who comes next from the right and what their true convictions are.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here



User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7066
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#17986

Post by 3eyes » September 11th, 2020, 1:18 pm

From off the wall: Meanwhile the administration goes on "sanctioning" everybody and everything. "Sanction" is one of those words, like "cleave," which has opposite meanings. In my vocabulary it means "approve."
:run: STILL the Gaffer!


User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12116
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17988

Post by Armoreska » September 16th, 2020, 11:52 am



TLDW: No
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20420
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17989

Post by Pretentious Hipster » September 16th, 2020, 12:34 pm

If this is the case, then wtf is the point of talking politics?


User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20420
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17990

Post by Pretentious Hipster » September 16th, 2020, 12:48 pm

> Wants to do a revolution to dismantle capitalism
> Makes their army numbers as small as possible
> "Army" consists of people who are too uncomfortable by crowds clapping



User avatar
Kublai Khan
Posts: 1150
Joined: Nov 09, 2014
Location: Sarasota, FL
Contact:

#17993

Post by Kublai Khan » September 16th, 2020, 7:02 pm

More than two thirds of young Americans do not know that six million Jewish people were killed in the Holocaust, according to a survey.

https://news.sky.com/story/two-thirds-o ... s-12073050
Owner of three platinums:
  • FilmTotaal top 100
  • IMDb's 1980s Top 50
  • IMDb's Animation Top 50

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20420
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17994

Post by Pretentious Hipster » September 16th, 2020, 7:08 pm

Yet I've seen some twitter people and roommates saying no more holocaust films, or in fact any films that show minorities suffering. Turns out avoiding that means the people don't know the atrocities.

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17995

Post by xianjiro » September 17th, 2020, 1:52 am

blame it on TikTok - seems everything's their fault these days.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#17996

Post by xianjiro » September 17th, 2020, 11:09 am

So, anecdotal evidence is coming in that some of these catastrophic fires in Oregon might have been caused by various issues related to electrical transmission and distribution - some owned by for-profit corporations and some owned by co-ops. Of course it will take time for investigations and lordy, won't they be busy for the next year or so! I guess we can be glad they weren't all intentionally set by bad actors (as has been circulating on social media - talk about needing to burn...) But here's the money quote:
The Republican walkout to block the passage of climate change legislation also killed the prospect of any legislative progress on the wildfire’s council’s recommendations. But utilities, recognizing the safety and liability risks, have gone ahead with their own work.
- source

Unfortunately, it seems only one utility cared enough to warn folks and then power down: just so happens the initials are the same as those murderers in Paradise (California), but PGE is completely separate from PG&E.

Can anyone smell lawyers busily preparing class action lawsuits?

The air quality has varied today from only "Unhealthy" to outright "Hazardous" (the final stage on the EPA's rating system. Guess they didn't know what could come next ... "Hope you have life insurance" maybe?

The promise is air quality will start to improve substantially tomorrow - the :finger: winds change and the smoke will be headed towards the east. Of course, that comes with the risk of thunderstorms and they bring lightning.

UGH! (D:)

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here


User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20420
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#17998

Post by Pretentious Hipster » September 17th, 2020, 12:13 pm

Liberals are weird


User avatar
Armoreska
Posts: 12116
Joined: Nov 01, 2012
Location: Ukraine, former Free Territory
Contact:

#17999

Post by Armoreska » September 17th, 2020, 9:31 pm

If the republicans were to start supporting medicare, wouldnt they win on the spot?
Image
currently working towards a vegan/free world + thru such film lists (besides TV): ANARCHISTS, 2010s bests, RW Fassbinder, Yasujiro Ozu, Eric Rohmer, Visual Effects nominees, kid-related stuff, great animes (mini-serie or feature), very 80s movies, 17+ sci-fi lists on watchlist, ENVIRO, remarkable Silent Films and Pre-Code (exploring 1925 atm) and every shorts and docu list I'm aware of and
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1434
and "Gordon" Liu Chia-Hui/Liu Chia-Liang and Yuen Woo-ping and "Sammo" Hung Kam-bo

User avatar
xianjiro
Donator
Posts: 7947
Joined: Jun 17, 2015
Location: Kakistani Left Coast
Contact:

#18000

Post by xianjiro » September 17th, 2020, 11:44 pm

Not sure if that question is meant rhetorically or not, but Medicare as it exists today is basically a sacred cow which both Rs and Ds generally support. Sure, there are some who might speak against it and others who'd like to tweak it, but I can't say I've ever seen anything credible that Rs want to defund Medicare.

Medicaid and the so-called Obamacare expansion to that program - well, that's what Rs are totally bent on destroying. But even if they said, "We love and want to grow Medicaid!", 1) No one would really believe that given the rhetoric during Trump's first year in office and 2) It wouldn't have much real meaning.

But no, just saying they support these programs isn't going to make a difference. Even if they had a party-wide epiphany and said, "We want Bernie's Medicare for All!", not sure it would change things much. People largely have made up their minds: undecided voters are probably in the 10-20% range though obviously they are key in battleground states.

Listen, Daddy. Teacher says, 'every time a car alarm bleeps, into heaven a demon sneaks.'
sol can find me here

Post Reply