US Politics: Help Me Vladimir!!! Xi Wants Me to Lose!!!

[Rippounet]

56 minutes ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

I see all these liberals ditching the #MeToo act as soon as it turns onto a politician they support with such incredulity it almost borders on comical. [...]

I'l fully admit I have plenty of political reasons to hate Joe Biden, and I probably wouldn't have voted for him anyway. [...]

I consider myself a leftist, not a liberal. [...]

This is the post I'd have written if I wanted to set the US politics thread on fire before cackling like emperor Palpatine in front of a confused jedi.

Mayhaps it's time for a separate thread on the whole "liberal vs left" thing. It's not a specifically US issue tbh.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Please list these ways, and be as specific as you can. Because these threads have seen a ton of "the parties are the same" arguments.

There is some amount of truth to it, which is how people get there in the first place. The Democrats are captive to corporate interests and run by wealthy, out of touch plutocrats  whose top priority is preserving their own power. But they are still, to me, very different from the apocalyptic death cult for billionaires that the Republican Party has turned into. Endless wars of choice, trickle down economics, waging war on organized labor, suppressing the rights of LGBTQ+ people, white supremacy, lack of gun regulation, pillaging the environment, being willing to listen to scientists -- you really think the parties are the same? Because a shitty primary process got us a presumptive nominee with a rape allegation that has only surfaced recently? The Democrats won't give us a perfect, or even very nice world. But they're the only thing, corrupt and feckless as they are, preventing the Republicans from burning down the world we do have.

So make your case, and please make it a good one, because this shit has been done before. And give us something better than "I heard it on a podcast" like when you tried to sell us some lame, easily verifiable bullshit about Clinton's website getting updated policy positions. That's how you get marked as a troll and get your head bitten off.

I didn’t say both parties were equally bad, I said Joe Biden was in lockstep with the Republican Party in enough ways that I find them both unworthy of my support. Having someone piss in your face isn’t as bad as having them piss in your mouth, but I’m not interested in either. The parties aren’t the same though. A Bernie Sanders could never emerge from the Republican Party. Ever. I’d be happy to support a Democrat candidate who actually pushes for lefty values. But Joe Biden is not that candidate.

I should also preface this by saying that I just cannot bring myself to give a fuck about abortion anymore. It’s been half a century since Roe v. Wade, and I’m sick of the blank check the left has written the Democratic party based on that issue. Every election it’s what I hear from all these corporate shills “They’re coming for your reproduction rights! They’re coming for your reproduction rights!” I’m sorry, I don’t fucking care anymore. And neither do they. If Democrats gave the first shit about women’s bodies and safety and physical autonomy they would have given them universal healthcare and education and a livable minimum wage a long time ago. And I don’t buy into this idea that it’s a big ‘anti-woman’ thing anyway. I don’t know about you, but most of the people I meet who vote right because of abortion are evangelical boomer women. If anything it’s a cultural thing.

So, as to what I think makes Biden (Clinton/Obama/etc) just as bad as the Republicans? Three main things.

1. The most evil actions taken by this country are undertaken on a very bipartisan basis. Democrats will step in to protect their own constituents from the worst deprivations of the big machine, but that’s all. The wars we start to avoid paying thirty cents more for a gallon of gas? The civilians buried alive or burned to death by American drones? The poor Americans locked up in prisons at a higher rate than the citizens of any other country? All bipartisan crimes that I really think make the kind of thing most politicians actually talk about seem pretty trivial.

We have a higher prison population right now than China. Not higher per-capita. Higher. Period. End of sentence. They have four times our total population, with fewer people locked up, and we call them authoritarians? And Democrats are fucking GARBAGE on this when they’re not in front of a microphone. Obama laughed at the suggestion of ending the war on drugs. Clinton went and personally supervised a mentally retarded (not using that as a slur, he literally had the mind of a child) man being executed to prove what a “tough guy” he was on the campaign trail.

Do you realize how fucking disgusting we are going to look in a few hundred years when people look back at all the jokes in movies and TV shows about rape and violence in prison? That we’ve basically embraced this all as an unavoidable or necessary part of our justice system? Or even in and of itself a kind of punitive justice?

2. Neither of them really represent the people who support them with their votes. There’s this Dave Chappelle bit that really sums this one up for me. I think it’s in that Equanimity/The Bird Revelation set, where he talks about an encounter he had with a rural white dude who was voting for Trump. He talks about pulling up in a Porsche “because the Obama years were very good to me” and talking with this poor, dusty white dude. The Trump voter says “I’m voting for Donald Trump man, because he’s going to Washington to fight for me.” Then Chappelle thinks 'You dumb motherfucker… he’s fighting for me!'

It was a funny bit, but I actually think there’s a lot of truth in it. Trump campaigned like he was going to fight for rural white America in a similar (though nastier) way to the way Obama campaigned as if he was going to fight for poor black Americans. But both of them ultimately fought for the same people, the banks and the corporations who share their interests.

There was a candidate in the primary fighting for universal healthcare, and another fighting for universal basic income. Both of those are looking pretty good right now. But the way the DNC runs right now outsiders to the party have the deck stacked against them. Yang and Tulsi were both ignored (or outright smeared) by the corporate-run media, and when it looked like Bernie was going to win all of the centrist candidates dropped out the night before Super Tuesday and endorsed the guy nobody really wanted. This is what happens when half the candidates are funded by the same group of people. We’re suddenly giving the donor class 4-5 bites at the apple. Democrats are less hostile to socialism than Republicans are, but the obscene is that they’re loss hostile to Republicans than they are to socialism.

3. Accepting center-right Democrats because your opponent is practically a fascist just moves the overtone to the right. Obama was to the right of Ronald Regan on a lot of issues. Centrism is not an ideology, it’s a compromise that just lets Republicans control the narrative. Biden might be to the left of Trump in some ways, but his effect will be to get us someone even farther to the right than either in a few years.

TL;DR This and also Biden's probably a rapist and if that was wrong for Kavanaugh and Trump it's wrong for him too, no matter how politically inconvenient it is.

[BigFatCoward]

You dont choose someone to piss in your mouth or your face. But if that's the only choice then you take the one that bothers you least, if you are a grown up. 

Edit, if you like being pissed on that is a personal choice, however I reckon 70 year old man piss is gross, so get it elsewhere. 

[Rippounet]

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

You dont choose someone to piss in your mouth or your face.

Bold of you to make such an assumption as to our sexual practices tbh.

[BigFatCoward]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Bold of you to make such an assumption as to our sexual practices tbh.

You missed my edit. 

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

11 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

You dont choose someone to piss in your mouth or your face. But if that's the only choice then you take the one that bothers you least, if you are a grown up. 

So, to you, the person choosing not to be peed on at all isn't the grown up in this scenario?

[mormont]

An actual dichotomy is not a false dichotomy.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

An actual dichotomy is not a false dichotomy.

Withholding your vote is an option if you want to change the dichotomy. Though I am voting, just not for President. Like I said, down-ballot elections are very important to me this cycle.

[Inkdaub]

I choose face.

[Fez]

Biden denies the Reade allegations. Not unexpected there. The two noteworthy parts of his statement/appearance on Morning Joe are:

1. There are no personnel files in his papers at University of Delaware. He won't open those papers for public inspection because he doesn't people taking anything from his career out of context (smart move, tbh).

2. If Reade filed a complaint in 1993 like she says she did, it would have been filed with what was then the Office of Fair Employment Practices. That office's records are now in the National Archives, and Biden is requesting that the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify and make public any complaint from Reade.

Biden has to be confident that no such complaint exists (or already has confirmation that it's been lost at some point), because if it does turn up after all this, he's gotta be toast.

ETA: Biden also said in the interview that he has never asked anyone ever to sign an NDA. So if anyone who worked for him knew or heard anything, they'd be free to talk if they wanted.

[Rippounet]

4 minutes ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

Withholding your vote is an option if you want to change the dichotomy.

Unless abstention has an impact on the outcome (if there is a participation threshold) withholding your vote is just abandoning what little choice/power you had in the first place. It doesn't change anything.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

4 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Unless abstention has an impact on the outcome (if there is a participation threshold) withholding your vote is just abandoning what little choice/power you had in the first place. It doesn't change anything.

Well, in 2023/4, when Occasion-Cortez or Andrew Yang are running against Michelle Obama and her probably something like three billion dollars in Super PAC money, maybe enough centrists will have realized they can't win an election without a united party to go for the actual progressive. Maybe seeing Trump get re-elected will push the grassroots movements we've seen over the past four years even harder. Maybe Biden will win without my vote and it doesn't matter. Bottom line is the same. I am not voting for Joe Biden or Democrats like him and I'd encourage anybody else who actually wants to see things change to pay attention to and focus on down-ballot elections.

[KingintheNorth4]

I choose the "rather not get pissed on" option.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

Somebody told me to drink bleach on the other page. How are we the "dirtbag" left again?

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

Accepting center-right Democrats because your opponent is practically a fascist just moves the overtone to the right.

This is a diametrical misunderstanding of the Overton window.  Which, btw, was popularized by a libertarian think tank and generally employed by the radical right to make their policies and messaging more acceptable - if you want to understand how actual political scientists study the same concept, start with Krehbiel's (1998) Pivotal Politics.  The election of Donald Trump rather inarguably shifted the "Overton" window rightward.  You think leftists not voting is going to help reverse that?  Or help them gain the attention of the Democratic party?  In a great presidential cycle, 40 percent of eligible Americans don't vote.  This choice has never served their interests.

I remember when I first started college this guy came to our school to have a mock debate in the backdrop of Kerry/Bush 2004.  He ostensibly was advocating for Dubya, but he actually spent the entire debate arguing why we shouldn't vote.  To a bunch of 18-21 year old college students.  I always thought he was a really smarmy dude that confused self-destructive contrarianism for sage political advice.  His name was Tucker Carlson.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

 

2. If Reade filed a complaint in 1993 like she says she did, it would have been filed with what was then the Office of Fair Employment Practices. That office's records are now in the National Archives, and Biden is requesting that the Secretary of the Senate ask the Archives to identify and make public any complaint from Reade.

Biden has to be confident that no such complaint exists (or already has confirmation that it's been lost at some point), because if it does turn up after all this, he's gotta be toast.

 

Is there any way possible the campaign did not effectively vet this before issuing the statement?    And if there was something there that was lost, is the fact that something once existed that could be damning something that could be unearthed now?   I mean, is there any way any record of anything exists in the archive given this statement?   It seems like a pretty high risk strategy otherwise, to put it mildly.  

[Week]

47 minutes ago, Stannis Cool-Ranchus said:

Well, in 2023/4, when Occasion-Cortez or Andrew Yang are running against Michelle Obama and her probably something like three billion dollars in Super PAC money, maybe enough centrists will have realized they can't win an election without a united party to go for the actual progressive. Maybe seeing Trump get re-elected will push the grassroots movements we've seen over the past four years even harder. Maybe Biden will win without my vote and it doesn't matter. Bottom line is the same. I am not voting for Joe Biden or Democrats like him and I'd encourage anybody else who actually wants to see things change to pay attention to and focus on down-ballot elections.

So, Biden loses - both RBG and Breyer are replaced by young FedSoc members - what do you think that will do to any future expansion of healthcare, voting rights, Roe v Wade, etc.? 

Look at the partisan decisions that have already come out this year with Kavanaugh on board. White supremacy enshrined by lifetime essentially unimpeachable judges that were not democratically elected. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/scotus-barton-immigrants/ 

(Assuming Biden loses) Down ballot races can only impact the above if the Senate flips and Dems decide to "Merrick Garland" every single GOP judicial nominee. Do you think this party has the backbone and intestinal fortitude to do so?

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

Is there any way possible the campaign did not effectively vet this before issuing the statement?    And if there was something there that was lost, is the fact that something once existed that could be damning something that could be unearthed now?   I mean, is there any way any record of anything exists in the archive given this statement?   It seems like a pretty high risk strategy otherwise, to put it mildly.  

According to this, the records aren't even at the National Archives, and are sealed for another 20+ years:

 

14 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a diametrical misunderstanding of the Overton window.  Which, btw, was popularized by a libertarian think tank and generally employed by the radical right to make their policies and messaging more acceptable - if you want to understand how actual political scientists study the same concept, start with Krehbiel's (1998) Pivotal Politics.  The election of Donald Trump rather inarguably shifted the "Overton" window rightward.  You think leftists not voting is going to help reverse that?  Or help them gain the attention of the Democratic party?  In a great presidential cycle, 40 percent of eligible Americans don't vote.  This choice has never served their interests.

I remember when I first started college this guy came to our school to have a mock debate in the backdrop of Kerry/Bush 2004.  He ostensibly was advocating for Dubya, but he actually spent the entire debate arguing why we shouldn't vote.  To a bunch of 18-21 year old college students.  I always thought he was a really smarmy dude that confused self-destructive contrarianism for sage political advice.  His name was Tucker Carlson.

My freshman year of college CNN filmed crossfire in one of our schools buildings, and students got free tickets.  I went a few times, used to get stoned listen to Carville and Carlson poke each other's eyes out and definitely remember Carlson talking about how young people should be disillusioned.  

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

My freshman year of college CNN filmed crossfire in one of our schools buildings, and students got free tickets. 

My freshman year I was accepted into this program called "the Washington semester" that focused on politics/policy.  There were about 40/45 of us who lived on the same floor of an auxiliary campus - we came to deduce pretty quickly the real reason we were accepted into the program rather than wait listed is because virtually none of us applied for financial aid.  Anyway, the program was run by two poly sci professors, and they organized for the entire program to see a filming of Crossfire (which was also taped at a university's auditorium, albeit not the university I attended).  They did a lot of things like that - I remember an Armed Forces committee hearing and wrote most of one my term papers while at a SCOTUS hearing.

[Stannis Cool-Ranchus]

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is a diametrical misunderstanding of the Overton window. 

And this is a linguistic misuse of the word diametrical.

Quote

 popularized by a libertarian think tank and generally employed by the radical right to make their policies and messaging more acceptable

This literally describes ObamaCare, which is, also literally, the central issue Biden has been attempting to tie his name to over the past half-a-year.

Quote

if you want to understand how actual political scientists study the same concept, start with Krehbiel's (1998) Pivotal Politics.  The election of Donald Trump rather inarguably shifted the "Overton" window rightward.  You think leftists not voting is going to help reverse that?  Or help them gain the attention of the Democratic party?  In a great presidential cycle, 40 percent of eligible Americans don't vote.  This choice has never served their interests.

Yea, my BA was in political science, which is why I don't have a real job and thus all the time in the world to sit here and argue semantics with you, but I promise I know what an overton window is and I know where the term came from.

3 minutes ago, Week said:

So, Biden loses - both RBG and Breyer are replaced by young FedSoc members - what do you think that will do to any future expansion of healthcare, voting rights, Roe v Wade, etc.? 

That's why I said focus on down-ballot elections. You need the Senate's approval to appoint a Supreme Court justice. Don't give me that shit about "enshrining white supremacy." White supremacy has always run through every inch of this country, Trump is nothing new. He's just the worst in recent memory. Deportations went UP under Obama. Bombings of brown people went UP under Obama. Trump is just the continuation of the the trend that his predecessor was just as much a part of. Linking shitty things he does is not going to make me vote for someone that's just going to open the door for someone even shittier down the line.