US Politics Thread

[Kieran]

I traveled a a few miles outside of Amsterdam on a train and thought about settling in Haarlem! It seemed quite reminiscent of a Chicago suburb I lived in years ago called Oak Park! A mall area was almost an exact replica with cobblestone sidewalks like on Warmestradt!

Oh brother, you should have come to Ireland, you’d have fit right in, and no language difficulties…

 

[Fiero425]

Oh brother, you should have come to Ireland, you’d have fit right in, and no language difficulties…

A bud of mines loves Ireland &'s visited a few times! I've avoided the British Isles over the food offered! I'd have to cook more to compensate!

 

[Kieran]

A bud of mines loves Ireland &'s visited a few times! I've avoided the British Isles over the food offered! I'd have to cook more to compensate!

Why do you think Guinness is so popular? It’s strong enough to wash down the spuds!

 

[Fiero425]

Why do you think Guinness is so popular? It’s strong enough to wash down the spuds!

That's the other thing; never been a big drinker and have never touched a "dark beer" or ale in my life!

 

[Kieran]

That's the other thing; never been a big drinker and have never touched a "dark beer" or ale in my life!

I’m impressed!

 

[El Dude]

This is rather extremist rhetoric, don't you think? I don't think most Americans generally vote for the "lesser of two evils." They often get behind an actual candidate. The kind of place where you might be right, it the bolded above, is very new, IMO.

You're right: most Americans are lemmings that just follow one of the useful idiots, like team sports. Among lefties and progressives (and I imagine some on the right), though, it has always been the "lesser of two evils" - except in rare cases. But I tend to think that's a misguided approach, that it doesn't work - we just get more crap. Which is why, starting in 2016, I stopped voting "blue no matter who." At this point, it would take a rare and unexpected candidate for me to vote for a major party candidate.

I think the extremes that you bolded above--which is intentional hyperbole, but to illustrate the picture--is the worst it has been in my lifetime, but the partisanship and negative caricaturization has always existed. Both sides paint the other as more extreme and horrible. And of course there's the whole "This is the most important election of our lives" thing - which is said pretty much every 2/4 years.

Again, I don't think that's the only way people vote. Such a cynical approach to politics.

Yes, I'm very cynical about politics. What can I say? I think 98% of national politics is utter BS, just two wings of the same ruling class. That means that I think 98% (or more) of people holding major positions are full of shit. There are a few exceptions, but they invariably get backstabbed and/or pushed out (e.g. Bernie in 2016, but he has since disappointed me by pretty much bending over to the Dems).

It would be useful if we could get off the two-party system, but we'd need the parties to go for it, which won't happen. Or soon. More and more localities and states ? are adopting a ranked-choice voting, which could eventually give more power to 3rd or alternate parties. I am in favor of this. If it is adopted by enough states, it could send 3rd party candidates to the House and Senate and eventually make the change. Probably not before I'm dead, though. But, still....

Ranked choice voting is nice in principle, but it got NYC Eric Adams.

If a third party gets 5% of the national vote, they are recognized as an official national party and get funding. That has been the hopes of the "second tier" third parties: Green, Libertarian, etc, and presumably that of Andrew Yang's Forward Party. So it theoretically doesn't have to be through acquiescence of the Big Two--I agree that will never happen. But more and more people have to start considering other options.

I agree that there is a focus on that in the US, when an amalgam of both is more desirable, IMO. All things are corruptible, but the US focus on the notion that it's either capitalism or socialism is a false construct. We have plenty of socialism in this country, which people want. Medicare? Medicaid? VA benefits?

This, I agree with. Most people, in most countries, just want to live and let live. We agree on the basics, and don't tend to want to curtail the rights of others. Everyone just wants to be able to live within their means, raise their kids, be treated fairly.

Yup and yup.

This is hyperbole beyond what was necessary, and I see you freaked Federberg out with it. Was that necessary? Does it have any basis in fact? Though the 2nd part has some truth in legislature.

Well, some trans activists say stuff like that. I don't think they represent all, most, or even a majority of trans folks, but they are a vocal minority and, imo, end up hurting their own movement. Read the BBC article that Kieran posted, which touches on some of this.

People of a progressive mindset tend to support whatever the Latest Thing is, especially when it has to do with marginalized groups. The problem with the current trans thing is that a lot of extreme stuff is being mushed together, which actually ends up hurting the people that are supposedly being advocated for, and is seemingly at the expense of other groups that have been historically marginalized (like, say, women!).

This is, in part, the problem of only capitalism and not a mix-in of socialism. It goes way back to US government (and conceding to the Confederacy,)
dividing poor blacks and poor whites to keep them from rising up against the power elite.

Yes, exactly - and it is happening today. I saw a great cartoon that illustrated this so well...I can't find the picture, so I'll describe it. Three men sitting at a table, a white guy with a dollar and a black guy with no money sitting across from each other. At the head of the table is a old white guy with a pile of money who is saying to the poor white guy, "Look, he's trying to take your money!"

George Carlin eloquently talked about this. My view is that most of what we call politics is just a dog and pony show to keep the working class blaming each other and not uniting against the ruling class. I mean, there's a reason that Obama didn't codify Roe when he could have: the Dems want the issue unresolved, so they can use it as they're using it now: to maintain their power. Many of them really don't give a shit one way or the other, as wealthy people will always be able to get abortions.

So if I'm cynical, it is in believing that the vast majority of political talk is just that - talk. And the vast majority of politicians don't give a shit about real people. Their raison d'etre is to maintain and serve the ruling class, and to extend their own power and wealth. Every single war, at least going back to WW2, has been heavily propagandized, with false narratives that have little to do with the real purpose of the war. I mean, if Ukraine was really about what they say on the news, why isn't the same true of Yemen and Palestine, and any number of other places? If the US cares about democracy and helping people out, why are they holding and sanctioning Afghanistan, while Afghans literally sell their organs to feed their families? Why do pundits on mainstream media endlessly talk about how bad Putin is, but never discuss the fact the US is responsible for the death of millions throughout the world (especially in the Middle East), especially in the last three decades? And on and on.

 

[Moxie]

You're right: most Americans are lemmings that just follow one of the useful idiots, like team sports. Among lefties and progressives (and I imagine some on the right), though, it has always been the "lesser of two evils" - except in rare cases.

Going backwards, (and speaking only to Presidential elections, as a think you are,) a lot of people who voted for Trump wanted him to win, like it or not. Obama was a very popular candidate, and I don't think any Democrat who voted for him ever thought of him of the lesser of two evils. Probably have to skip back after that, and discounting primaries, but Bill Clinton was very popular. So was Reagan. And Jimmy Carter, bless him. It really only became a "team sport" fairly recently, if you ask me.

But I tend to think that's a misguided approach, that it doesn't work - we just get more crap. Which is why, starting in 2016, I stopped voting "blue no matter who." At this point, it would take a rare and unexpected candidate for me to vote for a major party candidate.

Your point here is lesser of two evils, and I'm saying we have, as a country, voted that way less often than you think. You can dislike it when the options are poor, but I, personally, still think I trust my party, when it comes to important issues, like abortion, and the Supreme Court, so I'll go party, thank you. But remember, it was probably the people that went 3rd party that got us George W. Bush over Gore, with the Supreme Court playing a role, but you do have to respect calculations, 2-party system being the reality.

I think the extremes that you bolded above--which is intentional hyperbole, but to illustrate the picture--is the worst it has been in my lifetime, but the partisanship and negative caricaturization has always existed. Both sides paint the other as more extreme and horrible. And of course there's the whole "This is the most important election of our lives" thing - which is said pretty much every 2/4 years.

I don't think the hyperbole helps paint the picture. I think it distorts it. And it makes your argument sound more hysterical than perhaps you mean it to. And I also think this notion that "this is the most important election of our lives" is also fairly new. IMO, this became a feature much more post 9/11 and GWBush.

Yes, I'm very cynical about politics. What can I say? I think 98% of national politics is utter BS, just two wings of the same ruling class. That means that I think 98% (or more) of people holding major positions are full of shit. There are a few exceptions, but they invariably get backstabbed and/or pushed out (e.g. Bernie in 2016, but he has since disappointed me by pretty much bending over to the Dems).

Being cynical and distrustful of politics and politicians is one choice. I can't help you with that. I find that, since we need politicians and politics, I chose to try to work within the system, and to some extent, especially at the grass-roots level, to believe in it. If you want to believe in this great experiment of democracy, you have to have some idealism, I think. And I believe, at this moment, it is imperiled in the US. (And in other countries around the world.) Cynicism doesn't help, IMO. If you don't like it, work from within. Don't just stand outside and complain about how corrupt it is.

Ranked choice voting is nice in principle, but it got NYC Eric Adams.

It was a first try. Hopefully, it'll work better as we get used to it.

If a third party gets 5% of the national vote, they are recognized as an official national party and get funding. That has been the hopes of the "second tier" third parties: Green, Libertarian, etc, and presumably that of Andrew Yang's Forward Party. So it theoretically doesn't have to be through acquiescence of the Big Two--I agree that will never happen. But more and more people have to start considering other options.

I actually think there is some movement for 3rd parties, more than before. Look at the split in the Republican party. It has actually been sort of 2 different parties for a long time, basically since Reagan got in bed with the fundamentalist Christians, and on to the Tea Party, etc. If John McCain wasn't dead, and Liz Cheney wasn't the only Republican left with a set of balls (yes, I mean that horrible metaphor for what it sounds like,) there would have been a rift in the Republican party a while ago. When the cult of Trump is over, there will eventually, I think, be some soul-searching, or at least vote-searching as to what that party will be. For now, it's being ruled by a far-right and Christian religious faction which is not sustainable amongst the general electorate. Or I certainly hope not.

Well, some trans activists say stuff like that. I don't think they represent all, most, or even a majority of trans folks, but they are a vocal minority and, imo, end up hurting their own movement. Read the BBC article that Kieran posted, which touches on some of this.

People of a progressive mindset tend to support whatever the Latest Thing is, especially when it has to do with marginalized groups. The problem with the current trans thing is that a lot of extreme stuff is being mushed together, which actually ends up hurting the people that are supposedly being advocated for, and is seemingly at the expense of other groups that have been historically marginalized (like, say, women!).

I will read the article that Kieran posted, but I do think that throwing trans issues to the foreground is sensationalistic and not that useful. It's still pretty far on the margins, in terms of things that fuss the lives of most of us

Yes, exactly - and it is happening today. I saw a great cartoon that illustrated this so well...I can't find the picture, so I'll describe it. Three men sitting at a table, a white guy with a dollar and a black guy with no money sitting across from each other. At the head of the table is a old white guy with a pile of money who is saying to the poor white guy, "Look, he's trying to take your money!"

George Carlin eloquently talked about this. My view is that most of what we call politics is just a dog and pony show to keep the working class blaming each other and not uniting against the ruling class.

This we agree upon, and it goes way back to Jim Crow and beyond.

I mean, there's a reason that Obama didn't codify Roe when he could have: the Dems want the issue unresolved, so they can use it as they're using it now: to maintain their power. Many of them really don't give a shit one way or the other, as wealthy people will always be able to get abortions.

I don't know why Obama didn't codify Roe, though I suspect it was that it seemed settled law, and he had loads other things to do. The rest of your point is so cynical. I cannot condone what you say as to the bolded above. Democrats have fought to protect the right of abortion at the grass roots level and at the high office level. I believe a lot of them do give an actual shit. More than a little. And you've got one thing very wrong: it's the Republicans who know that rich people will still get abortions, and just don't care about everyone else. Including that immensely important fetus, once it is born. Need child care? Parental leave? You're on your own.

So if I'm cynical, it is in believing that the vast majority of political talk is just that - talk. And the vast majority of politicians don't give a shit about real people. Their raison d'etre is to maintain and serve the ruling class, and to extend their own power and wealth. Every single war, at least going back to WW2, has been heavily propagandized, with false narratives that have little to do with the real purpose of the war. I mean, if Ukraine was really about what they say on the news, why isn't the same true of Yemen and Palestine, and any number of other places? If the US cares about democracy and helping people out, why are they holding and sanctioning Afghanistan, while Afghans literally sell their organs to feed their families? Why do pundits on mainstream media endlessly talk about how bad Putin is, but never discuss the fact the US is responsible for the death of millions throughout the world (especially in the Middle East), especially in the last three decades? And on and on.

Politicians don't get into politics, by and large, to fluff up their own nests. If they did, they'd go into private sector. I believe that most start out with good intentions. I'm sure for every earnest person in the game you could name me 5, and I do believe that politics and the money that it requires begins to wear down best intentions. Compromises which border on corruption, or fall into it, certainly happen. But I still believe that a good number of people who are voted on to work for their constituents actually keep trying to do that.

 

[Federberg]

A bud of mines loves Ireland &'s visited a few times! I've avoided the British Isles over the food offered! I'd have to cook more to compensate!

food in Dublin is great. So many good restaurants. Don't discount the cuisine in the UK Particularly in London. There are great quality restaurants at the top level. I would agree that the average restaurant food quality is poor, but if you can afford the top ones it's as good as almost anywhere. But in any case I don't people come here for the food!

 

[Federberg]

George Carlin eloquently talked about this. My view is that most of what we call politics is just a dog and pony show to keep the working class blaming each other and not uniting against the ruling class. I mean, there's a reason that Obama didn't codify Roe when he could have: the Dems want the issue unresolved, so they can use it as they're using it now: to maintain their power. Many of them really don't give a shit one way or the other, as wealthy people will always be able to get abortions.

could Obama have codified Roe? I thought you would need 60 in the Senate for that? That was never on the cards. Am I wrong?

 

[tented]

could Obama have codified Roe? I thought you would need 60 in the Senate for that? That was never on the cards. Am I wrong?

No.

 

[El Dude]

could Obama have codified Roe? I thought you would need 60 in the Senate for that? That was never on the cards. Am I wrong?

Yes. He had a supermajority (60 Senate seats) when he first got into office, in 2008-09. In 2007 he told Planned Parenthood that it would be the first thing he did once he got into office.

 

[tented]

Yes. He had a supermajority (60 Senate seats) when he first got into office, in 2008-09. In 2007 he told Planned Parenthood that it would be the first thing he did once he got into office.

Yes and no. They got to 60 for a brief window beginning in July 2009, when Spector switched parties and Franken’s win was finally certified. But they lost a special election in January 2010, dropping them down to 59. There’s no way they were going to pass an abortion bill in that time. Besides, not every Democrat would have backed that.

 

[El Dude]

Going backwards, (and speaking only to Presidential elections, as a think you are,) a lot of people who voted for Trump wanted him to win, like it or not. Obama was a very popular candidate, and I don't think any Democrat who voted for him ever thought of him of the lesser of two evils. Probably have to skip back after that, and discounting primaries, but Bill Clinton was very popular. So was Reagan. And Jimmy Carter, bless him. It really only became a "team sport" fairly recently, if you ask me.

Your point here is lesser of two evils, and I'm saying we have, as a country, voted that way less often than you think. You can dislike it when the options are poor, but I, personally, still think I trust my party, when it comes to important issues, like abortion, and the Supreme Court, so I'll go party, thank you. But remember, it was probably the people that went 3rd party that got us George W. Bush over Gore, with the Supreme Court playing a role, but you do have to respect calculations, 2-party system being the reality.

I don't think the hyperbole helps paint the picture. I think it distorts it. And it makes your argument sound more hysterical than perhaps you mean it to. And I also think this notion that "this is the most important election of our lives" is also fairly new. IMO, this became a feature much more post 9/11 and GWBush.

Being cynical and distrustful of politics and politicians is one choice. I can't help you with that. I find that, since we need politicians and politics, I chose to try to work within the system, and to some extent, especially at the grass-roots level, to believe in it. If you want to believe in this great experiment of democracy, you have to have some idealism, I think. And I believe, at this moment, it is imperiled in the US. (And in other countries around the world.) Cynicism doesn't help, IMO. If you don't like it, work from within. Don't just stand outside and complain about how corrupt it is.

It was a first try. Hopefully, it'll work better as we get used to it.

I actually think there is some movement for 3rd parties, more than before. Look at the split in the Republican party. It has actually been sort of 2 different parties for a long time, basically since Reagan got in bed with the fundamentalist Christians, and on to the Tea Party, etc. If John McCain wasn't dead, and Liz Cheney wasn't the only Republican left with a set of balls (yes, I mean that horrible metaphor for what it sounds like,) there would have been a rift in the Republican party a while ago. When the cult of Trump is over, there will eventually, I think, be some soul-searching, or at least vote-searching as to what that party will be. For now, it's being ruled by a far-right and Christian religious faction which is not sustainable amongst the general electorate. Or I certainly hope not.

I will read the article that Kieran posted, but I do think that throwing trans issues to the foreground is sensationalistic and not that useful. It's still pretty far on the margins, in terms of things that fuss the lives of most of us

This we agree upon, and it goes way back to Jim Crow and beyond.

I don't know why Obama didn't codify Roe, though I suspect it was that it seemed settled law, and he had loads other things to do. The rest of your point is so cynical. I cannot condone what you say as to the bolded above. Democrats have fought to protect the right of abortion at the grass roots level and at the high office level. I believe a lot of them do give an actual shit. More than a little. And you've got one thing very wrong: it's the Republicans who know that rich people will still get abortions, and just don't care about everyone else. Including that immensely important fetus, once it is born. Need child care? Parental leave? You're on your own.

Politicians don't get into politics, by and large, to fluff up their own nests. If they did, they'd go into private sector. I believe that most start out with good intentions. I'm sure for every earnest person in the game you could name me 5, and I do believe that politics and the money that it requires begins to wear down best intentions. Compromises which border on corruption, or fall into it, certainly happen. But I still believe that a good number of people who are voted on to work for their constituents actually keep trying to do that.

Moxie, I already agreed that not everyone--or even a majority--of people vote for the lesser of two evils. I clarified that I was referring to people in progressive circles and/or counter-cultural circles - the people I've spent most of my life around. So most people I know. I think most Americans buy into the sales pitch of one of the two parties, unfortunately.

What you call cynicism, I call not being naive, or having a glimpse behind the curtain at the wizard - a recognition that the two parties ultimately serve the same master, whoever that master actually is (big business, billionaires, oligarchs, Illuminati, lizard aliens from Draco, etc). Yes, there are differences, but they are mostly surface level (branding)...and I know you'll come up with a long list of differences that you feel are substantial, and I get it. But it doesn't stop the basic truth of the ratchet effect: the Republicans move us to the right, the Dems pause the process, but really only consolidate what the Republicans have done. And we go back and forth, but the direction is the same, the result the same: more money to the few, a gradual decline in quality of life for the many. This has been the case for at least the last 40+ years.

Both parties pour money into the military industrial complex, both bomb other countries for reasons that have nothing to do with "democracy," both act as global bullies and exploit poorer, weaker nations, both cater to Big Pharma and other corporate interests, etc etc.

BTW, I'm enormously idealistic - that's why I'm so cynical about politics. Because I believe we can be better.

p.s. As for your last paragraph, this really runs counter to what we see in Congress via insider trading, and probably any number of other ways that politicians enrich themselves. This is not to say that a young Nancy Pelosi wasn't more idealistic at first (I have no idea), but the fact is that she has enriched herself greatly through insider trading. Clearly she isn't the only one.

 

[El Dude]

Yes and no. They got to 60 for a brief window beginning in July 2009, when Spector switched parties and Franken’s win was finally certified. But they lost a special election in January 2010, dropping them down to 59. There’s no way they were going to pass an abortion bill in that time. Besides, not every Democrat would have backed that.

Well, we'll never know. But the answer to Federberg's question is "Yes" - they did have a supermajority, if only for a small window.

Democrats like to make excuses and always have a scapegoat for why they never actually pass the legislation they promise. They're MO is to blame Republicans, or blame the Manchins and Sinemas, but I don't think it is crazy to think that maybe, just maybe, they want these people in place so they don't have to pass such legislation, because ultimately the purpose of the Democratic Party is the same as the Republican Party, just branded different for a different portion of the populace: to serve the ruling class, and keep money trickling up.

 

[tented]

Well, we'll never know. But the answer to Federberg's question is "Yes" - they did have a supermajority, if only for a small window.

Democrats like to make excuses and always have a scapegoat for why they never actually pass the legislation they promise. They're MO is to blame Republicans, or blame the Manchins and Sinemas, but I don't think it is crazy to think that maybe, just maybe, they want these people in place so they don't have to pass such legislation, because ultimately the purpose of the Democratic Party is the same as the Republican Party, just branded different for a different portion of the populace: to serve the ruling class, and keep money trickling up.

Manchin and Sinema have thrown up roadblocks at critical times. They know they’re needed to get to 51 votes, with Harris breaking the 50-50 tie, so they’ve been able to manipulate bills to get what they want. Manchin, in particular, has become arguably the most powerful senator in the country, holding up votes and rewriting bills to suit his desires. If there were just two more genuine Democratic senators (vs. the borderline Republicans like Manchin and Sinema), things would have been different since Biden was elected, with more than the tiny 5 month window which Obama had.

 

[Federberg]

Manchin and Sinema have thrown up roadblocks at critical times. They know they’re needed to get to 51 votes, with Harris breaking the 50-50 tie, so they’ve been able to manipulate bills to get what they want. Manchin, in particular, has become arguably the most powerful senator in the country, holding up votes and rewriting bills to suit his desires. If there were just two more genuine Democratic senators (vs. the borderline Republicans like Manchin and Sinema), things would have been different since Biden was elected, with more than the tiny 5 month window which Obama had.

while it's a bit of an annoyance that Manchin exercises his power. Given the type of Democrat he is, I think it actually serves a great service to Dems. They do need to be checked from some of their silliest impulses and largely he manages to do that

 

[tented]

Tulsi Gabbard campaigns for election denier Kari Lake in Arizona

 

[Federberg]

^I'm not surprised. I don't know why she doesn't just come out with it and admit she's a Republican. Nothing wrong with it. But I've always had this problem with her. Her disingenuous critique of Democrats as if there weren't war mongering Republicans as well. Good luck to her. She's just shown she's just another politician in my view. I'm no Democrat but she's always rubbed me the wrong way for some reason!

 

[Federberg]

sounds like the Supreme Court will do away with affirmative action? I'm on board with it. I hope they do something about legacy kids being given places though. That is just as unmeritocratic. Actually it's worse

 

[Kieran]

For anyone concerned about the midterm elections, meditate a while on this terrible truth: