US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

You misunderstand. That's not what she said. She said she's not not doing another Republican debate without Trump, meaning not just her and DeSantis. That's the point. That's what she's right to do. She's said nothing about going forward when DeSantis drops out.

the only way it's not a bad mistake for her is if DeSantis is still there. IF it's just her and Trump, she would be stupid to pull the same stunt.

 

[Moxie]

the only way it's not a bad mistake for her is if DeSantis is still there. IF it's just her and Trump, she would be stupid to pull the same stunt.

Did I explain that wrong? She said she's waiting for Trump! That's who she wants to debate. She's not pulling a "stunt," IMO, she's just as tired of debating without him. Likewise no one is watching, either.

 

[Kieran]

I didn't promise to answer it, because, as I said, it's not a good question, it was a set-up, just like your response here. Kieran, there is no answer that I can give you that will make you happy, unless it parrots what you said, and what you have been saying is wrong with the Democrats. Nothing short of a confession of guilt from your catechism is going to satisfy you, so I will pass, thank you. As for "uneducated racists," I was paraphrasing you, dummy! You said "inbred racists" in your previous. I was trying to be a little funny.

Well that failed! But you're missing the point of the question. The point isn't to trap you or make you confess to the many errors and examples of racism, misogyny and so forth, within the Democrat party. The point he's trying to make is quite simple, yet you're not getting it. If the economy is so good and you have such successes in your legislature, why do you think there are tens of millions of Republicans who will still vote Trump, despite this? And despite the attempt at humour, it cut so close to the bone that it sounds like the typical Democrat view of people who disagree with them - that these people are morally suspect.

You can say that's more a question for Republicans if you like - it's not though. They know why they're not voting for these "successes" and the answer lies in your party. You can't constantly parrot your party line that they're a threat to democracy if you can't put yourself in their shoes and understand why they will vote that way, in good conscience too. You will never improve the quality of the Democrat Party if you don't soul search and ask yourselves hard questions...

 

[Moxie]

Well that failed! But you're missing the point of the question. The point isn't to trap you or make you confess to the many errors and examples of racism, misogyny and so forth, within the Democrat party. The point he's trying to make is quite simple, yet you're not getting it. If the economy is so good and you have such successes in your legislature, why do you think there are tens of millions of Republicans who will still vote Trump, despite this? And despite the attempt at humour, it cut so close to the bone that it sounds like the typical Democrat view of people who disagree with them - that these people are morally suspect.

You can say that's more a question for Republicans if you like - it's not though. They know why they're not voting for these "successes" and the answer lies in your party. You can't constantly parrot your party line that they're a threat to democracy if you can't put yourself in their shoes and understand why they will vote that way, in good conscience too. You will never improve the quality of the Democrat Party if you don't soul search and ask yourselves hard questions...

Dude, we haven't voted yet...that happens in November. You can say they're polling fairly well, but I think the failure of polling was addressed above.

 

[Kieran]

Dude, we haven't voted yet...that happens in November. You can say they're polling fairly well, but I think the failure of polling was addressed above.

I think you mean this reply for someone else?

 

[tented]

If the economy is so good and you have such successes in your legislature, why do you think there are tens of millions of Republicans who will still vote Trump, despite this?

Democrats and Republicans will vote for their respective party’s candidate, no matter what. Federal elections are ultimately decided by a) turnout and b) the small percentage of independent/swing voters. If members of one party aren’t thrilled with their candidate, they’ll not vote instead of voting for the other party’s candidate.

 

[Kieran]

Democrats and Republicans will vote for their respective party’s candidate, no matter what. Federal elections are ultimately decided by a) turnout and b) the small percentage of independen/swing voters. If members of one party aren’t thrilled with their candidate, they’ll not vote instead of voting for the other party’s candidate.

I get the unthinking tribal aspect, brother. That's everywhere, but I think the question - posed by a liberal - is to try to prompt other so-called liberals to come out of their tribes and try to understand the other. Remember, the prevailing culture is ruled by the far-left, in the media, in the universities, in the health services through the abuse of children, and so on. You have politicians who will lie when asked what a woman is because it would end their career if they answered truthfully.

The level of discourse on both sides is at an all-time low, and getting lower. I know you've said elsewhere that this is largely a fault of the two-party system, which the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has rightly identified as being the second worst political system after the one-party system. But it's getting to the same sewage level everywhere in the west. Now is a very good time in history for people to start virus scanning their family heirloom - the political party they vote for - because the fossilised state of things now will only increase the divisiveness until you see something even worse than the politically manipulated race riots...

 

[Moxie]

I get the unthinking tribal aspect, brother. That's everywhere, but I think the question - posed by a liberal - is to try to prompt other so-called liberals to come out of their tribes and try to understand the other.

Both @tented and I have responded to your question. And we're both Americans. I will say again: I think you keep hitting on it because you have an answer you want. Otherwise, why not be satisfied with the answers that you're getting? They're earnest answers.

Remember, the prevailing culture is ruled by the far-left, in the media, in the universities, in the health services through the abuse of children, and so on. You have politicians who will lie when asked what a woman is because it would end their career if they answered truthfully.

The level of discourse on both sides is at an all-time low, and getting lower. I know you've said elsewhere that this is largely a fault of the two-party system, which the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has rightly identified as being the second worst political system after the one-party system. But it's getting to the same sewage level everywhere in the west. Now is a very good time in history for people to start virus scanning their family heirloom - the political party they vote for - because the fossilised state of things now will only increase the divisiveness until you see something even worse than the politically manipulated race riots...

See above. Just because you want the answer to be different, it's still your opinion. Which is fine. But you have made your opinion clear. As have others.

 

[Moxie]

Democrats and Republicans will vote for their respective party’s candidate, no matter what. Federal elections are ultimately decided by a) turnout and b) the small percentage of independen/swing voters. If members of one party aren’t thrilled with their candidate, they’ll not vote instead of voting for the other party’s candidate.

While I agree with this, it wasn't always the case. There was a time when people regularly crossed party lines, depending on the candidate. They actually still do, in non-presidential elections. The hardening across party lines started, IMO, with Reagan and his embracing/roping in of the evangelical vote, which was not a thing before that.

You mention turnout. That's because the Democrats have long been able to speak to people's issues. Turnout favors the Democrats, generally. The independent/swing voters will have a lot to say in this coming election, if you ask me. This is where I wonder about 3rd party candidates. I also think that the youth vote will feature.

 

[Kieran]

Both @tented and I have responded to your question. And we're both Americans. I will say again: I think you keep hitting on it because you have an answer you want. Otherwise, why not be satisfied with the answers that you're getting? They're earnest answers.

See above. Just because you want the answer to be different, it's still your opinion. Which is fine. But you have made your opinion clear. As have others.

You haven’t answered the question! Self reflection isn’t your thing when it comes to politics, but that’s fine. Tented replied that people there are tribal to the extent that “they’ll vote for their respective party’s candidate, no matter what.”

That’s something unfortunate that I already knew from your posts…

 

[tented]

While I agree with this, it wasn't always the case. There was a time when people regularly crossed party lines, depending on the candidate. They actually still do, in non-presidential elections. The hardening across party lines started, IMO, with Reagan and his embracing/roping in of the evangelical vote, which was not a thing before that.

Yes, that’s true, pre-Reagan. I also distinctly remember that George H.W. Bush was not amused with Reagan bringing the evangelicals into the White House in such numbers, and allowing them to influence policy so much. If only things had gone his way …

You mention turnout. That's because the Democrats have long been able to speak to people's issues. Turnout favors the Democrats, generally. The independent/swing voters will have a lot to say in this coming election, if you ask me. This is where I wonder about 3rd party candidates. I also think that the youth vote will feature.

But keep in mind Republicans will crawl over broken glass to vote, whereas Democrats always have to be concerned about youth turnout. Always. They *say* they’re going to vote and care deeply, blah, blah, blah, but when the day comes, their turnout is low.

Third party candidates are always on everyone’s mind after Bush/Gore. I’m a little worried about RFK, Jr. and the Green Party candidates, but we’ll see.

 

[tented]

I get the unthinking tribal aspect, brother. That's everywhere, but I think the question - posed by a liberal - is to try to prompt other so-called liberals to come out of their tribes and try to understand the other. Remember, the prevailing culture is ruled by the far-left, in the media, in the universities, in the health services through the abuse of children, and so on. You have politicians who will lie when asked what a woman is because it would end their career if they answered truthfully.

The level of discourse on both sides is at an all-time low, and getting lower. I know you've said elsewhere that this is largely a fault of the two-party system, which the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has rightly identified as being the second worst political system after the one-party system. But it's getting to the same sewage level everywhere in the west. Now is a very good time in history for people to start virus scanning their family heirloom - the political party they vote for - because the fossilised state of things now will only increase the divisiveness until you see something even worse than the politically manipulated race riots...

It is unfortunate how divided things have become, and they certainly didn’t used to be this way. I know I’ve mentioned this multiple times, but it’s worth repeating about how the Democrats and Republicans agreed so much in the mid-70s, they were having problems writing their platforms for their conventions — an impossibility these days.

What I can’t remember if I mentioned before (probably, but ages ago) is that I was born into a family of staunch Republicans. As is the norm, I followed my parents in this regard — at first. I was a registered Republican until the late 80s/early 90s (I don‘t remember exactly when I switched) when they started going so anti-gay rights, at which point I simply couldn’t be a part of it anymore.

What this means, though, is I “get” Republicans given my past experiences. Unlike so many liberals I now know, I don’t think someone is evil or deplorable just because they’re a Republican. As Bill Maher has stated many times, half the country can’t be terrible people simply because they vote Republican. That’s true. Naturally, I still know a ton of Republicans, and none of those I personally know are people I reject just because of how they vote. They’re great people, whom I love a lot. Now, we disagree vehemently when it comes to politics, especially Trump, but I still like and love them.

It would take a near-miracle to get Republicans and Democrats to talk these days (using the word “talk” very loosely). The divide is so great, I don’t see how it can be narrowed, which is ultimately tragic. What I have found when speaking to Republicans I know is that on many issues we agree completely. There’s A LOT more agreement than is depicted by mainstream media. If a group of Democrats and Republicans were put in a room together, and not allowed to tell each other their party affiliation, but given a list of issues to discuss, from as neutral a position as possible, you’d see this level of agreement. Gun control, gay rights, abortion, education — we’re a lot closer, in general, than MSNBC and Fox News would have us believe. But we don’t talk. We watch.

 

[Kieran]

It is unfortunate how divided things have become, and they certainly didn’t used to be this way. I know I’ve mentioned this multiple times, but it’s worth repeating about how the Democrats and Republicans agreed so much in the mid-70s, they were having problems writing their platforms for their conventions — an impossibility these days.

What I can’t remember if I mentioned before (probably, but ages ago) is that I was born into a family of staunch Republicans. As is the norm, I followed my parents in this regard — at first. I was a registered Republican until the late 80s/early 90s (I don‘t remember exactly when I switched) when they started going so anti-gay rights, at which point I simply couldn’t be a part of it anymore.

What this means, though, is I “get” Republicans given my past experiences. Unlike so many liberals I now know, I don’t think someone is evil or deplorable just because they’re a Republican. As Bill Maher has stated many times, half the country can’t be terrible people simply because they vote Republican. That’s true. Naturally, I still know a ton of Republicans, and none of those I personally know are people I reject just because of how they vote. They’re great people, whom I love a lot. Now, we disagree vehemently when it comes to politics, especially Trump, but I still like and love them.

It would take a near-miracle to get Republicans and Democrats to talk these days (using the word “talk” very loosely). The divide is so great, I don’t see how it can be narrowed, which is ultimately tragic. What I have found when speaking to Republicans I know is that on many issues we agree completely. There’s A LOT more agreement than is depicted by mainstream media. If a group of Democrats and Republicans were put in a room together, and not allowed to tell each other their party affiliation, but given a list of issues to discuss, from as neutral a position as possible, you’d see this level of agreement. Gun control, gay rights, abortion, education — we’re a lot closer, in general, than MSNBC and Fox News would have us believe. But we don’t talk. We watch.

You’re like my twin brother, in so many ways. I think of everything in terms of the issue before me. We have a divided party system here in Ireland that’s largely based upon voting for an inherited political party, and I get it that people feel you dance with the one that brung you because you trust them more than the traditional enemy. Not much changes anyway, in the large scheme of things. I’m fortunate that I saw my mother turn her back on her family heirlooms over some financial scandal and keep an open mind after this. She was very politically astute. She understood that political animals are all the same, no matter what the party, but they abuse the tribal aspect to keep themselves in power.

In Ireland we probably have much more cynicism about politicians and political parties, maybe because we’re not a two party system, we have a proportional representation system of electing members of parliament, and so we see that parties have to collaborate at some level if they’re to get the votes to pass legislation. It has its failings too, and certainly we’re no better off politically or with the calibre of our politicians than you are..

 

[Federberg]

Guess she’s seen as a threat now

 

[Moxie]

Yes, that’s true, pre-Reagan. I also distinctly remember that George H.W. Bush was not amused with Reagan bringing the evangelicals into the White House in such numbers, and allowing them to influence policy so much. If only things had gone his way …

Indeed. It did a lot of bad things for our politics, politicizing religious fervor.

But keep in mind Republicans will crawl over broken glass to vote,

Trump devotees will certainly crawl over broken glass to vote for him. It's a truism, but I'm not sure if it's a truth, that "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line." Trump will be the nominee, but I wonder how many of the disillusioned with Trump voters will stay home, or go 3rd party.

whereas Democrats always have to be concerned about youth turnout. Always. They *say* they’re going to vote and care deeply, blah, blah, blah, but when the day comes, their turnout is low.

Third party candidates are always on everyone’s mind after Bush/Gore. I’m a little worried about RFK, Jr. and the Green Party candidates, but we’ll see.

I agree that the youth vote is a wild-card. Firstly, if they really turn out at all, in significant numbers, and secondly, if they use their vote as protest against 2 old white guys, and vote 3rd party, in significant numbers. They're too young to remember that alternative candidates can get them a result they will regret. (@Kieran: yes, it is a problem with our two-party system. I do wish that 3rd parties could make enough of a mark to form coalitions, but we're not there, and they system discourages it, for reasons of self-preservation.)

The 3rd party candidate thing is a whole conversation, especially once we see who all is in. I do think that RFK, Jr. would tend to take votes from Trump, in terms of his ideas, but the Kennedy name is an issue, for those not paying much attention. And he has enough "green" credentials to be a problem for Dems. Liz Cheney says she might run a 3rd party candidacy to block Trump, but Christie already tried running in that lane. Joe Manchin says he might run, but I'm not sure what his lane is.

 

[Moxie]

It is unfortunate how divided things have become, and they certainly didn’t used to be this way. I know I’ve mentioned this multiple times, but it’s worth repeating about how the Democrats and Republicans agreed so much in the mid-70s, they were having problems writing their platforms for their conventions — an impossibility these days.

What I can’t remember if I mentioned before (probably, but ages ago) is that I was born into a family of staunch Republicans. As is the norm, I followed my parents in this regard — at first. I was a registered Republican until the late 80s/early 90s (I don‘t remember exactly when I switched) when they started going so anti-gay rights, at which point I simply couldn’t be a part of it anymore.

What this means, though, is I “get” Republicans given my past experiences. Unlike so many liberals I now know, I don’t think someone is evil or deplorable just because they’re a Republican. As Bill Maher has stated many times, half the country can’t be terrible people simply because they vote Republican. That’s true. Naturally, I still know a ton of Republicans, and none of those I personally know are people I reject just because of how they vote. They’re great people, whom I love a lot. Now, we disagree vehemently when it comes to politics, especially Trump, but I still like and love them.

It would take a near-miracle to get Republicans and Democrats to talk these days (using the word “talk” very loosely). The divide is so great, I don’t see how it can be narrowed, which is ultimately tragic. What I have found when speaking to Republicans I know is that on many issues we agree completely. There’s A LOT more agreement than is depicted by mainstream media. If a group of Democrats and Republicans were put in a room together, and not allowed to tell each other their party affiliation, but given a list of issues to discuss, from as neutral a position as possible, you’d see this level of agreement. Gun control, gay rights, abortion, education — we’re a lot closer, in general, than MSNBC and Fox News would have us believe. But we don’t talk. We watch.

I think a lot of us/most of us? in the US have family members and friends who subscribe to the party other than ours, or in many nuanced ways, don't agree with us, politically. So we, many of us, don't see that having a different political bent makes a person evil. I know there's a recent inclination that way, but hear me out.

I do believe that, deep down, most people, even in the whole world, want the same things for themselves, their families, and their children, and we have this in common. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, you might say. Having grown up in the Cold War, with the Soviets as the Great Evil, I do remember some revelation that the people who lived in the Soviet Union didn't desire my demise. They desired they same basic things that I did. That humanized them for me, in a way that US politicians weren't inclined to.

Now we're in a bit of a Cold War in our own country. So much of the rhetoric is dehumanizing of the opposition. But I still think that we believe in and desire mostly the same things.

There has long been an old saw in the US: don't discuss politics or religion at the table or in polite company. There was a reason for that. Unfortunately, those two things have ballooned into almost all of what we're fed by partisan media. Fiery, unreasonable rhetoric is what we're being given. But I still believe that we all want basically the same things.

 

[tented]

Guess she’s seen as a threat now

View attachment 9164

The only correct response to this is: who cares? That’s a private issue between herself and her husband. This doesn‘t mean she can’t be president. And I defend her as a Democrat, because the implications are disturbing. If having affairs disqualifies someone, then why was Trump in office?

 

[Federberg]

The only correct response to this is: who cares? That’s a private issue between herself and her husband. This doesn‘t mean she can’t be president. And I defend her as a Democrat, because the implications are disturbing. If having affairs disqualifies someone, then why was Trump in office?

I 1000% agree. But it’s telling this gets published now

 

[Moxie]

The only correct response to this is: who cares? That’s a private issue between herself and her husband. This doesn‘t mean she can’t be president. And I defend her as a Democrat, because the implications are disturbing. If having affairs disqualifies someone, then why was Trump in office?

It's a cheap shot, particularly because it can be said, but, unless proven, while it's kind of "who cares?" it's just the kind of mud that leaves a stain. Both Trump and Clinton were elected when it was known and admitted that they'd been unfaithful in their marriages. Sure, it's also a cheap shot to say that Trump stinks, that he shits his pants, but it's not the same. It's not a moral question. And I'd venture to say that those who would sling that mud at Haley think that it would matter more against a woman.

 

[Moxie]

I 1000% agree. But it’s telling this gets published now

When you google it, it's been out there, including some rumor she had a affair with Trump. But, yeah, they slung it before for the same reasons. They revive it because she's a threat. (And, it's also The Daily Mail.)