US Politics Thread

[Calamity K]

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

You should go back and read this from the beginning.  Unfortunately the layout of this site doesn't allow for thread context.

 

I already said there were differences between them. Pretty fucking obvious.

 

The topic of discussion is where they are SIMILAR. And those FUNDAMENTAL similarities is what we should be discussing. Those are the most important aspects,  especially if your desire or goal is actual structural change.

 

 

This should read "blame CO2 for climate change" and "don't blame CO2 for climate change.

[Canuckle]

58 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

well... yeah. 

 

Voting works. Steve Bannon knows this, and he managed to take a relatively small number of MAGA's and control the US primaries to get Trump elected. 

 

There's nothing stopping US U40s from getting organized and dominating the candidate selection process, and getting more socially minded candidates in, and then on voting day get them elected. 

 

 

 

OK, show me how that changes.

 

Show you how what changes what?

 

Structurally? Nothing changes.

 

These "parties" are far similar than they are different where it REALLY COUNTS.  That's the issue.

 

They represent the left and right hands of the ruling class.

 

And I hate having to post this image over and over but because of how the comment chains work here (there are none) the original points keeps getting lost.

 

Let's discuss this stuff.

 

[5forFighting]

I like the US, pretty hard to believe the two people that each party has selected to represent their party are the best they have to offer. 

 

Two wings of the same bird. 

[Satchmo]

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

Show you how what changes what?

 

Structurally? Nothing changes.

 

These "parties" are far similar than they are different where it REALLY COUNTS.  That's the issue.

 

They represent the left and right hands of the ruling class.

 

And I hate having to post this image over and over but because of how the comment chains work here (there are none) the original points keeps getting lost.

 

Let's discuss this stuff.

 

The diagram is clever enough and has some truth to it.   

 

I'm getting some sense of what you might be against but I'm not sure I understand what you are for.   Or is it that we should just be discussing these similarities?

[Canuckle]

Just now, Satchmo said:

The diagram is clever enough and has some truth to it.   

 

I'm getting some sense of what you might be against but I'm not sure I understand what you are for.   Or is it that we should just be discussing these similarities?

 

I mean it's a dumb meme, and obviously not an exhaustive list by any means, but it certainly gets the point across.

 

We spend so much time with class infighting, we lose sight that's not actually about "left" and right with liberals and conservatives-- They support the same things at the most fundamental level; They represent the ruling class and the status quo.

 

And we don't get to vote on those things.

 

This whole thing started when I posted this:

 

 

And someone asked "who benefits from this take."

 

(That's all us peasants on the tracks btw.)

 

And off to the races we fucking go.

 

PS i've quickly learned that conversations like this are extremely difficult to do on this kind of forum. So much background and context needed which gets lost as conversations continue. And then when people jump in half way thru only seeing the last post without any of the information makes it extremely difficult to explain. Or having to repost and explain all over and over again. Sigh

[Playoff Beered]

10 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

(That's all us peasants on the tracks btw.)

 

[Satchmo]

7 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

I mean it's a dumb meme, and obviously not an exhaustive list by any means, but it certainly gets the point across.

 

We spend so much time with class infighting, we lose sight that's not actually about "left" and right with liberals and conservatives-- They support the same things at the most fundamental level; They represent the ruling class and the status quo.

 

And we don't get to vote on those things.

 

This whole thing started when I posted this:

 

 

And someone asked "who benefits from this take."

 

(That's all us peasants on the tracks btw.)

 

And off to the races we fucking go.

 

PS i've quickly learned that conversations like this are extremely difficult to do on this kind of forum. So much background and context needed which gets lost as conversations continue. And then when people jump in half way thru only seeing the last post without any of the information makes it extremely difficult to explain. Or having to repost and explain all over and over again. Sigh

Ok I'm starting to get it.    

 

Yes, this thread is mostly devoted to left vs right.   Not only the policies but the tactics.

 

Your concerns go beyond that and might (if I'm getting it right) be described as greed and narcissism vs charity and empathy.   I'd much prefer charity and empathy.

 

I'd bet though, that even if we developed a new system based on those two the greedy and narcissistic would soon have it back the way it was.

[Canuckle]

4 hours ago, Satchmo said:

Ok I'm starting to get it.    

 

Yes, this thread is mostly devoted to left vs right.   Not only the policies but the tactics.

 

Your concerns go beyond that and might (if I'm getting it right) be described as greed and narcissism vs charity and empathy.   I'd much prefer charity and empathy.

 

I'd bet though, that even if we developed a new system based on those two the greedy and narcissistic would soon have it back the way it was.

 

Yeah you got it. These things go beyond the scope of red and blue, even though still very interrelated. 

 

It's like we're so busy talking about the contents inside the box, we aren't looking at the box itself. And the box is what's holding all that shit together.

 

As for a new system, that's the million dollar question isn't it.

 

Making the incentive for such anti-social behavior obsolete would be the key to success. And our current system on the foundations in which it's built rewards the behaviour! It's built for it!

 

I'm guessing you didn't see some of the previous posts I made in the thread, but I disclosed that I identify as an anarchist (That should help clarify my political position a bit.) And all anarchists are anti-hierarchical, anti-capitalist, and anti-state for good reason... and that ties back to that million dollar question.

 

Buuut we're delving into whole other conversation now.

 

Appreciate the dialogue either way.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Canuckle

[Canuckle]

1 hour ago, 5forFighting said:

I like the US, pretty hard to believe the two people that each party has selected to represent their party are the best they have to offer. 

 

Two wings of the same bird. 

 

Right you are, Ken.

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

41 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I'd bet though, that even if we developed a new system based on those two the greedy and narcissistic would soon have it back the way it was.

 

My guess (because I'm not professionally trained on these types of matters) is that perhaps people are generally afraid of change, or prefer the familiar (flawed and unfair as it might be), and so even though people go into things like changing the world with good intentions, at the end of the day to get enough people to reach a tipping point to have meaningful, collective, and systemic change requires people to accept and address their fears of change or set aside their skepticism of the outcomes of that change - and most importantly, to put self-interest aside for the "greater good", assuming that the good intentions can translate into global good.

 

I mean, we've been talking of climate change (and its predecessor "global warming") for decades and the need to act on it, and even then we still chug along with our wasteful and self-destructive ways unabated; political systems such as the American variant of republican democracy have been around for centuries (and oligarchy, capitalism, and imperialism longer still), so to bring about any meaningful change to those systems will require much more effort sustained for a much longer time.  And this is also why you have "parties" like the "lib/con" or "dem/rep" who generally share most values but differ on the minor elements of approach for those shared values, and very few non-starter hardcore differences.

 

In my humble, non-professional opinion, of course.

[RupertKBD]

5 hours ago, Canuckle said:

 

You should go back and read this from the beginning.  Unfortunately the layout of this site doesn't allow for thread context.

 

I already said there were differences between them. Pretty fucking obvious.

 

The topic of discussion is where they are SIMILAR. And those FUNDAMENTAL similarities is what we should be discussing. Those are the most important aspects,  especially if your desire or goal is actual structural change.

 

 

 

Nobody gives AF about your dime store POLI SCI lecture.

 

When it comes down to which one is fit to govern and which is a clown car full of cowardly Trump adherents and performance artists.....they couldn't be more different.

 

Pretty obvious.....

[Satchmo]

47 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

My guess (because I'm not professionally trained on these types of matters) is that perhaps people are generally afraid of change, or prefer the familiar (flawed and unfair as it might be), and so even though people go into things like changing the world with good intentions, at the end of the day to get enough people to reach a tipping point to have meaningful, collective, and systemic change requires people to accept and address their fears of change or set aside their skepticism of the outcomes of that change - and most importantly, to put self-interest aside for the "greater good", assuming that the good intentions can translate into global good.

 

I mean, we've been talking of climate change (and its predecessor "global warming") for decades and the need to act on it, and even then we still chug along with our wasteful and self-destructive ways unabated; political systems such as the American variant of republican democracy have been around for centuries (and oligarchy, capitalism, and imperialism longer still), so to bring about any meaningful change to those systems will require much more effort sustained for a much longer time.  And this is also why you have "parties" like the "lib/con" or "dem/rep" who generally share most values but differ on the minor elements of approach for those shared values, and very few non-starter hardcore differences.

 

In my humble, non-professional opinion, of course.

This, and @Canuckle's post are veering off into global geopolitical philosophy.  I, for one, will not go there.   And if anyone wants to, I don't think it should be in this thread.

 

Lets get back to US politics.

 

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Satchmo

[Sharpshooter]

While some US Policies affects global politics, let’s try to keep this place about the US first and foremost. 
 

There’s leeway of course. 
 

 

[RupertKBD]

6 hours ago, Mac said:

 

 

Lets see.....

 

Turdeau....check

Sheeple....check

Commie....check

 

Congrats! You just hit the Redneck Trifecta!

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Canuckle said:

Show you how what changes what?

 

Structurally? Nothing changes.

 

These "parties" are far similar than they are different where it REALLY COUNTS.  That's the issue.

 

They represent the left and right hands of the ruling class.

 

And I hate having to post this image over and over but because of how the comment chains work here (there are none) the original points keeps getting lost.

 

Let's discuss this stuff.

 

 

yeah. You know a suspicious person could look at that diagram and think its designed to discourage young voters. If that chart is to be believed, young voters should just give up because "both sides are the same" apparently. 

 

Voting works. Young people should vote more in the USA. And that scares the right wing a lot, wouldn't you agree?

 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Bob Long

[Riddikulus]

46 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

yeah. You know a suspicious person could look at that diagram and think its designed to discourage young voters. If that chart is to be believed, young voters should just give up because "both sides are the same" apparently. 

 

Voting works. Young people should vote more in the USA. And that scares the right wing a lot, wouldn't you agree?

 

Maybe a less cynical person could look at the diagram as something to encourage more young people to run for election and oust some of these career politicians. You know be the change that you want to see, rather than rely upon those who are controlled by lobbyists and special interests. 

 

I do agree with you that both sides are not the same but young voters regardless of political beliefs are dealing with the same common problems, and 'scaring the right wing' or 'owning the left' doesn't help to pay the bills.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Riddikulus

[Sharpshooter]

Last warning to everyone. 
 

STAY ON TOPIC. 

 

NO CANADIAN POLITICS OR WORLD POLITICS TALK. 

 

US POLITICS ONLY PLEASE

 

 

[Alflives]

Who is this Hoebart? All I heard is she’s quite HANDY! 

Edited October 8, 2023 by Alflives

[Sharpshooter]

Just now, Alflives said:

Did Hoebart give a man a hand today? 

Did you check OnlyFans? 

[Canuckle]

2 hours ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Nobody gives AF about your dime store POLI SCI lecture.

 

When it comes down to which one is fit to govern and which is a clown car full of cowardly Trump adherents and performance artists.....they couldn't be more different.

 

Pretty obvious.....

 

Fucking woosh

[Canuckle]

2 hours ago, Satchmo said:

This, and @Canuckle's post are veering off into global geopolitical philosophy.  I, for one, will not go there.   And if anyone wants to, I don't think it should be in this thread.

 

Lets get back to US politics.

 

 

Yes. Let's back to US politics.

 

 

 Not sure why you'd think geopolitical philosophy and US politics aren't intrinsically linked. It's still a relevant conversation for this thread.

(As well as the Canadian politics thread or any other discussing sociopolitical issues.)

 

I suppose that Overton window doesn't open quite that far for you?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

 

And if not, rather ironic given everything discussed in these convos. And frankly all the more reason to keep on it.

 

If you don't wish to partake in expanding the conversation past political theater, then don't.

 

But you can save the gatekeeping bs, thank you very much.

Edited October 8, 2023 by Canuckle

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

Yes. Let's back to US politics.

 

 

 Not sure why you'd think geopolitical philosophy and US politics aren't intrinsically linked. It's still a relevant conversation for this thread.

(As well as the Canadian politics thread or anyone other discussing sociopolitcal issues.)

 

But I suppose that Overton window doesn't open quite that far for you?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

 

And if not, rather ironic given everything being discussed in these convos. And frankly all the more reason to keep on it.  You sound like you might need to hear this stuff the most.

 

If you don't wish to partake in expanding the conversation past political theater, then don't.

 

But you can save the gatekeeping bs, thank you very much.

Now this is an educational post. So where is that handy Broebart on here? 

[Gurn]

^ Or you could start a differently titled thread, and expand on your thoughts, there.

[King Heffy]

[Alflives]

Trump was once funny but now is a dangerous candidate for Potus. The US and the world needs either Biden or Pence.