US Politics Thread

[Canuckle]

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

You... didn't actually answer my question. You just continue to say that basically voting is for suckers. But not why you yourself vote. Just to get the lesser of two evils?

 

I throw my vote at the party which aligns closest my values like everyone else... on paper. Doesn't mean I have faith in the political system or think twice about it after I do it though. Does that makes sense to you?

 

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

The way you state things there is no difference between Party A or Party B, and Party C is total waste of time. So why do you vote? 

 

Of course there are differences... moreso in European countries than in the US and Canada due to how their political systems work though. For example what would be considered centrist by NA standards even 10 years ago is considered right in Nordic Countries. But we're getting a little off track now.

I never said their weren't differences... on the surface.  But in terms of their foundations?  Far more important similarities to discuss than differences.

Don't know if you saw this earlier but here it is again:

 

 

That's the kinda stuff we really need to discuss in addition to the Oligarchy to which the politicians are beholden to.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

 

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Please define for me "grassroots using force in many different forms". Are you advocating violence to achieve what you think is the desired change? Intimidation? Large scale protests? All of those have been tried at varying times, to equally varying success and disaster.

 

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

 

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

 

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

What is your intended outcome and what does your end-result government look like?

 

Well, for an anarchist the idea is no government at all. All anarchists are anti-hierarchical, anti-capitalist, and anti-state for a reason. But I wasn't talking about any of that nor was I even advocating it in my previous posts.

 

The discussion pertains to how social movements, labor movements, civil rights movements, ie. Collective power force changes in the state using said diversity of tactics. And the response by the movement directly correlates to the response by the state. But as Malcolm X stated, by any means neccessary.

 

So, when we discuss a political system like the United States and you want to say, advocate the right to housing... what do you think it would take to do it? Hell, even universal Healthcare. What do you think it would take to do it? Powerful lobby, powerful people looking to lose a whole lot if that happens.

 

Do put your faith in politicians? Or do you follow similar paths like the many social movements for rights and protections of people before that?

 

I think we both know the answer to that question.

 

And yes, there have been successes and there have been failures.  But when all other avenues fail, when the system to which we appeal is so corrupt, what other option do you have?

 

It's like that. Suppose the question is how far over the cliff do we all need to hang before we get there. Or how much learning, or perhaps unlearning do we need to do to get there. That's the part I find most interesting, tbh.

 

3 hours ago, StrayDog said:

Because at no time in history has there not been haves and have-nots and someone at the top of the pile. 

 

That's actually not true. There have been many instances of communities, regions, territories which don't operate in that fashion in terms of both property and power.   Granted, most the time the participants got murdered by the state so it didn't last as long as it otherwise would have. The evidence is there and the philosophy is sound though.

 

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

 

But lots of reading here. Let me know if you have any questions about the material and I'll answer best I can. Also, if you're a redditor you can check out

 

www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101

 

Tons of great resources there especially in the sidebar if you want to know more.

 

Cheers.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Canuckle
grammar. added stuff.

[nuckin_futz]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Are we still pretending that the Democrats are somehow magically better than the GOP?

. they're less repugnant sure.  They seem to care more for people absolutely.  They seem to want to do the right thing, promise to invest in kids, families and the nation.  Which is true.

 

But how exactly are they different than the GOP?  When I say that I don't mean they're banning books etc.  When I say that I mean, what have they actually done to change the system to start helping the lowest 98% of the overall population?

 

What have they done to affect the change they say they will that will level the playing field, make the country's elected leaders accountable and not just their largest donors?

 

The GOP are awful no doubt.  Like at all.  Hut the Dems have had numerous opportunities since the Ray-Gun years to fix the problems of trickle down economics and the outflows of middle class wealth and jobs to overseas locations but haven't

 

They're the same.  At no point have either parties since Glas Steagall done anything to help the average person.  They are the same.

 

Affordable Care Act. If you could get things passed without a super majority you'd see the change you're looking for. It's the system that makes for nothing significant getting done. It's intentionally set up to ensure gridlock. This was supposed to bring about compromise ..... whoooops.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

 

[Canuckle]

8 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

It's the system that makes for nothing significant getting done.

 

Bruce, there it is

[4petesake]

8 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Affordable Care Act. 

 

Hmmm, I dare say that makes one better than the other, no magic about it.

 

 

[Canuckle]

2 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Hmmm, I dare say that makes one better than the other, no magic about it

 

Yes, being stabbed is better than being shot.  I agree.

[4petesake]

4 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Yes, being stabbed is better than being shot.  I agree.

 

Health care while waiting for the revolution is still a good thing, no?

I mean you’re still voting in the meantime.

[RupertKBD]

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Are we still pretending that the Democrats are somehow magically better than the GOP?

. they're less repugnant sure.  They seem to care more for people absolutely.  They seem to want to do the right thing, promise to invest in kids, families and the nation.  Which is true.

 

But how exactly are they different than the GOP? 

 

Just my opinion, but I'd say you already answered your own question....

 

Where I disagree with you and the perfesser is that these things don't make the Democrats better than the GOP.

 

The kind of paradigm shift you seem to want is (as Futz already pointed out) virtually impossible in the current era of ultra-partisanship and thin majorities in Congress and the Senate.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

15 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Yes, being stabbed is better than being shot.  I agree.

Bruce Lee could parry a knife but he can't dodge a bullet.  Well unless you're Keanu Reeves.

[Canuckle]

11 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Health care while waiting for the revolution is still a good thing, no?

I mean you’re still voting in the meantime.

 

Batter than nothing to be sure, but still doesn't mean it's enough by any means either.

[4petesake]

2 minutes ago, Canuckle said:

 

Batter than nothing to be sure, but still doesn't mean it's enough by any means either.

 

Oh it’s not enough by a long shot and there is overlap between parties, nobody’s denying that. No getting around the fact that one party got it done and the other does their best to take it away though.

Gavin Newsome just vetoed $35 maximum for insulin. He gave his reasons but he vetoed it all the same. If his plan turns out better I’ll give him credit but until then it’s another letdown.

[Canuckle]

1 minute ago, 4petesake said:

Oh it’s not enough by a long shot and there is overlap between parties, nobody’s denying that. No getting around the fact that one party got it done and the other does their best to take it away though.

Gavin Newsome just vetoed $35 maximum for insulin. He gave his reasons but he vetoed it all the same. If his plan turns out better I’ll give him credit but until then it’s another letdown.

 

I don't know who that is. Brb...

 

"Gavin Christopher Newsom (born October 10, 1967) is an American politician and businessman who has been the 40th Governor of California since 2019. A member of the Democratic Party..."

 

"Newsom was criticized in early 2022 for walking back from his support for universal health care and not supporting Assembly Bill 1400, which would have instituted single-payer health care in California; critics suggested that opposition from business interests, which had donated large sums to Newsom and his party, had swayed his opinion.

 

In October 2023, Newsom vetoed a bill to cap co-pays for diabetic insulin at $35."

 

I'd laugh if it wasn't so fucking sad. And yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath on that "plan" of his either. 

[4petesake]

1 minute ago, Canuckle said:

 

I don't know who that is. Brb...

 

"Gavin Christopher Newsom (born October 10, 1967) is an American politician and businessman who has been the 40th Governor of California since 2019. A member of the Democratic Party..."

 

"Newsom was criticized in early 2022 for walking back from his support for universal health care and not supporting Assembly Bill 1400, which would have instituted single-payer health care in California; critics suggested that opposition from business interests, which had donated large sums to Newsom and his party, had swayed his opinion.

 

In October 2023, Newsom vetoed a bill to cap co-pays for diabetic insulin at $35."

 

I'd laugh if it wasn't so fucking sad. And yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath on that "plan" of his either. 

 

You have bolded my point about overlap between the parties.

[Warhippy]

6 hours ago, Playoff Beered said:

 

Since re-using meme's is all the rage...

 

Ok so I'm actually gonna ask this because it's important.

 

60 years ago.  Would this image have looked flipped?

 

The answer is yes.  The Republican party used to be the party of the people though the 40s, 50s.

 

Now.  Answer me this.  How are they actually different?  Which party is actively changing things for the people?  Don't give me the weak "democrats care for the people bullshit" because they have senators and Congress people that have voted to keep the exact same system harming people in place for 3-4-5 decades

 

How are they different?  Which party will vote against their own safety and pay check?  Which one would out Sally the single mother of 3 on food stamps on their back and give them an actual chance at getting out of the system they've benefitted under since around 77/78

 

The answer is neither because both parties are the same.  They both benefit under the system.  They would both run your gd mother down to protect their own safety as opposed to voting to change things so they had less power and benefits and you had more.

 

I don't give a randy shit about your memes.  Really don't.  The time for childishness is kind of over in this conversation.  Pretending one party would cut their own throats to better your life at the expense of theirs is about as fucking ludicrous as Jesus being a white PBR drinking Republican from Kentucky with a mullet.

 

Both parties are the same.  Period.  Regardless of whatever lio service they've given the masses.  They are the same.

[Warhippy]

6 hours ago, Satchmo said:

Well, I agree with a lot of that though I'd hope for a burst of something other than the options you mention.   Not only for the reason that if it happened there it would happen here.

 

 

That's said, I'd happy for it to happen here or there.  Before I jumped on that wagon though, I'd first have to know:

 

How are we going to do that?

 

Please consider that as a rhetorical question if you don't want to get into it.    It all might be best in another thread anyway.

 

 

 

Literally the only way to do this is the same thing that happened during the us civil war.  Or against the robber barons.

 

People HAVE to remember that we ARE the power.  WE are the money.  They exist because we let them.  

 

Until we actively as a voting bloc force, but demand; change.  Nothing will change.

 

We are beholden to nothing more than a series of beliefs that we can't do better and if we just consume the newest product or distraction it will be ok.

 

Neither party will actively allow this to change because it comes at their expense and with humanity inherently greedy we know the truth of things

[Warhippy]

2 hours ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Affordable Care Act. If you could get things passed without a super majority you'd see the change you're looking for. It's the system that makes for nothing significant getting done. It's intentionally set up to ensure gridlock. This was supposed to bring about compromise ..... whoooops.

Now.  As both parties in the last 17 years have enjoyed super majorities.

 

Which one voted to better peoples lives by restricting their own glorious lifestyles?

 

Sadly neither.  They both enjoy the system they created because they know full well it's a golden ticket

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Just my opinion, but I'd say you already answered your own question....

 

Where I disagree with you and the perfesser is that these things don't make the Democrats better than the GOP.

 

The kind of paradigm shift you seem to want is (as Futz already pointed out) virtually impossible in the current era of ultra-partisanship and thin majorities in Congress and the Senate.

You much like many others are missing the fundamental point being made.

 

Neither party will vote to change the system to better your life at their expense.

 

Period.  

 

They've both had numerous chances to do so and have essentially done the barest of minimums and some consider that success or a benchmark towards some level of justification for support.

 

For me, it ain't enough.  One party sure does seem to.  But when it happened.  What did they do with the power they had?

 

Think about it.

[Canuckle]

@Warhippy

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Canuckle

[nuckin_futz]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Now.  As both parties in the last 17 years have enjoyed super majorities.

 

Which one voted to better peoples lives by restricting their own glorious lifestyles?

 

Sadly neither.  They both enjoy the system they created because they know full well it's a golden ticket

 

Voting for the ACA cost the Dems 63 House seats in the 2010 mid terms. Most of them knew it would cost them their golden ticket but voted for it anyway.

[NucksRuleYou]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

 

Voting for the ACA cost the Dems 63 House seats in the 2010 mid terms. Most of them knew it would cost them their golden ticket but voted for it anyway.

 

Yet, the democrats still seem to be doing just fine, anyways.

[Cold]

6 hours ago, Warhippy said:

You much like many others are missing the fundamental point being made.

 

Neither party will vote to change the system to better your life at their expense.

 

Period.  

 

They've both had numerous chances to do so and have essentially done the barest of minimums and some consider that success or a benchmark towards some level of justification for support.

The Democrats at least brushed up against real change when Bernie challenged for the presidency. He never actually had a shot at winning, but people at least could now see a road to get there. Pity it was never built on. 

[RupertKBD]

7 hours ago, Warhippy said:

You much like many others are missing the fundamental point being made.

 

Neither party will vote to change the system to better your life at their expense.

 

Period.  

 

They've both had numerous chances to do so and have essentially done the barest of minimums and some consider that success or a benchmark towards some level of justification for support.

 

For me, it ain't enough.  One party sure does seem to.  But when it happened.  What did they do with the power they had?

 

Think about it.

 

But one party seems determined to make lives worse.

 

Think about it.

[Satchmo]

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Literally the only way to do this is the same thing that happened during the us civil war.  Or against the robber barons.

 

People HAVE to remember that we ARE the power.  WE are the money.  They exist because we let them.  

 

Until we actively as a voting bloc force, but demand; change.  Nothing will change.

 

We are beholden to nothing more than a series of beliefs that we can't do better and if we just consume the newest product or distraction it will be ok.

 

Neither party will actively allow this to change because it comes at their expense and with humanity inherently greedy we know the truth of things

I keep telling myself to just stay out of all this, but....

 

If a civil war will get us out of the mess we are in why are we in a mess now after one already occurred?

 

Have robber barons really been eradicated?  Or just replaced with new ones?

 

I agree we have (some of) the power, and (some of) the money.  THEY exist because they are greedier pricks than we are and more forceful.

 

How are we going to create a voting bloc when it's not even possible to get more than two or three people out of the few dozen in this thread to agree about anything?

 

I believe in democracy in principle though democracy in practice can be a shit show.   It's democracy in practice that politicians want to protect despite what they might say about upholding the Constitution.   It's money in the bank for them.   Likely offshore.

 

I can agree that things suck and are not likely to get better until (to quote Pink Floyd) we all pull together as a team.   We are human though and we don't work together well.

 

I also agree with H L Mencken:  For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.  

Edited October 10, 2023 by Satchmo

[NewbieCanuckFan]

Apparently there's news out there that China had lost one of its submarine's...

 

[Bob Long]

I'm curious how many of the "lets have anarchy for a little while" crowd are willing to put their livelihoods one the line for that?

 

No, the two parties are not the same in the US. One group continually tries to eat into a social safety net that makes sense everywhere else in the world.

 

Are both parties in the US at the trough? you bet. 

 

But its also true that young voters can't be bothered to get involved. I have no time for the whining when people can't make the barest of effort to vote for the changes they want to see.