Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
C'mon. You're telling me that nobody is pure enough for me but I just said that I'm advocating for Elizabeth Warren.
????
edited 26th Apr '17 4:41:05 PM by MadSkillz
@Elle: I don't disagree with the notion that business interest aren't necessarily pure evil; the rule of plutocrats is generally more comfortable than the rule of landed aristocrats or an all powerful monarch, but it leaves a great deal to be desired, and there are ultimately areas in which the greater interest of society are mutually exclusive with the interests of big business.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
One group still dreams that they can become the other.
If they can't and won't snap out of it short of full on brainwashing, it's not my duty to throw myself or anyone else under the bus for their sake.
![]()
We know your standards for white men and everyone else differ. One day she's going to say something that makes you change your mind, and then you will deny ever supporting her as vehemently as every other instance of wanking in this thread.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:33:26 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Krieger: Implying irrational prejudice without backing that statement up is a rather intellectually dishonest way of "winning" a debate. There's literally no way Mad Skillz can respond to that without digging himself deeper, regardless of the veracity of your accusation, so you've effectively short circuited what was already a fairly heated and dysfunctional debate.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:43:23 PM by CaptainCapsase
I don't deny this. There's a bunch of moving pieces but you can get a vague outline of what they want.
Bloomberg? Former mayor of NYC, owns a media empire based on finance news? Keynote speaker at the DNC. Also can't personally stand Trump.
Every business that benifits from NAFTA? (Which by the way, is a major reason relations with Mexico have been as good as they have been the past couple decades?) Probably not a fan of Trump.
Businesses working on renewable/green energy and resources? Not fans of Trump.
Businesses like Google and Microsoft and Amazon whose business would be hurt by weakening Net Neutrality? Not fans of Trump.
Mad, much of your stance is based on the premise that the interests of business and elites are always opposed to the interests of the common people. Closer to the truth is that it's a co-dependent relationship. Whether the relationship is exploitative or not depends on how the business is run and exploitative business is not infinitely sustainable. Where business interests align with ours, we ought to take advantage of that. Where there are competing interests like in the net neutrality debate, we should back the side that aligns on the side of good. And if money turns the wheels in Washington, well, we need all the help we can get right now. Judge the politicians on what they do with that money and don't assume politicians and money interest working together in automatic bad faith.
You have to note that my complaint about them isn't that they can't do any good.
It's that they're completely subverting democracy, most of them throw people under the bus when it's profitable and they generally try to rig things to make it harder for people to challenge their control.
It's not just any one company. It's the aggregate whole of them trying to influence politicians and subverting democracy leading to what we have now.
It's a big business assault.
@Cap: That's fair and I don't really disagree, I mostly object to the tarring of all elites with the far-left's brush. There will always likely be some form of elites; in an ideal world I'd rather politics work with them where their interests are constructive while still working to curb abuses of their power. (And I've never hidden the fact that I lean conservative-ish in that regard although I've moderated those views over the last couple years.)
I don't deny that that *does* happen. (I just posted an example earlier today of the media industry trying to encourage a bill that would benefit them be rushed though.) But most of the worst offenders of this tend to be very short-sighted.trying to protect their current profit without enough thought to their long term sustainability. You can only throw so many people under the bus without it backfiring on your bottom line, and that assumes the bottom like they're trying to protect isn't something that will be obsolete in 5 or 10 years because of outside forces. Backlash can come in the form of PR, in diminished sales and productivity, i probably a number of ways I'm forgetting. Henry Ford is an easy example of someone who understood this: the rise of Ford can be tied to the fact that he went out of the way to pay his workers higher than the then-average wage so that they could actually afford his cars. Pandering to progressiveness can be profitable.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:58:25 PM by Elle
Just come out and explicitly say it. You're trying to call me a sexist, a racist and then trying to lump with the Bernie bros.
That's your line of attack
edited 26th Apr '17 4:48:06 PM by MadSkillz
So how about we cool it with the personal attacks on other members? You know, even if you don't like them how about we attack their arguments and not them
We're meant to be better than that guys.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
I assume he believes what he's saying, and I assume you believe what you're saying. Trying to guess what's going on inside somebody's head is pretty much futile.
Questioning each others motives is generally a good sign that a debate like this has reached an impasse. There's a deep incompatibility in world view here which seems very difficult to reconcile.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:53:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's been at an impasse for ages because your ilk's plans are this:
1. Appeal to WWC voters
2. Dismiss everything else as identity politics
3. ????
4. Win
I will be completely blunt, this is approaching SeriesOfNumbers level. As I said, you evidently don't need to deny Stalin's crimes to have fun.
edited 26th Apr '17 4:58:56 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotThirding the "let's cut this debate, please" motion.
With all due respect, I'm pretty sure both Capsase and Mad Skillz are from mixed ethnicity backgrounds, so please stop assuming they are white supremacists.
Gotta have to agree there.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:03:06 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVI mean apparently my standards for white men and everyone else differs (despite not even belonging to said group) so if I'm showing favoritism here then by that logic I am a racist and a sexist. Those are the logical implications.
She. It's ironic but I'm a Latin American girl with a CEO for a father. So it's just amusing seeing people lob attacks against me for being racist, sexist and being anti-corporations. Okay that last one is true.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:04:06 PM by MadSkillz
There is one, technically, but it's probably OK to discuss why the US government is endangering it.
That aside, anyone remember the Political Compass website? it seems they've gone off the deep end into "Globalization is evil" nuttery.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:05:27 PM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV@IFWander I'm sorry, but I really object to letting Krieger have the last word on that note. I vehemently disagree with the assertion that I am in favor of abandoning identity politics. I can't speak for MadSkillz, but I not only reject the notion that in order to achieve social justice we must shove aside agendas pertaining to economic justice, I would argue in fact that it is essential to combine them in a single platform. Taking the easy road and casting one or the other aside will simply allow those opposed to a progressive agenda to employ the age old strategy of "divide and conquer" driving down the turnout of those whose agendas were spurned, and in some cases conning them into thinking that they are the ones pushing for real economic/social justice.
That last part is what I would argue is the masterstroke of the populist right; particularly in Europe they have successfully positioned themselves as the defenders of the welfare state in the minds of a large enough segment of the population to make themselves a major force in politics.
How so? I never really looked all that much at that website.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:13:24 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
![]()
Then why is being paid for taking the time to prepare and deliver a speech a horrendous blow to your reputation but owning three houses and investing in Wall Street while railing against the elites and Wall Street at the same time isn't?
![]()
Back then they were really against New Labor to the point where you must agree fully with Pinochet to be placed to the right of them, as evidenced by the hordes of [HASHTAG REDACTED]ers that trotted it out to prove that they were left wingers and that their movement was left wing. I'm not surprised by this development.
Well, that's a welcome change. Now what?
edited 26th Apr '17 5:13:42 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@Mad: Sorry. I get annoyed when people assume gender on the internet, especially when I have an obviously feminine handle, but it's an easy trap to fall into when there aren't any obvious signals and English singular pronouns default to masculine.
As for assumed viewpoints, you and Sanders do appear to share the conviction that all injustice in government stems from economic inequality and all problems can be fixed by focusing on that. A proper debate on that subject would take all sorts of nuance and scholarship that is generally lacking on an internet forum. Unfortunately, such arguments in the past (even pre-dating the Bernie Bros) have in fact assumed that "the working class" translates to "white working class", and so assumptions follow from there.
As for the debate, I don't want it curtailed indefinitely but I sense a cooling-down period may be needed.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:15:33 PM by Elle
Since this was buried under a heated argument, I shall repost: Moderate House Republicans, mostly in the Tuesday Group, are signaling they are against the amended AHCA.
Senate Republicans remain firmly opposed to AHCA despite the amendment.
@Krieger: I don't think it's a significant change from what my position has been pretty much the entire time; that there's both an economic and a social component in the Trump phenomena and the rise of similar politicians around the world, and you aren't going to get anywhere without addressing both. I tend to spend more time arguing for a greater emphasis on economic justice because, at least from my point of view, the democrats platform on the social issues is already quite good; there's areas where there is potential for improvement of course (especially in terms of the demographics of elected officials versus the demographics of the country's population), but I'm reasonably convinced that the party's approach there is working.
I am far less confident in the approach to economic issues.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:21:54 PM by CaptainCapsase
x7 http://mashable.com/2017/04/07/internet-ready-for-a-fight-over-net-neutrality/#BzmSCRv.sqqr
Basically, the former councilor to the head of the FCC says it won't be as simple as taking another vote, and that the process would probably take at least a year due to how the FCC operates and that Pai and his FCC will have to defend their actions in court. She says "It's going to go back to the same court and probably the same judge who's written all three net neutrality opinions, and he's going to say, 'What the hell is this? You got it right two years ago. What has changed so drastically in two years that warrants a complete and total reversal?'"
edited 26th Apr '17 5:30:15 PM by FireCrawler2002
![]()
![]()
Stating that earlier would have elicited less... cynicism.
![]()
![]()
![]()
As an addendum to that, GOP members of Congress and their staff literally have a loophole cut out for them that would shield them from pre-existing conditions cuts
, although one member says he will fight to eliminate it
.
edited 26th Apr '17 5:22:43 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

edited 26th Apr '17 4:27:48 PM by sgamer82