Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Congressman Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16) was ousted in the most expensive primary race ever. Bowman was part of “the squad” and received endorsements from AOC, Bernie Sanders, and House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries. Challenger George Lattimer was endorsed by Hillary Clinton and disgraced former governor Cuomo.

This race was interesting for a few reasons-

-The district is not ideal for a more progressive candidate to start, as it contains some wealthier NYC suburbs combined with a sliver of the Bronx (the most Democratic county in the USA). The Bronx has been split up as part of a NY Democratic gerrymander.

-Bowman has been most vocally anti-Israel. This district is roughly 10% Jewish, and the Jewish community had nearly presidential race-level turnout in this primary election. Uh… yeah it was not good for Bowman.

-Locally, TV ads against Bowman relentlessly accused him of blocking Biden’s agenda due to his vote against the bi-partisan infrastructure bill. Forgotten is the context. “The squad” voted against the bill as leverage to pressure former Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema to vote for Build Back Better, Biden’s signature agenda proposal. The squad was correct on this, as Manchin and Sinema (who are both no longer Democrats) immediately did an about face and tanked BBB as soon as the infrastructure bill got passed. An extremely watered down Inflation Reduction Act was passed instead.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
boo836 said:
You should be suspicious of anyone who considers themselves an anarchist but whose central complaint is about politicians not unilaterally transforming society. That's not anarchist, it's (at best) that nebulous sort of populism that has never played out well in American history.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it, I think purposefully at this point as you seem unwilling to engage with people who have any sort of disagreement with you based on the things they actually say and believe. Nobody is asking for politicians to unilaterally transform society, least of all me. In fact, that's exactly the problem with representative "democracy" and electoralism by extension. It's no single entity's place to transform society; that is a de facto dictatorship, regardless of whether or not it's a dictatorship I agree with.

Decentralized direct action is the solution, not voting in a particular politician... as I've already said. Can you go ahead and show me where this is any way incompatible with a general distaste with electoralism, or anything else I've actually said? It certainly seems like you're trying to construct a strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe I wasn't clear on something or there's some other similar misunderstanding.
 
Divine Retribution said:
Decentralized direct action is the solution, not voting in a particular politician... as I've already said. Can you go ahead and show me where this is any way incompatible with a general distaste with electoralism, or anything else I've actually said?
Click to expand...

The issue with your argument is the mutually exclusive framing. Which administration the actions happen under literally changes the course of history.

RaikouLover said:
-Locally, TV ads against Bowman relentlessly accused him of blocking Biden’s agenda due to his vote against the bi-partisan infrastructure bill.
Click to expand...

Just to piggyback off this point.. I am seeing on Twitter (take with a grain of salt), lots of local angst for Bowman’s vote against the infrastructure bill. Looks like the ads were effective on that front.

This is a bearish sign for Biden’s re-election. Not good. The BBB negotiations in 2021 dominated the news cycles for months yet voters have already forgotten them.. and how toxic Manchin and Sinema were regarded by the Dem base as a whole at that time.

This is a huge red flag. Will voters remember how awful the second half of the felon Trump presidency was? Yikes.
 
Can we stop talking about how it took 50 years to overturn Roe when that's only true because the court didn't have a supermajority of conservatives. You can't argue that we've become a more progressive nation through voting harder when all it took was for 3 SCJ seats to become available under a Republican president.
 
faint said:
Can we stop talking about how it took 50 years to overturn Roe when that's only true because the court didn't have a supermajority of conservatives. You can't argue that we've become a more progressive nation through voting harder when all it took was for 3 SCJ seats to become available under a Republican president.
Click to expand...

No. I will not stop talking about how the US process works.

The supermajority Supreme Court came from Republicans winning control of the Presidency and Senate. The justices that overturned Roe were appointed by Bush 1 (Thomas), Bush 2 (Alito, Roberts) and felon Trump (Gorsuch, Kavannaugh, Barrett). But feel free to keep saying Democrats are bad and elections don’t matter.
 
A lot of centrist Dems who spent the last few years complaining about foreign countries influencing our elections and primary challenges to Dem incumbents seem oddly happy about AIPAC contributing so much money to Bowman's loss to Latimer

RaikouLover said:
The supermajority Supreme Court came from Republicans winning control of the Presidency and Senate. The justices that overturned Roe were appointed by Bush 1 (Thomas), Bush 2 (Alito, Roberts) and felon Trump (Gorsuch, Kavannaugh, Barrett). But feel free to keep saying Democrats are bad and elections don’t matter.
Click to expand...

Democrats deserve some (read: quite a bit of) blame for not playing as strategically with supreme court appointments as Republicans do. A large part of our current SC situation is due to RBG's refusal to resign under Obama and Obama's lack of a backbone during the Garland appointment. Dems love to lose on principle.
 
ASMRxism said:
Democrats deserve some (read: quite a bit of) blame for not playing as strategically with supreme court appointments as Republicans do. A large part of our current SC situation is due to RBG's refusal to resign under Obama and Obama's lack of a backbone during the Garland appointment. Dems love to lose on principle.
Click to expand...

That was only one seat, making it still a 5-4 right wing court. Obama did not have a Democratic Senate during the Garland appointment. Which comes back to winning elections.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s razor thin losses cost the Democrats FIVE Supreme Court seats. Those Nader and Stein votes sound more like “losing on principle.”
 
RaikouLover said:
No. I will not stop talking about how the US process works.

The supermajority Supreme Court came from Republicans winning control of the Presidency and Senate. The justices that overturned Roe were appointed by Bush 1 (Thomas), Bush 2 (Alito, Roberts) and felon Trump (Gorsuch, Kavannaugh, Barrett). But feel free to keep saying Democrats are bad and elections don’t matter.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming what I said?
 
RaikouLover said:
That was only one seat, making it still a 5-4 right wing court. Obama did not have a Democratic Senate during the Garland appointment. Which comes back to winning elections.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton’s razor thin losses cost the Democrats FIVE Supreme Court seats. Those Nader and Stein votes sound more like “losing on principle.”
Click to expand...

RGB began having health issues as far back as 99, and many wanted her to retire under Obama so he could appoint a younger justice, including, most likely, Obama himself. She refused.

As for Garland, there was a brief window when Obama could have forced his appointment past McConnell's blockage while congress was recessed. He chose not to, likely due to caring more about avoiding controversy than political success despite the fact that his political career was ending soon. That's two seats bungled.

Also worth noting that Gore didn't lose the election. It was stolen by Bush via judicial coup. Further proof that elections don't matter as much as you think.

Also, at any point under a Dem majority a Dem president could pack the Court to prevent the continued undermining of American "democracy" (we aren't a democracy) by our judicial system, but they don't, considering it be a violation of "norms." This addiction to principle over practicality has been more harmful to the Democratic Party platform than any third party vote, and is reflected in the criticisms of centrist Dems that you are far too willing to ignore.
 
Last edited:

Important segment on Project 2025 and some of the things the Trump admin is aiming at in a second term, as well as addressing some “his first term wasn’t that bad, a second one won’t be either” arguments.
 
Celticpride said:

Important segment on Project 2025 and some of the things the Trump admin is aiming at in a second term, as well as addressing some “his first term wasn’t that bad, a second one won’t be either” arguments.
Click to expand...

Shame the Dems aren't more serious about stopping Trump from winning. I'm not sure how effective Trump's lackeys will be at enacting Project 2025 (they're very stupid) but it doesn't bring me comfort that our current defense against it breaks the record for "oldest president" every day.
 
Divine Retribution said:
You're still not getting it, I think purposefully at this point as you seem unwilling to engage with people who have any sort of disagreement with you based on the things they actually say and believe. Nobody is asking for politicians to unilaterally transform society, least of all me. In fact, that's exactly the problem with representative "democracy" and electoralism by extension. It's no single entity's place to transform society; that is a de facto dictatorship, regardless of whether or not it's a dictatorship I agree with.

Decentralized direct action is the solution, not voting in a particular politician... as I've already said. Can you go ahead and show me where this is any way incompatible with a general distaste with electoralism, or anything else I've actually said? It certainly seems like you're trying to construct a strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume maybe I wasn't clear on something or there's some other similar misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

I could well be misinterpreting what you mean based on how you understand matters like foreign policy, which is a notoriously slow field when it comes to policy change outside of extreme events. "Reform" suggests a substantial shift like what we saw under the Trump administration. However, talking about "ramming through" climate policy leaves a lot less ambiguity here.

Anyways, currently embraced forms of direct action aren't that effective at all on several of these issues, which is where the crisis of contemporary anarchism lies. Unless you're going to start blowing up Russian infrastructure and assassinating Aramco execs, there isn't going to be a whole lot of movement on climate that way.

1000007463.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1000007463.jpg
    1000007463.jpg
    111.5 KB · Views: 81
Last edited:
I think there is actually a lot to be optimistic about and there are a lot of positive changes we can make happen. They're just not going to be through the democratic party. I don't think it's a nihilist position to recognize that. If anything I think the opposite is true: if your position is "just keep voting for your entire life and slowly, slowly, slowly, noticeable positive changes may happen, which also can be undone at any point apparently," I'm just not sure how that could be seen as a constructive or realistic approach.
 
ASMRxism said:
RGB began having health issues as far back as 99, and many wanted her to retire under Obama so he could appoint a younger justice, including, most likely, Obama himself. She refused.

As for Garland, there was a brief window when Obama could have forced his appointment past McConnell's blockage while congress was recessed. He chose not to, likely due to caring more about avoiding controversy than political success despite the fact that his political career was ending soon. That's two seats bungled.
Click to expand...

It’s one seat. RGB is a legend; she earned the right.

The Garland nomination was Scalia dying on the bench. The same could be said for him.

Bottom line is Obama did not have the numbers in the Senate to fill that Senate. McConnell had the power to block that seat. The 46 Democratic Senators couldn’t do anything about it.

ASMRxism said:
Also worth noting that Gore didn't lose the election. It was stolen by Bush via judicial coup. Further proof that elections don't matter as much as you think.

Also, at any point under a Dem majority a Dem president could pack the Court to prevent the continued undermining of American "democracy" (we aren't a democracy) by our judicial system, but they don't, considering it be a violation of "norms." This addiction to principle over practicality has been more harmful to the Democratic Party platform than any third party vote, and is reflected in the criticisms of centrist Dems that you are far too willing to ignore.
Click to expand...

We can move from the third party vote discussion. The facts are what they are on that front.

Interestingly, you are using the repeated right-wing talking point “America is not a democracy.”

“We are a republic. Not a democracy.” It is all the rage on the internet these days. The statement implies mutual exclusivity. Republics are democratic in the same way that a lion is a cat. The USA most certainly is a democracy, albeit one that is currently backsliding.
 
Celticpride said:
We should just rename this thread to “Doomer Leftist Nihilism thread” already.
Click to expand...

I would love to hear a concrete, material argument why anyone should be optimistic about the state of American politics right now, but centrists seem less interested in providing a real alternative vision for this country that doesn't start and end at "Trump bad" than they are complaining about the left (which is somehow both so powerful that they're the reason Dems lose, and also not important enough for the Dems to bother courting their votes).

Leftists aren't nihilistic. They're not upset because they don't care, they're upset because they do. It's the centrists who refuse to budge from their ideology who don't appear to actually care about anything but a smug sense of satisfaction over refusing to stand for anything

RaikouLover said:
It’s one seat. RGB is a legend; she earned the right.
Click to expand...

lol see this is what I'm talking about. It was her "right?" Do you hear yourself? She's a public servant and her pride and hubris was a big part of the fall of Roe v. Wade. Incredible that leftists catch flack when centrists are this cultish about leaders more concerned with their own legacies than the people.

We can move from the third party vote discussion. The facts are what they are on that front.
Click to expand...

lol they sure are, and you only want to move on from that point because the facts don't favor your argument.

Interestingly, you are using the repeated right-wing talking point “America is not a democracy.”

“We are a republic. Not a democracy.” It is all the rage on the internet these days. The statement implies mutual exclusivity. Republics are democratic in the same way that a lion is a cat. The USA most certainly is a democracy, albeit one that is currently backsliding.
Click to expand...

We aren't a democracy. The conditions in this country most closely resemble an oligarchy.

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

Just because the right says something doesn't mean it's necessarily false. Broken clocks and so on

The lion analogy is accidently a great point. Go try to pet a lion.
 
Last edited:
ASMRxism said:
I would love to hear a concrete, material argument why anyone should be optimistic about the state of American politics right now, but centrists seem less interested in providing a real alternative vision for this country that doesn't start and end at "Trump bad" than they are complaining about the left (which is somehow both so powerful that they're the reason Dems lose, and also not important enough for the Dems to bother courting their votes).
Click to expand...
As I said in this thread a month ago:
In the past 4 years, the dems have passed massive spending bills for chips, climate and infrastructure, expanded the amount of americans overtime eligible for overtime by a significant amount, passed legislation to cut down on junk fees and overdraft spending. While the supreme court shut down the blanket student debt cancellation, the biden admin still cancelled billions in student debt for the in targeted ways, for example those scammed by for-profit colleges and public service employees, and beefed up and expanded income based repayment plans. The amount of student debt in the US actually declined last year. 92% of americans 18-64 have healthcare. Real wage growth has been robust, unemployment is low, underemployment and prime age labor force participation are back to pre-2008 levels.
Click to expand...
America isn’t perfect now, but people are better off than 4 years ago and a lot of good stuff got done.
 
RaikouLover said:
Interestingly, you are using the repeated right-wing talking point “America is not a democracy.”

“We are a republic. Not a democracy.” It is all the rage on the internet these days. The statement implies mutual exclusivity. Republics are democratic in the same way that a lion is a cat. The USA most certainly is a democracy, albeit one that is currently backsliding.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're missing the fucking point. Democracy in the U.S. is a facade and you're a rube if you think otherwise. Corporate and military interests (and there's heavy overlap there) hold such an incredibly disproportionate amount of power compared to the interests of working class citizens or anything else for that matter that to call the U.S. democratic is to actively delude yourself. It isn't, and hasn't been since at least the first Red Scare, maybe earlier. North Korea calls itself a democracy; it even holds elections. That doesn't mean a damn thing.

The comparison to right-wing talking points is detestably dishonest on your part. Right-wingers say America isn't a democracy and it shouldn't be, leftists say America isn't a democracy and it should be. If you refuse to acknowledge how this fundamental difference changes the conversation and instead insist on framing them as essentially the same, there's no point interacting with you any further.
 
Celticpride said:
As I said in this thread a month ago:

America isn’t perfect now, but people are better off than 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

There was a global pandemic four years ago, of course people are better off.

As for all the incremental changes you're bragging about (wow, a .5 percent increase in people with health insurance since 2021! I can't believe people aren't super enthusiastic about Biden! How much are they paying in premiums again?) I'm sure all the people living paycheck to paycheck and getting price gouged by corporations at the gas pump and grocery stores are simply wrong. Biden is clearly the best man for the job. Everyone's lives are great and it's just those damn leftist nihilists convincing them otherwise. Because everyone listens to them.

For what it's worth, I was actually pleasantly surprised by Biden's presidency for a good amount of it. If he'd followed through on his original plan to be a single year president and paved the way for someone to replace him this year, and if not for his disastrous foreign policy failures getting steamrolled by Netanyahu, he'd go down as a fine president.

But you really, really need to ask yourself why Biden is trailing a convicted felon and see if you can't bring yourself to admit a teeny bit of blame on the Dems instead of everyone but them. There's no reason why he should be running. This election should not be this close.
 
Last edited:
ASMRxism said:
But you really, really need to ask yourself why Biden is trailing a convicted felon and see if you can't bring yourself to admit a teeny bit of blame on the Dems instead of everyone but them. There's no reason why he should be running. This election should not be this close.
Click to expand...
...Do you expect the Democrats to not run the incumbent President? Seriously? I don't disagree with the rest of the sentiments expressed in this post — I think that the Democrats are largely in a bind of their own making — but suggesting that they should forfeit the incumbency advantage is pure madness.
 
adjectivenoun said:
...Do you expect the Democrats to not run the incumbent President? Seriously? I don't disagree with the rest of the sentiments expressed in this post — I think that the Democrats are largely in a bind of their own making — but suggesting that they should forfeit the incumbency advantage is pure madness.
Click to expand...

Four years ago today, Americans were in food lines and raiding the stores of toilet paper. The felon was also trailing Biden by about 8 points in the polls. Where were the calls for the felon to resign? Seems like this rhetoric only applies to Democratic presidents.
 
RaikouLover said:
Four years ago today, Americans were in food lines and raiding the stores of toilet paper. The felon was also trailing Biden by about 8 points in the polls. Where were the calls for the felon to resign? Seems like this rhetoric only applies to Democratic presidents.
Click to expand...

Although it's probably because we actually expect better from Democrats
 
Sultan said:
Although it's probably because we actually expect better from Democrats
Click to expand...

So a glaring double standard. There were no calls for the twice impeached former President to resign when thousands of Americans were dying per week and Biden was kicking his ass in the polls. But Biden should resign this cycle because “bad vibes.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top