Serious The Politics Thread

[Chou Toshio]

It seems insane to me that democrats in the US is equated with Labour in Britain then - by that comparison we are occupying the centre line, the Democrats are about a mile away right and Trump/Republicans are somewhere on the right in the hazy distance.

Wait, wait... I want to quickly get back to mocking liberals but are we seriously suggesting that modern British Labour is to the left of the Democratic Party? That I can't let stand.

Maybe in the singular lens of Gaza (and maybe that's worth considering) but I think far more important to current policy is current politics.

Labour bent over backward, twisted itself in knots, and purposefully slit its stomach and pour out its own guts in order to prevent Corbyn from taking them to the win-- the internal apparatus actively sabotaged their own party's victory and tried to label its leader as an Antisemite because they'd rather live under Tory Rule. Even in this last election, the amount of shenanigans pulled to try to get Corbyn to lose his seat as an independent is ridiculous.

Compare the way Labour treated Corbyn to how the Democrats handled Bernie. Of course every lefty will tell you that the way the Dems handled the 2016 and 2020 primaries was anti-democratic and disgusting-- but not comparable to committing Sepuku to let Republicans win. They also elevated Bernie to some of the most powerful positions in the Senate, including Budget Committee Chairman determining how we would spend our money and letting leftists make the best memes about Chairman Bernie.

And Starmer-- there is no way in hell in a theoretical head-to-head you could get me to vote for Starmer over Kamala Harris as the leader of anything.

Let's see Starmer pick a right hand man like Tim Walz.

On domestic social issues (LGBTQ and minority rights) and funnily enough on Labor issues, the Democrats unquestionably hold up to, if not completely out-left Labour, and if you add in their treatment of Socialists in the system-- are definitely showing far more attitude towards improvement in the future.


Of course all of the above is bickering over crumbs-- any leftist who wants to say "Stop arguing over who has the better massa," both parties are cringe, terrible, lib parties then sure that's the truth-- but while we're sorting and arguing and organizing mostly less-useful categories I thought I'd throw my opinion in here on this. UK Labour is trash. Corbyn did nothing wrong.

 

[ant4456]

I'm not British so I don't really have much weight in the convo but while UK Labour in its current iteration is probably not more progressive than the Dems, people probably still feel that way because the UK still has things that we don't.

Obvs that doesn't make it fair, like I don't think Labour would do free healthcare today if it got the choice, so the UK still having that doesn't really make them lefter wing lol, but it's probably why there is the feeling from some. Labour is also right wing though IMO so like I don't see it as a big thing to even really think about.

 

[Bakugames]

Liberalism is a center/center-right ideology, so if you are a liberal you are at best a centrist and a worse a right-winger. The fact that america is dominated by conservative right-wing politics doesn't make liberals "left-leaning", that's just massive copium and prevents people from analyzing america's politics beyond their bubble.

 

[Wigglytuff]

Wait. We are thinking about this all wrong. The US is sending lots of weapons to Israel...

Weapons that cost TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

This is how we get people to care about the crisis in Palestine. Not by telling them there is a genocide happening, but by telling them that it is costing them money.




Jesus Christ, we live in a dystopia.

Do you think people are unaware of this? It’s one of the main talking points and one of the primary reasons that protests in the US are occurring. Students at universities didn’t set up protests and encampments at risk of violence and legal consequences just because a genocide is happening, it’s also because the money they pay for tuition is indirectly going to the IDF.

It also does nothing for people that think that Israel is in the right, or even people that think both sides are in the wrong (something you were pushing). The former are happy that their tax dollars are finally being used for something, the latter are too uninformed/naive/unsure to actually do something about their tax dollars being appropriated for this.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I'm not British so I don't really have much weight in the convo but while UK Labour in its current iteration is probably not more progressive than the Dems, people probably still feel that way because the UK still has things that we don't.

Obvs that doesn't make it fair, like I don't think Labour would do free healthcare today if it got the choice, so the UK still having that doesn't really make them lefter wing lol, but it's probably why there is the feeling from some. Labour is also right wing though IMO so like I don't see it as a big thing to even really think about.

Right, this is why I don't judge a party's left-right position based only on what policy they are fighting for current or what policies exist in the country-- the attitudes towards leftwing progress is more important.

Sweden has more Social Democratic Infrastructure than the US, there's no way you're going to convince me that their current governing right wing alliance is to the left of Bernie Sanders.

Similarly in Japan there is universal healthcare, you can't convince me the LDP is to the left of the Democrats or Kishida to the left of Kamala Harris.

If you give governing control to Bernie Sanders in the USA you get Medicare for All. If you give Bernie Sanders governing power over Sweden you might end up seeing the world's first truly Democratic Socialist country, birth of Market Socialism. If you give Bernie the whole world you might end up getting Communism.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

In the context of America, they are indeed left-wing.

Yes, if your own definitions are so tied in the USA and USA only that you ignore globalist interpretations. At your own peril…

 

[Chou Toshio]

Liberalism is a center/center-right ideology, so if you are a liberal you are at best a centrist and a worse a right-winger. The fact that america is dominated by conservative right-wing politics doesn't make liberals "left-leaning", that's just massive copium and prevents people from analyzing america's politics beyond their bubble.

I agree with this-- people say that the word "Liberal" means something different in the USA, but I'd say no, no it doesn't. Liberal here is the same liberal as either the UK LibDems, or Japan's eternally governing Liberal Democratic Party, center-center right broadly. But maybe it's because of the context of America and the lack of an actual left party, there's no doubt that the Democrats are in fact more accepting of Socialism and Leftism than either European LibDems, and certainly than the extremely nationalist Japanese LDP.

Sorry for mixing Japan in here, but having lived there for so long, its my major point of reference.

Also Japan is consistently one of THE BEST Global North countries for supporting the Palestinians-- but again, you're not going to convince me that that one area opposing white settler colonialism means that its Nationalist Party that is the LDP, which still tries to deny Japanese WWII War Crimes and is closely tied to the country's fascist and religious extremists, is to the left of Bernie, Biden, Kamala Harris, or the US Democrats at large.

 

[ant4456]

There are a surprising number of "centrists" that actually just have broadly progressive views (usually economically) that neither of the political parties in America fulfill, so they think that they're in the center.

Framing the Dems as left wing makes it seem like there's really two sides and our parties hit both. Most people are just gonna accept that world in their head and perceive left wing as liberal, and that will close their mind to progressive possibilities.

 

[Bughouse]

Wait. We are thinking about this all wrong. The US is sending lots of weapons to Israel...

Weapons that cost TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

This is how we get people to care about the crisis in Palestine. Not by telling them there is a genocide happening, but by telling them that it is costing them money.




Jesus Christ, we live in a dystopia.

I mean if you really want to understand american support of israel and go down a rabbit hole, it is NOT because of america being the second largest home for jews in the world (debatably first, numbers are fuzzy). As a percentage of the population, the US is barely any more Jewish than it is Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu... the US is a Christian country. Policy on Israel in the US is not made because of Jewish support one way or another. It's possible this may have been a bit more true historically, but that's certainly not the case anymore. Most american jews are liberal and on average considerably more willing to criticize israel than actual far right evangelical christians, which is by far the stronger base (both in terms of fervency of belief and ESPECIALLY in terms of raw population count) for US support of Israel.

Good place to start reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism#In_the_United_States_3

Because this support ultimately comes from a fundamentally religious place, the right will never balk at the cost of arming Israel, even at the same time as they balk over the cost of arming Ukraine.

The US for the most part uncritically supports Israel for the same reason this disparity exists:

 

[ant4456]

Because this support ultimately comes from a fundamentally religious place, the right will never balk at the cost of arming Israel, even at the same time as they balk over the cost of arming Ukraine.

To clarify wording; when you say "this support", do you mean the general support from the United States, or specifically this constituency of true-believer Christian Zionists?

I assume the second, but I'm also a fucking idiot and at first I thought you meant support in general, so I just want clarity. This is my "Be patient, I'm autistic" moment, apologies.

 

[Dead by Daylight]

Yes, if your own definitions are so tied in the USA and USA only that you ignore globalist interpretations. At your own peril…

I'm not saying the American left-wing is at all comparable to the left wing of other countries. I'm just saying that in America (which the post Ant was responding to clarified), the American "left wing" is indeed, well, what Americans to perceive to be left wing.

 

[Bughouse]

I mean support from evangelical christians, but that effectively is the same as support from the united states. The US is ~40-50% protestant christian. Defining who among that 40-50% is evangelical is not super precise, but it's over half.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/

If 20-25% of your population feels extremely strongly about something, unless there's a similarly extremely strong counterweight to that on the other side, this becomes the policy. (and there isn't, the vast majority of everyone else is at best apathetic about Israel. people with strong anti-Israel pro-Palestine sentiment certainly exist, but not enough to add up to 20-25% of the total population.)

 

[ant4456]

I mean support from evangelical christians, but that effectively is the same as support from the united states. The US is ~40-50% protestant christian. Defining who among that 40-50% is evangelical is not super precise, but it's over half.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/

If 20-25% of your population feels extremely strongly about something, unless there's a similarly extremely strong counterweight to that on the other side, this becomes the policy. (and there isn't, the vast majority of everyone else is at best apathetic about Israel. people with strong anti-Israel pro-Palestine sentiment certainly exist, but not enough to add up to 20-25% of the total population.)

No, I don't agree with your assessment, then.

The #1 root of why we support Israel is simple. Israel is our ticket into the Middle East. I feel like I do this every week, but, to quote Joseph Robinette Biden decades ago:

"If there were not an Israel, we'd have to invent one." in regards to defending governmental spending on Israel.

Israel isn't supported by the government because of the population or whatever. They definitely want the general population to approve of their actions, which they've taken measures to try to keep a majority on, but overall the point is simple. Imperialism never really died, and never really dies for a country that wants to be an all-encompassing global hegemony. Before Netanyahu decided to basically ignore us, our leaders basically considered him (and the Presidents before him) an annoying guy that is ultimately a President of a puppet state.

Now, that relationship might actually be slightly reassessed considering how much of a mess Netanyahu is making very publicly, but that was the consensus on October 7th and was for months and months, and years and years before that. Israel is not a moral issue, it's a Get Your Influence Up issue. If Israel didn't exist, where is the "Western" nation inside of the Middle East?

 

[Divine Retribution]

These things are both true, and arguing which one is a bigger factor is kind of pointless in my opinion.

 

[Bughouse]

Israel has quite literally almost never done just about anything the US wanted them to do in terms of domestic politics/Palestine. Calling Israel an American puppet just tells me you know very little about US-Israel relations. And quite frankly in combination with other people who will claim Israel controls US politics (i.e. AIPAC) these sorts of allegations just end up reading very confused yet vaguely antisemitic.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...tlements-illegitimate-under-international-law

Every president except for Trump dating back 50 years has considered West Bank settlements to be a violation of international law (including Biden!) and yet every government of Israel has built them (more liberal governments somewhat more slowly, but still did so). This is not simply a Netanyahu problem. Every Israeli president has not listened to the US on this or on many other issues... because it's not a puppet state. Interests in the region overall may very often align, I don't dispute that. But Israel doesn't listen to the US on Palestine basically ever. The relationship on this issue has quite frankly been terrible ever since Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995. From 1996-today Israel has almost entirely been under Likud control (most of that under Netanyahu, yes, but the relationship wasn't really all that different under Ariel Sharon either, seeing as he was an architect behind settlements) and for most of that period, Likud was considerably farther to the right than the US republican party overall, and certainly on Palestine. The only period of time where the US and Israel were in concordance on policy for Palestine was when the US had a similarly right wing president in Trump. Even then though Netanyahu was certainly not Trump's puppet lol. They just both agreed on a lot.

 

[ant4456]

And quite frankly in combination with other people who will claim Israel controls US politics (i.e. AIPAC) these sorts of allegations just end up reading very confused yet vaguely antisemitic.

Oh my God. How did you take what I said like that.

It's the opposite way. Israel is, fundamentally, our puppet.

Every president except for Trump dating back 50 years has considered West Bank settlements to be a violation of international law (including Biden!) and yet every government of Israel has built them (more liberal governments somewhat more slowly, but still did so). This is not simply a Netanyahu problem

Never did I claim it was a Netanyahu problem. I even mentioned it is a long history of the American government finding Israel's government to be annoying.

Every Israeli president has not listened to the US on this or on many other issues... because it's not a puppet state.

That doesn't make it not a puppet state. In this case, the fact of the matter is we only prop up Israel (and we do, they rely on our dollar), because it gives us influence. If Israel suddenly had an anti-American government, we would coup the fuck out of them.

But Israel doesn't listen to the US on Palestine basically ever.

Why would the military care. It's a human right's violation that doesn't effect the bottom line.

he relationship on this issue has quite frankly been terrible ever since Yitzhak Rabin's assassination in 1995. From 1996-today Israel has almost entirely been under Likud control (most of that under Netanyahu, yes, but the relationship wasn't really all that different under Ariel Sharon either, seeing as he was an architect behind settlements) and for most of that period, Likud was considerably farther to the right than the US republican party overall, and certainly on Palestine.

None of this is relevant. Israel's opinion on Palestine isn't relevant to the American military, they do not care. If not for public attention, we would turn a blind eye to it as has been done for a very long time.

The only period of time where the US and Israel were in concordance on policy for Palestine was when the US had a similarly right wing president in Trump

Again, why does this matter.

I don't know if like, I need to reiterate this:

The American government does not give a FUCK about Palestine!

They don't care lol. It's barely a "disagreement", it's a "That's annoying but whatever fuck it". If we actually gave a fuck, we could literally send Netanyahu to prison. Personally. I don't think YOU understand the relationship here; the reason we don't get rid of Netanyahu is because he is fundamentally still useful, but if he wasn't, he wouldn't have gone to the capital. What happens if we bring Netanyahu to the ICJ? Israel who relies on our fucking tax dollars to defend themselves starts a war with America?

No lol they'd have to accept whatever the fuck we want.

en then though Netanyahu was certainly not Trump's puppet lol. They just both agreed on a lot.

It wouldn't matter if Netanyahu agreed or not.

I think you misunderstand this relationship: We don't care about what Israel is doing unless it effects our influence in the region. And even right now? It really doesn't. It's an embarrassment but we literally sent them billions of more dollars like last week.

It's a relationship of convenience.

The only way you could argue Israel isn't a puppet state is if you think the threat of the entire government being shafted if they actually took anti-American stances that mattered, actually mattered, doesn't count. "Israel isn't a puppet state, we haven't done the thing we'd do if they actually took a stance against us yet!"

Do you actually think the War Hawks of the American government care about Netanyahu's feelings or Gaza?

 

[Divine Retribution]

Israel has quite literally almost never done just about anything the US wanted them to do in terms of domestic politics/Palestine. Calling Israel an American puppet just tells me you know very little about US-Israel relations. And quite frankly in combination with other people who will claim Israel controls US politics (i.e. AIPAC) these sorts of allegations just end up reading very confused yet vaguely antisemitic.

Puppet state is a bit of an oversimplification but Israel is our only ally in the region, and America funding and arming them almost certainly comes under the mutual agreement that, should America go to war against a neighboring country (such as Iran), Israel would allow them access to their airspace and military/naval bases to conduct that invasion.

This is what Biden meant when he said "If there wasn't an Israel, we'd need to invent an Israel". A.K.A., if we didn't have Israel to use as a foothold in the region, we'd need to make a new foothold.

 

[Bughouse]

if you think "puppet state" is an oversimplification of "ally" and not like... an entirely different thing, then we're not going to have a productive conversation. Israel is a US ally, a very strong one, for the reasons you stated. It's far from a puppet state.

 

[ant4456]

if you think "puppet state" is an oversimplification of "ally" and not like... an entirely different thing, then we're not going to have a productive conversation. Israel is a US ally, a very strong one, for the reasons you stated. It's far from a puppet state.

To me what makes the difference is the lack of independence.

I think people underestimate just how reliant Israel is on us for their existence, and how little would change if we went in and fundamentally changed their government. Britain is an ally but if we blatantly used military force to take over their government, it would cause major alarms and harm America's standing with every ally.

If America took down the entire Israel government and replaced it, not many countries would give a shit except, well. Israel. Because Israel isn't an "ally", they're a place for Western countries to have an entry point into a region. The "mutual relationship" is that we give Israel money that they want to protect themselves in the Middle East, which benefits us anyways since they are bench warmers, and we get what our military sees as a military base in the Middle East.

Their entire existence as a nation, to our government, is basically a military base country. And this isn't really a big secret lol.

 

[ant4456]

Like, I'll admit that my usage of the word puppet state is probably a bit more liberal than most people, Bughouse. But you gotta admit that the relationship with Israel is extremely America-first, and it is entirely of convenience.

And that we do not really view Israel as an ally in any similar way to most NATO countries. They are more explicitly than almost any other "ally" a country we fund and protect for military reasons, we get basically nothing else out of the exchange. The full context of that Biden quote is he viewed spending a few billion dollars every year to keep influence in the Middle East as very convenient, probably one of the best deals we could ask for.

And while a violent coup of the Israel government would ruffle feathers, I don't think it would immediately invalidate NATO and cause countries to instantly rethink their alliance like it would if we did that to Britain, France, Germany, etc. That is the kind of difference I mean when I try to dispell the difference between our allyship with Israel and most other countries.

We fund Israel because it is convenient to our military. If it stopped being convenient to our military, we would turn it convenient, or we would not be allies at all.

 

[Divine Retribution]

if you think "puppet state" is an oversimplification of "ally" and not like... an entirely different thing, then we're not going to have a productive conversation. Israel is a US ally, a very strong one, for the reasons you stated. It's far from a puppet state.

I mean, "puppet state" and "ally that is almost entirely dependent on us for weapons they almost certainly wouldn't exist as a nation without" are not as far apart as you seem to believe. Israel does whatever they want to do when it comes to Palestine, and while U.S. presidents may not agree with it, they evidently don't care enough to, like, actually do anything about it. It doesn't affect us in any way, so not our circus, not our monkey. It's far more important to us that we don't ruffle Israeli feathers, and if some Palestinians lose their land or their lives, we don't care. They're beholden to us on the issues that we actually care about, and if you think Israel has autonomy in any issue that actually affects the U.S. then I agree we aren't going to have a productive conversation.

 

[Bakugames]

I think the issue here comes because people assume a puppet state is just going to do Everything the mother state says, all the time, and never act on anything without direct approval.
Obviously, the puppet state relies on the master state for their economy, politics etc, but depending on the state they will have degrees of freedom on matters that are either too regional, not impactful to the master state or that the master state simply doesn't care about. Not only that, the degree a puppet state obeys varies a lot: revolutions, reforms, even disagreements within the master state will loosen the leash, and how often they're punished/the ease of punishment also affects this. Hell, how important a puppet state is for the master state can also give the puppet state certain power to "get off the leash", so to speak.

Don't be fooled, despite all of these conditions, these states are still at the mercy of the master state. They had their politics rearranged, their economy hijacked, and their education biased to favor the master state and the changes it made. It's just that despite all that, you can't maintain 100%-do-what-i-want control all the time, it's financially and politically impossible. Israel would fall apart without the US, but the US must be careful as to not lose the grip it has in the Middle East and Israel revolting or trying to cut ties would be very costly, even if they could maintain control. Palestinians dying is a very low cost to keep the puppet working correctly -- those are just ugly numbers protestors keep yelling you about anyway, not real human beings. (As a side note: The dems are playing along with the #vibes of a ceasefire now, but the truth is that they believed in the "let israel finish the job" just as much as republicans do, because palestinians existing is bad press. The sooner they are part of the history books that they can cry about and go "never again" in campaigns instead of real people, the better)

 

[Sultan]

Campaign wise Harris is running the best Democratic campaign I’ve ever seen. Everything has been as good as one could expect; even down to the VP pick (Walz is S tier). The Harris campaign is a 100% upgrade from the Biden campaign.

However, I am of mindset that campaigns do not matter in US presidential elections. The election is a referendum on the incumbent administration. Let’s recap:

2000: (Gore really won) referendum on Bill Clinton’s success
2004: Bush re-elected - rally around the flag / Iraq War
2008: Referendum on Bush recession
2012: Obama re-elected, successful 1st term
2016: Trump elected (Obama’s second term was disastrous and nothing got accomplished)
2020: Biden elected (Trump lol)
2024: ???? (Biden had a successful 1st term)

But is this really the case when 2000, 2016, and 2020 were all razor-thin elections that could have easily gone differently if they were held a week earlier or later? There is a strong argument that the Comey letter alone was enough to swing 2016, and without it Clinton would have likely won a narrow victory.

Then the issue lies with one’s perception of change. Large, sweeping change is not a reality of modern American politics. I am arguing that this is what it is, rather than arguing for or against what it should be. Change to most of the electorate is the question I asked - “are you better off in September 2024 than you were in September 2020?” That’s essentially what determines who wins. And politicians being forever self-interested will prioritize what they believe will win.

Of course we're all doing better than in 2020, but that's mostly because there was a fucking pandemic going on then. If you instead change the date to a more reasonable one like 2018, then I'm not sure you can really say the same. Of course, a lot of the decay from that point is pandemic-related but people are still going to blame the Democrats because gas is more expensive even though they for the most part the U.S. government can't do anything about gas prices. Even though the inflation has largely subsided, it has left many in a worse position because wages have not really increased to keep up with it.

 

[Bughouse]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834314580178415697

super serious candidate who deserves anyone's vote

 

[tada]

no mattter who wins the presidential election the people lose.