Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.

bdt2002

Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs superfan
is a Pre-Contributor
I feel like I'm going to regret putting my foot in the door, but as someone who knows a lot of Republicans in real life, I wanted to voice my opinions on the state of the party.

Simply put, at least out near where I live, most Republicans seem to be sick of why politics seem so... just, extreme towards one side or the other. Our area tends to be of the belief that our country is in need of the healthy grey area between liberalism and conservatism, and while we can have our own ideologies and voting preferences, sometimes Republicans and Democrats need to both admit that compromises need made within the balance of power so one side doesn't become too out of hand.

The problem with modern-age conservatism as I see it is that an unfortunate number of Republicans don't seem to be getting that full picture. In a similar manner to how men and women may be willing to act like the other group is entirely the only group of the two at fault, I've found that the extremist Republicans are the ones that don't want to hold their party's mistakes accountable for their piece of the pie. I won't act like Democrats are off the hook here, either. It's just that, for the sake of the post I'm responding too, the modern Republican party doesn't exactly look appealing to younger voters who may be trying to make big decisions in their life for the first time. Even though most of my political preferences tend to be moderately conservative, I'm very bothered by the polarization being led by DeSantis and the state of Florida right now. The conservative parts of the media that do exist would rather die than admit this, but the drama in Florida serves as nothing but a disgrace to the Republican party, and anyone within said party who does not want their party to be seen in this way should feel embarrassed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've found that the extremist Republicans are the ones that don't want to hold their party's mistakes accountable for their piece of the pie. I won't act like Democrats are off the hook here, either.
I don't think I could ask for a better example of why the idea of polarisation is bunk. Why aren't the Democrats, as you put it, "off the hook?" You don't provide an example to demonstrate any sense of reciprocity. The fact is that the Democrats have proven more than willing to compromise -to a clear and obvious fault- whereas Republicans have not unless in exceptional circumstances (like avoiding a default). This doesn't indicate a polarised country, it indicates a country whose political landscape is defined by a radical party.
 

bdt2002

Pokémon Ranger: Guardian Signs superfan
is a Pre-Contributor
I don't think I could ask for a better example of why the idea of polarisation is bunk. Why aren't the Democrats, as you put it, "off the hook?" You don't provide an example to demonstrate any sense of reciprocity. The fact is that the Democrats have proven more than willing to compromise -to a clear and obvious fault- whereas Republicans have not unless in exceptional circumstances (like avoiding a default). This doesn't indicate a polarised country, it indicates a country whose political landscape is defined by a radical party.
Both Republicans and Democrats have a lot of dirt they can use against each other in political debates by this point. I’m not going to act like I’m up to date on what either party’s been doing lately, because quite frankly, I’m not. All I need to know is told to me by political voting maps that are closer to 50/50 splits than ever before. On paper, our country voting like this should be a good thing, but in practice, what this actually results in is 50% of the country’s views being ignored either way.

The point I’m to make is that is that, whether we’re talking about the Surpreme Court, the House, the Senate, or the presidency, we haven’t had anyone even remotely agreed upon between both parties in a long time. A good candidate is one who can try and help satisfy the needs of both major parties and compromise, but as the polarization between the parties continues to increase, these candidates will start to care more about their voting results than the needs of the people.
 
On paper, our country voting like this should be a good thing
Why, though? Centrists and "moderate" liberals (including past versions of myself) keep falling into this logical trap that meeting in the middle and compromising are, in and of themselves, good things. Why is that the case? If compromising with conservatives is good, what about compromising with socialists? Anarchists? Marxist-Leninists? Why is it only right and center-right ideologies that seem to be extended this benefit of the doubt?

Radical fucking idea here, but maybe compromising with people trying to undermine human rights isn't actually a good thing after all. Maybe some people are genuinely just wrong, and compromising with them undermines your own position.
 
polarization is good, actually, when there exists a ruling power and constituency seeking to eradicate & disenfranchise a whole host of ppl on the basis of identity. perhaps a more helpful framework of understanding this term would be “fighting for civil rights against oppressors”, which is universally lauded in the 60s, but the script is flipped for modern actors of political change.
 
If compromising with conservatives is good, what about compromising with socialists? Anarchists? Marxist-Leninists?
Because there are enough conservatives in the US for their votes to matter. What socialist / anarchist / marxist parties are you compromising with? There are none and the number of voters for them in the US is abysmal, probably half of them think Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. In addition just in a vacuum the US government isn't designed for one party to make radical sweeping changes without at least some support from the other side. If you think that's bad, well we just got through 4 years of Trump where the Republicans had control of the entire government, and if they had their way things could have gone a lot worse. No one is saying compromise with them on everything. There is no compromise on things like human rights. But things like infrastructure, chip production, climate change, and even gay marriage have seen Dems and Repubs unify to pass bipartisan bills.

Demographics suggest as gen X dies and gen Z starts to vote both the democrats and republicans will shift dramatically to the left to keep winning votes. Great news. But until then it's simple math. Compromise and get some things done, or don't.
 
Both Republicans and Democrats have a lot of dirt they can use against each other in political debates by this point. I’m not going to act like I’m up to date on what either party’s been doing lately, because quite frankly, I’m not. All I need to know is told to me by political voting maps that are closer to 50/50 splits than ever before. On paper, our country voting like this should be a good thing, but in practice, what this actually results in is 50% of the country’s views being ignored either way.

The point I’m to make is that is that, whether we’re talking about the Surpreme Court, the House, the Senate, or the presidency, we haven’t had anyone even remotely agreed upon between both parties in a long time. A good candidate is one who can try and help satisfy the needs of both major parties and compromise, but as the polarization between the parties continues to increase, these candidates will start to care more about their voting results than the needs of the people.
Except there aren't 50-50 splits, 40% of Americans are independent voters and are largely the determinant of who wins elections. Regardless, he make-up of the electorate isn't a factor for determining whether or not a society is polarised. Being unable to draw a consensus IS a sign of polarisation, but the issue here is that Republicans are distinctly unable to compromise, and indeed run specifically on their unwillingness to compromise. The opposite is true for Democrats, who have run on their willingness to compromise. Republican leadership punishes moderate legislators for collaborating with their Democrat colleagues.

Because there are enough conservatives in the US for their votes to matter. What socialist / anarchist / marxist parties are you compromising with? There are none and the number of voters for them in the US is abysmal, probably half of them think Bernie Sanders is a Socialist. In addition just in a vacuum the US government isn't designed for one party to make radical sweeping changes without at least some support from the other side. If you think that's bad, well we just got through 4 years of Trump where the Republicans had control of the entire government, and if they had their way things could have gone a lot worse. No one is saying compromise with them on everything. There is no compromise on things like human rights. But things like infrastructure, chip production, climate change, and even gay marriage have seen Dems and Repubs unify to pass bipartisan bills.

Let's go back to the Afghanistan example: Why is Afghanistan not considered politically "polarised" because of the cleavage between the Taliban and the vast majority of Afghan society? Should the rest of Afghan society have been expected to compromise with the Taliban, as the "moderates" did? Let's also not pretend that Republicans who compromised with Democrats were not severely punished by leadership, in several cases being forced into retirement. There is extremely little reason for Democrats to seek compromise with Republicans at this point either, considering the violent rhetoric and propaganda circulated by GOP lawmakers with impunity, and the efforts to blatantly abuse committee powers to target those they deem their enemies, as well as their families. The pertinent question isn't "Why is no one willing to compromise?" Rather the question is "Why are Republicans unwilling to compromise?"


polarization is good, actually, when there exists a ruling power and constituency seeking to eradicate & disenfranchise a whole host of ppl on the basis of identity. perhaps a more helpful framework of understanding this term would be “fighting for civil rights against oppressors”, which is universally lauded in the 60s, but the script is flipped for modern actors of political change.
Ok, but that's not polarisation. "Polarisation" as it is being used in American political discourse is a narrative framework that explicitly positions “fighting for civil rights against oppressors” as reciprocally extreme to "seeking to eradicate & disenfranchise a whole host of ppl on the basis of identity."


I think it is time America splits back into separate states, which would also be fairer to other smaller countries around the world.
The last time this happened, a shitload of people died. If it happened again, considerably more people would die in combat alone and there would certainly be a genocide of people who do not fit with the Republican Party's vision of a white, Christian America. If you thought the Rwandan Genocide was especially bad, just imagine if every genocidaire had an M4 instead of just a machete.
 
Last edited:
Let's go back to the Afghanistan example: Why is Afghanistan not considered politically "polarised" because of the cleavage between the Taliban and the vast majority of Afghan society? Should the rest of Afghan society have been expected to compromise with the Taliban, as the "moderates" did? Let's also not pretend that Republicans who compromised with Democrats were not severely punished by leadership, in several cases being forced into retirement. There is extremely little reason for Democrats to seek compromise with Republicans at this point either, considering the violent rhetoric and propaganda circulated by GOP lawmakers with impunity, and the efforts to blatantly abuse committee powers to target those they deem their enemies, as well as their families. The pertinent question isn't "Why is no one willing to compromise?" Rather the question is "Why are Republicans unwilling to compromise?"
What the fuck are you talking about lmao. Do you not understand how the US political system works? You aren't American, I wouldn't expect you to (I say that in the nicest way possible, I couldn't tell you shit about the Canadian government). In the US if you want anything to happen you either need to overwhelm the political system with people (aka control all three branches of government) or compromise. Since Biden controls exactly one branch of the government, aka the seat he sits in, he has to compromise.

Also the Republicans are garbage but comparing them to the Taliban is silly. Might as well call Biden a communist. It's just low effort name-calling, not really close to reality.

Whine about it on a Pokémon forever if you want, it doesn't change reality. Either find a middle ground or vote the other side out. Since the opposition has about as many voters as the Democrats I'm going to make a wild claim and say yeah, the Republicans are here to stay and one way or another if you want change you have to work together.

The last time this happened, a shitload of people died. If it happened again, considerably more people would die in combat alone and there would certainly be a genocide of people who do not fit with the Republican Party's vision of a white, Christian America.
If you think the US is even vaguely close to a civil war again, you are ridiculously out of touch with US politics.

but the issue here is that Republicans are distinctly unable to compromise
They recently voted in favor of making gay marriage a law (instead of a court decision), chip bill, infrastructure bill (including half a trillion dollars in climate change fighting), and even Ukraine support (they voted iirc 100-0 in favor of lend-lease) have had more than enough bipartisan compromise to get things done.

95% of bills passed have had bipartisan support. That's 310 of 334 in 2021 alone. From 2019-2020 that bipartisan number was 812 of 854. Put actual effort into it and there's literally hundreds of bills that don't get reported by the news but pass with bipartisan support.

Stop getting all your info from biased sources. All of you. The US is certainly divided but it's FAR from what garbage clickbait news sources want you to think.
 
Last edited:
What the fuck are you talking about lmao. Do you not understand how the US political system works? You aren't American, I wouldn't expect you to (I say that in the nicest way possible, I couldn't tell you shit about the Canadian government). In the US if you want anything to happen you either need to overwhelm the political system with people (aka control all three branches of government) or compromise. Since Biden controls exactly one branch of the government, aka the seat he sits in, he has to compromise.

Whine about it on a Pokémon forever if you want, it doesn't change reality. Either find a middle ground or vote the other side out.
Not only do I understand it perfectly well, I have a growing suspicion that I understand the political system of the United States (let alone Afghanistan) much better than you. In the US, compromise has become increasingly impossible since the 1990s due to an increasingly radicalising Republican Party. This has not always been the case, particularly for most of the post-WWI realignments within both parties. Within the 2020s, Republicans have made it entirely clear that they will not compromise on anything, and any GOP legislator violating that condition is to be punished. This makes your expectation for Democrats to reach compromises with Republicans completely out of touch with reality.

So allow me to once again ask: Does this mean that Afghans should have been expected to compromise with the Taliban? It's a pretty simple question for someone already suggesting that compromise with extremists should be a normal feature of American politics.


If you think the US is even vaguely close to a civil war again, you are ridiculously out of touch with US politics.


They recently voted in favor of making gay marriage a law (instead of a court decision), chip bill, infrastructure bill (including half a trillion dollars in climate change fighting), and even Ukraine support (they voted iirc 100-0 in favor of lend-lease) have had more than enough bipartisan compromise to get things done.

95% of bills passed have had bipartisan support. That's 310 of 334 in 2021 alone. From 2019-2020 that bipartisan number was 812 of 854. Put actual effort into it and there's literally hundreds of bills that don't get reported by the news but pass with bipartisan support.

Stop getting all your info from biased sources. All of you. The US is certainly divided but it's FAR from what garbage clickbait news sources want you to think.
What's actually delusional is equating "Mass Balkanisation like this person suggested would lead to civil war" to "I think a civil war is going to happen" lol. The United States is much more likely to experience an autogolpe (you know, like the one Republicans already attempted) and engage in mass repression/genocide without facing much of an insurgency, if at all.

Also lol @ mentioning infrastructure in a post where I explicitly point out how Republican leadership have punished legislators for voting with Democrats. Also pointing out that Ukrainian lend-lease wasn't even unanimous, it was only unanimous in the Senate (because to extremists, the only actors worth compromising with are America's enemies). All legislatures pass large amounts of unanimous legislation that are vital to the functions of government. That doesn't mean much in terms of bipartisanship, nor does securing the vote of at least one Republican. I'm also not relying on "biased sources" lol, you're torturing statistics (or rather, the White House is, you're just appropriating it) to better serve a narrative you favour. I would go so far as to say that the fact Republicans are now attempting to force a default is further evidence that they are increasingly avoiding any approach towards bipartisan consensus on even the basic functions of government.
 
Last edited:

antemortem

THE ORIGINAL DAVE
is a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Socialization Head
Nobody‘s passion for posting about political issues should be conflated with having an ethos on politics that is virtuous, not on this forum anyway. So moving forward consider this thread for takes on general politics and headlines not meant to be stone cold earnest, but still respect the opinions and perspectives of other posters.

I cleaned up posts from the last 5 pages to weed out posts that break rules or were in bad faith. Read the OP again before posting. This is the last version of this thread.
 

BIG ASHLEY

ashley
is a Community Contributor
since the word "american" has now been removed from the title i assume this is now a space for political discussion of all locales (either that or just classic us-centric thinking from mx. dave?) so what do we all think* about humza yousaf's ascension to the throne of scotland? (pending confirmation vote tomorrow techincally)

*please note that all views different from my own will be mocked with the appropriate degree of heartiness
 
https://www.al-monitor.com/original...amentary-committee-approves-finlands-nato-bid

https://www.euronews.com/2023/03/27/nato-hungarian-parliament-ratifies-finlands-membership

Since this is now not American exclusive, here's some news. Finland is now in NATO pretty much. Once Turkey finally gives Sweden the thumbs up, then Hungary probably follows suit. Good shit.

Would be kind of funny ngl if the country that copies Putin Russia domestic politics the most joins NATO if Sweden also gets to join NATO, really just shows how much Putin fucked up with that war in Ukraine.
Anyway, nice that Finland's now a member, soviet nostalgia communists and fascist Putin fans can cope and seethe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would be kind of funny ngl if the country that copies Putin Russia domestic politics the most joins NATO if Sweden also gets to join NATO, really just shows how much Putin fucked up with that war in Ukraine.
Anyway, nice that Finland's now a member, soviet nostalgia communists and fascist Putin fans can cope and seethe.
Finland's accession doesn't really change the fact that NATO now has two functional fascist dictatorships attempting to extort aspiring member states or the EU into handing over dissidents or letting them avoid accountability mechanisms for breaking European laws. It's a massive problem that doesn't really solve Russian aggression in Europe and Central Asia. NATO desperately needs to institutionally modernise to prevent fascists from hijacking expansion, or leveraging their positions to prevent intervention against them when invading member states, which is what Erdogan wants to do in the Aegean Sea. I'm really interested in what this will mean for far-right parties in member states and whether Russia will try to intensify cooperation to foster more favourable actors in the same vein as they did with Orban.

You're right that boomer communists and the far-right are probably going to try organising on NATO as the core issue in their messaging, but I doubt they're going to get particularly far even with Russian support, they'll have to find a popular issue among reactionaries instead if they want to expand their electoral fortunes.
 
To be totally honest if you ask me if you voluntarily sign on the dotted line to get a loan to study and do a degree that apparently does not provide the very least a break-even monetary return after adjusted for inflation; (aka you're doing a useless degree that literally no one needs nor any employer will give a shit about) you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself and there is absolutely no reason any taxpayer should bail you out.

And let me assure a LOT of degrees do fall under this 'useless' category.

Although I do feel sorry for you when you're 18 years old and you have either not been warned about the insane risk you are taking when taking out this loan or you are simply not old/mature enough to do a risk-assessment analysis over this.

Coming from someone who fell victim for this. Took an equivalent of 70K USD to do some pointless management degree which I can just do an online course for and that I have to work my arse off to just pay it off little by little. Probably the worst monetary investment i'll make in my life. Rip me.
 
Last edited:
there is absolutely no reason any taxpayer should bail you out.
Yeah I agree, tax money should be used exclusively for bailing out megacorporations when the economy gets a bit choppy and bombing countries with mostly brown people in them. Helping Americans get an education and become more productive citizens? Don't be fucking ridiculous. Next people will be asking for free healthcare so they don't have to choose between living in crushing debt or just fucking dying or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah I agree, tax money should be used exclusively for bailing out megacorporations when the economy gets a bit choppy and bombing countries with mostly brown people in them. Helping Americans get an education and become more productive citizens? Don't be fucking ridiculous. Next people will be asking for free healthcare so they don't have to choose between living in crushing debt or just fucking dying or something.
how did you come to the conclusion of me advocating for taxpayer money exclusively bailing out megacorporations and investing in foreign wars?

Again, if you as an American do a useful degree and graduate and become a 'productive' citizen as you claim including earning a decent living, you should have little to no problem paying off your debts eventually on your own. On the other hand if you do a degree that has a very high unemployment rate upon graduation, low employment demand or simply no employer in the right mind requires you to do, then it's a risk you took and it's the consequence you must take.

This is literally the case for any other monetary investment. If you buy stocks, bonds or assets that gives you a terrible return in the long run, you really have no one to blame but yourself. That's how investing works.
 
Last edited:

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
how did you come to the conclusion of me advocating for taxpayer money exclusively bailing out megacorporations and investing in foreign wars?

Again, if you as an American do a useful degree and graduate and become a 'productive' citizen as you claim, you should have little to no problem eventually paying off your debts eventually on your own. On the other hand if you do a degree that has a very high unemployment rate upon graduation, low employment demand or simply no employer in the right mind requires you to do, then it's a risk you took and it's the consequence you must take.

This is literally the case for any other monetary investment. If you buy stocks, bonds or assets that gives you a terrible return in the long run, you really have no one to blame but yourself. That's how investing works.

in a functional (tm) capitalist society education is subsidized heavily and its costs are kept low because everyone knows u have to eat the 10% on reinvesting in human (this is education) and other capitals. cost of doing business. this 'you took a risk' business is just irrelevant to the broader context. This, and i assume it's a real, policy, you never know w the dems until u check the fine print... is basically a huge gift to corporations who are sturgglin to hire any skilled labor. Read a book and all that, touch grass, take a course, learn how every capitalist economy grows on the most basic level. You would be surprised who benefits the most from these policies. This is the type of thing ppl with business degrees should be aware of.

if u got 70k debt all the more reason to get a break, this is like the bizarrest 'i got fucked, therefore so should u' thing ive read on these forums in a while.
 
The creation of the RESTRICT act is another proof to the thesis that you could create any law in america if it's phrased like "it'll destroy the evil commie chinese!!!!!". It is fun to see the hypocrisy of consantly pointing the firewall as an evil dictatorship move and then making your own firewall, but we'll be allowed to throw your ass in jail if you use a vpn actually.

Anyway go harass your senators or something over it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top