Serious The Politics Thread

I as a Leftist will not be voting for a guy who hates me and would 100% choose Trump over an actual Leftist in power,
Alright. Your opinion would be more credible if you just said you prefer a neo-fascist autocracy.

There is no going back this time. Trump told us in broad daylight he will be a dictator. Four years of his administration made it blatantly clear that the Republican Party and their media apparatus will allow him to do whatever he wants, including changing the rules to keep himself in power and worse.

For those who value freedom and democracy, this is a single issue election. It is either Biden or Trump that will be the next President. The democracy choice is Biden.
 
Americans are cooked. Again. :facepalm:

The bipartisan system is outrageous. The Republicans might as well put BW2 Ghetsis on a ballot. The Democrats make the Cirque Du Soleil look like a backwater town fair circus.

Without a 3rd party to break the stalemate and add some variables to elections, you'll be in situations like these for a very long time.
 

ant4456

I COULD BE BANNED!
If you genuinely think Trump won't be worse than Biden, I can promise you that you've got a nasty surprise coming and I'm going to be as smug as humanly possible about it.
I never said Trump is not worse. I agree with this 100%, including on issues like Palestine. I am under no delusions of that fact. No need to be smug as you say.

I am also someone who is an easy target for the Republicans' hatred. I'm trans, queer, autistic, genetically disabled. All the rolled dice on things that they hate outside of the fact I'm white. I just do not have the faith that the Democratic Party will actually do the work to protect people like me. I'm not going to say do not vote for Joe Biden, but I do not have confidence that this is a sustainable system in any way, and voting for Joe Biden makes me feel... gross. Being a lapdog for people who have disdain for me to fight people who have a more open disdain for me makes it feel gross, I cannot get myself past that.

but is okay with gay people and Mexicans
While you are overall correct that between the neoliberal warhawks, the Democratic Party is absolutely better, I will say that some of this is overstated. Biden is also anti-immigration and has as of recently turned the dial up on it with calling people "illegals". He just dresses it up better.

The Dems like to do this thing where they play into Republican narratives and say they will do it better (in the perspective of a Conservative) like policing/immigration/veterans during election years especially. Republicans yell that Democrat-run cities are full of crime? Not exactly true per-capita, but instead of defending themselves they run on funding police for the moderate voter. Which to be honest, I don't even think works? Like, from an electoralism perspective?

Anywho, I know I'm going to get flack, but please have some sympathy that not everyone can easily just do the "lesser evil" thing. I get that it is necessary, but thinking of myself casting a vote for Joe Biden makes me feel actively worse. I don't want Trump to win, but unless Joe Biden actually starts doing things then I am not going to say I am committed to voting for him.
 
If Trump does win, I hope to see all of the 'harm reduction' people in the streets so we can build a better alternative together. At the end of the day, blaming people for not voting for a genocide-supporting party is not realistic. You can't expect to actively facilitate a genocide and get away with it with no consequences, so if there's someone to blame, I say point it towards the monsters who are doing this.

Also I'd be happy if some of those earlier people would keep talking about the India election stuff, I don't know much about that topic. I'm gonna dip out of this thread for a while because I tend to post too much!
 
Americans are cooked. Again. :facepalm:

The bipartisan system is outrageous. The Republicans might as well put BW2 Ghetsis on a ballot. The Democrats make the Cirque Du Soleil look like a backwater town fair circus.

Without a 3rd party to break the stalemate and add some variables to elections, you'll be in situations like these for a very long time.
Unfortunately, third-party candidates being a waste of one's vote is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and neither major party will ever support change that would lead to a competitive third party because that would require giving up a share of their power. Things will have to get a lot worse before the duopoly is seriously disrupted.
 

Oglemi

Borf
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnusis a Top Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
Moderator
Let's not dip too far into baseless claims about what or what not the Repubs or Dems would do or did. When your posts are little more than "yuh huh" and "nuh uh" there's not much to discuss
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, third-party candidates being a waste of one's vote is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and neither major party will ever support change that would lead to a competitive third party because that would require giving up a share of their power. Things will have to get a lot worse before the duopoly is seriously disrupted.
Pretty much. It also has to do with the US not being able to produce any semblance of a legitimate 3rd party force because they know it's best to run through the good old bipartisan system where you can guarantee votes by taking the primary.

The whole "It's a battle for democracy!" schtick is getting old too, but it is effective because again, the GOP is like BW2 Team Plasma.

So instead of having, say, Bernie go for a 3rd party run in 2020 after the momentum he had in 2016, Americans had to rally around Biden because "Democracy was at risk!". (Granted, that was the right course of action, but because of the pandemic.)

Now both parties didn't even really pretend to have real primaries, and there's still no one willing to step up. Why bother pretending? Y'all getting Biden vs Trump again and you're going to hate it, but it doesn't matter anyway. Trump knows this, and so does the Dems.

The general reaction to this election is apathy for a reason. Y'all are cooked. :mehowth:
 
Let's not dip too far into baseless claims about what or what not the Repubs or Dems would do or did. When your posts are little more than "yuh huh" and "nuh uh" there's not much to discuss
We can’t discuss Donald Trump’s published plan for his second term - Project 2025? How is it baseless?

Project 2025 is highly relevant to the upcoming election.
 
We can’t discuss Donald Trump’s published plan for his second term - Project 2025? How is it baseless?

Project 2025 is highly relevant to the upcoming election.
Project 2025 is certainly cause for concern, but describing it as "Donald Trump's plan" is extremely misleading. The institution behind the plan is the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been a major influence on Republican policy since the Reagan years. The plan is a collection of policy proposals that does not necessarily reflect Trump's intentions for a hypothetical second term. In fact, I strongly doubt that Trump, a man who seems far more concerned with enriching himself and his cronies than with matters of policy, will fully realize the goals of Project 2025 if he wins in November. It should still be greatly worrying that a major influence on Republican policy is being so open about its desire to turn the President into an autocrat, but Project 2025 should not be treated as an inevitable reality should Trump get a second term.
 
Unfortunately, third-party candidates being a waste of one's vote is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and neither major party will ever support change that would lead to a competitive third party because that would require giving up a share of their power. Things will have to get a lot worse before the duopoly is seriously disrupted.
The bigger issue with 3rd parties is they only want to run for the presidency, and until that changes they are purely vanity projects and fundraising grabs. If they were serious about actually winning higher office and influencing policy, they’d run for state house/senate seats, governorships and US house/senate seats. Those are much easier wins, and build actual name recognition and legislative accomplishments. The Greens should be running for state house and senate in Vermont, Massachusetts and other deep blue states, and the Libertarians should run in deep red states like Wyoming and Idaho. They don’t even have to win majorities, just have some representation.

Or in a slightly more ambitious scenario, if there were 10 Green Party and 10 Libertarians in the current congress, they could wield some actual influence given the narrow D/R margin.
 

ant4456

I COULD BE BANNED!
Third party can't exist in America because the two parties can only function with how much capital they are provided from lobbying and other corporate funding.

And none of them are spending money on this presumably true-blue Leftist third party unless their goal is not sincere, because Leftist policies are antithetical to them.

We have legal bribery in this country, and an oligarch of corporations. While I agree local politics are always more malleable, there will never be allowed a true challenge from an actual Leftist party in the foreseeable future, and any new party that comes to fruition is likely going to be a Conservative one considering how privately many internal Republicans actively dislike Trump (for instance, the leaked Tucker Carlson text messages where he was glad Tru lost the 2020 Election. Kinda funny how this leak didn't fuck up his career), and that the average Conservative's goals will help corporations.

This is why people tend to prefer the idea of pulling the Democratic Party leftward, and I do honestly think some damage could be done towards the establishment within it, but with things like super-delegates, major federal power is out of the question.
 
Third party can't exist in America because the two parties can only function with how much capital they are provided from lobbying and other corporate funding.

And none of them are spending money on this presumably true-blue Leftist third party unless their goal is not sincere, because Leftist policies are antithetical to them.

We have legal bribery in this country, and an oligarch of corporations. While I agree local politics are always more malleable, there will never be allowed a true challenge from an actual Leftist party in the foreseeable future, and any new party that comes to fruition is likely going to be a Conservative one considering how privately many internal Republicans actively dislike Trump (for instance, the leaked Tucker Carlson text messages where he was glad Tru lost the 2020 Election. Kinda funny how this leak didn't fuck up his career), and that the average Conservative's goals will help corporations.

This is why people tend to prefer the idea of pulling the Democratic Party leftward, and I do honestly think some damage could be done towards the establishment within it, but with things like super-delegates, major federal power is out of the question.
You'll sooner see a successful 3rd party come through the center than either side.

Extreme-wing parties have traditionally been small all over the world because they alienate too many people. With a polarized situation where many people are unhappy with both sides, the idea of a level-headed party is more alluring than ever.
 
You'll sooner see a successful 3rd party come through the center than either side.

Extreme-wing parties have traditionally been small all over the world because they alienate too many people. With a polarized situation where many people are unhappy with both sides, the idea of a level-headed party is more alluring than ever.
This isn’t true in America because of how similar the two parties are outside of social issues; a hypothetical “centrist” party wouldn’t be able to carve out a platform unique enough to draw fundraising or a vote.
 

boo836

I COULD BE BANNED!
[
You're right, Dresden wasn't a war crime, no, but your depiction of the events, particularly the "it's celebrated for a reason" part, still appears slightly callous. I would like to know which "considerable effort to avoid civilian casualties" was made in Dresden that at the time of the bombings was filled with refugees seeking as much safety as possible under the obviously heavily precarious circumstances in Germany and particularly its east at that time. Furthermore, while I acknowledge the importance of Dresden's infrastructure that was a valid target in a war the allies fortunately won, I would also like to know how one can cheer at the death of as many (20000 - 30000) civilians. I'm well aware that right wing extremists are using Dresden as a fallacious argument to suggest the military campaign against Germany wasn't justified and to deflect blame which is shown by the shameful protests taking place in Dresden to this very day. I clearly condemn such frivolous actions, but at the same time glorifying the bombings is something that doesn't sit right with me. Dresden might've been a necessary evil, but even a necessary evil doesn't deserve being "celebrated".
I'm not debating whether or not it is deserved or should be celebrated (the answer to that though is unambiguously yes), what I'm saying is that Germans themselves celebrate it. I have plenty of issues with the Antideutsch, but this is one they definitely got right.


But given no other viable alternative, if your only two options are the neoliberal warhawk who wants to fund drone strikes on Palestinian children but is okay with gay people and Mexicans and the neoliberal warhawk who wants to fund drone strikes on Palestinian children and also deny LGBTQ+ people human rights and machine gun Mexicans on the border, why the fuck would you ever let the latter win?
Here's the thing you don't get: the people who do this sort of thing don't give a shit about Palestinian kids or minorities or not gunning people down at the border, what they care about is the performance lending the appearance of power against tHe EsTaBlIsHmEnT. Donald Trump was more than willing to lend Israel unambiguous support to literally fucking gunning down civilians at the border during the Great March of Return and the Usual Suspects were still dragging their feet in 2020. Palestinian lives simply didn't matter nearly as much when they couldn't be weaponised as props in silly attempts at power games.

If Trump does win, I hope to see all of the 'harm reduction' people in the streets so we can build a better alternative together. At the end of the day, blaming people for not voting for a genocide-supporting party is not realistic. You can't expect to actively facilitate a genocide and get away with it with no consequences, so if there's someone to blame, I say point it towards the monsters who are doing this.

Also I'd be happy if some of those earlier people would keep talking about the India election stuff, I don't know much about that topic. I'm gonna dip out of this thread for a while because I tend to post too much!
I absolutely love this "build a better future" take. Literally "After Hitler, our turn!" except this time with the added bonus of ignoring eighty years of foresight. My sister in Christ, if you are incapable of doing the basic task of keeping fascists out of power, you have no place in "building a better future." Here's how this works in a totalitarian state: you don't take to the streets, you either pick up a gun and become a partisan or you be the Good German. It's insane to posture as a radical and then immediately tell us that your answer to fascist takeover is protesting in the street.

The Lok Sabha elections aren't that interesting tbh, it's an expected result for a functional one party state, which India currently IS, not becoming one. What's most consequential is how people talk about and react to it, which for a lot of western commentators has been behind. Five years ago, two million people in Assam were disenfranchised and made stateless, there's simply no way anyone can view this as a fair or free election, let alone a competitive one.
 

ant4456

I COULD BE BANNED!
Here's the thing you don't get: the people who do this sort of thing don't give a shit about Palestinian kids or minorities or not gunning people down at the border, what they care about is the performance lending the appearance of power against tHe EsTaBlIsHmEnT.
Considering the context of this conversation, are you accusing me (who is a minority in several ways targeted by Conservatives) of not actually giving a shit about these people? That's a pretty mean thing to say, and you don't really back that up- you just make a claim.

You created a person in your head to attack, frankly. You keep saying you are super anti-fascist and understand fascism while asking that others bow down to the status quo that is actively creating fascism, and the party that is/was actively funding some of the other side's candidates because they think fascists will be easier to beat in the election than more moderate Conservatives (https: //www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-primary-season-fund-conservative-advertsing-illinois-colorado-11655326924?mod=trending_now_opn_2).

You said I don't understand fascism but you don't seem to get that Liberalism and civility politics as an ideology has very few ways to actually combat fascism because it's ineffective, and its policies will always breed discontent. Discontent that it will always be easier to blame on minorities, always make an in-group/out-group, define people as "societal ills". The Democratic Party as is already participates in a lot of this discourse such as finding the homeless yucky, playing into myths about how immigrants are bad for the economy, and bombing foreigners. (Also, cough cough, hatred of actual socialists and communists is also another trait of fascism but we like to ignore that in America!)

Fascism is not that complicated. The point is to find groups of people, an in-group that is disenfranchised, and the out-group, and then say that if we get rid of them then society will propser. Give us the power to do that and we will. Let it fester, make people get a real "ick" from them, see them as disgusting burdens on society.

Liberalism doesn't have a counter for it because individualism and capitalism doesn't really allow it. They will continue to disenfranchise people, including the groups that have been promised success (like white guys), and then people will point the finger- either cynically, like Fascist leaders, or without real understanding. The Dems do not only not really have a counter to this, but as I just said, actively participates in this culture with certain groups, and also as of late has a pretty bad track record with policing and protesting! Neat. Also supporting the Tiktok bill which is pretty explicitly sparked by the pro-Palestinian posting on it, which even establishment figures like Mitt Romney has suggested (https:// youtu.be/V92PzA6eEyM?).

The Democratic Party is often happy to spout compromise with the Fascists as long as they are "civil" and are not loud like Donald Trump. Joe Biden has said his news source is Morning Joe (https ://www.axios.com/2024/02/02/biden-obsession-morning-joe-msnbc-media), which is basically just liberal Fox News; with almost indistinguishable lines about protestors ( ) example, homeless people, policing, etc.

Stop doubling down on the idea that the only reason people would hate the Democratic Party is performative "I'm an anarchist on Twitter" like you think, and not "They suck and are actively the other half marching us towards fascism, bomb babies in the Middle East, and are actively awful."

You cannot be a "radical" without understanding that the Democratic Party is as instrumental to the rise of fascism in America as the Republican Party, and if you study Neo-Nazis as you say, you should understand this.

You should still vote for Biden because he's still a better candidate in the short-term, but you should do it with full knowledge that this will do absolutely literally nothing to stop the rise of fascism, maybe slightly delay it.
 
Last edited:
Also supporting the Tiktok bill which is pretty explicitly sparked by the pro-Palestinian posting on it, which even establishment figures like Mitt Romney has suggested (https:// youtu.be/V92PzA6eEyM?).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/07/tiktok-ban-congress-calls-us/

The tiktok bill didn’t gain serious urgency until the TikTok push notification incident, and the TikTok divestment issue had widespread bipartisan support since before October 7th. Connecting the narrative and the passing of the bill to Israel and/or Gaza is 95% painting a target where the arrow lands.
 

ant4456

I COULD BE BANNED!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/03/07/tiktok-ban-congress-calls-us/

The tiktok bill didn’t gain serious urgency until the TikTok push notification incident, and the TikTok divestment issue had widespread bipartisan support since before October 7th. Connecting the narrative and the passing of the bill to Israel and/or Gaza is 95% painting a target where the arrow lands.
The idea of getting Tiktok under the American umbrella has been passed around for a while but also this doesn't actually disprove anything I said.

There has always been an interest because any popular-in-America social media owned by a competing nation will be a target, but the fact that a large portion of young people got their anti-Zionist views from Tiktok, which directly goes against the establishment, is also a major reason as to why it got passed recently.

Two things can be true at the same time.
 
Are two leftists debating as intensely as two people on the opposing sides?
Almost like "leftism" is a very broad umbrella term that encompasses many ideologies that ostensibly agree on some things but differ heavily on others, and people have varying understandings and levels of commitment even within those sub-categories.

I genuinely don't think the term leftist is all that useful in most informed political discussions as it encompasses far too many incompatible ideologies. It tends to come up in relation to American politics quite often because your average American can't tell you an anarchist from a Marxist-Leninist from a social democrat; they're all communists who hate America and worship Satan and want gas to be $15 a gallon and all the Mexicans to come to America and vote for Joe Biden. The term isn't useful in productive conversation, but American politics isn't at the level of having productive conversations yet.
 
The term isn't useful in productive conversation, but American politics isn't at the level of having productive conversations yet.
And it won’t be in my lifetime, unfortunately. American voters currently think Trump is better than Biden on the economy despite all economic data saying the contrary. Also, the most common economic ill discussed today, inflation, can be directly be tied to Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic (somehow voters forget the shitshow we were in 4 years ago). But in the United States, voters blame the sitting President for everything. There was a Florida poll that showed 22% of voters blamed Biden for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I think it’s clear U.S. democracy is on its death bed.
 
Unfortunately, third-party candidates being a waste of one's vote is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and neither major party will ever support change that would lead to a competitive third party because that would require giving up a share of their power. Things will have to get a lot worse before the duopoly is seriously disrupted.
The real reason there's no 3rd party is the American government and electoral system. It is well attested* that parliamentary regimes and proportional representation tend to result in multi-party systems, while presidential regimes and first-past-the-post electoral systems result in 2-party systems.

In a presidential system, everything hinges on the presidency: you're either the president or not. If you don't win a majority of votes, you're irrelevant. This makes it so that smaller parties are incentivized to merge with one of the 2 large parties and influence them from within. On the other hand, in parliamentary systems coalitions are common, and even a party with 5-10% voteshare can be the kingmaker in governments.

Look at Germany: There's the center-left/social democrats (SPD), and there's the center righ/conservatives (CDU) as the two main parties. But there's also the Greens (Grüne), the libertarians (FDP), the Left (Linke) and the far-right/nationalists (AfD). All of these parties play a role in elections at both national and state level, and all sorts of coalitions have happened. On the other hand, in the US, what matters is not your vote share but whether you have the majority or not, so the "coalitions" happen at party level beforehand.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
 
Last edited:

ant4456

I COULD BE BANNED!
Are two leftists debating as intensely as two people on the opposing sides?
For me, I just see it as debating my argument on certain points. For me it is less about which side is which, and I would debate other peoplw I'd consider Leftists if we do not agree on things, as it is a broad umbrella. But I do not see Liberals as leftists. To me, Leftism has to at minimize recognize the capitalist system as being an outdated structure that subjugates its people, and Liberals (at least in the traditional sense) are basically capitalists that have better social policies.

I fundamentally disagree with the Democratic Party on almost every level, with a few outliars in social issues, but even then I'd say the Dems are more neutral than anything.

I also simply do not believe policies based on just words.

Here is an example:

Joe Biden can say he is not against immigrational all he wants, but he is just average on that policy (including the Conservative side) and in fact kicks out tons of the people he calls "illegals", while my opinion is that immigration is fundamentally something that should be easy. I'd say most of these "illegals" should just be citizens, and allowed to live here, because I am not a believer in borders outside of the practical terms of juridstiction and nationality.

In fact, I'd say that the system uses this as for capital gain. Illegal immigrants often have way less leverage than the average person because anyone can simply tell on them. Many of them are underpaid to do the labor that a hundred years ago, white slave owners argued an underclass of black people were necessary for society to exist. We simply changed the underclass to being illegal immigrants who do not have leverage (https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/garment-immigrant-workers-wage-theft/), while they actually contribute more to the system than they take(source link is long lol ) and then yell at them on TV every single day.


While Joe Biden may on paper be better than Trump in these policies, I still see his policy as promoting an awful dehumanizing practice that is cold rather than humanistic, and with a frankly ghoulish goal.

This is just one example where even if Liberals may say it has a similar position to Leftists, it's actually sometimes far more different in practice than it may sound to just say you aren't against immigration. I am not just pro-immigration, I think the system should be radically altered with a humanistic goal, and that there is unironically a system built in place by capital owners to abuse these people who we criminalize (which Biden will not stop).

Now, as for the "infighting", this leaves the most common Liberal versus Leftist arguments: Liberals will often try to argue that Leftists should vote for them and tantilize that they could be pulled left, while knowing that this standard actually means Liberals just have the Leftist voting block by the balls. As of late, seemingly progressive Liberals such as John Fetterman have made major heel turns, even Bernie Sanders is having to spout the generic pro-Israel stuff (albeit, off TV he is not nearly as supportive), and AOC went from a figure I heard every day during 2020 to a person that I hear much more rarely (ironically, her fight with MTG lately is a counter-example, but also that isn't much to do with policy). And a lot of the more progressive Democrats (usually called "Social Democrats") basically go as far as the Nordics, which is still a system based on capitalism at its core. Albeit much, much better than here.

Other infighting within Leftists tends to revolve around the many interpretations of similar goals, because it's not at all unified. While most Leftist ideologies will call themselves socialists, not all socialists are anarchists, for instance.
 
The real reason there's no 3rd party is the American government and electoral system. It is well attested* that parliamentary regimes and proportional representation tend to result in multi-party systems, while presidential regimes and first-past-the-post electoral systems result in 2-party systems.

In a presidential system, everything hinges on the presidency: you're either the president or not. If you don't win a majority of votes, you're irrelevant. This makes it so that smaller parties are incentivized to merge with one of the 2 large parties and influence them from within. On the other hand, in parliamentary systems coalitions are common, and even a party with 5-10% voteshare can be the kingmaker in governments.

Look at Germany: There's the center-left/social democrats (SPD), and there's the center righ/conservatives (CDU) as the two main parties. But there's also the Greens (Grüne), the libertarians (FDP), the Left (Linke) and the far-right/nationalists (AfD). All of these parties play a role in elections at both national and state level, and all sorts of coalitions have happened. On the other hand, in the US, what matters is not your vote share but whether you have the majority or not, so the "coalitions" happen at party level beforehand.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
Indeed. When I said this:
neither major party will ever support change that would lead to a competitive third party because that would require giving up a share of their power
I was alluding to the adoption of things like proportional representation and ranked choice voting. The duopoly will never support these things because they would break it up.
 
The real reason there's no 3rd party is the American government and electoral system. It is well attested* that parliamentary regimes and proportional representation tend to result in multi-party systems, while presidential regimes and first-past-the-post electoral systems result in 2-party systems.
Im honestly shocked at how "well" RFK jr is polling. I figured he wpuld be like 5% of the vote, not a serious contender. I dont think he has a real chance of winning but it seems he could pull around 15% of the vote. I havent seen anything like that since Ive been old enough to vote. Some betting sites are giving him like 5% to win, which is not realistic, but point is he is semi viable as a 3rd party which before 2024 I would have thought impossible. Honestly I think Trump may have opened the door for similar runs in the future. Trumps shock win in 2016 I think in general has shifted the political landscape so that more obscure or fringe candidates from any background may be given more consideration now.

I looked up some of RFKs beliefs and I dont think hes great. For instance, hes business as usual with Israel and Palestine. But the fact hes not considered a complete joke by polls is interesting, could be a sign of change.
 

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

Top