Does "liberal" still actually mean nice? Are leftists still claiming to be the "nice" ones and conservatives are "mean" or what?

[PozTalkAuthor]

Let me say that I'm fed up about all of this "binarism" in reasoning. Computers are programmed to get "zero" as false, "one" as true; but human race? Why? Saying "if you're gay you can't be republican" or vice-versa, yes. Most republican politicians are homophobic, but what do you do if current democrat politicians have a weaker position about conflicts, for example? This world is mad, unstable, because every one feels to be in the right side of history. 

Sorry I might sound complicated, I'm a little feverish

Life is complex, and we can't say a person is bad or nice labelling their political orientation. 

With this, though, I feel uncomfortable seeing there are LGBT people addressed towards politicians who are homophobic.

Not for people's ideas BEYOND sexuality, but because it means choosing the least relevant damage for the country you live in. "He's homophobic but is promising to do his best to stop war" for example...

It's not the politician, it's the world going more and more crazy. Then, promises are election campaign promises! And believe me, here in Europe we are not better than you in the US. 

[PozBearWI]

The politician are representative of us; so it is both us and the politicians.  

And indeed our problems are typically experienced locally, but similar unrest is ubiquitous to all of our species.  

[PozTalkAuthor]

50 minutes ago, PozBearWI said:

The politician are representative of us; so it is both us and the politicians.  

And indeed our problems are typically experienced locally, but similar unrest is ubiquitous to all of our species.  

 

Yeah, that's it: into a democracy, you vote the person or group who best represents your way of thinking. 

But if there are two candidates and one is worst than the other, you choose the one closer to your ideas, running the risk of a fail. 

I'd lie saying that some figures aren't carismatic and have a good ability to attract masses. But they seem to talk to your instinct, not your head! 

Politicians represent us, it's true but in this particular moment it's very difficult. If you vote and the election goes to the opposite side, you don't feel represented; if you vote, your candidate succeeds, and doesn't do what they promised doing rather the opposite? You're screwed.

If you don't vote because you don't feel represented by anyone? You submit to others' decision and, guess... you're screwed again. 

Talking about liberals and conservatives, I hardly define myself totally liberal. And I'm far from conservative! 

For example I'd accept to prohibit Internet access to haters and fake-news spreaders. I'd introduce a sort of "driving license" for the net, which should be updated every 6 months to be able to actively participate in social media, and so on.

But it's practically BULLSHIT as if a politician gets it, they can have their own criteria to decide what and if, it becomes censorship and it's the end. This kind of mindset is the one sponsoring autocracy, so even talking like this in theory, having seen the worst of the worst around me, I'd stay much much far from people promising such stuff. 

[PozBearWI]

Indeed, and that is a particular illness amongst politicians.  They do things which hurt most of their supporters to appease the few.  And by following an undefined party platform like the R's; means every day is anything can happen day.  But the D's do it too although at least as a party, they have a platform.  

 

[DallasPozzible]

Seems to me the structure of the US political system is failing us. To start with, the ElectoralCollege is horribly undemocratic and has outlived its usefulness for its original intent. Unfortunately, with the deep divide between the two parties we’re going to be unable to get rid of it - or indeed make any other constitutional changes - for the foreseeable future. Second, I'd much prefer a parliamentary system of government which would make feasible numerous parties that could more accurately represent diverse opinions on major issues. Parties could make coalitions with different parties on different issues - like pretty much every other democratic country does. I just don’t see any possible way to get there from the morass we find ourselves in. 

[hntnhole]

13 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

Seems to me the structure of the US political system is failing us

Actually, it's equally likely that it's we who are failing the electoral system.  Not all of us, but it doesn't take all of us to effect a dramatic change either.  The electoral system has functioned rather well for hundreds of years, not because it was perfect, but because it was closer to perfect than any other form of government.

If we don't participate in the process of Democracy, then we weaken it by our non-presence.  If enough people just complain about this, that, and the next thing, and can't be bothered to sit down, think things through, and arrive at a decision - and then go vote their choice - it's we, the electorate, those who refuse to participate, but non-the-less are wiling to throw road apples who are weakening our Democracy, and all the systems that implies.  

The whole point of Democracy is, each of us gets to 'voice' our beliefs by voting, and all those ballots are counted equally.  Maybe not the most perfect way to run a country, but - there isn't a better, more Just way that I've ever heard of.  

 

Edited April 16 by hntnhole

[descartes70817]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:43 AM, BootmanLA said:

Not to mention that many of us in a lot of states have to use a VPN to connect, which means we aren't going to always have the same IP address (as visible to the website).

You can use the Tor Browser app to connect to porn sites and it's a free download. It works on iOS, Android and Windows.

[J-raw]

Both of the two major candidates are horrible, so I'm leaning towards voting third party or else doing a write in as a protest vote. Biden's a selfish man for running again and making this election such a cliff hanger. Likewise, Trump is horrible, but he has this crazy cult/base of voters, so I'm afraid that if the GOP didn't give him the nomination then his cult wouldn't show up to vote as a protest. Biden faces losing his left wing base also and that's why he's trying to pander and cancel student debt, but I think that's going to cost him votes with suburban moderates, who had to actually pay for their degrees.

[PozBearWI]

Perhaps Biden is a selfish man; but he is at least able to understand and support democracy.  Honestly he isn't the one I would want.  I truly think it is time for a new generation.  But, third party is a vote for 45.  If he gets in it is not going to turn out well.  

[DallasPozzible]

2 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The whole point of Democracy is, each of us gets to 'voice' our beliefs by voting, and all those ballots are counted equally.

But under electoral college, our votes don’t count equally at all.  If they did, Democrats would have won every presidential election in the last 30 years except for ‘04. 

[J-raw]

I'm sure Trump would be successfully impeached if he served a second term and trig a recession. I think Jerome Powell as the Fed has done as good a job as anyone can to steer the economy through this post-pandemic malaise. Trump would replace him with a yes man and try to prematurely cut interest rates and further erode the independency of federal agencies.

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, J-raw said:

I'm sure Trump would be successfully impeached if he served a second term and trig a recession. I think Jerome Powell as the Fed has done as good a job as anyone can to steer the economy through this post-pandemic malaise. Trump would replace him with a yes man and try to prematurely cut interest rates and further erode the independency of federal agencies.

I do not believe Trump - or any other president - can ever be successfully impeached and convicted again. The Congress elected in 2020 saw first-hand the kind of destruction he happily unleashed on them trying to stay in power, and even then, 80% of Republicans voted to acquit him. I think we're approaching the point Trump told us when he ran in 2016: that he could literally shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose support in his party.

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, J-raw said:

Both of the two major candidates are horrible, so I'm leaning towards voting third party or else doing a write in as a protest vote. Biden's a selfish man for running again and making this election such a cliff hanger. Likewise, Trump is horrible, but he has this crazy cult/base of voters, so I'm afraid that if the GOP didn't give him the nomination then his cult wouldn't show up to vote as a protest. Biden faces losing his left wing base also and that's why he's trying to pander and cancel student debt, but I think that's going to cost him votes with suburban moderates, who had to actually pay for their degrees.

Sadly, you live in (apparently) one swing state and one that might end up being a swing state, and yet you're willing to risk throwing the election to the candidate who would happily ensure we never have to worry about elections again.

Do I think Biden is the best possible candidate? No, of course not. But he's the incumbent, and that alone gives him a boost over anyone else; when Lyndon Johnson chose not to run again in 1968, trying to find the candidate to replace him led us to Hubert Humphrey (a statesman, but hardly a great campaigner). Part of the problem of the US political system is that if a president announces he's not going to run again, he's immediately a lame duck, and that's the end of any plans he might have to improve the country. Had Biden announced he was not running early on, we wouldn't have gotten half of what he's done through the Congress; and if he had announced as late as last fall, there really wasn't time to groom a valid successor.

Trump is going to get the nomination from the Republicans even if he's sitting in jail after his trial that started this week. They have the same problem: it's too late to find someone else who could keep the party together through the election. Personally, I'd be happy as a pig in shit if the nomination went to someone else, causing that person to lose as the MAGAts stayed home.

As for the student debt thing: the people complaining about the cancelations weren't going to vote Democratic anyway. They're all Republicans who believe in the bootstrap myth and most of them didn't have student loans to begin with.

[BootmanLA]

21 hours ago, DallasPozzible said:

Seems to me the structure of the US political system is failing us. To start with, the ElectoralCollege is horribly undemocratic and has outlived its usefulness for its original intent. 

Actually, it's still fulfilling its original intent: to give a greater voice to big empty spaces with fewer voters, most of whom are more conservative than the mean. Never forget that one of the primary reasons the EC exists is the same as its underpinnings with apportioning the House: they counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for apportionment, giving a lot more Congressional representation (and EC representation) to states that then gave 0/5 of that vote to the actual slaves. And the same for the rules in the Constitution for when the EC can't reach a majority - letting each state's congressional delegation cast a single vote, meaning California (39 million people) and Wyoming (581,000 people) have the same voice.

[J-raw]

9 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Sadly, you live in (apparently) one swing state and one that might end up being a swing state, and yet you're willing to risk throwing the election to the candidate who would happily ensure we never have to worry about elections again.

Do I think Biden is the best possible candidate? No, of course not. But he's the incumbent, and that alone gives him a boost over anyone else; when Lyndon Johnson chose not to run again in 1968, trying to find the candidate to replace him led us to Hubert Humphrey (a statesman, but hardly a great campaigner). Part of the problem of the US political system is that if a president announces he's not going to run again, he's immediately a lame duck, and that's the end of any plans he might have to improve the country. Had Biden announced he was not running early on, we wouldn't have gotten half of what he's done through the Congress; and if he had announced as late as last fall, there really wasn't time to groom a valid successor.

Trump is going to get the nomination from the Republicans even if he's sitting in jail after his trial that started this week. They have the same problem: it's too late to find someone else who could keep the party together through the election. Personally, I'd be happy as a pig in shit if the nomination went to someone else, causing that person to lose as the MAGAts stayed home.

As for the student debt thing: the people complaining about the cancelations weren't going to vote Democratic anyway. They're all Republicans who believe in the bootstrap myth and most of them didn't have student loans to begin with.

I really appreciate your thoughtful reply. I think Georgia will go to Trump. Stacy Abrams' organization was going to a lot of minority homes and an online registering and then voting for people. That's a fact, I talked to someone that was paid. It was all legal & fair play technically. The Problem is that trick only works once and when Abrams ran for governor again two years later she lost by 10%. It's a toss up whether Trump will lose the suburban vote over abortion, but I think Biden's going to lose some suburban/middle class votes over his cancelation of student debt after they paid their own way through college. I think the primaries are producing fringe candidates. Wish the conventions would go back to the old method of selecting the nominee in the back room.