US politics

[Carbomb]

3 hours ago, David said:

Well, that depends on them being suitable candidates really. For example, I'd rather set fire to my own head than see Kamala Harris as President. But I'd have been really intrigued and excited to see Andrew Yang win the Presidency. 

Of course it depends on them being suitable candidates. But there clearly have been quite a few - the US has been around for two and a half centuries, so the idea that the only people who've ever been suitable for the role have been a succession of old WASP men and one black man, out of hundreds of thousands of Congress people, senators, DAs, and other officials, is not plausible, and especially not in the modern day.

I agree I wouldn't want to see Harris as president; she's awful. Don't know much about Yang - should read up on him.

[d-d-d-dAz]

Andrew Yang was a fucking idiot. A lunatic fringe candidate for bored men that listen to the Joe Rogan podcast and need everything in life to be interesting or exciting.

He had a million thoughts but zero ideas of substance of his own, had zero experience of the US Government and would have had zero ideas of how to manoeuvre around the Capital or get things done.

It's the same with Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy, and plenty more cases before them. Politics as normal is boring, combined with peoples general feeling that they're worst off than they could be, and suddenly they project onto these left field, cult of personality candidates who promise them things can be perfect or exciting. Or both. 

This article doesn't hate this shit as much as I do, but it's a pretty accurate recounting of the various nothingness he had to say on big issues and the other opinions he had on anything that the Internet cared about. Just a podcast gob for hire for bro's. Awful.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzdjjy/all-of-andrew-yangs-76-policies-from-regular-to-weird

 

 

Edited December 22, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[Mr_Danger]

You better leave Robert Kennedy’s name out your mouth son. He would have taken down big business, big pharma, all the bigs and made Cheryl David the First Lady dammit.

[Keith Houchen]

46 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

This article doesn't hate this shit as much as I do

Unrelated, but was Vice founded by the founder of Proud Boys?

[Devon Malcolm]

5 hours ago, David said:

But I'd have been really intrigued and excited to see Andrew Yang win the Presidency. 

[SuperBacon]

18 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Unrelated, but was Vice founded by the founder of Proud Boys?

Yep, Gavin McInnes.

I remember getting a copy of Vice (when it was free, maybe it always was?) in around 1999, from Beggars Banquet (now Banquet Records) in Kingston and thinking it was the coolest shit ever.

Until Nathan Barley absolutely annihilated everything about it, and that was it.

The last great thing they did was this, which still makes me laugh, even though looking back it's quite shitty behaviour. https://www.vice.com/en/article/5ga48k/getting-myself-mcfired

Sorry. Gone well off subject there.

AshCROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFT.

[Mr_Danger]

2 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang was a fucking idiot. A lunatic fringe candidate for bored men that listen to the Joe Rogan podcast and need everything in life to be interesting or exciting.

 

 

 

Funnily enough I was listening to Rogan earlier today (look, he’s a useful idiot in so much that he’s as curious as he is dumb so can get really smart people to explain shit well) and him and Bo Nickel were tearing in to Biden for saying they’d have won the civil war if they had more airports all the while talking up Trumps sharpness. Then Jamie the Google lad informed them both that it was actually Trump who said that and Biden was taking the piss out of him saying it. Made them look right twats. 
 

I then listened to Conan for a pallet cleanser and he was talking to Biden who spoke super eloquently with fantastic recall and came across as so genuine and wholesome. I’m not naive enough to completely buy in to that obviously but he’s very convincing. It’s all about perspective and the type of coverage. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-odor-adam-kinzinger-b2468213.html

Looks like The Independent have finaly found the actual bottom of the barrel.

[David]

5 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang was a fucking idiot. A lunatic fringe candidate for bored men that listen to the Joe Rogan podcast and need everything in life to be interesting or exciting.

Well, that's an interesting take.

According to Unherd.com, and other demographic websites, Rogan's "avid" audience skews primarily Republican Conservative. While those who describe themselves as "non-fans" skew on the side of democratic and liberal.

So, going by your line of thinking, supporters of Andrew Yang should be similar.

But they're not. According to fivethirtyeight.com Yang's supporter base is primarily under 45 years old with a real slant towards the 18-29 age group. Granted, his support does tend to come from young men, but I wouldn't say they're the type who support the crossbow-carrying hunter, BJJ practitioner and all-round juicehead that Rogan is.

Yang's supporters are more likely to be young, tech-savvy, intellectually inclined, liberal males who often vote Democrat. A substantial portion of his support also comes from the Asian-American demographic.

It appears that labelling them as "a fringe group of bored men seeking excitement from the Joe Rogan podcast" might not be the most accurate portrayal of Andrew Yang's diverse and overwhelmingly geeky supporter base.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

He had a million thoughts but zero ideas of substance of his own, had zero experience of the US Government and would have had zero ideas of how to manoeuvre around the Capital or get things done.

It might just be me, but part of the problem the US faces is that it's a closed-door club for predominantly white old dudes who've been around forever. So yeah, I guess you're right that Yang wouldn't have much experience in how to manoeuvre around the Capital and "get things done." 

He doesn't have the old boys' club relationships that the suits who have been around forever all have. 

As for him not having any ideas of substance of his own, what exactly do you want from him? Virtually every President in modern times has had similar policies to those before them from a similar political leaning. Yang is a young Democrat. He's going to skew that way politically.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

It's the same with Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy, and plenty more cases before them. Politics as normal is boring, combined with peoples general feeling that they're worst off than they could be, and suddenly they project onto these left field, cult of personality candidates who promise them things can be perfect or exciting. Or both. 

At no point has he ever promised anyone that things can be "perfect" or "exciting." In fact, most of his policies, much like the rest of his persona, are downright boring. 

I'll discount the laughable choice of Vice as a reputable source of what Yang wanted to see implemented and instead point to Politico's simple list of positions and policies. granted, there are no sweary words or cool bantz, but it's a bit more direct and to the point.

And less biased.

6 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

This article doesn't hate this shit as much as I do, but it's a pretty accurate recounting of the various nothingness he had to say on big issues and the other opinions he had on anything that the Internet cared about.

Yeah, "shit" like...

• Abolishing the death penalty
• Abolishing private prisons
• Pay Americans a universal basic income
• At least nine months of paid parental leave per couple and at least six months for a single parent
• Cancel some student debt
• Unlimited spending should not be allowed in politics
• End new oil and gas leases on federal land and end offshore drilling
• Few limits, if any on abortion
• Create public manufacturing facilities to produce generic drugs to drive costs down
• Wipe Section 1325 out of federal law

When you make the comment that his opinions are based around things "the internet" cares about, what does that mean? Isn't "the internet" the majority of the electorate? You're sounding a bit like Clifford Stoll back in '95. 

Now, I will admit that some of his views are what could be termed "optimistic" and I know his voting via the blockchain chit-chat will always scare the old folks who only know blockchain as "that thing those bitcoin scams run on!!" but in all honesty, we're seeing the technology being utilised more and more by countries like Estonia. 

But hey, I know that modern technology is nowhere near as reliable or incorruptible as writing an "X" on a slip of paper with a pencil and posting it into a big metal box, but technology may eventually have a part to play!

So yeah, feel free to say you're not keen on his policies, don't think he's being realistic, isn't old and infirm enough, doesn't know enough old white guys in Washington or whatever, but please, don't make shit up. It just makes you look silly.

He's not a Rogan guy. And he doesn't appeal to, or have a fanbase within the Rogan bro-types. 

[SuperBacon]

That read like a promo. Excellent @David

[Keith Houchen]

8 hours ago, David said:

He's not a Rogan guy

Didn’t Rogan endorse Sanders last time around? 

[d-d-d-dAz]

37 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Didn’t Rogan endorse Sanders last time around? 

Rogan has had Sanders on, and Yang, and Robert Kennedy.

Rogan types aren't republican or democrat particularly, but they're broadly apolitical, lack any real interest in how politics actually works and just want a charismatic saviour with all the answers to make life better.

Andrew Yang believed mentally ill people were ruining New York, and was going to increase psych ward capacity to get them off the streets. He meant homeless people. That's insane.

His campaigns (both, he tried to save America and then New York as Mayor) have both had lawsuits filed against them for bullying and sexual harassment and a 'bro' culture.

But, equally, whatever. He's a fringe candidate. As are the others. The danger is when they are platformed by people like Rogan, without the counter truth which is all their candidacy might do is pervert the actual outcome which might ruin peoples lives. Will Robert Kennedy win the election? Zero chance. Will Robert Kennedy running leech enough votes off Biden to win Trump the election and possibly kick-start a chain of events that fucks everybody? Quite possibly.

Andrew Yang. Vivek Ramaswamy. Robert Kennedy. Marianne Williamson. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Corbyn. Marine Le Pen. 

It's just the death of serious grown up politics on both sides of the Atlantic, and its heartbreaking.

2024 is the biggest test democracy has ever faced, and if people don't start taking this stuff seriously the consequences could genuinely be dire. But they won't. Because there'll be another wally with a branded baseball cap telling them what they want to here, and a Joe Rogan podcast to let them without laying out the counter argument.

Alas.

Edited December 23, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[Keith Houchen]

20 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Andrew Yang. Vivek Ramaswamy. Robert Kennedy. Marianne Williamson. Boris Johnson. Jeremy Corbyn. Marine Le Pen. 

It's just the death of serious grown up politics on both sides of the Atlantic, and its heartbreaking

Probably personal bias but why have you included Corbyn in that list? The rest are populists who, with the possible exception of Le Pen say things they think will be zeitgeist type shallow declarations. Corbyn has been pretty much saying the same thing for decades and it gives the impression that an ideology that’s on the left isn’t “Serious grown up politics”

[d-d-d-dAz]

30 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Probably personal bias but why have you included Corbyn in that list? The rest are populists who, with the possible exception of Le Pen say things they think will be zeitgeist type shallow declarations. Corbyn has been pretty much saying the same thing for decades and it gives the impression that an ideology that’s on the left isn’t “Serious grown up politics”

Because he wasn't a serious leader.

He was a left populist.

The problem with that platform is it doesn't allow compromise, it doesn't allow you to build a coalition of voices to run a government without it falling into disarray.

Politics is fundamentally dull, or should be, and should be about the best result of a difficult compromise. Corbyn, who has some positions on which I am very sympathetic, had zero chance of running a government. His own party would probably have killed him first, but he simply wouldn't have been able to make the sort of compromises with the Tories that would have been necessary. A) because he wouldn't have stomached it and B) because of what his support base expected of him.

He was the Left indulging the idea that Utopia was possible, that compromise wasn't necessary and we could have everything on the Christmas list. And I know it's really dull, but it doesn't work like that, so anything that makes it work like that is political revolution and the overthrow of democracy. People should say that, if that's what they want.

Obviously, I'd prefer Corbyn over the others but he unfortunately is part of what social media has turned politics into, a search for ideological purity and the 'individual saviour' in a system (democracy) which just wasn't built for it.

On US Politics specifically, the entire system is built around checks and balances, it limits the power of a strong executive. The old cliche is that the US President is the most important person everywhere but the US.

It's why these mad candidates appeal, because they don't understand or care about the system. They talk in absolutes (I can do this, I can do that), offering people big ticket stuff that no serious leader ever would, because it just doesn't work that way. Taking a look at the policy platform listed above for Yang:

• Abolishing the death penalty - He could abolish the use of the federal death penalty, but abolishment would be a meaningless word as it'd really mean whilst he was President. The federal death penalty has been 'abolished' before, and wasn't used for 17 years at all before Trump took office, and hasn't been used since Biden came in. This is a prime example of someone saying a thing because it sounds good, but it actually has no substance behind it.
• Abolishing private prisons - would go to the Supreme Court who'd rule it needs to be decided on a state by state basis. He could withhold federal grants at best.
• Pay Americans a universal basic income - the Republicans and Democrats have both, in recent times, shut the US economy down completely for budgets half the size of what this would cost. He'd never get the budget passed without ginormous budget cuts elsewhere, and even then the hawks would probably vote it down out of principle.
• At least nine months of paid parental leave per couple and at least six months for a single parent - could only do it for federal employees, it's not how the US system works on a state level. He'd be able to do it for a very small amount of people, and even then the religious right would challenge the payments to single parents in the Supreme Court, saying it counteracts their family first state laws.
• Cancel some student debt - Biden's cancelled fucking loads and its done him no good.
• Unlimited spending should not be allowed in politics - federal elections he could probably do something, at a State level where most politicians make their name he wouldn't be legally allowed.
• End new oil and gas leases on federal land and end offshore drilling - probably could do something here.
• Few limits, if any on abortion - literally not his job and the Supreme Court has told many Presidents as such. 
• Create public manufacturing facilities to produce generic drugs to drive costs down - Trump couldn't get a wall built without the Dem's literally shutting the economy down for 30 days. 
• Wipe Section 1325 out of federal law - he could maybe try an executive order. Republicans would burn the fucking House down and he'd be gone within a week and the order used to lit state legislatures cigars.

It's why the US in particular is so interesting when it comes to these debates. These mad candidates make out like the job makes them King, it doesn't. It gives them tremendous international power, some very limited powers to do things unilaterally within the mechanics of the federal government, the power of influence at best over the States and nothing more than the ability to set the agenda budgetarily. 

Actually getting stuff done in America means you HAVE to get cross party support. When I was doing my Masters degree in International Relations, my thesis centred on US trade policy - I had to spent a bit of time out in the States, and one of the things that was telling then (between 2010 and 2012) was how proud people of both sides of the aisle were that their system worked best when power was split between the parties, between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and people were forced to work together for the good of the country. That was the beauty of the system, and the cornerstone of their democracy. I'm not sure people are as proud of that today, which is a real shame.

The US System works on the idea that if you, the leader, has an idea then it must be rigorously stress tested by both Houses before becoming law. That usually means a lot of negotiating, change and maybe other areas of policy get brought to the negotiating table to allow you to pass other things. Then, once the US Government has approved it and signed it into law, it then has to be rolled out to the States who themselves might want to challenge things. Policy making in the US is long and arduous and a tough series of negotiations. It's really exquisitely put together so that no one branch of power has complete control. It's a work of art that currently has people like Trump and Kennedy stood around it throwing paint on it yelling like a Just Stop Oil protestor.

Edited December 23, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[Keith Houchen]

4 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

Because he wasn't a serious leader.

He was a left populist.

The problem with that platform is it doesn't allow compromise, it doesn't allow you to build a coalition of voices to run a government without it falling into disarray.

That’s completely wrong, he wasn’t a leftist populist, he was popular with the left. There’s a big difference. He wasn’t saying things to placate a fan base, as I said he’d been saying the same things for decades before suddenly becoming a figure in the spotlight. 
 

Regarding compromise, he didn’t fill his cabinet with cronies, he deliberately put people on the right of the party in the cabinet in what turned out to be a futile attempt to unite the party. A coalition of voices if you will. In fact, he’s been a go between for extremely opposed factions (such as in Ireland and the Middle East) for diplomatic purposes. That says to me negotiating and compromise are part of his vocabulary. 
 

If anything, I’d say those who set out to destroy their democratically elected leader at the cost of their own party losing are the ones who aren’t engaging in “Serious grown up politics”