US politics

[Devon Malcolm]

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

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.

Sounds great, where do I sign up!

[Keith Houchen]

8 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

Sounds great, where do I sign up!

I signed up outside the Morrisons in Chorlton. Got Cuba and Palestine badges too!

[d-d-d-dAz]

22 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

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”

I'm going to end up parroting an article I like by Julian Baggini, so I'll just share it here and say this is broadly what I agree with; https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps

I do to some degree agree with your last point, though. Whilst I think he was doomed to fail, and his 'will of the people' bent was corrosive, I do think the behaviour of some Labour MP's in trying to undermine him the minute he took office was disgraceful and a slap in the face to the members who voted for him. It should have been allowed to play out, rather than pre-supposed.

EDIT* apologies for any major typos, I can't catch them all. I've switched from Apple to Samsung and its a nightmare currently.

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

[Keith Houchen]

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

I'm going to end up parroting an article I like by Julian Baggini, so I'll just share it here and say this us broadly what I agree with; https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps

I do to some degree agree with your last point, though. Whilst I think he was doomed to fail, and his 'will of the people' bent was corrosive, I do think the behaviour of some Labour MP's in trying to undermine him the minute he took office was disgraceful and a slap in the face to the members who voted for him. It should have been allowed to play out, rather than pre-supposed.

Thanks for the article, and thanks for your posts, they’re really informative and educational on the matter. I do love the “Behind the scenes” machinations of political systems and enjoyed what you wrote about the inefficiencies of US office. 
 

I’d say regarding Corbyn, and then leave it as it’s the wrong thread!, the left took to him because he was a leader of a main party who was in our ballpark for the first time in decades. Whilst he wasn’t exactly what all of us wanted, it was the closest we were ever going to get. That all comes back to how we all compromise when it comes to politics. 

[David]

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

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

Rogan has said numerous times that he's happy to have any high-profile name on his show who is willing to come on and answer some questions that their team hasn't pre-approved or vetted. His whole concept, like him or not, is based on his show being something of a conversation.

The names you mention have been on his show because they're happy to come on without the questions being pre-approved or the final product being vetted or edited.

I'm sure if a "serious" politician was happy to come on the show and answer questions without having them vetted by their team Rogan would happily have them on. Most of them aren't really willing to do that though.

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

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.

According to who though? you? You've just made a sweeping statement there with no real facts to back it up. Most research into the demographics of Rogan's show highlights that his audience is primarily Republican and Conservative politically. 

I provided a link (and there are others I can provide if you want them, all of which say the same thing) that shows exactly what demographics his listeners fall into. 

What you've done is bend the truth and the actual facts to suit your argument. You need to believe that Rogan's listeners lack any interest in how politics works and are just simpletons who need a "charismatic saviour" with all the answers, otherwise, your argument falters.

The truth is, most of Rogan's listeners disagree with the politics of Sanders and Yang, but they listen in to hear Rogan throw the tough questions at them. 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

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.

What Andrew Yang actually said was - 

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment."

Is he wrong? He said that having mentally ill people roaming the streets untreated was a risk to public safety and was affecting tourism, and he also made the more important point that the city itself was failing those individuals who needed help.

You talk about wanting "serious politics" yet you become all hysterical when Andrew Yang brings up a serious topic that the so-called serious politicians are all afraid to touch. What they do is choose to focus on the fact that he mentioned tourism, while conveniently avoiding the actual treatment that the people of the city deserve and simply aren't receiving.

Check out this article in the New York Times for some background on what he was addressing. Again, a fairly well-balanced piece.

Your "serious" politicians are happy to pretend the issue doesn't exist and just hope that it goes away. Yang isn't.

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

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.

Show me a politician who has run any campaign with a team of complete angels and I'll tell you you're lying. Virtually every campaign run by any serious politician has its issues, this isn't exclusive to Yang.

Yes, a campaigner for Yang did sue for discrimination and retaliation, alleging that after she spoke up about misogyny in campaign Facebook groups and was denied advancement because of it. 

A former congressional aide says then-Vice President Joe Biden touched her inappropriately at a 2009 fundraiser. As for Trump, there's tons of shit he's done as well.

But those two, especially Biden, are "serious politicians," right? 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, d-d-d-dAz said:

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.

Without the counter-truth? Like the absolute nonsense you've spouted in this thread and that I've addressed above? You're just as bad at bending the truth as any of these fringe politicians you claim to fear. 

What you're saying, when it comes right down to it, is that you don't want people afforded the freedom of choice and alternative candidates because it might fuck with the status quo that you wish to see upheld? And that's fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say that. Don't try to paint it as you being worried that poor, uneducated morons who aren't as smart as you might be fooled by Yang or Kennedy appearing on The Joe Rogan Podcast. 

On 12/23/2023 at 10:32 AM, 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.

Oh, fuck off. Seriously. Are you really going to post a group of names and include Andrew Yang and Jeremy Corbyn alongside Marine Le Pen, Boris Johnson and Vivek Ramaswamy?

I've read some real nonsense on this forum in my time, but that right there is some of the most reactionary, uninformed drivel I've seen. 

[d-d-d-dAz]

36 minutes ago, David said:

Oh, fuck off. Seriously. Are you really going to post a group of names and include Andrew Yang and Jeremy Corbyn alongside Marine Le Pen, Boris Johnson and Vivek Ramaswamy?

I've read some real nonsense on this forum in my time, but that right there is some of the most reactionary, uninformed drivel I've seen. 

It's politics, its supposed to inspire debate but here we are, back at 'fuck off'.

Just FYI, I could well be wrong. That's, again, how politics works. People who might both be wrong discuss things without descending into personal attacks and tantrums. But I take umbridge with 'uninformed'. I have an undergraduate degree in US Politics and International Relations, a Masters Degree in International Relations with a focus on US Foreign and Trade Policy, and lived and worked in the US for two years. I could well be wrong, but I'm not uninformed.

Joe Rogan, and the like, are phenomenally dangerous though. Their casual misgendering of trans people alone has had a terrible impact on that debate.

The acceptance of some universal truths is central to democracy and how it works. People pushing back against those who challenge those universal truths is a function of a healthy civil society. Rogan's complete ambivalence to truths is a problem, and came to a point during the COVID crisis when he was happy to platform anti-vaxxers and the ilk.

It appears I have no credibility here, so a randomly selected article on when 150 scientists and policy experts signed a letter to the US Government declaring Rogan a danger to society: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joe-rogan-podcast-spotify-covid-malone-b2002301.html

It's a genuine concern to me that people don't see how bad his form of open platforming without challenge is. I'm a believer in giving a platform to the fringes, as they're often exposed for what they are - providing they have challenge. Giving someone a soapbox whilst you laugh at the LGBTQ+ community isn't that. Rogan hasn't thrown a tough question in his life.

Edited December 28, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz

[SuperBacon]

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

But I take umbridge with 'uninformed'.

[d-d-d-dAz]

I've got a jacket just like that.

[SuperBacon]

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

I've got a jacket just like that.

Did you get it free with all your degrees?

[d-d-d-dAz]

1 minute ago, SuperBacon said:

Did you get it free with all your degrees?

Is anything ever really free when you pay that much?

On that, degree swinging is clearly a shithouse move but I think when being accused of being 'uninformed', you have the right to say how well informed you are. That's not to say I've not taken that information and turned it into incomprehensible shit soup between my ears, but I've definitely been informed.

If I accused you of being only average bacon, I think you'd have a right to tell me you were SUPER bacon - however arrogant that sounded in a vacuum. I think. Something like that.

[SuperBacon]

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

On that, degree swinging is clearly a shithouse move but I think when being accused of being 'uninformed', you have the right to say how well informed you are. That's not to say I've not taken that information and turned it into incomprehensible shit soup between my ears, but I've definitely been informed.

Like 99.9% of this forum, I was just joshing around.

I think those are quite interesting sounding degrees, but I do share the same sentiment that degree swinging is a bit shit, however I guess it's warranted when discussing something you've majored in, like here. 

I don't think you and David will ever agree, but you're clearly both passionate about what you're arguing about, so maybe settle for a score draw, I dunno.

 

[d-d-d-dAz]

6 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

 

I don't think you and David will ever agree, but you're clearly both passionate about what you're arguing about, so maybe settle for a score draw, I dunno.

 

 

No replays.

[Chili]

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

No replays.

Yeah can you guys not it's just we're having a Christmas party and I wanna put the music back on, smoking area next time chaps 

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

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

I have an undergraduate degree in US Politics and International Relations, a Masters Degree in International Relations with a focus on US Foreign and Trade Policy, and lived and worked in the US for two years. I could well be wrong, but I'm not uninformed.

 

[Keith Houchen]

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

Rogan's complete ambivalence to truths is a problem, and came to a point during the COVID crisis when he was happy to platform anti-vaxxers and the ilk.

Don’t know if it’s my phone or if the audio is cut, but it did lead to this. And whilst Rogan later on shifted the goalposts somewhat regarding which sources can you trust, he did admit he was wrong. 

Although I always give him credit for fact checking in real time, especially as it led to this the other day. 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by Keith Houchen