• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

Aegiscalibur

Add Witty Title Here
first of all, seeing someone (or even a group of someones) use an argument does not grant said argument legitimacy.
Yes, but I also think it's a reasonable thing to say for the reasons I mentioned.

second of all, calling her right-wing even in an international context fundamentally misrepresents what constitutes the "right wing", because it almost always fixates on ignoring the fact that our social services being less robust right now is not exactly germane to what each party's end goals are

on immigration? the Dems are arguably further left than any major party in the EU. only Germany even comes close to our Overton window, and that's arguably because a grand coalition is currently in government.
on infrastructure and general spending? consistent with most center-left parties, with the caveat that many in the EU are constitutionally constrained by Union-wide treaties
on LGBT issues? far and away to the left of practically every country in Europe, with the sole exception of marriage equality
on environmental policy? consistent with most center-left parties, with the caveat that the center-right parties aren't as terminally insane on this front
on health care policy? consistent with most center-left parties as far as end goals, we're just not physically there yet

on banking policy? on gun policy? on family-related policies, from abortion to family leave? the Dems are there, broadly, with the EU's center-left. like, i've served as an assistant to left-wing officeholders in multiple countries at this point, and with regards to their respective domestic policies, we're not particularly far off from any of them anymore. might've been 20 years ago, but that was another age.

third of all, about half of the US's politicians are right-wing. this does not automatically confer right-wing status upon the other half, it just means we're polarized as hell.
LGBT issues and abortion aren't about the economy though. They are socially liberal, not economically left-wing. Gun policy doesn't fit here either. "Right wing" is too vague if people are talking about both social, economic and other issues. If we can bring in any area of policy, I could focus on foreign policy and have a field day here.

Environmental and immigration policy are a bit closer to economics. US refugee policy isn't more liberal though. They have small figures and intense background checks. The Dems are more willing than the GOP for sure, but further left than Germany, really?

Banking is poorly regulated in much of Europe as well, and Obama's government did more stimulus. Those parts are right.


Healthcare as an end goal? The Dems' stance on healthcare is "preserving the Affordable Care Act for generations to come." That isn't single-payer.

And family leave? Federal law doesn't mandate paid leave. The US is dead last in this. The Dems had control of Congress for a while, so they could have passed it. They could have also passed stronger labor rights in general. How about passing a stronger, more unified welfare system instead of scattered programs?

Then there are areas like intellectual property protection and, even better, investor protection. The US wants to allow private companies to sue countries in courts run by the corporate lobby if said countries try to protect workers, customers or the environment. Thanks to Nafta, Canada has been sued many times, and now the Obama administration wants to do the same with Europe.
 
Last edited:
Healthcare as an end goal? The Dems' stance on healthcare is "preserving the Affordable Care Act for generations to come." That isn't single-payer.

Universal healthcare is officially listed in the democratic party platform. The ACA is just a framework in which to expand from.

Well we did used to have duels

We need to bring these back, by the way.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...

John Madden

resident policy guy
The Dems are more willing than the GOP for sure, but further left than Germany

1) Immigration policy is not limited to refugee policy; on the broader front we're indisputably further to the left of everyone in Europe, or did I miss DACA and DAPA?

2) Reading comprehension is important: further left than anyone but Germany.

That isn't single-payer.

Neither are many of continental Europe's systems - but in any event, the ACA framework allows for the federal government to eventually move to something similar to any of them.

The Dems had control of Congress for a while, so they could have passed it. They could have also passed stronger labor rights in general.

The Democrats had filibuster-proof control of Congress for approximately a month. They spent that month negotiating the ACA.

But you're welcome to explain, to the guy with an MPA, that they had more room to negotiate potentially contentious policy than they actually did!

The US wants to allow private companies to sue countries in courts run by the corporate lobby

You'd think the private sector would have a win rate of more than 40% (and that they'd ever win more than damages incurred by regulation, and that they'd have ever won a case against the US) if those courts were actually "run by the corporate lobby".

Those processes, while in need of improvement with regards to transparency and appellate mechanisms, are legitimate.

Then there are areas like intellectual property protection

Thus far, this appears to be the only substantive area of economic policy on which the Democratic Party is actually "further to the right" than its international center-left counterparts - and even then the party's deeply split with regards to whether they actually want to pass trade agreements like the TPP that entrench US IP interests.

"Right wing" is too vague if people are talking about both social, economic and other issues.

[img139]http://i.imgur.com/gFzxbJ3.jpg[/img139]

If we can bring in any area of policy, I could focus on foreign policy and have a field day here.

Yeah, let's focus on the area of policy where the entirety of Europe - sans the UK, which has tended to take the "let's be America's lapdog" approach since Thatcher - has decided "cede peacekeeping authority to North America" is the way to go.

Or, y'know, let's not.
 

Attachments

  • gFzxbJ3.jpg
    gFzxbJ3.jpg
    28.1 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
The Democrats had filibuster-proof control of Congress for approximately a month. They spent that month negotiating the ACA.

But you're welcome to explain, to the guy with an MPA, that they had more room to negotiate potentially contentious policy than they actually did!

You already succeeded in getting Aegis to change his tone, why is dropping your degree for a second time necessary? If no one has any room to dispute what you say because you have your MPA then why are you even here? Go brush shoulders with men and women of your caliber instead of browbeating the peasants.
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
I mean, if he wants to argue that they should've had different priorities with the time that they had, that's all well and good. That's a subjective standpoint where, I guess, you could make a valid case that they helped less people passing the ACA than they would've with a broader expansion of labor benefits.

It's saying that they could've done more than they actually did that's putting me firmly in "condescending dick" mode, because, like, even an entry-level undergrad public policy class would give you the impression that they were lucky to get what they did given the sheer number of stakeholders they needed to work with and the sheer breadth of ideological difference in the pre-2010 Democratic Party.

This is not a parliament; whipping is not quite as efficient even when the parties are more ideologically homogeneous, and the Sanders/CPC wing vs the Blue Dogs/Lieberman are definitely not what I would describe anywhere near being "ideologically homogeneous". So he should probably stop acting like we are one.

But also I'm dropping credentials again because, well... we're reading the same posts, right? Because he seems like he's still coming at me like I don't know anything about the different types of policy or how we differ from our European counterparts in, like, every field. He doesn't need to tell me that "abortion and guns and LGBT issues" are not economic issues, strictly speaking, and yet he still did anyway!

e: Also, I forgot to add this to that earlier post - but, like, the IP and corporate-national arbitration segments of the TPP are precisely what's getting it torpedoed by the Sanders (and now Clinton) wing of the party.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
that's pretty much his shtick. inject Europe in every US election topic somehow and usually going way over his head about how US Politics actually works.
 

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
I came to a very startling conclusion, and it feels very counter-intuitive.

Donald Trump wasn’t a powerful person. Hear me out on this.

He was on Celebrity Apprentice, which falls within the realm of reality shows. However, he isn’t the most famous celebrity, with most of his roles being cameos. He’s not even the most famous reality TV star, where Chef Ramsey and Judge Judy clearly more popular in that field than he is.

His ownership of Miss USA might be the most prestigious position that he had. However, you can own something famous, but not be famous yourself. Take Nintendo for instance, do people know more about Nintendo than Satoru Iwata? Yes, but let me make a distinction, Iwata actually did something for Nintendo.

So how did this second hand celebrity become the Republican nominee if he isn’t powerful? Let me point out that I said he was not (instead of is not). His language and mannerisms are provocative. Not to be confused with thought provoking, Trump says some random half-arse BS in order to draw attention. This is how he became famous, surpassing Chef Ramsey, Judge Judy, and Satoru Iwata. This is a disturbing trend in both politics and awkward celebrities, so why not be both? Pat Robertson is a huge scumbag as well, and he does get attention, but he won’t get any further unless he runs for an office position.

The GOP was broken enough for Trump to go through. In a way, I think Trump knew this (perhaps subconsciously) and knew that being the biggest arse would net him a prominent figure. He thought he could win, and he did. The Republican Party’s apparent lack of quality control is quite clear. When it was him versus Cruz (and Kasich, but who cares?), it was clear to me that none of those (former) two would be great politicians. Cruz is horrible in his own right. He defies logic, he is callous, and he is immoral. These are quite convincing qualities on the hard right-wing side, but even Cruz couldn’t shove himself into the spotlight.

Though Trump is powerful, by himself, he would collapse harder than the Soviet Union. His rhetoric, which gained him his stage command, could easily undo him. This would result in an ironic twist of fate, but don’t get carried away. Many Republicans confirmed with his “unorthodox” beliefs. Trump is manipulative, leading people to buy into his insane logic. However, with the RNC, I think the opposite is also happening. Pence isn’t Trump, he’s a second rate Cruz. Many Republicans want to use him as a way to get their agenda across (hence the Pence). Donald Trump’s crazy ideas are counterbalanced by apologetic, yet erroneous, disclosure statements.

Not all Republicans support him. Jeb Bush called him out at the beginning, making him a perfect target for Trump to rag on, therefore ruining his popularity even more than his tainted last name ever could. Oddly enough, Cruz ultimately decided against supporting him, wanting to hold his pride, at least for now.

The Republican Party is rather odd to me. How do you carry dignity for that party? Do you actually say the right thing, and get criticized as a traitor? Do you take a milder approach, making you authentic, yet forgettable? Do you become drastic, causing actual change but ultimately trying to make yourself feel better? Or do you use your power to become obnoxious, manipulating others, yet perplexing others on who has the ultimate power within the party?
 
I mean, if he wants to argue that they should've had different priorities with the time that they had, that's all well and good. It's saying that they could've done more than they actually did that's putting me firmly in "condescending dick" mode, because, like, even an entry-level undergrad public policy class would give you the impression that they were lucky to get what they did given the sheer number of stakeholders they needed to work with and the sheer breadth of ideological difference in the pre-2010 Democratic Party.

Okay, well in all fairness this narrative is repeated so very often that it's more or less understandable that it's been accepted. How's the phrase go? If you repeat a lie often enough? There's also a case to be made that Obama had opted for compromise in areas where there was very little pressure to do so. Take the Bush tax cuts that were set to expire in 2013. The Republicans balked at the idea of removing them but the only thing Obama had to do was let them expire. Sure, there was a middle class tax cut that would have been removed too, but he simply could have reintroduced that as a new bill and dared Republicans to vote against it. To say nothing of cutting social security and Medicaid on top of that. It's examples like these that add fuel to this narrative, even if they all weren't exactly within the short time frame that Democrats had a slim super majority. Could he have rammed through everything he wanted in a month? No. Did he play patty cake with Republicans multiple times when didn't have to? Damned right he did. It's not too hard to see how they would be easily conflated, I don't think.

But also I'm dropping credentials again because, well... we're reading the same posts, right? Because he seems like he's still coming at me like I don't know anything about the different types of policy or how we differ from our European counterparts in, like, every field. He doesn't need to tell me that "abortion and guns and LGBT issues" are not economic issues, strictly speaking, and yet he still did anyway!

Don't get me wrong, I have had issues with the way Aegis has worded himself in the past as well so it's not as if I don't sympathize to a certain degree, but for what it's worth that in particular felt more like a call for focus on the direct claim being made that the U.S. was to the right on economic issues than condescension in specific. I suppose you could make a case that he's splitting hairs since he could have just omitted those subjects from his response.

I'm starting to remember why this place has a tendency to get horrible at times - no one wants to leave their ego at the door. :p
 

John Madden

resident policy guy
Yeah, the differences between the Congressional Dems and President Obama are long-thinkpiece worthy in and of themselves (though it is pretty noteworthy, I think, that Obama basically stopped with the "negotiating against nobody" thing basically immediately after the debt ceiling debacle in 2011. Aside from foreshadowing his second term's actions, it also signaled alongside the existence of his winning presidential-election coalitions that his successor would probably be much less willing to sell the farm for a quick buck, which we're starting to see with Clinton explicitly campaigning left when others would've tacked center at this point).

But it really doesn't help that everything's presented in the media and even in some policy literature like the executive and legislative branches are one big united front, rather than two different stakeholders in and of themselves. And that's just coming at it from a macro scale - from a micro perspective you have to take into account what every Senator and Representative in your party would want passed and whether it's worthwhile to your policy's end goal to add whatever sweetener they're trying to bargain for. (This is basically the reason why the ACA was so neutered compared to the final House version - people like Baucus and Lieberman wouldn't budge on things like explicitly creating the public option, so they had to jettison that just to get the compromise bill past 60 for cloture.)

...Also that ego comment reminds me that my ego comes off as enormous online but practically nonexistent offline, probably because I'm much less combative when in spoken-word form. :p
 
Last edited:

yuoke

Treasure huntin'
Trump proclaiming obama and hillary as isis founders is the official jumping the shark moment....also Trump said he would be fine losing and would go back to what he does best. He never cared about winning this from the start.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Trump proclaiming obama and hillary as isis founders is the official jumping the shark moment....also Trump said he would be fine losing and would go back to what he does best. He never cared about winning this from the start.

Them as ISIS creators is a common viewpoint from the right, they just never outright admit it. That's really what Trump is, he's the GOP Id given form, and that's why they don't like him.

And most people say he didn't care about winning until he got big support, at that point his ego took over, but now that his chances of winning are between unlikely and impossible he wants out in a way that means he doesn't outright lose.
 

SBaby

Dungeon Master
So now apparently people want to 'cleanse' America of Trump supporters.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christ...o-cleanse-the-us-of-trump-supporters-n2203801

You know, I understand where he's coming from (anyone who knows me knows by now that I really can't stand either candidate). But the thing is, most voters are harmless. Some of them just have big mouths. I don't think we need to 'cleanse' (meaning: enact genocide on) Trump supporters. If Trump loses the election (and the polls look like he probably will), nobody's going to start a riot, there isn't going to be an uprising, and the country will go on just like normal. This is not the first time elections have brought this kind of stuff out in people.

The thing is, even if Trump claims there will be riots, there won't be. Does anyone here honestly think that the average American has the patience and guts to actually try to start an uprising? They don't. Most are too lazy, and don't want to start a prolonged uprising where they'd put their lives in danger every day for what could be several years. And I don't foresee that changing any time soon.

Not to mention, in order for the kind of thing people are suggesting to work, you'd not only have to march on the capital buildings immediately, but you'd have to be able to neutralize potential artillery, and the air support they would have, AND you'd have to have a countermeasure to WMDs, in case the President or the people in charge lose their minds and decide to take drastic measures. Regular people who might have pistols and some automatic weapons would be crushed if they tried to rise up. The only way it would have even the slightest chance of succeeding would be in a military coup.


So yeah, as you can see, extreme Trump supporters (and indeed some extreme Hillary supporters; let's not kid ourselves, they're out there too) aren't nearly as big of a threat as people make them out to be. Hardly big enough to need to be 'cleansed'. They'll run their mouths, but once this election is done, they'll go back to their everyday lives, and we won't hear from them again until the next election.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
It isn't? Mind telling me an earlier time you feel it has?

Keep in mind that I'd like examples of:

- Racist/misogynistic chants at rallies (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?_r=0)
- A candidate that actively encourages or does not discourage violence, thus enabling it
- The calls of the election being "rigged" which thus potentially inspires a conspiracy theorist nutcase to take arms in his own hands.
- A candidate that embraces brash language against pretty much anyone not a white male
 
Last edited:

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
It isn't? Mind telling me an earlier time you feel it has?

Keep in mind that I'd like examples of:

- Racist/misogynistic chants at rallies (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/us/politics/donald-trump-supporters.html?_r=0)
- A candidate that actively encourages or does not discourage violence, thus enabling it
- The calls of the election being "rigged" which thus potentially inspires a conspiracy theorist nutcase to take arms in his own hands.
- A candidate that embraces brash language against pretty much anyone not a white male
I do agree that we shouldn't counter extreme with extreme, and not all Trump supporters are the worse scum of the planet (many being more ignorant or oblivious than anything).

I don't think saying a statement that says extreme is not extreme is a good assessment.

In total, I think supporters should set the example instead of becoming the problem. Trump, himself, has went on the extreme end himself, to say the least, so people who show support while showing restraint don't quite understand the matter at hand.

I will end this post by saying that in my conservative Texas family (I only have extant relatives in California) two highly ended conservative members said that they would NOT vote for Trump.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
It's extreme to say we should "remove" Trump supporters but let's not pretend America hasn't shown its darkest, hidden side since the 60s.
 
Last edited:

Auraninja

Eh, ragazzo!
Them as ISIS creators is a common viewpoint from the right, they just never outright admit it. That's really what Trump is, he's the GOP Id given form, and that's why they don't like him.

And most people say he didn't care about winning until he got big support, at that point his ego took over, but now that his chances of winning are between unlikely and impossible he wants out in a way that means he doesn't outright lose.
From the get-go, I felt that Trump ironically exposed the extreme ideas from the right, proclaiming that a big wall should be built, and that Mexicans carry drugs and crime.

Although I think his newest low point is suggesting that we should raise second amendments against Hillary if she appointed a SCOTUS judge.

However, Trump wasn't the only one who said anything like that. I remember Sharon Angle (and her bashing of "autism") where she said that they should have a right to use their "second amendment rights" to combat government tyranny.

This wording isn't uncommon among far right conservatives, that say this in their paranoia that "Obama will take away the guns."

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a suspicion that whoever did the Gifford shooting was probably a deranged person who took the rhetoric a bit too literally.

Edit: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:
Mr. Potok of the organization said:
“That idea is linked closely to the belief among militia supporters that the Federal Reserve is a completely private entity engaged in ripping off the American people."
 
Last edited:

Sonic Boom

@JohanSSB4 Twitter
For anyone saying the second Amendment comments were not to be taken seriously, Tell that to Gabby Giffords.

Speaking of comments being taken seriously, Trump now says, after doubling down on his verbatim rhetoric on Hewitt's program, that him claiming Obama founded ISIS was totally sarcasm. Because of course he did.
 

yuoke

Treasure huntin'
Sure didnt sound like sarcasm at all to me and it backs up that he basically has said that in a completely serious way before about obama. He know he ****ed up.
 
Top