USA Politics

Onhell said:
Trump is finally putting two and two together that Putin isn't interested in peace.
Click to expand...

This is a swallow way to put it. Nobody is interested in unconditional peace. Not Zelensky administration, not eastern NATO (Brussels /UK), not US, not Russia. Or, everybody is interested in peace but in their own terms.
First of all US, as clearly shown in this NYT article, is a major party in the war, not a mediator. Second, an "unconditional ceasefire" was never a thing in a conflict and in this case it has nothing to do with peace and everything to do with regrouping and live to fight another day.
Check carefully what Pete Hegseth said back in February. "Division of labor" has nothing to do with peace either. US has understood that their resources are not endless, so they wish to focus on China and Europe allies on Russia. Thus the declarations of Europe's rearmament following Hegseth's visit.

Third, not related to what I quoted, but still, I fail to see why a 15 minutes talk where we cannot hear what was said was such a breakthrough. It's comical to spin it like this, especially when Macron was initially planned to attend (3 chairs) and that was bluntly rejected by Trump (2 chairs).
 
Flaming Blimp Crash said:
I know it's not the US, but I'm quite interested in seeing the Canadian election results tonight.
Click to expand...
Liberal candidate Carney won, although with the Liberal party holding a parliamentary minority. Multi-party alliance time, I guess. He declares “old US relationship over.” Not sure what that means but it sounds declarative.

A news story (westernpost.ng)

Trump, on his part continues to troll about making Canada the “51st state,” I guess Greenland would be the 52nd according to his rhetoric?
 
I couldn't find the full text but it normally should also include ports, natural gas and other resources, under a 50-50 joint fund in perpetuity. An impossible deal to sign for Ukraine, thus a significant Trump victory, subject to see the full text of April 30.
 
Democratic party, unsurprisingly, is split on how to deal with Trump. The progressive arm wants to double down on identity politics but its moderate wing is becoming more active.

KTSM News

My .02 is: a moderate party (whether rebranding of a current party or forming a new political party) in the U.S. would do so well.

I can’t speak for my whole country, obviously, but I think most Americans are tired of the extremes in both major parties taking over the agenda and asking everyone to choose sides on whose brand of crazy they want.

Day to day, we’re not the nation of ideological whackos the rest of the world sees in the news. General concerns are the economy, public safety, standards of living, and the environment (to an extent), with growing concern over our maintaining democratic institutions.

Kamala Harris speaks out.

Funny, she mostly hid away during the 4 years she was VP, was never that popular even among Democrats, was a weak presidential candidate, and now has something to say.
 
Last edited:
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
Democratic party, unsurprisingly, is split on how to deal with Trump. The progressive arm wants to double down but its moderate wing is becoming more active.

KTSM News

My .02 is: a moderate party (whether rebranding of a current party or forming a new political party) in the U.S. would do so well.

I can’t speak for my whole country, obviously, but I think most Americans are tired of the extremes in both major parties taking over the agenda and asking everyone to choose sides on whose brand of crazy they want.

Day to day, we’re not the nation of ideological whackos the rest of the world sees in the news. General concerns are the economy, public safety, standards of living, and the environment (to an extent), with growing concern over our maintaining democratic institutions.

Kamala Harris speaks out.

Funny, she mostly hid away during the 4 years she was VP, was never that popular even among Democrats, was a weak presidential candidate, and now has something to say.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the progressives are all that ideologically extreme. Always wanting to lower our taxes and give us affordable healthcare. Those bastards.
 
The Garlon said:
I don't see how the progressives are all that ideologically extreme. Always wanting to lower our taxes and give us affordable healthcare. Those bastards.
Click to expand...
There was only one party that was even hyper-focusing about identity politics during the campaign - and it wasn't the Democrats. The most identity-related stance that was part of the Democrats' platform was that women as individuals should be the authority of their bodies and if that's ideologically extreme, that should tell you where the overton window's at in the US.

EDIT: Changed a word.
 
Last edited:
The only gender-related thing I'd heard at all the entire campaign was the nonsensical and patently false claim from the right of "Children are going to school one day as one gender and coming back home with a complete sex change."
 
The argument that the Democrats have not engaged in identity politics is a fiction I wish were true.

No, for no reason at all, the party is talking about shifting to a moderate tone and refocusing on policy rather than identity politics.

Here are some articles and commentary discussing the Democrat’s reassessment of identity politics that apparently are unnecessary to even discuss.

Democrats Wonder: Are We Too Correct?

Devastated Democrats Play the Blame Game, and Stare at a Dark Future — NY Times

Sanders: Democrats can’t ‘hang your hat’ on identity politics

James Carville Slams Dems Use Of Identity Politics: 'So Freaking Arrogant'

Democrats and the case of mistaken identity politics

That said, the populists will wage strawman arguments against “woke” long after the Democrats will have stepped back from identity politics (assuming that’s their path).
 
Last edited:
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
I’m talking about hyper-focus on identity politics and special interests.

Extreme fringes in both major parties have made their party platform’s leading messages about identity rather than policy.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but this isn't supported by any data and is actively the opposite of what's happening in reality.

Look at Harris's campaign. It actively avoided identity politics. She ran an objectively more right wing campaign than Biden did in 2020 to court moderate conservatives and lost the election. The only ones going full-in on identity politics and constantly fear-mongering about trans people (for example) are Trump and the GOP.

This talking point about "both extremes" going too far is a right wing talking point, nothing more.
 
Sheriff_of_Huddersfield said:
Democratic party, unsurprisingly, is split on how to deal with Trump. The progressive arm wants to double down on identity politics but its moderate wing is becoming more active.
Click to expand...

Please. This. They already lost to Trump twice, so while I think Trump will hand Dems the victory in the next election, unless the moderates start to take over, the subsequent election they're going to lose to someone possibly even worse.

(Also, they could start to be visible again, so far it seems to me Dems have conspicuously disappeared and that they didn't take the loss very well)
 
On the visibility front, I think there is a strategic logic to letting Trump and the republicans fail at governing for the next two years without democratic interference. At some point before the midterms they need to figure out a message, but it does seem like different wings of the party are test marketing messages at local town halls/etc.
 
Biden went left, Biden won.
Harris went right, Harris lost.

Sure, let the Dems go further to the right. That will certainly win them the next election. Pursuing moderates has certainly never shown to be a disastrous idea that simply doesn't work out and doesn't win elections.
 
Mosh said:
On the visibility front, I think there is a strategic logic to letting Trump and the republicans fail at governing for the next two years without democratic interference. At some point before the midterms they need to figure out a message, but it does seem like different wings of the party are test marketing messages at local town halls/etc.
Click to expand...
I agree, Mosh, and think that’s what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

———-
To the various other posters saying the Democrats never alienated voters by going too far left, there is enough evidence that the Democratic party saw that as a factor in losing the middle.

Yes, Harris went rightward in her campaign but that couldn’t overcome the fact that she was a last minute candidate who’d been out the public eye as VP and the fact that Democrat voters was tepid on her when she made her own presidential bid in the 2020 primaries. She also flip flopped on some issues. Someone moderate from the beginning with more time to campaign may have fared better.

People can believe what they choose. This line of conversation started because I posted that the Democrats are debating their path forward, with a growing moderate direction.

I posted 5 links that I found in less than 2 minutes citing from neutral or left leaning sources about Democrats discussing how they lost voters through identity politics and need to reconsider their message and strategy.

My point, in addition to sharing news, is that it would be great if the country went moderate and US politics became boring again.
 
Vaenyr said:
Biden went left, Biden won.
Harris went right, Harris lost.
Click to expand...
Don't have time to type out a more in-depth post responding to various points raised in the thread since last night as I'm on my phone, but Harris spent a lot of the late stage of the campaign campaigning with Liz Cheney and touting the Cheneys' endorsements.

Sure fire way to make sure Democrats support your ticket: "Hey! Dick Cheney likes us! You know! Famed Democrat hero DICK CHENEY!"
 
Vaenyr said:
Biden went left, Biden won.
Harris went right, Harris lost.

Sure, let the Dems go further to the right. That will certainly win them the next election. Pursuing moderates has certainly never shown to be a disastrous idea that simply doesn't work out and doesn't win elections.
Click to expand...
Edit: I reply/quoted the wrong post from Vaenyr.

Unlike Germany or many other European countries, and despite its constitutional framework, the US is more of an “all or nothing” political system regarding partisan control of either house of Congress, the Executive branch, and indirectly the Supreme Court.

In other parliamentary systems, like Germany’s for example, multiple parties can cater to their base, then ally with each other selectively on issue votes.

In the US, unless or until something changes, each party must appeal to the voting majority (with electoral college elements that matter in presidential, but not congressional, elections) to gain power.

The US has historically been a relatively moderate country at least since 1965 or so.

The Democrats sadly can’t just veer left, win a plurality and then rely on a separate moderate party or coalition of parties to help them out on policy votes.

Just as we see the Republicans able to act with impunity for now because they effectively control all 3 branches of government.

Veanyr, your “without evidence” comments seem odd when there is plenty of public evidence that Democrats acknowledge and debate that their messaging since 2015 or so lost the working class and many moderates. I cited some if you care to go read them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top