Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 255: A Holiday Present From Tulsi

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't think the Republican Party would have a problem with one of them running with Biden. Even a loss wouldn't be total that way.

---

I feel it could a long run mistake though. Denying a huge segment of the electorate someone they can vote for is what led to the resentment that elected Trump. Although the left might deal with resentment by turning it into apathy, so maybe it'll be a brilliant stroke to ensure Republican power for decades.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Weirdly enough, Biden saying he'd consider a unity ticket in a 4D chess way almost makes me trust him more - his comments about reaching across the aisle to work with republicans have made me feel really uneasy, but I don't believe for a second that he's so friendly with republicans that he'd ACTUALLY consider bringing one on as his VP, so it makes me feel slightly more confident that he'd just playing the game.

Yeah he is a little bit. Just not enough to be great lol

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

Just to be clear, there is only one person in this topic I consider far left and no just normal left or liberal or moderate dem or whatever else.

Im talking like r/chapotraphouse or equivalent levels of far left.

Oh you mean crazy

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Yeah he is a little bit. Just not enough to be great lol

Still not my preferred candidate, it just puts me a little bit at ease on the idea of a republican lovefest from Biden because I now suspect more that he doesn't really mean it

Don't let your guard down this is when he goes in for the hug

---

Trump/Pence was a dem/rep combo and it dominated. The fact still remains that positive emotion defeats negative emotion, so having a split ticket like that will gain more votes overall than it turns off. Y'all would absolutely vote for Biden/Romney over Trump and it's not even necessarily a bad choice.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Trump/Pence was a dem/rep combo

who exactly was the democrat in this situation

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

who exactly was the democrat in this situation

Trump obviously.

---

xp1337 posted...

It might be more pronounced with libertarianism simply because it has a more strict definition than say "Democrat" or "Republican"

No, the definition is more precise, not more strict. All it means is an adherence to NAP. That idea in itself is very broad and widely appealing. All modern politics based off French revolutionary their uses it heavily. It's absolutely ridiculous and ignorant to say it's a fantasy. Especially in the US, the strongest and oldest of such governments.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

who exactly was the democrat in this situation

The one whose entire life and money went to democrats

---

Trump naturally, accidentally reveals a lot of Democratic beliefs regularly, but his need to be loved and the furvor/herd mentality of people on the right has moved him into Right-wing la la land

---

foolm0r0n posted...

No, the definition is more precise, not more strict.

Yeah, I should have used precise there instead, my mistake.

And the insinuation that 2016 Trump was a democrat is lol. I'd actually be interested in if there was a deep dive (I'm sure there is come to think of it) of his past donations and such that approached it from the angle that as an NYC real estate guy his attempts to purchase influence would necessarily lead to him hanging out/donating to Democrats seeing as how NYC, and the state as a whole, is under democratic control.

The through-line of racism has always been there with Trump though whether it be the housing discrimination or the calling for the deaths of the Central Park Five before and after their exoneration well, well before we get into the 2015-2016 campaign which was built with it as the foundation and that kind of collapses the argument though. Not to say that racism didn't or doesn't exist within the Democratic party but really if I had to take a very shallow shot at his earlier politics it would be largely in the vein the right in Europe has been taking which is the populist economics + social safety net + racism blend.

That particular combination didn't have a real fit in American politics really with free trade being the more mainstream political policy position. As 2016 showed it's a very potent combination and can win... but despite running on it (and still using it rhetorically), Trump hasn't really governed on it that well. He's just gone all in on the racism and grievance stuff and let the standard tax cuts for the wealthy/deregulations everywhere policy the Republicans normally roll with take its place.

---

Democratic policies favored by Trump:

Tariffs
Protectionism
Using government to create jobs
Cronyism
Corruption
Racism

Republican policies favored by Trump:

Tax cuts

---

Claiming Trump's racism is what differentiates him from a Democrat is the biggest self own I can imagine. Don't you remember his taco salad tweet praising Mexicans? That's exactly the amount of feigned anti-racist rhetoric that the two parties have been using since the civil rights era. If that's what makes a Democrat, he absolutely is one.

His only political innovation was correctly guessing that now was the time to drop the facade, which I guess it how the two parties are defined now (pre- and post-facade)? Like I said, your unprincipled labels are absolutely insane and necessarily lead to fascism.

---

The insinuation that the democratic party has as much of a racism problem as the republican party is frankly embarrassing, and I think you're better than that

foolm0r0n posted...

Claiming Trump's racism is what differentiates him from a Democrat is the biggest self own I can imagine. Don't you remember his taco salad tweet praising Mexicans? That's exactly the amount of feigned anti-racist rhetoric that the two parties have been using since the civil rights era. If that's what makes a Democrat, he absolutely is one.

I'm legitimately not following you here. Yes, I remember that tweet and no one bought it for a second other than as that cheap pandering attempt you're rightfully calling it out for.

If you're saying there is racism present in both parties, well duh. What I'm saying is that one party - the Democrats - at least rhetorically, acknowledges it and tries to address it with various redresses, whether it be criminal justice reform, affirmative action, changes in housing policy, wage gap, etc. While the other party either dismisses the problem entirely/considers it resolved and uses dogwhistles (and now has done away with even that) to pursue its other goals ("welfare queen" language to attack the social safety net) or otherwise actively pursues policies that have a documented and proven disproportional effect on minorities.

It is not difficult to see which category Trump falls under. Now, or back during the campaign, or during Obama's presidency.

Is the point you're trying to make here that both the Democrats and Republicans are different faces of the same coin? Because if so this discussion isn't going to go anywhere because I disagree with that premise in the strongest way.

---

xp1337 posted...

I'm legitimately not following you here. Yes, I remember that tweet and no one bought it for a second other than as that cheap pandering attempt you're rightfully calling it out for.

If you're saying there is racism present in both parties, well duh. What I'm saying is that one party - the Democrats - at least rhetorically, acknowledges it and tries to address it with various redresses, whether it be criminal justice reform, affirmative action, changes in housing policy, wage gap, etc. While the other party either dismisses the problem entirely/considers it resolved and uses dogwhistles (and now has done away with even that) to pursue its other goals ("welfare queen" language to attack the social safety net), otherwise actively pursues policies that have a documented and proven disproportional effect on minorities.

It is not difficult to see which category Trump falls under. Now, or back during the campaign, or during Obama's presidency.

Is the point you're trying to make here that both the Democrats and Republicans are different faces of the same coin? Because if so this discussion isn't going to go anywhere because I disagree with that premise in the strongest way.

I think he's saying that the Democrats' policies for dealing with racism are just as bad (even worse?) for minorities than the Republican ones.

---

I'm saying that since the 50s the entirety of US politics has used anti-racist rhetoric (and RHETORIC only) as a huge aspect of their campaigns. Go look up Reagan and especially W. If that's you're differentiator then you have no differentiator. I'm not saying both parties are the same, you are. Pick some better things to hate about Trump lest you elect one of his thousand (slightly less rich) Democrat clones.

Very recently (after BLM) the Democrats have started becoming genuinely anti-racist with a few anti-establishment people. That's all cool and all but you can't pretend it's been a smooth ride and you def can't pretend it's the core identity of the Democrats. The tea partiers also we're first to do that kind of movement, though they were quickly destroyed, but if you want to give credit to true anti-racism you have to start there, which happened to be on the Republican side.

You're just talking about rhretoric though. It's so meaningless.

---

foolm0r0n posted...

Pick some better things to hate about Trump lest you elect one of his thousand (slightly less rich) Democrat clones.

Same thing both sides!!

Nah, get out of here with that argument. Democrat candidates are far from perfect but putting the ones that people might elect in the same boat as Trump is flat-out wrong.

---

Why did you quote me when you're arguing with xp

---

I chose views on race as one of the more clear lines of differentiation. Not the only one. Role of government is another.

As far as I can tell, you're drawing the line between the state and libertarianism and so by those criteria both the Democrats and Republicans are on the same side there and ultimately the same. I disagree and so I'm not really sure there's a point in continuing.

If you're going to take the position that all the current prominent actors in power today on one side and anti-establishment is the other that's... just not a useful delineation IMO. Nor one that accurately captures politics in the US as they are in my view. That's the only interpretation I can draw from your post where you're somehow grouping Black Lives Matter and the Tea Party together against the major parties. In which case we fundamentally disagree on the underlying premises and aren't going to get anywhere.

I can sit here and go on about how the Democrats believe the role of government is to provide basic services and rights that include healthcare, a social safety net, etc. While Republicans believe it should not but instead to police morality. Exceptions on both sides exist and no the Democrats have not always been there but it's definitely a goal they have been striving at - if incompetently - for decades.

But if you're going to counter with the implication that the state itself is corrupt/the wrong and must be torn down and replaced (not replaced?) and that both parties there are exercising government power in an untoward way and are thus effectively the same we're just not going to get anywhere.

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-obama-tie-gallup-most-admired-man-poll-2019/

Americans are so fucked up

Stop admiring power
---

I mean, the list isn't particularly horrible until you get to Trump.

---

Power! Unlimited Power! Once more the Republican Party will rule this country......and we shall have peace.

---

red13n posted...

I mean, the list isn't particularly horrible until you get to Trump.

Only because youre conditioned to admire wealth and power.

Gates is super philanthropic, and Carter is very selfless so late in his life, so thats something

But why should I admire either Obama? Or W? Or Melania?
---

I mean, is it really that hard to come up with a reason to admire Obama?

---

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1211832790028881924?s=20

Get fucked Alex

---

red13n posted...

I mean, is it really that hard to come up with a reason to admire Obama?

For him to be your MOST ADMIRED MAN? Yes
---

really?

---

Yes really.

Im open for counter arguments. Maybe Im missing something. I respect him for putting himself in the national spotlight of such a racist country knowing the hell it would bring his way. Im struggling to come up with anything more significant
---

I'm not even sure who my most admired person would be. I don't spend a lot of time admiring other human beings

I feel like I'd need someone to pitch some really good answers at me

you struggle with reasons to admire Obama?

I just, I don't quite have the ability to contemplate that.

---

I mean, I can come up with reasons people admire Obama, but I can also come up with reasons people admire Trump

"Not being a pure trash fire of a president" is, I guess, a good enough reason, considering he's the only one in my lifetime

red13n posted...

you struggle with reasons to admire Obama?

I just, I don't quite have the ability to contemplate that.

I just dont think became President of the United States is, in and of itself, worthy of admiration.

Thats what I was saying earlier about how we default to admiring wealth and power. In this case it would be rising to power. Why is that admirable if you dont value power? Why should you value power?
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

I'm not even sure who my most admired person would be

For you its probably Russell Wilson
---

Jakyl25 posted...

For you its probably Russell Wilson

oh dear god no, incredible QB, but as a person I find him honestly miserable

Marshawn Lynch is more my speed in dudes I admire

Its not about power, its about aspirations. People don't aspire to be on the lowest end of a chain and Obama literally held the highest office in the United States while being black.

---

Look, Trump kind of ruins it, but do you not think, in an ideal world, the President should be someone we can admire?

---

The problem with being President is that I admire people who DON'T aspire to be President

I've said this before, but Biden's seeming reticence to throw his hat into the ring is probably the one quality of his that I find the most intriguing

red13n posted...

Look, Trump kind of ruins it, but do you not think, in an ideal world, the President should be someone we can admire?

Well, it's the other way around - the person we admire most is the one who should rise to the position of President, not the President being the one who should rise to the position of person we admire most

Although, even that's not really true - I don't really ascribe to this worldview that the President need be the all-encompassing most important person in the country, they just need to be the person who is most well-suited to leadership at the highest position, which isn't quite the same thing. Some people have the skills for that, others don't

I mean, take the entire first black president card away for a moment. Can you not admire how good of a fucking speaker Obama is? The dude is literally politically invincible because he is just so goddamn good at speaking words. Is that somehow not admirable?

---

red13n posted...

Its not about power, its about aspirations. People don't aspire to be on the lowest end of a chain and Obama literally held the highest office in the United States while being black.

I dont value aspirations
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

The problem with being President is that I admire people who DON'T aspire to be President

I've said this before, but Biden's seeming reticence to throw his hat into the ring is probably the one quality of his that I find the most intriguing

Hes tried a lot of times, the only time hes been reticent was when his non-failure of a son was dying.


---

red13n posted...

I mean, take the entire first black president card away for a moment. Can you not admire how good of a fucking speaker Obama is? The dude is literally politically invincible because he is just so goddamn good at speaking words. Is that somehow not admirable?

Yes.

But thats not why people are voting him their Most Admired Man
---

I mean, he also gets more spotlight than anyone because President of the United States is basically the highest outreach platform you could reach.

Who exactly are you hoping people admire?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Hes tried a lot of times, the only time hes been reticent was when his non-failure of a son was dying.

Yeah but that still counts for something in my book, it was a genuine display of caring more about grieving for his son than aspiring to power. If a loss in the family humbles him then that's a good thing, I can't imagine Donald Trump would stop campaigning if Eric got run over by a bus one day

I think part of the problem you are having with this is you are thinking too low scale on shared persons people could admire. Unless you are going to go towards athletes(Who honestly, are really not good role models), there isn't a lot of people that could get mass-admiration on a national level.

---

I can see something to admire in Obama, but I think that is ENORMOUSLY diminished by his many failures, not the least of which is barely doing anything to prevent his successor from being one of his biggest detractor, who has proceeded to undo a lot of his accomplishments.

---

red13n posted...

I mean, he also gets more spotlight than anyone because President of the United States is basically the highest outreach platform you could reach.

Who exactly are you hoping people admire?

The most admirable people to me are those whose hard work and sacrifices create more good for others than for themselves, and those who set good examples for how to be a good person in their daily lives, even when the cameras aren't on them

Mind you, I understand why the people with the largest platforms get the most votes here, all of the great nobodies in our world won't get votes for the simple reason that they aren't well known enough to have vote consolidation. But I think people who pick a President are deeply lacking in imagination and would do well to find better role models