Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Lerner, Nov 3, 2021.
That, too, would be "normal ".
More jobs created in 10 months than were created under The Former guy in the first two years.
Unemployment claims down 70% since The Former Guy.
A solid, well-executed plan for Covid-19 vaccine distribution compared to The Former Guy's complete lack of a plan.
The stock market soaring, social democratic bills on the verge of passing, and the emergence of Covid treatments that can truly save most people from dying if they catch it.
So, vote Republican? Or something.
All together now: The president of the United States does not control the economy! And even if he did...
That unemployment claims are lower than during the height of a pandemic lockdown is not an achievement.
A stock market bubble fueled by the Fed is not an achievement.
That researchers at Pfizer have apparently come up with an effective treatment is an achievement, but it's theirs, not the Biden administration's.
So, vote Republican? No, because they're nuts. But praising Democratic policymakers for things they didn't actually do isn't better.
I've been saying for a year that the president is being held accountable for things over which he has little or no control. But that's was Americans do.
That said, there are a lot of bright things happening, including the infrastructure bill last night. (That could not have passed without the Republican votes it gathered.)
Imagine what would happen if people actually voted according to the issues they say they care about. It would be a blow-out of massive proportions.
That said, it will be interesting to see if actually improving people's lives has positive electoral results. It might not. Whether you agree with the specifics or not, one party is trying to do that while the other is trying to keep people scared and angry. (It certainly has no policies or legislative agenda--it didn't have one when it was in power, except to cut taxes for the very wealthy.)
I'm betting on anger and fear.
Here in Virginia, the McAuliffe campaign put up as many signs saying "Youngkin = Trump" as they did praising their own candidate. Neither major party has a monopoly on the tactics of anger and fear.
Monopoly? No. But one of them has it as its central operating system. And it isn't some lawn sign. Please.
Both sides are not at all alike.
Interesting point, though. My own experience with electoral politics is that you run on your own merits and act as if your opponent doesn't exist. Talking about the other guy is not a winning strategy.
Very true, I assume the thought process was that the anti-Trump vote was a huge reason that Biden got elected. The problem with that strategy was that Trump's defeat deflated that anti-Trump vote pressure significantly.
Yes, I think it was a mistake to make the race about Trump. But I also think people fail to vote the issues and instead choose to vote on baser issues--real or (more likely) imaginary.
Regardless of one's positions on culture war issues like curricula informed by intersectionality, the truth is that Virginia public schools were a shitshow during the pandemic. My fiancee is Canadian, so she's not all that invested in U.S. politics, but she has three kids in the local high school, and she was appalled by how poorly remote learning was handled. She's not a swing voter, but she literally is a soccer mom, so the point remains.
If Democrats want to keep losing, they should definitely keep telling swing voters their concerns are imaginary.
This isn't serious. You know what I'm referring to: things like CRT, caravans of aliens, etc. Race-baiting at its worst, using imaginary bogeyman "issues" to do it.
On another note, I find it easy to just sit in the middle, carping at each side for its faults. It takes absolutely zero commitment--to politics, to reason, even to our country.
As a Democrat, I'm constantly disappointed in the things some Democrats say and do. It comes with the territory. For example, I'm disappointed that "The Squad" didn't support the recently-passed infrastructure bill. I know why they did that and the principle they were defending. But I think they still should have backed the party once the debate was finished. Again, taking a middle path--or an opposing one--is bad politics and solves nothing.
I've spent 32 years in public service with the Federal government. (That service is coming to an end in a few weeks.) Government representatives--both political appointees and career officials--have done many things over those 3-plus decades that I have disagreed with. And I've never been shy about saying so. But I've supported the policies and decisions they've made. That's what you do if you want to be part of something larger.
Or, alternately, you can just sit on the sidelines and criticize. At the end of the day, I'm a Democrat because I believe in what this party does and stands for, even if I don't agree with everything along the way.
Happy Standard Time Switch Day...or something.
Wow, it's like ad hominem and straw man had a baby!
You take unilateral pot shots at me all the time. I think you can handle it. Besides, it isn't an ad hominem since it is:
"...(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining." My comments were not directed at any person, but instead the stance he or she is taking.
Nor is it as strawman:
"an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."
I wasn't arguing with anyone about anything. I was stating my disdain for a particular approach to political rhetoric.
Also, I'm wrong a lot and I accept it.
So which is it? I can handle it, or it wasn't directed at me? Come on.
You're changing the discussion, as usual. It wasn't a personal attack. It WAS about the way you carp at whatever you don't like while simultaneously belonging to nothing. You like to dish it out, but you have a lot of trouble taking it. And you like to dish it out first, which is bad behavior. You start soooo many of these.
Quite the opposite. Everything in this conversation was about policy, parties, and politicians until you said, "On another note, I find it easy to just sit in the middle, carping at each side for its faults. It takes absolutely zero commitment--to politics, to reason, even to our country." Which somehow isn't a personal attack even though it's negative, irrelevant, and by your own admission aimed at me.
I know I can be intemperate, as I've conceded before. But this time you should look in the mirror.
Separate names with a comma.