US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

But that's my point...the antidote to rising inequality is NOT socialism. It never has been. What socialism does is make EVERYONE poor. And there are decades of sample data that proves this... in multiple countries! What is required is someone in the middle - right leaning Democrat, or left leaning Republican - who advocates for the middle class. Someone who is as opposed to tax cuts for the rich as they are genuinely interested in trimming the budget. That's what most of us so called traditional conservatives actually want. And yes if some government tasks can be done as well, if not better in the private sector then that's what should happen.

How many times do I have to say that we don't really have socialism in this country? And we're not moving in that direct, nor will we ever. But we're so far right in favoring corporations and the wealthy that we need folks from the far left to help pull us to the center that you're looking for. I totally agree with you the kind of Republican we need. Haven't seen that for a long time. But look how the economy thrived under the very centrist Clinton. Obama was also a centrist, and we did well with him. He didn't give us a national heath care system, but he gave us a better market-based one that works for more people. But, as we discussed above, the insurance companies still have far too much power to deny coverage in favor of higher profit margins, which is the epitome of cynical capitalism. Biden went some way to capping certain costs, which is necessary, but more needs to be done. We're not wildly different on this. I'm simply not afraid of people who belong to the Democratic Socialist party. Not in this country.

 

[Kieran]

How many times do I have to say that we don't really have socialism in this country? And we're not moving in that direct, nor will we ever. But we're so far right in favoring corporations and the wealthy that we need folks from the far left to help pull us to the center that you're looking for. I totally agree with you the kind of Republican we need. Haven't seen that for a long time. But look how the economy thrived under the very centrist Clinton. Obama was also a centrist, and we did well with him. He didn't give us a national heath care system, but he gave us a better market-based one that works for more people. But, as we discussed above, the insurance companies still have far too much power to deny coverage in favor of higher profit margins, which is the epitome of cynical capitalism. Biden went some way to capping certain costs, which is necessary, but more needs to be done. We're not wildly different on this. I'm simply not afraid of people who belong to the Democratic Socialist party. Not in this country.

Intifada Mamdani is the last thing you need, so. Since you’re so far to the left culturally, would you agree that you need folks from the far right to help pull you back to the centre?

 

[Moxie]

Intifada Mamdani is the last thing you need, so. Since you’re so far to the left culturally, would you agree that you need folks from the far right to help pull you back to the centre?

We've got plenty to the far right by now. And don't tell me who I need to be my mayor. Do you even know what the other options are? Because they're terrible.

 

[Kieran]

We've got plenty to the far right by now. And don't tell me who I need to be my mayor. Do you even know what the other options are? Because they're terrible.

Then you’re really in trouble, if Mamdani is being considered. There are plenty of examples of his thought that ought to scare you. And this is the US Politics thread, it’s not a thread about you and how you vote.

Culturally your country - and the west in general - is gone too far to the left. Do you not think that strong conservative thinking is the only way to bring us back towards the centre?

I think both far left are far right are evil, but the far left is by far the problem we face most. They’ve opened the door to a busload of innovative and dangerous ideas.

 

[Federberg]

How many times do I have to say that we don't really have socialism in this country? And we're not moving in that direct, nor will we ever. But we're so far right in favoring corporations and the wealthy that we need folks from the far left to help pull us to the center that you're looking for. I totally agree with you the kind of Republican we need. Haven't seen that for a long time. But look how the economy thrived under the very centrist Clinton. Obama was also a centrist, and we did well with him. He didn't give us a national heath care system, but he gave us a better market-based one that works for more people. But, as we discussed above, the insurance companies still have far too much power to deny coverage in favor of higher profit margins, which is the epitome of cynical capitalism. Biden went some way to capping certain costs, which is necessary, but more needs to be done. We're not wildly different on this. I'm simply not afraid of people who belong to the Democratic Socialist party. Not in this country.

the problem in America right now is corruption and facism. Trump is guilty of both. But both political parties are deeply corrupt. Granted the Democratic Party is less overtly corrupt then the currrent Trump administration but the problem with a lot of socialist policies isn't the direct corruption of those who promote them, it's the loopholes they create that increase the chance for corruption. Part of what made the Clinton Administration so successful were the policies by preceding administrations, and also the fact that the first midterm a fiscally conservative legislature gained control and was a fierce counter-balance to Clinton. Great politician that he was, and also a centrist of course, he was able to work with them to create a largely successful economy. He did make one monstrous error though... weakening the Glass-Steagall Act was a big mistake and global finance will never be the same because of it. America needs both sides of the aisle to create the very best policies. Sadly that's unlikely in the near future unless something is done to eliminate gerrymandering. That's the only way I see for centrist policies to dominate again. Right now the gerrymandering is so severe that the extremes on both sides make it nearly impossible to create consensus policies which is what the American political system was set up to do. Quite a quandary

 

[Moxie]

the problem in America right now is corruption and facism. Trump is guilty of both. But both political parties are deeply corrupt. Granted the Democratic Party is less overtly corrupt then the currrent Trump administration but the problem with a lot of socialist policies isn't the direct corruption of those who promote them, it's the loopholes they create that increase the chance for corruption. Part of what made the Clinton Administration so successful were the policies by preceding administrations, and also the fact that the first midterm a fiscally conservative legislature gained control and was a fierce counter-balance to Clinton. Great politician that he was, and also a centrist of course, he was able to work with them to create a largely successful economy. He did make one monstrous error though... weakening the Glass-Steagall Act was a big mistake and global finance will never be the same because of it. America needs both sides of the aisle to create the very best policies. Sadly that's unlikely in the near future unless something is done to eliminate gerrymandering. That's the only way I see for centrist policies to dominate again. Right now the gerrymandering is so severe that the extremes on both sides make it nearly impossible to create consensus policies which is what the American political system was set up to do. Quite a quandary

We agree on a lot here. Including that both parties are, or can be corrupted. The hedge is that I don't mean all individual politicians are corrupted, in the way of Robert Menendez (D-NJ), or Eric Adams, our current NYC Mayor. (@Kieran: please note that my examples are of Democrats, next time you tell me I never criticize my party. There are plenty of Republican examples, but these are my locals, and recent.) Citizens United created Super PACs, which has encouraged politicians on both sides to be beholden to big corps, etc. It is a huge factor in increasing the wealth disparity, IMO.

My question to you is what you mean by the bolded above.

As to gerrymandering, it IS a quandary, because I don't see how you control it in this political climate. NY has a law that you can only redistrict after the census is made. That's every 10 years, and it has to conform to the census. Texas has no such law. As I mentioned above, in the conversation about Gavin Newsom, he's proposing a countervening gerrymander to offset the Texas one, but would take it off the table, if Trump and Texas back down. Doesn't look like they will. But, in California, it's on the ballot. The people will decide. There are huge arguments, and lawsuits to the effect that gerrymandering in many districts distills the vote of black, brown and poorer Americans. But this Supreme Court, and the one before it, have taken the teeth out of the Voting Rights Act, so it makes it harder to litigate on that basis.

As with the Electoral College, the Republicans have no interest in solving these unfair voting practices. In fact, with gerrymandering, they are loud and proud on it. A quandary, indeed.

 

[Federberg]

My question to you is what you mean by the bolded above.

The problem with a lot of laws/regulations is that they're poorly thought out. Make a law to stop a certain action and it opens the door or has a side effect that is counter to the original intent. A classic example of this are laws created to promote full employment. These laws often make it more difficult for companies to let workers go. It's well meaning but the net effect is to discourage companies from employing workers. The data is very clear on this, the harder it is to layoff people the more reluctant companies are to increase their payroll because they know that in bad times they could end up bankrupt. The opposite is actually true, the easier it is to let workers go the more willing employers are to take on more staff. If you think about it, it's so obvious but this is what happens when people who've never run/founded a company are responsible for legislation. This tends to happen more with left wing policies than more conservative business friendly legislators. Conservatives tend to resist adding new laws for this very reason. The funny thing is that the motives of socialists and conservatives are often very similar, but how each side tries to achieve it's agenda tends to be very different. One side tries to use the State to implement change, the other tends to look for laws on the statute that if removed will likely achieve the same agenda. My critique of more conservative legislators tends to be that having eliminated a bad law, they often don't allow, or turn a blind eye to, existing protections that could/should be used to mitigate the bad side effects from the change. Please note, I hold both sides accountable and I fully understand that in both cases where there's legislative change, there will be side effects that need to be addressed. I'm just pointing out that in the longer term it's actually better to aim to keep the statute books as lean as possible, otherwise someone somewhere at some time will exploit loopholes. The key is often ensuring that the existing laws are enforced appropriately. Hope this clarifies?

 

[Federberg]

Is this true?

 

[Moxie]

Is this true?

Rather than ask us, why don't you google it? Could be total BS, and it sounds like it probably is.

 

[Kieran]

Is this true?

One of the most horrible people in America, but it seems to be true. The ingrate fifth columnist is rich. From the Economic Times (though there are a multitude of sources):

From student loans to millions: How Representative Ilhan Omar’s net worth spikes 3,500% in two years to $30 mn​

her latest financial disclosure filed in May paints a very different picture. As reported by the New York Post, the Minnesota Democrat now reports assets suggesting her net worth could reach as high as $30 million — a dramatic rise of nearly 3,500% compared to her 2023 filings.

 

[Moxie]

One of the most horrible people in America, but it seems to be true. The ingrate fifth columnist is rich. From the Economic Times (though there are a multitude of sources):

From student loans to millions: How Representative Ilhan Omar’s net worth spikes 3,500% in two years to $30 mn​

Seems it's her husband's money. Did you read the article? Why is she an ingrate? Or a Fifth Columnist? She is an elected representative and works within the system. It doesn't seem to bother you when the right-wingers are working to overturn the system. And some of them are not even elected.

 

[Kieran]

Seems it's her husband's money. Did you read the article? Why is she an ingrate? Or a Fifth Columnist? She is an elected representative and works within the system. It doesn't seem to bother you when the right-wingers are working to overturn the system. And some of them are not even elected.

Ah, it’s her husbands money! So she’s personally poor? The bastard is rich and keeping her in poverty? And do you believe they are so separated that she had no access at all to - our benefit from - that money?

When darling Ilhan said of the worst attack on US soil since WW2 that “some people did something” - and she said it with a smile - did you, as a New Yorker, feel her empathy was for you personally, or was it elsewhere? And if a Republican had said the same thing, would you feel the same way?

As for right-wingers “working to overthrow the system,” WTF to you think the left have been doing for decades? There are Forever Activists running around your streets with their latest fad cause, creating violence and mayhem - egged on by your left wing politicians - and insisting that all the very worst ideas about race, gender and history be accepted. I saw the mayor of Chicago was getting ahead of the curve, defending and inciting violence, and lying about history to justify it.

But the right wingers are the problem?

 

[mrzz]

otherwise someone somewhere at some time will exploit loopholes

Someone -> a lot of people
Somewhere -> everywhere
At some time -> before you know it

 

[Federberg]

As for right-wingers “working to overthrow the system,” WTF to you think the left have been doing for decades?

Anne Applebaum recently observed, regarding American perceptions of Russia... now it's the right wingers who love Russia as if their system is somehow better and reminiscent of 50s America. Nevermind the rampant corruption and AIDS in Russia right now. Nevermind the fact that ethnic Russians are largely agnostic at best, only only the minorities tend towards religion. The American right perceives the country and its politics through rose tinted lens.

But then hark back to the 60s and 70s.... it was the American left, who saw in Russia the anti-dote to capitalism. They created this fantasy about the Russian way of life and held it up as some sort of ideal.

The pendulum swings from left to right... but delusions about Russia remain...

 

[Moxie]

But then hark back to the 60s and 70s.... it was the American left, who saw in Russia the anti-dote to capitalism. They created this fantasy about the Russian way of life and held it up as some sort of ideal.

This isn't really correct. American communists and those with socialist leanings already became disillusioned with the Soviet model by the 1950s. Which was also when we stopped having Communists. The radical left in the 60s and early 70s was really more about Che and Mao, right? But it is ironic and perplexing that the right in this country has fallen all in love with the Russia of Putin.

 

[Moxie]

Ah, it’s her husbands money! So she’s personally poor? The bastard is rich and keeping her in poverty? And do you believe they are so separated that she had no access at all to - our benefit from - that money?

When darling Ilhan said of the worst attack on US soil since WW2 that “some people did something” - and she said it with a smile - did you, as a New Yorker, feel her empathy was for you personally, or was it elsewhere? And if a Republican had said the same thing, would you feel the same way?

As for right-wingers “working to overthrow the system,” WTF to you think the left have been doing for decades? There are Forever Activists running around your streets with their latest fad cause, creating violence and mayhem - egged on by your left wing politicians - and insisting that all the very worst ideas about race, gender and history be accepted. I saw the mayor of Chicago was getting ahead of the curve, defending and inciting violence, and lying about history to justify it.

But the right wingers are the problem?

No, meaning that his money gained equity. It says it in the article. Jeepers.

 

[Kieran]

Anne Applebaum recently observed, regarding American perceptions of Russia... now it's the right wingers who love Russia as if their system is somehow better and reminiscent of 50s America. Nevermind the rampant corruption and AIDS in Russia right now. Nevermind the fact that ethnic Russians are largely agnostic at best, only only the minorities tend towards religion. The American right perceives the country and its politics through rose tinted lens.

But then hark back to the 60s and 70s.... it was the American left, who saw in Russia the anti-dote to capitalism. They created this fantasy about the Russian way of life and held it up as some sort of ideal.

The pendulum swings from left to right... but delusions about Russia remain...

Yeah there are people on the right who believe that Putin is an anti-woke defender of Christian values Strongman. Getting them to see him for what he actually is reminds me of discussing politics with the left. They don’t think outside their box, and they don’t recognise the awful damage he’ll do if he succeeds.

He’s quite blatant about what he wants, we only have to listen to him to know..

 

[Federberg]

Thought this was a great example of what I was explaining about over-regulation.. It's chess, and relates to the bureaucratic rules that have made it easier to exploit loopholes.

"As for the system itself, I find that chess regulations are often made unnecessarily complex. As is often the case with law and bureaucracy, the more complicated they become, the easier it is to find cracks and loopholes. FIDE, in particular, tends to approach these issues (and everything else, like PR) reactively — fixing problems as they appear — rather than anticipating and preventing them in the first place."

 

[Kieran]

Thought this was a great example of what I was explaining about over-regulation.. It's chess, and relates to the bureaucratic rules that have made it easier to exploit loopholes.

"As for the system itself, I find that chess regulations are often made unnecessarily complex. As is often the case with law and bureaucracy, the more complicated they become, the easier it is to find cracks and loopholes. FIDE, in particular, tends to approach these issues (and everything else, like PR) reactively — fixing problems as they appear — rather than anticipating and preventing them in the first place."

So basically Hikaru is doing something legit by entering these events - at great risk to his ranking and reputation - but people want rules that stop him, as if he’s doing something wrong? They want to regulate something that they don’t understand, rather than deal with their own incomprehension instead?

 

[Federberg]

So basically Hikaru is doing something legit by entering these events - at great risk to his ranking and reputation - but people want rules that stop him, as if he’s doing something wrong? They want to regulate something that they don’t understand, rather than deal with their own incomprehension instead?

He’s doing nothing wrong. Ding actually set up a dodgy tournament in China where his pals lost on demand. Hikaru just went to a legit tournament