My integrity is a joke? Can you support that in any way? Given how well you've supported your other arguments here, my presumption is no, you cannot.Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
Prosperity in western countries is basically at the highest level in human history. Plenty of room for improvement but to say that our civilization doesn't work for us seems crazy.I would argue that most people of a country like the US or UK want is actually some disruption. For whom does either civilisation currently work for? It isn't us.
If you want more of the same (maybe with some slight reforms, but nothing significant), you vote for Clinton, Biden, Harris, Starmer, etc.
If one thinks that the system is significantly broken then one is more likely to vote for a person who doesn't represent the status quo.
People generally don't want disruption in my opinion and when you actually try changing things people flip out. The reason why Democrats didn't sideline the insurance companies is most voters didn't want them to! The entire reason for 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor' was that among the top fears of people about the ACA was it would be disruptive.I'm not excusing Trump voters, just like I wouldn't excuse Farage / BJ voters, especially since with Trump voters that they already had a taste of his fuckwittery at work but because they've either got goldfish-like memories, are fascists at heart or because they're brainwashed with RWM BS, but the point that truly needs to be addressed by politicians in the mainstream is that significant change is needed, and that half-heartedly pandering to the far-right because ooh scary immigrants is not going to cut it, people are going to keep burn-it-down voting until someone really burns that shit down.
People like Clinton, Biden, and Harris were never going to marginalise the health insurance companies, just like Starmer isn't going to do anything major to save the NHS. Meaningful changes to 2A aren't going to happen with the current Dems ever, it doesn't matter how many mass shooting atrocities there will be or how many "the sounds of children screaming have been removed" quotes. Some half-hearted bullshit to try and pander to lefties, a couple of small improvements that won't make waves/enemies in political circles, that's it.
I think Obama is a good example of how people like the idea and hate the details so when people talk about wanting disruption I find it often falls apart as soon as it's confronted by the details.Don't get me wrong, I voted for Keir Starmer because he was the best chance at getting the tories out. I sincerely hope that he doesn't spend most of his time being tory lite, but I have to be realistic, and this half-hearted bullshit that panderers of their sort do really isn't going to fix shit like climate change, like the rising cost of living, the fact that a decreasing minority will be able to get on the housing ladder without family help.
We're in dire need of some real leadership by principled people with a fully functioning moral compass. People who have no problem being outspoken and having the skill to make their argument to joe everyman. People who would take a bullet to make things better for future generations. Our time is running out.
I am afraid you are right. Add to that, the powerful right wing media and social media, and the fact that the Dems dont really have a strong, charismatic leader, and incomprehensibly, the Reps could stay in power for a long time. Evidence of this is the fact that after dropping to record lows, Trump's approval rating is starting to rebound. Like it or not, you also have to admit Trump is very adept at "flooding the zone" and manipulating the political environment. Case in point is his tariffs. He talks tough, crashes the market, then makes a "deal" such as the pause with China, and claims it as a victory. The markets rebound -- another "victory". But are we really any better off than before the tariffs were imposed? Hell I dont know, and I am sure most people dont either. It just looks like a big victory for Trump.Nah, the ship is listing so far too the right, the pendulum never even swings back to center.
I am afraid you are right. Add to that, the powerful right wing media and social media, and the fact that the Dems dont really have a strong, charismatic leader, and incomprehensibly, the Reps could stay in power for a long time. Evidence of this is the fact that after dropping to record lows, Trump's approval rating is starting to rebound. (Edit: also is the fact that somehow, despite all Trumps trampling of our system of government, Dems have an approval rate even lower than Trump) Like it or not, you also have to admit Trump is very adept at "flooding the zone" and manipulating the political environment. Case in point is his tariffs. He talks tough, crashes the market, then makes a "deal" such as the pause with China, and claims it as a victory. The markets rebound -- another "victory". But are we really any better off than before the tariffs were imposed? Hell I dont know, and I am sure most people dont either. It just looks like a big victory for Trump.
PS: Before the AOC fans start to attack me about "no strong charismatic leader", you are free to disagree, but I dont consider her a viable candidate for national office. TBH, I initially thought she was just a left wing crackpot who would rapidly be voted out and disappear, but I have come to respect her for sticking to her beliefs and not being afraid to speak out. That said, I still dont think she has a chance at taking the Presidency from the Reps, she is just too polarizing, and yes, IMO too far to the left to win a national election.
I am afraid you are right. Add to that, the powerful right wing media and social media, and the fact that the Dems dont really have a strong, charismatic leader, and incomprehensibly, the Reps could stay in power for a long time. Evidence of this is the fact that after dropping to record lows, Trump's approval rating is starting to rebound. Like it or not, you also have to admit Trump is very adept at "flooding the zone" and manipulating the political environment.
This is solid gaslighting. You're being dishonest.Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
This is solid gaslighting. You're being dishonest.
... or put them on ignore!To Josh Trump's lies are gospel, his urine is champagne.
You can't reason with these folks.. you can just deport them to El Salvador!
Plus the system is rigged from top to bottom in favor of conservatives.Nah, the ship is listing so far too the right, the pendulum never even swings back to center.
Plus the system is rigged from top to bottom in favor of conservaTERRORISTS.
Prosperity in western countries is basically at the highest level in human history. Plenty of room for improvement but to say that our civilization doesn't work for us seems crazy.
And you're missing my point. "People don't want" and "nothing can be done" because of 100% man-made bullshit.People generally don't want disruption in my opinion and when you actually try changing things people flip out. The reason why Democrats didn't sideline the insurance companies is most voters didn't want them to! The entire reason for 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor' was that among the top fears of people about the ACA was it would be disruptive.
When it comes to the second amendment there's nothing Democrats can do. It has nothing to do with half-hearted bullshit, it has to do with the fact that SCOTUS has declared most gun laws unconstitutional. Until you pack the court or replace enough of them there's nothing to be done. Now to be clear I'm in favor of both packing the court AND banning all guns but until you deal with SCOTUS nothing else can move.
Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
Biden was working within the limits of the law/constitution.
Even if this resulted in poor execution. This is not evidence of the Biden Democrats moving far left, which was your original argument.
Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion that's fine. It doesn't change the fact that those two parties have been in power during the greatest increase in prosperity in US history so if you're saying their existence is incompatible with that this is fine, but you're going to have to explain yourself.IMO if you can't think of any very serious problems in the US that are only going to get worse with either of the two current parties in power, then I don't think there can be a discussion here.
I think it's a pretty well established fact that people like the idea of change and dislike the reality of it.And you're missing my point. "People don't want" and "nothing can be done" because of 100% man-made bullshit.
If we continue along our current path, humanity's epitaph is going to be that saving the planet/civilisation wasn't a profitable enough cause, it would have been a tough sell, it just wasn't a vote-winner. As much the fault of pandering bullshit artists as those who directly profit from things going to shit.
I repeatedly asked you to provide factual sources to back up claims you made. You repeatedly refused and then tried to shift the burden of proof to me.Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
I actually agree with you. Biden did a terrible job on immigration enforcement. He needed to declare a national emergency, hire 100k people to process migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, green card applicants, citizenship applications, etc with a target of 6-12 months to process each and every one in the queue and all that come in the meantime so their status was settled.Your integrity is a joke. Nobody has refuted the fact (its not just a claim) of the Biden admins terrible immigration enforcement policy. Just keep drinking your own kool-aid and carry on with your delusion.
It seems important to note that he tried to do all the things you're saying he should have done (except the emergency) but Republicans refused to bring the bill up for a vote out of fears that it would pass and become law and Republicans desperately did not want that to happen.I actually agree with you. Biden did a terrible job on immigration enforcement. He needed to declare a national emergency, hire 100k people to process migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, green card applicants, citizenship applications, etc with a target of 6-12 months to process each and every one in the queue and all that come in the meantime so their status was settled.
Those without a criminal history should have been granted residency, a green card or student visa, and a path to rapid citizenship. If he had done these things at the beginning of his term by the end the economic boom from adding so much productivity would have likely saved his presidency. The new voters wouldn't have hurt either.
Ideally a public works program to rebuild aging infrastructure (both physical and digital) would have provided an immediate jobs path for those capable of filling those roles so they didn't have to start out on public assistance and were immediately contributing to national needs.
So yeah, Biden did a bad job with immigration. Not as bad as the current administration, but pretty bad. It was an enormous missed opportunity to solve a number of problems, ranging from border security to public works/infrastructure, tax revenue/deficits, and social security viability.
That's not what I'm saying.Okay, if you don't want to have a discussion that's fine.
What you've said previously here and what I said are things that can (and IMO are) in many ways true and both can and do represent our current reality. I don't know how to interpret "their existence is incompatible" so I'll assume that's you trying to interpret my stance on the topic.It doesn't change the fact that those two parties have been in power during the greatest increase in prosperity in US history so if you're saying their existence is incompatible with that this is fine, but you're going to have to explain yourself.
And yet a good leader can persuade people to do what's in their best interests. Would you agree that climate change requires humanity to change its habits?I think it's a pretty well established fact that people like the idea of change and dislike the reality of it.
You seemed to be saying things would get worse in the US with the two party system. That MIGHT be true but it's not like this system is new and it did coexist with massive increases in prosperity. If the argument is that's no longer the case that's fine but I feel like that requires additional explanation.That's not what I'm saying.
What you've said previously here and what I said are things that can (and IMO are) in many ways true and both can and do represent our current reality. I don't know how to interpret "their existence is incompatible" so I'll assume that's you trying to interpret my stance on the topic.
As far as climate change goes I think that's a complicated question and also one where we would need to quantify how much warming.And yet a good leader can persuade people to do what's in their best interests. Would you agree that climate change requires humanity to change its habits?
And yet a good leader can persuade people to do what's in their best interests. Would you agree that climate change requires humanity to change its habits?
Your problem isn't a two party system per se, it's the parties as they currently are that's the problem. I said that if you can't think of any serious issues facing the US that will only get worse with either the Dems or the GQP, then there's not a lot of point in further discussion. I already gave some examples and I don't even live there!You seemed to be saying things would get worse in the US with the two party system. That MIGHT be true but it's not like this system is new and it did coexist with massive increases in prosperity. If the argument is that's no longer the case that's fine but I feel like that requires additional explanation.
As far as climate change goes I think that's a complicated question and also one where we would need to quantify how much warming.
I mean I'm all for carbon taxes, etc., but I think our best bet for mitigating climate change is government investment in research, development, and deployment of clean power sources because that's probably easier than changing people's behavior.
You can always think of SOME issue that would get worse but I don't think that's a particularly useful framework. I can also think of some issues that will get worse if we had 50 parties.Your problem isn't a two party system per se, it's the parties as they currently are that's the problem. I said that if you can't think of any serious issues facing the US that will only get worse with either the Dems or the GQP, then there's not a lot of point in further discussion. I already gave some examples and I don't even live there!
I do not think the US and the UK have similar problems at all, but I can't speak for the UK much. I was born in 1980 and at least in a material sense the US is a considerably better place to live now than it was then. Cleaner water, cleaner air, better food, higher incomes, etc. I'm not sure how true that is for the UK.Looking at the bigger picture, you've got a situation that's similar to the UK: One party (in your case the GQP) is intent on breaking shit up and reversing progress for a quick buck, and the other party that gets the economy back to a more functional trajectory but otherwise half-heartedly fixes minor things. Overall that paints a downward trajectory for your civilisation, because it's always faster and easier to break things than to fix them. Before Trump it was a gentle downward trajectory.
The downward trajectory is obvious in the UK too, it's like we basically stopped net-investing in infrastructure since maybe the 80s and declared that capitalism will step in and fix what conservatives can't be bothered to. We're locked into a similar cycle to you guys, maybe Farage will be our Trump. A UK example of what will only get worse regardless of Labour or tory leadership is the National Health Service due to a general refusal to fund it properly and a continued insistence on squeezing as much "value" out of it until it reaches a tipping point.
This seems like human nature though and I'm not sure it's ever been different. If it has been, when was it different?I think a problem with this discussion is that you're taking a pragmatic view of what you think might be possible because <gestures vaguely at the idiots we're dealing with here> whereas I'm talking about what's necessary to achieve an outcome that isn't dictated by relative inaction followed by possibly planet-wide disasters and a subsequent rethink.
An evolving civilisation improves at facing potential obstacles before they become immediate issues. I think we've (US and UK at the least) devolved into a model that involves the front line staff pointing out that a machine has problems that need to be addressed, management says there's no collective will to fix it, then the machine breaks then there's the decision to fix it. Eventually the machine will need replacing (rather than perpetual minimally-funded patch-jobs that are grudgingly authorised), but there's no collective will to do that either, but that will be somebody else's problem because the current management will have retired by then. Profit!
Except Biden did eventually sign an executive order to limit border crossings, as I have pointed out over and over, yet the fact seems to be ignored. So yes, there was something he could have, and in fact did, do. Would it have effectively solved the problem if implemented earlier? Who knows, but at least it would have showed some kind of response.It seems important to note that he tried to do all the things you're saying he should have done (except the emergency) but Republicans refused to bring the bill up for a vote out of fears that it would pass and become law and Republicans desperately did not want that to happen.
I would agree with the gerrymandering, flooding the zone, and some voter suppression, but funding was certainly not the problem for the Dems. Harris spent around 1.5B to run a campaign that lost voters in almost every demographic.Sure, with a level playing field a good leader could do that.
But against a much better financed opposition, that is willing to flood the zone with lies, use corrupt election tactics like gerrymandering and voter suppression, it can becomes exceedingly improbable.