US Politics 3

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:I think it might be a little more complicated with the US democrats because they do seem to run a far wider spectrum than any of the UK political parties. You have quite left wing people like Warren, Sanders and AOC but they are mainly way to the right of the Labour party and more like the Tories.

I don't think that's quite true. There's a big difference between Obama/Biden and AOC/Sanders, that's true. But there's also a big difference between Blair and Corbyn in the Labour Party.

I guess Obama/Biden are further away from AOC than Blair is to Corbyn, but the gaps are still enormous.

But Joe Manchin is a democrat and way to the right of Biden. Biden is the middle of the Democratic party so Democratic political spread is a little over double that of the Labour party.

The majority of the Democrats are to the right of our traditional Tories (the current Tories are slightly different). That was my point originally.

Sure there's a small part of the Democrats that are left wing. Where else would they go in a two party state?

So yes the spread in the Democrats might be greater than that in UK parties, but it's misleading to pretend that our parties are all a big happy family. The gap between Blair (centre-right wing) and Corbyn (far left) is huge.

Sure, both countries basically have the same issue FPTP which forces choices to reduce and creates strange bedfellows. I personally think that the UK system is slightly better (at least in terms of representation) as we manage to have about 2.5 national political parties and a couple of regionally focused parties rather than just two parties.

I do think that there is quite a healthy chunk of the democratic party that is left of the Tories though and at least where new Labour fit.

Memento Mori wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Biden hopes to avoid divisive Trump investigations, preferring unity

Biden has told aides that he's concerned that investigations would divide the country but that he would leave decisions up to an independent Justice Department.

...

They said he has specifically told advisers that he is wary of federal tax investigations of Trump or of challenging any orders Trump may issue granting immunity to members of his staff before he leaves office. One adviser said Biden has made it clear that he "just wants to move on."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justic ... y-n1247959

Failing to investigate and punish criminality is a large part of what got us to Trump to begin with. It sends a message that emboldens those who would commit crimes in office.

Biden's DoJ must be absolutely ruthless, even if he is weak sauce.

It does explicitly say there that he'll leave it up to the Justice Department which is how the process should work. The President shouldn't be ordering investigations into anyone. Even if federal charges aren't pursued, New York state is hungry to charge.

Yep. Biden staying out of it doesn't mean Trump is going to get away with it.

How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

As you're a Lib Dem, I think you should sit this one out.

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

As you're a Lib Dem, I think you should sit this one out.

Aaaand ridiculing the centre sure does push people to the fringes...this is a very common thing very decent people do, but they don't realise how much it can contribute to someone picking 'a side'.

DML wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

As you're a Lib Dem, I think you should sit this one out.

Aaaand ridiculing the centre sure does push people to the fringes...this is a very common thing very decent people do, but they don't realise how much it can contribute to someone picking 'a side'.

It was a joke that I'm sure Oblomov understood.

And if he didn't understand it was a joke, then he can go and cry into his Jo Swinson pillow.

Moggy wrote:

DML wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

As you're a Lib Dem, I think you should sit this one out.

Aaaand ridiculing the centre sure does push people to the fringes...this is a very common thing very decent people do, but they don't realise how much it can contribute to someone picking 'a side'.

It was a joke that I'm sure Oblomov understood.

And if he didn't understand it was a joke, then he can go and cry into his Jo Swinson pillow.

Well actually the splinters have gone so far up my bum they're blocking my ears so WHO'S LAUGHING NOW?!

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

It's very difficult to put political ideologies on a "number line". Anti-capitalists use the word "left-wing" to describe anti-capitalist political thought, so pro-capitalist thought is therefore "right-wing". Other people use those words differently. Social progressives often use "left-wing" to describe themselves and "right-wing" to describe bigots. I'm both anti-capitalist and socially progressive, so I end up mixing the two based on context. It's definitely an ambiguous short-hand, so the most clear thing is to just name or describe the specific politics you're referring to, I think.

DML wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

As you're a Lib Dem, I think you should sit this one out.

Aaaand ridiculing the centre sure does push people to the fringes...this is a very common thing very decent people do, but they don't realise how much it can contribute to someone picking 'a side'.

Saying the centre will pick fascism if the left are mean to them is much more of an insult than anything the left could probably come up with.

In terms of ideology, the four main US/UK parties in their currents states are like so (with | being centre, Labour, T = Tories, etc):

<----------------------------|---L------T---D-----------R-

Karl_ wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

It's very difficult to put political ideologies on a "number line". Anti-capitalists use the word "left-wing" to describe anti-capitalist political thought, so pro-capitalist thought is therefore "right-wing". Other people use those words differently. Social progressives often use "left-wing" to describe themselves and "right-wing" to describe bigots. I'm both anti-capitalist and socially progressive, so I end up mixing the two based on context. It's definitely an ambiguous short-hand, so the most clear thing is to just name or describe the specific politics you're referring to, I think.

Yep I agree. Up until probably, I don't know, a couple of years ago, I would always have assumed economic ideology when hearing/reading a description of something or someone being right/left-wing. However, a modern (read: social media) interpretation of that seems to have been completely taken over by social ideology instead. Instead, I now assume 'nasty, selfish twat' when someone is described as right-wing and 'cares about the rights of other people' when left-wing.

Personally, I would have preferred to keep left/right for economic ideology and progressive/conservative for social ideology. But one can't waste time holding back the tide!

Drumstick wrote:In terms of ideology, the four main US/UK parties in their currents states are like so (with | being centre, Labour, T = Tories, etc):

<----------------------------|---L------T---D-----------R-

I would personally put Labour right in the middle or just a little to the left. I think 'Blue Conservatives' is thrown around a lot - but Blair was not exactly a Conservative PM. He made his own very unique mistakes!

Karl_ wrote:

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:How do you even measure this. What is it like 10 notches to the right if you vote against LGBTQ+ rights, 10 notches to the left if you vote to raise the minimum wage... who calculates someone's 'leftness' etc?!

It's very difficult to put political ideologies on a "number line".

Mate it's easy, just imagine you're playing a videogame with a karma system. If it's obviously good it's left wing and if it's comically evil it's right wing.

OrangeRKN wrote:If it's obviously good it's left wing and if it's comically evil it's right wing.

^^^ This but unironically

twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1328728546211205121

"It's ok to behead people, just don't do it in a terroristy way ok?"

The two people he wanted beheaded are the wrong type of government agent so Fuckerberg thought it was okay.

Moggy wrote:

twitter.com/ruskin147/status/1328728546211205121

"It's ok to behead people, just don't do it in a terroristy way ok?"

So what just don't do it in a desert?

Karl_ wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:If it's obviously good it's left wing and if it's comically evil it's right wing.

^^^ This but unironically

Videogames lack the nuance to portray realistic moral quandaries. In a videogame you'd have to choose between feeding children or letting them starve, so the morality is black and white, but in real life you have to consider that those poor starving children aren't worth feeding because there are laws against child labour.

OrangeRKN wrote:in real life you have to consider that those poor starving children aren't worth feeding because there are laws against child labour.

Are you avin a giggle?

twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1328828371141267457

Oh Rudy.