All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[BeastieRunner]

But if they do that, what will small children snicker about behind their backs.

That they are in the Canadian Navy?

[Malvolio]

It is very childish of me but I never fail to laugh when my uncle talks about his time as a Seaman Swabbing the Poop Deck.

Does he do this on purpose? Of course he does. Do I fall for it ever time? YES!

That's why "Airman" doesn't have quite the baggage that "seaman" has.

[numberthirty]

From a little while back. While it's just one little step in the right direction, it did seem worth taking note of...

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/14/10731...shkreli-barred

'Pharma Bro' Martin Shkreli is ordered to return $64M, barred from drug industry

[Tendrin]

Tennessee lawmaker becomes latest House Democrat not to seek reelection
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/25/polit...ent/index.html

Just a note: this is the direct result of Tennesee's latest gerrymander.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

It is very childish of me but I never fail to laugh when my uncle talks about his time as a Seaman Swabbing the Poop Deck.

Does he do this on purpose? Of course he does. Do I fall for it ever time? YES!

As a retired sailor (1976-1996) who served on six ships, I can verify that I absolutely NEVER saw any seaman swabbing the poop deck.

[Zauriel]

Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election at 81 years old.

Chuck Schumer is 71 and the leader of the Senate.

Joe Biden is in the White House at 79 years old.

I have plenty of respect for my elders, but our nation needs a new generation of leadership desperately.

In the words of Senator Bernie Sanders, “Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress.”

[Zauriel]

Senators Manchin and Sinema consider themselves "moderate", and they often vote with the Republicans. There were some Republicans that voted with the Democrats to pass the infrastructure bill. So it's almost like parties within parties. That's why I often wonder how we would fare if we had smaller, focused parties as many countries in Europe have.

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are just the convenient scapegoats. The reality is
The Democrats don’t want to abolish the filibuster because that would conflict with their primary purpose, which is to collaborate with the Republicans to preserve the status quo.

[babyblob]

As a retired sailor (1976-1996) who served on six ships, I can verify that I absolutely NEVER saw any seaman swabbing the poop deck.

Im sure he never did either. But it is a fun play on words

[Catlady in training]

There are plenty of times Democrats are advocating for restrictions, especially in the context of Covid, with mask mandates, vaccination requirements (including requirements that people need to show photo ID to confirm that the vaccine card is theirs), and lockdowns.

There are also plenty of restrictions on businesses.

A reasonable person can say that these are all necessary and appropriate, but that's different from whether Democrats restrict freedoms.

I meant in areas where the personal freedom of the person doesn't affect the freedom of other people. Specifically, rights to abortion, LGBT+ rights, banning of books, etc. When it comes to the safety of others, such as with covid restrictions, consumer protection, traffic rules, etc., it becomes more complicated because the personal freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins. I agree of course that the line often doesn't have a clear definition and these discussions are not easy.

Ah, I understand. The majority of Hispanic voters in NJ vote democrat so the person in the article is likely a democrat. I was pointing out some of the issues brought up during the election cycle, and that particular man was torn on which way to vote and those were some of the reasons he mentioned. He felt neither side had a clear message related to covid relief specific to his community. The original conversation started with why we're seeing a switching of parties in that demographic, again. There was a big switch from R to D with Obama and now it's reversing.

Thanks for clarifying. I completely get not liking any of the options that you have when voting. Personally, I tend to pick the "lesser evil" option in such cases, but I understand if some people cannot bring themselves to do it and choose not to vote instead, even though I think that is unfortunate. What I don't get is voting for the other option out of spite even if that is against one's own interests. I don't know if/how often that applies in the situation that was being discussed, so sorry if that got too off-topic.

Senators Manchin and Sinema consider themselves "moderate", and they often vote with the Republicans. There were some Republicans that voted with the Democrats to pass the infrastructure bill. So it's almost like parties within parties. That's why I often wonder how we would fare if we had smaller, focused parties as many countries in Europe have.

Having multiple small parties, I did sometimes wonder if we would be better off having two big ones like you do. So far, I am undecided. Both models have pros and cons.

[Tami]

If the US had three major political parties, what would the third one be called?

Let's say we had the liberal left = Democrats; the conservative right = Republicans; then we had the moderate centrists. What name would best be used for a moderate centrist party?

[Kirby101]

If the US had three major political parties, what would the third one be called?

Let's say we had the liberal left = Democrats; the conservative right = Republicans; then we had the moderate centrists. What name would best be used for a moderate centrist party?

The Democrats are largely the moderate center, especially compared to other counters. A third Party would be a true Social Democratic Left.

[Tendrin]

The Democrats are largely the moderate center, especially compared to other counters. A third Party would be a true Social Democratic Left.

They're actually to the left of many European parties on a lot of things. Labor, for example, in the UK is frequently transphobic in the way that the Democrats are on a whole not. France passed a law banning conversion therapy today, which is great, but it has been a largely mainstream dem position since the 2010s. I'm not saying you're not wrong, just that we frequently tend to think of this only in purely economic ways, on economic policy, and the Dems have moved left there anyway.

[Mister Mets]

Perhaps a larger aggregate with more common interests? And borders more like EU or Brexit Britain? So not NJ, NY and Connecticut but the Urban halves of those forming their own superstate while rural Jersey and CT could join up with PA or such to form another. CA as we know has tons of laws on goods and services that the rest of the country don't have to comply with. Those fixated with being a military superpower though would be very saddened I suppose though.

The larger aggregates would get difficult to sort out.

If you go with states, there are at least existing borders, even if you may have very different communities within the same states (the difference between inner-city Philadelphia and the outer suburbs, or Austin compared to rural Texas.)

One of the major issues in the United States is that the differences in political preference are largely about population density, with cities and inner suburbs favoring Democrats while the outer suburbs and rural areas favor Republicans. As a result, splitting communities of interest can get really complicated really quickly. Who would get to determine the new borders

Nancy Pelosi is running for re-election at 81 years old.

Chuck Schumer is 71 and the leader of the Senate.

Joe Biden is in the White House at 79 years old.

I have plenty of respect for my elders, but our nation needs a new generation of leadership desperately.

In the words of Senator Bernie Sanders, “Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress.”

I don't think picking younger politicians for leadership gets you the results you want. A younger Speaker of the House may base decisions on what will get them the best lobbying jobs thirty years later.

Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are just the convenient scapegoats. The reality is
The Democrats don’t want to abolish the filibuster because that would conflict with their primary purpose, which is to collaborate with the Republicans to preserve the status quo.

I'll agree that Sinema and Manchin may have silent support among elected Democrats. I suspect it's much more complicated than Democrats wanting to work with Republicans to preserve the status quo. An important thing to remember when considering the status quo is that there are always more ways to screw things up than to get it right.

[Mister Mets]

I meant in areas where the personal freedom of the person doesn't affect the freedom of other people. Specifically, rights to abortion, LGBT+ rights, banning of books, etc. When it comes to the safety of others, such as with covid restrictions, consumer protection, traffic rules, etc., it becomes more complicated because the personal freedom of one person ends where the freedom of another person begins. I agree of course that the line often doesn't have a clear definition and these discussions are not easy.



Thanks for clarifying. I completely get not liking any of the options that you have when voting. Personally, I tend to pick the "lesser evil" option in such cases, but I understand if some people cannot bring themselves to do it and choose not to vote instead, even though I think that is unfortunate. What I don't get is voting for the other option out of spite even if that is against one's own interests. I don't know if/how often that applies in the situation that was being discussed, so sorry if that got too off-topic.



Having multiple small parties, I did sometimes wonder if we would be better off having two big ones like you do. So far, I am undecided. Both models have pros and cons.

I'm glad you agree that the lines don't have clear definitions and that these discussions can be hard. That allows for a more meaningful discussion.

The obvious counterpoint to the question of whether Democrats support restrictions when it's worthwhile is that Republicans will argue that the restrictions they push for come with tradeoffs. With gay rights, there is the question of the extent to which others have to agree (IE- the legal pressure on the owner of Masterpiece cake shop to make cakes for gay weddings.) There are also major social changes that have been harmful for society (higher rate of unmarried parents) so that makes for an argument to encourage particular norms.

When it comes to abortion, there is the whole question of when life begins.

Requirements on businesses have all sorts of consequences and laws meant to help people can backfire (for example- laws forbidding employers from checking whether a potential employee served time in jail correlated with a decrease in job opportunities for minority men.)

These questions aren't easy, but it seems to be the main purpose for a thread where intelligent, informed people discuss politics.

[Mister Mets]

If the US had three major political parties, what would the third one be called?

Let's say we had the liberal left = Democrats; the conservative right = Republicans; then we had the moderate centrists. What name would best be used for a moderate centrist party?

I'm not sure the split would go that way. A relatively large constituency in the US is socially conservative and fiscally liberal, so that may be the new third party.

This group starts out with sixteen percent.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...trump-in-2016/

That could be a good start in an environment with ranked choice voting. Having that third party could be useful to keep Republicans from going too far right and Democrats from going too far left. Right now, so much political messaging is devoted to the idea that it's catastrophic if the other side wins rather than pushing for an agenda that a majority of Americans could support.

The Democrats are largely the moderate center, especially compared to other counters. A third Party would be a true Social Democratic Left.

In the context of American history, modern Democrats are pretty damn progressive. Is there any time in the past elected Democrats advocated for spending more money per citizen (adjusted for inflation)? Is there any protected class that has less rights now than before?