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
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 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.
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?
Original join date: 11/23/2004
Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn, or imaginatively created.
There came a time when the Old Gods died! The Brave died with the Cunning! The Noble perished locked in battle with unleashed Evil! It was the last day for them! An ancient era was passing in fiery holocaust!
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.
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
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.
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.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
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.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
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.
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?
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets