Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 366: Neeran End to the Tandenic

(+) Yeah! (+)

Not confirmed though
---

Jakyl why

---

I feel like far left policies are impossible without heavy nationalism and exclusionism. I would rather have open immigration than free college.

---

masterplum posted...

I feel like far left policies are impossible without heavy nationalism and exclusionism.

Which "far-left policies" are you talking about? Because Canada is right next to the US doing plenty of things that are considered "radical" ideas here without that stuff.
---

Xeybozn posted...

Which "far-left policies" are you talking about? Because Canada is right next to the US doing plenty of things that are considered "radical" ideas here without that stuff.

Free college and nationalized healthcare mostly.

And I'm pretty sure canada doesn't have open immigration

---

masterplum posted...

I feel like far left policies are impossible without heavy nationalism and exclusionism. I would rather have open immigration than free college.

We already have heavy nationalism and exclusionism. Might as well get far left policies out of it, rather than just banning brown people from coming to America for the sake of banning brown people.

---

masterplum posted...

I feel like far left policies are impossible without heavy nationalism and exclusionism. I would rather have open immigration than free college.

Dude...what planet are you on?

There are dozens of countries with more radical left policies that have LESS nationalism than we do, lol what

---

"All this stuff is impossible."

Let me introduce you to a bunch of other countries on the map.

---

Tony, if our system is designed to make me believe we're a conservative country, what exactly makes that different from us ACTUALLY being a conservative country? You've never given a strong enough argument as to why we're not ACTUALLY conservative.

---

The country is definitely more conservative. I mean we still hold our founding fathers in an unhealthily high regard.

---

Inviso posted...

Tony, if our system is designed to make me believe we're a conservative country, what exactly makes that different from us ACTUALLY being a conservative country? You've never given a strong enough argument as to why we're not ACTUALLY conservative.

I assume what he means by that is that most people will express positive views of socialism until those views are framed as being socialist, after which the same people will immediately reject the policy they previously said was a great idea

---

it's hard to argue America's not a conservative country when both parties are conservative parties

---

KamikazePotato posted...

I assume what he means by that is that most people will express positive views of socialism until those views are framed as being socialist, after which the same people will immediately reject the policy they previously said was a great idea

I mean, if that's how people think, then he's right. I just take a different mindset that people express positive views of socialism, not until they're told it's socialism, but rather until they're asked to consider how we're going to pay for the socialism, at which people everyone gets very self-centered and starts thinking about how THEY shouldn't have to pay for X, Y and Z, or how someone else shouldn't benefit from X, Y and Z since THEY didn't get to benefit from it. That, and the age-old story of white people supporting socialism until they realize that black/brown people are going to benefit from it as well (or perhaps more, since they're starting from a lower rung of the ladder than most white poepl).

---

America doesn't have a true left party, just really right and somewhat right.

There are some left members, but that's about it.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dude...what planet are you on?

There are dozens of countries with more radical left policies that have LESS nationalism than we do, lol what

Which socialist countries have open immigration?

---

FFDragon posted...

America doesn't have a true left party, just really right and somewhat right.

There are some left members, but that's about it.

Our government doesnt actually represent the people at alland its not designed to.

Weve had this discussion about our culture million times before, and I dont feel like arguing against the inane movie has gun, its conservative shit, so Ill just direct you to people like Ben Shapiro and Dave Ruben who constantly cry about Conservatives not being allowed to participate.

Also, just...talk to people? Most people support all the good radical left stuff inherently, and its not just asking how are you going to pay for it that scares them, its when someone frames it as we cant pay for it unless we hurt your family or your wallet.

When you explain to non-radicalized people (and I mean this the proper way, aka brainrot) that we pay more in taxes towards healthcare and then DONT GET IT compared to nations that do, they understand pretty quickly.

---

Not only is open immigration itself leftist, but jumping straight there is a huge leap when the US's immigration system is already very conservative. Advocating for any left policies at all is already going to have to run up against nationalism and conservatism. If your point is that we shouldn't accept nationalism in exchange for left policies then yeah but this shit is not mutually exclusive.

---

It's worth remembering that even though economic issues are the biggest difference in how America's parties govern, they don't tend to be a big factor in how voters choose which party to support. That disconnect explains a lot of the difference between popular opinion and actual results.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Not only is open immigration itself leftist, but jumping straight there is a huge leap when the US's immigration system is already very conservative. Advocating for any left policies at all is already going to have to run up against nationalism and conservatism. If your point is that we shouldn't accept nationalism in exchange for left policies then yeah but this shit is not mutually exclusive.

Jumping there isn't any more radical than jumping to free healthcare. It just isn't as championed

---

Most people are sponges who don't necessarily have views but internalize the things they hear without really thinking about it

---

masterplum posted...

Which socialist countries have open immigration?

I dont think we need Nationalism to have immigration policies, and also I dont think open immigration as youd frame it is a realistic thing.

I think immigration should be easy:

Do you have a place to live, income, and/or family who is already here that can support you?

Yes -> Welcome to America!

No -> Here are some resources (people/contacts/job providers/etc) to help you get there!

Repeat.

Exclusions and support for people in danger and/or children. Bam, easy, open immigration and nobody is coming in just to drain our Socialism, to put it in Americanese.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Not only is open immigration itself leftist

Well Tony, it appears I'm a leftist after all...!

---

masterplum posted...

Jumping there isn't any more radical than jumping to free healthcare. It just isn't as championed

I mean...it's not championed as much because it isn't as popular as "free" healthcare because this country has a lot of inherent nationalism (liberals can be nationalist too). So I'd argue it is more radical just on that merit.

---

Going to parrot the end of the last topic and say that I've completely lost the thread here in regards to who is arguing with who.

So your argument that we're a liberal country is that loud, amplified, conservative voices complain about how hard conservatives have it? I guess there must really be a war on Christmas then, you know, despite it being so prevalent that stores start prepping for it several months in advance, and only Christian religious holidays are considered "national holidays".

Fox News is the most popular news network in this country, and they tell our population what they WANT to hear. Now, you can make the case that they're appealing to a much older demographic, but that demographic still matters and has a voice, no matter how misguided they might be. You really need to take conservative voices with a grain of salt when they complain about liberal culture, because nine times out of ten, it's not in response to something that actually exists, but rather a changing trend that MIGHT replace their way of life if they don't rail about it and frighten their viewers/listeners into believing it.

Conservatism is to nationalism as liberalism is to globalism in a way. The core ideals of conservatism (that often times allow for hatred of minority groups, mind you) stem back to individualism and independence which usually gets tied into economics. You start on the macro scale: we're nationalist because we need to look out for ourselves above all else, and every other country is secondary. Never mind that we're increasingly connected in a global society (and things like the pandemic should be a primary example of this), America needs to look out for America first and foremost.

But then you start narrowing your focus and realize that the national policy vs. states rights argument is just a microcosm of that nationalism. "Our state shouldn't have to abide by a federal minimum wage! That's only going to benefit those rich people in New York City and Los Angeles." It again creates an us versus them mentality that people are all too willing to buy into. Then you go even further and you get to the individual level and that becomes the individual equivalent of nationalism. "Yes, I should get medicare, but why should I have to pay more taxes for someone ELSE'S medicare? I don't even have kids; I shouldn't even have to pay property taxes to fund schools and you want to use my property taxes to fund POOR schools someone ELSE?"

Our whole country was founded on rugged individualism. The Mayflower traveled here because they wanted independence from English religious tyranny (which was actually far more liberal than the Puritans were willing to accept). We fought a war for our independence when the British really WEREN'T that oppressive leading up to it, all because we didn't want to be told what to do or pay taxes without representation (which the British didn't know we wanted because Franklin never informed them as our emissary). We fought a Civil War because half the country didn't want to give up their ability to utilize slave labor and hurt their economic bottom line. That's what the progressive mindset needs to overcome: hundreds of years of America as this independent bastion of freedom where regulations can be called tyranny and a good half the country will be out in full force to fight against them, while a good third of the country sits back and doesn't care.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Do you have a place to live, income, and/or family who is already here that can support you?

Yes -> Welcome to America!

No -> Here are some resources (people/contacts/job providers/etc) to help you get there!

So why not do this part while also admitting them to the country

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So why not do this part while also admitting them to the country

Absolutely.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Absolutely.

Okay that's typically what I think of when I think about open immigration

---

LtMplusCATS posted...

Going to parrot the end of the last topic and say that I've completely lost the thread here in regards to who is arguing with who.

Insert Spider-Man meme
---

What is the conservative platform going into 2022 you may ask?

https://twitter.com/rosiegray/status/1365031510311661569?s=21

Oh
---

CPAC already reached its peak when they made their theme "America Uncancelled" and then they cancelled a speaker when it came out he had a history of anti-semitism.

---

https://twitter.com/kriscoratti/status/1365040361572339714?s=21

With her supporters making vicious, racist and sexist attacks against reporters for doing their jobs, I think its time for Neera Tanden to apologize and step aside for the good of the country.

---

xp1337 posted...

CPAC already reached its peak when they made their theme "America Uncancelled" and then they cancelled a speaker when it came out he had a history of anti-semitism.

CPAC really peaked last year

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPpQs6SW4AAtOUy?format=jpg&name=large
---

We're canceling the real threat to America: Facts

---

The idea that America having two conservative parties proving it's a conservative country is ridiculous. Most people when polled have beliefs well to the left of the government, and the two parties make it impossible to do anything but go through them. And the media feedback compels people to betray their desires for an alleged more centrist voter out there, as you saw in the primary. The most conservative democratic candidate won despite his policies being the least popular platform with democratic voters. John Kerry was also a more centrist choice. And a lot of the reason non voters do not vote is because they don't see any difference between the parties or reason to vote, a good indication that they are to the left of the two conservative parties.

Jakyl25 posted...

CPAC really peaked last year

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPpQs6SW4AAtOUy?format=jpg&name=large

sorry i meant this year

because yes NOT INVITED was the peak

---

House passed the Equality Act 224-206. All Dems + 3 Rs.

https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/status/1365051846860169216

Are we going to see our first Senate filibuster?

---

xp1337 posted...

House passed the Equality Act 224-206. All Dems + 3 Rs.

https://twitter.com/nicholaswu12/status/1365051846860169216

Are we going to see our first Senate filibuster?

Who were the three?

---

fuming posted...

The idea that America having two conservative parties proving it's a conservative country is ridiculous. Most people when polled have beliefs well to the left of the government, and the two parties make it impossible to do anything but go through them.

Ah yes, polls. I certainly trust them to be 100% accurate after they told us we would have President Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate in 2016 (seriously though, every time I see Ron Johnson spew some bullshit, I think about how the polls said Russ Feingold, a Berniecrat nominee, was 99% guaranteed to win his election in 2016, only for Hillary to outpace him in the final, losing votals.) Oh yes, and I'm glad that we have 52 seats in the Senate after the 2020 election, when the voters finally punished Susan Collins for her disingenuous fence-sitting.

fuming posted...

And the media feedback compels people to betray their desires for an alleged more centrist voter out there, as you saw in the primary. The most conservative democratic candidate won despite his policies being the least popular platform with democratic voters. John Kerry was also a more centrist choice.

So he won because he got more votes, but he only got more votes because the media bias worked in his favor? Keep in mind that the moderate candidates, as a collective, outscored Bernie time and time again. And despite progressives hating on Elizabeth Warren, even her voters weren't 100% locks to go to Bernie with Biden as the other option. Honestly, this argument sounds like when Trump voters scream and cry about how Biden must have cheated because Trump excited his voters and Biden was so boring that there's no way he got as many votes as he did (but Trump certainly got 74 million votes, yessireebob).

fuming posted...

And a lot of the reason non voters do not vote is because they don't see any difference between the parties or reason to vote, a good indication that they are to the left of the two conservative parties.

At the end of the day, Donald Trump received 74 MILLION votes in 2020. That's AFTER four years of him in action, accomplishing nothing but a tax cut for the wealthy and overseeing a colossal failure of pandemic management. Then you have the Democratic party, in which for whatever excuse you want to use to explain it, their voters selected a more conservative candidate in Joe Biden. You can say the system is rigged, but 2020 should have EASILY been Bernie's year if progressivism is as prevalent and popular as you think it is. He had name recognition from 2016 that he didn't have when running against Hillary, and the only big name moderate was Biden, who kept shitting the bed early on.

Yet when the chips were down, the moderates just outnumbered progressives by a considerable margin. Bernie struggled to be white bread nobody Mayor Pete in Iowa, and Biden's warchest was so thin that he completely avoided certain states in terms of campaigning, yet still won Minnesota, and Massachusetts. At a certain point, the constant refrain of "the establishment was rigged against us!" and "the system is rigged against us!" and "the media was biased against us" sounds all too familiar from another 2020 candidate.

I know I'm a broken record about this, but it would be nice to see ANY kind of introspection and responsibility from progressives for losses. There's CONSTANT bitching at the moderates whenever they lose, and the message is always "told you so, you should've voted for us instead". Why is it never on progressives to run candidates that are more appealing than moderates? Why is there never any autopsy over progressive losses? Because at a certain point, I would think you would like to win elections so that you can push your agenda, rather than stubbornly refusing to consider that maybe, JUST maybe, your policies don't drive people to vote in your favor as much as you think they do.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Who were the three?

Fitzpatrick (PA-01), Katko (NY-24), and Reed (NY-23) from what I'm seeing. Roll call not up on the House site yet so I'm relying on reporter tweets that it was those three. They all voted for it back in 2019 (when there were 8 Republican votes for it) so probably still them.

---

approve of topic title wordplay.
also Neera Tanden still a godawful candidate who should be dropped.


---

Inviso posted...

know I'm a broken record about this, but it would be nice to see ANY kind of introspection and responsibility from progressives for losses. There's CONSTANT b****ing at the moderates whenever they lose, and the message is always "told you so, you should've voted for us instead". Why is it never on progressives to run candidates that are more appealing than moderates? Why is there never any autopsy over progressive losses? Because at a certain point, I would think you would like to win elections so that you can push your agenda, rather than stubbornly refusing to consider that maybe, JUST maybe, your policies don't drive people to vote in your favor as much as you think they do.

You want to talk about introspection and you literally ignored the factual reality that our political system is built around supporting conservatism.

Ok let me put this another way, and instead of the extremely disingenuous I support you but Im realistic bullshit I literally just complained about (lol), maybe you can actually think about it for two seconds for me?

Joe Biden got 81 million votes.
Donald Trump got 74 million votes.

There are an estimated 239 million people eligible to vote.

Where do you think these 84 million people (more than either candidate) who didnt vote land ideologically? Be as generalized and as broad as you like, I want to see your process on this.

Keep in mind that Joe and Trump each have 90%+ approval ratings with their respective parties.

---

Inviso posted...

JUST maybe, your policies don't drive people to vote in your favor as much as you think they do.

This was my entire point. People DON'T vote for what they want, and that's why the entire system is set up to make things more conservative than the public actually is (the senate and fptp are inherently conservative leaning). For example, for a sizable portion of the folks who like Bernie, the Green nominee likely reflects more of what they want than Joe Biden, but they still almost entirely voted for Joe Biden, because they are concerned with the most left candidate who has a shot winning. What was the biggest reason for Biden voters? It wasn't policy, it was electability. People choose more conservative outcomes from democratic candidates because they are told it is more electable, regardless of whether or not that is true. That is why you can't use the primaries as evidence of a weakness of the left, because the primary isn't electing who you want to win, it's electing who you think can beat the republicans. And the American people are reinforced time and time again by the media that that means going with the most centrist candidate and to think smaller. And maybe they are right, I certainly think that while a far left candidate could get voters on the left Biden can't, there would also be centrist Dems who would prefer a republican to that. But it's definitely not something that's been tested nationally in our lifetime, and far from a certainty.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You want to talk about introspection and you literally ignored the factual reality that our political system is built around supporting conservatism.

Ok let me put this another way, and instead of the extremely disingenuous I support you but Im realistic bullshit I literally just complained about (lol), maybe you can actually think about it for two seconds for me?

Joe Biden got 81 million votes.
Donald Trump got 74 million votes.

There are an estimated 239 million people eligible to vote.

Where do you think these 84 million people (more than either candidate) who didnt vote land ideologically? Be as generalized and as broad as you like, I want to see your process on this.

Keep in mind that Joe and Trump each have 90%+ approval ratings with their respective parties.

I'd say they land moderate conservative, given that that's the affiliation of the vast majority of the country. You've got voters who would normally vote Republican, but think Trump is a bridge too far and refuse to vote because they hate both sides (I'm assuming your implication with this question is that there is a similar contingent of progressives who would use the opposite reasoning to reach the same conclusion). You've got conservatives you feel safe enough with Biden that he's not an existential threat, but don't quite feel right voting Democrat. You've got complacent Dems who, despite 2016, still feel that there's no WAY Trump could win, and don't feel enthusiastic enough about Biden to vote for him.

I know your point is that non-voters would likely vote progressive if they felt motivated by a candidate, but there's just no reason to think that based on electoral evidence. Keep in mind that Biden/Trump, despite being helmed by a candidate with an "unpopular" platform on one side, still netted the highest voter turnout since the turn of the 20th century. At a certain point, maybe you have to consider that the people not voting either find roadblocks to voting too much trouble to overcome, or they're just so apathetic that even some bombastic progressive wouldn't inspire them to turn out. I just don't see where you're getting this confidence from, because I'm not seeing any reason for it.

---

fuming posted...

This was my entire point. People DON'T vote for what they want, and that's why the entire system is set up to make things more conservative than the public actually is (the senate and fptp are inherently conservative leaning). For example, for a sizable portion of the folks who like Bernie, the Green nominee likely reflects more of what they want than Joe Biden, but they still almost entirely voted for Joe Biden, because they are concerned with the most left candidate who has a shot winning. What was the biggest reason for Biden voters? It wasn't policy, it was electability. People choose more conservative outcomes from democratic candidates because they are told it is more electable, regardless of whether or not that is true. That is why you can't use the primaries as evidence of a weakness of the left, because the primary isn't electing who you want to win, it's electing who you think can beat the republicans. And the American people are reinforced time and time again by the media that that means going with the most centrist candidate and to think smaller. And maybe they are right, I certainly think that while a far left candidate could get voters on the left Biden can't, there would also be centrist Dems who would prefer a republican to that. But it's definitely not something that's been tested nationally in our lifetime, and far from a certainty.

See, this is one of my problems. You're starting from the position that your loss was only the result of the system being biased against you, rather than considering the POSSIBILITY that you were just naturally weaker. Keep in mind that in Iowa and New Hampshire, Pete Buttigieg kept things neck and neck with Bernie. Pete Buttigieg, whose only prior experience was being mayor of a small town in Indiana (whose polling was underwater with black voters), was still strong enough to give Bernie, the big name progressive on the ballot, a run for his money in the two "mostly white" states. The majority of the party is moderate, and yes, they may have wound up settling for Biden as their best chance of winning the election, but that was only AFTER Biden trounced the rest of the moderate field in South Carolina, and proved that he was the strongest moderate (and thus the strongest candidate whose views aligned with the majority of the party).

---

Inviso posted...

I'd say they land moderate conservative, given that that's the affiliation of the vast majority of the country

I laughed out loud

Edit: Citation needed, dear god please cite something

---

I never dismissed the possibility that Bernie could have lost without a systemic disadvantage, but that would mean at least one of the following things is true: either voters do not vote for the policies they want, non voters and disadvantaged voters lean heavily left, or voters erroneously believe centrist Dems support policies they don't support. And I think it's very likely a mixture of all of those things. And the fact that the system fails to accurately represent what voters actually support is why it's an inherently conservative system. Time and time again there are issues with overwhelming majority support that we don't have the political will to accomplish. And this isn't an issue with the voters, it's an inherent issue with our government and how it is set up to prevent change that was actually intended to function this way. The founding fathers wanted a government that made change very difficult.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I laughed out loud

Edit: Citation needed, dear god please cite something

You're right. Conservative. Half the country is extremist conservative and two thirds of the remainder of moderates, but you're right, that doesn't make a moderate conservative majority.

---

fuming posted...

I never dismissed the possibility that Bernie could have lost without a systemic disadvantage, but that would mean at least one of the following things is true: either voters do not vote for the policies they want, non voters and disadvantaged voters lean heavily left, or voters erroneously believe centrist Dems support policies they don't support. And I think it's very likely a mixture of all of those things. And the fact that the system fails to accurately represent what voters actually support is why it's an inherently conservative system. Time and time again there are issues with overwhelming majority support that we don't have the political will to accomplish. And this isn't an issue with the voters, it's an inherent issue with our government and how it is set up to prevent change that was actually intended to function this way. The founding fathers wanted a government that made change very difficult.

There's also the possibility that people don't REALLY want progressive policies as much as polling might indicate, either because the polls themselves frame the question in a manner that doesn't generate an accurate response, OR because people have higher priorities that require supporting contradictory politicians from the message of progressive policy polling.

---

Religious galvanizing(and gun worship) has basically assured this country stays far right.

If the Republican party didn't have white supremacy as a platform there would be a huge voting block just sitting there for them.