politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
i'm more cynical about her. it's not that i don't think gay rights and women rights aren't important. they are. but to me, the primary issues i care about, in order of importance
a) probability of war
b) attitude towards immigrants
c) economic position
d) foreign policy in general
so for example I think Kamala is probably more likely to get us into war than Trump is. That gives points to Trump.
on the immigration front, I don't have any illusions about where the national conversation is going. I was brought here to this country illegally as a small child. I grew up here illegal and it wasn't until my early 20s that I managed to naturalize
so i've been embedded in immigrant communities, with a lot of illegals sprinkled in, and have been paying attention to immigration news for virtually all of life
i can only think of two politicians who have done something meaningful for illegals. Reagan and Obama. Reagan of course gave amnesty to millions of illegals. Obama enacted the DACA policy, which wasn't nearly as broad as amnesty, but it was definitely a good thing that helped hundreds of thousands of people. but "immigration reform" has been promised my whole life by DNC and never delivered. best was the half-assed DACA
But let's look at rhetoric from Biden. During campaign in 2020 he advocated for a "compassionate approach" and was "pushing for immigration reform". he promised to halt the construction of "the Wall tm"
What about the last couple years? He expanded construction of the wall which he timed with a photoshoot with Customs and Border Patrol at the southern border. He also went on TV and started using the word illegal - which is a term Democrats historically haven't used. I don't think it's offensive or anything- but it's telling to show how the overton window has sharply been shoved to the right
Now look at Biden's successor - Kamala - the woman I voted for begrudgingly. go to her website and look at the policies and you will see zilch about compassionate approach or immigration reform. today it's "security and strong border"
right now over 65% of all Americans (not just GOP) support deporting all illegal immigrants. Something absurd to say even a decade ago. Majority of Americans support a policy which would effectively have the military going around house to house in order to put over 10 million people in camps, which they would stay at for years while the government tries to figure out the complex and expensive logistical challenge of moving millions of people out of the country (Germans had this same problem back in first half of the 1900s. they came up with a controversial solution to that question, of course)
so i'm not saying kamala is equal or worse than trump on this. trump is partly at fault for the rise in this change. but i think long term it won't make a difference who wins in this field. either way immigrants are screwed, so it doesn't really matter to me in this election
economic position, i think not gonna matter much. the whole "tax breaks for first time homeowners" from Kamala is yet another bailout to the banks at the expense of regular people. Trump put in sanctions on China, raising prices for Americans... Biden kept them in place and put some more. I don't think this is much different. the reductionist "tax the rich" is a nice slogan but without meaning. as long as the government has a money tap funneling public money to leeches, no amount of taxes will ever filter down to help the working class
foreign policy in general. again, i don't see much of a difference. china from above is a good example. iran is another. Obama actually came up with a revolutionary deal- bringing the Iranians back into the fold. Trump torpedoed that deal in spectacular fashion and then moved the American embassy to Jerusalem. Biden maintained the "get fucked" attitude towards Iran and went to Tel Aviv in Oct of last year to bend the knee to Netanyahu.
so to summarize
for the issues i mentioned, which are the ones that matter to me, i think long term the choice of candidate isn't going to influence anything significantly either way. the zietgiest is headed in a certain direction and i don't think either candidate has the capacity or willingness to meaningfully change the course of things
so then we get to why did i vote for kamala. because I think it'll be inspiring to girls and women across the country. it'll implicitly let them know they are equal and are able to accomplish anything, even the highest office in the country
i think that alone is worth voting for her. and of course Trump is a bit of a wild card and I prefer stability.
To be fair I think there are scenarios where Harris is less likely to get into a war, a bit like Chamberlain was less likely than Churchill to get Britain into a war. Trump pretty much plans to roll over and give people like Putin whatever they want.
So you have a bit of a point there, but again in the worst way
How you end up on the candidates being equal on immigration is more mysterious to me. One of them is talking of mass deportation and there are still kids left over from the family separation camps
Thanks for explaining your reasoning, and lucky that the woman wasn't the fascist this time like in France or Italy
i guess i didn't communicate my message well enough. it's not that they are equal. it's that I think they are both equally impotent to stop the march of the zeitgeist.
if you fast forward 10 or 15 years, i don't think it'll matter which president wins next week- in terms of immigration. people are inevitably going into camps, no matter what, at this point in time.
remember that Biden continued using Trump's illegal loopholes to refuse asylum to people at the border, breaking both US and international law, while also still separating kids: https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2024/07/29/report-reveals-migrant-family-separations-continue-under-biden
it's done "bureaucratically" instead of "cruelly" but I dare you to try and explain the difference to a scared 6 year old
i hate trump because of his racist comments. but i hate biden and kamala too. at least trump doesn't pretend to care- would you prefer someone abusing you to be honest about it or gaslight you? is it really a meaningful choice?
this is frankly a reductionist take. the situation today is not like the situation in the 1930s. if anything, Biden's approach of milquetoast risk-aversion is probably closer to Chamberlain than a hypothetical Trump presidency would be
consider why the US doesn't allow Ukraine to use American weapons in Russia. consider why US aid is limited to just enough to keep Ukraine alive. consider why the US has been openly pumping untold millions into Ukraine under the guise of the National Endowment for Democracy since the early 90s (and almost certainly many millions covertly, too)
this is a proxy war for control of Ukraine. if you were to make an analogy to WW2 it would be more Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland
I don't think we'll agree on immigration. In my eyes the proven track reckord of Trump should be ebought to make it obvious, but you don't agree and I doubt I can say anything that would be more convincing than the pervious Trump administration
Have you looked into what Trump is proposing on Ukraine? He does keep it vague, perhaps to allow people to imagine freely like you do here, but he keeps talking about negotiating a peace, which in itself is a stark difference from say Biden who seems to think that such things are up to Ukraine, being a sovereign nation and all.
Here's a more concrete proposal on the Trump side: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-reviews-plan-halt-us-military-aid-ukraine-unless-it-negotiates-peace-with-2024-06-25/
Of course you can imagine any policy you want, as trump isn't being clear, but the fact that he refuses to be clear on this should be a signal in itself. Another signal should be that Nato leadership and Europe are making moves to insulate the support of Ukraine against a Trump win. A third signal should be how desperately Russia seems to want Trump to win.
I don't understand your point here. Are you implying that Russia was justified in invading Ukraine because they were getting economic support from the US? Poland was too after the fall of the soviet union, so I guess they're next?
The war in Ukraine is not a civil war. It is a sovereign european nation being invaded by russia to expand their territory, much like poland during ww2.
The war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Where the pro-Russian government got ousted in a violent coup/revolution/uprising (what you call it depends on what you believe). The pro-Russian president had to flee the country.
Then a new government was quickly appointed, unconstitutionally, and that government is the current one. That administration was made up of far right leaders (think people like Andriy Biletsky). This administration immediately started cooperating with the CIA the very first day.
Then Russia invaded Crimea and started the covert operation in Donbas a few days after that.
It's more complicated than saying it's an invasion of a sovereign nation. It's not a civil war either, you are right. But I think it's closer to the Spanish Civil War than the invasion of Poland.
Really it's: a coup triggered a war of independence against Russia. Ukraine was firmly in Russian sphere from 91 until 2014. Once that stopped being true, Russia invaded.
But I like to think of the Spanish Civil War because it's the proxy war before the war. It's a place for big powers to test new technologies. Get ready for the inevitable showdown.
Ukraine was a sovereign state globally recognised as such, including by Russia. It's not a war of independence against Russia anymore that Poland had a war of independence against Germany in 1939
This is russian propaganda revisionism, and if you're arguing in good faith I can only advise you to make a serious inventory of what sources of news and information you consume
japan is a sovereign nation too. one that doesn't get to decide whether a foreign power from across the pacific ocean gets to park military bases in their land.
there's a long spectrum from totally under control -> totally independent and you will find that virtually every smaller country is rarely totally independent
i'd like to challenge you and show me one thing i said that was false. it's easy to throw shade say something like "everything you are saying is because you have fallen for propaganda, whereas me I am pure and untouched by propaganda"
russia was content with Ukraine being loosely coupled. They were not OK with Ukraine totally leaving the Russian sphere and joining the west. this is what triggered the invasion of Crimea and the little green men from the east.
you can see a similar, albiet different, dynamic with Taiwan and China. China is content (for now) with Taiwan remaining sort-of independent. but once the US for example says something "Taiwan is an independent country" they would invade.
Japan did try to invade quite a lot of places and then lose the ensuing war to end up there though. Ukraine didn't really do that
That rethoric is applicable to almost any russian neighbour. Which countries would you be fine with russia invading if they win in Ukraine? Finland again? The baltics again? Poland again?
Also Russia's invasion isn't something "triggered" any more than an abused spouse "triggers" the violence against them. Russia could have followed international law and not invaded, and so far it seems it would even have been better for them. Blaming Ukraine for getting invaded is pretty russian propaganda in my eyes.
why do you assume i am fine with Russia invading anywhere?
I'm making a point about the dynamics of the war.
How about this-
Do you think it's a coincidence the invasion happened less than 4 days after the new government was appointed (unconstitutionally)? Why do you think that new government immediately started cooperating with the CIA? It's because they knew Russia was about to invade them. Because they understood their position.
this type of autonomic response you have to somebody simply dispassionately discussing the material conditions which caused this war is quite interesting. reminds me of the anti-israel / anti-semitic tick
Well you seem fine with russia invading ukraine, and your reasons would cover other european states that also were russia aligned at some point but have since turned west, so it's natural to assume you're consistent.
So a bit like an abused spouse making plans to escape their abuser? They made plans to support their escape so clearly they deserved what was coming?
Most of europe is making plans right now and probably cooperating with the CIA to prepare for russia's next move. I guess we deserve whatever Putin throws at us as we "understand our position"?
When you defend the russian invasion of ukraine with russian talking points, people are going to assume you've fallen for russian propaganda. Actually, that's the generous interpretation as falling for propaganda can happen to good people.
we are discussing the material conditions that led up to the war. we have agreed together here that
a) the ukrainian government had a radical change overnight due to a violent protest/revolution/coup
b) the old government was pro-russian, the new government was anti-russian
c) the new ukrainian government realized that Russia was about to invade because of this radical change and therefore they prepared for war by bending the knee to the US
so let's circle back to the statement that started this line of inquiry
"the ukrainian war is in a way a war of independence"
so instead of going off on tangents all over the place, can we circle back to that statement. now that we have agreed on a) b) and c), does the statement in bold seem true or false to you?
let's ignore who has fallen for whatever propaganda and try to agree on a base set of facts and draw some conclusions we can agree on. if you disagree with a) b) or c) please specifically state what part of that statement is false and we can each present evidence and reasoning.
i fully intend to show to you i am speaking in good faith and i assume you are as well
I'm mostly curious if and why you think Russia had the right to invade.
I don't agree with your framing of a,b & c.
A & B: Ukraine has had an election since 2014 so apparently there's public support for a western friendly government.
C: preparing to defend yourself from invasion doesn't justify invading
So why do you think Russia were right to invade?
ok let's go over piece by piece to try and again reach a base set of facts we can agree on
i don't think Russia had a right to invade. i do recognize, however, that idealistic platitudes doesn't ultimately matter in the dynamics between nation-states. russia believed, for a confluence of factors, that invading was the correct decision and therefore they made that decision.
i'm not making any moral judgements. if it were up to me we'd all be singing Kumbaya, nuclear weapons would all be dismantled, and we'd live in a communist utopia. i don't get to decide though. i only get to be a third party observer, doing the best i can to arrive at the closest version of the truth
what i am doing, along with you, is discussing the material conditions that led to this war and the nature of the dynamic between both ukraine and russia and the ukrainian war relative to recent history
Ok let's once again reiterate what started this inquiry
“the ukrainian war is in a way a war of independence”
a) the ukrainian government had a radical change overnight due to a violent protest/revolution/coup
the fact that Ukraine had an election since 2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government does not change that there was an abrupt change in government in 2014. these things are not connected
just because people supported the French revolution, doesn't mean it wasn't a violent revolution, correct?
b) the old government was pro-russian, the new government was anti-russian
once again, the fact that the old government (president being Viktor Yanukovych) was pro-Russian does not change whether or not there was an election post-2014 and that there is public support for a western friendly government
neither a) nor b) change based on your statement. so please
do you agree or disagree with A) and B)? they are objective statements of fact. easily provable or disprovable. can we agree to a base line reality? if we can, we can move forward
"the new ukrainian government realized that Russia was about to invade because of this radical change and therefore they prepared for war by bending the knee to the US"
we are not talking about justification. the statement c) states that the new Ukrainian government, post Euromaidan, recognized they were about to be invaded and immediately started cooperating with the US.
again, objective statement of fact. you either agree or don't agree.
if you cannot state "Yes this is true" or "No this is false because xyz" then you are not actually saying anything and I'm going to assume you are not discussing in good faith
i'm making every effort here to be generous to you
So perhaps you should stop defending the invasion and start arguing for support for ukraine?
These things are totally connected. They show that the russian friendly government wasn't acting according to the will of the people. And if you dig deeper you'll probably find that the russian-friendliness was a bit of a sudden decision that the people hadn't voted for, thus the protests.
What are you supposed to do if the government you elected turns out to act against the interest of the people and looks to be compromised by a foreign power?
Well you are free to do so, but I won't agree with your manipulative framing of things. "yes she was raped, but had she been drinking? did she wear makeup? did she wear a short skirt? I'm not justifying it, it's a simple statement of fact"
You're clearly invested in defending an invasion you after a lot of arguing concede is wrong, so you should take a look at yourself and ask why that is