US Politics Megathread

[wardyb1]

Yeah carbon neutral. All in all from the brief bits of it I've seen, it is a pretty decent set of recommendations and is a good compromise between the 2 wings of the party. Still saw some people on Twitter having a whinge because it didn't go far enough. Some people really don't get how politics and government work.

[fightinfrenchman]

@n0el @Cometk @spanky4ever

[fightinfrenchman]

"Non-Police Responses: Federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle nonviolent emergencies including order maintenance violations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes. Fund initiatives to partner mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts, social workers, and disability advocates with police departments to respond to calls with police officers to better de-escalate interactions with citizens and when appropriate, to divert individuals to the social services they need"

Seems really good to me! Why would you be against this?

[wardyb1]

"Non-Police Responses: Federal funding to create a civilian corps of unarmed first responders such as social workers, EMTs, and trained mental health professionals, who can handle nonviolent emergencies including order maintenance violations, mental health emergencies, and low-level conflicts outside the criminal justice system, freeing police officers to concentrate on the most serious crimes. Fund initiatives to partner mental health professionals, substance use disorder experts, social workers, and disability advocates with police departments to respond to calls with police officers to better de-escalate interactions with citizens and when appropriate, to divert individuals to the social services they need"

Seems really good to me! Why would you be against this?

Because people are brainwashed by the media and "their side" telling them that Democrats hate the country and are trying to destroy it.

[princeofcarthage]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

[fightinfrenchman]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

What?

[wardyb1]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

Do you ever feel like giving any reasoning behind what you say?

[duckzilla]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

So.... it actually can work in the US?!

[princeofcarthage]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

So.... it actually can work in the US?!

Not on countrywide scale, at least not initially. It can work in certain smaller communities for sure. That is not to say it can't work in US, I only mean not at this point, in few years, decades yes.

[princeofcarthage]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

Do you ever feel like giving any reasoning behind what you say?

Do I need to spell out common sense everytime? US has pretty high crime rate (read that as violent/life threatening), and abundance of guns in hands of stupid. In country like Switzerland or New Zealand sure, in reality it might even be like this.

[wardyb1]

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

Do you ever feel like giving any reasoning behind what you say?

Do I need to spell out common sense everytime? US has pretty high crime rate (read that as violent/life threatening), and abundance of guns in hands of stupid. In country like Switzerland or New Zealand sure, in reality it might even be like this.

You do have to spell it out because there isn't anything common sense about it until your point is made clear. In the space of 2 comments you went from "It can't happen" > "It can happen in smaller communities" > "It can happen in the space of decades". That is 3 completely different positions. The changes proposed would work in accordance with trying to create prison reform, trying to close inequality and support the groups most at risk of committing crime. Within that context, change is certainly possible in the space of decades. Change has to start somewhere. Government can't just throw its hands up and be like "oh well, too hard, can't be fixed ever, sorry". No one is presenting this as if it will solve everyone's problems in 6 months.

[princeofcarthage]

Show hidden quotes

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

Do you ever feel like giving any reasoning behind what you say?

Do I need to spell out common sense everytime? US has pretty high crime rate (read that as violent/life threatening), and abundance of guns in hands of stupid. In country like Switzerland or New Zealand sure, in reality it might even be like this.

You do have to spell it out because there isn't anything common sense about it until your point is made clear. In the space of 2 comments you went from "It can't happen" > "It can happen in smaller communities" > "It can happen in the space of decades". That is 3 completely different positions. The changes proposed would work in accordance with trying to create prison reform, trying to close inequality and support the groups most at risk of committing crime. Within that context, change is certainly possible in the space of decades. Change has to start somewhere. Government can't just throw its hands up and be like "oh well, too hard, can't be fixed ever, sorry". No one is presenting this as if it will solve everyone's problems in 6 months.

Obviously I don't mean it can't be ever done, anything can be done over time, you need to stop nitpicking words. It can work in smaller communities to certain extent because the aforementioned problems are already negligible there. If you would actually read the examples of smaller communities/countries I gave you would realize that. How many such communities exist in US right now? And would implementing it there make any noticeable change? It wouldn't even matter in all possibility. What I mean is it is not a wise choice to implement such system (untested even in most developed countries) in a large country like US. These are all band aid solutions which don't address the root cause. What happens when these so called civil police/workers/experts say "oh this black man I won't treat him/her" (not literally).

[wardyb1]

Show hidden quotes

It all sounds good to hear and read but reality is always much different than theory. NPR won't work in US. It can work in country like Finland, but not US. Maybe it can work in smaller communities like Redwood city but that's about it.

Do you ever feel like giving any reasoning behind what you say?

Do I need to spell out common sense everytime? US has pretty high crime rate (read that as violent/life threatening), and abundance of guns in hands of stupid. In country like Switzerland or New Zealand sure, in reality it might even be like this.

You do have to spell it out because there isn't anything common sense about it until your point is made clear. In the space of 2 comments you went from "It can't happen" > "It can happen in smaller communities" > "It can happen in the space of decades". That is 3 completely different positions. The changes proposed would work in accordance with trying to create prison reform, trying to close inequality and support the groups most at risk of committing crime. Within that context, change is certainly possible in the space of decades. Change has to start somewhere. Government can't just throw its hands up and be like "oh well, too hard, can't be fixed ever, sorry". No one is presenting this as if it will solve everyone's problems in 6 months.

Obviously I don't mean it can't be ever done, anything can be done over time, you need to stop nitpicking words. It can work in smaller communities to certain extent because the aforementioned problems are already negligible there. If you would actually read the examples of smaller communities/countries I gave you would realize that. How many such communities exist in US right now? And would implementing it there make any noticeable change? It wouldn't even matter in all possibility. What I mean is it is not a wise choice to implement such system (untested even in most developed countries) in a large country like US. These are all band aid solutions which don't address the root cause. What happens when these so called civil police/workers/experts say "oh this black man I won't treat him/her" (not literally).

Don't use definitive words if you don't mean them. If I say there is no chance for a unicorn to appear, I mean there is no chance for it to appear. Not in some arbitrary time frame which I haven't given. How else are we to take your words? This is why I ask for reasoning and depth to your responses. If you state your original premise, then it is much less likely I will misinterpret your poorly chosen words.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/ ... towns.html
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-r ... 6-210.html
These suggest to us a few things as well. Firstly 20% of Americans live in rural areas accounting for 60 million people. So quite a lot of people. Unfortunately there is less distinction between suburbia and cities with no official definitions in the census therefore everyone else is lumped together. However the top link suggests that although a lot of people live in small incorporated areas showing that although yes a large amount of people do live in cities, a lot of them also live out on suburbia where these policies would also show major effect.

As to you saying it is a band-aid solution, then I'm rather confused? It is clearly a step in the right direction especially in conjunction with plenty of other reform. You claim it doesn't address the root cause but that is what the context is about. That is what the other reform is included for. If not what else will solve the root cause? Feel free to give some solutions here for us to discuss.

As to your last point. I really have no idea what you are going on about. I presume you are trying to say that civil workers aren't going to treat someone because they are black??? I really have no idea with that sentence structure. If that is what you are saying then clearly that person would be fired for discriminatory practices but that seems obvious, so if you want to restate what you are saying then go for it.

[spanky4ever]

@n0el @Cometk @spanky4ever

If implemented

Wish Biden would be persuaded not to veto a medicare for all bill though, and instead support it. That would be super popular with the American ppl, in particualar the ppl who vote for Dems. Would spell trouble from his donors though, and THEY get to deside the politics in a much larger scale than the voters could ever dream of when it comes to Biden.

[Goodspeed]

It's time to accept Biden is on your side. The "if" in "if implemented" would be just as big of an if with Sanders as president.

[wardyb1]

@n0el @Cometk @spanky4ever

If implemented

Wish Biden would be persuaded not to veto a medicare for all bill though, and instead support it. That would be super popular with the American ppl, in particualar the ppl who vote for Dems. Would spell trouble from his donors though, and THEY get to deside the politics in a much larger scale than the voters could ever dream of when it comes to Biden.

The whole veto thing is completely irrelevant. When push comes to shove, if a Democratic Senate ever passed a M4A bill, Biden would be forced to sign it into law. The political capital he would lose in vetoing it would be suicidal. The Senate is the issue, it won't pass. Now obviously it might have a better chance with the president on board, but it doesn't matter. The Senate won't pass it in Biden's first term (and probably only term) so it is irrelevant.

[wardyb1]

As the tweet says, if elected, based on his current policy positions he would be the most progressive president in recent history. He could've easily given Bernie the bird and said fuck you, I'm going alone. But he didn't.

[spanky4ever]

As the tweet says, if elected, based on his current policy positions he would be the most progressive president in recent history. He could've easily given Bernie the bird and said fuck you, I'm going alone. But he didn't.

I think he would if he was sure enought to get millenials onbord. That is only me specualting though, but then again, why would he discuss anything with Bernie if not

[chris1089]

As the tweet says, if elected, based on his current policy positions he would be the most progressive president in recent history. He could've easily given Bernie the bird and said fuck you, I'm going alone. But he didn't.

I think he would if he was sure enought to get millenials onbord. That is only me specualting though, but then again, why would he discuss anything with Bernie if not

Are some seriously considering not voting at all?

[n0el]

Very disappointed in the lack of legalized marijuana as a policy position. I don’t understand why Biden and his team are so opposed to it.

[wardyb1]

As the tweet says, if elected, based on his current policy positions he would be the most progressive president in recent history. He could've easily given Bernie the bird and said fuck you, I'm going alone. But he didn't.

I think he would if he was sure enought to get millenials onbord. That is only me specualting though, but then again, why would he discuss anything with Bernie if not

Are some seriously considering not voting at all?

Ehh not really. I don't think you'll see anything close to 2016 with a lot of Bernie people boycotting Hillary. I think a lot of people either learnt their lesson or just really hated Clinton. Obviously though you will still have plenty of people not vote for whatever reason they delude themselves of. And people will keep laughing at them for the dumb reasons they present. I just don't think you will have the "movement" that was seen in 2016.

[wardyb1]

Very disappointed in the lack of legalized marijuana as a policy position. I don’t understand why Biden and his team are so opposed to it.

Probably some fear to losing that white suburban base that he seems to be building maybe? Not sure that is a good reason though, because I think legal marijuana could prove to be huge in boosting youth turnout. To me it seems like an issue that could make some non-voters into voters. People disconnected from politics aren't going to vote for Biden because he has good climate policy, but legal weed just strikes me as something that might.

The only other reason I could see is that it isn't a federal issue. I've seen arguments saying it both is and isn't but it likely would be a state issue, so maybe they figure it isn't worth touching.

[n0el]

probably the first, even though suburban white people love marijuana

[fightinfrenchman]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ze/613777/

[n0el]

electorally its probably better to let states do it one by one, since it will create an extremely high turnout election and help Dems win where it is otherwise difficult