Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

So, Andrew Yang made a Tweet basically denouncing identity politics obsession and, after hundreds (with thousands of likes combined) on Twitter got super pissed at him with angry replies, he doubled down. I'm definitely donating to this man's campaign now..



Follow me on Twitter, fellow gamers! [I typically rant and ramble about mostly Nintendo, indie, retro, and Overwatch related gaming, Metal and hard rock music, Classical Liberal and Cultural Libertarian politics, and bitch about Chicago sports].

@ItsAmeStephen


 

Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube said:
So, Andrew Yang made a Tweet basically denouncing identity politics obsession and, after hundreds (with thousands of likes combined) on Twitter got super pissed at him with angry replies, he doubled down. I'm definitely donating to this man's campaign now..

OK, had to dig up the tweet and it is pretty harmless. Many in the thread have the right idea:



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:

Huh. That is a lopsided distribution of names. Night one only has Warren from the better polling persons. Night two has Biden, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg.

According to the DNC, that's just a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences like that. Relegating Elizabeth Warren to what sure the hell looks like a kid's table debate composed otherwise entirely of candidates polling at 2% or less tells me that this arrangement was NOT, in fact, random, but chosen deliberately in order to minimize the visibility of Elizabeth Warren specifically, whom I suspect they are viewing as the biggest threat to the current front-runner (their preferred candidate) right about now in view of the trend lines that recent polling have shown. This way many if not most viewers will tune in only to night two of the debate and won't see Warren at all. It's a smart strategy on their part.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 15 June 2019

Jaicee said:
Mnementh said:

Huh. That is a lopsided distribution of names. Night one only has Warren from the better polling persons. Night two has Biden, Sanders, Harris and Buttigieg.

According to the DNC, that's just a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences like that. Relegating Elizabeth Warren to what sure the hell looks like a kid's table debate composed otherwise entirely of candidates polling at 2% or less tells me that this arrangement was NOT, in fact, random, but chosen deliberately in order to minimize the visibility of Elizabeth Warren specifically, whom I suspect they are viewing as the biggest threat to the current front-runner (their preferred candidate) right about now, in view of the trend lines that recent polling have shown. This way many if not most viewers will tune in only to night two of the debate and won't see Warren at all. It's a smart strategy on their part.

If that's their plan, then it will backfire for sure.

I very much doubt Warren will move from her positions. And apart from Gabbard, it looks like she's in a room full of establishment democrats, which imo the DNC just sent to the slaughterhouse by pitting them against Warren.



DarthMetalliCube said:
So, Andrew Yang made a Tweet basically denouncing identity politics obsession and, after hundreds (with thousands of likes combined) on Twitter got super pissed at him with angry replies, he doubled down. I'm definitely donating to this man's campaign now..

Identify politics does nothing for me ND sometimes I find it cringe but I understand why the democratic party has top figures that play into it. I live in a very liberal city (nyc) and people really do like it when people go on about identity politics and it riles pethem up.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
CuCabeludo said:

I wish americans give a chance to a libertarian, anti-war, pro small government candidate. This bi-partisan concoction of warmongers in DC for decades just made the US debt soar to the current 22+ trillion dollars, anual deficts of 1 billion+ a year.

But as it will never happen, I pray that in next presidential election a crazy MMTer democrat wins(MMT is very popular among dems today). It will sure be the end of the dollar as reserve currency, with hyperinflated dollars, US will no longer be able to sustain its hundreds of overseas military bases, and will have to finally live by their means.

Well, quite a few candidates, like Gabbard, Warren and Sanders, want to reduce both the military expenses and the interventions, so at least that part could come to happen.

What do you mean with MMT? Modern Monetary Theory?

Yes, and there is nothing modern in it. Roman Empire applied it in order to pay for its huge expenses. But instead of turning on a printer press and print paper-fiat money in order to fund its deficts, they decreased the quantity of gold in its coins.

So Roman coins went from 95%+ gold to less than 5% gold prior to its colapse, hyperinflation took over the country, the result was its impending death.

If MMTers think USA is different from the Roman Empire, and just print dollars to pay all its liabilities instead of borrowing money from the market. Good look, dollar will be worhless in our lifetimes.



jason1637 said:

Identify politics does nothing for me ND sometimes I find it cringe but I understand why the democratic party has top figures that play into it. I live in a very liberal city (nyc) and people really do like it when people go on about identity politics and it riles pethem up.

I don't care for identity politics either, though I have the feeling we mean different things by the term 'identity politics'.

What I'm referring to is a concept invented by the Marxist feminists back in the late 1970s to describe the idea that experiential knowledge (knowledge acquired through first-hand experience) is of greater value and importance than academically-acquired knowledge. For example, if I were to claim that I can't be wrong about any subject relating to women because I'm a woman, that would be a classic application of the politics of personal identity. Identity politics were the ideological forerunner to Kimberle Crenshaw's intersectionality theory (a subdivision of Marxist critical theory) that prevails in American feminist circles today.

Now you, however, I suspect are using the term in a very different, non-academic way to describe feminism in general -- the whole idea that women are a disadvantaged social class in need of a redress of this condition -- and I think that's where we'll part ways.



Jaicee said:
jason1637 said:

Identify politics does nothing for me ND sometimes I find it cringe but I understand why the democratic party has top figures that play into it. I live in a very liberal city (nyc) and people really do like it when people go on about identity politics and it riles pethem up.

I don't care for identity politics either, though I have the feeling we mean different things by the term 'identity politics'.

What I'm referring to is a concept invented by the Marxist feminists back in the late 1970s to describe the idea that experiential knowledge (knowledge acquired through first-hand experience) is of greater value and importance than academically-acquired knowledge. For example, if I were to claim that I can't be wrong about any subject relating to women because I'm a woman, that would be a classic application of the politics of personal identity. Identity politics were the ideological forerunner to Kimberle Crenshaw's intersectionality theory (a subdivision of Marxist critical theory) that prevails in American feminist circles today.

Now you, however, I suspect are using the term in a very different, non-academic way to describe feminism in general -- the whole idea that women are a disadvantaged social class in need of a redress of this condition -- and I think that's where we'll part ways.

Yeah I think we're referring to different things. I'm not really aware of the history regarding identity politics and feminism like you described. I just know how it's used today by people of different identities (not only gender) trying to push for things that benefit people of their identity and politicians using this for political gain.



CuCabeludo said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Well, quite a few candidates, like Gabbard, Warren and Sanders, want to reduce both the military expenses and the interventions, so at least that part could come to happen.

What do you mean with MMT? Modern Monetary Theory?

Yes, and there is nothing modern in it. Roman Empire applied it in order to pay for its huge expenses. But instead of turning on a printer press and print paper-fiat money in order to fund its deficts, they decreased the quantity of gold in its coins.

So Roman coins went from 95%+ gold to less than 5% gold prior to its colapse, hyperinflation took over the country, the result was its impending death.

If MMTers think USA is different from the Roman Empire, and just print dollars to pay all its liabilities instead of borrowing money from the market. Good look, dollar will be worhless in our lifetimes.

I know about the Roman empire, and you're right, it got itself killed due to hyperinflation

However, you fail to address the underlying reason: The whole roman economy was built on slave labor. And when they stopped conquering, they stopped getting the new slaves to run the economy. That's what killed the economy, which resulted in the hyperinflation - not an MMT style monetary expansion. That was just the result of the economy failing - similar to what happened to Germany after WW1, who got crippled economically by the Versailles treaty.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
CuCabeludo said:

I know about the Roman empire, and you're right, it got itself killed due to hyperinflation

However, you fail to address the underlying reason: The whole roman economy was built on slave labor. And when they stopped conquering, they stopped getting the new slaves to run the economy. That's what killed the economy, which resulted in the hyperinflation - not an MMT style monetary expansion. That was just the result of the economy failing - similar to what happened to Germany after WW1, who got crippled economically by the Versailles treaty.

I don't think it has anything to do with slavery, which, on the contrary, would be a cause for potential social unrest if it were too large of a percentage of the popuation. It had been over 300 years without conquests when the Roman Empire fell, perhaps because they did not do something the Persians used to do: periodic raids in "barbarian" lands to keep them in check. Roman Emperor Majorian and later the Arabs, in the Iberian peninsula, showed just how frail the germanic kingdoms were against a minimally organized force. The Chinese comitted the same mistake, more than once, but Eastern Asia geographically favored the reassembly of a monolithic empire in a way Europe didn't.

OT - can we focus on the main six or so candidates already, and have the filler ones drop out? No one has ever surged from below 5% (and that's being generous, since it's more like 8-10%) in the primaries polls to win this late, 16 months before the election. At post you have types like Kasich and O'Malley who decide to stubbornly hang on far beyond any hope (though, to be fair, a lot of protest votes were dumped on Kasich).