American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[North Washington Republic]

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

Basically, yeah.

Boy, I’m really am a boomer trapped inside a millennial’s body.

[Uiiop]

Basically, yeah.

Boy, I’m really am a boomer trapped inside a millennial’s body.

Memes even if you’re correctly not a Dawkins are as old as time once you ignore the formatting.

Watergate is a meme. So is “Binders full of women.” and “build that wall”. Yang spoke a lot of non meme rhetoric that acted he saw the issues. He just has the wrong answers to them. Superficial is a good label for that so I can’t blame NHA entirely.

[Bombadil]

yang man you gotta quit while you're behind

In the final hours of the New York City mayoral campaign, candidate Andrew Yang doubled down on his comments on the mentally ill and homeless. Phoning into a radio show with billionaire John Catsimatidis on Monday, Yang complained that mentally ill people affect the city's tourism.

Yang was responding to Catsimatidis's statement that too many mentally ill people live on the streets instead of in hospitals. He agreed with Catsimatidis that money is better spent on building facilities to treat people.

"We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City,'" Yang said. "We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment," Yang added.

The comments Yang made on Monday were similar to those he made at the NYC mayoral debate last Wednesday, for which he received backlash on social media.

"Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do! The people and families of the city," Yang said last week during the debate."We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us."

According to a New York Times report, Yang said at an event later on Monday with fellow candidate Kathryn Garcia that he stood by the comments he made to Catsimatidis. Yang also emphasized the need for "public safety."

"There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways," said Yang to the New York Times.

Other candidates campaigning against Yang for the mayoral seat denounced Yang's comments on mentally ill New Yorkers.

Zack Fink from Spectrum News NY1 interviewed mayoral candidate Maya Wiley, who said that Yang and Garcia asked her to campaign with them on Monday. But Wiley told NY1 that she turned the duo down because she thought Yang's statements during Wednesday's debate were "highly insensitive."

Meanwhile, the Times quoted candidate Eric Adams, who said he was "really disturbed" by Yang's remarks.

I mean.. as a tourist to the US myself a fair few times, not lately given the pandemic, it is kind of shocking to see so many homeless people, clearly disturbed people and just those who blatantly come up and ask for money, quite regularly not just in NY but in other major cities as well.

Sure it's a bit cack-handed to say the reason they're a problem is that tourists are put off by them, but if the solution is to get proper facilities for care and attention then probably a good idea.

[Page]

Senate Democrats are having this filibuster fight only because they know they will lose and that it wouldn't matter if they won. I seriously doubt we could even get a living wage and M4A if the Dems had 80 seats. But the Dems want to pretend that would be the case if only they could destroy the filibuster. It's a con.

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

[Necroghastia]

Senate Democrats are having this filibuster fight only because they know they will lose and that it wouldn't matter if they won. I seriously doubt we could even get a living wage and M4A if the Dems had 80 seats. But the Dems want to pretend that would be the case if only they could destroy the filibuster. It's a con.

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Please don't speak Senator Jenner into existence...

[Kilobugya]

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Well that's one of the issues with "identity politics", being LGBT, or Black, or woman, doesn't automatically make you support sane policies. In general sure, more diversity in politicians is a good thing, having a club of old white straight male in charge is a problem, but when we focus too much on "she's a bi trans Black woman !" sometimes that happens...

[Greater Cesnica]

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Well that's one of the issues with "identity politics", being LGBT, or Black, or woman, doesn't automatically make you support sane policies. In general sure, more diversity in politicians is a good thing, having a club of old white straight male in charge is a problem, but when we focus too much on "she's a bi trans Black woman !" sometimes that happens...

Well, I honestly couldn't give a shit about identity. If that means we end up remaining with old white straight men? I don't care. I care about substantive changes. I care about jettisoning this wretched neoliberal system and curbing back the state's oppressive presence.

Senate Democrats are having this filibuster fight only because they know they will lose and that it wouldn't matter if they won. I seriously doubt we could even get a living wage and M4A if the Dems had 80 seats. But the Dems want to pretend that would be the case if only they could destroy the filibuster. It's a con.

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Please don't speak Senator Jenner into existence...

pain.

[Galloism]

Senate Democrats are having this filibuster fight only because they know they will lose and that it wouldn't matter if they won. I seriously doubt we could even get a living wage and M4A if the Dems had 80 seats. But the Dems want to pretend that would be the case if only they could destroy the filibuster. It's a con.

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Please don't speak Senator Jenner into existence...

Excuse me, I'm trying to eat breakfast thank you.

[Greater Cesnica]

Please don't speak Senator Jenner into existence...

Excuse me, I'm trying to eat breakfast thank you.

Just wait when Senator Jenner is elected

[San Lumen]

Its primary day in New York. Multiple municipal primaries are being held across the state most importantly in NYC but there are also mayoral and city council primaries in Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse and Rochester.

A friend of mine is also running for town council in a suburb of NYC.

NSG News Network will have full coverage tonight.

[Saiwania]

SCOTUS rules unanimously that the NCAA ban on colleges compensating athletes violates anti-trust law

This ruling is so wrong and in error. Aren't the college athletes getting more than enough in being given free tuition in exchange for playing for their college? Its a fair trade from my perspective. Being paid a salary on top of that is too much. Perhaps if they have to be paid like professional athletes are, there will be no more free tuition for them more often than not.

[The Black Forrest]

No, it's because he was seemingly the only one who had any idea of how modern youth culture worked and promised UBI.

Other than that he didn't really do much.

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

Why?

Consider the one issue voters. Isn’t that kind of childish? To pick one issue; this guy is a meat sack but I will vote for him because he supports guns.

[Heloin]

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

Why?

Consider the one issue voters. Isn’t that kind of childish? To pick one issue; this guy is a meat sack but I will vote for him because he supports guns.

I've known people who's vote is based on who's cuter.

[Greater Cesnica]

Hold up. Young people liked him…because he could meme? Holy shit! That’s…sad. I’m sorry but that is just…childish…

Why?

Consider the one issue voters. Isn’t that kind of childish? To pick one issue; this guy is a meat sack but I will vote for him because he supports guns.

Well, if all the candidates are shit but one of them's pro-gun, then that's who I'm voting for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Dillemba]

And God Krysten Sinema is the worst bisexual in the universe. I'll make a bet: The first transgender Senator will be elected soon and that person will be a neoliberal sellout who doesn't give a fuck about the poor too.

Well that's one of the issues with "identity politics", being LGBT, or Black, or woman, doesn't automatically make you support sane policies. In general sure, more diversity in politicians is a good thing, having a club of old white straight male in charge is a problem, but when we focus too much on "she's a bi trans Black woman !" sometimes that happens...

I'm a bisexual man and a staunch right-winger. Identity politics is meaningless and should be discarded.

[Salus Maior]

Why?

Consider the one issue voters. Isn’t that kind of childish? To pick one issue; this guy is a meat sack but I will vote for him because he supports guns.

Well, if all the candidates are shit but one of them's pro-gun, then that's who I'm voting for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As a pro-lifer, that's just a route to being easily manipulated as a voter.

[Punished UMN]

Well that's one of the issues with "identity politics", being LGBT, or Black, or woman, doesn't automatically make you support sane policies. In general sure, more diversity in politicians is a good thing, having a club of old white straight male in charge is a problem, but when we focus too much on "she's a bi trans Black woman !" sometimes that happens...

I'm a bisexual man and a staunch right-winger. Identity politics is meaningless and should be discarded.

I'm skeptical that "identity politics" is describing a real phenomenon. There certainly are weird people who only talk about certain issues but those are not the majority of people advocating for LGBT, racial, disabled, etc. rights. Most of what people are trying to do is just get the government to address (what is usually factually true) that society is built around certain sets of assumptions of what the bare minimum level of a functioning person should be, which cannot apply to some members of society regardless of any good-faith effort, and that many of these members of society have no recourse except to pound sand.

[Greater Cesnica]

Well, if all the candidates are shit but one of them's pro-gun, then that's who I'm voting for ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As a pro-lifer, that's just a route to being easily manipulated as a voter.

Yeah, well none of the other policy positions I'd like to see are actually being fulfilled to any meaningful degree.

[Salus Maior]

As a pro-lifer, that's just a route to being easily manipulated as a voter.

Yeah, well none of the other policy positions I'd like to see are actually being fulfilled to any meaningful degree.

That's because our system of government is bad and un-representative.

[Salus Maior]

*doublepost

[Genivaria]

Yeah, well none of the other policy positions I'd like to see are actually being fulfilled to any meaningful degree.

That's because our system of government is bad and un-representative.

This is objectively true no matter which side you're on.

[Salus Maior]

That's because our system of government is bad and un-representative.

This is objectively true no matter which side you're on.

Multiparty system/parliamentary system ftw.

[Genivaria]

This is objectively true no matter which side you're on.

Multiparty system/parliamentary system ftw.

With rank choice voting, a ban on private campaign donations, and establishing an apolitical group to monitor voting districts.

[Page]

No government can ever be representative if it is not formed by voluntary association.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Old thread can be found here.
Well, this is it. The sixth iteration of the American Politics Thread. Here's hoping we have even more civil, and completely rational debate here!

So, I have decided to focus the poll and title of this thread on collaboration. Specifically, the question of whether collaborating with political opponents is possible. What do I think personally? I'll collaborate with anyone who seeks to end the statist and coercive socioeconomic paradigm we reside in. To fight the oppression of the state and the corporate oligarchy. In that regard, if someone who disagrees with me politically on certain issues but otherwise wants the same end goal wishes to fight alongside me, so be it. However, I do believe that someone who fundamentally wants the same goal as I do is no political opponent of mine. In that sense, I believe that collaboration with political opponents is no longer feasible.

We know the drill- follow the rules, stay sane, and have fun debating!

Your the OP of this thread? Great Poll and great tittle. We finally agree on something for the second time.