US Politics

Our politics here in the UK is a bit shit...but the US, WOW! A shit show if there ever was one
 
Organic Potatoes said:
Yeah, what could go wrong handing over the keys as the sole superpower to China?
Click to expand...
Handing over the keys? They practically own the building at this point. Nearly every country is rotten to the core I'm afraid. I just hope the next five or six generations have more humanity and less greed. Western democracies need to get their shit in order and quick.
 
Last edited:
utdalltheway said:
China number 1 by 2028.In economic terms. Probably the only thing surprising is how quickly they’re scheduled to overtake the US.
Click to expand...
How surprising! While China has been planning ahead, the US built a system that favors the rich and doesn't care for the remaining and decided to spend the rest of the time in talking about identity politics. Who would have thought that it will come to this.
 
Revan said:
How surprising! While China has been planning ahead, the US built a system that favors the rich and doesn't care for the remaining and decided to spend the rest of the time in talking about identity politics. Who would have thought that it will come to this.
Click to expand...
Ask any Chinese citizen and they will tell you that their system only favours the rich as well. The reason they are going to be number one economy is down to planning and bigger work force. India at one point will cross the USA as well. The work force advantage is too big
 
Last edited:
2cents said:
Why do you think that?
Click to expand...

Because they are an entirely authoritarian state dictatorship with a hatred of democracy and freedom.

But luckily they won't be the sole superpower, regardless of supposed GDP projections. For a start, the Chinese economic figures cannot be trusted. And secondly, they are still way behind when it comes to technology, despite what they would have you believe.

Let's not forget, for example, that the USA landed people on the moon over 50 years ago. Something that China still has not been able to do.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Because they are an entirely authoritarian state dictatorship with a hatred of democracy and freedom.

But luckily they won't be the sole superpower, regardless of supposed GDP projections. For a start, the Chinese economic figures cannot be trusted. And secondly, they are still way behind when it comes to technology, despite what they would have you believe.

Let's not forget, for example, that the USA landed people on the moon over 50 years ago. Something that China still has not been able to do.
Click to expand...

What’s all this ‘sole superpower’ nonsense anyway? China are becoming a superpower, it’s not a single role that only one country can hold. By the end of this century there could be 3 or 4 superpowers.
 
China’s middle class has increased significantly while in most other countries, including the US, it’s been shrinking. Their middle class alone is as big as the whole US population. That’s a significant number of its population that has disposable income to buy cars, iPhones, property, take vacations, send their kids to universities in America or Europe, and just being a competitor in the global market. The sleeping giant has awoken.

and i don’t think they’re a completely authoritarian state today are they? Not that it matters because it doesn’t mean they won’t become an even bigger economic superpower in the near future.
 
GlastonSpur said:
Because they are an entirely authoritarian state dictatorship with a hatred of democracy and freedom.
Click to expand...

Assuming this is correct, why will it automatically make Chinese power in the world “way worse” than American power? How will it impact beyond China’s borders in such a way?
 
2cents said:
Assuming this is correct, why will it automatically make Chinese power in the world “way worse” than American power? How will it impact beyond China’s borders in such a way?
Click to expand...

It's already impacted Hong Kong, with any pretence of "One Country Two Systems" being swept away.

China has expansionist ambitions. It annexed Tibet in the 1950s. It represents a major threat to the democracy and freedom of Taiwan. It claims almost the whole of the South China Sea, which threatens freedom of navigation in that area and causes maritime disputes with Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. It is disputing Ladahk with India. It has occupied the Himalayan plateau of Doklam, which one of the world’s smallest countries, Bhutan, claims as its territory. It is in dispute with Japan over the East China sea. The list goes on.

America as a superpower - NATO involvement aside - has made a mess of its role for a long time, witness the Vietnam war, propping up far-right governments in South and Central America, and more. But China, if it attains similar world-wide influence, would be much worse: see (for example) its long-time support for N.Korea, see its mass concentration camps for the Uighurs.
 
Fantastic use a photoshop found on FB.
133980316_1877029849115262_6488851100326260075_n.jpg
 
Republicans on red dit feel this is an own goal by Turtle. Voters dont want to hear about Section 230 at the moment.
 
2cents said:
Assuming this is correct, why will it automatically make Chinese power in the world “way worse” than American power? How will it impact beyond China’s borders in such a way?
Click to expand...

The reason the US must be supported in a new cold war against Red China and reactionary Russia is its robust liberal democracy, which is reflected outside its borders in its worldwide fight against authoritarianism, and, most important, its commitment to a rules-based international order that has allowed business to lift billions from poverty.

 
After GOP repeatedly blocked vote on $2,000 checks, 41 Democrats joined McConnell to advance $740 billion Pentagon bill

After Senate Republicans repeatedly stymied a Sen. Bernie Sanders-led effort to force a clean up-or-down vote on $2,000 direct payments, dozens of Democrats late Wednesday joined Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in allowing the chamber to move ahead with the process of overriding President Donald Trump's veto of the $740 billion National Defense Authorization Act.

The vote on the motion to proceed to the NDAA veto override came after Sanders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and others denied McConnell unanimous consent this week to speedily advance the behemoth military spending bill, a tactic aimed at securing a clean vote on House-passed legislation that would deliver $2,000 payments to most Americans.

"Maybe my colleague, the Majority Leader, might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult."
—Sen. Bernie Sanders

But McConnell, joined by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), rejected the push for a vote on the direct payments once again on Wednesday, declaring that the checks would benefit "millionaires and billionaires"—a complaint that was both false and shamelessly hypocritical, given that the same Republicans had no issue with passing President Donald Trump's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy in 2017.

Thanks to the delay tactics that Sanders spearheaded, McConnell was forced to hold a vote Wednesday on a formal motion to proceed to the NDAA. But ultimately, Sanders was one of just six members of the Senate Democratic caucus to vote against the motion, which succeeded by an overwhelming margin of 80-12.

Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) joined the Vermont senator in opposing the motion. Six Republicans also voted no.

In total, 41 Democrats—including Schumer and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris—voted for the motion, paving the way for an override of Trump's NDAA veto and effectively killing the prospect of a vote on $2,000 direct payments before the next Congress. View the full roll call here.


A final vote on the NDAA veto override is expected by January 2. Sanders made clear following the motion's passage Wednesday that he plans to continue pushing for a vote on the direct payments.

"The sheer scale of Wednesday's Democratic surrender was truly a sight to behold," wrote The Daily Poster's David Sirota and Andrew Perez. "And it probably ended the chance for more immediate aid to millions of Americans facing eviction, starvation, and bankruptcy... Democratic senators in fact provided the majority of the votes for the measure that lets the defense bill proceed without a vote on the $2,000 checks."

Ahead of Wednesday's vote, Sanders took Republican senators to task for standing in the way of robust direct relief for their constituents amid widespread hunger, surging poverty, and a looming eviction crisis. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said during his floor remarks that the Senate is "not going to be bullied into rushing out more borrowed money into the hands of the Democrats' rich friends who don't need the help."


"Let me just make it clear for the Majority Leader that 10 out of the poorest 25 counties in the United States of America are located in Kentucky," Sanders said in response. "So maybe my colleague, the Majority Leader, might want to get on the phone and start talking to working families in Kentucky and find out how they feel about the need for immediate help in terms of a $2,000 check per adult. And I have the strong feeling that the people of Kentucky will respond no differently than the people of Vermont or New York."

Sen. Ed Markey joined Sanders in demanding a vote on the $2,000 checks, declaring, "He is right. The Republicans are wrong on this issue, on every single part of this debate. Senator Sanders is right. The Republicans are wrong."


"We're in the middle of an unprecedented crisis in our country," Markey said. "We have a healthcare crisis. We have an unemployment crisis. We have a hunger crisis. We have a housing crisis. We have an addiction crisis. We have a moral crisis in this country. The United States government should be responding to the needs, to the desperation, of families in our country at this time."
Click to expand...


https://www.rawstory.com/after-gop-...billion-pentagon-bill/#comments_section_start
 
Raoul said:
The two bills aren't related to one another so why hold up the other strictly for political reasons ?
Click to expand...
Because we're in the middle of a pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
Also, think about the fact that you're asking why politicians should look to hold up a bill for political reasons.
 
freeurmind said:
Because we're in the middle of a pandemic and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression?
Also, think about the fact that you're asking why politicians should look to hold up a bill for political reasons.
Click to expand...

They're not related though, so why hold up one area of governance to sulk about why another you support isn't moving forward.
 
Corporate Democrats are beholden to the MIC, and it's donors. How else can they make money from endless, pointless wars. They know where their priorities lie, and it is not with the average worker.
 
freeurmind said:
The Democrats do not have your best interests at heart. It's time progressives wake up to this reality.
Click to expand...
And start voting. Let's not beat round the bush. The reason why they don't give a shit is because at the moment, their votes don't count for shit. Unseat these guys and you will maybe see changes.
 
Raoul said:
They're not related though, so why hold up one area of governance to sulk about why another you support isn't moving forward.
Click to expand...

Because leverage over Mitch McConnell is the single rarest substance in the universe, quickly followed by a split Senate Republican caucus, and both were present in this case. Note that the 41 Democrats were crucial, because 5 Republicans voted against the motion, and more than a dozen abstained or were absent. Without the Mitch-Democrat bipartisan success, the 2000 bill would still be up there.
 
berbatrick said:
Because leverage over Mitch McConnell is the single rarest substance in the universe, quickly followed by a split Senate Republican caucus, and both were present in this case. Note that the 41 Democrats were crucial, because 5 Republicans voted against the motion, and more than a dozen abstained or were absent. Without the Mitch-Democrat bipartisan success, the 2000 bill would still be up there.
Click to expand...

Holding up the defense bill isn't leverage though, since it would cost the Dems far more political capital to do that than to just let it go through.
 
Raoul said:
Holding up the defense bill isn't leverage though, since it would cost the Dems far more political capital to do that than to just let it go through.
Click to expand...
Let’s not pretend that the American public has a very long memory. Holding up the defense bill was absolutely the right thing to do, considering the leverage it was putting on Mitch (risk not having a defense bill as he wants if Dems win the senate, and Dems campaigning on Georgia ‘vote Republican if you don’t want to get 2000 dollars’). Trump (out of spite cause Mitch ‘betrayed’ him by accepting Biden as president-elect) gave to the Dems a penalty, and somehow they managed to score an own goal. fecking pathetic the lots of them.
 
Raoul said:
Holding up the defense bill isn't leverage though, since it would cost the Dems far more political capital to do that than to just let it go through.
Click to expand...

It evidently didn't cost almost 20 members of the GOP caucus any capital.
 
Revan said:
Let’s not pretend that the American public has a very long memory. Holding up the defense bill was absolutely the right thing to do, considering the leverage it was putting on Mitch (risk not having a defense bill as he wants if Dems win the senate, and Dems campaigning on Georgia ‘vote Republican if you don’t want to get 2000 dollars’). Trump (out of spite cause Mitch ‘betrayed’ him by accepting Biden as president-elect) gave to the Dems a penalty, and somehow they managed to score an own goal. fecking pathetic the lots of them.
Click to expand...

The NDAA is far to complicated to go back and redo, and frankly so that's not likely, especially since Biden doesn't seem to have any issues with it.
 
Now some Republican senators are saying that they will vote against the electoral votes in the senate.
Can what happened to brexit happen? Cameron though he was easily going to win the referendum so he got the referendum and then lost it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.