Why do Biden and the Democrats in Congress want bipartisanship?

[Freakyboo]

20 hours ago, aurum said:

I’ll add to this that the nature of systems also complicates this mess of why people do what they do.

Systems can make “good” people do “bad” things. 

For instance, all of us are using cell phones and / or computers right now. Which means that we are participating exploiting cheap labor in third world countries that create them.

Does this make us bad people? Or are our hands largely tied due to the more meta-level constraints of the systems?

Even if we try to not participate in exploitation, we find it almost impossible to some degree.

This is what systems do. They have a life of their own, so to speak.

So as much as we talk about people needing to “develop” their morality, I’d also like to see an emphasis on addressing the systems that create the rules of the game to begin with.

This is very true.  There are many Democratic Senators and Congresspeople who are good people, trying to do the best for their constituents.  Look at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for example, who is on the receiving end of death threats by right wingers for speaking up for minority groups and the working class.  I have no doubt at all that she is absolutely sincere in wanting change, but as you said, the system itself severely limits her ability to make changes happen.  I can understand why people who enter politics with great intentions end up with mediocre or even poor track records - the system is against them from the start and change will be slow.

I think the first thing that needs to be dealt with is right wing media, which is pernicious in its mind control of the populace.  Murdoch media would be a great start.  Once the people can stop focusing on bullshit fear-mongering that the right wing media is feeding them, they will demand real change.

[Emerald]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They aren't tho. Repubs killed tens of thousands of people needlessly with their handling of covid, and other things.

That's true that the Covid botching is blood on the hands of Republicans. Republicans are quite a bit worse domestically, for sure. As I said, that's why I personally was relieved when Biden got the presidency.

But if we look past their domestic impact and look toward foreign policy, we can see that those in the most vulnerable positions are suffering the same amount with both Democrats and Republicans at the helm.

We as Americans, can only see Democrats and Republicans as drastically different because we exist inside the protective bubble of America. But if you're a civilian in a foreign country that we've occupied, they would likely suffer just as much regardless of who's in office. 

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Unfortunately this isn't true. As we see with 70 million people voting for Trump.

If American citizens were more developed and educated, many government problems would go away. But therein lies the whole problem. How do you develop people who refuse to develop themselves?

People are not educated enough to vote on policy or substance.

"So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of"

I said many people in the Democratic base are Green on the spiral... not America in general. Democrats know that they will have to please Green-minded people. So, of course they have to angle their moral leadership in such a way that it doesn't alienate Green... even though the substance of what they're doing is very Orange... and usually very toxic Orange at that.

Also, when it comes to development and education of the people, you may see this as happenstance and just a reflection of individual character. But that makes the same mistake that Libertarians who grew up with wealth make about assuming why people are poor. 

The way that governments and the powerful stay in power is often because the masses are given 'bread and circuses' to keep them depoliticized. Essentially, those in powerful positions want to maintain their power. And an educated and politically informed and engaged populace increases the potential for challenges to power.

Prior to the internet, it has always been the case that mainstream media would siphon out most dissident angles to the stories that they share. And of course, public schools would teach things a particular way to either present half-truths about how things work or simply leave it out of the curriculum altogether. No institution is going to give instructions towards its owner's undoing.

Now, I'm not saying it's some big cabal of elites behind the curtain doing this. It's just that a lot of very wealthy people own politicians and industries... and thus have a lot of power and control over what the masses see vs what they don't. And it can really be boiled down to the profit motive.

But now that the internet exists, we have a different issue. It's that the truth gets lost in a pile of lies. And so, instead of keeping people de-politicized, things are angled in such a way that make people hyper-politicized around a lot of misinformation and magicianry. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Emerald

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

"So, what must be understood is that, if it looks like Democrats are less motivated by self-interest and pleasing their donors, then it is only because that's the face that they're presenting to their constituency. Many people in their base are Green on the spiral... and wouldn't vote for them if they really looked at what they're actually in favor of"

There is also the problem with the two party system. In general elections, Green is usually given a choice between a level 8 fascist domestic / foreign monster or a level 5 neoliberal domestic / level 7 foreign monster. 

Some of the keys to breaking the lesser of two evils trap is campaign finance reform, ranked choice voting and primaries. Yet the vast majority of politicians and corporate oppose this because it would disempower them. 

[Arthur]

I think it goes even deeper than the geopolitical actions of the parties. The whole two-party system is a way of misdirection. In its essence, it's an elaborate reality show. The purpose is to give you a small taste of being involved, without any engagement in any decision making.

I see no reason why, with our modern technology, we can't create an online voting system. To ease the pressure on the people in congress and get people involved. But this would mean the average citizen actually gets a say in what's going on. and the argument that Republicans are ignorant and stupid and shouldn't vote doesn't make sense. You can't exclude a decent chunk of the country because they tingle your Green ideals.

News and social media agitate their stories to send you down a rabbit hole of resentment for the other party. Meanwhile, they present you with a veneer of someone who can bring real change, and cares about your issues. It's just a pendulum swinging back and forth between the parties. Yes, one party might be slightly more conscious (0.01 vs 0.005%), but the parties are a facade to begin with. The people who genuinely have a say, by the virtue of their dollars, have always been Orange, and their policies are party agnostic.

It's very easy to cater to republicans, praise America, embody traditional values, have a stroke of libertarianism, and say that the democrats are pedophiles. It's also very easy to cater to dems, basically show them republicans and shit on them (trigger their Green). None of this addresses issues like the pyramid nature of society, geopolitical wars, insane wealth inequality, absurd monetary system, fake politics etc.

All those stories and media hype about Trump, Russia-gate, qanon, big tech etc. are phony. Like the current trend about how big tech is somehow against Trump. In reality, as was uncovered by the whistleblowers in "The Great Hack", Facebook in 2016 collaborated with the Republicans and contributed massively to the rise of nationalism in the UK and the US..

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Forestluv said:

There is also the problem with the two party system. In general elections, Green is usually given a choice between a level 8 fascist domestic / foreign monster or a level 5 neoliberal domestic / level 7 foreign monster. 

Some of the keys to breaking the lesser of two evils trap is campaign finance reform, ranked choice voting and primaries. Yet the vast majority of politicians and corporate oppose this because it would disempower them. 

Totally agree 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

But if we look past their domestic impact and look toward foreign policy, we can see that those in the most vulnerable positions are suffering the same amount with both Democrats and Republicans at the helm.

Not so.

You really think Gore would have invaded Iraq if he won the election? Bush was a grade-A moron akin to Trump, just less of an asshole. Republicans are always gonna kill more people and start more wars. Cause they are lower consciousness.

[Emerald]

1 hour ago, Arthur said:

I think it goes even deeper than the geopolitical actions of the parties. The whole two-party system is a way of misdirection. In its essence, it's an elaborate reality show. The purpose is to give you a small taste of being involved, without any engagement in any decision making.

I see no reason why, with our modern technology, we can't create an online voting system. To ease the pressure on the people in congress and get people involved. But this would mean the average citizen actually gets a say in what's going on. and the argument that Republicans are ignorant and stupid and shouldn't vote doesn't make sense. You can't exclude a decent chunk of the country because they tingle your Green ideals.

News and social media agitate their stories to send you down a rabbit hole of resentment for the other party. Meanwhile, they present you with a veneer of someone who can bring real change, and cares about your issues. It's just a pendulum swinging back and forth between the parties. Yes, one party might be slightly more conscious (0.01 vs 0.005%), but the parties are a facade to begin with. The people who genuinely have a say, by the virtue of their dollars, have always been Orange, and their policies are party agnostic.

It's very easy to cater to republicans, praise America, embody traditional values, have a stroke of libertarianism, and say that the democrats are pedophiles. It's also very easy to cater to dems, basically show them republicans and shit on them (trigger their Green). None of this addresses issues like the pyramid nature of society, geopolitical wars, insane wealth inequality, absurd monetary system, fake politics etc.

All those stories and media hype about Trump, Russia-gate, qanon, big tech etc. are phony. Like the current trend about how big tech is somehow against Trump. In reality, as was uncovered by the whistleblowers in "The Great Hack", Facebook in 2016 collaborated with the Republicans and contributed massively to the rise of nationalism in the UK and the US..

Well said!

[Hardkill]

11 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not so.

You really think Gore would have invaded Iraq if he won the election? Bush was a grade-A moron akin to Trump, just less of an asshole. Republicans are always gonna kill more people and start more wars. Cause they are lower consciousness.

Yeah, I agree with that. What a damn shame Clinton did by having sex with Monica Lewinski. If he hadn't done that stupid shit, then Gore would have been our President instead of Bush back then. We also might of had Hillary as our President instead of Trump. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Hardkill

[Emerald]

34 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Not so.

Your really think Gore would have invaded Iraq if he won the election? Bush was a grade-A moron akin to Trump, just less of an asshole. Republicans are always gonna kill more people and start more wars.

Both Clinton and Obama continued the offensive warfare in their terms as president. So, I don't see why you think Gore would have been much different. In fact, Clinton had already done a missile strikes on Iraq. 

So, I'm sure Gore would have invaded Iraq. He probably would have handled it slightly differently... especially in the way he spoke about it to the American people though. Now, he probably wouldn't have done the Guantanamo waterboarding things, as that seemed unique to Bush's sensibilities.

But I'm sure an Iraq invasion would have happened regardless of political leadership as there was financial interest in doing so... lots of oil there. Plus, the owners of the military industrial complex benefit from forever wars because middle class Americans will feel more okay with giving so much of their tax money to the bloated military budget if you can convince them that it's for "defense". 

So, 9/11 was essentially exploited to drum up fear in the American people so that they support more war... and to justify invading Iraq because the average American didn't understand then that a group of terrorist hijackers from Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with Iraq. And of course, that wasn't the end to how 9/11 was used to justify offensive warfare in the Middle East. 

And of course, because 9/11 was such a godsend to those that have financial interests in warfare, they probably would have made sure their bases were covered by "donating to" whoever happened to be president. So, I'm sure that they wouldn't have turned down what was a golden opportunity from their point of view. 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Emerald

[Joel3102]

Tony Blair of the left leaning Labour Party enthusiastically supported the Iraq invasion following in the US footsteps. Although left leaning Canada didn’t follow suit and stayed out. 

 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

I'm sure Gore would have invaded Iraq.

Lol

Conversation over.

Firing some missiles is the norm and does not at all compare to what Bush and the Neo-Cons did.

Clinton nor Obama would have invaded Iraq.

[Joel3102]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002#:~:text=United States House of Representatives,-Party&text=215 (96.4%) of 223,voted against the resolution%3A Reps.

Look at the vote breakdown by party. It was a neo-con lead effort, but unfortunately many Democrats followed suit.

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Lol

Conversation over.

Firing some missiles is the norm and does not at all compare to what Bush and the Neo-Cons did.

Clinton nor Obama would have invaded Iraq.

I'm not saying that there would be no differences in the way the invasion of Iraq would have happened. Bush was certainly a war hawk. But I'm 99.9% sure there would have been one. I don't see why you think Gore or Clinton would be all that much different. Democrats certainly do their fair share of regime change warfare and still supply arms to dictators and apartheid states. How do you honestly think Gore would have responded in the aftermath of 9/11?

Also, "firing some missiles is the norm" specifically in this country's corrupt imperialist foreign policy. It shouldn't be accepted as the norm. Offensive warfare shouldn't be accepted as normal.