|
Alter Ego posted:Really? Can you tell me how, exactly, Bernie Sanders would avoid becoming a part of the Washington establishment? History's pretty much proven that if you bring in a bunch of political neophytes who have no idea what the big stage is like, you end up with Jimmy Carter--where nothing gets done because no one knows how to talk to Congress. And that was back when Democrats actually had control of both houses. A man with over two decades of experience serving in Congress: A political neophyte who clearly won't know how to engage with that body. You sure cracked the code on that one, ace.
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:A man with over two decades of experience serving in Congress: A political neophyte who clearly won't know how to engage with that body. You sure cracked the code on that one, ace. Sure has worked out well for Biden. The statement wasn't that Bernie himself was a neophyte. It was that filling your administration with outsiders with no experience in Washington does not tend to advance your objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Does Sanders have a big record of getting legislation through Congress? - Honest question, I can't really find much. What are some examples of Sanders engaging with Congress and getting legislation passed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Keep in mind that with regard to Congress, Obama approaches the balance of power like a law school professor. He's not a big fan of an Imperial Presidency, and believes in a strong legislature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Keep in mind that with regard to Congress, Obama approaches the balance of power like a law school professor. He's not a big fan of an Imperial Presidency, and believes in a strong legislature. The same president who has openly assassinated US citizens and is currently pushing through an increase in executive power through said legislature?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Random question, but are there rules for how a president acts in the white house? Like can Obama just take a big ol poo poo in the middle of the oval office if he wanted to and just leave it there? Or are there rules governing decorum or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Malmesbury Monster posted:HRC's wrapping up a speech to the US Conference of Mayors. Laid out a dedication to "commonsense" gun control (specifically hitting on not selling guns to domestic abusers, the mentally-ill and people on the terrorist watch list) and talked about Charleston, noting that Racism Is not Over and talking about structural racism. Did she apologize for her racist '08 campaign? Or even admit to it? I'm gonna go out on a limb and answer my own questions: "no." Edit: Hillary has a long history of contributing to the problem of structural racism and pushing anti-immigrant measures, and it's ridiculous that anybody believes her rhetoric on either subject unless that rhetoric includes phrases like, "I'm part of the problem," "I help entrench structural racism," "I have no problems voting against the interests of immigrants for my political ambitions," etc. Feather fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Getting all het up about Sanders as President doesn't seem all that sustainable. If his "movement" really is a movement and not a bunch of people projecting their frustrations and excitement into one person and two races, then we'll see a push to primary out or pressure Democrats in local, State, House and Senate races, as well as run outsider socialists, and as has been said here before, I don't think Sanders expects any different. There's no point in having a McGovern repeat, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:The same president who has openly assassinated US citizens and is currently pushing through an increase in executive power through said legislature? Asking Congress to pass a law about it, or provide a structure for said actions is being deferential to the legislature. He could just declare he has the power and come up with his own structure while alternating between telling Congress to suck it and daring them to stop him. He's trying to get Congress to legislate guidelines and boundaries. It's not his fault they're refusing to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It could be a Goldwater repeat, and that would be a good thing. How do you mean?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Like can Obama just take a big ol poo poo in the middle of the oval office if he wanted to and just leave it there? Sure. See, for example, Bill Clinton issuing the "Don't ask, don't tell" directive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Sure. See, for example, Bill Clinton issuing the "Don't ask, don't tell" directive. Which was actually progressive and fair-minded for its day. Public perception of homosexuality in the United States has changed dramatically in the past twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Which was actually progressive and fair-minded for its day. Nah, it was a standard Clintonian middle ground that blatantly left the real work to his successors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How do you mean? I'm guessing he wants a Goldwater for Democrats, who loses the race he's most famous for but whose policy positions quickly become mainstream within the party and cause a sea change in the base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah, it was a standard Clintonian middle ground that blatantly left the real work to his successors. Because "the real work," even if Clinton himself had been of a mind to accept and propose it at the time, would not have been accepted at the time. Public perceptions change over time, and DADT was progressive legislation for its time that became regressive as the social context it existed in evolved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Because "the real work," even if Clinton himself had been of a mind to accept and propose it at the time, would not have been accepted at the time. Public perceptions change over time, and DADT was progressive legislation for its time that became regressive as the social context it existed in evolved. It was poo poo at the time, which was the point of my joke. That public perception has changed - that you are somehow defending bigotry so long as it is reasonably popular - is irrelevant to my comment. It stinked and left a mess for others to deal with, which is the context I was responding to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Wabbit posted:Does Sanders have a big record of getting legislation through Congress? - Honest question, I can't really find much. What are some examples of Sanders engaging with Congress and getting legislation passed? The dude is one of the most left-wing politicians in Congress and an independent to boot, do you really think that he could have that much sway over people who are to the right of him politically and not even in his party? Bernie is running on ideology, not on a strong record of pragmatic legislative rule.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:The dude is one of the most left-wing politicians in Congress and an independent to boot, do you really think that he could have that much sway over people who are to the right of him politically and not even in his party? Bernie is running on ideology, not on a strong record of pragmatic legislative rule. But I heard he's catching on and has a solid chance of winning the primary from posters in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It was poo poo at the time, which was the point of my joke. That public perception has changed - that you are somehow defending bigotry so long as it is reasonably popular - is irrelevant to my comment. ...Stating that a law issued to the effect of "Don't talk about homosexuality and we won't pry" was an improvement over "No fags period" is defending bigotry? In the social context DADT was passed in, it was a relatively progressive law that improved on the status quo and modern legislation regarding homosexuality would simply not have been possible in the social context and mores of the 1990s United States. Yes, DADT was by modern lights lovely to homosexuals but it was nevertheless a good deal less lovely than the previous status quo. Society has evolved and with it legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:...Stating that a law issued to the effect of "Don't talk about homosexuality and we won't pry" was an improvement over "No fags period" is defending bigotry? In the social context DADT was passed in, it was a relatively progressive law that improved on the status quo and modern legislation regarding homosexuality would simply not have been possible in the social context and mores of the 1990s United States. Yes, DADT was by modern lights lovely to homosexuals but it was nevertheless a good deal less lovely than the previous status quo. Society has evolved and with it legislation. It wasn't progressive at the time. It was the compromise position at the time. Actual contemporary progressives denounced it as a half measure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It wasn't progressive at the time. It was the compromise position at the time. Actual contemporary progressives denounced it as a half measure. And my point is that what the contemporary progressives would have called a full measure was not politically possible in 1990s America. Now it is, because 2010s America is not 1990s America in some respects, notably the public perception and tolerance of homosexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Do presidents have security deposits when they move into the white house? Do they get charged with the steam cleaning after they leave? Is the spackle considered historic? Is there official white house toilet paper? Do the laundry people have to sign NDAs just in case someone got skid marks? How many pages long would that NDA be if Santorum became president?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:...Stating that a law issued to the effect of "Don't talk about homosexuality and we won't pry" was an improvement over "No fags period" is defending bigotry? In the social context DADT was passed in, it was a relatively progressive law that improved on the status quo and modern legislation regarding homosexuality would simply not have been possible in the social context and mores of the 1990s United States. Yes, DADT was by modern lights lovely to homosexuals but it was nevertheless a good deal less lovely than the previous status quo. Society has evolved and with it legislation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but DADT was an executive policy to stop dishonorable discharges of gay service members. It wasn't a law at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It wasn't progressive at the time. It was the compromise position at the time. Actual contemporary progressives denounced it. Clinton campaigned for, and fought for, a full repeal, but lost that fight. Clinton was to the left of conservative Democrats at the time. sullat posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but DADT was an executive policy to stop dishonorable discharges of gay service members. It wasn't a law at all. You're wrong. It was a policy enacted in law by the defense appropriation bill. http://legisworks.org/GPO/STATUTE-107-Pg1547.pdf Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Clinton campaigned for, and fought for, a full repeal, but lost that fight. Clinton was to the left of conservative Democrats at the time. To the left of conservatives is where you find the middle-ground. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Being to the left of conservatives is where you find middle-ground compromises. Yes, and? I'm sorry, I'm not getting what your point is. Do you think he could have vetoed the defense appropriation bill over the issue successfully? He wanted full repeal. He didn't get it. He signed a compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:To the left of conservatives is where you find the middle-ground. And therefore actual progress, and more gay and lesbian veterans, and hence grass-roots support for repeal. But I mean, I guess you could sit in the corner and just scowl at anything that isn't 110% of what you want and call that progressive. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes, and? I'm sorry, I'm not getting what your point is. Do you think he could have vetoed the defense appropriation bill over the issue successfully? My point is that it was poo poo and not progressive. I'm not going to relitigate 1990s social policy in the loving 2016 presidential primary thread. Absurd Alhazred posted:And therefore actual progress, and more gay and lesbian veterans, and hence grass-roots support for repeal. But I mean, I guess you could sit in the corner and just scowl at anything that isn't 110% of what you want and call that progressive. People demanding a full public policy platform to back up a one sentence joke accusing me of absolutism is pretty rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My point is that it was poo poo and not progressive. I'm not going to relitigate 1990s social policy in the loving 2016 presidential primary thread. It was progressive for the 1990s. It is not the 1990s anymore, which is why it is no longer around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My point is that it was poo poo and not progressive. I'm not going to relitigate 1990s social policy in the loving 2016 presidential primary thread. It was progress. Edit: Actually, the way the military carried it out was super-super lovely, but on paper it was progress, everyone at the time thought it was progress. Second edit: You said quote:Nah, it was a standard Clintonian middle ground that blatantly left the real work to his successors. What more work could Clinton have done on it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:My point is that it was poo poo and not progressive. I'm not going to relitigate 1990s social policy in the loving 2016 presidential primary thread Seeing that the likely result will be Bush v. Clinton, this is the perfect thread for that. Obdicut posted:Clinton campaigned for, and fought for, a full repeal, but lost that fight. Clinton was to the left of conservative Democrats at the time. Fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The thing that Bill Clinton did that was horror-bad was 'welfare reform'. It was probably inevitable and there's an argument to be made that he made it less bad than it would be under a GOP president but that's kinda weaksauce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It was progress. Progress is distinct from something being progressive. But, yes, veto the bill. Or use directives to neuter the law once passed rather than give the military free reign to implement it as destructively as they did. Anyways, getting on an airplane so going to lose my ability to really dissect this frog soon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Progress is distinct from something being progressive. If Clinton had vetoed the appropriation bill over this, it would have cost him a ton of political capital and his veto would have been overridden. If he had neutered it through directives, congress would have rewritten it to un-neuter it. The way I know this is because Clinton tried to get a full repeal bill going and Congress rushed through the ban in the appropriations bill precisely because vetoing it over this issue would be pretty drat impossible. 1994 was the year that Gingrich and the GOP re-took congress. Clinton tried to be more progressive, since he wasn't able to, he took the pragmatic most-progressive-result he could. DADT discharges didn't start to really ramp up until Clinton was out of office, but again, if he had stymied it too much congress would have overridden him. Any action he would have taken would have still left 'the real work' to his successors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
I'm all for supporting Hillary because it means he GOP will lose to another Clinton, this time a woman, and it'll probably cause a few mental breakdowns. Their anguish will be delightful and I'm all for the anguish of the lesser peoples.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
bartlebyshop posted:I'm guessing he wants a Goldwater for Democrats, who loses the race he's most famous for but whose policy positions quickly become mainstream within the party and cause a sea change in the base. Sanders doesn't have a Clif White to engineer him the nomination. The McGovern reforms notwithstanding, the closest Clif White equivalent we've seen recently is David Plouffe and I don't think he's going to leave Uber for Sanders (and I don't think Sanders would want him anyway)
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I'm all for supporting Hillary because it means he GOP will lose to another Clinton, this time a woman, and it'll probably cause a few mental breakdowns. Their anguish will be delightful and I'm all for the anguish of the lesser peoples. Also the smart ones know they can get about 90% of what they want with her in charge anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Also the smart ones know they can get about 90% of what they want with her in charge anyway. Yeah dude, Gore and Bush are basically the same. Republicrats. Demoblicans. Fact. So when does Hillary get mad in the primary states and dig out the first hit on Sanders about what have to be some pretty wacked-out past associates. There's no socialist, democratic or otherwise, who hasn't at some point been in some front group with Trots or Maoists or other idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Feather posted:Did she apologize for her racist '08 campaign? Or even admit to it? I'm gonna go out on a limb and answer my own questions: "no." First of all, Hillary actually does not have a personal record of that. There have been pragmatic legislative moves that did, in fact, cause these issues. Hillary has repudiated a lot of those votes. Secondly, you always come in here, throw this bomb, then leave. I was here, in a Midwest state, when the primary was heating up. It didn't take Hillary or any of her operatives to start race baiting. White Reagan democrats did a lot of it themselves. I won't say Clinton wasn't counting on white voters to win those primaries. But I can't in good conscience say she was stoking racial fires deliberately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Not sure if this has been posted yet (I'm a bit behind on the thread) but apparently, Rubio fancies himself a regular Captain America. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2015 21:17
|
|
