|
Nessus posted:How can you justify supporting a man who has already compromised so much, then? What I meant by compromise, is that the country usually goes in different directions than he'd like, often with disastrous effect.It was a post that was meant to be ironic. Also, you're acting as if compromising is wrong. It isn't tho. Compromise: an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions. Are you saying that its best to double down on one's position and literally act like a 5 yr old?
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Dalael posted:What I meant by compromise, is that the country usually goes in different directions than he'd like, often with disastrous effect.It was a post that was meant to be ironic. I don't personally think compromise is wrong at all when it comes to how to achieve your goals (but ideally not compromising on the goals themselves).
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
If you're willing to admit compromise is worthwhile and it's just a matter of degree, here's a compromise for you - a Democrat is absolutely more likely to keep the Iran deal, and a Republican is guaranteed to chuck it, and if they're a Bush with the same old Neocon policy shop they're all but certain to invade Iraq. Would you compromise and vote to prevent another disastrous war? If the people who voted Nader because the Democrats had failed to win left-wing support in 2000 could have foreseen the consequences of a Bush presidency, particularly the war in Iraq, knowing then what we know now would voting for Nader actually achieve the greater good?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Well, that's what the Republicans do and they've met with some success, though they first established a firm position of power before doing that. Even now you have leftists saying what the country needs is more Republican successes, presumably so the Democrats will reach the Green Lantern-esque levels of willpower necessary to implement Full Communism. Yeah, that's what we need; More republican success. The reason republicans achieve so much success, is that they are great at convincing people that voting against their own interest, is in their own interest.  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
I'd be ok with a robust Progressive third party after we shifted to a Parliamentary system, also after the Republican Party split into Corporatist and Religious Populist wings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How can you justify supporting a man who has already compromised so much, then? Well, it goes like this: You have a field of candidates, each with their program, their stances, their history, and you have to decide which one is closest to your own political ideas and ideals. You don't get to create your ideal candidate out of thin air and have them run, you have to choose from the set of existing candidates. So you either support the candidate that you think is the best according to your criteria, or you disengage yourself from the political process altogether. I, and a whole loving lot of people as well, find that Bernie Sanders most closely matches what I want from a candidate. He has a 40 year track record of putting himself on the line for justice and economic equality. I like that he is willing to negotiate and compromise because that means he is flexible enough to get poo poo done. Being willing to work with others for the greater good is not a liability in my eyes, it's an asset. I'd be more worried about supporting a candidate who claims to want to reform Wall Street while taking money from bankers to line her own pockets, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
HerStuddMuffin posted:Well, it goes like this: You have a field of candidates, each with their program, their stances, their history, and you have to decide which one is closest to your own political ideas and ideals. You don't get to create your ideal candidate out of thin air and have them run, you have to choose from the set of existing candidates. So you either support the candidate that you think is the best according to your criteria, or you disengage yourself from the political process altogether. I, and a whole loving lot of people as well, find that Bernie Sanders most closely matches what I want from a candidate. He has a 40 year track record of putting himself on the line for justice and economic equality. I like that he is willing to negotiate and compromise because that means he is flexible enough to get poo poo done. Being willing to work with others for the greater good is not a liability in my eyes, it's an asset. I'd be more worried about supporting a candidate who claims to want to reform Wall Street while taking money from bankers to line her own pockets, for instance. To take a page from #blacklivesmatter's handbook: SAY HER NAME!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Hillary v Bernie thread is leaking. No seriously guys, who the gently caress gives a poo poo about purity tests. I could really give a poo poo if Hillary or Bernie is elected, because the either one will be better for "the cause" than any Republican candidate. Which, if you don't vote for the democratic candidate, you are helping to elect, so good on you for your lovely accelerationism. Their purity and sincerity of belief doesn't fully matter, because the real point is to get progressive policy, real progressive policy, mainstream, and the democratic party is the best vehicle for it. The Republicans sure as poo poo won't champion your causes, and pining for a third party, without realizing the absolute massive undertaking such an effort is while realizing the massive waste of time (not in the futility sense, ACC clock is ticking) to set one up is, that's some loving blinders. Bernie is one person, if you're an actual champion of his cause then do as he tries now and simply lift his policies into public zeitgeist. Just getting Bernie elected is an unfathomably short term goal in the long struggle for actually pushing necessary policy at all levels so it sticks, so there is real change. Fine, vote for him in the primary - this is necessary, this is needed. But don't take your ball and run home and abandon the democratic party, because doing so will actually refute progressive ideology and convince the democratic party they aren't measuring the pulse of the nation appropriately. Nice losing out on another generation to make real change.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:04
|
|
|
My favorite tidbit here is the folks who still pine for Bernie selecting Elizabeth Warren as a running mate. But I'm pretty sure thirty years from now it'll be all "Cyber-Warren says "I'm still happy in the Senate, my systems are running great" - a hint at a RUN??"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:06
|
|
|
To Sanders supporters who claim that the two parties are basically the same, and that a vote for Hillary isn't worth their time, I'd like to tell an instructive little story. Once upon a time, there was a man named Edwin Edwards. Edwin Edwards was governor of the great state of Louisiana, and like all governors of the great state of Louisiana, Edwin Edwards was hilariously corrupt. Actually, criminally, go-to-jail corrupt. And everyone knew it! But dammit, this was Louisiana, and no one gave a drat because the guy was personable as hell. He got two terms in the 70s, got kicked out, and came back in the 80s before leaving under a cloud of indictment. Then he decided, hell, why not run for a fourth term? You're probably thinking to yourself, JT Jag, this guy sounds like precisely the kind of person that would turn me off from voting! Well, hold on for a second! No one believed that someone with Edwards' negative track record would win election. One reporter famously noted that the only way he could win is if he ran against Adolf Hitler. Funny enough, the Republicans nominated David Duke. Yes, that David Duke. The neo-Nazi. The thing about it is that David Duke wasn't the guy the Republicans wanted on their ticket. In 1992 they were dogwhistling their racism, you know. A neo-Nazi as a Republican governor kinda goes against that. So both the Democratic and Republican parties ended up campaigning for Edwards against him. One of the slogans that came from this campaign is "Vote for the crook, it's important." So Hillary might be in the pocket of corporations. So she might be corrupt. So she might be a shill whose opinions change according to the shift of the winds. It doesn't matter. If she's nominated, vote for her. It's important.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
If you think about it, a large container of scented, saline water IS preferable to a human turd presented as food.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:To Sanders supporters who claim that the two parties are basically the same, and that a vote for Hillary isn't worth their time, I'd like to tell an instructive little story. You make a really good argument there. However, I am torn between wanting to see what kind of world we would live in if Bernie gets elected, and what kind of dystopian future would result from Trump's election.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
Why do people care so much about Bernie supporters not voting for HIllary? Its not as though she will have a strong R candidate to contend with. Barring 2000/2008 style corruption/voter suppression she should easily win without the Actual Progressive voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:To Sanders supporters who claim that the two parties are basically the same, and that a vote for Hillary isn't worth their time, I'd like to tell an instructive little story. If.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
Sonofsilversign posted:Why do people care so much about Bernie supporters not voting for HIllary? Its not as though she will have a strong R candidate to contend with. Barring 2000/2008 style corruption/voter suppression she should easily win without the Actual Progressive voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MKb35NK0F0
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Ain't like we got much else to do. Plus, fear of the "and what if she DOES lose?" (or He, if you prefer) Some people seem legitimately salty about it though. I mean I would vote for hilldawg if/when Bernie loses the primary(if i was still eligible) and not feel happy about it but I have to wonder if some D's aren't trying to convince themselves more than the people their arguing with...
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:48
|
|
|
True story: the only reason the Second New Deal happened is because Huey Long intended to run as president from the left and FDR had to outmaneuver him.quote:With the Senate unwilling to support his proposals, in February 1934 Long formed a national political organization, the Share Our Wealth Society. A network of local clubs led by national organizer Reverend Gerald L. K. Smith, the Share Our Wealth Society was intended to operate outside of and in opposition to the Democratic Party and the Roosevelt administration. By 1935, the society had over 7.5 million members in 27,000 clubs across the country. Long's Senate office received an average of 60,000 letters a week. Some historians believe that pressure from Long and his organization contributed to Roosevelt's "turn to the left" in 1935. He enacted the Second New Deal, including the Social Security Act, the Works Progress Administration, the National Labor Relations Board, Aid to Dependent Children, the National Youth Administration, and the Wealth Tax Act of 1935. In private, Roosevelt candidly admitted to trying to "steal Long's thunder."[40] So yeah, the most progressive policies enacted in American history happened because of a third party threat from the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
also the people accusing me of demanding ideological purity are not getting what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that if you want actual progressive policy to be pushed by the Democratic Party that's not just the mildest of reforms, you need a real threat of a third party revolt of the left. As long as they are content they will continue the path of New Democrat neoliberalism. This is not a demand for purity, this is 100% practical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:The GOP is awful but conservatives have been saying that the Democratic Party establishment is, in fact, totally cynical and willing to just call people racists or misogynists as a political bludgeon whether or not the charges are true. And they're just as sincere in their belief they're not racist for thinking Obama is corrupt and uppity as you are in thinking it's not sexist to call Hillary a conniving money obsessed shrew. LuciferMorningstar posted:This is really the core of the matter, and it's not disingenuous or wrong. You may notice this, if this is possible, it's exactly what the radical left has been doing sine 1978. Tell me, how much have the Democrats bent over backwards since then to cater to socialists?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:also the people accusing me of demanding ideological purity are not getting what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that if you want actual progressive policy to be pushed by the Democratic Party that's not just the mildest of reforms, you need a real threat of a third party revolt of the left. As long as they are content they will continue the path of New Democrat neoliberalism. This is not a demand for purity, this is 100% practical. The current Democratic party is willing and able to deliver on social policy but personally I think any sustanable economic and ecologic policies are a pipe dream with these campaign finance laws
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
With regard to Democrats vs. Republicans, I submit this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk Neil deGrasse Tyson explains that Republicans invest more heavily in science, because there's pressure on Democratic presidents from the religious right to not invest in science. I would make the argument--partially based on this--that politics is more nuanced and less about Democrats vs. Republicans than most people like to admit. I'm not sure if a Republican president could have gotten away with proposing the same degree of cuts to Medicare/SS that Obama proposed shortly after getting into office (and this was still when the Democrats held great majorities in both houses), the increase in drone strikes, the escalation of the Afghanistan War, the utter explosion of the national security state, the kill list etc. Under Bush, Congressional Democrats would more often vote against such policies and try to promote themselves as opponents of the "neocon/Republican" agenda, whereas now they vote largely in lockstep with Obama. It's also important to recall that Bill Clinton was perhaps the most successful president at implementing austerity in history (albeit with the help of a super Republican Congress). The Democrats are also gatekeepers of the left, in that they actively discourage people from voting for or promoting third parties via fear mongering (warning people about Nader, etc.) in addition to infiltrating protest movements through their vassal organizations (MoveOn, etc.). We like to believe that Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but Bill Clinton bombed Iraq multiple times and maintained sanctions on the country which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He also claimed that Iraq had WMDs as president. One can only wonder what would have happened if 9/11 had occurred during his presidency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:32
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:also the people accusing me of demanding ideological purity are not getting what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that if you want actual progressive policy to be pushed by the Democratic Party that's not just the mildest of reforms, you need a real threat of a third party revolt of the left. As long as they are content they will continue the path of New Democrat neoliberalism. This is not a demand for purity, this is 100% practical. I agree in large part with this. I would also argue that a domestic agenda of reform is possible with a large movement; FDR had to deal with the strongest labor movement in history during his presidency, and LBJ had to deal with the Civil Rights movement. I'm increasingly skeptical of the potential for reform with such a global neoliberal status quo though. We've seen "socialists" in European countries impose brutal austerity measures time and time again, and these political parties often had to deal with stronger labor movements than that of the U.S. and often have political platforms similar to (if not to the left of) the U.S. Green Party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:I'm not sure if a Republican president could have gotten away with proposing the same degree of cuts to Medicare/SS that Obama proposed shortly after getting into office Respectively, you don't go to an astrophysicist for an informed take on congressional funding. Unrespectively, the above is the most incredible wrong headed thing posted in a series of pages of wrong headed things posted in a thread rapidly spiraling into unreadability. Jesus christ, learn some history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:37
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:also the people accusing me of demanding ideological purity are not getting what I'm saying at all - I'm saying that if you want actual progressive policy to be pushed by the Democratic Party that's not just the mildest of reforms, you need a real threat of a third party revolt of the left. As long as they are content they will continue the path of New Democrat neoliberalism. This is not a demand for purity, this is 100% practical. You are proposing that a Leftist analog of the Tea Party threaten to unseat incumbent Democrats? What will be our #cuckservative analog?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Respectively, you don't go to an astrophysicist for an informed take on congressional funding. Unrespectively, the above is the most incredible wrong headed thing posted in a series of pages of wrong headed things posted in a thread rapidly spiraling into unreadability. Jesus christ, learn some history. Can you expound upon this? PM if you think it better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
lol what is this amateur hour conversation about candidates in the general election vote platform in the general, scrubs
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Unless you are literally a millionaire, you should not be donating money to Hillary Clinton. She'll have plenty. Good time to give to the DGA instead maybe, if you want to make a donation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:True story: the only reason the Second New Deal happened is because Huey Long intended to run as president from the left and FDR had to outmaneuver him. I'ma say to you what I say to Republicans who seem to have a blind spot for the southern strategy - give an example from the last 50 years, fucktard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:54
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Thats a brilliant strategy if your goal is to convince the Democratic party leaders that leftists aren't worth bothering with and they need to skew more Republican Light. If you keep reading, it should be clear that I basically agree with you. As far as Bernie and socialism are concerned, abstaining from voting isn't a viable strategy.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 11:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'ma say to you what I say to Republicans who seem to have a blind spot for the southern strategy - give an example from the last 50 years, fucktard. Dixiecrats being co-opted into the Republicans by the Southern Strategy would be a relevant example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:02
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:If you keep reading, it should be clear that I basically agree with you. As far as Bernie and socialism are concerned, abstaining from voting isn't a viable strategy. But even in the best of situations it still only hurts you. There is no strategy wherein a coordinated effort to stay home could do anything but harm your cause. If you communicate that the Democrats as they exist now are unpalatable to you, what that communicates is that you are a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
Obama better Czech himself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfZ-4j_8iMw
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
FaustianQ posted:Can you expound upon this? PM if you think it better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Dixiecrats being co-opted into the Republicans by the Southern Strategy would be a relevant example. If we're using that as an example, all this would do is cause progressives to being open to being brainwashed by Republicans to vote against their interests under the principle of gently caress China.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
As someone who will be voting for Bernie in the primary, I must say that seeing the Bernie stans crushed under the weight of reality will be another of this elections finer pleasures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:14
|
|
Fulchrum posted:But even in the best of situations it still only hurts you. There is no strategy wherein a coordinated effort to stay home could do anything but harm your cause. If you communicate that the Democrats as they exist now are unpalatable to you, what that communicates is that you are a lost cause. Abstention can absolutely be a viable strategy, but I do agree that staying home is probably inferior to something like a protest vote. The problem is that multiple conditions have to be met in order for the establishment to actually take note and react in the desired fashion. Where national politics is concerned, I figure the two primary conditions that would have to be met are 1) that enough individuals protest vote/abstain (loudly) to demonstrate that the election results are not just a product of voter suppression or apathy, and 2) that there are enough individuals participating to make it clear that the party can't attract voters from another ideological leaning by going in a direction that is not desired by the protesters. The problem with achieving (1) is that voter turnout is a pretty obvious problem in the US, so a small movement could easily go unnoticed or disregarded. This is especially true if a party could make up for the protest-vote loss by putting more into GOTV efforts. The problem with (2) is that, as you previously pointed out, it's totally plausible that the Democrats could snipe some moderate Republicans by moving to the right, which leaves the protesting leftists even more sidelined than they previously were. Thus, I can only conclude that protest voting at the national level will probably not work (in the context of not voting because Bernie didn't get the nomination), even if it has theoretical plausibility. Communicating that you don't like a party as it exists doesn't necessarily make you a lost cause. If the subset of voters you represent take more effort to win over than they're actually worth, than yeah, you're part of a lost cause. But if the group can actually pose a threat, then you're going to get some attention paid to you. The growing Latino population is a pretty good example of this. The RNC wanted to try to reign Trump in a bit because they recognized he was damaging their relationship with the Latino population. They recognize that they need to, at some point soon, figure out how to become more palatable to Latinos, while also maintaining their relationship with their current base.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:What makes him unelectable? Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 12:57
|
|
|
 Also it's last week's poll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform "Bowles-Simpson, while never officially coming to a vote, has received significant attention since its inception. The National Journal noted that, “Hardly a day goes by in Congress or on the hustings without some lawmaker extolling Simpson-Bowles as the kind of potent fiscal medicine Americans must swallow if the country is to fix its debt and deficit problems, reform government and revive the economy.”[21] The Simpson-Bowles framework and its goal of $4 trillion of deficit reduction has been used by other, such as President Obama and Speaker Boehner in their negotiations during the summer of 2011. A Senate “Gang of Six”,[22] with Senators Mark Warner, Kent Conrad, Richard Durbin, Tom Coburn, Mike Crapo and Saxby Chambliss, was formed attempting to forge a consensus on deficit reduction. Later, Senators Mike Bennett and Mike Johans. The Gang of 6 released their plan during the summer of 2011, during the Debt Ceiling negotiations, but since then has continued to work on ways to forge a way to avoid the fiscal cliff." Obama establishing this commission has done more to affect the debate on Social Security in the direction of raising the retirement age and benefit cuts than the actions of any preceding president. On the other hand, Bush's 2005 proposals were irrelevant within a year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 13:02
|
|