|
Sanders would still have to compromise on stuff like budget and debt ceiling. That's the big issue. I have no doubts the HFC would drive the country over that cliff if they could. Sanders not giving up enough ground gives more votes to them. Regardless, having a non-crazy person control enough nuclear fire power to end life is priority #1.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Sanders would still have to compromise on stuff like budget and debt ceiling. That's the big issue. I have no doubts the HFC would drive the country over that cliff if they could. Sanders not giving up enough ground gives more votes to them. the thing is we can't keep doing this. every time we've compromised the left has lost a little more for a 1 year extension on the life of our economy. if we keep on giving in because they're holding the economy hostage they'll never stop. obama never should have played this game in the first place edit: like you said, the hfc would drive the country over the cliff if they could, and they are growing in power every year (look at trump, the current frontrunner of the republican primaries). negotiating losses with the remainder of the sane republicans is a temporary solution that will eventually fail when the hfc gains enough power to force a default Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
It's only after you've lost everything that you are free to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Only thing a Sanders Presidency would do in our political climate is absolutely gently caress all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Only thing a Sanders Presidency would do in our political climate is absolutely gently caress all. i dunno, he could actually push for serious punishment of white collar crime (ie: the whole hsbc shebang)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
I want to vote in a trickster god that will fool dumbass GOP reps into instituting UHC by telling them they are voting on a bill to repeal Obamacare which would technically be true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:46
|
|
|
I want another president who will be passsively swept along by right wing rhetoric. The age of big government is over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Personally, I'm putting my hopes and prayers in the "Tortilla Coast burns down in mysterious gas main explosion. There were no survivors" basket. Not much else will stop them using the global economy as a hostage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Personally, I'm putting my hopes and prayers in the "Tortilla Coast burns down in mysterious gas main explosion. There were no survivors" basket. Not much else will stop them using the global economy as a hostage. Not cruel enough for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the thing is we can't keep doing this. every time we've compromised the left has lost a little more for a 1 year extension on the life of our economy. if we keep on giving in because they're holding the economy hostage they'll never stop. obama never should have played this game in the first place Unfortunately, I don't think anyone can scrape the votes together to have the Raiders dragged out of congress and executed for treason, Sanders or Clinton. Some Patriots the GOP has in their midst 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I'm kinda surprised Bernie hasn't released a health care plan yet, there must be a couple of UHC plans already scored by the CBO ready to pick from. I think his 2013 plan was CBO scored, but it has the issue of leaving 9% to the states to pick up (which as we've seen isn't a great idea,) Single-payer is a winner in Dem primaries, but it's not in the general and there's virtually zero chance even with Dem majorities of it happening. [this isn't to say it's not what I want] If Hillary is smart, she'll pivot off this ASAP because it's clearly not working. She could pivot and say "what we need is a public option for ACA." The middle ground between a single-payer and our current system that, with a Dem Majority in congress, could maybe get done (I don't think it could be done through essentially executive fiat.) Condiv posted:i dunno, he could actually push for serious punishment of white collar crime (ie: the whole hsbc shebang) From their plans, Hillary's contains more teeth for going after white-collar stuff. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
I'm not a big fan of the Madisonian separation between executive and congress in general. In the context of US federal elections it leads to unproductive discussion over the personality of presidential nominees. In a parliamentary system at least in principle you're just voting for the party and the party leader matter less. For the 2016 Democratic nominee it's especially ridiculous, as the winner will at best be a walking veto stamp until 2020. People in this thread are still actually suggesting their preferred democratic candidate knows the magic spell to make congress functional, instead of actually discussing how to actually win off-year races. I'm not American, so feel free to ignore my dumb opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I'm not a big fan of the Madisonian separation between executive and congress in general. In the context of US federal elections it leads to unproductive discussion over the personality of presidential nominees. In a parliamentary system at least in principle you're just voting for the party and the party leader matter less. For the 2016 Democratic nominee it's especially ridiculous, as the winner will at best be a walking veto stamp until 2020. People in this thread are still actually suggesting their preferred democratic candidate knows the magic spell to make congress functional, instead of actually discussing how to actually win off-year races. I'm not American, so feel free to ignore my dumb opinion. pretty much this, which is why none of the constitutions we've written for other countries are Madisonian
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I'm not a big fan of the Madisonian separation between executive and congress in general. In the context of US federal elections it leads to unproductive discussion over the personality of presidential nominees. In a parliamentary system at least in principle you're just voting for the party and the party leader matter less. For the 2016 Democratic nominee it's especially ridiculous, as the winner will at best be a walking veto stamp until 2020. People in this thread are still actually suggesting their preferred democratic candidate knows the magic spell to make congress functional, instead of actually discussing how to actually win off-year races. I'm not American, so feel free to ignore my dumb opinion. The interesting thing about the Republican Primary is that there's an opportunity for, really for the first time since Reagan a leader of the actual Movement itself to be nominated, and they are in a battle for the "soul" of the party. The Democrats, meanwhile, are stuck in an uneasy position. We can't or won't openly admit that we're pining our entire electoral fortunes on changing demographics -- which basically just depend on Republicans remaining opposed to gay marriage, immigration reform, and basic social justice. And to be honest, there's really nothing Hillary or Bernie can say or do about fixing the sort of broken apparatus at the state level needed to recoup our losses. 2016 does bode well for us to maybe get the Senate back, and there's a decent chance 2017 and 18 could be good for Governor's races, but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:From their plans, Hillary's contains more teeth for going after white-collar stuff. could you link to something about this? i currently have no faith she will push for prosecution of white collar criminals more than obama has (which is barely at all).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:could you link to something about this? i currently have no faith she will push for prosecution of white collar criminals more than obama has (which is barely at all). Obama admin is stepping that up under Lynch, tbh. Post Eric Holder DoJ is way more interested in it. But here's Wonkblog's take on Hillary's proposal, which in a lot of ways goes after them more than Bernie's plan -- which is more focused on populist stuff like "break up the banks." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/07/hillary-clinton-has-a-new-plan-to-stiffen-wall-street-penalties/ It's a shame this isn't where the media made Hillary and Bernie battle, because it's really the best example of how the two fundamentally approach issues. Bernie talks about completely forming the financial system in broad, structuralist terms that would require a great deal of cooperation in congress. Hillary talks about incremental changes to laws already in place to address the same issues. So for example, Bernie just wants to break up "too-big-too-fail banks." He's sort of nebulous about what that would look like and how he would go about it. Hillary, otoh, says that's not really the best way to achieve what they both want and instead basically built her policy of the Obama Plan That Wasn't to use taxes and fees to force banks to do what we want them to anyway. The single-payer fight is really the same basic argument. Hillary is more or less saying improve on ACA (as a retrench of the Obama years) while Bernie is saying "I want to change the basic structure of how we deliver healthcare in this country." BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The single-payer fight is really the same basic argument. Hillary is more or less saying improve on ACA (as a retrench of the Obama years) while Bernie is saying "I want to change the basic structure of how we deliver healthcare in this country." Both of which are completely reasonable approaches, considering their objectives as candidates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Both of which are completely reasonable approaches, considering their objectives as candidates. Agreed. Just trying to explain it. I am kind of (annoyed) surprised that the usually on-point Sarah Kliff is misreading it as a subtle attack on single payer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Looking through the weeds of the DMR poll, it looks like Iowa is going to entirely turn on if Bernie can turn out first-time caucus goers and whether or not the Clinton ground game in Iowa is as good as it's reportedly supposed to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Obama admin is stepping that up under Lynch, tbh. Post Eric Holder DoJ is way more interested in it. breaking up the banks goes after them less than a plan that promises to treat them a bit more harshly and actually enforce the law, but reserves the right to have "special exceptions"? is the full text of this plan out yet? also, i think hillary's refusal to even consider reimplementing glass-steagall speaks poorly of her plans. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Agreed. Just trying to explain it. how can you consider hillary's recent statements about bernie's plans as anything other than an attack on single payer? she has pretty much said that single-payer is totally unfeasible for the country and we need to stick with the status quo. not that it's not politically feasible at the moment, just that it's not doable. to me and many others that's a pretty big betrayal
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Remember the guy in Louisiana who tried to pull a James Holmes last summer? Turns out he was a big Dylann Roof fan who wished Roof had been old enough to realize that the real problem is "not n****r[s], but liberal[s]". So someone took Jim David Adkisson's manifesto to heart? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:breaking up the banks goes after them less than a plan that promises to treat them a bit more harshly and actually enforce the law, but reserves the right to have "special exceptions"? is the full text of this plan out yet? Its up on her website (has been for months now). She also explains, at length, why Glass-Steagall isn't needed now and wants to, instead, strength Dodd-Frank. It goes after them in a different, and somewhat more meaningful way. "Breaking up the big banks" is a really populist line that the Occupy crowd likes to hear, but in actual policy, it's not that simple and it's not clear how he would do it and if it would actually work. Here's a good Vox piece looking at it in more depth: http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform Condiv posted:how can you consider hillary's recent statements about bernie's plans as anything other than an attack on single payer? she has pretty much said that single-payer is totally unfeasible for the country and we need to stick with the status quo. not that it's not politically feasible at the moment, just that it's not doable. to me and many others that's a pretty big betrayal Because I am reading it in broader context of her overall political message. I don't think it's fair to read it otherwise. And I as I said, it's disappointing that the media hasn't made this the way we think about the differences in the candidates (because it's a nuanced reading of their differences, and the modern media seemingly can't fathom nuance.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Speaking of State Legislatures, there's a non-zero chance WV's Senate could flip back to Democrat OR result in a constitutional crisis that could kill the leading Republican candidate for governor's chances if he defies a court order to fill a vacated seat of a Senator who changed affiliation after the 14 mid-terms but has now resigned: http://wvpublic.org/post/wva-supreme-court-decide-how-fill-vacant-senate-seat 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
That's how I've seen it for quite a while. Hillary is about staying the course that Obama started, which is a fairly safe and (at least for the Democratic Primary) fairly effective one. Bernie meanwhile is about fundamental change in general, without exact specifics. He's about "Hope and Change", which ironically also makes him like Obama. So basically, Democratic voters have a choice between saying "was Obama's plans right, they just need time to be implemented" or "Was Obama's plan's wrong, but this next guy who's preaching just like him will be right".
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's how I've seen it for quite a while. Hillary is about staying the course that Obama started, which is a fairly safe and (at least for the Democratic Primary) fairly effective one. Bernie meanwhile is about fundamental change in general, without exact specifics. He's about "Hope and Change", which ironically also makes him like Obama. Essentially yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Its up on her website (has been for months now). She also explains, at length, why Glass-Steagall isn't needed now and wants to, instead, strength Dodd-Frank. It goes after them in a different, and somewhat more meaningful way. "Breaking up the big banks" is a really populist line that the Occupy crowd likes to hear, but in actual policy, it's not that simple and it's not clear how he would do it and if it would actually work. breaking up huge corporations (like AT&T) worked in the past somehow, but i guess the art of that's been lost to the ages. i don't see any reasoning in her wall street section on why glass-steagall isn't needed anymore, but didn't she and her husband argue the same thing before its repeal (which subsequently allowed the 2008 crash?). i see some nice thing about using taxes to try to slim banks down, but i don't see why we don't just do it directly rather than this indirect nudging that may or may not work. the rest of the policies for wall street look a lot weaker than what you linked me earlier. quote:Because I am reading it in broader context of her overall political message. I don't think it's fair to read it otherwise. first of all, hillary has been anything but fair recently to bernie, so i don't know why you think anyone should extend that courtesy to her. and second, it sounds to me like you're upset the media isn't puzzling together hillary's argument properly when hillary herself has failed to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
The choice with Bernie isn't (and never has been) to believe his plans have any chance of becoming law - Hillary's probably don't either! Instead, it's about forcing them into the mainstream of Democratic party policy objectives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The choice with Bernie isn't (and never has been) to believe his plans have any chance of becoming law - Hillary's probably don't either! Instead, it's about forcing them into the mainstream of Democratic party policy objectives. This, Bernie outright stated at the start of his run that even getting a large amount of the voter even if he doesn't win in the Primary will be a victory because it sends a message about what the party base wants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:If Hillary is smart, she'll pivot off this ASAP because it's clearly not working. She could pivot and say "what we need is a public option for ACA." The middle ground between a single-payer and our current system that, with a Dem Majority in congress, could maybe get done (I don't think it could be done through essentially executive fiat.) Yeah, from a Hillary campaign perspective this is a really good idea, certainly a lot better than what she's doing now. This is how being a moderate Democrat should function too, at least in theory. Joementum posted:The choice with Bernie isn't (and never has been) to believe his plans have any chance of becoming law - Hillary's probably don't either! Instead, it's about forcing them into the mainstream of Democratic party policy objectives. And that is not only good for people who support those plan, but for the country in general because they're almost all better than the mainstream party line. If "I want a president who HATES the other party" is your objective you should stop following politics and start watching professional wrestling, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:breaking up huge corporations (like AT&T) worked in the past somehow, but i guess the art of that's been lost to the ages. i don't see any reasoning in her wall street section on why glass-steagall isn't needed anymore, but didn't she and her husband argue the same thing before its repeal (which subsequently allowed the 2008 crash?). i see some nice thing about using taxes to try to slim banks down, but i don't see why we don't just do it directly rather than this indirect nudging that may or may not work. the rest of the policies for wall street look a lot weaker than what you linked me earlier. She's saying we don't /need/ Glass-Steagal because the Volcker Rule in Dodd-Frank /already/ does what Glass-Steagal did but /better/ because the banking industry and technology have drastically changed. You're also confusing breaking up monopoly trusts with financial institutions. There's also debate among scholars on whether or not Glass-Steagal really would have prevented a crash or not, and a larger point is -- it wouldn't have survived the Bush Administration even if it hadn't been repealed in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. Further her plan is to strength Volker to tackle what a lot of people believe to be a bigger threat to the financial sector anyway: hedge funds. Again it essentially comes back to what I said before: Clinton's MO has been strengthen the gains of the Obama administration, while Bernie's are rework the system entirely around his structualist critique. They're both valid approaches. Condiv posted:first of all, hillary has been anything but fair recently to bernie, so i don't know why you think anyone should extend that courtesy to her. and second, it sounds to me like you're upset the media isn't puzzling together hillary's argument properly when hillary herself has failed to do so. I don't think you understand what the word fair means in this context. Re: my comment about Kliff -- she's not entirely a politics reporter, she's a healthcare policy reporter so she is less likely to see it in the broader context of Hillary's message. My comment about the media is lamenting that they aren't showing the /actual/ differences between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:This, Bernie outright stated at the start of his run that even getting a large amount of the voter even if he doesn't win in the Primary will be a victory because it sends a message about what the party base wants. No, he didn't. quote:"I am running in this election to win," he said. "We've got a long path forward. Most people in America have never heard of Bernie Sanders. More than 90% of Americans have heard of Hillary Clinton. ... I will absolutely be out-spent. But I do believe we have a chance to raise significant amounts of money through small, individual contributions." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/04/29/bernie-sanders-interview-democratic-presidential-race/26576639/ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/30/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-for-president.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She's saying we don't /need/ Glass-Steagal because the Volcker Rule in Dodd-Frank /already/ does what Glass-Steagal did but /better/ because the banking industry and technology have drastically changed. You're also confusing breaking up monopoly trusts with financial institutions. There's also debate among scholars on whether or not Glass-Steagal really would have prevented a crash or not, and a larger point is -- it wouldn't have survived the Bush Administration even if it hadn't been repealed in the waning days of the Clinton Administration. Further her plan is to strength Volker to tackle what a lot of people believe to be a bigger threat to the financial sector anyway: hedge funds. by that reasoning her upgrades to financial laws won't survive the next republican government so she shouldn't even bother. and krugman at least seems to think the repeal of glass steagall was a mistake. as far as i'm aware dodd-frank in general was weaker than glass-steagall and closing the hedgefund loophole does not seem to be enough to replace glass-steagall, but if you have a convincing argument about why dodd-frank with this hedgefund loophole closure is more than enough i'm willing to hear it. quote:Again it essentially comes back to what I said before: Clinton's MO has been strengthen the gains of the Obama administration, while Bernie's are rework the system entirely around his structualist critique. They're both valid approaches. my problem is the gains of the obama administration have been pretty miniscule while we have a new recession looming. making more miniscule adjustments doesn't seem to be enough to deal with the issues our financial markets are having right now quote:I don't think you understand what the word fair means in this context. no i'm fairly sure i understand. i just think it's silly to argue that the press needs to add context to hillary's arguments when she removed context from bernie's in order to make an attack on him. hillary chose to oversimplify the description of bernie's plans in a way that could be understood as a deliberate attempt to deceive, and because of that it now looks like she's attacking single payer. if she had argued like you had, that bernie's plan was too radical a change at that moment and we should try incremental change she would not be getting the blowback she's getting right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
"Really shameful, how low the Labour bigshots will go to smear and impede Corbyn." "Hillary and other Goldman-Sachs-fellating Dem capos are fully justified in using Newt Gingrich talking points against Sanders." Cognitive dissonance is a far-out game. Not saying anoyone should see Bernie as the second coming of socialist Jesus, but people's ability to freak out whenever anyone keen on doing more than paint zebra crossings around the rampaging Truckosaurus of elite greed and then wonder how the Overton Window has done an end-run to the right has crossed from being amusing to being sad a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:No, he didn't. Shifting the overton window and shaping the parties approach despite losing is a very well documented thing. I never said he wasn't running to win, just that if he doesn't not all is lost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Also, lol'ing at the idea that the "choice" for democrats is between following the Obama administration's great "gains" and reworking the entire system. I don't know about you, but since I'm not a billionaire, my life hasn't improved in the last 8 years. Why would I want someone as president who will continue to do more of the same?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Shifting the overton window and shaping the parties approach despite losing is a very well documented thing. I never said he wasn't running to win, just that if he doesn't not all is lost. You said he outright stated that he wanted to do that. Where is this statement?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fb41566bdcb14aefb2dc8b153291cd88/republican-party-begins-preparing-contested-convention BRB, putting all my money into stocks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:42
|
|
goes here.
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You said he outright stated that he wanted to do that. Where is this statement? wait lol are you asking me to cite were Bernie Sanders has said he wants to send a message about what the people want from their party? Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Both of which are completely reasonable approaches, considering their objectives as candidates. It would seem as though both of these career politicians are actually a lot more astute and realistic than quivering hordes of Internet people would like to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Shifting the overton window and shaping the parties approach despite losing is a very well documented thing. I never said he wasn't running to win, just that if he doesn't not all is lost. Sephyr posted:"Really shameful, how low the Labour bigshots will go to smear and impede Corbyn." "Overton Window" Banaza Up in This Bitch -- Condiv posted:by that reasoning her upgrades to financial laws won't survive the next republican government so she shouldn't even bother. That's not how reasoning works. Condiv posted:and krugman at least seems to think the repeal of glass steagall was a mistake. as far as i'm aware dodd-frank in general was weaker than glass-steagall and closing the hedgefund loophole does not seem to be enough to replace glass-steagall, but if you have a convincing argument about why dodd-frank with this hedgefund loophole closure is more than enough i'm willing to hear it. Glass-Steagal was designed to handle banking problems from 1934. Technology has move banking way beyond the differences the two. The idea is to build on Dodd-Frank as a starting point and make it stronger and more robust. Condiv posted:my problem is the gains of the obama administration have been pretty miniscule while we have a new recession looming. making more miniscule adjustments doesn't seem to be enough to deal with the issues our financial markets are having right now That's essentially the debate between Sanders and Clinton that I've spent a dozen posts trying to explain to you. Though I don;t think you really get the differences in "financial regulation" and "economic security." [ If for some reason the US does slip back into recession -- possible, though not likely -- it won't be because of the banks, it will be because of forces almost entirely out of the control of Obama's administration and mostly tied to something with China] The bigger issue is figuring out what the Democrats are going to propose as party orthodoxy. Are we going to essentially say "well Obama tried, but we need to completely remake the system" or are we saying "we have made incredible progress under Obama and the future is building on those progress in incremental fashion." Condiv posted:no i'm fairly sure i understand. i just think it's silly to argue that the press needs to add context to hillary's arguments when she removed context from bernie's in order to make an attack on him. hillary chose to oversimplify the description of bernie's plans in a way that could be understood as a deliberate attempt to deceive, and because of that it now looks like she's attacking single payer. if she had argued like you had, that bernie's plan was too radical a change at that moment and we should try incremental change she would not be getting the blowback she's getting right now. No you're missing the point entirely. But that's pretty clear. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:47
|
|