|
Electric Bugaloo posted: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. I'm just having a hard time understanding the strategy that Clinton is trying to use against Sanders in regards to healthcare. I understand their objectives and end-goals, but it really seems like what she is doing right now is not only bad for the party but bad for her own campaign. Maybe this is like a dog whistle and while I can't hear it what she's saying makes perfect sense to ye olde Moderate Iowa Voter?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted: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? You were the one claiming that Sanders outright stated it... unless you're just making poo poo up you should have no problem finding a transcript that backs up what you're saying. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted: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? Obama is hanging around 82% job approval among Democrats, which is higher than Ronald Reagan among Republicans at this equivalent point in his Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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. Recession looming: every month ever except ones during a recession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I'm just having a hard time understanding the strategy that Clinton is trying to use against Sanders in regards to healthcare. I understand their objectives and end-goals, but it really seems like what she is doing right now is not only bad for the party but bad for her own campaign. Maybe this is like a dog whistle and while I can't hear it what she's saying makes perfect sense to ye olde Moderate Iowa Voter? It generally is I think, and to a degree it's about playing up that she's the candidate that will Defend the Obama Legacy, while Bernie's BERN IT ALL DOWN will endanger the gains we have made during the Obama years. I think the execution could have been better, but that's why having Bernie in this contest is a good thing for her. As Greg Sargent put it, if this does not kill her campaign, it will absolutely make it stronger.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You were the one claiming that Sanders outright stated it... unless you're just making poo poo up you should have no problem finding a transcript that backs up what you're saying. I am indeed making things up. Bernie has never called for a political revolution and has made no statements regarding sending a message to the Democratic Party about what people want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You were the one claiming that Sanders outright stated it... unless you're just making poo poo up you should have no problem finding a transcript that backs up what you're saying. it's fine to ask people for sources, but saying "i'm running to win" and saying "even if i don't win, if i get a lot of votes it will send a message about what the people want" aren't incompatible
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Recession looming: every month ever except ones during a recession. yeah.... there's no signs at all of an upcoming recession. like for example a recent bubble in tech that's starting to deflate, china's markets crashing, overinflated house and rental prices in numerous cities in the us. nope, no signs of economic issues looming at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:I am indeed making things up. Bernie has never called for a political revolution and has made no statements regarding sending a message to the Democratic Party about what people want.  And you still haven't posted a single quote or transcript. Go ahead, I'm still waiting for that transcript from earlier in 2015 where Bernie says that even if he doesn't win the presidential nomination, it will still be a victory because of the message it sends. Any day now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
As much as I am loathe to back VS, he's correct. Bernie has /always/ said that even if he doesn't win, his candidacy is about keeping the left honest and about moving the conversation onto more leftist grounds. The left really doesn't have a lot of "end goal" differences. Like Hillary and Bernie essentially want the same end policy results. They have different views on how to get there. That's the choice. "What are the policy methods the Democratic Party are going to propose as contrast to the Republicans in November."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah.... there's no signs at all of an upcoming recession. like for example a recent bubble in tech that's starting to deflate, china's markets crashing, overinflated house and rental prices in numerous cities in the us. nope, no signs of economic issues looming at all Never said there wasn't one coming. They come every few years like a lunar eclipse but for cash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Never said there wasn't one coming. They come every few years like a lunar eclipse. the tech bubble and the retail issues are almost entirely due to lax financial regulation and low taxes on the ultra-rich (too much money, not enough investments that beat inflation to park it).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah.... there's no signs at all of an upcoming recession. like for example a recent bubble in tech that's starting to deflate, china's markets crashing, overinflated house and rental prices in numerous cities in the us. nope, no signs of economic issues looming at all China's struggles are good for the US economy since we import a good amount of products from them. It would hurt the US if the US invested in China or sold lots of goods to China. Australia is fuuucked though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Look, Bernie has made it pretty crystal clear that he will destroy the status quo for Wall Street. Meanwhile, Hillary is happy to continue the current status quo and I guess maybe enforce the laws harder? I don't trust that. Her record on Wall Street is pretty poor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:China's struggles are good for the US economy since we import a good amount of products from them. It would hurt the US if the US invested in China or sold lots of goods to China. apparently a lot of american companies have been relying on china to boost their sales cause of the american public's lower consumption levels since the last recession (apparently the average american hasn't recovered from the last recession, who knew?) so yeah, this is bad for america and it's making stocks skittish right now
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Look, Bernie has made it pretty crystal clear that he will destroy the status quo for Wall Street. Meanwhile, Hillary is happy to continue the current status quo and I guess maybe enforce the laws harder? I don't trust that. Her record on Wall Street is pretty poor. Her "record" Condiv posted:apparently a lot of american companies have been relying on china to boost their sales cause of the american public's lower consumption levels since the last recession (apparently the average american hasn't recovered from the last recession, who knew?) You're exaggerating, at best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
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 On the other hand, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Her attacks on Bernie are pretty lovely, and remind me of how power hungry she seems. Here's hoping she doesn't pull the same sort of poo poo her husband did in the name of "compromise" and dismantle vital services and sign terrible trade agreements that only Republicans support.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Her attacks on Bernie are pretty lovely, and remind me of how power hungry she seems. Here's hoping she doesn't pull the same sort of poo poo her husband did in the name of "compromise" and dismantle vital services and sign terrible trade agreements that only Republicans support. "I am totally just reading a narrative into this that I already decided upon, it's cool."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:China's struggles are good for the US economy since we import a good amount of products from them. It would hurt the US if the US invested in China or sold lots of goods to China. We still export ~$130B worth of goods to them, though. And decreased demand for commodities in China affects us indirectly including but not limited to falling commodity prices like copper and oil and their effects on US stock markets. EDIT: Not to mention if Australia is fuuuucked, that's also bad for us. Also also not to mention that many Chinese have invested in US and Canadian housing. It wouldn't be a 2008-level crisis but if the Chinese upper-middle and upper classes all had to pull out their "cash under the mattress" AKA their investments in the North American housing market, that's not a good thing. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
China as a Contagion is a real thing, but it's not really easy to predict what effects it could have, and in anycase, are unrelated to US Financial Industry Regulation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
blue squares posted:On the other hand, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/ i can only hope america is moving left, but that doesn't undo the strong hold the repubs have on the house at the moment, and the republicans are currently being cannibalized by their tea party wing. unless we swing left enough to unless we swing left enough to break the hold on the house we will sooner than later have to face off against tea partiers trying to wreck the economy. if the remaining sane republicans aren't woken up to the fact that they can't hold the economy hostage for political gain, the tea party wing will eventually finish the economy off for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the tech bubble and the retail issues are almost entirely due to lax financial regulation and low taxes on the ultra-rich (too much money, not enough investments that beat inflation to park it). Are you a grad student graduating in may or something? All doom and gloom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Wow, ok. A) the "she is just asking questions" point is laughable on its face and B) she was attacking what she claimed were the details, twice just that day And that sort of blinkered candidate cheerleading over the platform does need to get called out because... 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. ...of this. The problem here isn't the specifics of either plan, the problem here is people convincing themselves single-payer is bad because of candidate loyalty. She isn't making an argument for incremental change, she is attacking the idea of a single payer system and going after Bernie with the line that he will leave you uncovered while jacking your tax. She is framing single payer as schroedinger's health care, which will cost a gillion dollars while covering no one. That it will be an over bloated federal program while being a state program gutted by republican governors. As much as I loath Ron Fournier, this type of thing is where it really is a question of leadership. Proposing a step series while praising the end goal like Obama has done is very different from attacking the very concept as Hillary has done. Symbols, rhetoric, and messaging matters. That's why we created this things in the first place. It is one thing to point out problems, say things are politically unfeasible, too disruptive to the status quo, too big a burden on families in the present economic environment. Those are real arguments, legitimate and mostly true. She isn't doing that. She is making the argument that single payer is scary and bad and will cost way more money. You don't make the mad leap into single payer for a host of policy problems. But if we put Hillary in with her explicitly anti-single payer position, what does that do for the platform and our attempts to enact single payer in 20 years? The argument for Hillary is that Republicans control congress for a generation, their likely candidate is a monster, and the Democrats will do their best to at least not make enacting their platform less likely in the future, so pick the most electable one because "remember Bush/Gore/Nader?" She is jettisoning that to shift the democratic platform to the right. That is the problem, that needs to have a spotlight shown on it, and people trying to paper over that need to be called out. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jan 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:"Really shameful, how low the Labour bigshots will go to smear and impede Corbyn." Who are you strawmanning here? I don't think I've seen that at all
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:No. I don't give a poo poo about arguing the specifics of tax relations and health policy. If people here want an effort post on that they can pay me like everyone else. You finally ended up with something in the rough ballpark of it, but I'm calling out your earlier versions, specifically the first (which didn't have a link to anywhere) where you lied about her attacks. You claimed she wasn't going after details but were instead questioning how it would work. Now you dropped this, presumably because I completely disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"I am totally just reading a narrative into this that I already decided upon, it's cool." Err, I'm voting for her. She's going to be the next president. I haven't decided poo poo otherwise. But, if you think those aren't valid fears of a Clinton, after Glass Steagal, Welfare reform and NAFTA, I'm not sure what would be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I completely disagree with you. Hillary is trashing single-payer. Also chili has beans, and is spicy inducing runny nose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Err, I'm voting for her. She's going to be the next president. I haven't decided poo poo otherwise. But, if you think those aren't valid fears of a Clinton, after Glass Steagal, Welfare reform and NAFTA, I'm not sure what would be. You should mention hating gays since we're bringing up 25 year old policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Hillary is trashing single-payer. I think she's trashing it for other reasons than what he's saying, is my point. Talmonis posted:Err, I'm voting for her. She's going to be the next president. I haven't decided poo poo otherwise. But, if you think those aren't valid fears of a Clinton, after Glass Steagal, Welfare reform and NAFTA, I'm not sure what would be. A Clinton. Because Bill and Hillary are literally the same person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Are you a grad student graduating in may or something? All doom and gloom. actually i graduated a couple of months ago, and i'm not living in america anymore. that being said, i would like to return home to something other than a smoldering hellscape
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The argument for Hillary is that Republicans control congress for a generation, their likely candidate is a monster, and the Democrats will do their best to at least not make enacting their platform less likely in the future, so pick the most electable one because "remember Bush/Gore/Nader?" She is jettisoning that to shift the democratic platform to the right. That is the problem, that needs to have a spotlight shown on it, and people trying to paper over that need to be called out. Hillary has often talked about incremental reform toward a broader objective. I think it will be very interesting to see how she handles this topic when it comes up at the next debate. So far we've only heard from her surrogates on it, and heard several different things. Hillary being poorly served by her campaign surrogates is a very old story, so I want to know where she'll put her emphasis when it has to come out of her own mouth. If she attacks the broad concept of single payer, that'll be a deep stain on her candidacy. If she talks about the need to have concrete plans that are realistic and achievable to work toward full coverage, less so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:actually i graduated a couple of months ago, and i'm not living in america anymore. that being said, i would like to return home to something other than a smoldering hellscape No worries there. Trump won't win so he can't usher in Biff World.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Y'all remember when people were Arzying about President Ben Carson? His campaign finance chair just resigned for spending way too much money, including paying himself 20k a month. This is typically an unpaid, honorary position. quote:Campaign finance reports show Parker’s operation, based in Mobile, racked up at least $216,000 in expenses from July through September, the most recent quarter for which reports are publicly available. Many of those expenses were paid through a network of limited liability companies set up for individual consultants on Parker’s finance team. The bottom line is a small fraction of the millions spent on direct mail, phone solicitations and list-building in the same period. But Parker’s detractors say he also frustrated some donors with brusque behavior and infuriated a longtime Carson confidant, Terry Giles, by insinuating that Giles orchestrated a leak of internal documents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:No worries there. Trump won't win so he can't usher in Biff World. i certainly hope not, but i'm not looking forward to hillary sliding america further right either 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i certainly hope not, but i'm not looking forward to hillary sliding america further right either Out of curiosity, do you feel Obama has made America slide right, and in what way? (Other that "being so black that Congress turned red")
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You should mention hating gays since we're bringing up 25 year old policies. Speaking of which, I think it's interesting that Hillary has locked down the gay vote. Going through Dupont Circle here you would think she already won the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Mike the TV posted:Speaking of which, I think it's interesting that Hillary has locked down the gay vote. Going through Dupont Circle here you would think she already won the nomination. Never underestimate the power of Yaaaas Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
blue squares posted:On the other hand, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/why-america-is-moving-left/419112/ But when the Republican party decides to drop the racism and anti-gay bigotry, at least among the party apparatus, many people who are part of the Democrats due to those issues will likely leave and join the Republicans for their easy promises of wealth and lower taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Out of curiosity, do you feel Obama has made America slide right, and in what way? (Other that "being so black that Congress turned red") i think obama has made some miniscule shifts to the left. not nearly enough considering he has let a bunch of white collar criminals off the hook during his presidency. that being said i do not believe that hillary is to the left of him
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 17:42
|
|