Antti posted:

There's two points I want to make here:

1) You're not wrong in the sense that the US political system was designed by a group of people who thought partisanship was unconscionable, hence there's no safety valve like disbanding Congress and declaring new elections when there is a political deadlock. If there's a deadlock, we've already seen what will happen: a slow slide into systemic ailments that may or may not erupt in some Bad poo poo. Having two middle of the road parties that have a lot of comity and that are not high on ideological intensity will avoid deadlock and preserve the existing system. (This is also why I sympathize with 2009-2010 Obama; as a constitutional scholar himself he probably sees this problem, although he might see it in an even starker "there must be compromise or sooner or later there will be no Republic" dichotomy.) The civil rights question allowed for this kind of interplay and compromise between the parties, but now that political positions are becoming polarized and bundled up in either party (if you are pro-choice and anti-social security you have no satisfactory choice in candidates) there's no room for this.

2) The current Republican party seems incapable of choosing a nationally electable candidate and the demographics are firmly against them as time goes by; the next Republican President will probably have very very little to do with the most recent Republican President, or the current Republican party. (This even holds true if Trump wins the presidency.)

Dexo posted:

Jesus gently caress I really really wish that the Republicans gave any fucks about minorities.


Because the Democratic front runner spokesperson for the nomination is really out here saying "BUT WHAT ABOUT BLACK ON BLACK CRIME" to questions asked about the crime law that Hillary pushed for.

Because they know there is literally no other option viable to vote for as the GOP is actively seeking to gently caress us over, while the Dems at least might throw us a bone of scraps from the table every once in a while.

Volcott posted:

You can't solve historical inequity with contemporary inequity.

zoux posted:

Well then you know what it was like, and how desperate black community leaders were for any solution to inner city violence, and how this harsh response originated at the grass roots. It turned out to be bad, but it wasn't some sinister plot to lock up black people in prison, it was a best attempt at the time.

The 13 year old murderer poo poo sounds like snopes.com but I certainly remember those stories being around at the time.

Schizotek posted:

Frankly without seeing actual comparative numbers for support/opposition all that article says is that there were grassroots black supporters for anti-crime laws (which is itself different than support for THAT anti-crime law), and the Black caucus supported that bill. Which is just as likely to be party politics as it is pressure from constituents.

Volcott posted:

You can't solve historical inequity with contemporary inequity.

Daniel Bryan posted:

The thing I don't understand about the Bill Clinton thing is this: Was he talking about why he signed it at the time or how he feels now?

Because if it's the former, he should have done the latter a lot more.

Trabisnikof posted:

Reparations wouldn't be an inequity anymore than Medicaid is. I have a feeling whatever meager sum we'd actually end up giving in reparations wouldn't equal the inequity that Black Americans face right now.



At least we should spend a few million researching it first before we throw the idea out as bad or unworkable.

zoux posted:

Did you not watch the video?

Daniel Bryan posted:

Yes. I guess it was mostly why he signed it originally.

Defending it is not something he should be doing.

Mr Interweb posted:

You know, I'm seeing a lot of articles blaming the Berniebros for losing the WI Supreme Court race cause they only voted for him, but no one on the down tickets. But is it really Bernie's fault? If these were the type of people who weren't really interested in politics but started participating cause of Bernie, then the alternative would be that they wouldn't have voted at all, which would still wind up losing that particular race. It's not like Bernie somehow caused them to refuse to vote for the down ticket ballots.

Mr Interweb posted:

You know, I'm seeing a lot of articles blaming the Berniebros for losing the WI Supreme Court race cause they only voted for him, but no one on the down tickets. But is it really Bernie's fault? If these were the type of people who weren't really interested in politics but started participating cause of Bernie, then the alternative would be that they wouldn't have voted at all, which would still wind up losing that particular race. It's not like Bernie somehow caused them to refuse to vote for the down ticket ballots.

a shameful boehner posted:

Why should Sanders go out of his way to support downticket races when he's been impeded by the party at every turn?

If the Democrats want his support, they should start bending the knee a bit and acknowledge his massive appeal amongst their base.

Mr Interweb posted:

You know, I'm seeing a lot of articles blaming the Berniebros for losing the WI Supreme Court race cause they only voted for him, but no one on the down tickets. But is it really Bernie's fault? If these were the type of people who weren't really interested in politics but started participating cause of Bernie, then the alternative would be that they wouldn't have voted at all, which would still wind up losing that particular race. It's not like Bernie somehow caused them to refuse to vote for the down ticket ballots.

a shameful boehner posted:

Why should Sanders go out of his way to support downticket races when he's been impeded by the party at every turn?

If the Democrats want his support, they should start bending the knee a bit and acknowledge his massive appeal amongst their base.

a shameful boehner posted:

Why should Sanders go out of his way to support downticket races when he's been impeded by the party at every turn?

a shameful boehner posted:

Why should Sanders go out of his way to support downticket races when he's been impeded by the party at every turn?

If the Democrats want his support, they should start bending the knee a bit and acknowledge his massive appeal amongst their base.

Volcott posted:

Reparations, like racial quotas, are still a form of racial discrimination, even if it's ostensibly for a good cause.

Greatbacon posted:

A support network is in place for politicians willing to support Bernie before the convention, but why should he bother to support establishment Dems that have been loving him every step of the way?

There is plenty of time to circle the wagons and promote Party Unity once we're into the general

Zeroisanumber posted:

Because the whackjob who ended up winning the seat literally wrote that she hopes gays get aids and die.

Greatbacon posted:

A support network is in place for politicians willing to support Bernie before the convention, but why should he bother to support establishment Dems that have been loving him every step of the way?

There is plenty of time to circle the wagons and promote Party Unity once we're into the general

Mr Interweb posted:

I thought Sanders DID endorse the Dem candidate?

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Republicans admitting that voter ID laws help them will never be a problem for them because the conservative response is "Well duh - it stops the dead votes and the felon votes and the fraud votes"

The natural consequence of that attitude is that Democrats are only against voter ID laws because it stops them from cheating

Joementum posted:

Mr Interweb posted:

You know, I'm seeing a lot of articles blaming the Berniebros for losing the WI Supreme Court race cause they only voted for him, but no one on the down tickets. But is it really Bernie's fault? If these were the type of people who weren't really interested in politics but started participating cause of Bernie, then the alternative would be that they wouldn't have voted at all, which would still wind up losing that particular race. It's not like Bernie somehow caused them to refuse to vote for the down ticket ballots.

TheDeadlyShoe posted:

Republicans admitting that voter ID laws help them will never be a problem for them because the conservative response is "Well duh - it stops the dead votes and the felon votes and the fraud votes"

The natural consequence of that attitude is that Democrats are only against voter ID laws because it stops them from cheating

zoux posted:

Well then you know what it was like, and how desperate black community leaders were for any solution to inner city violence, and how this harsh response originated at the grass roots. It turned out to be bad, but it wasn't some sinister plot to lock up black people in prison, it was a best attempt at the time.

The 13 year old murderer poo poo sounds like snopes.com but I certainly remember those stories being around at the time.

Noam Chomsky posted:

Iron Rose, like many "moderate" pseudo-intellectuals who post here, seems totally ignorant of how we've compromised away a lot of what made and makes this country great over the last 30 to 40 years. I wonder how much we can compromise away before it becomes unpalatable to useful idiots like Iron Rose.

Compromise should not be an end goal in and of itself. We shouldn't live in a world where compromise is valued above fighting for both what you believe in but what is also right, correct, and true. Obama compromised with the GOP quite a lot and it didn't really get us anywhere. The Right wins through the compromises of the Left - it's a strategy the right employs to great effect; you give me what i want or I will blow the whole god drat thing up. Compromise!

It's not about valuing ideological lines vs. compromise; it's about absolutely knowing what will help this country and the majority of the people in it - infrastructure spending, climate change legislation, a strong social safety net, taxes on the absurdly rich to pay for it all - and what won't - tax cuts for the rich, defunding education and the social safety net, outlawing abortion, deregulation. It isn't as if we're disagreeing about intangible platonic ideals - we are disagreeing on points and policies that have real, tangible affects on real people. People can die and do because of the compromises people like Iron Rose think they want. gently caress compromise.

People like Iron Rose who come to the table with lofty talk about compromise, pretending to be above the fray, just want to be seen as more intelligent and dispassonate than they actually are. Just like all the other Very Serious People (tm).

MaxxBot posted:

You don't need decades of hindsight to see that these policies were going to ruin many thousands of lives. If you make the punishments for drug dealing and possession as harsh as the penalties for serious violent crimes you're going to send a ton of people to prison, including people who did no harm to anyone. Anyone could have seen that outcome, but they passed the laws anyways because of the political climate.