|
In what world is he a 'Wall Street Democrat'?
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:In what world is he a 'Wall Street Democrat'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Arcanen posted:Getting rid of the USPOL thread seems to have caused a drastic reduction in election chat. Is there another thread that everyone else migrated to? Everyone went to C-SPAM because you're not allowed to call people out for trolling or being reprehensible shitbirds in this particular thread Considering how much of the past few days was slapfighting, multipage derails and drive-by trolling it was a solid move Go to C-SPAM if you want to let your hair down, stay here for specific updates and poll analysis and the like
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why can't the struggle continue and the first step is defeating Trump? Doesn't matter if socialists beat out corporatists if the party doesn't control the levers of power. Look around the globe and you see a lot of party transformations occur when the party is out of power for a period. Transformations while it's a ruling party... I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can name some, but they're less common. I guess my point is that Canada's Liberal party had to go through Dion and Ignatieff to get to Justin Trudeau, and along the way they had to put up with losing elections and not being in power. You can think Trump is the devil and also express regret that we've chosen to hold up progress for at least a decade for more lesser-of-two-evils compromise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:In what world is he a 'Wall Street Democrat'? His dream isn't the scene at the end of the Dark Knight Rises. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Look around the globe and you see a lot of party transformations occur when the party is out of power for a period. Transformations while it's a ruling party... I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can name some, but they're less common. I'm sure Democrats can evolve and progress without having to give the ball to the Republicans for a decade or more in order to go on a soul searching journey and meet Ra's Al Ghul on a mountaintop or something. Like even if the options are status quo or backwards progress, I'm going with status quo every time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:She would haven taken short term heat for it, and within about 2 years consensus would have been that she was right and she'd have easily won in 2006. The "Iraq did 9/11" poo poo fooled Kentucky a lot longer than it fooled New York. And if she had futuresight I suppose this would've been a good move but knowing what everyone knew at that point, it would've been career suicide
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:You can think Trump is the devil and also express regret that we've chosen to hold up progress for at least a decade for more lesser-of-two-evils compromise. How have we chosen to hold up progress for two decades? Bernie Sanders would not have been a magical fix-all solution. Even if you assume a tremendous outcome difference between him and Clinton (and that is not actually provable) he's still going to be facing nonstop Republican obstructionism and we have no actual evidence he would have some secret master plan to overcome that. In reverse, Trump winning would set back progress if just for the Supreme Court. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Like I've heard a lot of criticisms of Bernie, fair or not, over the last few years but that's the first time I've heard someone say he is a sellout to Wall Street
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Also, as much as Sanders loves name dropping socialism, he's a social democrat who wants to reform capitalism, not a socialist in any meaningful sense. He disagrees with Clinton on degree, but he's still essentially a Wall Street Democrat.  This is a searingly hot take. There is a world of difference between Joe Biden and Full Communism Now, and not all of it is Wall Street Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Not that it proves or disproves your larger point, but there is a problem with your "Trudeau!" analogy in that Trudeau is, largely, progressive in name only and, in fact, has doubled down on a lot of Harper's platform. He is definitively "more of the same".
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Look around the globe and you see a lot of party transformations occur when the party is out of power for a period. Transformations while it's a ruling party... I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can name some, but they're less common. Trump getting the presidency would do more than "hold up progress", it would set us back decades. We'd lose marriage equality, Roe v. Wade, and so many other things with the Republicans controlling all three branches of the government. Hillary getting into office and us getting a liberal Supreme Court is going to make progress, not hold it up, even if it won't be as fast as you'd like (which would be impossible anyway). It also keeps us from losing a lot of rights and being in an even worse position going forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Did he forget that Michael Bloomberg was threatening to run purely as a spoiler if Bernie got the nomination?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Look around the globe and you see a lot of party transformations occur when the party is out of power for a period. Transformations while it's a ruling party... I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can name some, but they're less common. I don't think you can assume that we've chosen to hold up progress for at least a decade if we elect Clinton. If that happens, lackluster activist from the left will be as much to blame as anything. Sanders and Warren will be more powerful in the senate if Clinton is elected and Democrats take the senate, that's just an example of how we aren't foregoing the potential for real progress this election. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders would be president for 4 to 8 years. If you unironically think that Sanders as president would somehow create a giant world-shaping change that would redefine America you're kidding yourself. He would be left of Clinton on some areas and would face similar obstructionism while going for similar goals. Clinton will probably be worse in some areas than Sanders would but that isn't the same as "no progress ever!!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
clinton could raise the minimum wage and then sit on her thumb for 8 years and that'd be a huge amount of progress considering how republicans fight literally everything tooth and nail
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:And if she had futuresight I suppose this would've been a good move but knowing what everyone knew at that point, it would've been career suicide Hillary Clinton had been in public life long enough to know that the then-current state of things wasn't going to last. For the record, I don't think she was suppressing some give-peace-a-chance impulse at the time - I think she really did think that at the very worst a bunch of foreigners would be dead and the thing would wrap itself up in a few years and didn't anticipate exactly how incompetent Team Rocket's bench was when it came to running Defense and State. But this excuse that "everybody was afraid of being called a traitor!" kind of highlights what leadership is really supposed to be and what its failures look like. Hopefully the next generation of Democrats to be charged with containing a Republican executive branch someday will have learned from Bush's first term. Endorph posted:clinton could raise the minimum wage and then sit on her thumb for 8 years and that'd be a huge amount of progress considering how republicans fight literally everything tooth and nail I'm glad there's a lot of talk about the minimum wage, but man is it frustrating that once again there is no talk whatsoever about indexing it to something. A set minimum wage just creates another future problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Bernie Sanders would be president for 4 to 8 years. If you unironically think that Sanders as president would somehow create a giant world-shaping change that would redefine America you're kidding yourself. He would be left of Clinton on some areas and would face similar obstructionism while going for similar goals. Clinton will probably be worse in some areas than Sanders would but that isn't the same as "no progress ever!!" Pushing for national single-payer is much different than Hillary going "um, let the states handle it and create a public option!" that she knows drat well won't happen in most states
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Hillary Clinton had been in public life long enough to know that the then-current state of things wasn't going to last. For the record, I don't think she was suppressing some give-peace-a-chance impulse at the time - I think she really did think that at the very worst a bunch of foreigners would be dead and the thing would wrap itself up in a few years and didn't anticipate exactly how incompetent Team Rocket's bench was when it came to running Defense and State. But this excuse that "everybody was afraid of being called a traitor!" kind of highlights what leadership is really supposed to be and what its failures look like. Hopefully the next generation of Democrats to be charged with containing a Republican executive branch someday will have learned from Bush's first term. So presumably you think the same about Biden right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:
I'm toxxed for Hillary and voting for her despite being a Socialist Party member, I just think it's annoying how Bernie gets held up as a paragon of the left despite being a social democrat capitalist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Look around the globe and you see a lot of party transformations occur when the party is out of power for a period. Transformations while it's a ruling party... I'm sure someone more knowledgeable can name some, but they're less common. Yeah but the problem with this strategy is that the Republicans are really at a point where you do not want them to ever have the ball. They will, given a blank check, destroy every welfare program they can (though they'll only subtly cripple Social Security and Medicare so as not to piss off the old people), roll back civil rights progress on all fronts, chip away at reproductive rights, start random wars, and render us incapable of responding to major disasters. This is beyond ideology- they are unfit to govern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I'm glad there's a lot of talk about the minimum wage, but man is it frustrating that once again there is no talk whatsoever about indexing it to something. A set minimum wage just creates another future problem. The problem is that Hillary will probably follow Cuomo's model in NY for raising the minimum wage and phase it in over 10 years That will help no one and inflation will kill whatever benefit it was supposed to have in the first place
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So presumably you think the same about Biden right? I do. As someone with much-vaunted knowledge of foreign policy and the world's safest Senate seat, Biden really should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Embracing the financial sector to fund the welfare state is very much a Third Way/Blairite thing and very much a product of the 90s and early 2000s. Since the financial crisis it simply isn't viable and the support for Sanders, Corbyn etc is a reaction to that. Sanders is a reformist but he aims to reform social democracy away from third wayism as much as he aims to reform capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I'm toxxed for Hillary and voting for her despite being a Socialist Party member, I just think it's annoying how Bernie gets held up as a paragon of the left despite being a social democrat capitalist. He is a paragon of the left. He's just not a paragon of the tankies and Full Communism Now types.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Hillary Clinton had been in public life long enough to know that the then-current state of things wasn't going to last. For the record, I don't think she was suppressing some give-peace-a-chance impulse at the time - I think she really did think that at the very worst a bunch of foreigners would be dead and the thing would wrap itself up in a few years and didn't anticipate exactly how incompetent Team Rocket's bench was when it came to running Defense and State. But this excuse that "everybody was afraid of being called a traitor!" kind of highlights what leadership is really supposed to be and what its failures look like. Hopefully the next generation of Democrats to be charged with containing a Republican executive branch someday will have learned from Bush's first term. From the platform - "Raising Workers’ Wages Democrats believe that the current minimum wage is a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union and will work in every way we can—in Congress and the federal government, in states and with the private sector—to reach this goal. We should raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour 4 over time and index it, give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work, and create new ways for workers to have power in the economy so every worker can earn at least $15 an hour. We applaud the approaches taken by states like New York and California. We also support creating one fair wage for all workers by ending the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers and people with disabilities. " https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I'm glad there's a lot of talk about the minimum wage, but man is it frustrating that once again there is no talk whatsoever about indexing it to something. A set minimum wage just creates another future problem. You've got out of date info. Indexing the minimum wage is part of the Democratic Platform: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Democratic-Party-Platform-7.21.16-no-lines.pdf Also Clinton explicitly has stated she would want the minimum wage indexed: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Jobs.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:The problem is that Hillary will probably follow Cuomo's model in NY for raising the minimum wage and phase it in over 10 years Yeah the gains on minimum wage that we've had since SeaTac was the first city to vote in a $15 minimum wage are good, but come nowhere near being adequate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Party platforms are nice but in terms of enacting policy they don't mean a whole lot in the US. None of the conversation is focused on it, it's all just "$15 $15 $15" like some kind of bizarro Bob Dole. When it comes time to get it passed the Democrats aren't going to open with "raise to $15 and index it." Indexing will end up in the same bin as the Public Option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Party platforms are nice but in terms of enacting policy they don't mean a whole lot in the US. None of the conversation is focused on it, it's all just "$15 $15 $15" like some kind of bizarro Bob Dole. When it comes time to get it passed the Democrats aren't going to open with "raise to $15 and index it." Indexing will end up in the same bin as the Public Option. its also sad that democrats tend to work against raising the minimum wage at the local level
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Party platforms are nice but in terms of enacting policy they don't mean a whole lot in the US. None of the conversation is focused on it, it's all just "$15 $15 $15" like some kind of bizarro Bob Dole. The Clinton transition team is one of the most policy focused ones ever. So we can expect to see exactly what that translates into once they start shopping policies. But here's the question: would you take a $11 minimum wage that phases in over 5 years but passes the House or nothing? Doorknob Slobber posted:its also sad that democrats tend to work against raising the minimum wage at the local level Which county or state parties opposed minimum wage increases recently?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So presumably you think the same about Biden right? Biden can at least pretend to be working class A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Also, as much as Sanders loves name dropping socialism, he's a social democrat who wants to reform capitalism, not a socialist in any meaningful sense. He disagrees with Clinton on degree, but he's still essentially a Wall Street Democrat. Bloomberg is a Wall St. Democrat basically. FDR was a New Deal and so was Bernie in a similar sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But here's the question: would you take a $11 minimum wage that phases in over 5 years but passes the House or nothing? Honestly? Nothing. A $3.75 increase over five years applied to a number that has sat static for ten is loving garbage. And if Democrats take that deal, minimum wage will end up with "we took care of that" status. Nobody's going to want to spend political capital on it anymore. If the problem needs to get worse for there to be enough pressure on both sides of the aisle to bring about a real solution, well, that's not ideal but I'd rather go that route.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Which county or state parties opposed minimum wage increases recently? I'm mainly speaking from my own experience working at the local level in my area so I'm thinking Seattle, but there are other examples of democratic controlled places rejecting minimum wage increases for various reasons since then. I've brought them up in other threads when the whole "but the democrats are so progressive, just work at the local level thing if you think democrats suck" thing comes up. I just feel like the further you get away from national politics, the less the platform matters and all this pointing at it going soooo progressive the platform is detrimental because it doesn't add to the conversation. Really at the national level very little will probably get done because as many have pointed out democrats will use the republican obstructionism as an excuse to not do anything or pass things like the ACA that are probably good, but don't really fix the problems that need fixing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Facebook just reminded me that a few days out from the 2012 election the Obama campaign was running ads about how Romney's pledge to cut PBS funding would kill Big Bird. What a simple time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
All right if we're posting maps, here's my guess:
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:Facebook just reminded me that a few days out from the 2012 election the Obama campaign was running ads about how Romney's pledge to cut PBS funding would kill Big Bird. Now thanks to HBO the only thing that can kill Big Bird is cordcutting!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Honestly? Nothing. A $3.75 increase over five years applied to a number that has sat static for ten is loving garbage. And if Democrats take that deal, minimum wage will end up with "we took care of that" status. Nobody's going to want to spend political capital on it anymore. If the problem needs to get worse for there to be enough pressure on both sides of the aisle to bring about a real solution, well, that's not ideal but I'd rather go that route. See and I'd take it because that means a real difference in the lives of working Americans. If activists get lazy after a tiny victory, blame lovely activists, don't punish the poor to keep them excited. Doorknob Slobber posted:I'm mainly speaking from my own experience working at the local level in my area so I'm thinking Seattle, but there are other examples of democratic controlled places rejecting minimum wage increases for various reasons since then. I've brought them up in other threads when the whole "but the democrats are so progressive, just work at the local level thing if you think democrats suck" thing comes up. And your experiences are part of why I think it is so critical to have leftward voices in the party. We need more activists in local meetings to push the party. It is very easy for institutions to become either sluggish or status quo focused. We need activists pushing for the edges at the local level to validate the movements at the national level. The Democratic Party will hopefully continue to have power and thus attract lovely people. Thus is the nature of politics. It is the people who actually care about something that are the only way we keep them from loving poo poo up. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Clinton transition team is one of the most policy focused ones ever. So we can expect to see exactly what that translates into once they start shopping policies. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the minimum wage. At least not for you guys. It just doesn't make a lot of sense in a country which is so divided into large urban cities and rural nothingness. Why would a employee in New York only get the same wages as some guy who only has 10 percent of the costs of living in Bumfuck Emptyville? And I can honestly understand why people from those places think that minimum wage would destroy those small businesses. It doesn't work on the state level either, since lots of states are strongly divided between high and low density. Just look at Illinois. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:All right if we're posting maps, here's my guess: Trump will win Utah, otherwise yeah this is The True Map
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:33
|
|
