|
Lightning Knight posted:I agree, but relatively speaking there’s very few ideological leftists in America. There’s lots of people that are sympathetic to leftism on paper if you ask the right questions, but turning that into votes and candidates and movements is difficult. Well, the message certainly can't spread if no one is out there trying to sell it. The issue is that the Dems have been trying a more palatable compromise message for over thirty years now and the current state of affairs is where its gotten us. The Republicans are horrific, yeah, but its not like the Obama years didn't set all of this poo poo up. Perhaps its time to stop worrying about how to convince Republicans to support Republican-lite policies instead of the real thing and maybe try to revitalize whats left of the left and build a new generation. The current state of affairs wasn't historically inevitable and certainly isn't immutable. We got here by slowly ceding ideological territory for decades, so maybe we should stop doing that?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:The current state of affairs wasn't historically inevitable and certainly isn't immutable. We got here by slowly ceding ideological territory for decades, so maybe we should stop doing that? I’m not really sure you’re arguing against what I’m saying anymore. Though I’d note that of course the Democratic Party has failed to articulate a left wing message, since strictly speaking it has never been a left-wing institution. At best, it at one point supported social democracy if it only benefited white people. We have to make do with what we have and what we have is a few tens of thousands of organized democratic socialists in a country of hundreds of millions. We need more than that, and there has to be both outside pressure and inside pressure on the institutions, preferably coordinated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
There should just be a set annual price that every adult American has to pay for the many privileges that come with citizenship. One price. If you can't cough it up, you'll be enlisted into a system designed to extract however much value you're capable of producing, while preserving you, personally, so you can do it again next year. This is really the only fair way to run a republic. It is the only American answer to this problem, and it always has been, as the Founders recognized in their infinite wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
marshalljim posted:There should just be a set annual price that every adult American has to pay for the many privileges that come with citizenship. So, basically Starship Troopers, except you get to buy your citizenship instead of serving if you're rich enough?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 10:27
|
|
|
So this is where the country is huh? Scribble poo poo in crayon on a sheet of paper and call it fiscal policy for the nation. Carve out exceptions for one specific university in the entire nation then yell at the other team about picking winners and losers. Pass poo poo in the dead of the night then yell about the other guys, well, passing poo poo in the dead of the night after multiple years of the amendment process. Going to look into citizenship for other nations. gently caress this dump. There's no salvageable core left in the Democrat party to fight this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
You can’t run from this. The US domestic policy acts as a gravitational pull that drives all other western countries into its orbit. You might get better social policies but the only country that’s trying to offer a credible leftist anti neoliberal candidate is the UK but I think Brexit will make that country significantly worse off regardless of who is in charge. Economic globalization has weakened national governments to the point that they no longer have the power to really dictate how their economy works. The only difference between left and right now is what kind of tax cut someone is gonna get and how soon they’ll get it at the expense of social services. The rest is a difference of social and identity politics. It seemed like socially liberal policies would be an inevitability until the economic problems started loving over white people. Now we’re back to racially scapegoating everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:Economic globalization has weakened national governments to the point that they no longer have the power to really dictate how their economy works. No. What? How do you justify that belief?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:You can’t run from this. *looks around for his socialized healthcare system and higher education*
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Boon posted:No. What? How do you justify that belief? In the European Union Germany essentially dominates surrounding countries because those countries have lost control of their ability to print their own money and inflate their way out of debt. Meaning that these countries cannot take action to counter austerity because all the money they owe Germany has to be paid no matter what. So if you can’t declare bankruptcy and you can’t inflate your debt you are forced to take austerity agreements laid out by a foreign country who in turn is doing this to keep its own financial books in order to bail out its insolvent banks. The problem is the more austerity you do the more your economy enters into a deflationary spiral as there’s less money being pumped into the system and less work being done on the public dime that could help stimulate employment and wage growth (ie public works projects). The United States doesn’t have this problem but globalization has terrified every experience technocrat into maintaining the status quo or gradually making concessions to the investor class. It’s too easy for business to hide their money or leave US shores entirely if you take a hard line stance against them. So unless you had global cooperation against rent seeking capitalism we are past the point where any one country can do anything about this situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:This is a really simplistic explanation but if you really want to know why national governments are essentially an anachronism, get on YouTube and watch Mark Blythe or get his book on Austerity. So you're saying a higher government body... has power it's member states? I believe this to have been a feature, not a bug. The Mark Blythe youtube I did watch was good poo poo, I liked it, but the conclusion of it was that they should burn down Europe's economy and let it reassemble itself from the ashes like Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:This is a really simplistic explanation but if you really want to know why national governments are essentially an anachronism, get on YouTube and watch Mark Blythe or get his book on Austerity. I'll check it out, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So you're saying a higher government body... has power it's member states? If you really wanna laugh you should look into German auto industry supply chains. All the countries Hitler wanted to take over are now happily making his automobile parts at a heavily discounted price. https://youtu.be/Bkm2Vfj42FY Here’s a link that explains a lot of what’s going on in easy to understand language. I’d argue Mark Blyth is the Carl Sagan of political economics and has done a lot to discredit the neoliberal order in a very logical way while also explaining the discontent that led to the rise of right wing people like trump. Kraftwerk fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
So what happened with that "US Special forces tricked into massacring a village because the person providing the intel wanted their farmland" story? Seems like with Mueller and this tax bill, that has disappeared entirely. edit: I'm also reminded of the movie "Tears of a Sun" and how that's just rank propaganda at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:This is a really simplistic explanation but if you really want to know why national governments are essentially an anachronism, get on YouTube and watch Mark Blythe or get his book on Austerity. you're conflating economic globalization and the common currency euro zone. there's a lot to say about the dangers of economic globalization, but the monetary union is its own thing and not applicable to the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Most of the euro monetary / customs union problems stem from that it is not a real political union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is um, all well and good from a debate club kind of perspective, but what does it tell us about the real world? Ah, I'm sorry! I meant to respond to JeffersonClay's post! I can see why you were confused, haha. edit: I edited my earlier post to quote the right post it was replying to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Ah, I'm sorry! I meant to respond to JeffersonClay's post! I can see why you were confused, haha. Oh I see, this makes much more sense now. No biggie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:The rest is a difference of social and identity politics. It seemed like socially liberal policies would be an inevitability until the economic problems started loving over white people. Now we’re back to racially scapegoating everyone. This is entirely true. I, and everyone I know and am related to, is willing to sell everyone else down the river because white people are being both systemically and socially assaulted. It doesn't matter how outwardly progressive any of us are because, frankly, "you didn't build that." We did. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Aspergeoisie posted:This is entirely true. I, and everyone I know and am related to, is willing to sell everyone else down the river because white people are being both systemically and socially assaulted. It doesn't matter how outwardly progressive any of us are because, frankly, "you didn't build that." We did. Cute. Have any more David Duke propaganda to share with us? Edit: somebody needs to take  and replace the smiley with a KKK hood for drive by racist shitposts like this lmao.
Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Aspergeoisie posted:This is entirely true. I, and everyone I know and am related to, is willing to sell everyone else down the river because white people are being both systemically and socially assaulted. It doesn't matter how outwardly progressive any of us are because, frankly, "you didn't build that." We did. Source your quotes so we can laugh at the dipshits who write these things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
EdithUpwards posted:Source your quotes so we can laugh at the dipshits who write these things. That’s not a quote, he’s actually being serious lmao. At least based on his post history, I checked before responding. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That’s not a quote, he’s actually being serious lmao. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Could the Democrats have done more to obstruct and water down this horrible tax bill? I remember all the excuses for all the terrible concessions made for Obamacare and other stuff while the Democrats held the Senate, how come they can't reciprocate when they're out of power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
tekz posted:Could the Democrats have done more to obstruct and water down this horrible tax bill? I remember all the excuses for all the terrible concessions made for Obamacare and other stuff while the Democrats held the Senate, how come they can't reciprocate when they're out of power? A) Filibuster is largely dead B) Assholes like Lieberman were largely responsible for the ACA getting watered down C) Obama spent much of his first term wasting time "reaching across the aisle" and whatever poo poo, failing to realize that Republicans would do anything to halt the Kenyan Muslim Usurper, which resulted in a lot of bullshit like the sequester D) Democrats have no spine
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
tekz posted:Could the Democrats have done more to obstruct and water down this horrible tax bill? I remember all the excuses for all the terrible concessions made for Obamacare and other stuff while the Democrats held the Senate, how come they can't reciprocate when they're out of power? The Republicans used reconciliation to avoid the filibuster. They were at one point considering adding amendments but they decided it was more important to ensure that Republicans couldn’t claim the bill is “bipartisan” and pin blame on them. The amendments proposed wouldn’t have materially improved the bill in a way that was meaningful and they basically are in a no win scenario. If they don’t participate they’re criticized for not fighting hard enough and if they do there criticized for granting legitimacy to the Republicans’ bill. Edit: basically, now that they’re the minority party, there’s nothing they can do. The question is not what can they do about it now, but what can they do to reverse it later, and ensure that the erosion of Dem control we’ve seen in the past decades reverses itself. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Democrats think they have to play nice with the other party and mind the national debt, or they'll get punished by the Republicans know they don't need to play nice with the other party, in fact if they did, they would get punished by the voters, and the national debt is just a rhetorical device for when you're not in power. Edit: my post is more about how the Democrats didn't use their small majorities in the past to make large scale, meaningful reforms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
I'm sorry if this is a stupid loving question but what determines 60 vs 50 votes in the Senate? I've tried to look online but I don't really understand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I'm sorry if this is a stupid loving question but what determines 60 vs 50 votes in the Senate? I've tried to look online but I don't really understand. Technically, the Senate decides, insofar as they write their own rules. Basically the Republicans are cheating, using bullshit math and lying to claim that their bill doesn’t increase deficits past a certain amount, which lets them use reconciliation and avoid the filibuster. No one is powerful enough to tell them no. Obama’s veto is the only thing that has been protecting us from this stuff for the past 3 years basically, and they have at least another year of legislating before the mid-terms potentially change things. The rules don’t matter much to Republicans and right now our last hope is that the Tea Party wing of the House rejects this tax bill for being insufficiently evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I'm sorry if this is a stupid loving question but what determines 60 vs 50 votes in the Senate? I've tried to look online but I don't really understand. What the senate wants to take sixty votes and what it doesnt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I'm sorry if this is a stupid loving question but what determines 60 vs 50 votes in the Senate? I've tried to look online but I don't really understand. Spending, revenue and other monetary bills that are being passed with reconciliation only require a simple majority. Other bills are subject to a cloture vote. This is why the majority party has taken to injecting a whole poo poo-ton of non-monetary stuff into budget bills while hiding it with flowery language. Edit: Normally reconciliation can only be used a single time in a year, but I believe the CR passed in ... September? allows for reconciliation to be used for a 12-month period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Good loving God these answers are worse than I thought. I Always liked the 60 vote because unlike the House it gave the majority party some incentive to work with the minority party. It's pretty loving lovely to do away with it and just change rules on the fly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:Good loving God these answers are worse than I thought. I Always liked the 60 vote because unlike the House it gave the majority party some incentive to work with the minority party. It's pretty loving lovely to do away with it and just change rules on the fly. The Senate is basically garbage and we’d be better off if we only had an expanded House with voting and campaign finance reform.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I'm sorry if this is a stupid loving question but what determines 60 vs 50 votes in the Senate? I've tried to look online but I don't really understand. So there's this budget process called "reconciliation" that only required 50 votes because there isn't supposed to be much debate on the items in question. The items were supposed to have already been passed, and now they're just adjusting them to function in the new year. But then it turns out the rules for what do and do not meet this requirement are useless so anything and everything ends up in the once a year magic 50 vote time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Frankly the Democrats have clearly been punished by voters for playing nice with the Republicans (just like the Republicans would be) but they can't see that through their haze of idiocy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Has Durbin explained why he voted against the Sanders amendment to protect SS, Medicaid & Medicare against sequestration cuts on "procedural grounds"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Has Durbin explained why he voted against the Sanders amendment to protect SS, Medicaid & Medicare against sequestration cuts on "procedural grounds"? I couldn’t find an article to explain to me what you’re referring to but I found this instead and it made me lol. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/16/politics/kfile-dick-durbin-sunday-radio-interview/index.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Has Durbin explained why he voted against the Sanders amendment to protect SS, Medicaid & Medicare against sequestration cuts on "procedural grounds"? I'd like to know Warner's excuse as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Has Durbin explained why he voted against the Sanders amendment to protect SS, Medicaid & Medicare against sequestration cuts on "procedural grounds"? https://mobile.twitter.com/rockrichard/status/936802860204879872
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
^^^ I don't understand what that means in context of Durbin's vote. Durbin is trash and has spent more time trying to outlaw e-cigs & vapes than doing anything remotely beneficial to his constituents. Even so, I don't understand why he'd join Mark "we need to reform entitlements" and another guy in voting against Sanders' amendment, much less on "procedural grounds" that don't make a lick of sense. eta: Radish posted:I'd like to know Warner's excuse as well. Warner came out and said it's because he believes in "entitlement" reform. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
tekz posted:Could the Democrats have done more to obstruct and water down this horrible tax bill? I remember all the excuses for all the terrible concessions made for Obamacare and other stuff while the Democrats held the Senate, how come they can't reciprocate when they're out of power? The Dems never really wanted to pass effective health care, or do anything not approved by the fantastically wealthy donor class that supports them, so they never really fought that hard. Likewise Obama wanted to be the Decorum President so he never really used the tools available to him either, like recess appointments or bullying his party into compliance (or doing much of anything for his party except looting it for his consultant buddies). The Republicans, on the other hand, don't give a poo poo about decorum and are goal oriented with vision and purpose. Terrible, awful vision and purpose. The Dems have no defense against a majority party with an actual purpose, as vision is a strange thing they cannot comprehend. Even now you have pathetic Dems mewling about wishing the Republican plans were maybe 20% less horrific so they could sign on as a gesture of bipartisanship. Expect another 7 years of compromise where if the Republicans can't pass a bill that lets them murder the poor outright, they'll get a Democrat to sign on to a bill that merely makes giving food to the poor illegal and let nature take its course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2017 23:56
|
|