|
Motto posted:Sanders was handled with kid's gloves in the primary, especially considering that he's not a Dem. Sure he is. He's way more of a dem than Lieberman, and that guy got picked for VP
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:he wasn't a registered member of the democratic party until just before he started his bid. despite the fact that he caucased with the dems and voted with them pretty much all of the time Sure, but we're supposed to be above that kind of thing. That's the entire argument for trying to get ~bernouts~ to vote for Clinton in the general. I have a number of strong disagreements with Clinton's policies. DLC-style triangulation is a terrible idea that has lost the party a lot of support and is part of the reason that this is a close election. Foreign policy that is more hawkish than Obama's is also pretty bad. I'm still likely to vote for her just because Trump is actually worse, and she's an excellent bureaucrat who will do well with most of the low-level grunt work of the executive. Keeping competent people running stuff like FEMA is important. SCOTUS nominees are important. But goddamn.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Triangulation hasn't been a thing since the Clinton administration and this isn't a close election, at all. The DLC doesn't exist anymore either. That's more because it took over the party than it is that that sort of leadership no longer exists. It also doesn't mean that things like anti-poverty or pro-union laws are even being brought to the table, much less pushed past Republicans (when it was possible to do so). Until the debate, there were any polls whatsoever that showed Donald Trump winning the election, which is much, MUCH closer than I'm remotely comfortable with.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Hillary is fine on social issues. Her anti-poverty plans are all about jobs and economy and basically just neoliberal bullshit that's far less progressive than the status quo of the 90s was.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I love seeing this claim and at the same time knowing that the Blue Dogs are mostly extinct. They've improved on social issues, but economic issues are still completely loving awful. Bill Clinton's welfare reform increased homelessness and extreme poverty, and all of the parts of Hillary's platform that mentions those sorts of things are about funding job training and ~job creation~.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Sloppy Milkshake posted:haha yeah how stupid to want jobs and training who needs that stuff??? Those things are fine, but there are plenty of people who can't work who are just pretty much "hosed" if they don't have friends and family willing to help them. SNAP is enough to keep people from starving, but there are basically no other federal or federalish programs for someone who doesn't have kids (and even people with kids can run out of time on TANF). Section 8 in many areas has multi-year waiting lists which open for a day every year in many places. SSI is barely livable in most places, has strict asset limits that make it hard to get off of, and involves at least a year of fighting to get on in the first place (unless you're disabled in a way that's indisputable). Medicaid is completely dependant on how much power republicans have in your state. Lyesh fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Oct 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:So basically the reason why she's a Neo-Liberal is because she's not advocating for making everything perfect at once. No, the reason she's a neoliberal is that she's advocating market-based solutions to poverty
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Anything less than Full Communism Now is a Betrayal of the Revolution, comrades. All of those are useless to people who don't have kids and can't work though, which is my loving point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:So does that make those proposals bad to you? No, it makes them insufficient. The popular narrative regarding being non-working poor in the US is that it's the easy life, when it's anything but. The Democratic party has bought into that narrative and it shows in their policy priorities and rhetoric. I dislike that quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:Do you understand that the feasible alternative right now is "gently caress the poor" and maniacal laughter? I do. And I believe that that is partly because the strategy of working with Republicans has caused rightward movement in economic policy that is a large part of why poor people in this country are so hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2016 19:39
|
|