|
punk rebel ecks posted:The "90% of the time" thing is meaningless as both candidates differed in how far they wanted to take things. For example I'm sure both Sanders and Hillary would vote for a bill that would raise the taxes on the rich by 2%. However, given the opportunity to chose where they would like the tax rate to be at, the two candidates would end at different points of where they'd feel comfortable. To add to that, Hillary's platform has shifted since prior the primaries. Her new college plan covers just about everyone except the rich, she went against TPP just before the first debate when Sanders was already making a lot of noise, she took a historic high wage for a national minimum wage while still a $15 wage on a much larger scale than before. There are a few other things as well that are different now than from her platform pre-primary. There will be no bills that do anything progressives want until the legislature turns blue, which won't be until the next district redraw thanks to gerrymandering. We may get some Supreme Court conformations, if we're lucky. The problem with anyone wanting to pass anything resembling a progressive agenda, at this point, and being dissatisfied with Clinton, is that such a person clearly has no clue as to what's been going on with government for the past eight years and is just focused on the presidency, since they think the office of the presidency is king, which is just how the media and the owners like it.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's really hard to believe this when we had a blue congress, senate, and presidency and got Obamacare. The democratic party is a centrist party; their goal has typically been to poach moderates from the GOP - the whole third-way, triangulation stuff. What I meant in my post was that there definitely won't be a progressive agenda passed with the GOP in control of congress, while some progressive items may see the light of day if congress was blue.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I agree for the most part. The primaries really were pointless. That said, gerrymandering is NOT the main culprit, but the lack of proportional voting for the House is. I can go into more detail when I get off work if you would like me to. I've also seen that said a few times. Proportional representation would make a big difference.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2016 01:47
|
|