|
Noam Chomsky posted: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. It's really hard to believe this when we had a blue congress, senate, and presidency and got Obamacare. The idea that all democrats are actually progressives and are just in some sort of 10th dimensional chess with the GOP seems kind of absurd on its face. Why is it so bad to admit that the Democratic party is a centrist party(not saying it always has been or always will be, but it is now). The party itself actively fought against having a progressive nominated for the presidency. I tend to agree with you that we're not going to get progressive policy until the legislature is progressive, but I don't think "blue" has anything to do with it. I'm more or less an "undecided voter" in the sense that there is no way in hell I am voting for Trump but I might be able to stomach voting for Hillary if she could stop talking about escalating world conflicts, increasing data collection, or blaming Russia for anything bad that happens to her campaign.
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
WampaLord posted:You can blame Joe "Not actually a Democrat" Lieberman for that. It's hard not to blame Barack "can't piss off my donors with a public option" Obama for that one. If Obama had come out and called for that and attempted to fight it and Lieberman and blocked it, sure. But that's not what happened. edit. And really it's a meaningless point because I think I'd be voting for Obama at this point, he was way more likable and at least he had the ability to run on a progressive message. I fear what Hillary will actually do when her stated plans are incredibly centrist and we usually get about 3 shifts to the right from stated plans. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 16:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He did call for a public option and one was included in the House version of the bill. Obama decided that he wasn't going to fight for it if it made final passage harder. Yeah and I get that. Despite being a progressive and not agreeing with everything Obama has done, I feel way better about him being president than Hillary. Watching the debates just makes me wish literally anyone else had run. I think America desperately needs a politician who will use populism to achieve a progressive goal. Bernie was that and I was pretty pumped, but despite how horrible Trump is I can just not even get enthused for Hillary in the "better than him" sense. Honestly it feels like a gigantic conspiracy in the sense that Hillary seems to be going up against the only GOP nominee she could have possibly beaten (ok, she probably would have obliterated Ted Cruz too) (I know it isn't, it just feels that way because one of the two major American parties is imploding during election season)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:This is just disingenuous. The public option was throw out in back-room deliberations among the democrats. The bill wouldn't have been passed with a public option within the Democrat party alone, much less guaranteed 100% opposition from Republicans. What's disingenuous about saying that I wish Obama had been more of a populist and fought for a plan that would have actually made some significant changes to our healthcare system as opposed to complicated health insurer bailout? It's unreasonable to ask the President to use his position to you know, advocate for certain policies? I dunno, it sounds right in the ballpark for a guy who claimed during the campaign that... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5voSHCn6NE Look, I get it, it's an election, I just wish that was the president we had, not a third way centrist. The fact that the democrats threw out the public option behind closed doors is exactly the problem. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:He did fight for it, he just fought for it outside of the public view because he's the president, no a loving congressman. Tell that to FDR and John Kennedy, both presidents who made it a point of using the bully pulpit to enact more left-leaning politics and shocker, considered some of the greatest presidents of all time. It's like I said, I get it, he's a lawyer playing politics. It's what you need to do. I just really liked the message he had during his campaign and wished we had gotten a guy who actually wanted to fight for those messages he put forth in the campaign in the same public and invigorating way he did during the election. But I mean gently caress, Hillary won't even try to claim that her position, and given we get rightward shifts from Democratic presidents it doesn't bode well for the next 4/8 years. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Julias posted:Basically this. The Democrats should be hitting the Republicans hard over how obstructionist they are, even to issues like simple gun reform, wage increases, and health care, in order to gain a majority and turn public opinion against the GOP. The simple fact that they don't do this, even though the majority of Americans agree on these reforms, points to either the Democratic party being spineless and not well organized, or to the fact that a significant portion of them honestly don't care enough to change the current system (often because their campaigns are funded by companies that benefit from the current system, such as health insurers. The sad part is Obama ran on this platform and totally killed a ton of progressive's hope that change could even come from inside the Democrats. Bernie really changed a lot of their minds on that and seeing the DNC itself fight against it was incredibly soulcrushing for a lot of us. It's going to only get harder for the Democratic party to keep that populism at bay. Chilichimp posted:The bully pulpit isn't a thing today because TV and media coverage of politics is so broad that one guy can't command the camera's anymore. Not to mention there's an entire network news organization hell bent on undermining any attempt at progressive policy. Uhh yes he definitely can. If you think the President of the United States can't command the camera I just don't know what to tell you. Obama literally did that (addressed the nation during important events) multiple times throughout the presidency. In fact, he's one of the few people who still can, which makes it all that more important for him to be doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:A friend put out the idea that the mics should just be on two minute timers tied to the clock behind then. After 2 minutes they automatically shut off with no involvement from the moderators. Yes, and turn off the mics when they aren't being addressed. I don't really understand why these things aren't happening yet. I guess it's because for the first time we're seeing what happens when candidates just choose to abuse the lack of enforcement regarding the rules. Trump looks like a loving moron when he's interrupting and Hillary did too when she interrupted him (although bravo for holding out that long). It's not doing anyone favors to turn it into more of a spectacle than it already is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:A lot have people have said that, but I want Trump to have every opportunity he wants to look like a colossal rear end in a top hat. The problem is Hillary is a human being and asking her to put up with that poo poo for an hour is unreasonable. It's just lowering the quality of the discourse. I'm not sure we need Donald Trump to convince anyone else he's an idiot. At this point it's just an embarrassment for the country, the less air time we give him the better (granted, having him make a complete rear end of himself might be the fastest way to that end)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You gonna give up on everything that energized you about Bernie so fast without a fight? You'll never see change that way. Oh trust me, I'm fighting too. There's a reason I'm trying to struggle through these debates and find a way to hold my nose and vote for Hillary. Yes, my state is almost assuredly going to go blue so my vote "doesn't matter" but I do want to believe that Hillary is actually trying to fight for the greater good. quote:I grew up in Vermont. Unrelated comment  vermonterquote:You. Must. Vote. For HRC. Neofascism is on the rise in the states, and to the horror of intelligent and educated persons abroad, Europe is electing / has elected modern demi-Nazis this very quarter. A vote for HRC has Bernie's uncompromising endorsement and advances support for sane populism in America - and a vote for Trump kills it in the cradle. Make absolutely no mistake. Oh trust me, there is not a chance in hell I vote for Trump and if I thought even for a second that my state could go red I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I agree that he's the most dangerous presidential candidate we've probably ever had. I just can't shake the feeling that Hillary is dangerous in her own ways and Trump's idiocy is blinding a lot of us to them. I really have little problem with voting for her, it's more the overwhelming lack of real criticism she has to face is pretty disheartening. Potato Salad posted:I'm living in an area where militias are preparing to mobilize on Washington and family-oriented Christian Conservative voters are openly, brazenly, without-a-hint-of-shame baying for colored blood and fantasizing about race riots they will finally get to try out their automatic rifles against. Also for the record I have literally no idea what to do about this problem and it's one of the big question marks when it comes to actually implementing progressive policies in this country. There's a sizable part of the population that is well armed and literally believes democrats are the anti-christ. Really a whole nother can of worms.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:At the same time, online news can be so very easily racked with misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies repeated enough to gain the effect of truth, that people using the internet as a driving source of news is somewhat terrifying. Honestly it's hard not to look back at history and say the same things about newspapers, radio, tv, etc. Communication technology does some weird things to society. I want to say that it's generally worked out in the long run but I guess that depends on how long of a run you want to talk about.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:We've gotta foster a healthy mistrust of information in our youth, but we also just need some decent loving news organizations that are run ethically and at least appear to be above reproach. Yeah I think part of the insanity we are seeing this cycle is the shift from TV being the dominate media platform to the Internet... and the Internet is not ready. Too bad we weren't alive to see the switch from Radio to TV, because I imagine it'd be quite illuminating. I wonder how much of this insanity is because of the Internet itself or it's just how things look when disruptive new media platforms get introduced.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That is exactly what people said about brexit stuff but it turns out white nationalists are a wicked huge block of voters that will come out to support things but fly under the radar of being on tv shows or interacting well with polls in a way that hide their number. It's not exactly comforting that people are starting to act like trump getting elected is less likely than getting struck by lightning. Fivethirtyeight is still giving him a 13% chance, that's pretty terrifying. And I think acting like he's done plays right into his narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Gonna call the bullest of poo poo on this one, yo. Trump supporters are the most outspoken demographic in this election, closely followed by people who are ironcally "down with Johnson" I think his point is that 40% of the population aren't open Trump supporters and yet 40% of the population is still willing to say they are going to vote for him. He's still polling above 50% with white men. I'll be the first to tell you white men are poo poo but that statistic should be telling you that he has a lot more supporters than are willing to come out and support him, much less vote for him. I thought we had settled this in 2012 but the Democrats put the weakest candidate up in years, so here we go.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Yes, but is there something specific in Trump supporters that would make huge swathes of them prone to support him, but not openly? Why wouldn't there be just as large a number of obfuscated Clinton supporters? Because the views he espouses are heavily stigmatized by a vast majority of the population. Hillary's policies are about as non-offensive as you can get.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2016 18:16
|
|