Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

The Red Scare = The rich were fuckin' scared

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In truth, I think the rich loved the shit out of the Soviet Union, because it gave them an opportunity to draw false associations and demonize the language of the labor-focused leftist anarchism that was really popular and gaining momentum in the late 19th/early 20th century.  What they were afraid of was the red and black.

[Iduno]

Voters don't help either. A lot of them want to believe people who have power over them want what is best for them, and will reject any proof otherwise as lies, then are confused as to why things keep getting worse.

[Frumple]

Plenty want to believe more or less the opposite of that, too, though, and will reject any proof otherwise as lies, with similar confusion. This causes its own problems, and least from what I've seen largely worse ones. If you think the folks in power have no basic decency or standards, you won't hold fuckers accountable who actually don't. GOP in the US is basically case in bloody point for that.

[Dunamisdeos]

So I'm leaning Sanders myself.

But, I do hear valid (valid-sounding) points about how are we going to actually pay for his massive, sweeping reforms. Is there any hard response to that? What if he ends up with things half-implemented by the end of his term? Obama couldn't get even the most basic healthcare reform to stick. I guess my question is what makes us think he can actually deliver?

[Telgin]

If he was elected on that platform it would at least indicate increasing support among the voter base, which would presumably translate somewhat to Congress since they vote based on what they perceive will get them reelected.  Ideally it would also come with an increasing number of Democratic senators and representatives, since otherwise it would still probably be doomed to failure.  That, of course, is largely predicated on who's up for election and when and voter sentiment may not overlap with it.

So, in short, probably not much would be different.

[Dunamisdeos]

Well, I suppose we have had many more seats won across the board for the Dems. Do you think that might translate to an easier implementation for his policies? Or rather, will it translate to them being actually possible?

[SalmonGod]

So I'm leaning Sanders myself.

But, I do hear valid (valid-sounding) points about how are we going to actually pay for his massive, sweeping reforms. Is there any hard response to that? What if he ends up with things half-implemented by the end of his term? Obama couldn't get even the most basic healthcare reform to stick. I guess my question is what makes us think he can actually deliver?

Especially as regards the president, who sets the tone for national politics in general while in office and acts as the figurehead of the entire government, I think it's less important to look at whose goals are the most achievable than it is to look at whether the goals they put forth indicate a strong alignment with my own political priorities and convictions.  I don't expect him to accomplish everything he says he will.  But I expect him to do more to shift the direction of the country than anybody else will.  Movements get things done, not individual politicians.  If you consistently hand-wring and elect politicians who are modest, you will never have a movement and never accomplish anything meaningful.

And if you want to compare to Obama, we can do that, but I think the issue is you're using that comparison in the least useful way.  Obama received the most corporate donations in the 2008 election season (by a fuck of a lot), immediately told white collar criminals that he was on their side* when the recession blew up, and used the opportunity to give them shitloads of money as a reward for destroying the economy.  He also immediately rejected calls for investigations of and criminal proceedings against Bush and his administration upon taking office, and marketed his character on high road/civility, while expanding the surveillance police state, militarism, and aiding the rich in class warfare.  Basically the opposite of most of the platform he campaigned on, and all issues that produce outcomes devoid of high road/civility for those on the receiving end of those decisions.

I think that believing it's necessary to aim lower in our goals is the wrong lesson to take away from Obama's failures.  The lesson is the country trusted the wrong person, when there were clear indications that he wasn't deserving of that trust.  It was a lesson in how to identify and value integrity.

*

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The CEOs went into their traditional stance. “It’s almost impossible to set caps [to their bonuses]; it’s never worked, and you lose your best people,” said one. “We’re competing for talent on an international market,” said another. Obama cut them off.

“Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that,” Obama said. “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

“You guys have an acute public relations problem that’s turning into a political problem,” he said. “And I want to help. But you need to show that you get that this is a crisis and that everyone has to make some sacrifices.” According to one of the participants, he then said, “I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you. But if I’m going to shield you from public and congressional anger, you have to give me something to work with on these issues of compensation.”

[Mephisto]

I haven't really been following Sanders all that much. I've found that a bunch of the people in the running for the Dem slot have been presenting lofty goals with absolutely no backing plan. I mean, if the choices next year are the dude who complains about not having due process but then tantrums out of the room when offered it or someone with a lofty goal and no plan, my vote won't be going to the former. But still, plans are nice.

Last I heard about Sanders was the heart attack in October. I don't really see how electing the guy who very well could be the first in a while to die in office would be a good idea.

[wierd]

Depends.  The dems are not not as good at "Party line politics" as the GOP. (this is both a good and a bad thing.)

Old-School democrats will be opposed; New-generation democrats will be in favor.  Recent political events have been strongly demonstrating that old-school democrat tactics are losing popular favor; This is why nearly all current democrat presidential candidates have re-aligned with Sanders' views on modern politics, to varying degrees. (Some favor more of the oldschool methodologies to cater to older democrat voters that are unwilling or at least, unlikely, to support radical changes and favor incremental slow ones. Others see the handwriting on the wall as concerns climate change, the trajectory the economy is in as relates to wealth inequality as we careen through another gilded age and see the need for another New-Deal type solution, which necessitates radical action.)

Congress critters and senate seaters will behave as they always have; they will seek whatever garners them the most popular support and or pork for their home territory and constituency (EG, whoever is buttering their bread, be it industry, or actual popular support, depending on region and regional politics.)  Since radical changes are **CERTAIN** to upset the apple cart vis-a-vis industry, expect heavy blowback in heavy industrial states, and those that have a heavy invested interest in fossil fuel production, or industries that produce lots of greenhouse gas emmisions, and or-- states that cater to wealthy industries.  (California is a crapshoot-- hard to say if the congress critters and senate seaters there will capitulate to silly valley lobbyists, or if they will vote to enact sweeping changes that will deal pretty substantial blows to the oligarchs that have operations there.)

[Dunamisdeos]

I mean it's not like I expect him to promise these things and then 100% implement all of them or it's not worth electing him. Don't get me wrong there.

I do want him to make something happen, though. In a relatively-immediate practical sense.

[Frumple]

Unless he's flipped on pushing to nuke the filibuster and whatnot, you can expect him to get done roughly "fuck" and "all", especially if the US doesn't give the dems a crushing majority in both house and senate. Which it's sadly unlikely to

Him being a geriatric that's been ossifying inside congress for decades has its problems, unfortunately. Still better than trump, but so's the last thing I flushed down a toilet. Probably better than senior "I suck people's fingers in front a crowd" biden, too, but... not the highest bar to pass, there, either. Though it does look like quite a lot of the democrat primary electorate doesn't quite agree with that one.

[wierd]

If Biden can make it through a single day without making a gaffe, I would be surprised. (Trump cant seem to go longer than 20 minutes...)


Personally, I think Warren and Sanders should not be butting heads; They should make a gentleman's agreement that whichever comes out ahead in the primary, the other will be their VP.  The votes would be immense, as it would effectively combine their constituencies, and be totally legal.  The only real difference in their platforms is the degree of intensity they think is appropriate.


I agree that without a supermajority in both chambers, such a presidency would be hamstrung and impotent on day 1, but it might be sufficient for the next election cycle on capitol hill to sweep out more of the GOP detritus. 

[Iduno]

Personally, I think Warren and Sanders should not be butting heads; They should make a gentleman's agreement that whichever comes out ahead in the primary, the other will be their VP.  The votes would be immense, as it would effectively combine their constituencies, and be totally legal.  The only real difference in their platforms is the degree of intensity they think is appropriate.

They only need to overcome their differences. One believes in Reganomics and the other one wants to take things back to the worker protections and economic safety nets that were created to end the great depression.

[Frumple]

When did sanders backslide far enough to get into reganomics territory?

[Reelya]

When did sanders backslide far enough to get into reganomics territory?

I think he means Warren.