DSA's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins Democratic primary in NY-14

[Mahourai]

'
But hey, it was fun to watch you downtalk the US left again, always a great joy.

What's really bizarre is somehow the complaints about American leftism went from complaining about unrealistic demands to chastising Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez for not being Leninist hardliners.

[Mafic]

The US Democratic party was pulled to the left on several occasions: Communists, socialists and a former Republican (eg FDR).

Much needed pull to the left as the Democratic party has forgotten the roots of the party of the 20th century (eg labor). This is why Democratic Socialists having success is not a surprise as the current Democratic party doesn't stand up for labor or unions.

People said that the Tea party would fracture the Republican party and it would make it hard to win anything. And yet they were able to win big with a mid term and actually change the direction of the Republican party.

Sometimes a party has to take a few step back to make huge steps forward in the future.

- - - Updated - - -

What's really bizarre is somehow the complaints about American leftism went from complaining about unrealistic demands to chastising Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez for not being Leninist hardliners.

None of those are unrealistic demands.

Even a job guarantee doing work for the government is possible but don't expect the pay to be good. :P

[Fugus]

None of those are unrealistic demands.

Even a job guarantee doing work for the government is possible but don't expect the pay to be good. :P

Sad thing is, even poor paying jobs would pay better than many jobs in the US. Just paying a living wage would put it above almost half of all US jobs.

[mvaliz]

The US Democratic party was pulled to the left on several occasions: Communists, socialists and a former Republican (eg FDR).

Much needed pull to the left as the Democratic party has forgotten the roots of the party of the 20th century (eg labor). This is why Democratic Socialists having success is not a surprise as the current Democratic party doesn't stand up for labor or unions.

People said that the Tea party would fracture the Republican party and it would make it hard to win anything. And yet they were able to win big with a mid term and actually change the direction of the Republican party.

Sometimes a party has to take a few step back to make huge steps forward in the future.

- - - Updated - - -



None of those are unrealistic demands.

Even a job guarantee doing work for the government is possible but don't expect the pay to be good. :P

I mean, all they (Current Democratic Party) needed to do was to pretty much endorse Universal Healthcare, Universal Education and living-wage equality and the DSA would've just been endorsing them instead of engaging in a more active role. The DSA apparently had a history of endorsing the Dems since John Kerry's run for President, so it wasn't a question of extremism at all.

[Endus]

None of those are unrealistic demands.

Even a job guarantee doing work for the government is possible but don't expect the pay to be good. :P

The silliest thing about complaining that it's "unrealistic" is that there's also tons of work that local and State and federal governments need to do, particularly in infrastructure replacement/repair/maintenance. There's literally work that needs doing, so trying to connect people who need work with that is entirely "realistic". You could even say it's "necessary".

Why is it okay to expect the bare minimum in a low-bid-tender environment from the government? Why can't the government be expected to do a good job, with enough staffing and funding to get it done right? This isn't unrealistic, any more than it is for private sector.

[Kasierith]

I said a few months ago that all the Democrats needed to do to oust Trump and his congressional cronies was to embrace sane governance that could get anyone on board in the name of simply getting the system working again.

Goodbye blue wave

[Wyrt]

The only thing really questionable about her platform is the jobs guarantee. Everything else is pretty mainstream in most of the developed world, but she's being treated like she's some insane lunatic by both parties.

[Kasierith]

The silliest thing about complaining that it's "unrealistic" is that there's also tons of work that local and State and federal governments need to do, particularly in infrastructure replacement/repair/maintenance. There's literally work that needs doing, so trying to connect people who need work with that is entirely "realistic". You could even say it's "necessary".

Why is it okay to expect the bare minimum in a low-bid-tender environment from the government? Why can't the government be expected to do a good job, with enough staffing and funding to get it done right? This isn't unrealistic, any more than it is for private sector.

All I see in that list is take money away from people who produce for the society and give it to the people who don't, encourage negligence in universities to proliferate useless degrees, punish the police and convince them not to involve themselves in communities due to perceived racial biased and thus take away normal, sensible law and order (and of course then be blamed for the resulting crime wave as a result of systemic racism), increase the demand for automation to replace excessively high minimum wage burger flippers who are on vacation for huge portions of the year, and as a whole punish the very concept of being an entrepreneur.

Know what I would like to see more than this self indulgent drivel? A push to employ the disabled. If you've ever worked with them (and I suggest you do because it is an amazingly validating experience to work alongside them) they love to work. In general, they love to produce because theyve spent their whole lives having people nanny over them, but if you give them a setting where they can sit down and do something that is both within their capacity and had value and gives them more financial autonomy, they jump at it. But things like that are basically long forgotten in favor of a determined effort to establish a nanny state that punishes any attempt to be independently wealthy and ambitious.

[Mahourai]

Know what I would like to see more than this self indulgent drivel? A push to employ the disabled. If you've ever worked with them (and I suggest you do because it is an amazingly validating experience to work alongside them) they love to work. In general, they love to produce because theyve spent their whole lives having people nanny over them, but if you give them a setting where they can sit down and do something that is both within their capacity and had value and gives them more financial autonomy, they jump at it. But things like that are basically long forgotten in favor of a determined effort to establish a nanny state that punishes any attempt to be independently wealthy and ambitious.

I'm going to guess that a big part of your policy push involves slashing disability entitlements. Am I mistaken?

[Kasierith]

I'm going to guess that a big part of your policy push involves slashing disability entitlements. Am I mistaken?

Sure. If you pretend that someone else wrote something completely different that involved even discussing disability entitlements.

What I'm suggesting is something that has been shown to work on localized levels, and produces a net positive. The net positive being certain simple tasks like securing screws on a tool, which has to be done and becomes more expensive if you have it done overseas, and allows people who have grown up being treated as victims some autonomy.

Another thing. Giving simple jobs to the homeless. Doesn't change the facilities in place, but give them a stack of newspapers and tell them they can sell them for 50 cents and keep what they earn. The city loses money printing paper. But there are homeless people selling papers instead of wandering around getting high and committing crimes.

[Gestopft]

I said a few months ago that all the Democrats needed to do to oust Trump and his congressional cronies was to embrace sane governance that could get anyone on board in the name of simply getting the system working again.

Goodbye blue wave

1) She’s one House candidate in a safely blue district. Not the entire Democratic caucus
2) I agree that good governance needs to be a prominent message, but there also needs to be a bold platform of reforms that are going to make government better. 2016 should be a clarion call that “business as usual” is unacceptable
3) Aside from the job guarantee, the rest of the platform can basically be described as “baseline in developed countries not named ‘USA.’” Instead of running away from actual change (which people want and Trump will fail to deliver), they should fight the messaging war (that Republicans almost always win) and play up the common-sense nature of a Progressive agenda (with a few exceptions)

[Mahourai]

Sure. If you pretend that someone else wrote something completely different that involved even discussing disability entitlements.

So is that a no? Your policy push to employ the disabled would not entail reduce disability benefits in some capacity?

EDIT:

I'm not asking if that's what you wrote in your post, if that's confusing, I'm asking whether you want such a thing or not.

[JohnBrown1917]

I said a few months ago that all the Democrats needed to do to oust Trump and his congressional cronies was to embrace sane governance that could get anyone on board in the name of simply getting the system working again.

Goodbye blue wave

Or you know, actually running on policies that the people want and not suck the corporate dicks. It seems more and more people are trying to make a push for actual left-wing politicise, and it seems that is too much for some.

You oust Trump, you get Pence, that is no better.

[Kasierith]

So is that a no? Your policy push to employ the disabled would not entail reduce disability benefits in some capacity?

EDIT:

I'm not asking if that's what you wrote in your post, if that's confusing, I'm asking whether you want such a thing or not.

Fair enough, I'll slow my roll on the sarcasm and explain my position more thoroughly now that I'm not typing by phone.

No, I do not support reducing disability benefits. While I am in favor of limiting entitlements and making them more efficient, I am no libertarian, and think that the government should be used as a tool to benefit society.

My point is less that such a thing would be a cureall for the woes of society to counterbalance what the candidate has put on the table. I'mt not suggesting fixing the American economy by putting tons of disabled people to work. My main interest at this point is the government implementing smaller scale, manageable and beneficial projects that have a defined outcome. She can talk all she wants about universal healthcare. Even if I supported single party payment systems (I don't in the case of the US), it's not going to happen period without such significant shifts in the political landscape that they are currently unforeseeable. You're not going to get broad enough mandates to implement the taxation necessary to put such a system in place without significantly altering the system as a whole, so it's a moot point unless you're looking way, way down the road. But something localized like expanding the systems I just said? That's something I can get on board with.

I want politicians to present solutions that will actually see the light of day and benefit society without bankrupting it, in other words.

[tyrlaan]

What's really bizarre is somehow the complaints about American leftism went from complaining about unrealistic demands to chastising Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez for not being Leninist hardliners.

Well it's worth pointing out that the former complaint tends to come from conservatives and the latter complaint comes from centrist democrats.

"Unrealistic demands" is the rallying cry attack conservatives lob at liberals, destroying completely non-radical ideas by taking concepts like "healthcare for all", twisting the narrative to suggest the idea is being advertised as "free healthcare" and then launching both barrels at the word 'free'. There's zero actual conversation that challenges the actual idea.

Meanwhile, democrats seem to have fallen into some weird "purity test" mentality with regards to their representatives, which has them wasting their time trying to slide up and segregate their representatives into categories that "aren't democrat". This primarily seems to be a self-defense mechanism of centrist democrats more than anything else, BUT you can see this among nearly all liberal followings - for example Bernie supporters that spazzed at Booker because he has taken campaign donations from big pharma.

Of course, all this does is allow the GOP, who as of yet is still one big family (though clearly not a happy one) to operate more effectively and therefore make any sort of blue wave less likely. In other words, Democrats have a problem seeing the forest from the trees and the GOP has gotten really good at salting the earth so the trees won't grow anyway.

[Kasierith]

1) She’s one House candidate in a safely blue district. Not the entire Democratic caucus

She is one component in a larger general shift among Democrats towards progressive policies coming up to the elections.

2) I agree that good governance needs to be a prominent message, but there also needs to be a bold platform of reforms that are going to make government better. 2016 should be a clarion call that “business as usual” is unacceptable

I disagree. After the drama that is Trump, I simply want the government to function as intended before we jump the train in the opposite direction. The worst outcome of Trump's regime would be massive polarization, where neither side can cooperate because they are so far opposed and the policies and practices of the US shift with each small slide in political power. If progressives swing things far to the left, the Republicans will pull it right back again. If Trump demonstrates anything, it's that this liberal mentality that they would rule the country after Obama's age of lefty enlightenment is flat out wrong, and public views on topics such as abortion show that the Democrats do not have nearly as broad a mandate as they portray. Democrats will probably take power in 2020. They will not hold onto that power indefinitely.

3) Aside from the job guarantee, the rest of the platform can basically be described as “baseline in developed countries not named ‘USA.’” Instead of running away from actual change (which people want and Trump will fail to deliver), they should fight the messaging war (that Republicans almost always win) and play up the common-sense nature of a Progressive agenda (with a few exceptions)[/QUOTE]

Medicare for all: I am not a fan of putting in a single payer system. In addition to its impossibiltiy at this particular junction in American politics and thus being a moot point, people like to pretend that Canadian health care is omnipotent and infallible. It's not. And the shortcoming of it are going to be problems grossly exaggerated in the American system. Canadian healthcare is slower for elective and specialist services, has higher administrative costs, suffers from turbulence in governance, and has problems providing comprehensive care in rural areas. These problems would be exaggerated in the US, where there is far more political turbulence, a far weaker government bureaucracy, and a much larger and much more poor rural population. I think that people tend to idolize Canadian health care (and there are of course plenty who go the other way and tout American exceptionalism which is just as bad), but these are not insignificant problems, and I genuinely believe that the best way to address the problems with American healthcare is not to sink more and more and more and more money in and pray that it fixes it. I think the three keypoints that have to be implemented to fix it instead would be 1) work to get more doctors in the workforce, 2) increase efforts to educate the populace and get them on current systems (for example the Hispanic population has a significant cultural and barrier gap to signing on to such things, and the Republicans really aren't helping that problem at all), and 3) give incentives to the private sector to provide innovative solutions to the rural problem.

Universal jobs guarantee: the ultimate result of this would be paying for people to do nothing. This is what was implemented in Russia, by the way. Everyone gets a job, but if a job is not needed... they're really just sitting around, pretending to be working in paperwork but doing nothing at all. You're really just adding extra paperwork to social security.

Fully funded public schools and universities: I'm not particularly interested in funding someone to go get a biology minor and contribute nothing to society because there is no job for them. In order to justify such funding, universities need to provide some societal benefit, and right now they simply aren't doing that. The simple fact is that there is too much fluff, too much waste. At my university, there was a woman who due to changing majors, failing courses, etc she was there for 9 years, and she came out with a minor in something near useless. Is this what you want the public to fund? Don't American universities need to tighten up before funneling money into them?

Not to mention, taxing the people who would be hiring the university graduates so they'll have less funding to expand and higher new graduates. This is kind of self defeating, is it not? What's the point of a degree if no one is growing their company and thus looking for new hires?

Paid family and sick leave: I haven't really heard much about how she actually wants to change it, so until I hear more details don't have much to say about it.

Justice system reform: yes for decriminalizing pot, yes for regulating for-profit incarceration, no for demilitarizing the police (as a broad mandate, I'm sure we can all think of situations where driving a tank through the center of town may be going too far). But really, the justice system needs two things. 1) get more laywers into public defender positions. They're paid shit and they're handed way too much for anyone to handle, which results in groups with significant education problems and systemic poverty (like a certain racial group) doing plea deals across the board. 2) get cops into the inner city and encourage their participation rather than demonize them.

Immigration justice: while the other parts are kind of regular Democratic line, the "simplify paths to citizenship" rubs me the wrong way really damn hard when I immigrated legally, followed all the rules on my student visa, followed all the rules on my work visa, obtained my permanent residency status, and am building up to citizenship. Granting citizenship out willy nilly just to simplify the issue with Mexicans coming over the border is incredibly disrespectful to those who have for years proceeded through the system and obtained citizenship.

Infrastructural overhaul: I'm really interested in your argument that 100% green energy is baseline among the western world. Really, really, really interested. Because there isn't a single 100% green energy country on the planet that comes to mind even if you concede and consider nuclear energy to be green energy. It's an absolutely ridiculous argument to make, and comes back to my assertion that I want policies that can actually be realized. Do I think we can do more? Hell yes, deregulate the stupid nonsense certain areas are pulling to keep oeple from installing their own solar panels and build up hydroelectric and solar power systems. But that's not what her policy statement presents.

Clean campaign finance: as much as I dislike money in politics, in a system where regulations are a thing it is inevitable that companies will want to express their support for those who would support them. Bill Gates wasn't particularly interested in engaging with the political system until it was thrust upon him with anti-trust laws, iirc. You can argue that certain expressions of money in politics are corrupt, but ultimately those entities that are affected by politicians deserve to have their voices heard by politicians.

An economy of peace: platitudinal nonsense. Sorry, but it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you know, actually running on policies that the people want and not suck the corporate dicks. It seems more and more people are trying to make a push for actual left-wing politicise, and it seems that is too much for some.

You oust Trump, you get Pence, that is no better.

Except I never talked about ousting Trump. Such a thing would not be possible even if Democrats get their blue wave without Republican support, and that would not happen without something absolutely outrageous coming to light which I honestly strong doubt could occur.

I think ideological purity tests are for hypocritical morons who have never had to get their hands dirty to get something done. But people can support what they want, I guess. Just don't be surprised when it causes Republicans to come back to the polls.

[Xeones]

I said a few months ago that all the Democrats needed to do to oust Trump and his congressional cronies was to embrace sane governance that could get anyone on board in the name of simply getting the system working again.

Goodbye blue wave

Are you suggesting that she isn't sane? o.0

[Kasierith]

Are you suggesting that she isn't sane? o.0

More that what I want right now is to return to a stable, more centrist position rather than turn the American political system into a see saw where the response to the other sides far right position is to implement far left views, which will trigger more far right views, and go back and forth destabilizing the country as it becomes impossible to maintain mandates across administrations. Sane for me means not fighting fire with fire, but responding to the maniac setting things on fire by dousing it out because your country's political system being on fire is kind of a bad thing.

[Xeones]

More that what I want right now is to return to a stable, more centrist position rather than turn the American political system into a see saw where the response to the other sides far right position is to implement far left views, which will trigger more far right views, and go back and forth destabilizing the country as it becomes impossible to maintain mandates across administrations. Sane for me means not fighting fire with fire, but responding to the maniac setting things on fire by dousing it out because your country's political system being on fire is kind of a bad thing.

You say you want centrist and then call these views far left?

I feel like we have issues with perspective here. You're standing in a place where your center is different than mine. The right isn't a center for me.

[Kasierith]

You say you want centrist and then call these views far left?

I feel like we have issues with perspective here. You're standing in a place where your center is different than mine. The right isn't a center for me.

We're talking about the American political system because that is what's relevant to the discussion. Dragging the argument of "American left is center-right by international standards" isn't particularly useful in this particular scenario. And these positions are pretty solidly on the left to varying degrees in the American system.