Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
... LastLast
  1. #321
    The Unstoppable Force cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    Let's suppose that Bernie, or someone like him wins. Here is what I expect.

    I expect him to be pretty much like Obama, but hopefully a little more leftish. Obama was not very leftish.

    His foreign policy was basically a continuation of the Bush years. He did not exit any wars that Bush started, and started a few more on his own. His adventures in Honduras imply that he would be just as inclined towards a military solution with respect to Venezuela as Trump is. It seems reasonable to blame the current wave of refugees to the US on Obama and his Honduran adventure.

    On the other hand, Obama really did get "the conservative alternative to Hillarycare" passed into law. hmm THAT does not sound very leftish at all.

    OK he went to Flint Michigan to support republicans in their claim that the water in Flint Michigan was safe to drink. Hmm not very leftish either.

    Maybe the Flint Michigan issue is one where Bernie would be to the left of Obama. Just maybe a President Sanders would ride into town to work towards improving the water quality rather than claiming it's already ok. Maybe the threat of Medicare for All would prod the medical insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals to lower their prices somewhat, and provide somewhat better care. Not because they are nice. But to keep people from jumping ship for a possible Medicare for All.

    A President Sanders has absolutely no ability to do much more than that. Foreign policy under him would not change at all.

    I agree that bringing back unions just won't work. Truck drivers, for example, would NEVER work together to improve their working conditions. But maybe the threat of their return would prod some improvements in working conditions.

    And just maybe, with a lot of work and a bit of luck, maybe he can lay the groundwork for making bigger changes in the 2024 term. You have to start somewhere. And, for me, at least a President Sanders would point us in the right direction.
    To me Bernie is just too old - looking and his promise style. I too would expect him to claim a lot, that would be unrealistic to make actually happen, and then he falls flat with little accomplished. I'm not entirely up to speed on his foreign policy to comment.

    p.s. I'd love to see evidence of Obama saying Flint MI water was "ok" after it became known that it wasn't. Him saying that it was ok before people found out it wasn't really doesn't matter, does it?
    The less you know, the more you believe.

    Science has promised us nothing and given us everything, faith has promised us everything and given us nothing.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    To me Bernie is just too old - looking and his promise style. I too would expect him to claim a lot, that would be unrealistic to make actually happen, and then he falls flat with little accomplished. I'm not entirely up to speed on his foreign policy to comment.

    p.s. I'd love to see evidence of Obama saying Flint MI water was "ok" after it became known that it wasn't. Him saying that it was ok before people found out it wasn't really doesn't matter, does it?
    Bernie being too old: Agree. At most he would be one term. I didn't put "Sanders, or someone like him" every time, but it was meant. My apologies for the confusion.


    I am EXPECTING him to "claim a lot" - otherwise knows as shooting for the stars. He won't get anywhere near what he promises and such - but the attempts to get there could make things a lot better than if we don't try. Obamacare really is an improvement over what we had before. Well except for the red states where they intentionally sabotaged it. But that's on them. Obama promised a lot, delivered far short of his promises, and yet the country is better off for him trying.

    The Flint Michigan situation was documented in the movie Fahrenheit 11/9. The movie was billed as being anti-Trump. But imho it was far more anti-Obama.
    Last edited by Omega10; 2019-02-25 at 09:24 PM.

  3. #323
    The Unstoppable Force cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    23,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    Bernie being too old: Agree. At most he would be one term. I didn't put "Sanders, or someone like him" every time, but it was meant. My apologies for the confusion.
    Agreed. The funny thing is that even though Stormin' Joe is about the same age, I don't have the same problems with him. I'm aware of the inconsitency, I'm comfortable with it, but I can't defend it very well at all.


    I am EXPECTING him to "claim a lot" - otherwise knows as shooting for the stars. He won't get anywhere near what he promises and such - but the attempts to get there could make things a lot better than if we don't try. Obamacare really is an improvement over what we had before. Well except for the red states where they intentionally sabotaged it. But that's on them. Obama promised a lot, delivered far short of his promises, and yet the country is better off for him trying.
    Agreed.


    The Flint Michigan situation was documented in the movie Fahrenheit 11/9. The movie was billed as being anti-Trump. But imho it was far more anti-Obama.
    I haven't seen F 11/9 (how great did that date work out for him?) but I would question that piece of it. Obama joining with the GOP to say that lead filled water was ok to drink doesn't really seem like Obama's style. If Obama was placating people before it was known to be bad, that's another story altogether.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Ok, found the Obama thing. Much more complicated what he did than just say "the water is ok to drink". But it was after they found the lead.
    The less you know, the more you believe.

    Science has promised us nothing and given us everything, faith has promised us everything and given us nothing.

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    What I am doing, and will continue to do at every turn, is this new thing where it's okay for politicians running for office to write checks they can't cash. There is in fact (and coincidentally) an article about this in the Washington Post today, about how Democratic candidates are swinging for the fences Trump-style, rather than offering Clintonite incriminetalism.
    I mean...2016 was literally Trump-style swinging for the fences versus Clintonite incrementalism...down to the level of having an actual Clinton on the ticket. I'm all for leaders telling us what it will take to accomplish goals, but I think 2016 was a clear rejection of the status quo, and if the status quo isn't acceptable, politicians need to have loftier aspirations for the country- even if those goals are harder to reach. Incrementalism is an inevitability of our system- it's what will happen- but I'm not sure it's a good platform to run on in this day and age.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the easiest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again is if they fail to counter his fake populism with some actual populism. Notice that by that I don't mean "veer hard left on everything," but they have to start by admitting that there are lots of things broken- which they didn't do well in 2016- and an incrementalist platform won't send that message as well as a bold one. With Orange Moron in office, the argument for major reform has never been more salient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    What is a new thing, and frankly, you see it in your responses to me, and other responses to this thread, is the anger that is brought about, and the entire lack of any reasonable rebuttal, to the fact that there is no plan to turn the dream into law.
    "Real change never takes place from the top on down, but always from the bottom on up."

    This is the very first line in Sanders' announcement video. He's been explicit about building from the grassroots. He's injected energy into the base, and changed the conversation significantly, both among voters and among Democratic office seekers. And yeah, there are plenty of people that like his ideas, hear him point out how many other nations have already successfully implemented them, and get impatient about why can't we just do what seems to be common sense right now- but that's true of just about any political movement, because people are impatient by nature.

    That said, one big reason you don't hear Progressives talking about how to get to 60 votes in the Senate (other than a desire by some to kill the filibuster, which I agree with) is that they don't see 60 Senate votes as the primary institutional barrier. What's the point in counting votes when almost every Senator receives campaign donations from industries fundamentally opposed to various planks of the Progressive platform? Talking about the ideas will get them into the public consciousness, win supporters, and force opponents to counter them- and individual lawmakers will sometimes succumb to pressure- but when money wins 90% or so of races, and fundraising is easier when you get money from wealthy industry groups, it disincentives the political parties (as institutions) from acting against their benefactors' interests. Luckily- and you can give Sanders a lot of credit for this- rejecting corporate PAC money became the new "hotness" among many Democratic office-seekers (however symbolic the gesture is). Just today, Warren announced that she won't be doing high-dollar-plate donor dinners. Progressives believe- honestly, and not without evidence- that getting money out of politics (as much as is possible) will move policy to the left of where it is today. This is the real battle, but inspiration has to come before implementation. Healthcare, college, inequality, saving the damn planet- these things are more interesting and tangible than campaign finance, and thus talked about a lot, but the systemic corruption is the biggest roadblock as far as Progressives are concerned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I can write an essay at length as to why that is important. Why it is an essential use of money. I also have no route to get the 60 votes needed, every year, over 30 years, with Presidents and houses of both parties, to make it happen. So I have happily embraced the incrimentalism that is yielding real results to that end.
    Ironically, the people that have believed in Sanders's ideas since before he ran in 2015 have had nothing but incrementalism to content themselves with. You can hardly fault people for getting excited when they sense a change in the winds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    After Donald Trump, I thought we'd be hungry in candidates that talked to the American people like children, and told the truth about how to achieve things.
    (I can't avoid mentioning here that Trump talks like a child. Tee hee.)

    I don't disagree that many Americans may look for that, but I think that plenty of people are looking for bold. I also don't think that bold and realistic have to be mutually exclusive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Where do they find the four Republicans, all of whom will be in much redder states than the likes of Corey Gardner and Susan Collins?
    The Democratic majority that held the House for basically the entire post-War boom was locked in largely due to socially conservative (and often racist) Southern Democrats. People from states that are today bright red helped build the major social programs of the New Deal and Great Society. And while social issues largely drove those people to the Republican Party (and will keep them there for the foreseeable future), where they were fed mouthful after mouthful of "gubmint bad," the Republican coalition is starting to fracture on economic issues. There are strong signs that the voter base just isn't buying the free market dogma the the party puts out anymore. Trump went completely against the Party's usual line on trade and entitlements- and won. Tucker Carlson's rant from the beginning of the year on how markets are failing people is still being talked about. Right-leaning policy wonks are coming up with parental leave plans (which are jokes btw) and wage subsidies, Fox News is freaking out over how many of their own viewers want to raise taxes on billionaires.

    Just as there was decades ago, there is a potential constituency today for people who are cultural conservatives and economically populist. Look at the scatterplot in this thread (I know, I know, Theo thread). I think there are plenty of people (and I've mentioned this before) that are perfectly fine with the Democrats on economic issues, but won't vote for them because (guns, abortion, immigration, religion, insert other social issues here).

    So right now? You don't get those votes. But what happens to the parties in a post-Trump world? Does the GoP get more fractured on economic issues, where more populist Trumpesque candidates join with the Democrats on policy (we can have Medicare for all as long as the immigrants don't get the benefits)? Do Democrats run some more socially conservative candidates across the middle of the country and make their focus on an economic agenda? What happens as the country gets browner, and as the oldest, reddest voters die off much faster than blue voters? How does the GoP change in reaction to the demographic time bombs that they're sitting on? What policies do they change?

    The country shifted to the right in the mid-70's and was cemented by the Reagan presidency. Clinton shifted the Dems in that direction to triangulate. But based on the way Millennials vote, and the challenges we face as a generation, I think that another generational shift is coming- whether its imminent or still a ways away, or whether it's back in the area of the Keynsian/New Deal consensus, or farther left, I won't dare to venture, but I am confident that it will be leftward. This doesn't help finding four votes in 2021, but if they want to get there in 2029, or 2033, then arguing for Progressive ideas is still what they should be doing, and there will be a path then.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    An America that doesn't hold on dearly to it's innovators, in favor of being some kind of blue collar industrial throwback, is going to lose its power, and then lose its wealth
    An America that doesn't hold on dearly to it's middle class, in favor of some kind of constant appeasement of the investment class, is going to lose its wealth, and then lose its power.

    The real lesson of the government shutdown this year wasn't that Trump is a pathetic caver (we knew this already). It was that many federal workers are financially fragile. Millions of Americans who make about the same, or less, are just a couple missed paychecks away from the food bank. Income inequality, rising costs of living/education/healthcare, stagnating wages, etc. are all threatening to the prosperity of the country.

    Also, the "blue collar industrial throwback" is a Trump voter thing. Progressives are about making sure that the jobs we have are all jobs that you can live comfortably off of, not trying to bring back the old "good jobs."

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Consider the mentioning of unions. What unions are we talking about precisely? Auto workers unions? Government worker unions? Or maybe the creation of new unions that don't exist in the software industry and information economy. Where precisely is the focus of unions on the left? Is it in propping up the remnant of the industrial unions of decades past, freezing them in time? Or is it about bringing workers rights to industries that have none and maybe should? I have seen and heard little about that latter idea, and believe me, I've been looking.
    This one mainly. I guess maybe it isn't specified much- I always found it self-evident. Supporting unionization and collective bargaining in general will mostly affect the service industry which has traditionally been much less unionized. There are plenty of ideas, but the political class hasn't really settled on exactly what the future of labor looks like, and how it differs from current or past iterations. In the short term, getting rid of the deviously named "right-to-work" laws is wanted to help existing unions maintain themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    In the New Cold War, in which liberal democracy and free market capitalism is in a mortal struggle against the Chinese Alternative of illiberalism/autocracy and state capitalism, the same thing applies. Any new policy and old policy - and that includes the wishlist or taxation - must operate through the lens now of how it enhances our competitiveness versus China and other alternatives.
    While Millennials believe in diplomacy and global community, they are more skeptical than previous generations about the US taking the lead role on the world stage. And less enthusiastic about maintaining military supremacy. They're also more critical of capitalism. What is the next generation going to have to say on those issues? It's not the Baby Boomers that are going to see the next Cold War through. It's today's young people and their children. The Liberal international order we've built is maintained to protect American prosperity...but what happens if Americans writ large think that it mostly benefits wealthy multinationals- and not them?

    What happens when another generation grows up realizing, as Millennials have been, that living in the richest country in the world doesn't guarantee you access to healthcare, like other less-wealthy countries? Or that your job might not pay a living wage? Or that you don't have the benefits that workers in the rest of the developed world have? What are voters going to ask of their representatives when living in the wealthiest country in the world doesn't feel like living in the wealthiest county in the world?

    Millennials are poorer than their parents, and poorer still than Gen-X at comparable ages. Socioeconomic mobility has declined. Not surprisingly, Millennials are the least enamored of American Exceptionalism. So again: what is the next generation going to think? If the upcoming confrontation with China is the most important thing facing our country- if not the world- wouldn't the best way to go about it be by making sure that this country truly believes in, and will fight to defend the idea of America?
    Last edited by Gestopft; 2019-02-26 at 12:16 AM.
    "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    -H.L. Mencken, 1920

  5. #325
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    An America that doesn't hold on dearly to it's innovators, in favor of being some kind of blue collar industrial throwback, is going to lose its power, and then lose its wealth, as as those islands of wealth that finance American high technology move to where the talent is, which increasingly in this scenario, will not be America, but China and the Indo-Pacific region.
    It matters very little if America manages to hold on to its current innovators and talent because it's economics and corruption are doing an impressive job squashing the innovators and talent of tomorrow under student debt, stagnant wages, and declining workers rights in basically all of America's businesses.

    It is a fair criticism of Bernie that his plan is one step removed form Peter Quill's "my plan is to crowd source a plan", but unlike most of the other candidates who have detailed more of how they will achieve their vision, I believe Bernie has the correct heading and the appropriate level of urgency. Eject big money from politics, take industries of inelastic demand (healthcare and education) away from unregulated market forces that have no ability to pump the brakes, and halt, then reverse, the runaway train of income inequality. That is how you make your nation healthy and vibrant again. As you so eloquently outlined, America needs to get healthy and vibrant again before China is ready to go toe to toe with her.

    The problem with the incrementalists, is their solutions might have made a difference in the 90s and 2000s, but they are a leaky bucket to empty the ocean today. Sanders is definitely swinging for the fences, but bunting with two outs and two strikes isn't very productive either.

  6. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by DisposableHero View Post
    It is a fair criticism of Bernie that his plan is one step removed form Peter Quill's "my plan is to crowd source a plan", but unlike most of the other candidates who have detailed more of how they will achieve their vision, I believe Bernie has the correct heading and the appropriate level of urgency.
    Bernie's plan is far more detailed than Amy's or Cory's, just to give 2 examples.


  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    I mean...2016 was literally Trump-style swinging for the fences versus Clintonite incrementalism...down to the level of having an actual Clinton on the ticket. I'm all for leaders telling us what it will take to accomplish goals, but I think 2016 was a clear rejection of the status quo, and if the status quo isn't acceptable, politicians need to have loftier aspirations for the country- even if those goals are harder to reach. Incrementalism is an inevitability of our system- it's what will happen- but I'm not sure it's a good platform to run on in this day and age.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the easiest way for Democrats to lose to Trump again is if they fail to counter his fake populism with some actual populism. Notice that by that I don't mean "veer hard left on everything," but they have to start by admitting that there are lots of things broken- which they didn't do well in 2016- and an incrementalist platform won't send that message as well as a bold one. With Orange Moron in office, the argument for major reform has never been more salient.



    "Real change never takes place from the top on down, but always from the bottom on up."

    This is the very first line in Sanders' announcement video. He's been explicit about building from the grassroots. He's injected energy into the base, and changed the conversation significantly, both among voters and among Democratic office seekers. And yeah, there are plenty of people that like his ideas, hear him point out how many other nations have already successfully implemented them, and get impatient about why can't we just do what seems to be common sense right now- but that's true of just about any political movement, because people are impatient by nature.

    That said, one big reason you don't hear Progressives talking about how to get to 60 votes in the Senate (other than a desire by some to kill the filibuster, which I agree with) is that they don't see 60 Senate votes as the primary institutional barrier. What's the point in counting votes when almost every Senator receives campaign donations from industries fundamentally opposed to various planks of the Progressive platform? Talking about the ideas will get them into the public consciousness, win supporters, and force opponents to counter them- and individual lawmakers will sometimes succumb to pressure- but when money wins 90% or so of races, and fundraising is easier when you get money from wealthy industry groups, it disincentives the political parties (as institutions) from acting against their benefactors' interests. Luckily- and you can give Sanders a lot of credit for this- rejecting corporate PAC money became the new "hotness" among many Democratic office-seekers (however symbolic the gesture is). Just today, Warren announced that she won't be doing high-dollar-plate donor dinners. Progressives believe- honestly, and not without evidence- that getting money out of politics (as much as is possible) will move policy to the left of where it is today. This is the real battle, but inspiration has to come before implementation. Healthcare, college, inequality, saving the damn planet- these things are more interesting and tangible than campaign finance, and thus talked about a lot, but the systemic corruption is the biggest roadblock as far as Progressives are concerned.



    Ironically, the people that have believed in Sanders's ideas since before he ran in 2015 have had nothing but incrementalism to content themselves with. You can hardly fault people for getting excited when they sense a change in the winds.



    (I can't avoid mentioning here that Trump talks like a child. Tee hee.)

    I don't disagree that many Americans may look for that, but I think that plenty of people are looking for bold. I also don't think that bold and realistic have to be mutually exclusive.



    The Democratic majority that held the House for basically the entire post-War boom was locked in largely due to socially conservative (and often racist) Southern Democrats. People from states that are today bright red helped build the major social programs of the New Deal and Great Society. And while social issues largely drove those people to the Republican Party (and will keep them there for the foreseeable future), where they were fed mouthful after mouthful of "gubmint bad," the Republican coalition is starting to fracture on economic issues. There are strong signs that the voter base just isn't buying the free market dogma the the party puts out anymore. Trump went completely against the Party's usual line on trade and entitlements- and won. Tucker Carlson's rant from the beginning of the year on how markets are failing people is still being talked about. Right-leaning policy wonks are coming up with parental leave plans (which are jokes btw) and wage subsidies, Fox News is freaking out over how many of their own viewers want to raise taxes on billionaires.

    Just as there was decades ago, there is a potential constituency today for people who are cultural conservatives and economically populist. Look at the scatterplot in this thread (I know, I know, Theo thread). I think there are plenty of people (and I've mentioned this before) that are perfectly fine with the Democrats on economic issues, but won't vote for them because (guns, abortion, immigration, religion, insert other social issues here).

    So right now? You don't get those votes. But what happens to the parties in a post-Trump world? Does the GoP get more fractured on economic issues, where more populist Trumpesque candidates join with the Democrats on policy (we can have Medicare for all as long as the immigrants don't get the benefits)? Do Democrats run some more socially conservative candidates across the middle of the country and make their focus on an economic agenda? What happens as the country gets browner, and as the oldest, reddest voters die off much faster than blue voters? How does the GoP change in reaction to the demographic time bombs that they're sitting on? What policies do they change?

    The country shifted to the right in the mid-70's and was cemented by the Reagan presidency. Clinton shifted the Dems in that direction to triangulate. But based on the way Millennials vote, and the challenges we face as a generation, I think that another generational shift is coming- whether its imminent or still a ways away, or whether it's back in the area of the Keynsian/New Deal consensus, or farther left, I won't dare to venture, but I am confident that it will be leftward. This doesn't help finding four votes in 2021, but if they want to get there in 2029, or 2033, then arguing for Progressive ideas is still what they should be doing, and there will be a path then.



    An America that doesn't hold on dearly to it's middle class, in favor of some kind of constant appeasement of the investment class, is going to lose its wealth, and then lose its power.

    The real lesson of the government shutdown this year wasn't that Trump is a pathetic caver (we knew this already). It was that many federal workers are financially fragile. Millions of Americans who make about the same, or less, are just a couple missed paychecks away from the food bank. Income inequality, rising costs of living/education/healthcare, stagnating wages, etc. are all threatening to the prosperity of the country.

    Also, the "blue collar industrial throwback" is a Trump voter thing. Progressives are about making sure that the jobs we have are all jobs that you can live comfortably off of, not trying to bring back the old "good jobs."



    This one mainly. I guess maybe it isn't specified much- I always found it self-evident. Supporting unionization and collective bargaining in general will mostly affect the service industry which has traditionally been much less unionized. There are plenty of ideas, but the political class hasn't really settled on exactly what the future of labor looks like, and how it differs from current or past iterations. In the short term, getting rid of the deviously named "right-to-work" laws is wanted to help existing unions maintain themselves.



    While Millennials believe in diplomacy and global community, they are more skeptical than previous generations about the US taking the lead role on the world stage. And less enthusiastic about maintaining military supremacy. They're also more critical of capitalism. What is the next generation going to have to say on those issues? It's not the Baby Boomers that are going to see the next Cold War through. It's today's young people and their children. The Liberal international order we've built is maintained to protect American prosperity...but what happens if Americans writ large think that it mostly benefits wealthy multinationals- and not them?

    What happens when another generation grows up realizing, as Millennials have been, that living in the richest country in the world doesn't guarantee you access to healthcare, like other less-wealthy countries? Or that your job might not pay a living wage? Or that you don't have the benefits that workers in the rest of the developed world have? What are voters going to ask of their representatives when living in the wealthiest country in the world doesn't feel like living in the wealthiest county in the world?

    Millennials are poorer than their parents, and poorer still than Gen-X at comparable ages. Socioeconomic mobility has declined. Not surprisingly, Millennials are the least enamored of American Exceptionalism. So again: what is the next generation going to think? If the upcoming confrontation with China is the most important thing facing our country- if not the world- wouldn't the best way to go about it be by making sure that this country truly believes in, and will fight to defend the idea of America?
    If you ever run for office, I AM VOTING FOR YOU!!!

    Very very well written. The part in bold is especially powerful.

    You give me some hope that the US will come out of all of this more or less in one piece. I have thought for a long time that, as a baby boomer - the tail end of the generation, well the best I can do is to help hasten the transfer of power from baby boomers to millennials. You have solidified that feeling. And I feel even more comfortable than ever that millennials will be up to the challenge. I have my fingers crossed that millennials are given a fighting chance.

  8. #328
    @CryotriX

    I get your point. Even if Bernie will have an uphill climb to get his wishlist done, his election would be a statement to certain entrenched, established interests.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.

    While Millennials believe in diplomacy and global community, they are more skeptical than previous generations about the US taking the lead role on the world stage. And less enthusiastic about maintaining military supremacy. They're also more critical of capitalism
    @Gestopft : Good. F both of those (that I've emphasized).
    Last edited by Realitytrembles; 2019-02-26 at 02:30 PM.

  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    @CryotriX

    I get your point. Even if Bernie will have an uphill climb to get his wishlist done, his election would be a statement to certain entrenched, established interests.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.
    Indeed. People put value on a hashtag, or "time's up!" pin, but they scoff at electing a president that represents what the establishment fears the most. It's a start. Might be idealistic and naive, but it's not like the average guy has many other options.

    For me, the worst option is continuing the status quo. After that, comes the "refreshing" you have mentioned, because while it sounds good, it means a lot of people will suffer, and i simply don't want that to happen. But I don't think it's super exaggerated or dramatic to think that in the end, the masses will simply rise up if their needs aren't met by those supposed to represent them.

  10. #330
    Herald of the Titans downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    @CryotriX

    I get your point. Even if Bernie will have an uphill climb to get his wishlist done, his election would be a statement to certain entrenched, established interests.

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on November 13, 1787.



    @Gestopft : Good. F both of those (that I've emphasized).
    I'm getting a whiff of Lenin when I see that Jefferson quote invoked in that context.
    Last edited by downnola; 2019-02-26 at 11:55 PM.
    “The literal mind is baffled by the ironic one, demanding explanations that only intensify the joke."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    I'm gettting a whiff of Lenin when I see that Jefferson quote invoked in that context.
    Democratic socialism, not Bolshevism. It's really in the best interests of the establishment to cooperate with significant reforms. How about a quote from another great American?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." --- John F. Kennedy

  12. #332
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    I'm gettting a whiff of Lenin when I see that Jefferson quote invoked in that context.
    Lenin’s “bread, land and peace” is a lot more like “three acres and a mule”.
    Entropy won't yield to you.
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by Omega10 View Post
    Let's suppose that Bernie, or someone like him wins. Here is what I expect.

    I expect him to be pretty much like Obama, but hopefully a little more leftish. Obama was not very leftish.

    His foreign policy was basically a continuation of the Bush years. He did not exit any wars that Bush started, and started a few more on his own. His adventures in Honduras imply that he would be just as inclined towards a military solution with respect to Venezuela as Trump is. It seems reasonable to blame the current wave of refugees to the US on Obama and his Honduran adventure.

    On the other hand, Obama really did get "the conservative alternative to Hillarycare" passed into law. hmm THAT does not sound very leftish at all.

    OK he went to Flint Michigan to support republicans in their claim that the water in Flint Michigan was safe to drink. Hmm not very leftish either.

    Maybe the Flint Michigan issue is one where Bernie would be to the left of Obama. Just maybe a President Sanders would ride into town to work towards improving the water quality rather than claiming it's already ok. Maybe the threat of Medicare for All would prod the medical insurance companies and the pharmaceuticals to lower their prices somewhat, and provide somewhat better care. Not because they are nice. But to keep people from jumping ship for a possible Medicare for All.

    A President Sanders has absolutely no ability to do much more than that. Foreign policy under him would not change at all.

    I agree that bringing back unions just won't work. Truck drivers, for example, would NEVER work together to improve their working conditions. But maybe the threat of their return would prod some improvements in working conditions.

    And just maybe, with a lot of work and a bit of luck, maybe he can lay the groundwork for making bigger changes in the 2024 term. You have to start somewhere. And, for me, at least a President Sanders would point us in the right direction.
    Obama did what he set out to do at his inauguration speech: pull the US out of the recession. I remember watching his speech, he said it would take years to fix the economy, but it did happen (well, it recovered). Dems even added some consumer banking protections to prevent the crash for reoccurring (GOP repealed those laws last year, big surprise).

    Bernie's platform is different. His 2 main issues are Universal Healthcare and removing drak money from politics. The president usually only has enough power in his first 2 years in office to pull off big legislation; after that, the opposition usually regains a piece of power to block it. If Bern can start removing dark money and lay the skeleton for Universal Healthcare in his first 2 years, he will be a big success.
    Last edited by roboscorcher; 2019-02-26 at 03:44 PM.

  14. #334
    Herald of the Titans downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Democratic socialism, not Bolshevism. It's really in the best interests of the establishment to cooperate with significant reforms. How about a quote from another great American?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." --- John F. Kennedy
    It's in the best interest of Democratic Socialists to realize that political change in the U.S. requires more than slogans and cheap rhetoric to get their way. Put time and effort into changing the makeup of the House and Senate. AOC is a good start, so build on it.

    What the left doesn't need is a load of empty neo-Bolshevist, "guillotine the rich" rhetoric because change doesn't happen instantly. You quote the founders a lot, but seemed to skip over the Federalist Papers that explain why our political system is built the way it is. If people actually took the time to learn how our system works, they'd organize properly and get shit done, rather than waste everyone's time by focusing only on Presidential elections.
    “The literal mind is baffled by the ironic one, demanding explanations that only intensify the joke."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    It's in the best interest of Democratic Socialists to realize that political change in the U.S. requires more than slogans and cheap rhetoric to get their way. Put time and effort into changing the makeup of the House and Senate. AOC is a good start, so build on it.

    What the left doesn't need is a load of empty neo-Bolshevist, "guillotine the rich" rhetoric because change doesn't happen instantly. You quote the founders a lot, but seemed to skip over the Federalist Papers that explain why our political system is built the way it is. If people actually took the time to learn how our system works, they'd organize properly and get shit done, rather than waste everyone's time by focusing only on Presidential elections.
    The emphasis I added is where I agree with you. AOC is great, and state elections need more attention.

  16. #336
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post

    I get your point. Even if Bernie will have an uphill climb to get his wishlist done, his election would
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to William S. Smith, a diplomatic official in London, on
    Jefferson regretted that statement and took it back after witnessing the French Revolution
    - Lars

  17. #337
    Herald of the Titans downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    2,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzjhath View Post
    Jefferson regretted that statement and took it back after witnessing the French Revolution
    I think everyone took a step back and said "yikes" after the French Revolution.
    “The literal mind is baffled by the ironic one, demanding explanations that only intensify the joke."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  18. #338
    Democratic Party Operatives tried to undermine Bernie sanders townhall?

    So it seem CNN can't learn a damn thing. Not really too surprised.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...tic-operatives

    CNN admitted fault on Wednesday after being accused of failing to disclose Democratic Party ties of several attendees who were able to ask 2020 presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders questions during the network’s town hall on Monday.

    “Though we said at the beginning of the Town Hall that the audience was made up of Democrats and Independents, we should have more fully identified any political affiliations,” a CNN spokesperson told Fox News.

    "You cannot help but wonder about the intent behind this, as well as CNN’s role in selecting this questioner while not disclosing her workplace."
    — Paste Magazine's Jacob Weindling

  19. #339
    Quote Originally Posted by Realitytrembles View Post
    Democratic socialism, not Bolshevism. It's really in the best interests of the establishment to cooperate with significant reforms. How about a quote from another great American?

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." --- John F. Kennedy
    Bernie is a social democrat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    Trump did it so it's good. I put my faith in a strong political figure because I lack self-esteem and feel threatened by a changing world. Whoever stands against him is bad because I do not understand their arguments and I have a simple tribalistic mindset created through the consumption of right-wing media.

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    Bernie is a social democrat.
    Everyone is just going to have to accept that America screwed up the label for Social Democrat with Democratic Socialism.

    We have a habit of doing things like that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •