1. #4321
    Scarab Lord Slacker76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Publicly Shaming a Fascist
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Imagine thinking the ACA is progressive. What a joke.
    Getting people coverage for pre-existing conditions was actually a really monumental achievement.

    Shame you're too good for it. But your inluck, the GOP is about to scrap it for you. Then you can really do round of "told you so's" to the libs.

    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    Any other Democrat, including "conservative" Dems (read: moderate Dems) like Tim Kaine, could have won that election. It wasn't a moderate Dem problem, it was a Clinton problem.
    It was also had historically new problems, no other candidate had faced before.
    First election with a gutted Voter Rights Act
    First election with unprecedented amount of foreignratfucking
    First election ever where the director of the FBI put his hand on the scales, twice.

    Sure one by itself might be of not much consequence. But all together in one election, thats a doozy.

  2. #4322
    The Unstoppable Force
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    23,398
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    Getting people coverage for pre-existing conditions was actually a really monumental achievement.

    Shame you're too good for it. But your inluck, the GOP is about to scrap it for you. Then you can really do round of "told you so's" to the libs.
    You're just letting the Republicans frame the politics in this country. They've pretty much have had free reign to do it since the Cold War and Red Scare shit. Now we're decades behind other developed nations on so many areas.

  3. #4323
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    You're just letting the Republicans frame the politics in this country. They've pretty much have had free reign to do it since the Cold War and Red Scare shit. Now we're decades behind other developed nations on so many areas.
    I mean, I've been a card-carrying member of the ACLU for 25 years. I've never been "letting" anyone do anything. I was part of the less than 10% against the Iraq War, when everyone would now have you believe everyone was against that silly ole war. I was part of Occupy. I've volunteered formally or worked on 4 Presidential campaigns. I missed Kerry's because I was in the Peace Corps.

    The Republicans have been very effective at framing the message. Much of that is historical, and waaaaaaay before our time. The Red Scare and McCarthy may have been overblown propaganda, but the USSR was still actually antagonistic, and their Communist government was branded left wing, as opposed to merely authoritarian. This led to us, naturally, being more right wing as a counterbalance. We've had to fight tooth and nail to de-stigmatize left wing politics in this country. Hell, GHW Bush on the campaign trail in '88 literally called liberal "the 'l' word" as if it was some sort of unforgivable curse word. And we're still not there. The Boomers still exist, and frankly, they're probably the biggest and most important voting bloc still.

  4. #4324
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    61,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    On another note:

    Some people on this board express very progressive values but over the past year some of them started preaching nonsense like: "our candidate needs to be moderate / conservative or he wont be able to enact policies or build alliances". That thought process is described under political science as one of the main exemplary fallacies that undermine democracy. The election boot really is not the place for pragmatism.

    Vote for what you believe in, not for what you think other people want you to believe in.
    People really need to get this concept through their heads.

    Let's say the political spectrum boils down to a number from 0 to 10, with 0-4 being "left", 6-10 being "right", and 5 being "center".

    If people voting for 0-1 are convinced to vote for a "feasible" candidate at 3 or 4, and nothing changes on the right, then the candidates don't stretch from 0 to 10. They stretch from 3 to 10. Now people present 3-5 as "left", 8-10 as "right", and 5-6 is "center".

    Now those 3s are asked to support a 5, because that's "feasible", and they follow suit, because they want to work together, and the right doesn't change. Now the Overton Window stretches from 5-10. "Left" is 5-6, "right" is 9-10, and "center" is 7-8. Note that the new "center" is solidly in territory that used to be considered "moderately right", when we started. And the left-wing candidates are largely centrist. And they're told they need to vote for the 6, because 5 is too "extreme left" for the voters.

    And that's why the USA leans so far right, compared to other Western nations. Why you don't have an actual left wing in politics. That's the explanation, right there. You keep letting them drag the Overton Window to the right, trying to play ball with people who are only interested in playing keepaway.

    Fuck 'em. Vote your actual values and stop chickening out at the ballot box. It isn't right-wingers causing this drift to the right. It's the Democratic voters. 100%. Because you keep trying to appeal to people who have no interest in aligning with you, and abandoning those who would because you don't consider their views to be centrist enough.

  5. #4325
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    My observation is that americans are really prone to factionalism, to try and understand the world around them. Frankly, that needs to stop. Whenever I post something in support of Bernie on this board, I often get attacked with personal ad hominems instead of people discussing the policies or the arguments.

    In the end either one is going to need the support of the other if they want to get enough votes to beat Trump.

    I have never been involved with the "Bernie Bros" or GamerGate (in fact I criticized it a few times in the past), but all of a sudden I'm being told that I am one and all the things that are wrong with me for being one. This just leads me to being pissed off and feeling alienated / outcast by the Democratic Party.

    On another note:

    Some people on this board express very progressive values but over the past year some of them started preaching nonsense like: "our candidate needs to be moderate / conservative or he wont be able to enact policies or build alliances". That thought process is described under political science as one of the main exemplary fallacies that undermine democracy. The election boot really is not the place for pragmatism.

    Vote for what you believe in, not for what you think other people want you to believe in.
    More over, what is conservative / moderate in this context? Usually this is invoked to say "Lets not rock the apple cart on Neo-Liberalism" or "Lets center the most marginal intersectional person possible" which is fairly cheap because then real policy need only be some token gesture or at worst a pittance of the federal budget.

    When they say Conservative they don't invariably mean say Tucker Carlson's social values. There is a reason that when they say "Become more moderate / Conservative" what they mean is become more Libertarian. It is always "Absorb the values of the Koch Brothers" never "Lets talk to Pat Buchannan". Which is itself a betrayal of any sort of Left Wing cause because in the end it all becomes Capitalism but Woke! The biggest reason going moderate hasn't been working, especially lately is because Capitalism is nakedly shit now. Compromising with Libertarians to create Market Friendly answers isn't going to build that pragmatic coalition except to amount to being a Simp to Corporations.

  6. #4326
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    -snip-
    This is a poor understanding of the situation. The U.S. has been dragged right not because of the failure of left-leaning individuals, but because of the country's history of isolationism which led into antagonistic opposition to a country which was, on paper, left-wing (even though that government could have been more aptly labeled authoritarian or fascist). Like mentioned, we put up very progressive candidates in the 80s, and got annihilated. The hippies of the 60s literally betrayed the cause because of the deregulatory excesses of the 80s during which they all got filthy fucking rich. And it all started well before any supposed "capitulation" by the left.

    We've gone with more moderate candidates in the past 30 years, and it was a necessary adjustment. The Democratic party, post Civil Rights, was on the brink of extinction as the Dixiecrats went permanently to the GOP, and the GOP painted itself as the "big tent" party. We have, since Clinton in '92, been slowly pushing more and more left with each candidate. And yes, I consider Hillary to be left of her husband, if not Obama, who coincidentally helped push her left as well. My contention is always that she was fairly left (as seen by her attempt at universal health care in '94), but then was rapidly politically bloodied by not only the political opposition but her own husband's White House and his eventual impeachment. People always forget that the opposition in the Citizens United case was Hillary. We adapted, to survive. And we'll be pushing that rock uphill for a long time still. It's just a cruel twist of history. If the USSR had been fascist nationalists, like Nazi Germany, I suppose this would have turned out alright.

  7. #4327
    Scarab Lord Slacker76's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Publicly Shaming a Fascist
    Posts
    4,965
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    People really need to get this concept through their heads.

    Let's say the political spectrum boils down to a number from 0 to 10, with 0-4 being "left", 6-10 being "right", and 5 being "center".

    If people voting for 0-1 are convinced to vote for a "feasible" candidate at 3 or 4, and nothing changes on the right, then the candidates don't stretch from 0 to 10. They stretch from 3 to 10. Now people present 3-5 as "left", 8-10 as "right", and 5-6 is "center".

    Now those 3s are asked to support a 5, because that's "feasible", and they follow suit, because they want to work together, and the right doesn't change. Now the Overton Window stretches from 5-10. "Left" is 5-6, "right" is 9-10, and "center" is 7-8. Note that the new "center" is solidly in territory that used to be considered "moderately right", when we started. And the left-wing candidates are largely centrist. And they're told they need to vote for the 6, because 5 is too "extreme left" for the voters.

    And that's why the USA leans so far right, compared to other Western nations. Why you don't have an actual left wing in politics. That's the explanation, right there. You keep letting them drag the Overton Window to the right, trying to play ball with people who are only interested in playing keepaway.

    Fuck 'em. Vote your actual values and stop chickening out at the ballot box. It isn't right-wingers causing this drift to the right. It's the Democratic voters. 100%. Because you keep trying to appeal to people who have no interest in aligning with you, and abandoning those who would because you don't consider their views to be centrist enough.
    Would you guys consider someone like Rep. John Lewis to be left? Or is he not cool enough for your club? or a Jim McDermott?

    My point is, the Democrats are a uniquely broad and diverse party. There's nothing else like it in any other western democracy. You cant match it in shear numbers of constituents and then geography. Applying these European purity scales is dumb.

    Sure, the Dems do have some conservative members, they also have some incredibly progressive members.

    You want some villains for the ACA not being good enough? Blame Bill Nelson of Nebraska, or Joe Lieberman. They killed the option to lower Medicare buy-in to 55.

    They're also not in the party anymore. Democrats have changed quite a bit since 2006. Fuck, they changed even more so in 2018.

    Then again, maybe it's the diversity of the Dems is what these guys really like to sneer at.

  8. #4328
    Elizabeth Warren is just throwing shit against the wall trying to make it stick. She said today that she would ignore congress and cancel student debts:
    When I was elected to the Senate, I used every opportunity and tool available to ease the burden of student debt. I fought to lower interest rates, refinance loans, and hold loan servicers and debt collectors accountable for breaking the law and hurting borrowers … Understand this: The Department of Education has broad authority to end the student loan debt crisis. When I’m president, I plan to use that authority.
    I really liked Ted Cruz's response( I know, I know you guys will hate it):
    Which clause of the Constitution gives a President the authority to give away a trillion $ w/o Congress? And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like? Here’s a better idea: follow the Const & don’t be a dictator.

  9. #4329
    I liked this one. It helped me realize that Biden is not a good choice. If he does get it he might still beat Trump, but it'll be scary getting there.

    I'm also moving away from Bernie. I really like the guy and I would like to see what he can manage to pull out of congress as president, but I get a very bitter taste in my mouth every time he says something disparaging about the media under his breath. It's not that he doesn't have a point, but this is absolutely not the time to incite even more passion and anger from idiots towards journalists. I'm all for fighting fire with fire, but replacing one demagogue with another doesn't sit well with me in the grand scheme of things.

    As far as the gender argument between Bernie and Warren goes, I think neither of them lied. Bernie very carefully worded his denial, and of course he isn't sexist. He probably said a man might have an easier time beating Trump or something like that. Who knows and who cares. It was a cheap shot from Warren's camp.

    Overall I'm getting pretty excited to see what ends up happening in Iowa. As long as it's not Biden I'm good.

  10. #4330
    The Unstoppable Force
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    23,398
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Elizabeth Warren is just throwing shit against the wall trying to make it stick. She said today that she would ignore congress and cancel student debts:


    I really liked Ted Cruz's response( I know, I know you guys will hate it):

    And if you like this policy, how would you feel if/when a GOP president does it for something you don’t like?
    You mean like Trump is doing with his wall? Does Ted Cruz have any self awareness at all or is that beaten out of Republicans before they can run for office?

  11. #4331
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    I liked this one. It helped me realize that Biden is not a good choice. If he does get it he might still beat Trump, but it'll be scary getting there.

    I'm also moving away from Bernie. I really like the guy and I would like to see what he can manage to pull out of congress as president, but I get a very bitter taste in my mouth every time he says something disparaging about the media under his breath. It's not that he doesn't have a point, but this is absolutely not the time to incite even more passion and anger from idiots towards journalists. I'm all for fighting fire with fire, but replacing one demagogue with another doesn't sit well with me in the grand scheme of things.

    As far as the gender argument between Bernie and Warren goes, I think neither of them lied. Bernie very carefully worded his denial, and of course he isn't sexist. He probably said a man might have an easier time beating Trump or something like that. Who knows and who cares. It was a cheap shot from Warren's camp.

    Overall I'm getting pretty excited to see what ends up happening in Iowa. As long as it's not Biden I'm good.
    The problem with Biden and Sanders is that they have YEARS of crazy stuff in their past that will resurface. They will be easy targets. The only thing Biden has going for him is the black vote. Unfortunately for you, it probably means he will get the nomination.

  12. #4332
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    The problem with Biden and Sanders is that they have YEARS of crazy stuff in their past that will resurface. They will be easy targets. The only thing Biden has going for him is the black vote. Unfortunately for you, it probably means he will get the nomination.
    You mean like Trump and his raping of women? His fucking racism? His fucking sexual assaults? His ties to Jeffrey Epstein?

    Also, I bet they are NOTHING in comparison to what Trump has ACTUALLY done.

  13. #4333
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    The problem with Biden and Sanders is that they have YEARS of crazy stuff in their past that will resurface. They will be easy targets. The only thing Biden has going for him is the black vote. Unfortunately for you, it probably means he will get the nomination.
    I'm not worried about easy vs. hard targets. No matter who gets the nomination, they will be annihilated and slandered without mercy or reason. At the end of the day Trump doesn't even need an argument, he will just make something up if he feels like it and millions of people will eat it up. I don't think one candidate is more immune to the bullshit than any other; it'll be about how they handle it imo.

    I do agree about Biden and the black vote though, and unless I am missing something the ONLY connection he has to black communities is his ties to Obama. I'm not black myself so what do I know, but I do find it a bit depressing that black voters even in these dire straits value simply standing next to Obama over what looks like everything else. This is not the time imo to look at the color of your own or anyone else's skin. Like complaining about lack of diversity on the debate stage when there are two women and an openly gay guy standing right there. Get a grip on what is going on people.

  14. #4334
    The Unstoppable Force
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    23,398
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    The problem with Biden and Sanders is that they have YEARS of crazy stuff in their past that will resurface. They will be easy targets. The only thing Biden has going for him is the black vote. Unfortunately for you, it probably means he will get the nomination.
    It doesn't matter if there's real dirt or not. Just look at Hillary and all the "Lock her up" chants just for Trump's DOJ to find absolutely nothing on her after 2 years of investigating.

    Trump's just going to lie and slander ANYONE who's nominated.

  15. #4335
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Bouncing coins off my witcher.
    Posts
    45,141
    CNN being absolute garbage as usual: quite a bit of the Sanders/Warren stuff is manufactured controversy on the part of a lot of the mainstream media channels because electoral politics needs a reality show narrative apparently.

    Delenda Est.

  16. #4336
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Elizabeth Warren is just throwing shit against the wall trying to make it stick. She said today that she would ignore congress and cancel student debts:


    I really liked Ted Cruz's response( I know, I know you guys will hate it):
    It's not giving away money, which is under Congressional authority. It's forgiving debt. Which is already done by a federal program in the Department of Education called the Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which forgives college debt for doing public service. Warren just wants to expand this program.

    In no way did she ever imply that the funds for her expanded view of this program would come from some other method other than Congressional authority.

    Unlike, say, Trump, who did an end-around on the Wall funding by taking it from the national emergency fund at DoD which is not what those funds were intended for.



    Like Clinton, Warren's massively in-depth, nuanced policy positions are being used by bad faith actors on the other side of the debate in a reductive fashion, which leads to them screaming about something she doesn't plan on doing, nor said she was going to do. I guess it's better to stick to simple slogans for the people at rallies to chant, like "U.S.A!" or "Lock her up!" (or, to be fair, "Yes, we can!")

  17. #4337
    That was pretty much Biden and Klobuchar's debate. Mayor Pete was pretty weak and the mutually assured destruction of Bernie and Warren continues midway through January.

    When Bernie gets trucked on Super Tuesday after splitting the progressive vote with Warren, his cult will blame the dastardly DNC because that is their only move. But the real reason he'll lose is because he wasn't man enough to step aside and let a woman finish what he started.

  18. #4338
    Quote Originally Posted by Theodarzna View Post
    More over, what is conservative / moderate in this context? Usually this is invoked to say "Lets not rock the apple cart on Neo-Liberalism" or "Lets center the most marginal intersectional person possible" which is fairly cheap because then real policy need only be some token gesture or at worst a pittance of the federal budget.

    When they say Conservative they don't invariably mean say Tucker Carlson's social values. There is a reason that when they say "Become more moderate / Conservative" what they mean is become more Libertarian. It is always "Absorb the values of the Koch Brothers" never "Lets talk to Pat Buchannan". Which is itself a betrayal of any sort of Left Wing cause because in the end it all becomes Capitalism but Woke! The biggest reason going moderate hasn't been working, especially lately is because Capitalism is nakedly shit now. Compromising with Libertarians to create Market Friendly answers isn't going to build that pragmatic coalition except to amount to being a Simp to Corporations.
    You mean the same Pat Buchannan that recently (January 14) wrote THIS about Bernie Sanders???

    https://original.antiwar.com/buchana...ion-to-bernie/

    With the killing of the general and the possibility of a U.S.-Iran war rising, Bernie is the Democratic candidate whose antiwar credentials are the longest and strongest and whose position of avoiding war with Iran is most in sync with the majority of the party he seeks to lead.

    Sanders could ride antiwar sentiment to victory in Iowa and New Hampshire and have the wind behind him going into South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

    His socialism may be a bridge too far for most Americans, and an insuperable obstacle to his ever becoming president, but should he win the nomination, he could occupy in 2020 the space Trump occupied in 2016, as the anti-interventionist, antiwar candidate.

    And if Bernie ran a "Come Home, America" campaign, half a century after the slogan’s author, George McGovern, lost in history’s largest landslide, Sanders could change the face and future of American politics.

  19. #4339
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana View Post
    My only objection is that some people's votes are worth relatively less than others. That is like the old oligarchic democracies where wealthy folks got five votes and poor people only one. Except now for some reason it's alright because a lot of people live in one place and less in another...

    In France this would've been punishable by guillotine if you got elected that way.
    Similar system is found in many EU countries.
    -The parliament seats are assigned to locations.
    -Some areas have more people than other areas.
    -In an area with 10000 people, someone needs 5001 votes to get the parliament seat.
    -In an area with 1000000 people, someone needs 500001 votes to get the parliament seat
    -Whichever party wins more seats, wins the elections and elects PM.

    So yes, in essence, those 5001 voters and those 500001 voters have elected one person each, which feels like different worth of votes.
    I am not aware of any country that uses a different system. There may be some (or many) I don't have knowledge on it.
    and the geek shall inherit the earth

  20. #4340
    Quote Originally Posted by d00mGuArD View Post
    Similar system is found in many EU countries.
    -The parliament seats are assigned to locations.
    -Some areas have more people than other areas.
    -In an area with 10000 people, someone needs 5001 votes to get the parliament seat.
    -In an area with 1000000 people, someone needs 500001 votes to get the parliament seat
    -Whichever party wins more seats, wins the elections and elects PM.

    So yes, in essence, those 5001 voters and those 500001 voters have elected one person each, which feels like different worth of votes.
    I am not aware of any country that uses a different system. There may be some (or many) I don't have knowledge on it.
    So you are saying that since other nations have an unfair version of democracy, it is ok for us to have an unfair version of democracy. I'll pass on that logic.

    Actually, your example where 5,001 voters in one area have the same power as 500,001 voters in another area is not just a little unfair, it is downright corrupt.

Posting Permissions

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