In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to.
Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition.
There are big differences between Obama and Bernie. Obama's idealism was based on a firmly moderate liberalism that the democratic party platform had been trumpeting since Bill Clinton. The principal appeal of Obama was that he was smart, articulate, and unblemished by any Washington DC political scandals. Bernie is actually advocating for something closer to political revolution, a reformation of the party into a New Left.
Oneofthem doesn't like this because he prefers the Clintonian Third Way because he thinks that the globalized late capitalist regime that reached its apogee in the Clinton years can maybe return if another Clinton gets elected and if we watch everybody to prevent a serious terrorist attack from upsetting global markets.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
On a scale from 1 - 10 that was perhaps the greatest thing I've ever seen. And Kim Jong the Illest.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
Well that's legitimately the most terrifying and awful thing I've seen in my entire life. That does look like some North Korean nonsense.
It also has that cult of personality feeling. Trump says all this insane, contradictory stuff (45% tariff on Chinese goods, Great Wall of Texas, various Muslim bans enforced by imaginary stormtroopers), but the cheerleaders just brush it all off as signs of his strength. When Trump runs back on something he said, the fans clap louder as he shouts down another doubter.
On January 15 2016 06:42 Introvert wrote: What would/will the Bernie cult be called?
If you want a cult, check out the Trump supporters. They have an insane, fascist theme song sung by children that celebrates strength and radical nationalism. This video is straight North Korean levels of nonsense. The Bernie crew has no equivalent to this proto-fascist crap.
On a scale from 1 - 10 that was Kim Jong the Illest.
To Kim's credit I think they at least they teach the propaganda kids to actually sing and play instruments.
There is a factual story confirmed by numerous credible eyewitnesses that our Dear Leader visited the orchestra, picked up the violin for the first time and played a famous classical piece considered to be quite difficult by acclaimed musicians flawlessly. Yeah IDK where I'm going with this.
Is there any data on what the percentages would be on a Clinton vs Trump presidential election?
EDit holy shit that Trump video. You guys take it too seriously - it's not fascism, it's a joke. That was seriously 100% material for cringe threads on 4chan :/
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to.
Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition.
There are big differences between Obama and Bernie. Obama's idealism was based on a firmly moderate liberalism that the democratic party platform had been trumpeting since Bill Clinton. The principal appeal of Obama was that he was smart, articulate, and unblemished by any Washington DC political scandals. Bernie is actually advocating for something closer to political revolution, a reformation of the party into a New Left.
Oneofthem doesn't like this because he prefers the Clintonian Third Way because he thinks that the globalized late capitalist regime that reached its apogee in the Clinton years can maybe return if another Clinton gets elected and if we watch everybody to prevent a serious terrorist attack from upsetting global markets.
very far from my views and unimaginative
Ouch, unimaginative. Hurts to hear from someone whose imaginary is so molded by analytic philosophers. If the election were tomorrow you would vote for Clinton though, right? How far off can I be?
The Jeb Bush campaign is all about one thing: spending those dollars. Lord, have mercy, how they have spent those dollars! All of y'all out there playing Powerball on these streets would have been better off if you'd positioned yourselves to benefit from Jeb's burn rate. As NBC News' Mark Murray notes, Bush has blown $52.8 million thus far on ads alone -- just about $10 million or $12 million less than the rest of the Republican field combined. And there's no end in sight.
Or is there? As Politico's Eli Stokols reports, "establishment Republicans" are starting to circle the Bush campaign like a murder of crows out of increasing concern that they only thing they might accomplish is permanently damaging Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, or worse, end up being the guy who paves the way for a nominee that no one (among the establishment, anyway) wants. As one-time Mitt Romney strategist Stuart Stevens tells Stokols: "This is something Jeb Bush has to decide. Does he want his legacy to be that he elected Donald Trump or Ted Cruz?”
How has it come to pass that what was once a nominal campaign for the Republican nomination has become a fully-funded hit-job on Rubio? Part of the problem involves the way that the so-called "lane" to be the "respectable" GOP option has gotten clogged by campaigns that haven't taken off. Bush is trying to pick off Rubio to put him out of the competition and become the first option for Rubio voters. There are other candidates -- John Kasich, Chris Christie -- who are plying themselves at the same task (though perhaps not quite so pointedly or extravagantly as Bush is doing to Rubio). This story is bad for Jeb, though, because here you see party elites attempting to be the selectors in this blood-sport, and they're indicating that maybe it's time for Bush to quit the stage.
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to.
Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition.
There are big differences between Obama and Bernie. Obama's idealism was based on a firmly moderate liberalism that the democratic party platform had been trumpeting since Bill Clinton. The principal appeal of Obama was that he was smart, articulate, and unblemished by any Washington DC political scandals. Bernie is actually advocating for something closer to political revolution, a reformation of the party into a New Left.
Oneofthem doesn't like this because he prefers the Clintonian Third Way because he thinks that the globalized late capitalist regime that reached its apogee in the Clinton years can maybe return if another Clinton gets elected and if we watch everybody to prevent a serious terrorist attack from upsetting global markets.
very far from my views and unimaginative
Ouch, unimaginative. Hurts to hear from someone whose imaginary is so molded by analytic philosophers. If the election were tomorrow you would vote for Clinton though, right? How far off can I be?
You make moderate liberalism sound like a bad thing. I like politicians that take incremental moves in response to the changing needs of the country. Obama/Clinton moderation and thoughtfulness is refreshing compared to the foolishness and imagineering of the Republicans. Caution and steady pushing towards progress has a good track record as well (see steady progress under the Clinton and Obama administrations). And so what that Hillary and Bill Clinton kinda blow in the political winds. Different times have different needs, and I like that they are representative of the challenges we face. When it comes down to a choice of a politician sticking to some principles (and their pride), or sucking it up and going with the better decision for the country, I like politicians that eat crow and go with what helps the most people.
In contrast Bernie's attempt to shoehorn European systems onto America irritate me. Denmark takes in 49% of GDP in taxes, the USA takes about 24%. It would be a monumental accomplishment to get us up to 27%, but Bernie is running like we are going to turn into Germany.
On January 14 2016 09:55 cLutZ wrote: I am very surprised by how charitable you are all to politicians. I've seen very few of them who "evolve" more quickly on an issue than the majority within their own party. Gay Marriage and Immigration are two that very quickly come to mind. There are, of course, always principled crusaders like your Bernies or your Jeff Sessions but they don't evolve they are the one's who, if they successfully plead their case to the public, cause others to.
Obama got elected on political idealism. He was going to be a different kind of politician at the helm of a newly transparent political process, look at any speech 2007-2008. I think the charity remains, though now it's with Sanders, and the only afterthought is that Obama turned out to be a bad apple (or simply too much to do in too little time and later too much opposition.
There are big differences between Obama and Bernie. Obama's idealism was based on a firmly moderate liberalism that the democratic party platform had been trumpeting since Bill Clinton. The principal appeal of Obama was that he was smart, articulate, and unblemished by any Washington DC political scandals. Bernie is actually advocating for something closer to political revolution, a reformation of the party into a New Left.
Oneofthem doesn't like this because he prefers the Clintonian Third Way because he thinks that the globalized late capitalist regime that reached its apogee in the Clinton years can maybe return if another Clinton gets elected and if we watch everybody to prevent a serious terrorist attack from upsetting global markets.
very far from my views and unimaginative
Ouch, unimaginative. Hurts to hear from someone whose imaginary is so molded by analytic philosophers. If the election were tomorrow you would vote for Clinton though, right? How far off can I be?
You make moderate liberalism sound like a bad thing. I like politicians that take incremental moves in response to the changing needs of the country. Obama/Clinton moderation and thoughtfulness is refreshing compared to the foolishness and imagineering of the Republicans. Caution and steady pushing towards progress has a good track record as well (see steady progress under the Clinton and Obama administrations). And so what that Hillary and Bill Clinton kinda blow in the political winds. Different times have different needs, and I like that they are representative of the challenges we face. When it comes down to a choice of a politician sticking to some principles (and their pride), or sucking it up and going with the better decision for the country, I like politicians that eat crow and go with what helps the most people.
In contrast Bernie's attempt to shoehorn European systems onto America irritate me. Denmark takes in 49% of GDP in taxes, the USA takes about 24%. It would be a monumental accomplishment to get us up to 27%, but Bernie is running like we are going to turn into Germany.
Liberalism is a bad thing. Bill Clinton gutted welfare and is responsible for the disaster of NAFTA. Obama's support of the TPP despite plenty of Democrats criticizing it just signals how like Bill he is. These people only push for reforms that placate the masses enough to prevent revolution while working to enhance aggregation of capital by the big players in the US economy: Finance, Pharma, Tech, Healthcare, Agriculture. Hell, even the ACA, this supposedly "incremental" push towards a saner, more humane healthcare system has only ended up as a net positive for the healthcare industry.
All this progress on identity politics issues: women, gays, transgenders, minorities of any stripe; that completely misses the point. They are a sideshow that distracts from the underlying material reality here. No sane person argues that any of these things should even be major campaign issues. Am I supposed to clap and cheer that Hillary is promising some modest "feminist" policies, while offering stale, rat-nibbled family leave crumbs on her campaign platform? It's just insane.
On January 15 2016 10:25 IgnE wrote: All this progress on identity politics issues: women, gays, transgenders, minorities of any stripe; that completely misses the point. They are a sideshow that distracts from the underlying material reality here. No sane person argues that any of these things should even be major campaign issues. Am I supposed to clap and cheer that Hillary is promising some modest "feminist" policies, while offering stale, rat-nibbled family leave crumbs on her campaign platform? It's just insane.
EPT
