EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2878
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. 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. | ||
|
rudimentalfeelthelov
Finland268 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On February 10 2016 20:50 rudimentalfeelthelov wrote: Question from Europe, why do people dislike Sanders? Reading his policies, he seems the only one who'll change things to improve lives of middle and lower class. Most suggestions he has, we do have in Europe and they work and I'm glad they are different here from USA (free universities etc.) Plus he's not completely mad like Cruz or a walking joke like Trump. I'm no American but my guess is that some people dislike Sanders precisely because of his emphasis on "European" policies, which are perceived as socialist welfare shit. As an European I really like Sanders though, not so much because of his political views - I can't really judge what should be done in a country I don't live in - but because he looks genuine, independent and uncorrupt. I wish we had someone similar in French politics. It's also funny to see that what Sanders wants to establish in America, we Europeans are losing it bit by bit, because no one cares enough to defend these things we gained in the past through social struggle. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
Policy is not measured by real impact on people, but by ideological purity and on principal. In the most extreme form by Randian anarchocapitalists who are the loudest anti Sanders crowd on the interwebs. Then there is the older demographic, that does not particularly "hate" Sanders, but associate going for anything left of Reagan with losing the Cold War after the fact. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im also uneasy about the prospect of presenting democratic socialism to the public in essentially its first and last chance of this period without a credible actionable platform. even if sanders gets what he wants it will not solve structural trends decades in the making, and some of the things like free college within the present higher ed environment is just huge govt subsidy without return. basically great distance between sanderite confidence and what we actually know. as far as this idea of sander policy working in europe, there are large tradeoffs that europeans ignore. there are also conditions not found in the u.s. the much higher middle class tax burden, the stability of the state-corporate relationship and lack of migration at least historically. welfare state at the scale of the u.s. is unsustainable without higher per capita productivity from the population outside of corporate america. development of this portion of the population rather than consumption focused redistribution should be the focus. the bigger immediate problem is that there will be large shocks going from the u.s. to europe. to say nothing of whether this transformation is good, there is no political capital to commit to. the long term project. the sander supporters are dreaming of what they should do with their powerball earnings. sanders economic advisors are pretty much like a blogroll of heterodox left economists, and this scene is not ready for the big time yet. personally i just think this is all sorts of dumb. a true believer candidate oblivious to downside of his incredibly unimportant pronoucements of three cheers for socialism. even if you believe in this stuff why the fk are you proudly talking about it if you dont want the gop to win? can anyone explain the upside of 'im a socialist' to me? like holy shit then the starry eyed followers get excited precisely because of how oblivious sanders is to cruel brutish political reality. grow the fuck up and realize it isnt this easy. it is like a fucking college political movement except the evil administerial professors are still hundred times easier and accommodating than the american public or the gop operatives. the lack of checks or awareness of self destructive behavior is troubling. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite. Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates. I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8503 Posts
as far as this idea of sander policy working in europe, there are large tradeoffs that europeans ignore. there are also conditions not found in the u.s. the much higher middle class tax burden, the stability of the state-corporate relationship and lack of migration at least historically. welfare state at the scale of the u.s. is unsustainable without higher per capita productivity from the population outside of corporate america. development of this portion of the population rather than consumption focused redistribution should be the focus. I just would add that EU people don't ignore it. they are fine with the trade off. and social mobility is higher now in a lot of EU countries - despite of all the mentioned arguments. and stability of the state-corporate relationship? lol. homeland security, the whole intelligence sector, basically a lot of silicon valley AND the military. need I go on? | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7887 Posts
So it's really a question of method. He clearly doesn't think that Sanders is being realistic. I would much prefer Sanders to be elected, but politics is not a matter of rooting for ideal choices, but rather to do something that will have an impact. And losing an election to a right wing nutcase doesn't. I think Sanders could lose again every single Republican candidate, while I think that Hillary would win the election against almost everyone, because the Republican field is beyond ridiculous. The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. Meanwhile, on the Republican picture, the most "moderates" are basically complete extremists. Rubio makes GW Bush look like a centrist, which is crazy. Krugman also argues that what someone like Kasich proposes on the economic level is exactly what has been done in the late 20's, which has to have been the most disastrous crisis management in history (mainly keeping high interest rates which is also f... crazy). Has we had Kasich instead of Obama those last years, and the US would basically be in a 1931 situation today, assuming (and that's common sense I guess) that the same recipes give the same results. I see the whole picture as horribly worrying for the United States, but on the short term and as far as this election is concerned, it's actually rather great. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8503 Posts
| ||
|
DickMcFanny
Ireland1076 Posts
On February 10 2016 21:45 oneofthem wrote: can anyone explain the upside of 'im a socialist' to me? like holy shit I can, and every economist can, and every gay person, feminist, atheist, everyone who's ever been on the 'fringe' of society can. It's called consciousness raising. In large parts of the US, the word 'socialist' is still meant as an insult. The capitalism apologists managed to grease the propaganda machine so exceptionally well that for the longest time it was unthinkable to even discuss socialism, or any alternative to the capitalist system. The Americans were taught to despise welfare (and to ignore or like corporate welfare, for some reason), so if nothing else, Bernie's showing that large parts of the population don't take for granted that neo-capitalism isn't the only acceptable economic model. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:32 GoTuNk! wrote: I still don't understand why people like Krugman and Stiglitz are still hold on high steem and their opinions worthy of anything. They make good economic analysis, well sourced, scientific and in acccordance with empiric results. Furthermore Krugman argues in good faith, has a track record of changing his mind in light of new evidence (he is convinceable) and gets things right most of the time, because his framework allows him to actually predict/assess things in the real world. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:33 Doublemint wrote: maybe because it goes hand in hand with you don't understanding much of what they are trying to say? I understand much of what they say. Krugman spouts that government expending is the solution to all problems, which is at best a debatable political opinion; however because he is an economist, welfare fans and the media (and people like the poster above) try to present his arguments as actual facts, which is dishonest to say the least. | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
- presenting his arguments as fact -> i did not do so - him spouting government expanding is the solution to all problems -> he does not, and did not so cut the hyperbole and come off your high horse about "honesty" when you have such big problems with it yourself | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:51 puerk wrote: Maybe the problem is actually you. Talking about dishonesty right after two outright lies: - presenting his arguments as fact -> i did not do so - him spouting government expanding is the solution to all problems -> he does not, and did not so cut the hyperbole and come off your high horse about "honesty" when you have such big problems with it yourself I was referring to Biff, 3 people posted as I was writing my post. You can summarize what he in that wars/natural disasters are/were good for economies and that every economic stimilus didn't work because it wasn't "big enough". | ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote: Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite. Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates. I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump can definitely win the nomination. 34% of the vote isn't enough to clinch the nomination by itself, but that result indicates a potential to outperform his polls. Moreover, it suggests that he might have room to grow as other candidates drop out. Down the line he could be winning states with 40%+ of the vote, and in a divided field that's good enough to make him the favorite if there's a brokered convention. Helping him is the fact that the establishment field basically had the worst result possible. Kasich is the break out candidate, but it's likely he can't turn that into sufficient fundraising to compete effectively in the coming contests. Bush beat Rubio, but by such a slim margin that he's not clearly a better choice. Rubio utterly collapsed, and it's entirely possible that with the added push from finishing fifth he'll collapse further. All of this is a recipe for the field to remain split, undecided, and ineffective in the lead up to Super Tuesday. So we're riding a train wreck heading straight to a Super Tuesday where the wins all go to Trump and Cruz. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15683 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:37 DickMcFanny wrote: I can, and every economist can, and every gay person, feminist, atheist, everyone who's ever been on the 'fringe' of society can. It's called consciousness raising. In large parts of the US, the word 'socialist' is still meant as an insult. The capitalism apologists managed to grease the propaganda machine so exceptionally well that for the longest time it was unthinkable to even discuss socialism, or any alternative to the capitalist system. The Americans were taught to despise welfare (and to ignore or like corporate welfare, for some reason), so if nothing else, Bernie's showing that large parts of the population don't take for granted that neo-capitalism isn't the only acceptable economic model. This makes it a nice thing to do. It doesn't make it a campaign winning thing to do. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On February 10 2016 21:51 LemOn wrote: Man did Rubio fuck up with the debate performance Can trump be actually the nominee now? This is like the first time even the bookies see him as a big favorite. Can he actually...be a president? Hillary looks to win the nom, and there's no question who's better head to head in debates. I mean it's great entertainment and I'm loving it but it was because it was safe to say he can't actually make it. Trump has never head to head debated anyone really. His style will not work well with it imo. He thrives on multiple people chiming in, all nailing him on different things, and thus all looking contradictory, then sitting back and saying something vague that people interpret however they want. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On February 10 2016 22:24 Biff The Understudy wrote: The good thing is that Sanders voice will have been heard, which is hugely positive, and that he will probably lose to Clinton, which is probably for the best. In my opinion, a win-win situation on the Democratic side. The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15683 Posts
On February 10 2016 23:34 kwizach wrote: The danger, as I see it, is Bernie supporters getting increasingly critical of Hillary, to the point where they don't even vote for her in the general election. Sanders is heavily playing the "she's in bed with banks and corporations" card, and it might damage Clinton's chances in the general election once she will have defeated him. I hope he will be gracious enough to throw his full support behind her once she becomes the clear nominee. This is my concern as well. People are getting so laughably aggressive towards Clinton as if they have a chance at winning the primary. It's just stupid. Build Bernie up all you want, but actively trying to destroy the democratic nominee is stupid. | ||
| ||
