|
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. |
On March 24 2016 00:26 Kipsate wrote:
I like how socialist is such an evil term in America and how it appears as a dichotomy rather then a wide range of elements and policies that might be characterized as socialist.
Just a reminder that socialist =/= social democrat. The latter is a separate political movement that has evolved away from socialism.
Also, while you're singing the praises of the term socialist, I'd like to remind you that there are people in the world who suffered and bled to get that label detached from their governments (look up what USSR stands for). My family had casualties as well. There are many such families in the US, even if a lot of people seem to be forgetting it. It's insensitive and a half to try to whitewash the term when it's associated with so much historical baggage.
Just to point this out, Hesari (the most respected newspaper in Finland) has also written several pieces about how weird Sanders' choice of terminology is (even if his policies don't seem weird to them).
Just to make this clear, Social Democrats are a well respected political movement, whether it's in the former USSR territories or Scandinavia. I'd have no qualms about voting for them (I'm not saying that I have or have not.) But calling yourself a socialist is offensive to many people and it's weird that people are willing to forget this so easily.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
For the record I don't like Bernie's policies neccesarily and I don't think they would work in the US but the whole demonization of the word socialist is just interesting.
Edit: I suppose thats fair.
|
On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Just chiming in on AZ-- it sucks that lines are long, but it's not voter suppression. I want to point out that everyone had a chance to vote early as well. If I had to guess, the logistics were set way ahead of time and the organizers (at the state level) figured based on past years most people voted early, that turnout would be at a certain level, and that reducing the number of polling places was ok to save money. Turnout was higher, more people voted in person. Shit happens.
A pattern that has grown very, very irritating for me is for some Bernie supporters to seed the idea that there's irregularities with voting, and depending on how favorable the results, for that to either quietly disappear or turn into cries of full blown voter suppression. It's even worse now the official campaign (Jeff Weaver) is towing the line. It's like having to listen to Karl Rove complain about Ohio every week, except it's annoying instead of funny.
Also you are completely delusional to think Sanders is going to win New York. Unless NYC suddenly decides to not vote en masse (with the exception of NYU), Sanders is gonna get blown out. Unless you've forgotten, Wall Street is in New York.
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting.
It's not something that can be learned. The idea of American Exceptionalism is a cultural phenomenon that one has to experience by living in America. That's atleast my take on it whenever I hear Europeans talking about American politics and or culture.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im mostly just picking on the hardcore left with my choice of the word. these guys are going to be in charge in the theoretical revolution but they have no interest in the messy business of actual government. what are the left's solutions? no amount of derping is going to fill this hole. if the left's answer to the world is corbyn and sanders it is simply a headless movement.
bernie does think his stuff is socialist so it is not even unfair to call him such
|
The representative Hillary voter (oneofthem) is basically no different than a Jeb supporter. They want government to stay the course because while they may or may not understand that the world is changing, they know that they won't be alive when this train inevitably derails. They prefer to live in the dreamworld where American hegemony is never challenged or surpassed. Therefore there is no need to plan for the future! There are absolutely no changes to the global economy that would suggest that we should shift course to better our position because we have always had the best position (and we have great words).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 00:26 corumjhaelen wrote:
Got it, Cuba is anti trade too, they don't even trade with their biggest neighboor ! It fits perfectly, it's amazing.
I also love the anti trade label oneofthem as forged. Guys, Bernie doesn't want you to buy tomatoes.
you are just off the rails right now. what are you even trying to say? bernie is running on antitrade!
|
I took a quick look at the upcoming primaries and caucuses. Trump will pass the 50% delegate threshold if he wins all of the winner-take-all states. And those states don't include New York and some other Northeastern states where I'd expect Trump to do well.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2016 01:01 Jormundr wrote:
The representative Hillary voter (oneofthem) is basically no different than a Jeb supporter. They want government to stay the course because while they may or may not understand that the world is changing, they know that they won't be alive when this train inevitably derails. They prefer to live in the dreamworld where American hegemony is never challenged or surpassed. Therefore there is no need to plan for the future! There are absolutely no changes to the global economy that would suggest that we should shift course to better our position because we have always had the best position (and we have great words).
it is simply ignorant to say there is no alternative except scraping the entire globalization thing. tpp is an example of the attempt to reform. international taxation is also an emerging structure that will make it easier to tax for nation states currently at mercy of international capital. problem is some do not understand the current structures and then paint them with the same broad brush of badness
and what is this hegemony stuff? what are you even talking about. you think the current obama policies are detrimental to american power when compared to sanders?
|
On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting.
Sometimes an outside perspective can also tell you that you are not so different as you think, with all your being human, sustaining on water and carbon compounds and all...
Also what is possible regarding policy is a fast changeing issue in the US, and a focus beyond a few weeks in a policy discussion shouldn't hurt to much. Does the US have problems with the voting system, healthcare and growing inequality? Can those problems be solved sticking to the same type of policies, that created them? Mandatory individual health insurance with subsedies for the needy is something that was developed over 120 years ago in europe, thinking you have through manifest destiny and unrivaled excellency found something totally new and "vastly different" is a slight bit presumptuous.
An other issue often brought up why the US are so different is diversity (and implicitly how black people ruin welfare). But the issue is not really diversity but forced and incentivised economic segregation, through suburbanisation and allowing inner cities (and their inhabitants) to deteriorate in many parts (though not all). You may think its quirky how most european societies focus (regional, country wide and even EU funds) their efforts on sustaining economically mixed, diverse and viable cities. Segregating poor and rich reinforces problems and makes everyone lucky or "able" enough to flee ignorant to the blight of the others.
Those things did not happen because US Americans are genetically unchangeably predisposed to have shitty policies towards the viability of their own society, but to a suprisingly large part because there was a huge incentive to make money off suburbanisation. A house for everyone as big driver of the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis.
The government was not vigilant enough against and to often complicit with economic actors egoistically scheming and acting detrimental to the society as a whole.
The US was not forced into those errors, the government was lobbied and chose to act this way.
|
Wait so TPP is going to rein in international capital? Let's get this down for posterity.
|
On March 24 2016 01:17 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting. Sometimes an outside perspective can also tell you that you are not so different as you think, with all your being human, sustaining on water and carbon compounds and all... Also what is possible regarding policy is a fast changeing issue in the US, and a focus beyond a few weeks in a policy discussion shouldn't hurt to much. Does the US have problems with the voting system, healthcare and growing inequality? Can those problems be solved sticking to the same type of policies, that created them? Mandatory individual health insurance with subsedies for the needy is something that was developed over 120 years ago in europe, thinking you have through manifest destiny and unrivaled excellency found something totally new and "vastly different" is a slight bit presumptuous. An other issue often brought up why the US are so different is diversity (and implicitly how black people ruin welfare). But the issue is not really diversity but forced and incentivised economic segregation, through suburbanisation and allowing inner cities (and their inhabitants) to deteriorate in many parts (though not all). You may think its quirky how most european societies focus (regional, country wide and even EU funds) their efforts on sustaining economically mixed, diverse and viable cities. Segregating poor and rich reinforces problems and makes everyone lucky or "able" enough to flee ignorant to the blight of the others. Those things did not happen because US Americans are genetically unchangeably predisposed to have shitty policies towards the viability of their own society, but to a suprisingly large part because there was a huge incentive to make money off suburbanisation. A house for everyone as big driver of the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis. The government was not vigilant enough against and to often complicit with economic actors egoistically scheming and acting detrimental to the society as a whole. The US was not forced into those errors, the government was lobbied and chose to act this way.
I'm not talking about some weird idea of Exceptionalism with capital E. I'm not arguing our ways are better, they are just different. What I'm seeing is people from the UK say "well why don't you have the NHS?". Because our system doesn't allow for it, and making so that a NHS is possible would require us to redo an insane part of our system which really would not be a good thing. It's just as ridiculous as us asking "well why don't you have Wall Street or Silicon Valley?" or asking a farmer in Minnesota why he doesn't plant bananas.
A lot of people agree that universal healthcare, improved voting access and other things are good. There are ways to accomplish them here, and mimicking the European model is not necessarily the right way to do so.
Policy discussion is great, but not when one side bases their points on a very partial understanding of the facts or ignores vital context.
|
On March 24 2016 01:19 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 01:17 puerk wrote:On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting. Sometimes an outside perspective can also tell you that you are not so different as you think, with all your being human, sustaining on water and carbon compounds and all... Also what is possible regarding policy is a fast changeing issue in the US, and a focus beyond a few weeks in a policy discussion shouldn't hurt to much. Does the US have problems with the voting system, healthcare and growing inequality? Can those problems be solved sticking to the same type of policies, that created them? Mandatory individual health insurance with subsedies for the needy is something that was developed over 120 years ago in europe, thinking you have through manifest destiny and unrivaled excellency found something totally new and "vastly different" is a slight bit presumptuous. An other issue often brought up why the US are so different is diversity (and implicitly how black people ruin welfare). But the issue is not really diversity but forced and incentivised economic segregation, through suburbanisation and allowing inner cities (and their inhabitants) to deteriorate in many parts (though not all). You may think its quirky how most european societies focus (regional, country wide and even EU funds) their efforts on sustaining economically mixed, diverse and viable cities. Segregating poor and rich reinforces problems and makes everyone lucky or "able" enough to flee ignorant to the blight of the others. Those things did not happen because US Americans are genetically unchangeably predisposed to have shitty policies towards the viability of their own society, but to a suprisingly large part because there was a huge incentive to make money off suburbanisation. A house for everyone as big driver of the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis. The government was not vigilant enough against and to often complicit with economic actors egoistically scheming and acting detrimental to the society as a whole. The US was not forced into those errors, the government was lobbied and chose to act this way. I'm not talking about some weird idea of Exceptionalism with capital E. I'm not arguing our ways are better, they are just different. What I'm seeing is people from the UK say "well why don't you have the NHS?". Because our system doesn't allow for it, and making so that a NHS is possible would require us to redo an insane part of our system which really would not be a good thing. It's just as ridiculous as us asking "well why don't you have Wall Street or Silicon Valley?" or asking a farmer in Minnesota why he doesn't plant bananas. A lot of people agree that universal healthcare, improved voting access and other things are good. There are ways to accomplish them here, and mimicking the European model is not necessarily the right way to do so.
but you are consistently mimicking the European model but just a century to late... which is depressing in such a fast moving interconnected world, where government should be more agile to solving the problems, unless it wants another generation left behind.
edit to clarify: i am not saying that the american society is lacking (it is very progressive in some aspects), just in one aspect and that is government: it seems slow (especially since the obstructionist congress), ill incentivised and bogged down.
|
On March 24 2016 01:23 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 01:19 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 24 2016 01:17 puerk wrote:On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting. Sometimes an outside perspective can also tell you that you are not so different as you think, with all your being human, sustaining on water and carbon compounds and all... Also what is possible regarding policy is a fast changeing issue in the US, and a focus beyond a few weeks in a policy discussion shouldn't hurt to much. Does the US have problems with the voting system, healthcare and growing inequality? Can those problems be solved sticking to the same type of policies, that created them? Mandatory individual health insurance with subsedies for the needy is something that was developed over 120 years ago in europe, thinking you have through manifest destiny and unrivaled excellency found something totally new and "vastly different" is a slight bit presumptuous. An other issue often brought up why the US are so different is diversity (and implicitly how black people ruin welfare). But the issue is not really diversity but forced and incentivised economic segregation, through suburbanisation and allowing inner cities (and their inhabitants) to deteriorate in many parts (though not all). You may think its quirky how most european societies focus (regional, country wide and even EU funds) their efforts on sustaining economically mixed, diverse and viable cities. Segregating poor and rich reinforces problems and makes everyone lucky or "able" enough to flee ignorant to the blight of the others. Those things did not happen because US Americans are genetically unchangeably predisposed to have shitty policies towards the viability of their own society, but to a suprisingly large part because there was a huge incentive to make money off suburbanisation. A house for everyone as big driver of the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis. The government was not vigilant enough against and to often complicit with economic actors egoistically scheming and acting detrimental to the society as a whole. The US was not forced into those errors, the government was lobbied and chose to act this way. I'm not talking about some weird idea of Exceptionalism with capital E. I'm not arguing our ways are better, they are just different. What I'm seeing is people from the UK say "well why don't you have the NHS?". Because our system doesn't allow for it, and making so that a NHS is possible would require us to redo an insane part of our system which really would not be a good thing. It's just as ridiculous as us asking "well why don't you have Wall Street or Silicon Valley?" or asking a farmer in Minnesota why he doesn't plant bananas. A lot of people agree that universal healthcare, improved voting access and other things are good. There are ways to accomplish them here, and mimicking the European model is not necessarily the right way to do so. but you are consistently mimicking the European model but just a century to late... which is depressing in such a fast moving interconnected world, where government should be more agile to solving the problems, unless it wants another generation left behind. edit to clarify: i am not saying that the american society is lacking (it is very progressive in some aspects), just in one aspect and that is government: it seems slow (especially since the obstructionist congress), ill incentivised and bogged down.
There are a lot of people (a slight majority) that are trying to push us in the right direction, but there's a slight minority with entrenched interests who are using every means at their disposal to maintain the status quo. They are being dragged, kicking and screaming, not into the 21st century but the 20th. That's part of the reality of American "exceptionalism", and you have to take that into account when looking at what policy goals you hope to achieve.
|
Uhm, you know, there are places like Silicon Valley and Wallstreet in Europe... Not as big or famous and whiteout special names (at least not famous ones), but cities/areas dominated by industry XYZ are not exactly something "special" or "american"....
|
We're entering the period of the races where polling is lackluster and predictions difficult to come by. Nate Cohn just posted a prediction that I find helpful to get a general framework to work from.
|
On March 24 2016 01:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2016 01:23 puerk wrote:On March 24 2016 01:19 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 24 2016 01:17 puerk wrote:On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting. Sometimes an outside perspective can also tell you that you are not so different as you think, with all your being human, sustaining on water and carbon compounds and all... Also what is possible regarding policy is a fast changeing issue in the US, and a focus beyond a few weeks in a policy discussion shouldn't hurt to much. Does the US have problems with the voting system, healthcare and growing inequality? Can those problems be solved sticking to the same type of policies, that created them? Mandatory individual health insurance with subsedies for the needy is something that was developed over 120 years ago in europe, thinking you have through manifest destiny and unrivaled excellency found something totally new and "vastly different" is a slight bit presumptuous. An other issue often brought up why the US are so different is diversity (and implicitly how black people ruin welfare). But the issue is not really diversity but forced and incentivised economic segregation, through suburbanisation and allowing inner cities (and their inhabitants) to deteriorate in many parts (though not all). You may think its quirky how most european societies focus (regional, country wide and even EU funds) their efforts on sustaining economically mixed, diverse and viable cities. Segregating poor and rich reinforces problems and makes everyone lucky or "able" enough to flee ignorant to the blight of the others. Those things did not happen because US Americans are genetically unchangeably predisposed to have shitty policies towards the viability of their own society, but to a suprisingly large part because there was a huge incentive to make money off suburbanisation. A house for everyone as big driver of the housing bubble and the mortgage crisis. The government was not vigilant enough against and to often complicit with economic actors egoistically scheming and acting detrimental to the society as a whole. The US was not forced into those errors, the government was lobbied and chose to act this way. I'm not talking about some weird idea of Exceptionalism with capital E. I'm not arguing our ways are better, they are just different. What I'm seeing is people from the UK say "well why don't you have the NHS?". Because our system doesn't allow for it, and making so that a NHS is possible would require us to redo an insane part of our system which really would not be a good thing. It's just as ridiculous as us asking "well why don't you have Wall Street or Silicon Valley?" or asking a farmer in Minnesota why he doesn't plant bananas. A lot of people agree that universal healthcare, improved voting access and other things are good. There are ways to accomplish them here, and mimicking the European model is not necessarily the right way to do so. but you are consistently mimicking the European model but just a century to late... which is depressing in such a fast moving interconnected world, where government should be more agile to solving the problems, unless it wants another generation left behind. edit to clarify: i am not saying that the american society is lacking (it is very progressive in some aspects), just in one aspect and that is government: it seems slow (especially since the obstructionist congress), ill incentivised and bogged down. There are a lot of people (a slight majority) that are trying to push us in the right direction, but there's a slight minority with entrenched interests who are using every means at their disposal to maintain the status quo. They are being dragged, kicking and screaming, not into the 21st century but the 20th. That's part of the reality of American "exceptionalism", and you have to take that into account when looking at what policy goals you hope to achieve.
I understand that, but suggesting European posters do not encounter such problems in their own governance or society and can therefore never take into account how different the US actually is, sounds really disingenuous.
I for instance sadly suspect that Germany will learn the wrong lesson from the last 10-20 years and instead of a more inclusive and stable society we are currently heading towards unprecedented inequality and blocking us of from dealing with poverty and all the people that feel discarded by society and government.
|
On March 24 2016 00:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
Just chiming in on AZ-- it sucks that lines are long, but it's not voter suppression. I want to point out that everyone had a chance to vote early as well. If I had to guess, the logistics were set way ahead of time and the organizers (at the state level) figured based on past years most people voted early, that turnout would be at a certain level, and that reducing the number of polling places was ok to save money. Turnout was higher, more people voted in person. Shit happens.
A pattern that has grown very, very irritating for me is for some Bernie supporters to seed the idea that there's irregularities with voting, and depending on how favorable the results, for that to either quietly disappear or turn into cries of full blown voter suppression. It's even worse now the official campaign (Jeff Weaver) is towing the line. It's like having to listen to Karl Rove complain about Ohio every week, except it's annoying instead of funny.
Also you are completely delusional to think Sanders is going to win New York. Unless NYC suddenly decides to not vote en masse (with the exception of NYU), Sanders is gonna get blown out. Unless you've forgotten, Wall Street is in New York.
Also to all the Europeans in this thread, it's nice to have you but if you don't understand that the US is a vastly different place from wherever you're from and as a result has vastly different policies and potential policies then please do your reading before commenting.
No they didn't. Along with massive amounts of lifelong Democrats having their registration mysteriously changed, many also didn't receive their early ballots.
I may be abrasive, but it doesn't make what I'm saying wrong. "irregularities" roflmao.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
The 'City' is basically Wall Street.
Anyway this is offtopic my bad.
|
United States43987 Posts
If the American people were politically open to the idea of the NHS then there is absolutely no reason why it could not be implemented and be very effective. By far the biggest problem with America is that it's full of fucking Americans. American exceptionalism doesn't mean that there are no lessons from other countries that could be successfully applied to America, rather it means that Americans, alone among the people of the world, believe that they have nothing to learn.
American exceptionalism isn't that America is fundamentally different, it's that Americans want to believe that they are.
|
Time for explorers with unknown pathogens and plagues to arrive at their coasts again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
