US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3596

Prev 1 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 10093 Next

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.

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

April 13 2016 01:45 GMT

#71901

i don't really see any argument for privileging a unit like the state when it comes to serious substantive rights. it's a clusterfuck of derpness justifying some historical inertia because conveniently in the service of prejudice.

{CC}StealthBlue

United States41117 Posts

April 13 2016 01:47 GMT

#71902

Ohio governor John Kasich issued a sharp rebuke of his rival campaigns’ mud-slinging tactics in an impassioned speech just one week ahead of the New York primary, while outlining his vision of what American values and leadership should look like ahead of one of the most “consequential elections” in recent memory.

Speaking to a polite establishment crowd of roughly 100 people on Tuesday, mostly New York Republicans gathered at the historic Women’s National Republican Club in Manhattan, Kasich reiterated his plea that the US not fall prey to the fear-mongering demagoguery and “hollow promises” of his rivals, who he said “were not worthy of the office they are seeking”.

The event was billed as a cornerstone speech intended to underline Kasich’s experience and even-handed approach as the prospect of a contested convention looms. In it he detailed the two paths he believes lie ahead for the US, which contrasted his own candidacy with the “darkness” of the unpredictable Donald Trump and fiercely ideological Ted Cruz.

“The path that exploits anger, encourages resentment, turns fear into hatred and divides people. This path solves nothing and demeans our history and weakens our country and cheapens each one of us. It has but one beneficiary, and that is the politician who speaks of it,” Kasich said in a reference to the two leading Republican candidates.

This path, he said, “drags us into a ditch and won’t make America great again”.

“The other path is one that America has been down before. It’s well-tried ... It’s the same path our forebears took together,” he said. “This is the path I believe in. This is the path that America believes in. And this is the path that I know all Americans want us to be.”

Amid his condemnation of Cruz and Trump, neither of whom he mentioned by name, Kasich reiterated his plea that America avoid the “low road to the White House”, namely the ugly rhetoric and character assassinations which have characterized the Republican primary season so far.

Source

TheTenthDoc

United States9561 Posts

April 13 2016 02:36 GMT

#71903

On April 13 2016 10:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:

Show nested quote +

Source

See, things like this make me think that the cognitive dissonance of being Trump's VP would make Kasich's head explode. But on the other hand he seems to be angling for it.

GreenHorizons

United States23238 Posts

April 13 2016 02:40 GMT

#71904

"The path that exploits anger, encourages resentment, turns fear into hatred and divides people." - John Kasich

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” – Yoda

killa_robot

Canada1884 Posts

April 13 2016 02:48 GMT

#71905

On April 13 2016 08:59 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
warning: hard-hitting analysis

+ Show Spoiler +

im probably ok with hillary in the end

"What % you at?"

"The 1%"

"Here have 12 of them."

m4ini

4215 Posts

April 13 2016 03:12 GMT

#71906

On April 13 2016 08:09 LegalLord wrote:

Show nested quote +

Abandoning plans for expansion is not exactly "publicity that doesn't cost anything" either.

They're not abandoning plans for their expansion though. They're abandoning the previous location. It's 400 jobs for skilled workers, you bet that they'll get good conditions elsewhere too, especially considering that it's a computerized business. Meaning they are not fixed on locations near ports, or something like that.

Mohdoo

United States15689 Posts

April 13 2016 05:28 GMT

#71907

Can new york just hurry up and happen so Bernie can make his concession speech?

GreenHorizons

United States23238 Posts

April 13 2016 05:54 GMT

#71908

On April 13 2016 14:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Can new york just hurry up and happen so Bernie can make his concession speech?

Haha, wouldn't count on it. I think Bernie's decided he's not going gently into the night. If she doesn't win in a 20+% blowout I don't see him stopping. He might have been willing to settle for pre-campaign Hillary, but she and her campaign might have finally disqualified her in his eyes.

I mean her "artful smear" about Vermont supplying NY's illegal guns was so ridiculous, it's pretty clear she wishes this was over already too. She's out of ammo.

LegalLord

United Kingdom13775 Posts

April 13 2016 06:56 GMT

#71909

Honestly, at this point I think Bernie is just gonna stick to it until the convention unless he gets some form of arrangement that will get him to step aside. He's far enough behind that it would be very unlikely that he could turn it around, but he's not really so far behind that he's just making a fool of himself (a la Kasich).

Kipsate

Netherlands45349 Posts

April 13 2016 07:20 GMT

#71910

Is Kasich hoping for a brokered convention that they will go for him

like, I don't understand why he is still running, is it the fame?The attention? He is not very likely becoming either Cruz or Trump's VP I think.

acker

United States2958 Posts

April 13 2016 07:24 GMT

#71911

On April 13 2016 16:20 Kipsate wrote:
Is Kasich hoping for a brokereed convention that they will go for him

like, I don't understand why he is still running, is it the fame?The attention? He is not very likely becoming either Cruz or Trump's VP I think.

Maybe he's laying the groundwork for 2020.

GreenHorizons

United States23238 Posts

April 13 2016 07:47 GMT

#71912

On April 13 2016 16:20 Kipsate wrote:
Is Kasich hoping for a brokered convention that they will go for him

like, I don't understand why he is still running, is it the fame?The attention? He is not very likely becoming either Cruz or Trump's VP I think.

Kasich is planning on being Harding is my read. Pretty sure that's the RNC plan too and try to make it look natural. I don't think it's going to work.

Edit: lol
+ Show Spoiler +

Also the 2020 thing. Kasich/Ryan 2020 is the best the RNC can hope comes out of this. Honestly the Republicans would be better served by Trump willingly stepping aside and just going full nuclear on a potential Hillary nominee and have the R nominee do the typical I agree but not with how he said it.

Starting from Kasich's net positive rating, having Trump lambaste Hillary (from the outside) and Kasich play clean, it would be the hardest race to win by far.

If Republican's wanted to win they would make sure the Democratic race goes to convention as a mess (but Hillary wins), Trump would put his pride aside (for a substantial amount of money and influence in exchange), then you nominate Kasich/Cruz. Trump riles up the base and explains why they have to begrudgingly vote for these guys this time ("Hey it's the best we've had to choose from, the establishment didn't want either of these guys in the race, and of course do you want Hillary!?"). Cruz ropes in the religious side Trump and Kasich miss, he also grabs the people pining for a "real conservative". Kasich plays for the right leaning middle, and is an acceptable pill for the establishment to swallow (he operated in the "acceptably disruptive" wing of the establishment).

If Republicans played it like that, they could win in Nov. Luckily for the country, they couldn't make that happen if it was their plan.

Think about all the things Hillary takes out of the general election arsenal.

-superPAC's
-campaign finance reform
-fracking
-establishment politics
-Wealth/income inequality
-War
-Trust

That's not even everything they could easily counter punch her on if she tried to hit them there. There's nothing the people who want to win would want more than a Hillary vs Kasich general as I described. Pretty confident that Republicans would hold their nose voting for Kasich to make sure Hillary doesn't win, so long as they have Donald out there riling them up and Cruz to alleviate some of their concerns.

On the democratic side there's no question a Bernie nomination with Hillary, Obama, Bill, and the entirety of the establishment backing him strongly, and admitting they need to change, would lead to record turnout. It's not what they want, but I don't think people are going to convince anyone that the establishment coming to Bernie wouldn't leave more people excited about the election than Bernie trying to convince his supporters to move toward the establishment.

LegalLord

United Kingdom13775 Posts

April 13 2016 08:31 GMT

#71913

Kasich just wants to derail every event by mentioning how well Ohio has done under his leadership.

Nebuchad

Switzerland12193 Posts

April 13 2016 09:12 GMT

#71914

On April 13 2016 06:49 Naracs_Duc wrote:

Show nested quote +

On April 13 2016 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:

On April 13 2016 06:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:

On April 13 2016 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:

On April 13 2016 04:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:

On April 13 2016 03:10 Nebuchad wrote:

On April 13 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:

On April 13 2016 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:

On April 13 2016 02:35 Naracs_Duc wrote:

On April 12 2016 17:14 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]

It's literally the first thing I did. I said that one was social democratic (i.e. center left) and the other was socialist in the classical definition (i.e. left to far left and possibly leading to communism). You act as if there was no far left parties in Europe, as if social democracy was the expression of all leftist ideals in Europe. It's not true. Tsipras is from a far left party. There is a far left party developping in Spain. As far as I know every european country has a minoritary far left party that is distinct from the social democratic one.

One of the things you've said is that you're scared of fundamentalists. In politics, that transcribes to being scared of extremes. A social democrat cannot be extreme. When he is, he stops being center left, and so by definition he stops being a social democrat and enters another definition that is further left. In order for your argument to make sense, you have to demonstrate that Bernie is further left than social democracy, which is a very different argument.

Under the guise of being scared of fundamentalism, which is a noble concern that I also share, you're actually arguing against restoring a moderate balance to the US. Internationally, the center is defined to be somewhere between Bernie and Hillary. Right now, in the US, the center is between Hillary and a republican. That is factually out of balance. You don't have to think that this imbalance is a problem as a general individual, but as someone who's claimed to be worried by extremism, you should think it is. You should be far more worried that a republican has a decent chance of getting elected every four years than you are by Bernie's rise or popularity. If that's not the case, by definition you aren't scared by extremes, you're just scared by the left.

So trying to make an argument that social democrat is centrist in some random country in the EU is irrelevant to the discussion.

If you don't agree with the international definition of what is moderate and what isn't, how can you then with a straight face say that you're against extremism? A moderate is someone who stands for moderate principles on a predetermined scale, not on a scale that he made up himself based on what he believes. If you want to argue that you're scared of the left, based on the experience that you had with it, that is a legitimate position and a legitimate concern. But do not present it as a moderate stance. When you think that a situation where you get to choose between center right and far right every four years is better than a situation where you choose between center left and center right because there's too much risk that we could run into far left situations in the latter, then you don't have an anti-extremist stance. And you should be able to realize that.

The US has definitions of what counts as left, right, and center. Just because it is different from the EU or Japan or Ethiopia does not make it an invalid metric.

You are correct. What makes it an invalid metric isn't that it's different from the EU. It's that its positions are [right wing](republicans) - [left wing](democrat), [far left] (social democracy), [very far left?] (doesn't exist, a socialist position), [very very very far left?] (doesn't exist, communism). You can tell it's invalid because extreme positions are situated just one degree right of center on one side, while the extreme positions of the other side are situated a million degrees left of center.

That's not even how the American political positions break down.

On the far far left is perceived as something akin to benevolent totalitarianism--a system where the government provides most if not all the support and resources to its people. On the far far right is something akin to neo-feudalism, an extreme form of anarchism where smaller communities become self run states that does not require federal controls.

In the middle of that are the moderates.

Democrats are to the left of that, republicans are to the right of that--but barely.

Its more accurate to think of it as Moderate, DINO, Moderate Democrat, Fiscal Conservative/Socially Liberal Democrat, Democrat, Left Leaning Democrat, and so on and so forth with communist being far into it, and many other beyond communist past that.

To the right its very similar between neocons, conservatives, GOPs, Tea Party, RINOs, Socially Liberal Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, Reaganites, Christian Right Republicans, Fascists, etc...

America has a very WIDE and very DEEP definition of what counts as liberal and what counts as conservative bred as much by how one perceives the other as much as it is bred by what bills each side passes. When "2nd Amendment Nutjobs" talk about the government taking their guns--its literally because they see the left as being not being very far off from becoming totalitarian regimes. They look at us and think we are the crazy ones.

So its definitely a lot more nuanced than you are pretending it to be with a lot more layers than you are really wanting to accept. And EVEN THEN it still is not relevant to the discussion of taking the experiences of people who come from countries who tested socialist changes more honestly instead of more selectively. To discuss and understand why it goes bad in some places, and why it goes well in others. To not pretend you already know how it will conclude in the US just because you think "It can't happen here in the US." Every country who has been punished by their experiments with social programs thought that "we are different" that the mistakes of others could not possibly happen to them.

It is foolish to only look at the evidence that suites you and not to the evidence available. And trying to shift the discussion to what counts as liberal or conservative is asinine.

If you find it foolish I would advise against doing it yourself, considering I'm the one with the international definition of moderate and you're the one who wants to ignore it based on the premise that America has it right against everyone in the world just because.

I didn't name all of those denominations not because I refuse to accept them but because many of them do not constitute a layer in themselves. Notice how I didn't separate democrats either, when I could have. The fact that you can name different groups of republicans and not all of them are as extreme as each other doesn't magically make it so that you reach extreme on the right at the same time as you reach extreme on the left, when you need one layer that barely exists in Bernie and two layers that don't exist at all to reach extreme on the left, and you already are at extreme on the right without even leaving the republican layer (unless you don't think the Tea Party is far right?). It is just plain fascinating to me that you're okay arguing against something so clear.

I never said that the US has it right. I said that the US is different from Spain and that the US is different from China. That what counts as conservative in spain might be seen as liberal in china and might be seen as moderate in America. For the most part, it doesn't matter what other countries count as liberal or conservative since they're not the ones voting for things in America. So please stop bringing it up.

Here is the core of the conversation and what started it. There are countries who have been successful with more socialist leaning policies and countries who have failed because of socialist leaning policies. As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies--because we can't assume that just because it worked in Sweden means it will work in the US.

Why can't we? Because the US is not Sweden.

Now you coming here and telling me that the EU is more left wing than the US tells us NOTHING about that core argument and is just a smoke screen to allow you to stall without joining the conversation.

You've said that your position is one of antifundamentalism, or antiextremism. Bernie is only extreme or fundamentalist when you start from the messed up center that the US has, so by definition, when you oppose him and quote antifundamentalism, you're accepting the american model. You can't have it both ways. Either you consider that the US has it right, and that Bernie is an extremist, in which case you are incorrect as I was demonstrating here, or you consider that Bernie is not an extremist but it's still more dangerous to have him in a system than it is to have republicans, in which case you aren't really against fundamentalism, you're against anything left. Which, I stress again, is a valid position in my book. You just need to know that you have it.

" As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies"

This has already been addressed a whole lot. All socialist attempts are not equal. The reason why Bernie gets compared to Northern Europe more than he gets compared to China is because his policy content looks more like Northern Europe than it looks like China. It's really not very sophisticated.

However, saying that, Bernie has absolutely no reason to be part of this discussion. This is about being honest that simply pointing out the anecdotes that work is not evidence, it is dishonesty. You should always treat your own ideas with the same amount of caution and expectations as you treat your opponent's ideas. That is all. Silencing people by telling them their experiences don't matter because only Swedish experiences matter is just awful.

All right, I give up. If you're still going to write things like these at this stage, you clearly aren't willing to read anything that is being argued against you. I don't see the point of talking to someone like that.

LemOn

United Kingdom8629 Posts

April 13 2016 11:38 GMT

#71915

gop hates cruz and trump
so yeah brokered convention alternative is what he hopes for, he was very open about that

oneofthem

Cayman Islands24199 Posts

April 13 2016 11:59 GMT

#71916

lol just lol if bernie thinks giving shitty systems more money is how you get to sweden.

this is bernie: causes that resonate with fairly privileged white college age kids and rural whites. there is no concern over actual poor or marginalized minorities. people want opportunities not more middle class focused welfare from sanders.

Biff The Understudy

France7890 Posts

April 13 2016 12:04 GMT

#71917

Actually, that's not a bad bet.

Everyone loathes Cruz, who is the least likable politician of the GOP. And Trump is Trump; I think at that point he has sabotaged every single possibility he could have had to win against both Clinton and Sanders. The only reason Cruz, Rubio and the others haven't been able to nuke him from orbit in their debates is that demonstrating the sheer insanity of his claims would anger the Republican nutbase. That won't be a problem for the Democratic nominee.

Ryan has made clear he wasn't a candidate. And many in the GOP have said that the nominee should be one of the three contenders/

If I were Kasich I would consider my chances to be quite good. It doesn't look like Trump will gather enough votes anyway.

The thing is that if there is a brokered convention, Trump won't be elected, and I can see him running as independent out of sheer rage. That would be really, really great. In any case, the window for the GOP to have someone at the White House by next year seems to have almost entirely closed.

iPlaY.NettleS

Australia4333 Posts

April 13 2016 12:21 GMT

#71918

Yeah, i've been following the RCP general polls, it was true a month or longer that Cruz outperformed Trump in a GE matchup against Billary or Sanders but that is not the case anymore.People woke up to the sleazebag finally i guess.Colorado most likely backfired on the establishment like everything theyve tried this campaign.

Kipsate

Netherlands45349 Posts

April 13 2016 13:05 GMT

#71919

Seems to me thats in the interests of the Republicans to have a brokered convention, side with Trump because most votes and shit(and avoid destroying the Republicans from within), give up on 2016 and fight for 2020 and keeping hold of congress.

Doesn't look like they can put up a canidate that can fight Hillary at this stage which is hilarious because Hillary isn't a super strong canidate either, shes just fine. Romney would have prolly beat her.

GreenHorizons

United States23238 Posts

April 13 2016 14:53 GMT

#71920

Bernie Sanders is surging in California, according to a Field Poll of likely Democratic primary voters released Friday.

Hillary Clinton still leads the Vermont senator in the state, 47 percent to 41 percent with 12 percent undecided, but the former secretary of state has seen only a modest, 1-point uptick since the last survey was conducted in January. Sanders, meanwhile, has jumped 6 percentage points.

Source

Prev 1 3594 3595 3596 3597 3598 10093 Next

Please or register to reply.

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3596

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming