|
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 April 20 2016 12:44 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:41 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:34 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:17 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:13 oneofthem wrote:On April 20 2016 12:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 oneofthem wrote:the concern with the sandernistas is forward looking, not just this election. the new democrat is supposed to be about building trust in government and good governance. instead there is a bunch of conspiracy nuts running around telling people everyone is corrupt. it's precisely the wrong thing to happen in a time of weakness. obama is once again the most influential piece and he more than bumbling sanders would do the work of pulling these tards back into the fold. btw im pleased to report that hillary crushed bernie in my district, CD 10. http://www.benchmarkpolitics.com/ The conspiracy nuts existed before Sanders and will continue to exist after, and they're hardly the ones who build distrust in government. This theme is on both sides. The left wing nuts have these conspiracies, the right wing nuts have different conspiracies and they spout "from my cold dead hands" referring to the time they'll eventually open fire on government employees in the name of freedom. Fucking distrust in government is a large chunk of Trump's platform, it's just spun differently. Thing is, you can blame Trump directly for that rhetoric, whereas the conspiracy rhetoric is one that only shitters adopt. Can't exactly control what those people will do or say. of course i can blame trump or sanders for obfuscating the discourse to their simple 'government is corrupt, we need revolution' stuff. two of the dimmest rocks leading the revolution is not going to get you good things. You can do what you want, but if you think the government isn't corrupt you'll be sad to hear that it's pretty much considered normal in the US for politicians to actively try to give contracts to their buddies working in big corporations and that's how they keep their seats. It's not corruption necessarily, but it's not entirely democratic because decisions are being made based on political financing and much of it is at the very least extremely suspicious. Trust in the government is low because it ought to be. That being said, the ridiculously dumb idea that every single politician is a crook and is only in politics for personal gain is very naive and even juvenile, I don't think Sanders adopts that position. I think it's a convenient simplification of his platform. Convenient for you. bernie f35 vermont google it Every candidate has a bunch of those things. That being said, if it had been me I would have written a short piece about it rather than "bernie f35 vermont google it" because that's incredibly lazy and frankly like... try to act like a civilized person. :/ Anyway Bernie probably did some of that shady shit. The way I understand, you don't stay a senator for very long if you don't spend tens of hours every week calling big contributors asking for cash. And then it follows that you tacitly owe them. On April 20 2016 12:36 ragz_gt wrote:On April 20 2016 12:31 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:25 ticklishmusic wrote:
fwiw oneofthem has clarified he uses those terms to refer to a specific segment of bernie supporters Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how he would explain Sander's responsibility for the imagined phenomenon wherein crazy Sanders supporters are creating distrust in US politics. Subversives are a thing. "Sandernistas" and their conspiracy theories fit neatly in a platform which is critical of the status quo. To blame anti-establishment platforms as disruptive is bad is a very curious way to look at a democracy or a republic. If you want stability you're in the wrong format of government. And a handful of conspiracy theorists is not going to shake the pillars of the US anyway, they'll write a few books and build tinfoil hats, supporting the metallurgy industry. I mean, he probably is right that Hillary and most of the establish are corrupted to some degree. But at some point you have to look at the actual reality and cut your loses. Does Bernie want risk make Ted Cruz the president to make a point? I like Sander and a lot of his ideas, if not his "solution", but anything that might remotely leading a Cruz presidency scares the living fuck out of me. I mean... I understand you. It seemed to me like the one time, the one occasion the US would've had to not be voting for what I, as a Canadian, would consider a lesser evil. He also didn't really give any plan on how to achieve what he says he gonna achieve, you can only go so far on rainbows and unicorns, and his long tenure as senator with limited achievement is not exactly encouraging on that point either.
You know it's funny because I've seen that one before. Here in Canada, they used that exact same argument. They did it in France too, and in a bunch of countries. During the election, they don't really give any plan. The current PM of Canada, widely still liked and respected both in Canada and worldwide, got elected despite an economic plan which involved a couple years of deficits with no details about how he was going to "restart" the economy that the conservatives allegedly left in shambles. Saying "X has no plan" is just great, especially when it's not quite true. "Rainbows and unicorns" you say. Here they say "cloud shovelers". They speak of dreams and thing that seem insane when you don't really bother to think about it. Fact is Sander's shit is pretty tame for a country which has a military budget that dwarfs the entire GDP of large powerhouse countries.
"He has no plan" is a great argument anyone can use. No one has a detailed plan except the candidates which say "oh this is fine". And if they made a detailed plan, people would either say "that's not detailed enough" or "the legislature won't allow it". Get real, you cloud shoveler  . Your country is being torn apart by the growing pains of poverty and inequality. The long term costs of inaction IMO absolutely dwarf some of the general principles that Sanders observes in other countries where people live rich lives and don't worry about not being able to afford medical care and don't worry about being left to die slowly on the streets.
|
On April 20 2016 12:41 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both. I am pretty sure she has had a pledged delegate lead since South Carolina and that has not changed though it did grow massively as she was crushing him in the south and he did shrink it slightly on his win streak but at the end of the day she will have more votes. You cant argue you are fighting for the people and then when they reject you say "okay but make me the nominee anyway". Ignoring the fact that the superdelegates wont budge its just flies in the face of your message The argument you are making though is also silly on its face. You are basically making the argument that despite the fact that the states voted a certain way if the polls say it would have gone different if it happened again they should just pretend those votes didnt happen. It reminds me of how in 2013 there were polls saying Romney would have beaten Obama had the election been held that day so by that argument we should have kicked Obama out in 2013 because the people changed there minds after they voted. The argument is just silly on its face.
Your right the argument you presented is silly.
My argument though, isn't what you're saying. I think the case Weaver was making was the same one Hillary's camp was saying when they thought there was a chance she'd lose the pledged delegate count. (Iowa and NH is when the super delegate count was all the rage). That admittedly, Bernie's camp was wasn't supportive of.
The difference for those who are curious is that basically he/I am saying that if the delegate/vote count doesn't match the current will of the people (and the trends going into the general) than it could be an objectively bad decision to ignore that.
Bernie is already so much of a better person than I generally run into, especially in politics, that personally he's got quite a bit of leeway before I don't just chalk it up to the imperfections of humanity and the system he's in.
Contrary to popular belief, most of his supporters don't think of him as "perfect". So proving he's fallible isn't as much of a hit as I think some folks think.
|
On April 20 2016 07:53 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 07:22 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 01:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2016 00:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 13:28 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 12:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 09:57 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 08:33 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 06:33 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 04:56 Lord Tolkien wrote:
[quote]
6-2 most likely, otherwise a 5-3.
Justice Kennedy has previously voted (and written the majority opinion) largely favor of the federal government in the case of illegal immigration: specifically the highly important Arizona v. United States, which should be noted was a 5-3 opinion, with Kagan not participating (Kagan would almost certainly have joined with the majority, however).
Roberts is also very much likely to take a dim view of the states' justification and evidence of injury (they're claiming injury from the drivers licenses they'd have to issue to undocumented immigrants), and his record shows that he's been very cautious about expanding the avenues through which an entity (individual, corporation, and state) can sue or litigate, and it's highly improbable that he will accept Texas' argument and evidence for injury (being highly flimsy at best, and overly political at worst).
There is no chance of a 4-4.
Final note, the opening arguments were made today. It won't be decided until much later. The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case. A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court). On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen. In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing. Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States. The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts. Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees). The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below. Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case? I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here. Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2. The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent). The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead). The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them. This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily. Also, www.scotusblog.com Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard? Hrm, I see your point. Onto the substance in part you said, hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them. Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court. In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them. Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly. First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform. That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship. For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program. That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference. And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes. I never claimed there wouldn't be a political motive behind it. DAPA and DACA, and Republican opposition, even more firmly puts Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not that they needed it: the Republicans have literally done everything they could to alienate the Hispanic population with their stance on immigration. On April 20 2016 03:35 Jormundr wrote:On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote:
it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's. Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen! If I may ask, what communist or socialist style government and economy (that is, one that eschews a market economy and the international liberal economy) has been able to prosper and reach higher levels of development? The only one I can currently think of is possibly Cuba. Socialist and communist experiments throughout the world and the socialist-inspired import-substitution industrialisation movement consistently failed (and failed disastrously) throughout the 60s through 80s. Argentina is an excellent example, actually. In contrast, the successful "Second Wave" of development highlights the importance of the market economy and the international liberal order (and global marketplace). The Asian Tigers, South Korea, and Japan (and now increasingly China) highlights the importance of a market-oriented approach, even if it isn't a free market: indeed, you could much more closely characterize their economic development approach as state capitalist or corporatist, in that they all involved the close involvement/collusion between the government and businesses, to sod with these notions of labor unions or human rights. The development model utilized by these countries relied upon an export-oriented production economy, with development taking place in wretched labor conditions, and high savings/low consumption rates to invest in future human capital (higher education for children, etc), and the utilization of their national savings to create a financial sector capable of large investments and supporting major corporations (the Korean chaebols, for instance). As much as I would like to say that there is a good socialist or communist model of economic development...there really isn't. ... You're arguing against the same strawman that oneofthem puts up because he knows that Bernie Sanders is secretly the next Stalin in the same way he knows that Hillary Clinton is the next Gandhi. Healthcare is better when socialized. Education is better socialized. Utilities (electricity, water, internet) turn out better socialized. Have there been ANY Bernie supporters in here claiming that we should run on a socialist economy? No? Oh it's just the Hillary people dreaming of a socialist utopia? Well that's their problem. Also in response to someone else, no Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in one presidency. You know, the same way Hillary can't accomplish 10% of what she proposes if she is elected. Like all presidents, they can lay the groundwork for it.
I am completely aware. Do note that I posted awhile the entire wall of text explaining how, no, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist no matter what he says and that he, like the European socialist parties today, are actually social democrats, as opposed to "true" socialists or communists, as they existed a few decades ago.
Neither am I discussing specific socialist-inspired policies like healthcare for example (which, while I agree with the ideal of a single-payer system and as a goal, just not the practicalities of instituting it at present in the US). A social liberal or social democrat can, for instance, support similar policies as socialists without being a socialist. A fascist and a communist both support an authoritarian form of governance, but they come from two entirely different ideological backgrounds and belief systems, after all.
But a socialist mode or construction of economics has been historically proven to have largely failed in development, and a number of Bernie's economic policy stump speeches focusing on "breaking up the big banks" and whatnot, are really based on nonsense and rhetoric.Compare the Argentinean with the South Korean experience; after the Korean War, the South Korean GDP per capita was comparable with/lower than Ghana's, while Argentina's development went backwards after a long period of political instability and especially of disastrous economic policies (many of them highly socially progressive, but the country could utterly not afford). Also there was the attempts at Import-Substitution Industrialization.
Noted also would be US coups in Guatemala and Chile in particular, but the Soviet Union and other communist-inspired national movements had poor success of their own, see Cambodia. Countries like Vietnam and China were/are only able to accomplish their economic miracles after casting aside their socialist and communist economic policies like collectivization and total abolition of private property, and moving both to integrating with the international economy and towards capitalist modes of production and economics.
|
On April 20 2016 12:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
While I continue to think that Bernie has his heart in the right place, his view of the world is almost childlike. Things are black and white, him v. the world. This is compounded by his inability to meaningfully articulate his plans and his weird fixation on stuff that should be a means to an end (like single payer for universal healthcare, free public college for improved education).
Weaver is free to say what he wants about superdelegates or whatever l8test gr8est strategy he and Devine have come up with to win. I don't think the superdelegate argument holds any water at this point. They're free to try and do whatever they want as long as its within the rules and doesn't violate people's privacy, safety, etc. I don't like these particular moves, but it's their (handsomely compensated) responsibility to try and win. It does speak to a certain degree of desperation commensurate with their position though.
Hillary and the Democrats will make things pretty black and white in the general, I'm sure.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
fwiw i obviously know bernie is bernie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though.
|
On April 20 2016 12:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:48 ticklishmusic wrote:
While I continue to think that Bernie has his heart in the right place, his view of the world is almost childlike. Things are black and white, him v. the world. This is compounded by his inability to meaningfully articulate his plans and his weird fixation on stuff that should be a means to an end (like single payer for universal healthcare, free public college for improved education).
Weaver is free to say what he wants about superdelegates or whatever l8test gr8est strategy he and Devine have come up with to win. I don't think the superdelegate argument holds any water at this point. They're free to try and do whatever they want as long as its within the rules and doesn't violate people's privacy, safety, etc. I don't like these particular moves, but it's their (handsomely compensated) responsibility to try and win. It does speak to a certain degree of desperation commensurate with their position though. Hillary and the Democrats will make things pretty black and white in the general, I'm sure.
When the Republicans have to choose between Trump and Cruz as their candidate, I do not believe we have any options but to treat it as black and white.
|
On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though.
It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff.
Anyway it's not like you even have to fit the label. Here they make socialist policies all the time without mentioning the label of socialism because they don't get accused of being socialist by juvenile political opponents who think it's a swear word. I'd wager that Sanders only embraced the term socialism to tackle the ridiculous taboo it deals with in American society because of cold war propaganda.
It's like you people have this weird little cabinet full of "-isms" and you use it to do battle. 
|
On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. Anyway it's not like you even fit the label. Here they make socialist policies all the time without mentioning the label of socialism because they don't get accused of being socialist by juvenile political opponents who think it's a swear word. I'd wager that Sanders only embraced the term socialism to tackle the ridiculous taboo it deals with in American society because of cold war propaganda. It's like you people have this weird little cabinet full of "-isms" and you use it to do battle.
It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant.
I would also take that wager. After the NYDN interview, I am now convinced he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when it comes to the policies he's elucidating, outside of some idealized form of what he believed it is. It's quite unfortunate: after the past month or so, my respect and opinion for him has declined markedly.
On the subject of "isms": I agree it's unfortunate, but keep in mind we spent 45 or so years in the Cold War, and most of the current voting generation remembers those years. For a presidential candidate, socialist is a worse taboo than atheist when it comes to presidential candidates, actually. He's doing well in those useless primary "General Election" polls, but that's because the Republicans are doing their best not to say anything mean about him (and he really hasn't been in the national spotlight), while continuing their 25+ year onslaught of ceaseless mudslinging against Clinton. I mean, he went on a honeymoon to the Soviet Union of all things: he''s super-easy material for the Republicans to pump out into a non-stop barrage of negative ads.
|
On April 20 2016 13:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant.
Well then maybe people should start calling the democrats "neolibs" instead of liberals since it's an antiquated term better left in history. The US is ripe for using simplified language. If he'd called himself a social democrat, people would still call him a socialist as an insult which is fucking hilarious. Might as well use the wrong -ism since it seems pretty popular around here.
I mean my concern here anyway is that within 1 page his concern with Sanders went from the conspiracy theorists to his inadequate use of the term Socialism, term which was leveled at him, let's not forget. Seems like we're just chucking shit at a wall to score quick political brownie points. The low info voter won't see through that.
|
On April 20 2016 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:41 Adreme wrote:On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both. I am pretty sure she has had a pledged delegate lead since South Carolina and that has not changed though it did grow massively as she was crushing him in the south and he did shrink it slightly on his win streak but at the end of the day she will have more votes. You cant argue you are fighting for the people and then when they reject you say "okay but make me the nominee anyway". Ignoring the fact that the superdelegates wont budge its just flies in the face of your message The argument you are making though is also silly on its face. You are basically making the argument that despite the fact that the states voted a certain way if the polls say it would have gone different if it happened again they should just pretend those votes didnt happen. It reminds me of how in 2013 there were polls saying Romney would have beaten Obama had the election been held that day so by that argument we should have kicked Obama out in 2013 because the people changed there minds after they voted. The argument is just silly on its face. Your right the argument you presented is silly. My argument though, isn't what you're saying. I think the case Weaver was making was the same one Hillary's camp was saying when they thought there was a chance she'd lose the pledged delegate count. (Iowa and NH is when the super delegate count was all the rage). That admittedly, Bernie's camp was wasn't supportive of. The difference for those who are curious is that basically he/I am saying that if the delegate/vote count doesn't match the current will of the people (and the trends going into the general) than it could be an objectively bad decision to ignore that. Bernie is already so much of a better person than I generally run into, especially in politics, that personally he's got quite a bit of leeway before I don't just chalk it up to the imperfections of humanity and the system he's in. Contrary to popular belief, most of his supporters don't think of him as "perfect". So proving he's fallible isn't as much of a hit as I think some folks think.
How do we define the "will of the people" though? Do we only care about recent primaries? Bernie was on a massive winstreak that every expert knew was coming and it was not that the will of the people was changing it was that the map is just better for him in that moment. The next 2 big states are Pennsylvania and Maryland. She will likely win Maryland by double digits and Pennsylvania will be close either way but that does not make Bernies message weaker it just means the map hit her areas
However if we define "will of the people" by a national poll then we are falling into the same trap you just called a terrible idea. This leaves me to wonder what would be a better metric of the "will of the people" then the votes they cast when they hand a chance to pull the lever. Thats how our elections have functioned and it seems as good a way as any to gauge it to me.
|
On April 20 2016 13:09 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant. Well then maybe people should start calling the democrats "neolibs" instead of liberals since it's an antiquated term better left in history. The US is ripe for using simplified language. If he'd called himself a social democrat, people would still call him a socialist as an insult which is fucking hilarious. Might as well use the wrong -ism since it seems pretty popular around here.
"Neoliberal" is for the most part a pejorative term (you'd be looking for "classic liberal"), but that is perhaps better suited to the Republicans, or specifically the libertarian wing of the party.
The Democratic party is a wide coalition, but it predominantly comprises of social liberals.
|
On April 20 2016 13:17 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 13:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant. Well then maybe people should start calling the democrats "neolibs" instead of liberals since it's an antiquated term better left in history. The US is ripe for using simplified language. If he'd called himself a social democrat, people would still call him a socialist as an insult which is fucking hilarious. Might as well use the wrong -ism since it seems pretty popular around here. "Neoliberal" is for the most part a pejorative term (you'd be looking for "classic liberal"), but that is perhaps better suited to the Republicans, or specifically the libertarian wing of the party. The Democratic party is a wide coalition, but it predominantly comprises of social liberals.
Neoliberal is not pejorative here in French but fine. Yet, US democrats are literally proponents of neoliberalism for the most part by definition. Classical liberalism is very 1600's so it really doesn't fit even republicans. Regardless of that, my point is the US uses the wrong isms very regularly. Communism is given this evil agency ffs, it's absolutely astrounding. Anyway, the left calling themselves liberals is a North American thing to do I think.
And I've literally never heard of neoliberalism being pejorative. Academics here use it, sometimes to refer to their own ideology.
On that note, I'm completely beat up. Super long day. Cheers.
|
On April 20 2016 13:15 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:41 Adreme wrote:On April 20 2016 12:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:12 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 12:03 kwizach wrote:On April 20 2016 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 20 2016 11:50 kwizach wrote:
Jeff Weaver, from the Sanders campaign, just admitted again (but even more clearly than before) on MSNBC that the Sanders campaign will try to win at the convention thanks to superdelegates even if Sanders is behind Hillary both in the popular vote and in the number of pledged delegates. Let that sink in. He supports the idea of superdelegates giving Sanders the nomination even if he loses the popular vote and has less pledged delegates than Hillary. Is anyone here going to defend that position?
I think there's no chance of that actually happening since Sanders will concede and work to support her, but it really shows the hypocrisy of the people working under him. It's already been established the winner will be determined by super delegates barring something huge. There's no scandal in acknowledging that. Not sure if anyone did the math on if super delegates followed their constituencies how that would add up? No, that is not what Weaver was saying here. Again, Weaver explicitly said that superdelegates should give Sanders the nomination even if he has LESS pledged delegates than Hillary and even if he has LOST the popular vote to Hillary. That is extremely different from simply saying that neither candidate is likely to reach the 2,384 delegate vote threshold through pledged delegates alone. Don't try to obfuscate on this issue. Do you support superdelegates overturning the votes of the people who participated in the Democratic primary, and the results both with regards to the popular vote total and to the respective pledged delegates numbers? Jeff Weaver does. Considering Hillary's national numbers have been falling I could see myself supporting that. If Hillary is losing 60-40 nationally during California, I think that would be 1 example of why I would support doing such. I can think of other scenarios. Not sure if your complaint is about an inconsistency for Bernie's campaign or that you don't like the idea? So let's get this clear. The primary season is over. All states have voted. We've reached the convention, and the situation is as follows: Hillary has won the popular vote. Hillary has won the most number of pledged delegates. Jeff Weaver says - and apparently you agree with him - that he supports Sanders getting the nomination anyway, through the support of superdelegates. I consider that contemptible, both because of the blatant disregard for the votes that were cast and because of the glaring hypocrisy coming from a campaign which initially decried the weight given to superdelegates. It is I can think of several scenarios where that would be the rational choice yes. The hypocrisy argument is more nuanced but at least we finally agree that super delegates shouldn't exist, funny it took until they may be a path to victory for Bernie for so many Hillary supporters to say they shouldn't be there. They didn't seem to have any problem with them when they were bragging about the lead they gave her. They also don't seem to mind them being shown in corporate media delegate counts. Finally you don't get to use the voters as a shield/crutch, either you're fine with Hillary's finance issues because "those are just the rules" and so your fine with Bernie using the rules to his advantage no matter how much it contradicts his platform, or you have a problem with both. I am pretty sure she has had a pledged delegate lead since South Carolina and that has not changed though it did grow massively as she was crushing him in the south and he did shrink it slightly on his win streak but at the end of the day she will have more votes. You cant argue you are fighting for the people and then when they reject you say "okay but make me the nominee anyway". Ignoring the fact that the superdelegates wont budge its just flies in the face of your message The argument you are making though is also silly on its face. You are basically making the argument that despite the fact that the states voted a certain way if the polls say it would have gone different if it happened again they should just pretend those votes didnt happen. It reminds me of how in 2013 there were polls saying Romney would have beaten Obama had the election been held that day so by that argument we should have kicked Obama out in 2013 because the people changed there minds after they voted. The argument is just silly on its face. Your right the argument you presented is silly. My argument though, isn't what you're saying. I think the case Weaver was making was the same one Hillary's camp was saying when they thought there was a chance she'd lose the pledged delegate count. (Iowa and NH is when the super delegate count was all the rage). That admittedly, Bernie's camp was wasn't supportive of. The difference for those who are curious is that basically he/I am saying that if the delegate/vote count doesn't match the current will of the people (and the trends going into the general) than it could be an objectively bad decision to ignore that. Bernie is already so much of a better person than I generally run into, especially in politics, that personally he's got quite a bit of leeway before I don't just chalk it up to the imperfections of humanity and the system he's in. Contrary to popular belief, most of his supporters don't think of him as "perfect". So proving he's fallible isn't as much of a hit as I think some folks think. How do we define the "will of the people" though? Do we only care about recent primaries? Bernie was on a massive winstreak that every expert knew was coming and it was not that the will of the people was changing it was that the map is just better for him in that moment. The next 2 big states are Pennsylvania and Maryland. She will likely win Maryland by double digits and Pennsylvania will be close either way but that does not make Bernies message weaker it just means the map hit her areas However if we define "will of the people" by a national poll then we are falling into the same trap you just called a terrible idea. This leaves me to wonder what would be a better metric of the "will of the people" then the votes they cast when they hand a chance to pull the lever. Thats how our elections have functioned and it seems as good a way as any to gauge it to me.
Presumably if he's winning 60-40 (as in my example) in national polls it indicates that the votes may not have considered recent developments. I agree the whole thing needs work, but I think many people are discounting how the purity of a "Democratic Party" nominee doesn't make them stronger in the general. The people who Hillary supporters would say "indicate she's the choice of Democrats" aren't the end all be all of the general. It's the independents where Bernie is crushing her that determine the outcome. Like Obama, Hillary supporters would be unlikely to sit out Bernie v. Trump, but it's all but guaranteed the Democrats have lost somewhere between 5-50% of the party if they nominate Hillary on top of losing the largest segment of the electorate (independents) by the load.
That there are Hillary folks all over basically saying the same thing some here are, rubbing in that they think independents shouldn't get to influence who the nominees in November are, only strengthens both Bernie and Trump's case that the parties don't give a damn about the opinion of people not in their gangs (at least until the general when everyone agrees they lie to the other side/Indys as much as they can to convince them that the stuff they said in the primary was just rhetoric).
EDIT: + Show Spoiler +One of the most confusing things about this campaign is that people want so bad for it to be Hillary's turn they are ignoring how amazing it is that the further left candidate in the Democratic primary is the more popular of the two overall nationally.
If it were anyone else other than Hillary the people would be celebrating that the more progressive candidate is more popular outside of the party, but because folks are trying to protect the idea of a Hillary nomination at all costs, we're telling our own folks and independents that could be coming out of the woodwork in unprecedented numbers, that "no we're not really that progressive" but you should totally stay for Hillary.
If young people were more evenly split, or if the "liberal to conservative" trend was stronger, or if young people were already at their peak voting participation, or if any number of things were true it would make sense to me that the party could think they could ride this out, but they are looking at there being a third party run in 2020 if both parties keep alienating folks and they stick with Hillary.
I mean is anyone going to believe that there are no connections between the Clinton foundation, Hillary, and Bill Clinton during their presidency for example? Even a lot of liberals won't buy their story after the campaign finance stuff comes to full light after all the reports are public and they get through analysis.
That's pretty "best case". Although I do have a tinfoil theory about off shore money long being planned to come back after Obama and there will be a resulting economic boom that will mask underlying problems much like the Clinton years and NAFTA.
|
On April 20 2016 12:54 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 07:53 Jormundr wrote:On April 20 2016 07:22 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 01:43 cLutZ wrote:On April 20 2016 00:58 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 13:28 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 12:21 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 09:57 cLutZ wrote:On April 19 2016 08:33 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 19 2016 06:33 cLutZ wrote:
[quote]
The thing about the standing issue, is Texas almost certainly has standing under the most recent precedents in the Mass. v. EPA case.
A second issue I see with the standing point is that Texas could argue (and would be correct in my estimation) that if they changed their eligibility standards for drivers licenses and invented their own non-federal standard they would be sued. And probably sued successfully by an immigrant advocacy group that points to the Arizona case and says "Immigration is the domain of the Federal government." So IMO, standing is pinched between a rock and a hard place (if you are intellectually honest, which is always an issue for the Court).
On the substantive side, I say its a toss up and have no idea what will happen.
In Mass vs EPA, Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion in the caseagainst the majority, with his primary argument being that the states did not provide an adequate basis for injury. While Mass vs EPA was a successful case on behalf of the state, I'm fairly confident Roberts is still a tossup due to the issue of standing. Even if Roberts does not, Kennedy has generally set the precedent that he favors a much more expansive role of the federal government in the formulation of immigration policy, and is extremely likely to side with the 4 liberal justices on this one, based on Arizona v. United States. The reason Kennedy is an unknown is because its not the state vs. Feds on this. Its statutory interpretation (Congress vs. Executive) and its just that the States were the parties with an argument for standing in the most favorable courts. Nonetheless, the states are still the main plaintiffs, and it will be a core issue of the court (at least, from what the oral arguments went). The issue of state standing on immigration issues is a major legal question that must be addressed before the case can be addressed. www.scotusblog.com. For the most part, I look at the case and would say that Texas' standing is negligible, as the issuance of licenses and license plates to undocumented immigrants does not really either constitute a major impact on state budgets, or note the pre-existing effects that undocumented migrants have on both the state economies (negative and, largely, positive). In the case of Mass v. EPA, the states could point to health and public welfare at risk from the EPA's stance on various GHG emissions, and that the EPA did indeed have the authority to regulate those emissions. Here, the argument is the relatively trivial budgetary impact of issuing drivers licenses (which itself is offset by license applications fees). The argument between Executive v. Congressional authority will be trickier, granted, but see below. Also, I'd like your opinion on the "rock and hard place" dilemma Kennedy is in because of Arizona. Isn't Texas re-defining "legal resident" or what not against the rules established by that case? I'm not sure what you mean, can you elaborate? If you mean a new definition of "legal resident" through DAPA, that is one of the core arguments here. The states (and the House) are arguing that the term "legal presence" constitutes an new class of "legal resident" and promises a pathway to citizenship, which would be something that only Congress may legislate. DAPA does not seek to do this, as it only relies on deferred action, in which the deportation of an undocumented migrant. This is a well-established and accepted discretionary tool of the DHS, and in current immigration law, this creates the notion of the migrant being "legally present" in the United States during the deferral. I find it a hard sell for the plaintiffs to say that this decision to use deferred action on a national level in regards to parents will create a new definition of "legal resident", when it relies entirely on prior practices here. Having just read the oral arguments that have been made, I'm fairly confident we're going to be seeing a 5-3 ruling, MAYBE 6-2. The defense mostly focused on the standing of the case, which was something that the liberal judges on the court were keen to to jump on. Most notably, Kennedy seemed to hold Texas' standing in heavy disfavor. It appears that Justice Roberts is inclined to accept Texas' standing (in contrast to what I wrote earlier before reading the arguments), as is Alito and Thomas (by silent consent). The primary argument that the plaintiffs (Texas and the House of Representatives) are making primarily focus both on the validity of the standing (but then again, the arguments were extended to address the issue of state standing here, so it's not unexpected), but also specifically on the use of the word "legal presence". Most notably, they did not bring up the argument of the "Take Care clause", which indeed has not even discussed through the entirety of today (which leads me to believe that this argument is effectively dead). The problem with the focus on the "legal presence" argument, however, is both the above (in regards to deferred action and "legally present"), and that the primary argument from the Obama administration on this front is that the term is ultimately meaningless, aside from some technicalities of Social Security benefits, and that the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them. This makes the argument that the states' are making very risky, if the core argument they're relying upon can be addressed so readily. Also, www.scotusblog.com Here is why I think Arizona complicates the standing issue (I don't know about the other issue, its a basic statutory interpretation issue, so, in other words, complete guesswork) because IMO it makes the fed's argument on lack of standing circular: 1) Texas: We have standing because the definition of ;"legal presence" affects our license programs. 2) SG: No you don't because adopting that standard is your own self inflicted wound. 3) Texas: Arizona says we can't make our own definition of "legally present". 4) SG: So make another standard. 5) Texas: No such standard would pass constitutional muster because of Arizona. We cannot legally inquire into the legitimacy of an immigrant's status, any rule that de facto excluded this class would be instantly challenged in court. 6) SG: Adopt a different standard. 7) Texas: What standard? Hrm, I see your point. Onto the substance in part you said, hat the removal of the phrase "legal presence" is neither something they would mind, nor would it affect the crux of DAPA and the use of deferred action. Indeed, they noted that the Court could just red line "legally present" if it was an issue for them. Imo you are understanting how much of a loss that is for Obama. The granting of benefits and starting a snowball effect towards amnesty/legitimate legal status is clearly a goal here. Its easy to see this because because if he were to have conceded that no issue would have made it to SCOTUS aside from the "take care clause" argument, which is probably a loser so long as Roberts is on the court. In many ways, because of Arizona, the standing question is subsumed into the substantive question: Whether this has actually changed the legal status of DAPA beneficiaries, or if its a legitimate use of discretion and resource optimization. Because, if the Federal government has sole authority over immigration (which Arizona is based off of) and states cannot treat persons differently (such as providing different rights and obligations) that the federal government treats as equals (in the immigration sense) then Texas (or any state) is required to follow their determination. Thus, if one is consistent, Arizona confers standing to states whenever immigration policy is changed so they can ensure that it is interpreted exactly according to Congress's intent, because mistakes by the executive branch will always affect them. Which is one reason Arizona was likely decided incorrectly. First, I do not believe DAPA is intended to be a gateway towards amnesty/legalization by itself. The goal of DACA and DAPA is to put a moratorium upon deportations until Congress either gets its shit together and/or is voted out of the office. The use of either as an explicit gateway towards citizenship would almost certainly be considered an infringement upon Congressional power, so the goal of these programs from my perspective is a stop-gap until a new administration and a Democratic Congressional majority can push through comprehensive immigration reform. That being said, given the administration's representatives stated early on the first day that the term could be crossed out if the justices prefer, indicates for me that the Obama administration does not put much stock in the term to be either legally binding or part of a pathway to citizenship. For myself, I'm expecting the Court in this case to focus mostly on the issue of state standing, and establishing the limits and framework for future cases. DAPA will either survive in its entirety, or the term "legally present" is removed and it's slightly truncated without major effects on the program. That is an interesting POV. I guess the core of the question is actually whether DAPA is basically a moratorium on deportations or if it does change legal status. That they are willing to concede that point makes me think that you might be correct, or its that the administration didn't see (or want to see) the difference. And to be clear, I don't think it was intended to be a legally binding pathway, IMO it was intended to get these immigrants drivers licenses, involved in certain other government things (like taxes), etc such that the next time there is an immigration fight they can trot out some stats like "85% of so called 'undocumented workers' have a drivers license and paid payroll taxes." Because there is nothing they like more than talking about how virtuous it is to pay taxes. I never claimed there wouldn't be a political motive behind it. DAPA and DACA, and Republican opposition, even more firmly puts Hispanics in the Democratic camp. Not that they needed it: the Republicans have literally done everything they could to alienate the Hispanic population with their stance on immigration. On April 20 2016 03:35 Jormundr wrote:On April 20 2016 03:04 oneofthem wrote:
it's not a simple scale as though adding 50% of bernie would get you to the same place as hillary.
market phobic leftists and market accepting liberals may both be left on a simple political scale but they are vastly different in thought. for europe the former evolved into the latter after discovering socialism doesn't work. bernie has yet to learn anything since the 60's. Still a decade more reasonable than you since you're emblematic of the red scare of the 50s. Maybe you could like pick up a book on how different styles of government and different markets have different results. It's almost as if socialism and capitalism are both very useful approaches to governance in different situations. I hope you don't have insurance, because that right there is spooky scary collectivism which is the same as socialism which is the same as bein a dirty fuckin commie amen! If I may ask, what communist or socialist style government and economy (that is, one that eschews a market economy and the international liberal economy) has been able to prosper and reach higher levels of development? The only one I can currently think of is possibly Cuba. Socialist and communist experiments throughout the world and the socialist-inspired import-substitution industrialisation movement consistently failed (and failed disastrously) throughout the 60s through 80s. Argentina is an excellent example, actually. In contrast, the successful "Second Wave" of development highlights the importance of the market economy and the international liberal order (and global marketplace). The Asian Tigers, South Korea, and Japan (and now increasingly China) highlights the importance of a market-oriented approach, even if it isn't a free market: indeed, you could much more closely characterize their economic development approach as state capitalist or corporatist, in that they all involved the close involvement/collusion between the government and businesses, to sod with these notions of labor unions or human rights. The development model utilized by these countries relied upon an export-oriented production economy, with development taking place in wretched labor conditions, and high savings/low consumption rates to invest in future human capital (higher education for children, etc), and the utilization of their national savings to create a financial sector capable of large investments and supporting major corporations (the Korean chaebols, for instance). As much as I would like to say that there is a good socialist or communist model of economic development...there really isn't. ... You're arguing against the same strawman that oneofthem puts up because he knows that Bernie Sanders is secretly the next Stalin in the same way he knows that Hillary Clinton is the next Gandhi. Healthcare is better when socialized. Education is better socialized. Utilities (electricity, water, internet) turn out better socialized. Have there been ANY Bernie supporters in here claiming that we should run on a socialist economy? No? Oh it's just the Hillary people dreaming of a socialist utopia? Well that's their problem. Also in response to someone else, no Bernie can't accomplish everything he wants in one presidency. You know, the same way Hillary can't accomplish 10% of what she proposes if she is elected. Like all presidents, they can lay the groundwork for it. I am completely aware. Do note that I posted awhile the entire wall of text explaining how, no, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist no matter what he says and that he, like the European socialist parties today, are actually social democrats, as opposed to "true" socialists or communists, as they existed a few decades ago. Neither am I discussing specific socialist-inspired policies like healthcare for example (which, while I agree with the ideal of a single-payer system and as a goal, just not the practicalities of instituting it at present in the US). A social liberal or social democrat can, for instance, support similar policies as socialists without being a socialist. A fascist and a communist both support an authoritarian form of governance, but they come from two entirely different ideological backgrounds and belief systems, after all. But a socialist mode or mindset of economics, and a number of his economic policy stump speeches focusing on "breaking up the big banks" and whatnot, are really based on nonsense and rhetoric.Compare the Argentinean with the South Korean experience (should be noted that after the Korean War, the South Korean GDP per capita was comparable with/lower than Ghana's).
And as Japanese companies moved up the tech manufacturing chain, they provided Korean firms with their sales and marketing networks, so that Japanese firms could act as "middlemen" for developing Korean light industries. South Korea was already sending half of its exports to the US by 1968 and had internal and external pressures helping to discipline the labor force. Factor in the built-in networks of the chaebols and the costs of doing business in Korea were very favorable to foreign capital. The devaluation of the dollar in the 70s only boosted their export-led manufacturing sector.
Countries that were attempting ISI (promoted by the US, btw, prior to focus on export-led growth) were fucked by Western capitalist stagflation in the 70s depressing demand for exports and then fucked again in the 80s by the various debt crises. In Latin America, at least, MNCs played a much larger role in direct investment, and they were much more focused on providing goods for the South American domestic markets rather than exporting, while international bank lending to Latin American dictatorships in the 70s exacerbated the effects of the Volcker shock and led to the ensuing debt crises in said countries. Comparing Argentina to South Korea makes no sense. You might as well be comparing Ghana and Argentina.
|
Canada11279 Posts
I don't know about neoliberal being considered a pejorative, but neocon has often been used as a pejorative.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 20 2016 13:43 Falling wrote:
I don't know about neoliberal being considered a pejorative, but neocon has often been used as a pejorative.
I'd say it is also considered a pejorative. Not as common as neocon though.
|
neoliberal is considered a pejorative by most of the liberals i know, myself included.
|
On April 20 2016 13:21 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 13:17 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:09 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 13:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On April 20 2016 13:00 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 12:58 oneofthem wrote:
fwiw i obviously know bernie is beenie but i am also eager to point out his extremely naive view of actual socialism in theory and practice. i would not deny him the label that he wants so much though. It's naive how? It's pretty in line (and even tame in comparison) with countries which adhere to those general principles. It seems like you're just dealing in generalities. Can you form a coherent idea or do you just point at criticisms of Sander's made by other people? Presumably people who explained their thoughts rather than just dumping some generic line. It's just 4chan level stuff. It's really that him taking up the mantle of "socialist" is incorrect (and somewhat academically frustrating), because he should really be calling himself a Social Democrat instead like the rest of the European socialist parties still extant. Well then maybe people should start calling the democrats "neolibs" instead of liberals since it's an antiquated term better left in history. The US is ripe for using simplified language. If he'd called himself a social democrat, people would still call him a socialist as an insult which is fucking hilarious. Might as well use the wrong -ism since it seems pretty popular around here. "Neoliberal" is for the most part a pejorative term (you'd be looking for "classic liberal"), but that is perhaps better suited to the Republicans, or specifically the libertarian wing of the party. The Democratic party is a wide coalition, but it predominantly comprises of social liberals. Neoliberal is not pejorative here in French but fine. Yet, US democrats are literally proponents of neoliberalism for the most part by definition. Classical liberalism is very 1600's so it really doesn't fit even republicans. Regardless of that, my point is the US uses the wrong isms very regularly. Communism is given this evil agency ffs, it's absolutely astrounding. Anyway, the left calling themselves liberals is a North American thing to do I think. And I've literally never heard of neoliberalism being pejorative. Academics here use it, sometimes to refer to their own ideology. On that note, I'm completely beat up. Super long day. Cheers.
...The Democrats are not proponents of privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, and, ultimately, of lassiez-faire in any way shape or form, and any insistence that they are is, quite frankly, completely and utterly wrong. American politics can be considered "to the right" of European politics, certainly, but that's just incorrect.
The use of the word "neoliberal" is indeed a prejorative that became popular in the 80s, mostly to negatively describe the era of Thatcherism and Reaganomics (which were, well, pretty bad).
On April 20 2016 13:36 IgnE wrote:
And as Japanese companies moved up the tech manufacturing chain, they provided Korean firms with their sales and marketing networks, so that Japanese firms could act as "middlemen" for developing Korean light industries. South Korea was already sending half of its exports to the US by 1968 and had internal and external pressures helping to discipline the labor force. Factor in the built-in networks of the chaebols and the costs of doing business in Korea were very favorable to foreign capital. The devaluation of the dollar in the 70s only boosted their export-led manufacturing sector.
Countries that were attempting ISI (promoted by the US, btw, prior to focus on export-led growth) were fucked by Western capitalist stagflation in the 70s depressing demand for exports and then fucked again in the 80s by the various debt crises. In Latin America, at least, MNCs played a much larger role in direct investment, and they were much more focused on providing goods for the South American domestic markets rather than exporting, while international bank lending to Latin American dictatorships in the 70s exacerbated the effects of the Volcker shock and led to the ensuing debt crises in said countries. Comparing Argentina to South Korea makes no sense. You might as well be comparing Ghana and Argentina.
I'm too tired to address this, and the comparison is certainly flawed, but I mostly wanted to highlight the general failures of ISI as a model of development, and there are plenty of developing countries to serve as examples.
|
Didn't the new labor party after the thatcher era in the UK wave the banner of Neo liberalism?
and didn't the thachter era and reagonomics bring about the largest peacetime expansion of GDP in history. I know that unemployment near the end of his second term was approaching the limit it could go down before hurting the economy. Thatcher screwed scotland over but was able to break the socialist (not democratic socialist but trade union socialist) influences in england during the cold war. Those have got to be good things.
|
neoliberalism is not classical liberalism
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
