|
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. |
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't.
|
On April 21 2016 01:24 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man  His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros. People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now. Your argument is essentially America =/= Europe, which is fine, there are cultural and economic differences between America and Europe and it's great that people understand that. So, we've determined that two geographical locations are different and the conversation is over, right? Well, no... Why would it be? Proposing European politics in America isn't other-worldly, it's different. There is nothing to suggest that these things cannot work at all. Calling it idealistic or shallow is nothing but a cop out. Pointing at the political and cultural differences of Europe and the US is also a cop out. The conversation doesn't end at "It's different therefore it's impossible". The US and Canada are two very different countries in many ways, but we're very similar in many others. The US could gradually become more European and I think its people would benefit greatly. IMO, Sanders is no where near as shallow as the people who dismiss it because "America is different and that's the end of this discussion". I maintain that this is a cheap argument when it's used like this. Sure, there are differences and it would be difficult to convert a nation which is terrified of socialism because of cold war propaganda to a more social democratic way of doing politics. It's a discussion which must take place. But the second you say the US is different from Europe therefore these principles are impossible, you're simplifying something. And I think you're doing it maliciously, too, because if you're capable of reasoning this out, you also know that it's not that simple. At least I would think so. Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will". One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope. You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country. You need a plan. Here, Trudeau's plan was called fairy tales by the conservatives who, like you, called his plan fairytales and other things high and loud as if it was a basic fact of life. You know why you keep asking for a plan? Because you heard someone ask for it and now you think it's a good argument. It may very well convince people, but let's be honest. Sanders right now is campaigning, just like Justin Trudeau here in Canada. He utters general principles, like Trudeau and thousands of politicians before him. Now that Trudeau is in office, his impossible plans seem much less impossible. And we're looking back at the conservative rhetoric. Impossible they said. And we laugh, even though we don't particularly like Trudeau. Yes, it's hard. Do you think the men who built all this had it easy? You think the politicians had elaborate plans before they got elected? "You got no plan" is the oldest argument in the fucking book. No shit, campaigning candidates ACROSS THE WORLD get accused of having no plan before taking office and drawing up elaborate plans there. And sometimes they take office and get accused of failing to put their ideal dream world into practice. At the end of the day, no one has yet forged world peace despite repeatedly calling for it. No one has fixed everything as they've promised during their campaign. "Give us the plan" they say even though they'd say the plan wouldn't work if they could see it. Yet when elected, regardless of whether the utopia is created, the country is still generally nudged in the desired direction.
It's quite disingenuous to claim that Trudeau campaigned with "no plan", or even that it was a major criticism of his platform.
He had a quite detailed budget (even if it turned out to be greatly understated), he campaigned on some very specific tax/pension/income changes, and had several major policy goals with very defined end goals. His campaign was very hyperbolic on what those changes would actually bring to the country, but you could still review his platform and campaign promises and (mostly) have a collection of very tangible points, with a budget plan to make it happen (which, again, turned out to be massively understated).
The biggest thing you can really criticize his campaign not having a plan for is legalizing marijuana, but at the end of the day the vagueness is all in the end regulations and the ambiguity of the current situation. There's no real confusion on how he would make marijuana legal, or what the end state would look like (it's a very simple comparison with alcohol or tobacco).
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb
unless you really want to destroy small towns and whatnot i suppose
|
On April 21 2016 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:24 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros. People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now. Your argument is essentially America =/= Europe, which is fine, there are cultural and economic differences between America and Europe and it's great that people understand that. So, we've determined that two geographical locations are different and the conversation is over, right? Well, no... Why would it be? Proposing European politics in America isn't other-worldly, it's different. There is nothing to suggest that these things cannot work at all. Calling it idealistic or shallow is nothing but a cop out. Pointing at the political and cultural differences of Europe and the US is also a cop out. The conversation doesn't end at "It's different therefore it's impossible". The US and Canada are two very different countries in many ways, but we're very similar in many others. The US could gradually become more European and I think its people would benefit greatly. IMO, Sanders is no where near as shallow as the people who dismiss it because "America is different and that's the end of this discussion". I maintain that this is a cheap argument when it's used like this. Sure, there are differences and it would be difficult to convert a nation which is terrified of socialism because of cold war propaganda to a more social democratic way of doing politics. It's a discussion which must take place. But the second you say the US is different from Europe therefore these principles are impossible, you're simplifying something. And I think you're doing it maliciously, too, because if you're capable of reasoning this out, you also know that it's not that simple. At least I would think so. Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will". One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope. You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country. You need a plan. Here, Trudeau's plan was called fairy tales by the conservatives who, like you, called his plan fairytales and other things high and loud as if it was a basic fact of life. You know why you keep asking for a plan? Because you heard someone ask for it and now you think it's a good argument. It may very well convince people, but let's be honest. Sanders right now is campaigning, just like Justin Trudeau here in Canada. He utters general principles, like Trudeau and thousands of politicians before him. Now that Trudeau is in office, his impossible plans seem much less impossible. And we're looking back at the conservative rhetoric. Impossible they said. And we laugh, even though we don't particularly like Trudeau. Yes, it's hard. Do you think the men who built all this had it easy? You think the politicians had elaborate plans before they got elected? "You got no plan" is the oldest argument in the fucking book. No shit, campaigning candidates ACROSS THE WORLD get accused of having no plan before taking office and drawing up elaborate plans there. And sometimes they take office and get accused of failing to put their ideal dream world into practice. At the end of the day, no one has yet forged world peace despite repeatedly calling for it. No one has fixed everything as they've promised during their campaign. "Give us the plan" they say even though they'd say the plan wouldn't work if they could see it. Yet when elected, regardless of whether the utopia is created, the country is still generally nudged in the desired direction. It's quite disingenuous to claim that Trudeau campaigned with "no plan", or even that it was a major criticism of his platform. He had a quite detailed budget (even if it turned out to be greatly understated), he campaigned on some very specific tax/pension/income changes, and had several major policy goals with very defined end goals. His campaign was very hyperbolic on what those changes would actually bring to the country, but you could still review his platform and campaign promises and (mostly) have a collection of very tangible points, with a budget plan to make it happen (which, again, turned out to be massively understated). The biggest thing you can really criticize his campaign not having a plan for is legalizing marijuana, but at the end of the day the vagueness is all in the end regulations and the ambiguity of the current situation. There's no real confusion on how he would make marijuana legal, or what the end state would look like (it's a very simple comparison with alcohol or tobacco).
I recall quite clearly his opponents repeatedly saying that what he brought to the table was completely out of the realm of possibility and his political opponents would repeat that line ad nauseum. As for his detailed budget, it was criticized as being vague and impossible to put into action given the conjuncture.
Anyway, needless to say that Canadian politicians are a lot more prepared despite the electoral cycle that is a tiny fraction of the length of even the US primaries (let alone the entire electoral cycle). Still get shit on.
|
On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't.
It would be great if there was as much emphasis and excitement in local elections (that helps define what the president can do) instead of simply focusing on the executive office (who mainly appoints judges and vetos scary shit).
|
On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb
Are you arguing with fictional people now? Because no one is talking about $15 minimum wage.
On April 21 2016 02:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't. It would be great if there was as much emphasis and excitement in local elections (that helps define what the president can do) instead of simply focusing on the executive office (who mainly appoints judges and vetos scary shit).
The GOP figured that out in the 90s and the democrats have not caught up. Its sort of irritating, since it is the main reason why we get all these bullshit LGBT bathroom scare bills and voter ID non-sense that are all doomed to be thrown out.
|
On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb
Yeah, people just don't learn from history.
Look how the New Deal destroyed the American middle class until finally our lord and savior Reagan descended from heaven to give us the gift of capitalism.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2016 02:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb Are you arguing with fictional people now? Because no one is talking about $15 minimum wage.
discussion was framed as sanders is more left and it's a better negotiation position.
15$ federal minimum wage is a sanders talking point.
anyway look at it this way, is sanders more of a liberal than barney frank?
|
On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't.
I don't think so they've actualy gotten a budget through the house and have shown bipartisanship through a few things. Its not like the government is in perpetual shutdown/default.
Its comments like yours is causeing the problem. Saying what your are saying deflects any responsibility Obama has to working with congress and just blames all the problems on one side of the isle making the divide further. Doubling down on gridlock doesn't help anyone.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 21 2016 02:09 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb Yeah, people just don't learn from history. Look how the New Deal destroyed the American middle class until finally our lord and savior Reagan descended from heaven to give us the gift of capitalism.
i too refer to the new deal to defend every dumb policy
|
On April 21 2016 02:09 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb Yeah, people just don't learn from history. Look how the New Deal destroyed the American middle class until finally our lord and savior Reagan descended from heaven to give us the gift of capitalism.
+ Show Spoiler +Yep also let's ignore the part where Reagan rolled back the tax cuts when trickle down economics turned out to not actually be a thing. + Show Spoiler +I know you were being sarcastic 
|
On April 21 2016 02:11 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't. I don't think so they've actualy gotten a budget through the house and have shown bipartisanship through a few things. Its not like the government is in perpetual shutdown/default. Its comments like yours is causeing the problem. Saying what your are saying deflects any responsibility Obama has to working with congress and just blames all the problems on one side of the isle making the divide further. Doubling down on gridlock doesn't help anyone.
I believe Obama is willing to work with the moderate and reasonable members of the GOP. Sadly, those people are not in power and the Freedom Caucus refuses work unless it is filled with budget cuts they know the Democrats will never accept. The point of compromise is meeting in the middle. On standing on your line and waiting for the other side to show up.
And this congress has been one of the least productive in history. Only rivaled by the previous sessions, all since the rise of the tea party and their loathing for goverment.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/29/in-late-spurt-of-activity-congress-avoids-least-productive-title/
|
On April 21 2016 02:07 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 21 2016 01:24 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros. People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now. Your argument is essentially America =/= Europe, which is fine, there are cultural and economic differences between America and Europe and it's great that people understand that. So, we've determined that two geographical locations are different and the conversation is over, right? Well, no... Why would it be? Proposing European politics in America isn't other-worldly, it's different. There is nothing to suggest that these things cannot work at all. Calling it idealistic or shallow is nothing but a cop out. Pointing at the political and cultural differences of Europe and the US is also a cop out. The conversation doesn't end at "It's different therefore it's impossible". The US and Canada are two very different countries in many ways, but we're very similar in many others. The US could gradually become more European and I think its people would benefit greatly. IMO, Sanders is no where near as shallow as the people who dismiss it because "America is different and that's the end of this discussion". I maintain that this is a cheap argument when it's used like this. Sure, there are differences and it would be difficult to convert a nation which is terrified of socialism because of cold war propaganda to a more social democratic way of doing politics. It's a discussion which must take place. But the second you say the US is different from Europe therefore these principles are impossible, you're simplifying something. And I think you're doing it maliciously, too, because if you're capable of reasoning this out, you also know that it's not that simple. At least I would think so. Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will". One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope. You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country. You need a plan. Here, Trudeau's plan was called fairy tales by the conservatives who, like you, called his plan fairytales and other things high and loud as if it was a basic fact of life. You know why you keep asking for a plan? Because you heard someone ask for it and now you think it's a good argument. It may very well convince people, but let's be honest. Sanders right now is campaigning, just like Justin Trudeau here in Canada. He utters general principles, like Trudeau and thousands of politicians before him. Now that Trudeau is in office, his impossible plans seem much less impossible. And we're looking back at the conservative rhetoric. Impossible they said. And we laugh, even though we don't particularly like Trudeau. Yes, it's hard. Do you think the men who built all this had it easy? You think the politicians had elaborate plans before they got elected? "You got no plan" is the oldest argument in the fucking book. No shit, campaigning candidates ACROSS THE WORLD get accused of having no plan before taking office and drawing up elaborate plans there. And sometimes they take office and get accused of failing to put their ideal dream world into practice. At the end of the day, no one has yet forged world peace despite repeatedly calling for it. No one has fixed everything as they've promised during their campaign. "Give us the plan" they say even though they'd say the plan wouldn't work if they could see it. Yet when elected, regardless of whether the utopia is created, the country is still generally nudged in the desired direction. It's quite disingenuous to claim that Trudeau campaigned with "no plan", or even that it was a major criticism of his platform. He had a quite detailed budget (even if it turned out to be greatly understated), he campaigned on some very specific tax/pension/income changes, and had several major policy goals with very defined end goals. His campaign was very hyperbolic on what those changes would actually bring to the country, but you could still review his platform and campaign promises and (mostly) have a collection of very tangible points, with a budget plan to make it happen (which, again, turned out to be massively understated). The biggest thing you can really criticize his campaign not having a plan for is legalizing marijuana, but at the end of the day the vagueness is all in the end regulations and the ambiguity of the current situation. There's no real confusion on how he would make marijuana legal, or what the end state would look like (it's a very simple comparison with alcohol or tobacco). I recall quite clearly his opponents repeatedly saying that what he brought to the table was completely out of the realm of possibility and his political opponents would repeat that line ad nauseum. As for his detailed budget, it was criticized as being vague and impossible to put into action given the conjuncture.
Wait--so he had a plan, a budget for that plan, and a way to implement that plan, and the complaint was on the validity of that plan or scale of the plan?
On the Bernie side, he couldn't even answer if the US could already do or not do what he wants the US to do (break up big banks) when asked point blanks. Couldn't even say "I am unsure yet, let me talk to experts and we will develop a better plan for later." He cracked like a fragile flower when questioned by a liberal news outlet giving him.
There's a very big difference between your opponents disagreeing with your plan and not having a plan.
|
On April 21 2016 02:08 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 oneofthem wrote:
some of the sanders policies like 15$ federal minimum wage isn't even properly characterized as 'more left.' it is simply dumb Are you arguing with fictional people now? Because no one is talking about $15 minimum wage. Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't. It would be great if there was as much emphasis and excitement in local elections (that helps define what the president can do) instead of simply focusing on the executive office (who mainly appoints judges and vetos scary shit). The GOP figured that out in the 90s and the democrats have not caught up. Its sort of irritating, since it is the main reason why we get all these bullshit LGBT bathroom scare bills and voter ID non-sense that are all doomed to be thrown out.
I wouldn't mind the LGBT/Immigration bullshit from the Republicans if there were as much blatant things being thrown around by liberal senators and congressmen. Right now all we get are democratic presidents who either have to become more conservative (because of the makeup of their team) or who get caught in gridlock (because they draw a line they won't cross).
But midterms are expensive, and Sanders attacking the DNC will not help things further.
|
On April 21 2016 02:19 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:07 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 02:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 21 2016 01:24 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:18 Gorsameth wrote:On April 21 2016 01:10 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 01:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 21 2016 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:On April 21 2016 00:19 Djzapz wrote:
I felt like the discussions about viability were more relevant before the voting started. It would have been weird if in 2008, people had started saying Hillary was nonviable when Obama started pulling away with the victory. At that point it's no longer about viability.
I initially thought Sanders was nonviable, then he built up and he turned out to be obviously viable, like Hillary in 2008. Ended up losing, but not without making significant waves. Even if Sanders is defeated, it's no longer about viability. Clinton in 2008 ran a very different campaign from Sanders in 2016. Sanders has always been about building hype ASAP and hoping to gain enough momentum to close it out before too much scrutiny. Too late. His views are shallow at best and a lot of people realize that now. People like him but won't vote for him. That's his issue. Basically the opposite of 2008 Clinton. Seems like that's rhetoric coming from his opponents, and not actually something potential supporters are saying. A lot of people voted for him. The content of the campaign is not relevant here, I don't know that viability has anything to do with that. His views are only considered shallow by Americans who are still traumatized by big bad socialism. To me it's amazing because most of those arguments have this weird vibe of "well EVERYBODY KNOWS that Sanders sucks at X Y and Z". It's such a cheap argument... admittedly I probably use it myself when I'm shitfaced, nothing to be proud of. Sanders is tame by the standards of my also-multicultural social democratic country so when people say his views are shallow, well that's patently just their opinion, man His views are considered shallow by some because he propegates rhetoric aimed at solving problems the way we do in Europe, except he is American and this is America. Money doesn't come from thin air, comprises have to be made, Congress is a thing etc. Interestingly you generalize Hillary supporters/nonBernie supporters the same way right now that other people do to Berniebros. People would want to live in his world but unfortunately that is not the world that you live in. He is an idealist rather then a pragmatist (you can even see Clinton positioning herself as someone who wants to get "shit done" to capitalize on this problem). Its not really a suprise that Sanders is really popular among younger people (as Clinton has in general been unable to win that vote). I think there is great value in him running to make (some) of his ideas more acceptable in the longterm but he is ahead of his time right now. Your argument is essentially America =/= Europe, which is fine, there are cultural and economic differences between America and Europe and it's great that people understand that. So, we've determined that two geographical locations are different and the conversation is over, right? Well, no... Why would it be? Proposing European politics in America isn't other-worldly, it's different. There is nothing to suggest that these things cannot work at all. Calling it idealistic or shallow is nothing but a cop out. Pointing at the political and cultural differences of Europe and the US is also a cop out. The conversation doesn't end at "It's different therefore it's impossible". The US and Canada are two very different countries in many ways, but we're very similar in many others. The US could gradually become more European and I think its people would benefit greatly. IMO, Sanders is no where near as shallow as the people who dismiss it because "America is different and that's the end of this discussion". I maintain that this is a cheap argument when it's used like this. Sure, there are differences and it would be difficult to convert a nation which is terrified of socialism because of cold war propaganda to a more social democratic way of doing politics. It's a discussion which must take place. But the second you say the US is different from Europe therefore these principles are impossible, you're simplifying something. And I think you're doing it maliciously, too, because if you're capable of reasoning this out, you also know that it's not that simple. At least I would think so. Sigh, again no we are not saying it is impossible but it is considerably more difficult because of the American culture and so he has to come up with more then just "we will do it", "how?" "I don't know. we just will". One of his major campaign points is breaking up the banks, to fight wall street but he has not a single clue how or what he will do to break up those banks. He has nothing but empty air and hope. You need more then fairy tales if you want to revolutionize a country. You need a plan. Here, Trudeau's plan was called fairy tales by the conservatives who, like you, called his plan fairytales and other things high and loud as if it was a basic fact of life. You know why you keep asking for a plan? Because you heard someone ask for it and now you think it's a good argument. It may very well convince people, but let's be honest. Sanders right now is campaigning, just like Justin Trudeau here in Canada. He utters general principles, like Trudeau and thousands of politicians before him. Now that Trudeau is in office, his impossible plans seem much less impossible. And we're looking back at the conservative rhetoric. Impossible they said. And we laugh, even though we don't particularly like Trudeau. Yes, it's hard. Do you think the men who built all this had it easy? You think the politicians had elaborate plans before they got elected? "You got no plan" is the oldest argument in the fucking book. No shit, campaigning candidates ACROSS THE WORLD get accused of having no plan before taking office and drawing up elaborate plans there. And sometimes they take office and get accused of failing to put their ideal dream world into practice. At the end of the day, no one has yet forged world peace despite repeatedly calling for it. No one has fixed everything as they've promised during their campaign. "Give us the plan" they say even though they'd say the plan wouldn't work if they could see it. Yet when elected, regardless of whether the utopia is created, the country is still generally nudged in the desired direction. It's quite disingenuous to claim that Trudeau campaigned with "no plan", or even that it was a major criticism of his platform. He had a quite detailed budget (even if it turned out to be greatly understated), he campaigned on some very specific tax/pension/income changes, and had several major policy goals with very defined end goals. His campaign was very hyperbolic on what those changes would actually bring to the country, but you could still review his platform and campaign promises and (mostly) have a collection of very tangible points, with a budget plan to make it happen (which, again, turned out to be massively understated). The biggest thing you can really criticize his campaign not having a plan for is legalizing marijuana, but at the end of the day the vagueness is all in the end regulations and the ambiguity of the current situation. There's no real confusion on how he would make marijuana legal, or what the end state would look like (it's a very simple comparison with alcohol or tobacco). I recall quite clearly his opponents repeatedly saying that what he brought to the table was completely out of the realm of possibility and his political opponents would repeat that line ad nauseum. As for his detailed budget, it was criticized as being vague and impossible to put into action given the conjuncture. Wait--so he had a plan, a budget for that plan, and a way to implement that plan, and the complaint was on the validity of that plan or scale of the plan? On the Bernie side, he couldn't even answer if the US could already do or not do what he wants the US to do (break up big banks) when asked point blanks. Couldn't even say "I am unsure yet, let me talk to experts and we will develop a better plan for later." He cracked like a fragile flower when questioned by a liberal news outlet giving him. There's a very big difference between your opponents disagreeing with your plan and not having a plan.
I mean what you're saying is fair and true but let's not forget that the initial plan that was proposed by Trudeau is a thing of the past and it turns out that only some of the principles that were raised are actually turning up in reality. Fact is it's an electoral campaign, they say a lot of shit. Like, Trudeau had a plan, now many of his promises aren't being met but he's still stirring Canada in the direction he wanted. That's how electoral campaigns work, systematically.
Candidate says they'll do X, your reaction is, understandably, how will Candidate do exactly X. In reality, it's more likely that X won't happen but we'll go toward it. If you want a detailed plan for doing exactly X, what you'll get is a false prophecy more likely than not. Which is what Trudeau's plan turned out to be.
Fact is regardless of who you vote for you're largely voting for a certain set of principles. If you want an elaborate plan of how to implement any substantial specific policy, you're getting bullshit.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Hmm, a lot of questionable republican stuff in the house right now; watching cspan coverage of several iffy IRS bills that are mostly about hating on the IRS rather than sound policy.
e.g. current bill would bar the IRS from hiring anybody if there is a single IRS employee with a seriously delinquent tax bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1206/text?q={"search":["IRS"]}&resultIndex=4
of course they won't let the same rule cover congress itself and its employees.
Also IRS has far lower tax delinquency than other federal government agencies (and congress itself).
So many people that should just be barred from serving in congress.
|
Hating on the IRS is what gets those clowns re-elected, so, yeah, business as usual
|
LANSING, Mich. — Two state regulators and a Flint employee are charged with evidence tampering and several other felony and misdemeanor counts related to the Michigan city’s lead-tainted water crisis.
The charges, filed Wednesday in a state court, stem from an investigation by the Michigan attorney general’s office.
Michael Prysby, a district engineer for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and Stephen Busch, who is a supervisor with the DEQ’s Office of Drinking Water, are both charged with misconduct in office, conspiracy to tamper with evidence, tampering with evidence and violations of water treatment and monitoring laws.
Flint utilities administrator Michael Glasgow is charged with tampering with evidence for changing lead water-testing results and willful neglect of duty as a public servant.
Link
I'm sure they were in no way pressured to tamper with evidence by the Snyder administration...
|
On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:11 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:
This is the congress who announced they would block Obama's nominee to the bench hours after the spot opened up. There is literally nothing he can do to make the GOP work with him unless their backs are against the wall and the government will shut down if they don't. I don't think so they've actualy gotten a budget through the house and have shown bipartisanship through a few things. Its not like the government is in perpetual shutdown/default. Its comments like yours is causeing the problem. Saying what your are saying deflects any responsibility Obama has to working with congress and just blames all the problems on one side of the isle making the divide further. Doubling down on gridlock doesn't help anyone. I believe Obama is willing to work with the moderate and reasonable members of the GOP. Sadly, those people are not in power and the Freedom Caucus refuses work unless it is filled with budget cuts they know the Democrats will never accept. The point of compromise is meeting in the middle. On standing on your line and waiting for the other side to show up. And this congress has been one of the least productive in history. Only rivaled by the previous sessions, all since the rise of the tea party and their loathing for goverment. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/29/in-late-spurt-of-activity-congress-avoids-least-productive-title/
But intransigence like that can only work for so long. If one side refused to work you could easily tell the electorate to throw them out for not doing their job. But instead the tea party has thrived in this atmosphere of hostility. At some point you have to honestly consider if Obama is the problem. Taking executive action because the other side doesn't want to work with you sounds good to your base but it opens up so many thing to hit obama on that they've been saying about him from the moment he got elected.
Compromise only works when both sides have something to gain from it and if Obama is only going to feed the tea party if they don't work with him then they have no reason to. this isn't a fantasy world where the people genuinely give a shit about the country its a bunch of people trying to keep their jobs and solidify their position in that job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
