|
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. |
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick).
EDIT: My bad. Should have said youth (18 - 24). Young adults cover a wider age range and their voter turnout is higher.
|
On April 21 2016 02:38 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:19 Naracs_Duc wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Not...really? I mean, if you're using "plan" as a replacement for "platform", then sure, the entirety of his campaign promises will not be met.
That said, the individual points are still largely on track. Syrian refugees are in Canada, even if it was slightly delayed. Many of the promises to reverse Conservative bills have already taken effect. A lot of the tax/income changes were at least proposed in the latest throne speech (meaning they are planning to be passed in current parliament). And considering we're less than half a year into the current Liberal leadership, there are not many (if any?) campaign promises that have been explicitly taken off the table.
Again, big difference between saying "Here is my plan, it will change the country" and "I will change the country".
|
On April 21 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote: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.
It is impossible to work with people who create a plan like this.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obama
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/
I get that there is a middle of the road and its good to meet there. But when the other side plots to move the goal posts so the middle keeps moving, there is little that can be done.
|
On April 21 2016 02:57 domane wrote:
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick).
I'm not scared of Trump, even if he is elected president, he won't be able to do too much damage. Cruz on the other hand, could make me seriously consider going back to Finland, and he might have some evil plan to steal the whole thing even if he is hated by everyone and has multiple mistresses running wild (like he is right now). Who knows, he might convince all the Bernie supporters that voting for him would be the best thing since sliced bread!
|
On April 21 2016 02:57 domane wrote:
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick).
I think the threats should be taken seriously because it highlights major shortcomings of our party. I really think this kinda fracture was inevitable, but let's be glad we're not having a Trump situation. The complaints about money, PACs and everything are entirely legitimate. It happens to come at a really bad time and I don't think its possible for Clinton to go Bernie-style overnight. However, I do anticipate that a Clinton presidency will be largely focused on bringing Bernie supporters back into the party. I won't be surprised to see Bernie playing a huge role in the democratic party going forward. I was imagining things earlier and had a thought of a "Bernie Sanders act" being one of Clinton's promises for when she's in office. Something to the tune of eliminating super PACs or other money in politics issues. I think it would be cool for Clinton to incorporate money in politics as an ode to Bernie in her platform. Especially since Trump has already laid a lot of groundwork for getting rid of money in politics.
I honestly think it'd be a really strong platform. Clinton, in a way, carrying Bernie's sword against money in politics once she's elected. I don't think the DNC anticipated this. I think they can definitely get away with 1 more election with super PACs, but going into the next election, someone who is a bit more "mainstream" but still against super pacs will likely steamroll anyone who is overly establishment or bought off or whatever.
Edit: Assuming Sanders would take it, does anyone think there are better VP options than Sanders?
|
On April 21 2016 02:57 domane wrote:
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick).
Young adults was the swing voteing block that gave obama such an easy victory in his elections. the polls I see only give Hillary a 10 point lead which is almost nothing before the conventions. With neither of their favor abilities in any shape you'd have to give trump some advantage with the "do you think the country is on the right track" poll with clinton carrying obamas legacy with her.
|
On April 21 2016 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote: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. It is impossible to work with people who create a plan like this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obamahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/I get that there is a middle of the road and its good to meet there. But when the other side plots to move the goal posts so the middle keeps moving, there is little that can be done.
So they were going to act like a real opposition to the super candidate from the beginning? I think you forget just how much of a shitty spot the right was back in 2008. Dems had a super majority in the house obama had shown the way for a generation of easy leftist victories and had a slate of items that would make him untouchable if he could get them through. saying it was too tough to work with republicans back then is a joke and the intransigence on the health care bill only created the tea party.
|
In June 2013, North Carolina passed the most sweeping voting restrictions in the country, requiring strict voter ID, cutting early voting and eliminating same-day registration, pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds, and out-of-precinct voting, among other political reforms. The state defended its cutbacks in court last summer by invoking, of all places, New York.
“The state of New York has no early voting as opposed to North Carolina that has ten days of early voting,” lawyer Thomas Farr said. “The state of New York has no same-day registration. The state of New York has no out-of-precinct voting. The state of New York has no preregistration.”
It was a cynical defense of North Carolina’s law—North Carolinians don’t deserve to suffer because a state 500 miles away has different laws—but it was still unnerving to hear a Southern state invoke a progressive Northern state to rationalize making it harder to vote.
The fact is, New York does have some of the worst voting laws in the country.
New York has no early voting (unlike 37 states), no Election Day registration (the state constitution requires voters to register no later than 10 days before an election), and excuse-only absentee balloting (voters have to prove they’ll be out of town or have a disability.)
The voter-registration deadline for the April 19 primary closed 25 days beforehand, when no candidate had even campaigned in New York, and independent or unaffiliated voters had to change their party registrations by October 9, 193 days before April 19, to vote in the closed Democratic or Republican primaries. This will disenfranchise nearly 30 percent of New Yorkers, including, most famously, the Trump children, who didn’t change their registrations from independent to Republican in time.
Link
Tell me more about how it's just the Republicans that want to suppress the vote. They literally used (dark blue) New York as their justification for restricting voting access.
|
On April 21 2016 03:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:38 Djzapz wrote:On April 21 2016 02:19 Naracs_Duc wrote: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:[quote] 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. Again, big difference between saying "Here is my plan, it will change the country" and "I will change the country".
Not really. Both have a limited scope in reality, and it's electoral fuckery. Trump says he'll make the mexicans pay for the wall and it's not going to happen, Cruz is saying he'll abolish the IRS and people will file their taxes on a tiny sheet of paper and that's the equivalent of a revolution, Clinton says she'll take on the gun lobby and probably install worthless policies that don't take the real problem into account.
At the end of the day all they'll do is stir the country in the direction they want.
Anyway I understand your complaint, I just don't think it breaks anything. Time to leave  cheers.
|
On April 21 2016 02:57 domane wrote:
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick).
General elections are effectively zero sum games between R and D. So who do you think is bigger? #NeverHillary Berners? Or #NeverTrump Republicans? My money is on #NeverTrump being far larger and much more organized than #NeverHillary. Some burnt out hippies turning on the "establishment" in the general does not at all outweigh the organized, intense, and ideologically committed #NeverTrump team. #NeverTrump is at this point, almost the entire Conservative commentariat and think-tank-verse that isn't Hannity/Ingraham. You have Mitch McConnell openly cheering for a contested convention.
|
On April 21 2016 03:10 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 03:03 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote: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. It is impossible to work with people who create a plan like this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obamahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/I get that there is a middle of the road and its good to meet there. But when the other side plots to move the goal posts so the middle keeps moving, there is little that can be done. So they were going to act like a real opposition to the super candidate from the beginning? I think you forget just how much of a shitty spot the right was back in 2008. Dems had a super majority in the house obama had shown the way for a generation of easy leftist victories and had a slate of items that would make him untouchable if he could get them through. saying it was too tough to work with republicans back then is a joke and the intransigence on the health care bill only created the tea party.
I think the heathcare bill was the fuel the fed the tea party, but there was no version of it that they would liked. Even if some members of the GOP signed on, the tea party was going to happen. Because it morphed another movement that believed Obama was not a citizen. And the birthers existed because Obama is black.
And weirdly enough, that group is now rallying behind Trump, who was the face of the birther movement back in the day. Its like we have come full circle.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can't equate bernie, whose plan is truly vague and counterproductive in many respects, to rightwing attack slogans levied against other politicians. if come general election time the republicans call hillary's plans unrealistic etc, this does not then make bernie look better.
|
On April 21 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 03:10 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 03:03 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote: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. It is impossible to work with people who create a plan like this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obamahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/I get that there is a middle of the road and its good to meet there. But when the other side plots to move the goal posts so the middle keeps moving, there is little that can be done. So they were going to act like a real opposition to the super candidate from the beginning? I think you forget just how much of a shitty spot the right was back in 2008. Dems had a super majority in the house obama had shown the way for a generation of easy leftist victories and had a slate of items that would make him untouchable if he could get them through. saying it was too tough to work with republicans back then is a joke and the intransigence on the health care bill only created the tea party. I think the heathcare bill was the fuel the fed the tea party, but there was no version of it that they would liked. Even if some members of the GOP signed on, the tea party was going to happen. Because it morphed another movement that believed Obama was not a citizen. And the birthers existed because Obama is black. And weirdly enough, that group is now rallying behind Trump, who was the face of the birther movement back in the day. Its like we have come full circle.
It's not weird at all. Only racists bandied the birther shit around, and racists are overwhelmingly drawn to Trump. That, of course, is not saying that all Trump supporters are racist (they are not), but when racists overwhelmingly flock to the candidate you are supporting, it's possibly time for some self-reflection.
|
On April 21 2016 03:26 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 03:18 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2016 03:10 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 03:03 Plansix wrote:On April 21 2016 02:56 Sermokala wrote:On April 21 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote: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. It is impossible to work with people who create a plan like this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/26/democrats-gop-plot-obstruct-obamahttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/I get that there is a middle of the road and its good to meet there. But when the other side plots to move the goal posts so the middle keeps moving, there is little that can be done. So they were going to act like a real opposition to the super candidate from the beginning? I think you forget just how much of a shitty spot the right was back in 2008. Dems had a super majority in the house obama had shown the way for a generation of easy leftist victories and had a slate of items that would make him untouchable if he could get them through. saying it was too tough to work with republicans back then is a joke and the intransigence on the health care bill only created the tea party. I think the heathcare bill was the fuel the fed the tea party, but there was no version of it that they would liked. Even if some members of the GOP signed on, the tea party was going to happen. Because it morphed another movement that believed Obama was not a citizen. And the birthers existed because Obama is black. And weirdly enough, that group is now rallying behind Trump, who was the face of the birther movement back in the day. Its like we have come full circle. It's not weird at all. Only racists bandied the birther shit around, and racists are overwhelmingly drawn to Trump. That, of course, is not saying that all Trump supporters are racist (they are not), but when racists overwhelmingly flock to the candidate you are supporting, it's possibly time for some self-reflection.
My used of “weirdly enough” was meant to imply it wasn’t weird or shocking. It is the natural course I expected the Tea party to take. Its just a bummer that the GOP has been going down this road since the min 90s, slowly tapping into the most bigoted pockets of the population to win the House.
|
On April 21 2016 03:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 02:57 domane wrote:
Contrary to what's been hinted at in some articles, I'm not sure bitter Sanders supporters going over to Trump or simply voting for her closest opponent would derail anything.
-Young adults represent a lot of Sanders supporters. They also don't really vote.
-Older supporters should come around to vote for Clinton, aka the safe option.
-Clinton is far ahead of Trump (according to polls) and can handle Trump getting a small boost (if he is the Republican pick). I think the threats should be taken seriously because it highlights major shortcomings of our party. I really think this kinda fracture was inevitable, but let's be glad we're not having a Trump situation. The complaints about money, PACs and everything are entirely legitimate. It happens to come at a really bad time and I don't think its possible for Clinton to go Bernie-style overnight. However, I do anticipate that a Clinton presidency will be largely focused on bringing Bernie supporters back into the party. I won't be surprised to see Bernie playing a huge role in the democratic party going forward. I was imagining things earlier and had a thought of a "Bernie Sanders act" being one of Clinton's promises for when she's in office. Something to the tune of eliminating super PACs or other money in politics issues. I think it would be cool for Clinton to incorporate money in politics as an ode to Bernie in her platform. Especially since Trump has already laid a lot of groundwork for getting rid of money in politics. I honestly think it'd be a really strong platform. Clinton, in a way, carrying Bernie's sword against money in politics once she's elected. I don't think the DNC anticipated this. I think they can definitely get away with 1 more election with super PACs, but going into the next election, someone who is a bit more "mainstream" but still against super pacs will likely steamroll anyone who is overly establishment or bought off or whatever. Edit: Assuming Sanders would take it, does anyone think there are better VP options than Sanders?
This sounds crazy I know but Amy Klobuchar. Shes a midwest democrat that can lock up the states that hillary lost to sanders in the primary. Obama and Bill spend the summer on the east coast and hillary can spend time fundraising with the crowds that do like her.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Warren as VP two women on the ticket pew pew pew
Probably a bad idea.
|
Doubt Warren would accept, but god that would be a ticket.
|
On April 21 2016 04:06 oneofthem wrote:
sanders as vp? hell no
Sanders would be the perfect VP candidate. Liked by many, kind of overly idealistic, but can put some more pragmatic notches in his belt. Come reelection he will have more experience in all the things his detractors dislike, and with Hilary with him he will gain stronger allies for both the superdelegate support as well as the south support.
If he was really in it to change politics and become the future president of the United States--he would be perfect.
|
I kind of thought Warren planned to be Bernie in 8 years, am I mistaken?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
