|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 26 2016 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:17 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:36 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 06:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 06:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 05:07 Mohdoo wrote:On April 26 2016 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2016 04:10 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Majority are voting against Trump, but an even larger majority are voting against Cruz. An EVEN LARGER majority are voting against Kasich. I don't think it is particularly honest to frame this as the party being mostly against Trump, as if the party is in favor of much of anyone. Not many people want Trump, but more people want him than anyone else, lol.
[quote]
What slight quality of the current republican party do you think would make someone who supports $15/hr and free college, vote for that party??
My point is that if anyone is even considering Bernie, they are nothing even close to what the GOP currently is. It is really silly to suggest they were some kinda "on the fence" voter. The independents voting for Bernie are people too liberal for the democratic party. They showed their disapproval by being independents. They chose to not be in the party. How do you get to 60%+ without fence sitters and Republicans? Where exactly are you getting this 60% and what are you saying it represents? They support $15 minimum wage and tuition free college. The two examples you gave. I'm saying "yes there are Republicans and fence sitters who support those things" any assertion otherwise is silly. I was going off of memory. But here's an example. http://www.nelp.org/content/uploads/2015/03/Minimum-Wage-Poll-Toplines-Jan-2015.pdfFor college the 60%+ was for free community college, which I think would be where the compromise would probably fall initially, with "debt free" college for universities. But only if we don't start by already conceding the idea of tuition free college altogether from the start. We should have all learned from Obama and the ACA regarding negotiating like that. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPcommunitycollege20150115.pdfThough if you look at any poll about it, you'll find some support (~20%+ of Republicans for example) from every affiliation. The idea that either idea is only supported on the extreme left (or not by people who might be registered as Republican or honest fence sitters) is simply not true. EDIT: A point on fence sitters, they aren't all ignorant low information voters. Some people just have a harder time balancing which issues are important enough to vote on. An example of how a lot of non-democrat voters came to Bernie would be that they simply don't believe anyone else. So they may disagree with far more of his rhetoric than the Republicans or someone they would typically vote for, but since they actually believe him, they are supporting him. They may not have been able to vote for him though, because they typically voted for not Democrats. That's dumb, and not something that should be supported by Democrats imo. I just find it strange to think that a party should be beholden to interests outside of said party. Independents might "seem" left leaning now, but they could just as easily have been right leaning. If you really disagree with a party its easy enough to just vote for someone else outside of said party. But the reality of the US political scene is more people are not a part of either party than is in either party. So if they don't agree with the parties choices they don't have a viable choice, or at least we're assured that is always the case. If we had a viable third party and our democracy was structured in such a way that it functioned with one I wouldn't have a problem with the concept in general (though rules like we see from Democrats in NY would still be considered too far imo) but the bottom line is that the parties don't represent a huge swath of Americans, as I've said, one larger than either of the parties do represent. That is not an acceptable situation in my opinion. Either the parties have to change their direction or we have to change the parties, there aren't really any other alternatives. If there is a population larger than either party then it is easy for them to run on their own ticket. The only reason to run for the primaries is get that DNC/RNC corporate money--otherwise its a waste of millions. I (and every candidate that has tried) would disagree with the idea that "it is easy for them to run on their own ticket". There are also a lot of reasons to run on the party ticket. "Free media" as it's called is just one of several. Of all of them the corporate party money would be the last reason Bernie would be running on the ticket (remember both Obama and Sanders want to ban lobbyist donations to the party, Hillary is alone on not wanting that). His fundraising is one of the few things he's leading Hillary in the horse race aspect of the race between the campaigns. There is literally zero other reason to run for the primary than corporate DNC money--especially if you disagree with party status quo. If you disagree with the party message, and you don't want the party money--then you literally have ZERO reason to run in the primary. Especially if you have a "majority" as you keep claiming. And when you say "every other party" you really have no idea what you're talking about. Do you really think that the GOP has been fractured into 4 different parties for no reason whatsoever? Do you really think the Neolibs during the 90's are the same Democrats as those during the carter administration? New parties pop in and out all the time, they all eventually get filtered into the Democratic and Republican parties--but that's primarily to focus corporate fundraising into a singular force. If you do not have enough support to change the party, then you either get enough support or you start your own party. Heck, according to you the Bernie party has no difficulties getting funding or getting hype--so it should be easy as pie. Don't even call it an independent party--just call it FeeltheBern Party, or FaceBookMeme.gov party, or whatever you think will keep the youth actually showing up and supporting. If you can't keep yourself afloat, how do you expect to change the Democratic party? A large part of unified parties is to filter money to the appropriate districts. Random city councilman or Legislator in bumfuck wherever has no chance to have a bernie style campaign--those people need DNC corporate wallstreet money to function. And without them, you never get a majority in either the house or the senate. Without the house and senate then you're just an old person trying to spit at the wind. To be fair, GH does have a point in this case. If your not a Republican or Democrat your not going to get screen time on tv from news organisations. Outside of a debate (where you will be largely ignored) or ads you buy yourself. With American news being so clearly aligned with either the Rep or Dem you get a lot of free face time as their candidate.
I don't necessarily disagree. But its also a product of lack of attention. Bernie was being given much credence when he got started either--none of the candidates outside of Jeb and Hilary were. The news media waited until a trend happened--and then built a narrative on that trend. For the most part, the media is a greedy lot and will produce sham stories after sham stories if it gets people to watch. If you're on the bottom of the totem pole--you need to do something big enough to get noticed. Do you think its a accident that Trump says things like "shooting them with bullets covered in pigs blood" or "I'l make mexico pay for me wall." He says it so that the news media can't help but put him on TV.
I can tell you this--Bernie got WAY more airtime for promising free everything + big rallies than he ever did because he decided to actually register as a democrat.
|
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically.
|
calling them sham stories is a bit bias showing don't you think? they feature stories that are interesting or entertaining. Bernie sanders got airtime because he got big rallies and that air time generated more big rallies. Just like how Trumps racist things he said got him more air time which just motivated him to say more racist things.
You people are ignoring the reason why we have a two party system, so people can organize their ideologies into a larger collective to get legitimacy in the system. No body cares about the green party or the libertarians anymore beacuse they decided that they'd rather not get elected or matter anymore. The parties are the ones that get people elected and thats why successful candidates want to get their support so that they can get elected.
Its really a lot less complex then people are making it out to be really.
|
On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically.
Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?"
It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected.
|
On April 26 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically. Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?" It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected.
That's circular because the two party system is the very reason you can almost never get elected as a third party. It promotes gridlock, not moderation.
|
On April 26 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically. Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?" It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected.
If your aim is to have coalition building, why do it behind closed doors in an opaque system called the GOP or the DNC. If your aim is to have clear coalition building structures, model your government like most multi-party systems. The crazies get a voice, but unless they get an absolute majority, they have to work with non-crazies to get anything done. Now the crazies just mostly get stifled, except for their influence behind the closed doors of party leadership.
This is a pretty bad justification for a system that only exists for historic reasons, and is mostly horribly outdated.
|
On April 26 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically. Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?" It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected.
Yes. The 2 party system is good. Smaller parties and proportional representation ends up with narrowly tailored interest/identity groups. It is a good thing that the USA parties have to try to win the middle of the country. It gets you decisive elections that include the largest possible number of supporters. There is no risk of a minority/plurality government in the USA.
|
On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically.
The issue with this mindset is that people in the US are stuck with thinking that the only time voting matters is for the presidency. If they voted like they do for Bernie during the midterms when DNC/RNC + Media influence is at its smallest, then they would be able to easily transform the party at will.
|
On April 26 2016 07:50 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically. Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?" It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected. Yes. The 2 party system is good. Smaller parties and proportional representation ends up with narrowly tailored interest/identity groups. It is a good thing that the USA parties have to try to win the middle of the country. It gets you decisive elections that include the largest possible number of supporters. There is no risk of a minority/plurality government in the USA.
Whether it's good is debatable but it is much more directly democratic than the European multi party systems. Someone like Trump or Bernie would never make it through a European party. At least not in any of the major stable nations. The US system is extremely egalitarian in the regard that it's purely a person and popularity contest. So demanding a multi party system for participatory reasons is really not a great idea.
|
On April 26 2016 08:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 07:50 CannonsNCarriers wrote:On April 26 2016 07:38 Sermokala wrote:On April 26 2016 07:33 Simberto wrote:
And furthermore, due to the shitty election system, if you are a left-wing candidate running as a third party and actually have a significant group of voters behind you, that usually means that republicans win the election because FPTP is bad. And no one sane wants any of the people currently running for the republican party anywhere near any power.
This leads to people in the US mostly only voting for people with a D or an R, because every vote for someone else is wasted due to FPTP unless you manage to gain a majority (which you usually don't get in your first election), and thus only helps the person you disagree with the most politically. Its not a shitty election system its a great election system. If you are running third party you aren't runing to be elected you are running to voice your particular views in the election. If you had a significant group of voters behind you and you were left wing you'd go to the democrats and say "hey I'm left wing and I've got a significant voter base support me and that voter base gets added into the collective?" It emphases the moderate instead of the crazy with coalition building parliament systems. FPTP has nothing to do with crazy people not getting elected. Yes. The 2 party system is good. Smaller parties and proportional representation ends up with narrowly tailored interest/identity groups. It is a good thing that the USA parties have to try to win the middle of the country. It gets you decisive elections that include the largest possible number of supporters. There is no risk of a minority/plurality government in the USA. Whether it's good is debatable but it is much more directly democratic than the European multi party systems. Someone like Trump or Bernie would never make it through a European party. At least not in any of the major stable nations. The US system is extremely egalitarian in the regard that it's purely a person and popularity contest. So demanding a multi party system for democratic system for participatory reasons is really not a great idea.
What do you think someone like Pim Fortuyn (or Jean Marie Le Penn, although different era, so hard to compare) is, if not simply a smarter, more well-spoken version of Trump. Jörg Haider was Austria's PM for a while. Podemos is what Bernie would look like in Spain. I don't see any grounds for claiming people like this would not have a route into politics in Europe. They could work with the system (plenty of technocrats in governments get attracted from outside the system and then discover they like politics), or try to create a revolution from within (Syriza, Podemos, Front National, APF).
|
Le Pen isn't going to govern France, they're not going to get a majority and will be shut out. This is pretty much what happens if people like this try to run on third parties in Europe, they can't undermine the establishment as easily. I think Austria is a bit of an exception and less stable than the surrounding countries. Podemos also isn't that radical in the Spanish context. Democratic socialist stuff has always been pretty mainstream and especially in Spain. Bernie literally seems to be the most liberal politician in the US. To get someone like this from zero to 40% in a year wouldn't happen over here.
|
Anyone else noticing their "moderate" GOP friends etc taking a "fuck it" perspective to this election? A friend of mine, who is perhaps the most politically knowledgable person I have ever met, happens to be a republican who didn't mind Kasich at first and HATED trump and everything he stood for.
I asked him today about his thoughts on the unholy alliance. He said he just wants Trump to win so his party can finally fall into chaos and turn into something better. This does not seem uncommon.
|
On April 26 2016 08:56 Nyxisto wrote:
Le Pen isn't going to govern France, they're not going to get a majority and will be shut out. This is pretty much what happens if people like this try to run on third parties in Europe, they can't undermine the establishment as easily. I think Austria is a bit of an exception and less stable than the surrounding countries. Podemos also isn't that radical in the Spanish context. Democratic socialist stuff has always been pretty mainstream and especially in Spain. Bernie literally seems to be the most liberal politician in the US. To get someone like this from zero to 40% in a year wouldn't happen over here.
Can't believe I forgot Berlusconi. Populist par excellence and probably Trump's secret role model.
But you're also making some serious assumptions about the US here. So far Bernie and Trump have run in the primaries, and made a bit of a splash. Bernie has all but lost the Democratic primary. He has thus not risen to power in any more meaningful way than Podemos has, and probably in a significantly less meaningful way if we look at the status quo of politics in Spain at the moment... let alone Syriza in Greece.
Trump is facing significant opposition from within the RNC and who knows what'll happen at the convention. Perhaps a cordon sanitaire will be erected, as has happened with the FN in France, or the PVV in the Netherlands. Even if he does win the primary and the RNC doesn't collapse around him, his actual support is untested, and to say he has risen from 0 to 40 is rather a stretch: so far he has support from ~35% of republicancs, who in turn make up less than half of the actual population. That is actually remarkably similar to the splash than Pim Fortuyn made when he entered politics in Holland (his party won 17% of the popular vote after he was murdered, which is approximately what he was polling at as well pre-death).
|
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now.
|
On April 26 2016 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now.
link?
|
On April 26 2016 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now.
Bernie is known for a lot of things.
Being easy to work with and a cheap vote to add to your bill is not what Bernie is known for. He will definitely work on selling clinton to his supporters--but he's going to want one of her first borns before he does that. He finally has the bargaining power he's been wanting to have for decades--he's not going to waste it on "good will" and unity.
|
On April 26 2016 09:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now. Bernie is known for a lot of things. Being easy to work with and a cheap vote to add to your bill is not what Bernie is known for. He will definitely work on selling clinton to his supporters--but he's going to want one of her first borns before he does that. He finally has the bargaining power he's been wanting to have for decades--he's not going to waste it on "good will" and unity.
I still think he's gonna end up as VP
|
On April 26 2016 09:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now. Bernie is known for a lot of things. Being easy to work with and a cheap vote to add to your bill is not what Bernie is known for. He will definitely work on selling clinton to his supporters--but he's going to want one of her first borns before he does that. He finally has the bargaining power he's been wanting to have for decades--he's not going to waste it on "good will" and unity.
He wants Chelsea? Interesting.
|
On April 26 2016 09:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2016 09:30 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 26 2016 09:23 GreenHorizons wrote:
For those who think Bernie is going to rally his supporters to Hillary's side, I wouldn't be so sure after watching the town hall that's on right now. Bernie is known for a lot of things. Being easy to work with and a cheap vote to add to your bill is not what Bernie is known for. He will definitely work on selling clinton to his supporters--but he's going to want one of her first borns before he does that. He finally has the bargaining power he's been wanting to have for decades--he's not going to waste it on "good will" and unity. I still think he's gonna end up as VP
He gives you some Bernie or bust supporters, not all since a lot of people would feel betrayed. His talk has been to much anti-establishment to dive in bed with Hillary now.
In turn you lose a portion of independents who find Bernie to extreme but are ok with Hillary.
All his VP ticket would give is Bernie supporters, he isn't going to sway anyone else at this point.
|
Good grief.
Ammon Bundy is previewing his legal defense, and it is just as crazy as his rationale for the Malheur Wildlife Refuge takeover in the first place.
His defense team is expected to argue in federal court that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge and therefore cannot prosecute Bundy and dozens of others for their 2016 takeover of the preserve.
The defense is the same kind of bogus constitutionalist theory advocated by the extremists who took over Malheur in January. The defense strategy gives insight into just how Bundy and others may tackle a slew of federal criminal charges against them, which include conspiracy and firearms possession in a federal facility as well as others. Throughout the 41-day occupation, individuals holed up at Malheur claimed they were fighting to restore the land back to the people who rightfully owned it.
"The motion to dismiss in this case will challenge the Federal Government’s authority to assert ownership over the land that is now known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge," Bundy's defense attorneys wrote in a court filing Friday asking for more time to file a motion to dismiss the charges against him for lack of jurisdiction. It was first flagged by the Oregonian. "It is Defendant’s position that this authority is critical to the Federal Government’s authority to have federal employees work on that land. Jurisdiction in this case will determine whether the Federal Government can prosecute protesters for being there at all."
According to the documents filed Friday, Bundy's defense will argue that the Constitution was "only intended to give broad federal power of property in Territories, as the Founders contemplated the expansion westward."
"Once statehood occurred for Oregon, Congress lost the right to own the land inside the state," the defense argued in the brief.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
