|
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. |
GH, I'm not arguing about right and wrong, whatever gave you that impression? I'm just pointing out that Bernie would be using the exact same resources and donations that Clinton is using right now. She would be out there raising money for him to win if was the nominee. The influence the the money is relevant, but they can't stop taking cooperate money if they have any hope of winning the general under the current laws. Hillary losing the nomination would put her in the same position Bernie was in. Maybe better because she is better connected than he was.
You act like this race would be magically free of money if Bernie was the nominee. It wouldn't be.
|
On October 27 2016 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:10 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. Again he'd have more/about the same money as Trump. Hillary supporters aren't going to vote Trump, so they would vote Bernie (or abandon all the crap they said they believed while pushing Bernie supporters to vote Hillary). No, he wouldn't. Trump is mostly relying on the RNCs money to cover the costs in battle ground states. Hilary also raises money for down ballot candidates and other races, which the DNC needs to win to get their seats and pass any laws. Bernie has to do all these things or he won't receive the support of the down ballot candidates who need his national spotlight and media to help them. Hilary supporters are going to stay home if he did what you want. Of course, I know Bernie is more experienced that you when it comes to politics, so that wouldn't happen. You are living in fantasy land if you think he could refuse super PAC funds(guess what, he can't, they are separate groups that he has no control over) or refuse all cooperate donations. On October 27 2016 07:04 Barrin wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. I donno man, I think Bernie's "momentum" was a real thing. The more people that learned about him, the better he did. I question the idea that Hillary's supporters would've gone to Trump instead of Bernie. And that they might have not voted simply because Hillary wasn't in the race. They wouldn't vote at all of Bernie magically managed to get her purged from the DNC. That is like saying "I won the nomination, fuck your decision and who you wanted! That person is banned and out forever, you were wrong! Vote for me in November!" So you're suggesting Trump is relying on the RNC for battleground states but Hillary isn't relying on the DNC? Or that there's nothing wrong with/a necessary evil skirting the limits by using this loophole? I seem to remember when I brought this up way back when that we were assured that money wasn't going to support the candidate skirting campaign finance law. As for the purge part, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Her losing the nomination doesn't "purge" her from the party. Hillary supporters surely wouldn't be so childish as to not vote, or waste their vote on someone else besides Bernie. Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. On October 27 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there. GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have. He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system. I think the favorability numbers show that pretty well on their own. Particularly when you look at Bernie's support outside of traditional Dem voters. Hillary supporters vote for Bernie in a general against Trump, plus he gets more indy's than Hillary, and more Republicans. How that doesn't end up with better numbers than Hillary is on y'all. Bernie was never attacked in any real fashion. His numbers look good because no one cares about him enough to try and push the numbers down. It might have worked but its a lot of ifs to get to the scenario you envision. Do you honestly think there's anything about Bernie that would drive his numbers lower than the two lowest candidates in history?
We'll never know because it never happened. We'll never know any of the details of a theoretical Bernie election because it won't happen. Why in the world is this such a fascinating thought experiment for you? We have gone over this a million times. It simply doesn't matter. Why not talk about a possible Biden run? Warren? It didn't happen. What if Goku fought Superman? Let's talk about that too.
|
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general?
|
No I don't think Bernies approval would dip under Hillary/Trump and I didnt say it would. I said his numbers are good because he is not attacked...
Yes Bernie could have won this election aswell (Anyone probably could have since Trump lost it on his own). Maybe he could have won it without big money, I don't know.
And that scenario doesn't really matter since most people in this thread seemed to prefer Hillary over Bernie based on more realistic policies and better knowledge of how to get them implemented.
|
On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general?
No one who would vote Clinton but not Bernie would run to the other side of the fence when Trump is standing there.
|
On October 27 2016 07:28 Plansix wrote:
GH, I'm not arguing about right and wrong, whatever gave you that impression? I'm just pointing out that Bernie would be using the exact same resources and donations that Clinton is using right now. She would be out there raising money for him to win if was the nominee. The influence the the money is relevant, but they can't stop taking cooperate money if they have any hope of winning the general under the current laws. Hillary losing the nomination would put her in the same position Bernie was in. Maybe better because she is better connected than he was.
You act like this race would be magically free of money if Bernie was the nominee. It wouldn't be.
Not "free of money", but Bernie or his team didn't coordinate with Hillary's superPAC's, so that's already a significant improvement. Part of the problem with the current laws isn't just that superPAC's exist, it's the relationships they have to the candidates they support.
There's a difference between taking Walton big money and bragging about it and telling the DNC not to do it (whether they listen or not).
So what you'd likely end up with is that money going to the candidates the DNC wants it to rather than being diverted toward Bernie's campaign (since he's specifically said he didn't want it).
Conceding for a moment that Bernie might have been a harder push at the presidential level, a defiant DNC and Hillary collecting all of that money with nowhere to put it but down ballot would be the best possible outcome for Dems in the house and senate.
On October 27 2016 07:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 07:10 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. Again he'd have more/about the same money as Trump. Hillary supporters aren't going to vote Trump, so they would vote Bernie (or abandon all the crap they said they believed while pushing Bernie supporters to vote Hillary). No, he wouldn't. Trump is mostly relying on the RNCs money to cover the costs in battle ground states. Hilary also raises money for down ballot candidates and other races, which the DNC needs to win to get their seats and pass any laws. Bernie has to do all these things or he won't receive the support of the down ballot candidates who need his national spotlight and media to help them. Hilary supporters are going to stay home if he did what you want. Of course, I know Bernie is more experienced that you when it comes to politics, so that wouldn't happen. You are living in fantasy land if you think he could refuse super PAC funds(guess what, he can't, they are separate groups that he has no control over) or refuse all cooperate donations. On October 27 2016 07:04 Barrin wrote:On October 27 2016 07:01 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. But how does he beat Trump and the RNC without that money? Or Hilary's supporters? He can't just remove her, she is a big part of the DNC. Maybe if he wants to lose. I donno man, I think Bernie's "momentum" was a real thing. The more people that learned about him, the better he did. I question the idea that Hillary's supporters would've gone to Trump instead of Bernie. And that they might have not voted simply because Hillary wasn't in the race. They wouldn't vote at all of Bernie magically managed to get her purged from the DNC. That is like saying "I won the nomination, fuck your decision and who you wanted! That person is banned and out forever, you were wrong! Vote for me in November!" So you're suggesting Trump is relying on the RNC for battleground states but Hillary isn't relying on the DNC? Or that there's nothing wrong with/a necessary evil skirting the limits by using this loophole? I seem to remember when I brought this up way back when that we were assured that money wasn't going to support the candidate skirting campaign finance law. As for the purge part, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Her losing the nomination doesn't "purge" her from the party. Hillary supporters surely wouldn't be so childish as to not vote, or waste their vote on someone else besides Bernie. On October 27 2016 07:14 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. Okay, if people backed Bernie instead of Hillary (because they want someone who doesn't use the corrupting finance system) then he wins. Bernie's superPAC solution is the same as Hillary's. And the DNC had a ban on lobbyist cash placed by Obama and removed by DWS and Hillary. Give people the choice between a party/candidate funded by corporations, execs, and lobbyists and one that isn't. Trump couldn't keep the influence out of his campaign, so that would be more than enough of the "the hell with this system" voters to get Bernie the win (besides crushing Hillary with independents and anyone that wasn't Democrat, with Democrats that presumably would be voting Bernie using the same logic they are pushing on Bernie supporters who won't vote Clinton. On October 27 2016 06:55 Gorsameth wrote:On October 27 2016 06:50 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 27 2016 06:33 Plansix wrote:On October 27 2016 06:28 oneofthem wrote:
look at your history of railing against wall street donations etc.
if you actually spell out these potential conflicts, rather than relying on guilt by association, id be more charitable about this.
Or more importantly, how the DNC or RNC stop super PACs from being created and accepting money? Or how they win without super PACs and corporate donations? Pretty sure if Bernie kept pace with his Primary donations he'd have out raised Trump at this point, particularly if you remove Trump's own contributions (someone can check the math, I did it a while ago) Bernie probably also wouldn't need to spend so much more than Trump to keep it close (as Hillary has). Once you have a president who didn't need a corrupting finance system to get elected, you end up with a president much more likely to take the coalition they built and leverage them to make changes, rather than turn a bunch of people who participated in, and succeeded as a result of, against the system that put them in power (with their self-admitted master of the corrupt system's nuance at their helm). But how will that ever happen if the people who want to limit donations can never get elected in the current system? And you skipped the part where Bernie could not prevent Super PACs from being created. Or the DNC from accepting money cooperate money. Or be able to afford a good ground game if they did refuse all cooperate donations. They can't govern if they don't win. They can't pass laws to limit donations without a Supreme Court to uphold those laws. The moral high ground is a nice place to visit, but not a lot gets done up there. GH believes that Bernie is such a superior candidate to Hillary that he would have beaten Trump without Super PAC's or a ground game like the Democrats currently have. He thinks that Bernie is the one who could have been elected President without the corrupt finance system. I think the favorability numbers show that pretty well on their own. Particularly when you look at Bernie's support outside of traditional Dem voters. Hillary supporters vote for Bernie in a general against Trump, plus he gets more indy's than Hillary, and more Republicans. How that doesn't end up with better numbers than Hillary is on y'all. Bernie was never attacked in any real fashion. His numbers look good because no one cares about him enough to try and push the numbers down. It might have worked but its a lot of ifs to get to the scenario you envision. Do you honestly think there's anything about Bernie that would drive his numbers lower than the two lowest candidates in history? We'll never know because it never happened. We'll never know any of the details of a theoretical Bernie election because it won't happen. Why in the world is this such a fascinating thought experiment for you? We have gone over this a million times. It simply doesn't matter. Why not talk about a possible Biden run? Warren? It didn't happen. What if Goku fought Superman? Let's talk about that too.
It generally arises out of the "there was no other way" type of arguments. If someone's going to suggest that, then there's going to be a counter argument (necessarily preceded by the admission that it's not what happened).
Hope that clarifies it for you so you don't keep making stupid comparisons.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general?
Let me put it this way: "socialist" is to the US as "racist" is to Europe.
|
On October 27 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general? Let me put it this way: "socialist" is to the US as "racist" is to Europe.
The stigma behind the word "socialism" is one of the major tools the Republican party uses to continue getting people to vote for policy that's against their own interest. The stigma against "socialism" and "communism" results in people being irrationally afraid of changes that would benefit them the most.
|
I don't think socialist is scary to anyone besides those who wouldn't vote for him anyway. After 8 years of the right calling Obama a socialist that boogeyman is pretty well dead.
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 27 2016 07:48 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I don't think socialist is scary to anyone besides those who wouldn't vote for him anyway. After 8 years of the right calling Obama a socialist that boogeyman is pretty well dead.
Being perceived as a socialist makes you unelectable to maybe 60% of the population.
Though in this year, Trump might just be bad enough that he would overcome that.
|
Donald Trump said privately that Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) should pay a price for his disloyalty to the GOP presidential nominee, two people close to Trump told The New York Times.
On Tuesday, Trump said in an interview with Reuters people are "very angry" with the leadership of the Republican Party.
"Because this is an election that we will win, 100 percent, if we had support from the top,” he said. "I think we're going to win it anyway."
Trump went on the attack against Ryan after the Speaker earlier this month said he wold no longer campaign with or defend Trump after fallout from a 2005 tape of Trump talking lewdly about women. Ryan said on a conference call at the time that members should do whatever they need to win reelection.
A spokeswoman for Ryan, AshLee Strong, told the Times that Ryan is "fighting to ensure we hold a strong majority next Congress and that he is always working to earn the respect and support of his colleagues."
In March, Trump issued a similar warning after Ryan repudiated him for not strongly disavowing white supremacist David Duke's support.
"I'm going to get along great with Congress. Paul Ryan, I don't know him well, but I'm sure I'm going to get along great with him," Trump said at the time. "And if I don't, he's going to have to pay a big price."
And in an interview earlier this month, Trump said he no longer wanted Ryan's support but said other Republicans will come around if he is elected.
"They'll be there. I would think that Ryan maybe wouldn't be there, maybe he'll be in a different position," Trump said.
"The fact is, I think we should get support, and we don't get the support from guys like Paul Ryan," he continued.
"He had a conference call yesterday with congressmen, with hundreds of them, and they practically rioted against him on the phone. One person stuck up for him. So I'm just tired of nonsupport, and I don't really want his support."
Source
|
Ryan never wanted the job anyways.
|
On October 27 2016 07:54 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2016 07:41 TheYango wrote:On October 27 2016 07:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 27 2016 07:31 Aquanim wrote:
Does the one word "socialist" sink Sanders in your country for the general? Let me put it this way: "socialist" is to the US as "racist" is to Europe. The stigma behind the word "socialism" is one of the major tools the Republican party uses to continue getting people to vote against policy that's against their own interest. The stigma against "socialism" and "communism" results in people being irrationally afraid of changes that would benefit them the most. Aint that the truth. It's particularly silly when you consider that the very same people being fooled by the stigma also tend to be the people who believe in Jesus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Jesus were alive today he'd be all about socialism. There's more to it than that though. The Republican party is the party of the rich people. The middle and lower classes outnumber the upper class by far; frankly Republicans wouldn't have enough support if it weren't for consistent fear-mongering, particularly (wrongly) blaming minorities for the problems many of their poorer constituents experience. I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong about this too.
Both parties do a pretty good job of keeping us fighting among each other instead of looking angrily at the people robbing all of us blind.
Take the ACA for example. Hillary, who used to be one of the biggest proponents for single payer, has now degraded into an argument about what the best way to keep for-profit insurers financially healthy is. We used to agree on the left that we don't need for-profit insurers, now that position is "unrealistic". It also had Republicans fighting against a mandate that was their damned idea.
I expect more issues to follow that trend over the next 4 years.
|
I often question if you were even alive in 2008-2010 GH. Or understand how wildly unpopular the concept of goverment healthcare is in the US, even with moderate Democrats. If you want single payer, the ACA needs to work and work well. People need to love it like they love medicaid, mortgage interest deductions and fireworks on the Forth of July. Then the democrats can sell the idea of single payer.
|
I have met very few older democrats who will even consider the idea of socialized healthcare.
|
The electoral map for trump is so brutal, it's unreal. Even if the national poll has trump leading or tied, the electoral nightmare persists.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
socialism in europe is a pretty happy mix between efficient govt and highly competitive market economy. you cant get there by empowering socialists and leftists in the states. try something closer to the center-left technocrats
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
