|
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 November 10 2016 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:22 farvacola wrote:
Trump may have actually opened the door wider for socialism than Hillary would. Exactly what I was thinking about. xDaunt will be part of it.
Hah, this isn't too far from the truth. Trump is going to drag the country leftward in multiple ways. I have no doubt of that.
|
On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding.
Bernie is 75 right? He doesn't have enough time to "rebuild" a party.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 02:22 farvacola wrote:
Trump may have actually opened the door wider for socialism than Hillary would. Exactly what I was thinking about. xDaunt will be part of it. Hah, this isn't too far from the truth. Trump is going to drag the country leftward in multiple ways. I have no doubt of that.
you can ask robert mercer about that.
|
The Democrats aren't yet ready to select a new leader. They're going to need a few months to sort their shit out internally and groom new leadership.
|
On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like.
making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting reasonable limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start.
|
On November 10 2016 02:25 Xialos wrote:
But to be fair guys, american presidents do not have much power. The separation of powers prevents dumb shit from happening. Moreover, presidents are surrounded by public affair experts. So even with a brainded president, the system can still work just fine. Policy decisions are carried by the public administration (guys with massive brains).
Presidents have basically 2 roles. 1) carrying a vision 2) International representation
The day to day politics is not going to change much (apart from some mainstream policies).
Except for the part where the Republicans hold the House, Senate, Presidency and Supreme Court.
There is no opposite faction to keep them in check.
Advisers and experts only work if you listen to them and Trump doesn't have a great track record on that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start.
this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else
|
On November 10 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:15 Nevuk wrote:
If the DNC really doubles down on attacking Bernie for the loss they may flat out lose millennial support for a generation. Wait, are they doing this? If democrats lose union whites, democrats lose everything. Social justice can only get you so far.
The progressive wing is basically out for blood already, while the establishment is just in mourning. Kind of wish GH wasn't banned to get a more inside the scene look at it. When the establishment wakes up I'm not sure what happens though.
The hill had an article talking about how there's no presumptive leader for the Democratic party left. Pelosi, Chuck schumer aren't exactly brimming with charisma. Warren/Sanders are their best bets but can you see the DNC tolerating that?
|
On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes.
Then you realise you elected someone who doesn't even know what he's going to do and his actions could quite possibly backfire hard.
|
On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting reasonable limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start.
Hillary would be more likely to get any of those things done then Trump, who wants to cut taxes on the rich (abolish estate tax for one).
Being a Republican controlled government increasing social programs is right out of the question.
Don't even know what holding the elite accountable means but Trump sure isnt going to do it.
Trump is the person buying politicians. Why would he curb corruption?
|
On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting reasonable limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start.
Do you say the make the "rich pay their fair share of taxes" statement because you think that's what Trump ran his campaign on? Because that was Hillary.
|
|
|
On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else
You don't need "a plan", you need someone who incarnate it and someone who is willing to say it with a simple language (because all those things are SIMPLE). Trump won with like 700 words I read somewhere ?
|
Is there any particular reason for the rise of electoral/popular vote splits recently or it is just because of close races?
I know that a vote in a dense state is worth like 1/3rd-1/5th that of some of the most rural states, has it always been that stark of a contrast or has it changed over time?
|
On November 10 2016 02:22 farvacola wrote:
Trump may have actually opened the door wider for socialism than Hillary would.
This so much. At least a real left should finally rise in the USA.
|
I'll happy with the result of this election if Trump is able to bring greater awareness to the issues that rural Americans face given that it seems like the US is ruled by urban America and the only solution thus far has been to get educated or move to the cities. Bonus if he's actually able to effect positive change, which is what I think anti-Trump still doubts.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else You don't need "a plan", you need someone who incarnate it and someone who is willing to say it with a simple language (because all those things are SIMPLE). Trump won with like 700 words I read somewhere ?
this is the thing, the importance of the leftwing activists in the process of political communication. instead of pushing a positive version of her platform, that group is just engaged on a witch hunt against her based on crimes by association.
the left is dysfunctional as a political force.
|
On November 10 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else You don't need "a plan", you need someone who incarnate it and someone who is willing to say it with a simple language (because all those things are SIMPLE). Trump won with like 700 words I read somewhere ?
You've always needed to coherently articulate "a plan". Until this election. Hillary did. Trump just noped it all day. Trump upends all our preconceived notions of how presidential elections should be run, it's foolish to ignore that.
|
On November 10 2016 02:32 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting reasonable limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. Do you say the make the "rich pay their fair share of taxes" statement because you think that's what Trump ran his campaign on? Because that was Hillary.
Sure, she took money from Goldman Sachs to promote fiscal justice...
|
On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else
Honest question : did you actually expect HRC to do any of these things aside from pay token lip service? She was too deeply in bed with Wall Street to have any modicum of credibility, and her refusal to release her paid speeches pretty much solidified that notion. The optics of the email scandal was magnified in part by her own mishandling of the issue, and did not help with her credibility problem either.
Trump not releasing his tax returns turned out to be much less of an issue because almost everyone identifies with finding every possible way to reduce their tax burdens. I'm not saying it is right - it just happened to be the way things played out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
95
EPT
