|
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 December 12 2016 16:41 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, has Trump said anything recently about his position on H1-B visas? He has spoken out quite strongly against them in some debate in March and it broadly fits with both his anti-immigration program and his pick of Sessions. But it just doesn't seem to come up often.
I hope he does kill it; I'd really like to see the program end.
We'll see. He's still hiring foreigners via H-2B visas over Americans for his resorts this year, I don't think you can count on him making a stand on any of that. Or maybe just not if it affects him personally.
|
On December 12 2016 16:41 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, has Trump said anything recently about his position on H1-B visas? He has spoken out quite strongly against them in some debate in March and it broadly fits with both his anti-immigration program and his pick of Sessions. But it just doesn't seem to come up often.
I hope he does kill it; I'd really like to see the program end.
Last week he talked about letting legal immigrants in by the hundreds of thousands. It's all still of course directed at ending illegal immigration and setting rates and maybe high rates of legal immigration.
Markedly (just a google source)
The plan went on to say that the “admission of new low-earning workers” would need to be reduced in order to: “help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.”
Daily Caller
|
On December 12 2016 17:44 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 16:41 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, has Trump said anything recently about his position on H1-B visas? He has spoken out quite strongly against them in some debate in March and it broadly fits with both his anti-immigration program and his pick of Sessions. But it just doesn't seem to come up often.
I hope he does kill it; I'd really like to see the program end. We'll see. He's still hiring foreigners via H-2B visas over Americans for his resorts this year, I don't think you can count on him making a stand on any of that. Or maybe just not if it affects him personally.
I'm hoping it will be one of those situations where he uses his quite real knowledge of how they work to stamp out the abuse for the benefit of the population as a whole. I think that few people will deny that H1-Bs are something that he actually probably knows quite a bit about from being a businessman.
On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind.
Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected.
The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants."
|
On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind.
I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal.
On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants."
Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC.
In other news, McConnell is now backing an investigation into Russian interference in the election, but not through a special committee:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday strongly condemned any foreign interference with U.S. elections and announced that the Senate intelligence panel will investigate Russia’s suspected election interference.
“The Russian are not our friends,” McConnell told reporters at a scheduled year-end news conference.
McConnell’s announcement came a day after a group of senators called for a thorough, bipartisan investigation of Russian interference. Some have endorsed the idea of a special select committee to lead an investigation, but McConnell stopped short of endorsing that, saying that any congressional probe would follow “regular order” through the current committee structure.
“This simply cannot be a partisan issue,” McConnell said, before adding that the Intelligence Committee “is more than capable of conducting a complete review of this matter.” [...]
In a separate statement, Schumer said he welcomed McConnell’s support for a bipartisan investigation.
Schumer spoke out a day after he and Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee — and Democrat Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called for a bipartisan probe. Their calls came after The Washington Post reported the CIA’s conclusion that Russia’s activities were intended to tip the scales to help Republican Donald Trump.
Source
Keep in mind that this is the same McConnell who, back in September, "raised doubts about the underlying intelligence and made clear to the administration that he would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics."
|
On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria.
You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs). That is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media).
I also read one of those reports you linked on the waronrocks website where they suggest that Russia is trying to undermine the faith of Americans in their election system. While I certainly have no doubt that Russia is actively trying to exert influence on public opinion through media and the like, I also look at the way Democrats are attacking the fact that Trump was elected and I think to myself that Russia doesn't need to get itself involved at all.
|
Been reading up on the whole story about Russia hacking the DNC. I think this is just yet another argument to strive for as much transparency in our democratic institutions: the DNC was clearly wrong, and if all their backroom deals had been done out in the open, they would (1) not have happened or (2) the info of these deals would be revealed and controlled by US institutions rather than them being dumped on wikileaks in a way a foreign entity can control the narrative.
Some things need to happen behind closed doors, but clearly we need to make sure that (1) as little as possible happens in secret and (2) that which needs to stay secret is a lot better protected. At a government level anyway (as well as all other public institutions). And this is not limited to the US. The whole world needs to really really update their laws and regulations to get with the information age.
I will be voting for the Pirate Party in the upcoming Dutch elections. I don't agree with everything they stand for, but they are the only people even discussing these issues.
|
On December 12 2016 18:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2016 16:41 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, has Trump said anything recently about his position on H1-B visas? He has spoken out quite strongly against them in some debate in March and it broadly fits with both his anti-immigration program and his pick of Sessions. But it just doesn't seem to come up often.
I hope he does kill it; I'd really like to see the program end. Last week he talked about letting legal immigrants in by the hundreds of thousands. It's all still of course directed at ending illegal immigration and setting rates and maybe high rates of legal immigration. Markedly (just a google source) Show nested quote +The plan went on to say that the “admission of new low-earning workers” would need to be reduced in order to: “help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.” Daily Caller
Here's to hoping these new people coming in legally (at first) won't overstay. Because it's sure not the walkers who will be blocked by a wall who make up the bulk of our illegals.
|
On December 13 2016 01:23 Acrofales wrote:
Been reading up on the whole story about Russia hacking the DNC. I think this is just yet another argument to strive for as much transparency in our democratic institutions: the DNC was clearly wrong, and if all their backroom deals had been done out in the open, they would (1) not have happened or (2) the info of these deals would be revealed and controlled by US institutions rather than them being dumped on wikileaks in a way a foreign entity can control the narrative.
Some things need to happen behind closed doors, but clearly we need to make sure that (1) as little as possible happens in secret and (2) that which needs to stay secret is a lot better protected. At a government level anyway (as well as all other public institutions). And this is not limited to the US. The whole world needs to really really update their laws and regulations to get with the information age.
I will be voting for the Pirate Party in the upcoming Dutch elections. I don't agree with everything they stand for, but they are the only people even discussing these issues.
Me too, for the same reasons. Hence my suggestion for some form of digital democracy (as opposed to "civilian summit meetings", or however you would put it in English, which is what the Pirate Party is suggesting as a measure to reduce influences from groups that are not voted for/do not represent the citizens). I hope people will follow suit, but I fear the worst.
|
On December 13 2016 01:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs), which is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media).
The idea that HRC and the Democrats essentially told Sanders and his supporters to shut up and fall in line is just not true. I'm sure plenty of them felt this way, but that is still not what happened. What happened was that the Democratic platform was drafted by including plenty of the demands of the Sanders camp, and that Clinton worked with Sanders to integrate some of his ideas into her own plans, in particular with regards to his proposals on college tuition.
This was still obviously not enough for some of his supporters, but caricatures of the stance of HRC and her campaign are tiring, analytically unhelpful, and hamper reasonable debate on the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Clinton campaign for not doing enough to get all Sanders supporters on board (although part of the group would never have voted for her regardless), and the choice of Tim Kaine can for example be debated in this light, but pretending they didn't do anything and didn't care about the concerns of his supporters is factually false.
|
I don't think it mattered what went in the platform. When the prevailing image of Clinton was "Corrupt wall st elite republican'ish evil witch", it didn't matter what happened at that point. This was a particularly brutal primary. And even without the primary, Clinton had a similar image.
|
dudes, your CIA(intelligence) and Pentagon(military) are at odds on a couple things. Trump, soon to be the head of US military, is being groomed by Obama to piss off/on the CIA. CIA investigation on the russian hack is (trying to be)leverage on Trump.
it's only a power play men. no one cares what russians did or didn't do.
|
On December 13 2016 01:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs), which is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media). The idea that HRC and the Democrats essentially told Sanders and his supporters to shut up and fall in line is just not true. I'm sure plenty of them felt this way, but that is still not what happened. What happened was that the Democratic platform was drafted by including plenty of the demands of the Sanders camp, and that Clinton worked with Sanders to integrate some of his ideas into her own plans, in particular with regards to his proposals on college tuition. This was still obviously not enough for some of his supporters, but caricatures of the stance of HRC and her campaign are tiring, analytically unhelpful, and hamper reasonable debate on the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Clinton campaign for not doing enough to get all Sanders supporters on board (although part of the group would never have voted for her regardless), and the choice of Tim Kaine can for example be debated in this light, but pretending they didn't do anything and didn't care about the concerns of his supporters is factually false.
I have no doubt that they cared about the potential votes of that particular demographic. I do doubt they cared about the actual people, but that's largely irrelevant I suppose. Still, I can't take a politician's platform literally, because years of experience have taught me they will say anything to get votes. I don't think people who voted for Trump took his platform literally, and it would have been foolish to do take the Hillary platform literally in it own way. You say that the caricatures of the stance of HRC are tiring, but I say that taking the platform at face value and not looking at her well-established character, especially in the context of the democratic party and economic issues that were pointed out before, is tiring and unhelpful when it comes to asserting the shortcomings of HRC and her campaign.
Also, the fact that you are saying "part of the group would never have voted for her" is something that I take as an admittance that GH and his leftist buddies were being cast aside exactly as what is suggested by "taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway" and "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants". Especially when taken in the context of this strategic shift of the Democratic party that was being talked about by this Schumer person (whoever that is).
|
On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 01:32 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs), which is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media). The idea that HRC and the Democrats essentially told Sanders and his supporters to shut up and fall in line is just not true. I'm sure plenty of them felt this way, but that is still not what happened. What happened was that the Democratic platform was drafted by including plenty of the demands of the Sanders camp, and that Clinton worked with Sanders to integrate some of his ideas into her own plans, in particular with regards to his proposals on college tuition. This was still obviously not enough for some of his supporters, but caricatures of the stance of HRC and her campaign are tiring, analytically unhelpful, and hamper reasonable debate on the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Clinton campaign for not doing enough to get all Sanders supporters on board (although part of the group would never have voted for her regardless), and the choice of Tim Kaine can for example be debated in this light, but pretending they didn't do anything and didn't care about the concerns of his supporters is factually false. I have no doubt that they cared about the potential votes of that particular demographic. I do doubt they cared about the actual people. I can't take a politician's platform literally, because years of experience have taught me they will say anything to get votes. I don't think people who voted for Trump took his platform literally, and it would have been foolish to do take Hillary literally. You say that the caricatures of the stance of HRC are tiring, but I say that taking the platform at face value and not looking at her well-established character, especially in the context of the democratic party and economic issues that were pointed out before, is tiring and unhelpful when it comes to asserting the shortcomings of HRC and her campaign.
I would argue that her "well-established character", and her record in the Senate, precisely show her being committed to achieving progress on many of the issues that some of her detractors have argued she was only paying lip service to. In any case, you're obviously free to consider that it was all for show and for electoral purposes, but the point is that the caricature peddled above is still false.
On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:
Also, the fact that you are saying "part of the group would never have voted for her" is something that I take as an admittance that GH and his leftist buddies were being cast aside exactly as what is suggested by "taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway" and "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants". Especially when taken in the context of the strategic shift that was being talked by this Schumer person (whoever that is).
No, I'm admitting absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating what some Bernie supporters said themselves. It certainly does not mean that the HRC campaign did not take steps to address some of the concerns of the Sanders voters. Most of them ended up supporting her.
|
On December 13 2016 02:16 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:32 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs), which is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media). The idea that HRC and the Democrats essentially told Sanders and his supporters to shut up and fall in line is just not true. I'm sure plenty of them felt this way, but that is still not what happened. What happened was that the Democratic platform was drafted by including plenty of the demands of the Sanders camp, and that Clinton worked with Sanders to integrate some of his ideas into her own plans, in particular with regards to his proposals on college tuition. This was still obviously not enough for some of his supporters, but caricatures of the stance of HRC and her campaign are tiring, analytically unhelpful, and hamper reasonable debate on the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Clinton campaign for not doing enough to get all Sanders supporters on board (although part of the group would never have voted for her regardless), and the choice of Tim Kaine can for example be debated in this light, but pretending they didn't do anything and didn't care about the concerns of his supporters is factually false. I have no doubt that they cared about the potential votes of that particular demographic. I do doubt they cared about the actual people. I can't take a politician's platform literally, because years of experience have taught me they will say anything to get votes. I don't think people who voted for Trump took his platform literally, and it would have been foolish to do take Hillary literally. You say that the caricatures of the stance of HRC are tiring, but I say that taking the platform at face value and not looking at her well-established character, especially in the context of the democratic party and economic issues that were pointed out before, is tiring and unhelpful when it comes to asserting the shortcomings of HRC and her campaign. I would argue that her "well-established character", and her record in the Senate, precisely show her being committed to achieving progress on many of the issues that some of her detractors have argued she was only paying lip service to. In any case, you're obviously free to consider that it was all for show and for electoral purposes, but the point is that the caricature peddled above is still false. Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:
Also, the fact that you are saying "part of the group would never have voted for her" is something that I take as an admittance that GH and his leftist buddies were being cast aside exactly as what is suggested by "taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway" and "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants". Especially when taken in the context of the strategic shift that was being talked by this Schumer person (whoever that is). No, I'm admitting absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating what some Bernie supporters said themselves.
Alright, keep your stubborn attitude regarding this then. It's been quite clear to me (and I daresay, everybody else) that the democratic party has been drifting towards the center on economic issues more and more, and that they're playing more on identity politics rather than left and right issues in terms of economic policy. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie supporters are saying those things because they have well-grounded reasons for it.
The "wall street caricature" is not based on some nonsense, it is based on her own words and interactions with those people. Did you read even one of those actual speeches in full? I can see how some leftist people like me would vote for Clinton to keep Trump out of office even after reading one of those speeches, but that's going to be just about the only reason. Not anything she might say in her platform (and I read quite a bit of her policy on her website, as well as Trump's).
And if you think that people are going to determine their own vote based on tallying which laws she supported versus which laws Bernie supported, then you are a prime example of the "liberal elite disconnect from the real world". That's just not how people come to decisions regarding who they want as their president. Most of the people I know (who are Bernie supporters, naturally, why would I talk to them otherwise) that voted for Hillary did so purely because they didn't want Trump. Not because Hillary voted liberal 93.185777% of the time, compared to Bernies 89.1958% of the time, or whatever you can say about their platforms (note, my percentages are made up).
|
Clinton's years in the Senate were mostly during opposition to a gop president and gop controlled congress until 2006. Her voting record compared to Sanders isn't going to be very different because they were both effectively opposition. The similarities in their voting record really isn't as indicative of similarity as was being made out (which goes for both sides).
|
The problem with arguing that Hillary was "liberal enough" is that taking the broad view of her policies ignores the key policy vulnerabilities that Trump used to run to her left and beat her. Like I said during the campaign, Trump was going to be able to hit Hillary from the left on things like trade and foreign policy, which would resonate with a lot of voters.
|
On December 13 2016 02:30 xDaunt wrote:
The problem with arguing that Hillary was "liberal enough" is that taking the broad view of her policies ignores the key policy vulnerabilities that Trump used to run to her left and beat her. Like I said during the campaign, Trump was going to be able to hit Hillary from the left on things like trade and foreign policy, which would resonate with a lot of voters.
Specifically, "liberal enough" focuses on her views on social matters (the biggest of which is probably immigration, which is only partially a social issue), while the past few decades have made it clear that her heart really is in trade and FP matters. She does have some substantial ventures into international feminism to be fair, but it never struck me as the core of what she was interested in, at all.
The differences with Sanders are small but biggest where they are most important.
|
On December 13 2016 02:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 02:30 xDaunt wrote:
The problem with arguing that Hillary was "liberal enough" is that taking the broad view of her policies ignores the key policy vulnerabilities that Trump used to run to her left and beat her. Like I said during the campaign, Trump was going to be able to hit Hillary from the left on things like trade and foreign policy, which would resonate with a lot of voters. Specifically, "liberal enough" focuses on her views on social matters (the biggest of which is probably immigration, which is only partially a social issue), while the past few decades have made it clear that her heart really is in trade and FP matters. She does have some substantial ventures into international feminism to be fair, but it never struck me as the core of what she was interested in, at all. The differences with Sanders are small but biggest where they are most important.
The entire primary was basically just Clinton winning areas with lots of black people and then losing whenever there were a lot of white people. Broad strokes, yes, but WA/OR/WI/MI were all doomsday warnings about a huge issue with working whites.
|
On December 13 2016 02:23 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 02:16 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:32 kwizach wrote:On December 13 2016 01:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 13 2016 01:10 kwizach wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. I don't know what you're referring to, but it is well-documented that Clinton's voting record puts her as one of the most liberal members of the Senate when she served in it. Her platform was also unambiguously liberal. On December 13 2016 00:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 12 2016 17:42 Nebuchad wrote:On December 12 2016 13:32 Nyxisto wrote:
I think people were and are generally overstating how big the ideological difference between Clinton and Sanders is. The narrative of authentic left-winger vs neocon is very exciting and all but Clinton always was one of the most liberal Democrats around and Sanders would probably not have brought about single payer healthcare and free colleges if he would have ended up in office against a Republican congress, so the actual room for left-wing politics was limited anyway.
This whole story that was created I think really has hurt the Democrats. All Republicans turned out for Trump in the end, from Libertarian to crazy Evangelical to Conservative although Trump is non of those things. The Liberal-Left really needs to consolidate. I was under the impression that Schumer had openly acknowledged that the establishment democrat strategy was a shift to the right. Strategically, to make it so that Republicans cover an even smaller amount of the voting population, and taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway. Either my information is incorrect (that very well may be the case, I'm going to look for it again later when I have time) or we can't really overstate the difference between a social democrat and the picture the democratic party had in mind. Good thing GH and all the people like him just fell in line like good little leftists and didn't rebel against being utterly neglected. The way he described it, they were basically saying "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants." Yes, that's exactly what happened. I believe that's a direct quote from HRC. She also asked them for their savings in order to give them to oil executives and bank managers in the basement of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. You're being a douche in the way you are responding to that. HRC did in fact say that the economic policies of the Republicans and the Democrats are essentially the same (again, to the cheer of those at Goldman Sachs), which is what people object to and which is why GH and Bernie supporters wouldn't vote for her. Nobody is suggesting she literally used the words that LegalLord put in quotes there, it just describes the feeling of those who were cast aside. You're the only one saying absolutely fake things when you refer to that pizza bullshit (which, by the way, I first heard about in the context of fake news because I'm not on social media). The idea that HRC and the Democrats essentially told Sanders and his supporters to shut up and fall in line is just not true. I'm sure plenty of them felt this way, but that is still not what happened. What happened was that the Democratic platform was drafted by including plenty of the demands of the Sanders camp, and that Clinton worked with Sanders to integrate some of his ideas into her own plans, in particular with regards to his proposals on college tuition. This was still obviously not enough for some of his supporters, but caricatures of the stance of HRC and her campaign are tiring, analytically unhelpful, and hamper reasonable debate on the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize the Clinton campaign for not doing enough to get all Sanders supporters on board (although part of the group would never have voted for her regardless), and the choice of Tim Kaine can for example be debated in this light, but pretending they didn't do anything and didn't care about the concerns of his supporters is factually false. I have no doubt that they cared about the potential votes of that particular demographic. I do doubt they cared about the actual people. I can't take a politician's platform literally, because years of experience have taught me they will say anything to get votes. I don't think people who voted for Trump took his platform literally, and it would have been foolish to do take Hillary literally. You say that the caricatures of the stance of HRC are tiring, but I say that taking the platform at face value and not looking at her well-established character, especially in the context of the democratic party and economic issues that were pointed out before, is tiring and unhelpful when it comes to asserting the shortcomings of HRC and her campaign. I would argue that her "well-established character", and her record in the Senate, precisely show her being committed to achieving progress on many of the issues that some of her detractors have argued she was only paying lip service to. In any case, you're obviously free to consider that it was all for show and for electoral purposes, but the point is that the caricature peddled above is still false. On December 13 2016 02:10 a_flayer wrote:
Also, the fact that you are saying "part of the group would never have voted for her" is something that I take as an admittance that GH and his leftist buddies were being cast aside exactly as what is suggested by "taking the left for granted because they can't really vote for anyone else anyway" and "give us your vote and step aside, leftist peasants". Especially when taken in the context of the strategic shift that was being talked by this Schumer person (whoever that is). No, I'm admitting absolutely nothing of the sort. I'm merely stating what some Bernie supporters said themselves. Alright, keep your stubborn attitude regarding this then. It's been quite clear to me (and I daresay, everybody else) that the democratic party has been drifting towards the center on economic issues more and more, and that they're playing more on identity politics rather than left and right issues in terms of economic policy. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie supporters are saying those things because they have well-grounded reasons for it.
You're mixing together two different arguments. I have not made a claim with regards to the evolution of the Democratic party over the years on economic issues. My initial point was that it is false to argue that HRC and her campaign did not make efforts to address the concerns and policy preferences of many Sanders supporters. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. You and others may feel that not enough was done, or that it wasn't sincere enough, but the point remains that they did take steps to build bridges with the Sanders camp.
With regards to the other argument, about the Democratic party and Clinton's positioning on economic issue in a historical perspective, from the data I've seen there has been a slight move towards the left since the presidency of Bill Clinton. I don't have the information in front of me, however, so I can't quite comment. If you have any relevant studies on the issue, I'd be interested in reading them. The platforms of Clinton and of the DNC were significantly more progressive than what Democrats ran on even recently, though. I do still share the position held by many Sanders supporters that they nevertheless did not go far enough on a lot of issues (I'm talking about my personal policy preferences here, not about electoral strategy).
On December 13 2016 02:24 Nevuk wrote:
Clinton's years in the Senate were mostly during opposition to a gop president and gop controlled congress until 2006. Her voting record compared to Sanders isn't going to be very different because they were both effectively opposition. The similarities in their voting record really isn't as indicative of similarity as was being made out (which goes for both sides).
While it may not be extremely useful in absolute terms, it still is useful in relative terms, to see how liberal she was compared to other members of the Democratic party. And as I mentioned above, she was among the most liberal.
|
Pennsylvania recount crashes and burns as well...
A federal judge on Monday issued a stinging rejection of a Green Party-backed request to recount paper ballots in Pennsylvania's presidential election, won narrowly by Republican Donald Trump, and scan some counties' election systems for signs of hacking.
In his 31-page decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond said there were at least six grounds that required him to reject the Green Party's lawsuit, which had been opposed by Trump, the Pennsylvania Republican Party and the Pennsylvania attorney general's office. The Green Party has been successful in at least getting statewide recounts started in Wisconsin and Michigan, but it has failed to get a statewide recount begun or ordered in Pennsylvania.
Suspicion of a hacked Pennsylvania election "borders on the irrational" while granting the Green Party's recount bid could "ensure that that no Pennsylvania vote counts" given Tuesday's federal deadline to certify the vote for the Electoral College, wrote Diamond, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, a Republican.
"Most importantly, there is no credible evidence that any 'hack' occurred, and compelling evidence that Pennsylvania's voting system was not in any way compromised," Diamond wrote. He also said the lawsuit suffered from a lack of standing, potentially the lack of federal jurisdiction and an "unexplained, highly prejudicial" wait before filing last week's lawsuit, four weeks after the Nov. 8 election.
The decision was the Green Party's latest roadblock in Pennsylvania after hitting numerous walls in county and state courts. Green Party-backed lawyers argue that it was possible that computer hackers changed the election outcome and that Pennsylvania's heavy use of paperless machines makes it a prime target. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein also contended that Pennsylvania has erected unconstitutional barriers to voters seeking a recount.
A lawyer for the Green Party said Monday they were disappointed and unable to immediately say whether they would appeal.
"But one thing is clear," said the lawyer, Ilann Maazel. "The Pennsylvania election system is not fair to voters and voters don't know if their votes counted, and that's a very large problem."
It is part of a broader effort by Stein to recount votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, three states with a history of supporting Democrats that were narrowly won by Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Stein captured about 1 percent of the vote, or less, in each of the three states.
In Pennsylvania, Trump beat Clinton in Pennsylvania by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast.
The Wisconsin recount was expected to conclude Monday. With about 95 percent of the votes recounted as of Sunday, Clinton had gained 25 votes on Trump, but still trailed by about 22,000 votes out of nearly 3 million cast in Wisconsin.
A federal judge halted Michigan's recount last week after three days. Trump won Michigan by fewer than 11,000 votes out of nearly 4.8 million votes cast.
Source
+25 net votes for Clinton in Cheeseconsin though, that's worth a few million dollars worth of money raised from Clinton fan desperation...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
