EPTYep. However, I think that the US has a little more room to strike some important common ground with Russia than it does with China at the moment. We should be supporting Russia's efforts to prop up Assad and get rid of ISIS (let's face it, we're not getting anyone better to take over Syria). We also don't have the same economic competition problems with Russia that we have with China.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6457
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Yep. However, I think that the US has a little more room to strike some important common ground with Russia than it does with China at the moment. We should be supporting Russia's efforts to prop up Assad and get rid of ISIS (let's face it, we're not getting anyone better to take over Syria). We also don't have the same economic competition problems with Russia that we have with China. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
It's clear that China does perceive the US as a nation that is likely to oppose it in the future and is aware of the need for an alliance in opposition to the US though. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23486 Posts
On December 21 2016 13:07 zlefin wrote: re: first paragraph; the dues kinda matter. A party is a mutual support alliance. while it's not the system I prefer, as I dislike political parties, that's the way it is. And as always, there's the perception/reality difference. If it's perceived he's not doing enough to support the party, then there's no sense of mutual obligation to support back. There's a lot more to being in a party than voting similarly. Just because he's a political liberal doesn't make him a Democrat. and it's politics, Names matter. Symbols matter. your other points were dealt with by other people so I'm not gonna argue them. Yes we all must remember that although Hillary lost the election, her help of down ballot candidates made a huge difference... The party apparatus basically condemned it's members to support Hillary because of all the aspects that Hillary supporters are saying need to stick around. They were wrong about Hillary and they are wrong about this. Also I saw a bit back people still being skeptical about Bernie not getting a fair shake from the DNC. When even Harry Reid says the DNC was obviously unfair, I think it's fair to say the DNC clearly didn't give Bernie a fair shake. Reid has no reason to lie about it, and as the Senate Leader of the Democrats I think he knows about the DNC. Mag's point about "the rules are to keep the Democratic party the Democratic party" is also ridiculous. Need only go back a generation or two to realize how silly of an idea that is. The rules are set up to keep power where the establishment players want it, plain and simple. We fiddle with them occasionally to give the impression that they are democratic, but it's usually only a superficial illusion. On December 21 2016 09:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: There was nothing to address. Preventing people from other parties from doing last minute changes to their allegiance and letting their temporary populist surge split the party is exactly what superdelegates were meant to stop. The fear was if a republican would do it, but turns out independent white men do it also. Yeah, because a Huckabee is totally going to ride that populist independent surge to the Democratic nomination. Somehow you made your position sound even more ridiculous. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On December 21 2016 14:18 TanGeng wrote: A good start would be recognizing what the conflict in Syria is as well as clearing up some of the misinformation and disinformation surrounding the conflict. Some bigger geopolitical powers are at play in Syria beyond corruption and patronage. Well Syria turned into something of a conflict of regional dominance of the Middle East with the way the conflict has evolved. Way back when the Iraqis were considering asking for Russian air support before the US basically said "it's either us or them." And of course Iran, Turkey, and SA fighting it out by proxy. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
But it wasn't even the super delegates giving Bernie the worst of a bad treatment. Instead it was the media outlets continuously dousing the Bernie campaign with negative coverage or coverage favoring Hilary the establishment candidate. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 21 2016 14:37 GreenHorizons wrote: Yes we all must remember that although Hillary lost the election, her help of down ballot candidates made a huge difference... The party apparatus basically condemned it's members to support Hillary because of all the aspects that Hillary supporters are saying need to stick around. They were wrong about Hillary and they are wrong about this. Also I saw a bit back people still being skeptical about Bernie not getting a fair shake from the DNC. When even Harry Reid says the DNC was obviously unfair, I think it's fair to say the DNC clearly didn't give Bernie a fair shake. Reid has no reason to lie about it, and as the Senate Leader of the Democrats I think he knows about the DNC. Mag's point about "the rules are to keep the Democratic party the Democratic party" is also ridiculous. Need only go back a generation or two to realize how silly of an idea that is. The rules are set up to keep power where the establishment players want it, plain and simple. We fiddle with them occasionally to give the impression that they are democratic, but it's usually only a superficial illusion. Yeah, because a Huckabee is totally going to ride that populist independent surge to the Democratic nomination. Somehow you made your position sound even more ridiculous. Primaries are what they are as a compromise between having no united party and having a united party. Also--populist candidates are not something you predict. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
As an aside, this would be one of Ellison's positives as DNC chair that many overlook; the dude has clearly signaled that he does not approve of the status quo operation of the party, and if Democrats are going to gather any kind of consensus in time for 18/20, they are going to need to draw in voters that were not drawn in by Hillary's platform and the way in which her campaign was run. That said, Perez is likely still a fine choice so long as he recognizes that the party conducted itself especially poorly during the past few years. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Democratic National Committee tried to provide CNN anchor Wolf Blizter with questions to ask Donald Trump, the latest WikiLeaks email dump has revealed. Among the batch of 8,263 emails released on Sunday night, one shows that staff working for the network hosts asked DNC staffers what questions they should put to the Republican candidate. They also asked for advice when it came to an appearance from former candidate, Ted Cruz. An email dated April 28 entitled 'Cruz on CNN' reads 'CNN is looking for questions. Please send some topical/interesting ones.' That email was sent from DNC research director Lauren Dillon to other officials and staffers. Days before that, on April 25 she asked for questions from officials and staffers for an interview that CNN's Wolf Blitzer would be conducting with Trump. 'Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues (sic) ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed,' Dillon wrote in the email that was entitled 'CNN questions for Trump.' Numerous questions were submitted by a group of DNC staffers and officials for 68-year-old Blitzer to ask the billionaire. However, in a follow-up email, she informed the group of staffers that the Trump interview ended up being cancelled. 'CNN said the interview was cancelled as of now but will keep the questions for the next one Good to have for others as well,' Dillon wrote in the email. DNC deputy communications director Christina Freundlich responded to Dillion's email with 'Boo', seemingly showing that she was disappointed. Blitzer, who has been working at CNN since 1990, did end up interviewing the real estate mogul on May 4. That interview took place right after both Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich dropped out of the Republican presidential race as candidates. A CNN spokeswoman told the Daily Mail Online the emails are 'completely unremarkable'. Source | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
All I see are the usual people hating. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21957 Posts
And if you check Trumps email they probably asked his camp for questions they would want to ask Hillary. But I'm sure people are much more interested in spinning this as a conspiracy. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 21 2016 21:44 farvacola wrote: This notion that the Democratic Party is rightfully insular and, in most cases, justifiably outright hostile towards "outside influence" from politicians like Sanders is unproductive and a huge part of why the election turned out the way it did. Make no mistake, Hillary's failure was the establishment party's failure, and to double down on devices of procedural purity in the wake of a huge electoral failure is to bury one's head in the sand. Democrats cannot be a party of inclusion while practicing politics of procedural exclusion, it's that simple. As an aside, this would be one of Ellison's positives as DNC chair that many overlook; the dude has clearly signaled that he does not approve of the status quo operation of the party, and if Democrats are going to gather any kind of consensus in time for 18/20, they are going to need to draw in voters that were not drawn in by Hillary's platform and the way in which her campaign was run. That said, Perez is likely still a fine choice so long as he recognizes that the party conducted itself especially poorly during the past few years. Democrats working with Democrats is not insularity for the same reason Union Members working with Union Members is not insularity--its literally the reason to have a party/union. If you want to change what the party is made up of--you get that every 2 years during the midterm and general elections. Every single member of the Democratic establishment is a voted on position. If you want to change the party then go out and fucking vote. Doing what supposed "true" liberals like yourselves do and simply whine and not vote to show how much you hate the status quo is absolutely meaningless since you get to vote for who is on the establishment literally every cycle. Do not mistake your opinion's laziness for corruption. A party that the people get to decide what its composed of literally every other year cannot be a power establishment. Just vote out every member you dislike. Local election turnout is so low that all thats needed is 1-2 neighborhoods to turn the tide. That's literally just walking around a random part of town for a weekend and convincing them that your side is correct. 2 days every other year and you can change the party establishment, assuming you have a good story to tell. If two days every other year is too much work for you then gtfo out of politics. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
i'm fine with ellison. i like his plan to fight for every inch. however, he's got a few weaknesses as well - he's controversial because of his past statements and associations, even though i think those are unfairly scrutinized. while he brings in the berniecrats, i worry he won't appeal as much to the rural/ working class voter as strongly. i guess perez is what you call an establishment pick. pepperidge farm remembers when that wasn't a bad thing. by that, it means he's an experienced administrator with civil rights and labor cred. i have always preferred that sort of operator over other candidates. i have worked with too many "strategists" and other folks who talk a big game but leave at 5pm even when there's work to be done and are unwilling to pull a weekend shift for a big project. this is not to say ellison is just a talker - i don't think he is - but perez has the operator background i like. beyond that, the fact of the matter is there's a very large part of the population that is on the moderate to conservative spectrum - and their voices are further amplified by the way our electoral system is set up - that can't be ignored. in many/most ways i disagree with conservative positions but i don't think the healthy solution is to move farther away. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On December 21 2016 14:03 LegalLord wrote: The relative strength of the US in the world is definitely decreasing relative to the 90s-00s. I don't see it as a winning strategy to look for every possible powerful nation and make rivals out of them. The problem with a "tough" FP is that people fight back and you just might sustain real, lasting injuries that way. It's clear that China does perceive the US as a nation that is likely to oppose it in the future and is aware of the need for an alliance in opposition to the US though. China can fight back and cause some real, lasting injuries too. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On December 22 2016 01:02 farvacola wrote: Trump's electoral success has proven that the traditional "liberal voter, conservative voter" dynamic is too tired to keep bearing weight, so turning to it now makes no sense, particularly when its clear that "moderates" are actually an incredibly complicated amalgam of different groups of people, some of which have fairly unpredictable voting patterns. So yeah, the solution isn't to move farther away, it is to show folks just how close by everyone really is. Again though, Perez is good too, his ties to labor would be incredibly helpful as I think the labor movement is where forward is. I would not say trump's electoral success has proven some grand new order or anything. nor would I say he was particularly successful, only marginally so. Not that the old system was necessarily apt; or that moderate were well-classified. I may be misunderstanding what you meant by "liberal voter, conservative voter" dynamic | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On December 21 2016 23:59 Gorsameth wrote: And if you check Trumps email they probably asked his camp for questions they would want to ask Hillary. But I'm sure people are much more interested in spinning this as a conspiracy. The reverse would be improbable and highly surprising if it existed. CNN doesn't take much spinning to see the conspiracy. They've made their bed, now they can lie in it. But do continue to defend the actions on behalf of the Hillary campaign for another two years, we need some more senate seat pickups. Next up is alleging the draft articles a couple outlets ran by podesta's crew before publication were probably also passed to lewandowski. I tend to think your affinity for their politics clouds your perspective of how a media covering public presidential campaigns should act privately in concert with presidential campaigns. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
| ||
