|
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 February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp.
At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate.
If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward.
|
Oneofthem, I agree with you that I am interested to see progressives transfer from hecklers to performers. I have a bunch of progressive friends who are very comfortable that role and are already looking reasons to throw their hands up in the air.
|
On February 12 2017 05:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 03:34 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:29 Acrofales wrote:On February 12 2017 03:16 Nebuchad wrote:On February 12 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:
I think the current irritation is that the super progressives take the "we told you so" high ground, while also saying Clinton didn't earn their votes. The primaries were rigged in Clinton favor(forget several million votes), so the whole "earn peoples votes" argument doesn't apply here. The discussion is circular, frustrating and will not matter a year from now. Well, we did tell you so, so we do have the high ground. Hopefully we're going to use this high ground to destroy incorrect arguments like "a centrist has a better chance of getting elected by default because America", rather than just to assert superiority with no purpose. We can be wrong too, and I'm sure you have examples where we have been wrong. It's never fun to be wrong, I understand that, and especially not when that caused orange to be the new black, but at some point we're going to have to move on from this and we need to move in the right direction. You're assuming that just because Hillary lost, she was less electable than Bernie. The latter does not follow from the former. We simply have no idea how Bernie would have done. Small consolation is that he could not have done worse. But what-if scenarios are really pointless here. Bernie list the primaries, which were definitely unfair, which is a crying shame and the DNC should fix that, and try to repair the damage that did. But standing on your high ground and gloating, is both unfounded and rather silly. She didn't just lose. She lost to Donald J. Freaking Trump. But you know, that's all right, there's already a lot of progress for this conversation in what you have said here. "We have no idea who would do better" is much much better than the "She's obviously more electable" that we had before. Exactly what I think when I hear the popular vote arguments. No, it should've been a blowout because this is Donald J Trump. 3 million run up in the coasts is pathetic. Fix the party apparatus so Democratic primary voters and not party elites (getting the right endorsements and aid from the biased structure) have more of a say from the outset. Then future candidates must earn their primary votes. Also, weak bench overall ... not a lot of up-and-comers from state governments or younger national representatives.
Super delegates never even entered the equation. Hillary won more primaries, Bernie won more caucuses. How did the elite decide rather then the voters when Bernie lost by every metric?
How dare the Democratic party super delegates (who did not decide the outcome) favor the candidate from their own party that they have been working with for years over the outsider who comes in because he needs the parties money and influence to have any shot at the general election.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward.
i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda.
but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it.
just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation.
thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for WCEG etc in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions.
|
Are we talking about Democrats in general or the Party officials? I think it would be wise to separate the two if that is the case, There are a lot of democrat voters who are trying to change the system, but party officials are hindering that.
|
On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions.
There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her.
|
On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her.
Yeah, but that party is infested with weird religious stances.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 12 2017 06:23 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her. Yeah, but that party is infested with weird religious stances.
She's shown herself to be perfectly willing to flip flop on social issues according to convenience.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her.
uh no, the republican party is fiercely about defending the interests of dominant power players in the system, something we are very against. it's not 'either republican style feudalism or bernie style revolution', there are alternatives.
idk what to tell you if you don't see the space for that alternative. she is not a republican, you just think so because you are so far left that you can't tell the difference.
btw, a lot of blame does fall on previous dem policy in terms of showing results that people can get behind. but there's a bit of a time lag here between public perception of policy direction and what the policy people are thinking. so i'm not saying the clintonites, especially the rubin guys, are blameless or don't deserve extra scrutiny/suspicion. however, the actual positions are different from the time lagged perception.
basically politics is identity politics, but at the level of ideology. if you try to get people to look at policy details, it's not gonna work. the partisan media plays the role of enforcing this identity, but this cycle the partisan media on behalf of hillary is fragmented and ineffective. it's just the way it is, you need to have unity and work out the differences behind closed doors.
|
On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her.
You think someone could run on increased government intervention in healthcare, increased environmental protections and increased minimum wage and make it out of a republican primary..?
|
I'm giving a Clinton republican takeover some though and it actual blows my mind how much it could make sense.
Granted we need some preconditions. This would have to be a Hillary just after the 2008 election and before she remade the dem party structure for her benefit after Obama had his two terms.
Merkel has shown that social issues are simple sticks in the water and don't really matter to your overall position. The clintons declare the hostile taking over the republican party and proclaiming all the bill clinton politics but with the added carrot of a compromise to divest the party out of the abortion issue. An "embrace the empire state of mind" American imperialism theme.
Would be a crazy election cycle but would leave the dems devastated and forced to turn to Bernie sanders populism to save the soul of the party.
On February 12 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her. You think someone could run on increased government intervention in healthcare, increased environmental protections and increased minimum wage and make it out of a republican primary..?
Government is bad we need to fix the bad governments programs? Hillary has hardly said anything about environmental protections and said nothing about anything other then a conservative raising of the min wage. Bill clinton famously said "the ear of big government is over" and Hillary could embrace the same dogma to justify everything she wants.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
eh, a 'neoliberal' vs populist realignment might have happened had bernie won and bloomberg ran. in hindsight trump would have won and there would not be a neoliberal party.
might prompt some serious talk of secession of blue states, which i'm fine with. but overall the geographic spread of voters simply makes such a realignment impossible. the simple fact is that the segment of republicans most receptive to a bloomberg/clinton approach are all concentrated in blue states, so it's dumb.
|
On February 12 2017 06:54 oneofthem wrote:
eh, a 'neoliberal' vs populist realignment might have happened had bernie won and bloomberg ran. in hindsight trump would have won and there would not be a neoliberal party.
might prompt some serious talk of secession of blue states, which i'm fine with. but overall the geographic spread of voters simply makes such a realignment impossible. the simple fact is that the segment of republicans most receptive to a bloomberg/clinton approach are all concentrated in blue states, so it's dumb.
Remember when texas talked about sucession and all the blue states rubbed their nose and them and called them silly for thinking that? Serious and secession of blue states don't work in the same sentence. It would literally be a worse then trump move for anyone tho even think that.
|
A top aide picked by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was rejected for a critical security clearance, effectively ending the aide's ability to serve in a position on the National Security Council, multiple outlets reported Saturday.
Robin Townley, Flynn's pick for the NSC's senior director for Africa, was denied for a "Sensitive Compartmented Information" clearance, unnamed sources told Politico and ABC News. Without that clearance, Townley cannot serve on the NSC post, according to the reports.
It's reportedly been made even messier because the rejection was approved by CIA director Mike Pompeo. Because Townley is a close ally of Flynn's, the reported rejection only served to deepen the tension between Flynn and others in the Trump administration and the intelligence community.
The unnamed sources did not give much of any explanation about the reported rejection, but told Politico that Flynn and those close to him feel it may have to do with Townley’s "skepticism of the intelligence community’s techniques."
This comes just days after reports came out that Flynn spoke about sanctions in a call with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. before inauguration.
NSC and CIA spokesmen declined to comment to Politico. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, dismissed claims to Politico that the reported rejection was meant to be a statement from the intelligence community about Flynn.
Source
|
On February 12 2017 07:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:54 oneofthem wrote:
eh, a 'neoliberal' vs populist realignment might have happened had bernie won and bloomberg ran. in hindsight trump would have won and there would not be a neoliberal party.
might prompt some serious talk of secession of blue states, which i'm fine with. but overall the geographic spread of voters simply makes such a realignment impossible. the simple fact is that the segment of republicans most receptive to a bloomberg/clinton approach are all concentrated in blue states, so it's dumb. Remember when texas talked about sucession and all the blue states rubbed their nose and them and called them silly for thinking that? Serious and secession of blue states don't work in the same sentence. It would literally be a worse then trump move for anyone tho even think that.
no, I don't remember that.
I remember a small number of people in various states calling for secession at various recent times, and noone taking them that seriously because they were always like 1% of the states pop or less.
as to what actually happened, who knows, human memory isn't accurate.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 07:13 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:54 oneofthem wrote:
eh, a 'neoliberal' vs populist realignment might have happened had bernie won and bloomberg ran. in hindsight trump would have won and there would not be a neoliberal party.
might prompt some serious talk of secession of blue states, which i'm fine with. but overall the geographic spread of voters simply makes such a realignment impossible. the simple fact is that the segment of republicans most receptive to a bloomberg/clinton approach are all concentrated in blue states, so it's dumb. Remember when texas talked about sucession and all the blue states rubbed their nose and them and called them silly for thinking that? Serious and secession of blue states don't work in the same sentence. It would literally be a worse then trump move for anyone tho even think that.
uh if texas wants to secede i'd welcome it. it would screw the rest of the red states lul
but i'm talking about all of the productive states seceding, so the consequences would be different from just california seceding for example.
republicans are all about personal responsibility, maybe red state voters need some dose of that. we'll run a tight immigration policy and a consumption tax too, and come up with ways to screw red states on trade.
|
On February 12 2017 06:21 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2017 06:08 oneofthem wrote:On February 12 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:On February 12 2017 05:54 TheYango wrote:
Trump received no shortage of criticism from the right as well. It's not like Hillary was the only candidate subject to criticism within her own camp. At the core of it, being a corporatist-elite was a significantly worse label than anything Trump could be labeled in this political climate. If I'm being honest, all of the experience-unrelated things against Trump mean almost nothing to me. I'd be more than comfortable having a convicted rapist as president if I knew they would do a good job and move the country forward. i mean, she was going around talking in community colleges and SMEs for a reason. there's no love of big business at the policy level, a lot of anti-trust and signals of cracking down on practices like share buyback etc. the staffing of her policy positions also indicate a very aggressive reform agenda. but for most people it's either 'the people' or 'wall street,' and there is a lack of appreciation for what a moderate or center-left position would even be. basically only economists get it. just imagine how hard it would be for bernie to endorse her correctly, as in, she presents a good vision rather than 'trump is worse' like he was doing. this kind of positive endorsement would require bernie repealing his simplistic vision of society and politics, something he's unable to do. for a lot of voters, even those who voted for hillary, the situation was the same. people actually thought she was full on corporatist without really appreciating the alternative interpretation. thanks to le russian hackers we even have direct public access to the workings of her economics policy group. you guys can search for equitable growth in the podesta emails and look at what they were working on. it's a serious commitment to analyzing problems like inequality and finding effective solutions. There was a perfectly good conservative party rife for takeover that would probably have been a better fit economically for her.
That's just completely nonsensical, and it really illustrates how misinformed the public was about HRC. Just because Sanders is to her left economically, as is much of the European left, doesn't place her to the right of the Democratic party, let alone make her a "better fit" for the GOP. She's consistently been more more liberal than the Democratic party average in Congress.
|
Much of the reason why the GOP hates the Clinton's is that they stole their more popular policy positions fe, welfare reform, criminal justice. This pushed the democratic party to the center and forced the GOP to move to the right to stay relevant. The whole "3rd way" aspect of the Clinton's shows that they were Republicans in all but name on many issues. That the GOP turned into a far right clown wagon can be laid at their feet.
Also, Trump ran on massive economic intervention and with 0 religion and still won the GOP nomination.
|
Trump did promise to do all the things religious conservatives want, which is enough for them. As long as they can pass more laws to control women's bodies and our bedrooms, they don't who is in the White House.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 12 2017 07:57 Nevuk wrote:
Much of the reason why the GOP hates the Clinton's is that they stole their more popular policy positions fe, welfare reform, criminal justice. This pushed the democratic party to the center and forced the GOP to move to the right to stay relevant. The whole "3rd way" aspect of the Clinton's shows that they were Republicans in all but name on many issues. That the GOP turned into a far right clown wagon can be laid at their feet.
Also, Trump ran on massive economic intervention and with 0 religion and still won the GOP nomination.
welfare reform isn't necessarily bad, the implementation was obviously fucked up by congress funding restrictions.
if you look at empirical evaluations of the various welfare reform programs, there are examples of success like in new york. it's not some anti-poor policy. essentially you are looking at EITC vs pretty badly designed subsidies that do discourage work
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
