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 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: 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..?
To be fair, "conservatives" in Europe lost these battles years ago and supporting them is only really a liberal position in the US, which I assume is part of what Nevuk is getting at.
On February 12 2017 06:46 Mohdoo wrote: 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..?
To be fair, "conservatives" in Europe lost these battles years ago and supporting them is only really a liberal position in the US, which I assume is part of what Nevuk is getting at.
Yes, Democrats seem to think there's no problem, possibly even a positive that our political spectrum puts someone like Hillary safely on "the left" when most of the industrialized world would put her on the center right.
This is like saying inches are better than centimeters cuz Murrica
I'm really looking forward to the use of the Minitruth line
How can you call it an ...... ban when 85% of the ...... in the world are unaffected by it
going forwards. I think it'll be an awful lot of fun for everyone involved. Ban private civilian ownership of guns in the United States. Not a gun ban, most guns in the world have clearly been excluded. Criminalize homosexuality? Only a tiny fraction of the world's gay population are directly impacted. Eat a puppy on live tv? You can't call Trump a puppy eater when only 15% on his daily calorie consumption comes directly from the consumption of puppies.
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.
So you'll have a nation comprised of rich states isolated with a low military predisposition next to a newly poor nation that needs money has a ton of guns is conected geography and has a lot of military assets. And the one nation really doesn't like the other and has previous presitense to go to war to bring the rebellion secessionist back in line.
What could go wrong. At least the parties would be the same as the last time history repeated itself.
you cant really compare hillary and european pols without looking at constraints due to structural differences.
for example, take something like the tax system. the euros generally have a higher marginal tax rate on the top bracket, buta far lower corp rate. if hrc wants to raise the former in exchange for the latter, is that more right or more left?
europeans have stronger national control of healthcare, but that is a structural outcome many decades in the making. could go on
This GOP guy explaining why he wants to cut obamacare: Because the elderly above 74 will be put to death panels... Townfolk are having none of it!
Reminds of the time Rick Santorum said elderly in my country wear ''don't euthanize me' bracelets because they are afraid to be murdered for budget reasons -_-. How do they come up with this stuff
I like this new future where we openly heckle politicians that pull out these bullshit lines. Even if that shit existed, just change that part of the law. One flaw with a law is not a reason to up end the entire healthcare system.
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.
So you'll have a nation comprised of rich states isolated with a low military predisposition next to a newly poor nation that needs money has a ton of guns is conected geography and has a lot of military assets. And the one nation really doesn't like the other and has previous presitense to go to war to bring the rebellion secessionist back in line.
What could go wrong. At least the parties would be the same as the last time history repeated itself.
On February 12 2017 09:19 oneofthem wrote: ^which flynn story?
I assume the one where he was in direct contact with Russian officials, negotiating with them as a private citizen in possible violation of US law? But I'm only guessing
Flynn is a disaster and they need to get him out of there before he gets people killed. Or more people if he was the one that pushed Trump towards that totally botched raid.
One thing to think about in terms of the election result is:
"what is the win/loss record in recent political history of each party after two terms of holding the presidency?"
I imagine you all know this better than me, but it's pretty bad. Bush senior won one term after Reagan, but before that I think I have to go all the way back to WW2 to find a party holding the Presidency for more than eight years.
No matter who was nominated from either side, the Republicans were a priori pretty likely to win. The pendulum swings.
Causation isn't colataltion. History isn't fate. Bush into obama should have created a generation that would never know a lost presidential campaign that rove dreamed of.
But then the dream died and dems forgot how to win anything at all.
On February 12 2017 10:46 LegalLord wrote: The candidate matters. There was a time in which long runs of one party were very common.
That time was a long time ago - the world has changed a lot since then.
And HRC was favored this time around.
True, but not really related to my point...
EDIT: Let me put it this way: supposing Hillary and Trump had opposed each other in the general in '08, who do you think would have won?
On February 12 2017 10:47 Sermokala wrote: Causation isn't colataltion. History isn't fate. Bush into obama should have created a generation that would never know a lost presidential campaign that rove dreamed of.
But then the dream died and dems forgot how to win anything at all.
Eight years of Obama galvanised the Republicans and their supporters in more or less the same way as eight years of Bush galvanised the Democrats. It all swings both ways.
Bush was special. He was viewed as the product of post cold war neo con that was as deeply as unpopular in his party as outside of it. Everything that could go wrong with a legacy, war, economy, prestige, ideology, we're are at incredible lows. The base had no idea what to do with itself and had no way to oppose anything in the nation with the supermajority in the senate.
Obama was a young lion orator for the ages. His speech at the 2004 convention could bring a diehard republican to his feet. His campaign was a model of next generation technology and traditional campaign strategies. His coalition beyond his race promised demographic domination with trends that could only strengthen it.
All this was thrown away in year when they lost an election to a guy who's main selling point was that he drove a truck. Their mandate in doubt their super majority gone and Obama would flounder the best an inexperienced politician could for 8 years.
EPT
