|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion.
So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point.
|
On January 29 2019 09:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point.
Am I to treat your lack of response to all the other points I've raised in the same fashion?
|
On January 29 2019 09:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point.
This is a good point IMO. People aren't against Harris because she's black or a woman, they are against her because she embodies the slimy DC persona. People not liking her voting record isn't a sign of misogyny or racism...I mean, AOC might be inexperienced but at least she doesn't have a proven shitty voting record or a career propagating the terrible prison system.
|
On January 29 2019 04:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:
The Republicans did not take over the country by keeping expectations and aspirations low. They shot for the Pegasus galaxy and accepted Pluto. Enthusiasm and energy is really important. Moderate, yet still heavily polarized democrats, are not going to vote for Trump because our candidate wants medicare for all. And a lot of the wishy washy moderates in the midwest just want people to tell them they'll get something amazing and transformative. If you tell them you've got this big amazing idea to transform their lives, they will bite. Just as they did for democrats with unions, then republicans to build a giant wall, now we just need something else big for workers rights and they'll bite. For what it's worth, we could go back to Unions since we lost that one hard along the way.
Not going to work anymore, will just accelerate the rollout of robots and other tech that replaces human employees.
Don’t really see a solution apart from an entirely new system and way of thinking about the economy.
|
On January 29 2019 09:16 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 09:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point. Am I to treat your lack of response to all the other points I've raised in the same fashion?
That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not.
You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. (1)The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not (Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the (2)democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the (3)chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected ((4)similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion.
(1) - this is ludicrous. Do you really think that? Do you really think that Democrats regulate Banking/WallStreet in the same way Republicans do? I mean seriously do you think that reflects reality? Democrats pushed Dodd/Frank and actually set the stage for boring finance to return (notice how the current expansion since 2009 is not finance driven). Contrast this with Bush2 era Republicans doing their damndest to make Enron, CDOs, and AIG derivatives games as legal as possible.
(2) - this is bullshit. Who do you think the Democratic base is? The Intercept readers from outside of the country? Or do you think the base is the largest voting block in the Democratic primary that keeps electing winners in the primaries? In case you hadn't noticed, the base of the Democratic party voted for Obama in 2008 and HRC in 2016. The base is not the Kucinich/Sanders/Gillibrand/Greenwald Left who either aren't Democrats or only pretend to be so they can pee on Democrats from inside the party.
(3) - 20k+ people showed up for Kamela's first big speech. Check the photos I posted! The other candidates struggle to fill Starbuckses (Warren). Or they aren't even running (Beto, Brown). Are those crowds the establishment? Those crowds look just like the Obama crowds. Oh wait, nevermind, hers was bigger!
Kamala Harris Kicks Off Campaign With Crowd Larger Than Obama
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/kamala-harris-kicks-off-campaign-in-oakland-full-transcript-and-video-1.6878015
(4) - what? Obama didn't listen to the establishment, he WAS the establishment! Democrats love Obama! We still do! Obama ran as more moderate than HRC or Edwards in 2008. Does that make him the establishment? Or was he kowtowing to the establishment? Harris is actually for M4A (something I think is dumb). So is she caving to the establishment by supporting something Pelosi won't endorse?
I get you have an angle. You must read The Intercept or something. You have your conclusions, but do you see how the basic facts just don't square with any of your assertions? (1) Dems actually try to regulate and fine Wall Street, (2) Democrats are the Dem base, not the non-Dem Left, (3) Kamela isn't being anointed by anyone but the big crowds of human beings, (4) Kamela is pro M4A but the ESTABLISHMENT isn't.
|
On January 29 2019 09:23 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 09:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point. This is a good point IMO. People aren't against Harris because she's black or a woman, they are against her because she embodies the slimy DC persona. People not liking her voting record isn't a sign of misogyny or racism...I mean, AOC might be inexperienced but at least she doesn't have a proven shitty voting record or a career propagating the terrible prison system.
Do you consider yourself a data person? Are you the kind of guy who reads data and says, well, my opinions need to reflect the data. Before clicking my link, how similar do you think Senator Sanders and Senator Harris's voting records are? Remember, she is a dirty slut ESTABLISHMENT shill who slept her way to the top, so she is probably using all the Seth Rich payoff money as cold comfort to vote against progressivism.
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/members/H001075-kamala-harris/compare-votes/S000033-bernard-sanders/115
Kamala Harris and Bernard Sanders are from different parties but have agreed on 93 percent of votes in the 115th Congress (2017-18).
Compare in other Congresses
Agree: 93% Disagree: 7%
It is unusual for two members of different parties to agree on so many votes. Out of 581 votes in the 115th Congress, they have agreed on 539 votes, including 39 major votes.
EDIT: I will reveal my bias here, I am actually quite on board with Senator Bernie Sanders as he actually votes. Along with Harris. But god damn his cult like followers who can't see reality. They drive me nuts and make it hard to like Bernie.
|
On January 29 2019 09:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 04:38 Logo wrote:On January 29 2019 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:
The Republicans did not take over the country by keeping expectations and aspirations low. They shot for the Pegasus galaxy and accepted Pluto. Enthusiasm and energy is really important. Moderate, yet still heavily polarized democrats, are not going to vote for Trump because our candidate wants medicare for all. And a lot of the wishy washy moderates in the midwest just want people to tell them they'll get something amazing and transformative. If you tell them you've got this big amazing idea to transform their lives, they will bite. Just as they did for democrats with unions, then republicans to build a giant wall, now we just need something else big for workers rights and they'll bite. For what it's worth, we could go back to Unions since we lost that one hard along the way. Not going to work anymore, will just accelerate the rollout of robots and other tech that replaces human employees. Don’t really see a solution apart from an entirely new system and way of thinking about the economy.
Aggressive rollouts of automation against a work force that is already getting screwed and trying to level the playing field is a surefire way to start riots given the way society is currently constructed.
|
On January 29 2019 09:36 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 09:16 Nebuchad wrote:On January 29 2019 09:11 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 21:56 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 16:51 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 11:53 Nebuchad wrote:On January 28 2019 11:41 Wulfey_LA wrote:On January 28 2019 09:34 mierin wrote:On January 28 2019 08:23 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
We'll see how Harris shakes out. She's not going against anyone formidable, so she should easily win. Her weakness will be a black woman married to a white man or whatever 50s stereotypical, racist shit they can bring on her. I'll research her political stance and voting history. She has my vote as of today No, her weakness is being an attorney general who is "tough on crime" and for civil forfeiture. Black and white identity politics are an easy talking point, but it isn't why people oppose Kamala. If you don't immediately vote for her, you are a misogynist and a racist I hate how she prosecuted people and secured convictions in accordance with the law and due process! I am voting Trump instead! I like his policy of arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and his elimination of prosecutions in the white collar crime sector. Harris didn't even put people in jail (looking at you (((bankers)))) when the law wouldn't allow her to! Were you trying to write the worst answer possible? - This is a primary. We can prefer someone other than Harris without being pro-Trump! - The massive strawman about being against rule of law if you are judicially progressive. - Pointing out that the rightwing is terrible while trying to sell a liberal to a crowd of social democrats... Did you lick your lips while you typed that? - She should have gone after the bankers more and you obviously know that this is something the left is holding against her so I'm not even sure what you're trying to accomplish there. Show your work. If you think she had laws to put bankers in jail, show it. Show how you knew the law better than her team and could have successfully prosecuted a banker all the way to jail. Please detail how you and your crack team of lawyers would have gotten around the 2000-2008 deregulation (i.e., decriminalization) of almost all banking. I can't wait to hear how you are your DAs would have done such a better job with the laws as they were. EDIT: in case you are some how missing the point, the reason why the bankers did not go to jail for the financial crisis is because what they did was almost entirely legal. They were by and large acting within the law. Electing Republicans has consequences and Bush2 made sure almost every last mortgage scheme you can dream up was legal. That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not. You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not ( Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected (similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. So you concede you could have put no more bankers in jail than DA Harris and her team did. Excellent. I expect you to no longer attempt to smear her with charges that she wasn't tough enough on Wall Street because you gave up on even trying to defend your point. Am I to treat your lack of response to all the other points I've raised in the same fashion? Show nested quote +That is almost 100% irrelevant. You made it seem as if it was a positive that she didn't go after the bankers, you even put the goddamn parenthesis as if it was antisemitic to want people to go after the bankers. The democratic base is not on the bankers' side. If she was perceived to have gone after the bankers as much as she could have, this would be a positive for her image. But she isn't, and it's not.
You say elections have consequences but this is one of the issues where they largely don't. (1)The liberal position on bankers is very similar to the conservative position, as both are economically liberal capitalists and would rather the state doesn't intervene and let the free market decide whether it wants to fuck us over or not (Narrator: it does). This is one of the issues where the (2)democratic base is at odds with the establishment of the democratic party, as they hold a social democrat position that there should be more regulations on bankers so that this shit is less likely to happen in the future. Because Kamala Harris looks more and more like she's the (3)chosen one of the establishment, there is a perception that she will most often follow the lead of the establishment, no matter what she says now to get elected ((4)similarly to Obama). Her record doesn't do a ton to disprove this notion. (1) - this is ludicrous. Do you really think that? Do you really think that Democrats regulate Banking/WallStreet in the same way Republicans do? I mean seriously do you think that reflects reality? Democrats pushed Dodd/Frank and actually set the stage for boring finance to return (notice how the current expansion since 2009 is not finance driven). Contrast this with Bush2 era Republicans doing their damndest to make Enron, CDOs, and AIG derivatives games as legal as possible. (2) - this is bullshit. Who do you think the Democratic base is? The Intercept readers from outside of the country? Or do you think the base is the largest voting block in the Democratic primary that keeps electing winners in the primaries? In case you hadn't noticed, the base of the Democratic party voted for Obama in 2008 and HRC in 2016. The base is not the Kucinich/Sanders/Gillibrand/Greenwald Left who either aren't Democrats or only pretend to be so they can pee on Democrats from inside the party. (3) - 20k+ people showed up for Kamela's first big speech. Check the photos I posted! The other candidates struggle to fill Starbuckses (Warren). Or they aren't even running (Beto, Brown). Are those crowds the establishment? Those crowds look just like the Obama crowds. Oh wait, nevermind, hers was bigger! https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/kamala-harris-kicks-off-campaign-in-oakland-full-transcript-and-video-1.6878015(4) - what? Obama didn't listen to the establishment, he WAS the establishment! Democrats love Obama! We still do! Obama ran as more moderate than HRC or Edwards in 2008. Does that make him the establishment? Or was he kowtowing to the establishment? Harris is actually for M4A (something I think is dumb). So is she caving to the establishment by supporting something Pelosi won't endorse? I get you have an angle. You must read The Intercept or something. You have your conclusions, but do you see how the basic facts just don't square with any of your assertions? (1) Dems actually try to regulate and fine Wall Street, (2) Democrats are the Dem base, not the non-Dem Left, (3) Kamela isn't being anointed by anyone but the big crowds of human beings, (4) Kamela is pro M4A but the ESTABLISHMENT isn't.
There was another post before this one with other points raised.
1) The democratic party influences its liberalism with some socialism/social democracy, and the republican party influences its liberalism with some fascism. They are not exactly the same because of those influences, but the core is economically liberal in both cases, which makes them similar on topics pertaining to economics. There is a lot more agreement than disagreement there. I have zero knowledge on the specifics of Dodd-Frank and I can already bet some money with you that a position to the left of liberalism would have made Dodd-Frank stronger, because I know how this works. Rest assured that everything we gain on the topic of regulations of banking (or government regulations in general fwiw) is done in spite of liberalism, not thanks to it.
2) and 4) are genuinely amazing points. Are you seriously contending that the democratic voter base has a positive opinion of Wall Street and doesn't want more regulations on it, and that Obama ran as a moderate centrist rather than a progressive? I think I'm more interested in seeing the work it took you to get to these two than in answering them.
3) Okay? Good for her? How does that disprove what I said?
Since you answered a few, obviously we're mainly talking about Mnuchin when it comes to Harris and banks, and you knew it. Clearly you have some sort of point that you want to make about Mnuchin prosecution, and my answer was that your point is irrelevant because of the reasons I've outlined. But you get to make it now, so go ahead.
|
Man, we aren’t even out of January yet and 2020 is looking great. I’m looking forward to this Democratic primary and sea of toxic bile that will come with it.
|
On January 29 2019 09:56 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 09:33 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On January 29 2019 04:38 Logo wrote:On January 29 2019 04:36 Mohdoo wrote:
The Republicans did not take over the country by keeping expectations and aspirations low. They shot for the Pegasus galaxy and accepted Pluto. Enthusiasm and energy is really important. Moderate, yet still heavily polarized democrats, are not going to vote for Trump because our candidate wants medicare for all. And a lot of the wishy washy moderates in the midwest just want people to tell them they'll get something amazing and transformative. If you tell them you've got this big amazing idea to transform their lives, they will bite. Just as they did for democrats with unions, then republicans to build a giant wall, now we just need something else big for workers rights and they'll bite. For what it's worth, we could go back to Unions since we lost that one hard along the way. Not going to work anymore, will just accelerate the rollout of robots and other tech that replaces human employees. Don’t really see a solution apart from an entirely new system and way of thinking about the economy. Aggressive rollouts of automation against a work force that is already getting screwed and trying to level the playing field is a surefire way to start riots given the way society is currently constructed.
Not to mention there's a large number of unorganized workers that are not currently at risk of automation.
|
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots.
|
On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots.
By aggressive pushing of automation, I mean the corporate bigwigs going "Oh, they just passed a living wage? Automate everything possible now."
|
|
|
Harris is going to do a great job of exposing the Left as never being serious about policy. She has ingested their poison policy talismans (M4A) and the Left will still cry because SHES A COP who dared enforce the laws Bernie voted for. The point is to posture against the ESTABLISHMENT. The debate over the last few pages really looks foolish. Complaining about Harris because she is 'anointed' by the ESTABLISHMENT even tho she is for M4A? I think her M4A position is stupid. But hey, I can look past that and see her as a good leader and organizer for the Democratic party and the nation as a whole. But the Left? All we get are shrill screeching about ESTABLISHMENT and some lazy bullshit about her faithfully prosecuting the laws as written. This Left stuff is just anti-Dem. There is no substance there. Never has been.
|
On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots.
a lot of it is shitty, i-need-three-jobs-to-pay-the-bills employment though.
|
On January 29 2019 13:47 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots. a lot of it is shitty, i-need-three-jobs-to-pay-the-bills employment though.
where are the stats?
|
On January 29 2019 11:21 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots. By aggressive pushing of automation, I mean the corporate bigwigs going "Oh, they just passed a living wage? Automate everything possible now."
This hasn't happened in the rest of the world, what makes US so special that no reasonable measures can take place there?
|
On January 29 2019 10:22 Plansix wrote:
Man, we aren’t even out of January yet and 2020 is looking great. I’m looking forward to this Democratic primary and sea of toxic bile that will come with it.
As usual there is no way on earth the GOP wins this election but the left might manage to lose it again.
It just happens that the guy next to you ideologically is your friend for right wingers, and your worse ennemy for the left.
|
On January 29 2019 17:36 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 11:21 Gahlo wrote:On January 29 2019 11:03 Lazare1969 wrote:
The US has the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 though, so it's a little early to be predicting riots. By aggressive pushing of automation, I mean the corporate bigwigs going "Oh, they just passed a living wage? Automate everything possible now." This hasn't happened in the rest of the world, what makes US so special that no reasonable measures can take place there?
Where has literally every automation replaceable job been done across a society?
|
On January 29 2019 17:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2019 10:22 Plansix wrote:
Man, we aren’t even out of January yet and 2020 is looking great. I’m looking forward to this Democratic primary and sea of toxic bile that will come with it. As usual there is no way on earth the GOP wins this election but the left might manage to lose it again. It just happens that the guy next to you ideologically is your friend for right wingers, and your worse ennemy for the left.
Don't worry Biff, I won't let the fact that Wulfey is shouting silly things at me get in the way of the big picture, and I can't vote in the US anyway. I appreciate the concern though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
