|
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 13 2020 07:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 04:47 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 04:34 JimmiC wrote:On January 13 2020 04:02 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:48 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2020 03:41 Vivax wrote:On January 13 2020 03:24 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 13 2020 01:37 Vivax wrote:
So what did Trump achieve with that kill? Except that bystanders fleeing the country lost their lives to a spooked military?
Or do you think that one dead general means the end for Irans military planning? A warning shot? If they had plans to attack embassies, they're in a drawer, not on his corpse.
So far to me simply looks like an escalation attempt for reasons untold.
Btw at this rate Trump will win in 2020 because of the dem's candidates, in my opinion, mostly Bloomberg is viable and the least viable somehow seems to be leading the polls. Hating on the rich is fancy these days, but running a country successfully is about electing the smart and well-connected ones regardless of their wealth.
Not my circus, not my monkeys, but I'd vote Bloom. Viable to who? Bloomberg has generated almost no appreciable enthusiasm and for good reason. It’s not entirely due to hating the rich being in vogue either, people would overlook that if he stood for well, much of anything. Not eligible on account of being a Saffer but I could see Elon Musk gaining some traction from at least a reasonable bloc if he ran on some sort of radical tech/infrastructure kind of ticket. Some people of course have an existential distaste for billionaires, myself very much included in that, but in a more general sense not all billionaires are perceived equally negatively amongst the populace. Despite almost certainly not actually being true (although I think it will be post-office) Donald Trump’s whole shtick was being a billionaire and that business acumen would be transferable to the Presidency and he still got elected, because he at least presented as standing for particular things to particular demographics. Bloomberg is well, meh I follow such things reasonably closely and I don’t have the faintest idea what President Bloomberg looks like. Musk for president? I'll take a ticket to Mars if that actually happens. Maybe I'll have enough money to sit in the luggage compartment, and it's better to die in space than dying to his Orwellian nightmare cars. I think Bloomberg would be good because he's an old school businessman, who invented/launched something of value, has experience as mayor of the massive city, and has no incentive to use the presidency for personal gains since I wager he already has plenty of power and money. Easy to say he just wants it as a trophy, but keep in mind that his "league" is probably just as concerned about who's in charge now, so it's more likely he just wants to fix the mess. Successful people are fit to lead. Btw I think being a politician nowadays should not be compensated and be an honorary post. Would get rid of a bunch of corruptible deadbeats who go into politics for personal gain. The logical evolution of the rich buying politicians is for the rich to seek to be elected directly. And I don't think that is a good thing. So you think that the net worth of a candidate carries more weight over his personal achievements and talent? If you ask me, that's discriminatory (to be judged by the size of your wallet, in both directions). Don't hate the player, hate the game. What other than wealth and fame would say were the characteristics and achievements that made him first the candidate and then the president? (also keep in mind that his wealth is almost 100% from his father/ tax evasion) Political and managerial experience, worked early to improve the flow of information, doesn't try to bring up people in the same boat against each other, and subjectively seems like the least terrible choice in the roster. Plus, being the underdog in a society begging for inflation (because that's what wealth redistribution does) sheds a good light on him and a bad one on the current state of society. Edit: Ad inflation, what's more important than simply more money in pockets, are lower healthcare, housing and education costs. Speaking of the US, not here. But you won't get those by just cracking down on wallets. Once in a lifetime opportunity to post on page 2020 in the year 2020 btw. Inflation tends to be bad for the common person as wages are very slow to adjust whereas asset classes are usually some of the first which most rich people have the majority of their wealth in. Saying inflation would be good just shows extreme economic ignorance. By the way, inflation does not lower those costs (the only thing it does lower is fixed debt generally). If you want to lower those costs how about stop subsidizing them? The #1 reason education and healthcare costs have exploded are because of Government subsidies, and housing is an issue because of zoning and NIMBYism.
The purpose of inflation lies deeper and I think it is good for the economy overall.
The purpose of inflation in the large sceme of the economy is to reward activity,to reward taking risks,to create opportunitys and on the other hand to "punish" doing nothing. This mostly applies to capital and not so much to individual citizens. Inflation does create a much more dynamic economic environment then a system without inflation.
There is risks off course,for example misallocation but overall I think the system needs a certain amount of inflation to function optimally.
That doesn't mean all inflation is good btw,and inflation often has very negative effects for certain parts of the population while other parts of the population are less effected,maybe even benefit from it. In general i think it benefits those who are already succesfull and harms the people/corporations which are less succesfull. That in the end is a political choice.
Besides that,the current system based on interest needs inflation. Would completely collapse without inflation.
|
You can tell someone hasn't taken an economics course before if they think inflation is "bad".
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 14 2020 00:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I'm saying that a large health system should see lower costs due to economies of scale and buying power.
Well no I agree with you, I was just quoting a chain that was truncated. More a response to other points
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration.
Doesn’t have to be an aberration.
Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race.
If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate.
As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important.
|
CNN reported a disgusting hit piece article about Sanders, which I won't click on myself or link here, because I think I'm officially done with CNN as a legitimate source of news.
It claims that in 2018, Sanders told Warren he didn't think a woman could win... Which is fucking insane given how much he backed Clinton after he lost the primary (unfairly lost, due to shit hit pieces like this, and biased media coverage). The source is apparently anonymous staffers for Warren...
Warren has yet to comment.
Anyone who has followed Bernie over the years knows this is bullshit, and it comes right at the time he is gaining momentum, completely sus.
Here is a link to a common dreams article reporting on the CNN article.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/13/ludicrous-sanders-refutes-claims-made-anonymously-sourced-hit-piece-cnn-about-warren
I encourage anyone here that wants to know more about this to go to any other source (commons dreams, politico, anything but CNN) than the original CNN article, because they make money off anyone reading the original, and will continue to do whatever makes them money... right or wrong.
|
Interestingly enough, politico (also not a huge fan of them) ran a pretty Bernie positive piece today about him consolidating progressives on the left behind him.
Strange times we live in.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/sanders-progressives-flock-warren-098065
Maybe it's, one site hits Bernie and pits Bernie/Warren against each other, the other site his Warren. I know politico has done Bernie hit pieces as well.
|
So what if Bernie did say that he didn’t think a woman can win. He’s not saying he’d be against it. He backed Clinton after she beat him, so he’s certainly not against it himself. Instead, it would be a recognition of the still sexist society that exists within the United States.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a woman to become president, but I do think the odds are stacked against women. Recognizing that reality is not a bad thing.
|
On January 14 2020 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:
So what if Bernie did say that he didn’t think a woman can win. He’s not saying he’d be against it. He backed Clinton after she beat him, so he’s certainly not against it himself. Instead, it would be a recognition of the still sexist society that exists within the United States.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a woman to become president, but I do think the odds are stacked against women. Recognizing that reality is not a bad thing.
You are missing the point of my post, or at least it seems you are. It's a character assassination piece meant to harm his chances of winning the primary, that's the problem with it. Regardless of what we hope to believe, fake news like this typically hurts people with the voting populous, because they believe it.
Clintons numbers dropped a couple percentage points after Comey reopened the investigation into her, just a couple weeks before the election. That alone could have turned the election.
Like you said, he backed Clinton after the primary, "so he's certainly not against it himself." I'm with you, it sounds absurd to me... IMO if you have paid attention to Bernie at all, it's insane to believe he would make that comment... Even if he did make the comment, the context of it is very important. But I can't even see Sanders saying something like that at all, period.
Also, trump won on lies, and lies have an impact.
|
How would you react if that fake news turned out to be not fake? If it's insane to believe Bernie would make that comment, would it ruin your image of him if it turned to be true?
I wouldn't find that a big deal for the same reasons Ren just mentioned.
|
If he believed it why would he tell her? So that she has ammunition to use against him one year later? This is just bad fanfiction.
|
On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important.
I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done.
The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear.
|
On January 14 2020 07:32 Nebuchad wrote:
If he believed it why would he tell her? So that she has ammunition to use against him one year later? This is just bad fanfiction.
I can imagine a ton of situations where that could be said without it being in any way intended as a slight. I also can believe he said it and it makes no difference to my opinion of him. If he said it as a putdown, yes. But I imagine if he did say it he would say it as a simple analysis of the country as it stands; "I don't think a woman can win right now, it's crazy out there. Look at how crazy it got with Obama."
etc. etc.
In addition, anonymous sources are what 90% of political reporting is based on. There's really zero reason not to give this at least minor belief if you've ever believed or commented on anything that anonymous sources have reported about the goings on in the whitehouse.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear.
Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything.
Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example.
For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed.
Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway)
I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 14 2020 06:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:
So what if Bernie did say that he didn’t think a woman can win. He’s not saying he’d be against it. He backed Clinton after she beat him, so he’s certainly not against it himself. Instead, it would be a recognition of the still sexist society that exists within the United States.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a woman to become president, but I do think the odds are stacked against women. Recognizing that reality is not a bad thing. You are missing the point of my post, or at least it seems you are. It's a character assassination piece meant to harm his chances of winning the primary, that's the problem with it. Regardless of what we hope to believe, fake news like this typically hurts people with the voting populous, because they believe it. Clintons numbers dropped a couple percentage points after Comey reopened the investigation into her, just a couple weeks before the election. That alone could have turned the election. Like you said, he backed Clinton after the primary, "so he's certainly not against it himself." I'm with you, it sounds absurd to me... IMO if you have paid attention to Bernie at all, it's insane to believe he would make that comment... Even if he did make the comment, the context of it is very important. But I can't even see Sanders saying something like that at all, period. Also, trump won on lies, and lies have an impact. I don't trust CNN either. They publish similar hit pieces / character assassinations about Trump all the time.
|
On January 14 2020 10:06 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 06:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 14 2020 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:
So what if Bernie did say that he didn’t think a woman can win. He’s not saying he’d be against it. He backed Clinton after she beat him, so he’s certainly not against it himself. Instead, it would be a recognition of the still sexist society that exists within the United States.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a woman to become president, but I do think the odds are stacked against women. Recognizing that reality is not a bad thing. You are missing the point of my post, or at least it seems you are. It's a character assassination piece meant to harm his chances of winning the primary, that's the problem with it. Regardless of what we hope to believe, fake news like this typically hurts people with the voting populous, because they believe it. Clintons numbers dropped a couple percentage points after Comey reopened the investigation into her, just a couple weeks before the election. That alone could have turned the election. Like you said, he backed Clinton after the primary, "so he's certainly not against it himself." I'm with you, it sounds absurd to me... IMO if you have paid attention to Bernie at all, it's insane to believe he would make that comment... Even if he did make the comment, the context of it is very important. But I can't even see Sanders saying something like that at all, period. Also, trump won on lies, and lies have an impact. I don't trust CNN either. They publish similar hit pieces / character assassinations about Trump all the time.
You don't have to lie to assassinate the character of Trump.
Either way, you aren't the target audience for the smear, nor is anyone who is as online as we are imo.
|
On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books.
I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime.
I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.)
|
On January 14 2020 06:35 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:
So what if Bernie did say that he didn’t think a woman can win. He’s not saying he’d be against it. He backed Clinton after she beat him, so he’s certainly not against it himself. Instead, it would be a recognition of the still sexist society that exists within the United States.
I don’t think it’s impossible for a woman to become president, but I do think the odds are stacked against women. Recognizing that reality is not a bad thing. You are missing the point of my post, or at least it seems you are. It's a character assassination piece meant to harm his chances of winning the primary, that's the problem with it. Regardless of what we hope to believe, fake news like this typically hurts people with the voting populous, because they believe it. Clintons numbers dropped a couple percentage points after Comey reopened the investigation into her, just a couple weeks before the election. That alone could have turned the election. Like you said, he backed Clinton after the primary, "so he's certainly not against it himself." I'm with you, it sounds absurd to me... IMO if you have paid attention to Bernie at all, it's insane to believe he would make that comment... Even if he did make the comment, the context of it is very important. But I can't even see Sanders saying something like that at all, period. Also, trump won on lies, and lies have an impact.
I don't think his post was in response to yours at all. Other than the fact you started the conversation
He's saying even if it's true Bernie said that, it's because he's worried that rampant sexism in the United States is going to make it difficult for a woman to win, which is true. The smear is that they are taking a comment that speaks to illuminate the sexist problem in the country and turning it into what the general public will see as a sexist comment itself.
|
On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.)
Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself
|
The smears from Warren staffers are pretty laughable imo. Seems to me to just be the last throws of a dying campaign.
The sooner Warren drops out the better.
|
On January 14 2020 10:25 TentativePanda wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2020 10:16 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 09:40 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 07:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 14 2020 03:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 14 2020 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Cory Booker suspends his nomination. Sad he stayed longer than Harris, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. Looks like we're getting back to normality though. Overwhelming white people as nominations to lead the free world. Obama really was an aberration. Doesn’t have to be an aberration. Not really a racial thing that people aren’t enthused by certain candidates. Indeed Kamala Harris’ law and order bona fides actively counted against her in this particular race. If you had as polished an operator as Barack Obama running on a Bernie-ish platform such an individual would absolutely be crushing the field, race wouldn’t really be a factor at all. As it stands we don’t have such a candidate. As it is you don’t. I think it’s a sign of progress that simply being black doesn’t bring out the black vote and how one’s positions actually impact the landscape are seen as more important. I guess I should expand upon that a little bit. I didn't mean to imply that racism is keeping another black American from running or being nominated. I meant that Booker (pretty establishment) and Harris (terrible AG record) weren't really covered for their proposed stances. But rather they were covered solely because they were black Americans. You get a lot of Yang's policies out in the open (his supporters most likely) and the other candidates. But all you really read on Harris is how bad her AG record was in California. I think I recall her saying she made mistakes during her time as AG. Booker is just...Booker. I don't know a good or bad thing he's done. The eloquence that Obama brought with his ability to speak to everyone and bring a lot of different people together is the aberration. Not his race. I should have made that more clear. Ah right yeah I get you there now. That said despite his strengths we still had ‘Obama death camps’ and other such nonsense, so he didn’t really unify everything. Candidate Obama was also rather left of President Obama, so people were a bit more enthused too. Closing Guantanamo for example. For me, despite his failings I still liked Obama as being well, articulate, at least a figurehead for the best of America, etc etc. Especially on the world stage I felt that was kind of needed. Obama’s failings are mostly not living up to his own aspirational talk, contrasted to Trump where there’s nothing aspirational about the betterment of humanity (to me anyway) I don’t really care about someone appealing to everyone if a segment of everyone are complete selfish shits, if Sanders can appeal to a sufficient amount of people without the acceptance of the 1% or the poor who subscribe the the idea of pulling oneself up by their bootstraps its still a win in my books. I agree with you. I think his ideals were too lofty for the reality that is american politics. That he could have done so much if not for the circus that is congress, is a crime. I think what we need is an FDR 100 days style of getting things done. Getting a lot of necessary paperwork done that benefits the bottom of america while holding the top of it accountable. Not necessarily stripping them on their wealth, but their influence in politics. But that is lofty and short of signing a million EOs and a super majority in congress for the Ds, I don't see a lot changing as drastically as they need to. (not just for the environment, but for the betterment of the citizens of the US and those abroad.) Obama was more well liked and didn't get into as many controversial situations mainly because he did what Trump does without being as blunt and outspoken about it, not because their policies have differed very much. Possibly that's due more to the governmental establishment doing the majority of the shot calling and not the president, but still. Obama was a right-winger in an objective sense. Which I don't appreciate myself
I don't think you have the right of it. The policies of the two are wildly different. Not even close on a domestic or foreign affairs front.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
