|
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 June 10 2018 12:21 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 05:41 Nebuchad wrote:On June 10 2018 03:54 Wulfey_LA wrote:On June 10 2018 02:47 iamthedave wrote:On June 10 2018 01:14 Kyadytim wrote:On June 10 2018 00:36 Nebuchad wrote:On June 09 2018 23:42 GreenHorizons wrote:The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Bernie Sanders from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.
The new rule, adopted by the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.
A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and “run and serve” as a member.
Sanders, who has maintained his status as an Independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. thehill.comSo if Bernie decides to run as an independent does that make the Democrats the potential spoilers if they don't fall back and support Bernie anyway? There's no way anyone they nominate will have better numbers than Bernie or be more likely to win. The next time liberals talk about unity in the democratic party they should be laughed outside the room. They're literally changing the rules because they're afraid the guy from the other side of our "unified front" might win. The problem Democrats have right now is that every time people forget about how they meddle in the primaries to get their preferred candidates elected or the DNC/DCCC make a reasonable case that meddling is normal, they do something like this which is a naked attempt to keep the party as a whole in its current position just far enough to the left of the Republican party that they can run on being better than Republicans. Sounds to me like we're gearing up for Trump pt 2: electric boogaloo. If Bernie's popularity holds into the next election cycle, that seems to me like a devastating blow for the Democratic Party. Way worse than just Trump winning. That'll be them deliberately having kicked out the guy their own voters want to vote for. That's the kind of thing that can kill a party outright. Do you have any evidence for this claim? There was a primary in 2016 and Bernie lost by millions of votes. Check the Bernie endorsed candidates. Note that his challenger endorsements versus ESTABLISHMENT-NEOLIBERAL-SOROS-SHILLS have consistently lost. https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Bernie_SandersIf he is so great, and democrats love him so much, why aren't his endorsements doing anything? Of course we have evidence for this claim. The issue has been polled, both with the entire population and with democrats. The picture painted of his popularity is consistent and clear. The very fact that the DNC feels like they have to do something like this is further evidence. They're not doing it because they fear Ted Cruz is going to run as a democrat, are they. Why aren't his endorsements doing anything? First, that's not the case; progressives have been doing pretty well, Our Revolution has something like 40% winrate which is amazing for a group created in 2016. You also have to keep in mind the additional context that the progressive candidate is going to be the underdog in every race by virtue of having less money, not having the party on their side, and sometimes even having the party actively work against them. So much overwhelming polling evidence that you couldn't cite anything. I post three links with real data, you post .... nothing? Your argument relies on handicapping the 'progressive' candidate in every race so their losses are not quite losses. But when does that handicapping stop? When do they start to win? Cause they aren't winning yet (see the actual links I posted).
Do you want me to cite polls that show Bernie is the most popular politician in the country and among democrats? That's not really something that there is a lack of in this thread, GH typically gets blamed for posting them too much...
As for Our Revolution record, here is a hit piece by a neoliberal shill trying to shit on Our Revolution, so I'm going to assume you trust the source: Politico
Notice in the middle of that: "Kleeb, who also serves as the Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman, argued, “We have about a 50 percent win record, which I think is a miracle given the fact that we usually endorse the underdog, or a woman, or a person who comes from a community of color.” (The win record is closer to 40 percent.)"
You say that my argument relies on explaining losses; you say less on whether my explanation is good. Do you think money or party support isn't that important in local elections? Or rather do you think it's not the case that the progressive typically has less money, or that the party typically endorses someone else? You made an attack and I'm defending, it's not really a powerful continuation to state that my argument is a defense; of course it is.
|
On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 15:13 Womwomwom wrote:
I'm not sure how his approach on North Korea is much better than the previous administration (or any administration really) considering everything points to him either exacerbating the situation or completely folding. There's nothing suggests he's going in with any degree of actual planning or preparation, the US is basically going in with zero expectations or knowledge of what they even want to get out of the situation.
You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen.
I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared?
He said it himself when asked by a reporter at the G7. He said that he didn't need to prepare, that he would wing it. He also said that it would take him a minute to know if he could make a deal with Kim Jong Un.
|
On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 15:13 Womwomwom wrote:
I'm not sure how his approach on North Korea is much better than the previous administration (or any administration really) considering everything points to him either exacerbating the situation or completely folding. There's nothing suggests he's going in with any degree of actual planning or preparation, the US is basically going in with zero expectations or knowledge of what they even want to get out of the situation.
You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen.
I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared?
You can infer planning and preparation from outcomes.
Planning and preparation tend to lead to telegraphing your intent before the event happens. You also have various officials all on point, because the ideas and objectives have been thoroughly discussed before hand.
A lack of planning and preparation leads to rapidly changing narratives and officials contradicting each other.
Remember the Trump administration announcing new sanctions on Russia a few months ago via the UN ambassador?
Oh wait, no.. she was confused... no new sanctions.
Oh wait, no, the guy who said she was confused was confused. No new sanctions but the UN ambassador wasn't informed of a last-minute policy change.
Events like this happen monthly / multiple times a month.
|
1935 Posts
On June 10 2018 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:On June 10 2018 15:13 Womwomwom wrote:
I'm not sure how his approach on North Korea is much better than the previous administration (or any administration really) considering everything points to him either exacerbating the situation or completely folding. There's nothing suggests he's going in with any degree of actual planning or preparation, the US is basically going in with zero expectations or knowledge of what they even want to get out of the situation.
You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen.
I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? You can infer planning and preparation from outcomes. Planning and preparation tend to lead to telegraphing your intent before the event happens. You also have various officials all on point, because the ideas and objectives have been thoroughly discussed before hand. A lack of planning and preparation leads to rapidly changing narratives and officials contradicting each other. Remember the Trump administration announcing new sanctions on Russia a few months ago via the UN ambassador? Oh wait, no.. she was confused... no new sanctions. Oh wait, no, the guy who said she was confused was confused. No new sanctions but the UN ambassador wasn't informed of a last-minute policy change. Events like this happen monthly / multiple times a month.
And noone should be surprised. He is incompetent, and an awful diplomat that somehow got elected because they were afraid of the values of Hillary.
I wonder what happens when the economy gets an inevitable downturn...
|
On June 11 2018 01:00 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2018 23:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 10 2018 17:16 gobbledydook wrote:On June 10 2018 15:13 Womwomwom wrote:
I'm not sure how his approach on North Korea is much better than the previous administration (or any administration really) considering everything points to him either exacerbating the situation or completely folding. There's nothing suggests he's going in with any degree of actual planning or preparation, the US is basically going in with zero expectations or knowledge of what they even want to get out of the situation.
You're not going to get North Korea to actually give up their nuclear weapons so what does the US even hope to get out of this. If you're seriously going to argue that North Korea is going to denuclearise in good faith, you better have a lot of proof because everything they've been doing points to the opposite, even their latest demolition stunt was nothing but a PR smoke screen.
I'm not really arguing that engaging with North Korea is a bad idea but Trump's painted himself into a corner where he has to do this summit if he doesn't want to lose face. I really don't see how his approach is much better than any of the previous administration's efforts. How do you know that there has been no actual planning or preparation? I suppose you have some inside information, or are you just reading the New York Times or some other anti-Trump media conjecturing that Trump is completely unprepared? You can infer planning and preparation from outcomes. Planning and preparation tend to lead to telegraphing your intent before the event happens. You also have various officials all on point, because the ideas and objectives have been thoroughly discussed before hand. A lack of planning and preparation leads to rapidly changing narratives and officials contradicting each other. Remember the Trump administration announcing new sanctions on Russia a few months ago via the UN ambassador? Oh wait, no.. she was confused... no new sanctions. Oh wait, no, the guy who said she was confused was confused. No new sanctions but the UN ambassador wasn't informed of a last-minute policy change. Events like this happen monthly / multiple times a month. And noone should be surprised. He is incompetent, and an awful diplomat that somehow got elected because they were afraid of the values of Hillary. I wonder what happens when the economy gets an inevitable downturn...
Obama, Hillary, and the "obstructionist Democrats in Congress" will continue to be blamed. Nothing new; nothing original.
|
I think we've already seen the writing on the wall. Like I've said before, denuclearizing is off the table so Trumps objective is to officially end the Korean War. He has hyped that idea up and could sell it as a tangible win. He loves bragging about be the only Preaident to do something. It makes perfect sense. Plus, NK probably doesn't care because they dont actually have to change anything.
|
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.html
Trump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit.
Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps."
+ Show Spoiler +
if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star.
|
He will try. It’s not like here is a button that just stops trade with a specific nation.
|
I get the feeling that the problems with the democrats is that it isn't structured around workers and unions in the same way other left-wing parties are. I honestly kind of see it occupying the same role the Liberal Party did in the UK in the 1900s (though not exactly because of different demographics in the US), in that it iswholeheartedly a pro-capitalist party that seeks primarily to protect the interests of capital. A truly left-wing settlement within America doesn't just require Bernie sanders in the White House so much as it requires a left wing party also capable of winning elections to state and federal legislatures. That the Democrats aren't the best vehicle for this is because they weren't constructed around the ideal of a fundamentally socialist economic settlement - as European parties were. I'm not sure whether the deadlock of two party politics within America can be broken without, most likely, a few republican presidents but if it is broken by a new leftist force that force will come from movements such as the $15 minimum wage one and other nascent pro-worker and pro-union movements.
|
i'm pretty sure the USA is the only 1st world country without a labour party.
|
On June 11 2018 03:21 kollin wrote:
I get the feeling that the problems with the democrats is that it isn't structured around workers and unions in the same way other left-wing parties are. I honestly kind of see it occupying the same role the Liberal Party did in the UK in the 1900s (though not exactly because of different demographics in the US), in that it iswholeheartedly a pro-capitalist party that seeks primarily to protect the interests of capital. A truly left-wing settlement within America doesn't just require Bernie sanders in the White House so much as it requires a left wing party also capable of winning elections to state and federal legislatures. That the Democrats aren't the best vehicle for this is because they weren't constructed around the ideal of a fundamentally socialist economic settlement - as European parties were. I'm not sure whether the deadlock of two party politics within America can be broken without, most likely, a few republican presidents but if it is broken by a new leftist force that force will come from movements such as the $15 minimum wage one and other nascent pro-worker and pro-union movements.
With any luck the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs after 2020. The whole "we're not Republicans" can only take you so far.
|
On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star.
Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP!
www.bloomberg.com "Hot U.S. Economic Growth Is Burning Companies That Can't Keep Up"
Our economy is so hot companies can't keep up. JimmyJRaynor, maybe if Trudeau listens to you, Canada can help out?
|
On June 11 2018 03:36 Talula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star. Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP!
Golf caddy driver?
|
United States43902 Posts
On June 11 2018 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 03:21 kollin wrote:
I get the feeling that the problems with the democrats is that it isn't structured around workers and unions in the same way other left-wing parties are. I honestly kind of see it occupying the same role the Liberal Party did in the UK in the 1900s (though not exactly because of different demographics in the US), in that it iswholeheartedly a pro-capitalist party that seeks primarily to protect the interests of capital. A truly left-wing settlement within America doesn't just require Bernie sanders in the White House so much as it requires a left wing party also capable of winning elections to state and federal legislatures. That the Democrats aren't the best vehicle for this is because they weren't constructed around the ideal of a fundamentally socialist economic settlement - as European parties were. I'm not sure whether the deadlock of two party politics within America can be broken without, most likely, a few republican presidents but if it is broken by a new leftist force that force will come from movements such as the $15 minimum wage one and other nascent pro-worker and pro-union movements. With any luck the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs after 2020. The whole "we're not Republicans" can only take you so far.
It's FPTP. Reform the Democratic party, you're not going to replace it. It's not 1900 anymore.
|
On June 11 2018 03:36 Talula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star. Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP!
What's your job? Please explain the causal relationship between Trump and your paycheck's increase.
|
On June 11 2018 03:21 kollin wrote:
I get the feeling that the problems with the democrats is that it isn't structured around workers and unions in the same way other left-wing parties are. I honestly kind of see it occupying the same role the Liberal Party did in the UK in the 1900s (though not exactly because of different demographics in the US), in that it iswholeheartedly a pro-capitalist party that seeks primarily to protect the interests of capital. A truly left-wing settlement within America doesn't just require Bernie sanders in the White House so much as it requires a left wing party also capable of winning elections to state and federal legislatures. That the Democrats aren't the best vehicle for this is because they weren't constructed around the ideal of a fundamentally socialist economic settlement - as European parties were. I'm not sure whether the deadlock of two party politics within America can be broken without, most likely, a few republican presidents but if it is broken by a new leftist force that force will come from movements such as the $15 minimum wage one and other nascent pro-worker and pro-union movements.
The Democrats used to be the party of organized labor and working class families. They increasingly abandoned that position since I think around the mid 1980s, moving right on economic issues and passively letting Republicans demonize and hamper unions.
|
On June 11 2018 03:36 Talula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star. Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP! Yes, that wonderful tax cut.
So long as you also remember that it was the Republicans when your pay check is lower then it was before Trump when the tax cut expires and turns into a tax increase to fund the corperate/rich tax cut that won't expire.
They are giving 10 bucks now, knowing they will take 100 later when you have forgotten that it was them who did it.
|
On June 11 2018 03:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 03:36 Talula wrote:On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star. Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP! What's your job? Please explain the causal relationship between Trump and your paycheck's increase.
He's probably fact-checker
|
On June 11 2018 03:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 03:36 Talula wrote:On June 11 2018 02:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/09/as-he-takes-parting-shots-at-us-allies-trump-cuts-out-early-from-the-g7-summit.htmlTrump will probably make good on part of his threats. He probably will cut trade ties with at least a small # of countries. If anything just to scare his other trading partners. Canada should attempt to fill the void created by Trump/USA's new isolationist mentality and increase the amount of trading they do with the USA. As next door neighbours its a natural fit. Canadians need to realize their standard of living is contingent upon Americans buying everything they produce. Their Canadian "pride" needs to go. As Marcellus Wallace said in Pulp Fiction: "Fuck Pride. Pride only hurts. It never helps." + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruhFmBrl4GM if Trudeau can negotiate with this perspective in mind he can create a deal that is good for the average canadian worker and "win" the deal. He may have to absorb a few personal insults along the way. Oh well. Welcome to negotiating a trade deal with a reality TV star. Trudeau would be wise to listen to you and Marcellus Wallace. Trump may not be the most "politically correct" President we've had, but our economy is booming and my pay check increased this year because of TRUMP! What's your job? Please explain the causal relationship between Trump and your paycheck's increase.
I am a civil servant that gets paid every 2 weeks. The tax cuts Trump introduced became effective in January of this year. My paycheck increased roughly $100 as a direct result. I did nothing different, no raise, no insurance payment reductions, nothing and I'm seeing $100 more each paycheck. Also, I'm a she, not a he 
|
On June 11 2018 03:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2018 03:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2018 03:21 kollin wrote:
I get the feeling that the problems with the democrats is that it isn't structured around workers and unions in the same way other left-wing parties are. I honestly kind of see it occupying the same role the Liberal Party did in the UK in the 1900s (though not exactly because of different demographics in the US), in that it iswholeheartedly a pro-capitalist party that seeks primarily to protect the interests of capital. A truly left-wing settlement within America doesn't just require Bernie sanders in the White House so much as it requires a left wing party also capable of winning elections to state and federal legislatures. That the Democrats aren't the best vehicle for this is because they weren't constructed around the ideal of a fundamentally socialist economic settlement - as European parties were. I'm not sure whether the deadlock of two party politics within America can be broken without, most likely, a few republican presidents but if it is broken by a new leftist force that force will come from movements such as the $15 minimum wage one and other nascent pro-worker and pro-union movements. With any luck the Democrats will go the way of the Whigs after 2020. The whole "we're not Republicans" can only take you so far. It's FPTP. Reform the Democratic party, you're not going to replace it. It's not 1900 anymore.
Pretty sure failing to beat Trump again would be enough to make the party defunct. They don't want to reform. They are making it completely clear they would rather lose to Trump than move left.
Might as well add reforming the Democratic party to the list with reforming police departments for things that people talk about but will never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
