|
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 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first:
If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch.
Where oh where could we find them?
|
On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them?
You are so predictable it is boring. If only there was a candidate that didn’t lose to the candidate that lost to Trump.
|
On June 13 2018 10:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them? You are so predictable it is boring. If only there was a candidate that didn’t lose to the candidate that lost to Trump.
It's hard with both of the parties running against you. But clearly more people have realized they backed the wrong agenda. It's not like he's not the most (or at least one of, I haven't looked recently) popular active politician in the country or anything.
|
On June 13 2018 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:15 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them? You are so predictable it is boring. If only there was a candidate that didn’t lose to the candidate that lost to Trump. It's hard with both of the parties running against you. But clearly more people have realized they backed the wrong agenda. It's not like he's not the most (or at least one of, I haven't looked recently) popular active politician in the country or anything.
Clinton made a lot of excuses for losing to Trump too, but at the end of the day she still lost.
|
On June 13 2018 10:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:15 Plansix wrote:On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them? You are so predictable it is boring. If only there was a candidate that didn’t lose to the candidate that lost to Trump. It's hard with both of the parties running against you. But clearly more people have realized they backed the wrong agenda. It's not like he's not the most (or at least one of, I haven't looked recently) popular active politician in the country or anything. Clinton made a lot of excuses for losing to Trump too, but at the end of the day she still lost.
I can't argue that he didn't lose, I can argue it was a sham, which the DNC openly admitted in court where they said they could pick whatever nominee they want however they want. But to your point, he's who you're describing and literally the best polling politician to go up against Trump.
If you think Bernie would lose in 2020, you must have no hope for the alternatives.
|
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it.
|
|
|
On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it.
It's really not. Obama is already meeting with prospective candidates. They've started running around talking up donors and we're less than a year from the first campaign announcements. The DNC is moving to refuse to nominate Bernie regardless of the votes, and have been fighting tooth and nail damn near every slight step toward the reforms you say we need.
Bernie as person isn't important. What's important is that the DNC is actively fighting the reform you want to see and Bernie's platform is the only one that not only addresses those reforms, but is also more popular than Democrats (they are the least popular), Republicans, or Trump (who's the top of those three).
The sooner rank and file Democrats realize their leadership is the biggest opposition to the reforms they seek the sooner we can actually stop Trump and get people the help they need.
|
You see, I don’t see that as a problem. Bernies platform sounds nice and a big part of the progressive agenda. But I pause when so many people in a political part are opposed to him. Even Obama. I questions what is going on there? Is it that they are opposed to his agenda? Or is it something else? Is he a toxic asshole with poor management skills that surrounds himself with like minded assholes he doesn’t control? Is he more interested in grinding an ax than accomplishing things? Because there are all things I’ve read and heard from people who are not big defenders of the democrats.
Also I live near his state and know people from Vermont who are very aware of his short comings. I’ve never been impressed with him. And none of this supporters have changed that opinion.
|
United States43219 Posts
On June 13 2018 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it. It's really not
Depends whose lifetime really. It could plausibly be your favoured candidates lifetime away.
|
On June 13 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You see, I don’t see that as a problem. Bernies platform sounds nice and a big part of the progressive agenda. But I pause when so many people in a political part are opposed to him. Even Obama. I questions what is going on there? Is it that they are opposed to his agenda? Or is it something else? Is he a toxic asshole with poor management skills that surrounds himself with like minded assholes he doesn’t control? Is he more interested in grinding an ax than accomplishing things? Because there are all things I’ve read and heard from people who are not big defenders of the democrats.
Also I live near his state and know people from Vermont who are very aware of his short comings. I’ve never been impressed with him. And none of this supporters have changed that opinion.
lol "even Obama".
Of course they are opposed to his agenda. He's not perfect either, he's abrasive and isn't one for rubbing elbows with donors. He's got some blind spots for us on the left, but it's his opposition to center-right economic policy, which has gained popularity in the Democratic party and is the foundation of their funding network, that upsets them the most.
He's got some management issues as well but pointing to how far it is from 2020 isn't going to hold for long on who the viable alternative is. Every sign from Democrats show they have no interest in putting one forward.
On June 13 2018 10:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it. It's really not Depends whose lifetime really. It could plausibly be your favoured candidates lifetime away.
heh, If I was a betting man I'd put it on Trump going before Bernie. Of the 'oldies' I'd say Warren has the longest expiration date.
|
On June 13 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You see, I don’t see that as a problem. Bernies platform sounds nice and a big part of the progressive agenda. But I pause when so many people in a political part are opposed to him. Even Obama. I questions what is going on there? Is it that they are opposed to his agenda? Or is it something else? Is he a toxic asshole with poor management skills that surrounds himself with like minded assholes he doesn’t control? Is he more interested in grinding an ax than accomplishing things? Because there are all things I’ve read and heard from people who are not big defenders of the democrats.
Also I live near his state and know people from Vermont who are very aware of his short comings. I’ve never been impressed with him. And none of this supporters have changed that opinion. lol "even Obama". Of course they are opposed to his agenda. He's not perfect either, he's abrasive and isn't one for rubbing elbows with donors. He's got some blind spots for us on the left, but it's his opposition to center-right economic policy, which has gained popularity in the Democratic party and is the foundation of their funding network, that upsets them the most. He's got some management issues as well but pointing to how far it is from 2020 isn't going to hold for long on who the viable alternative is. Every sign from Democrats show they have no interest in putting one forward. Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2018 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it. It's really not Depends whose lifetime really. It could plausibly be your favoured candidates lifetime away. heh, If I was a betting man I'd put it on Trump going before Bernie. Of the 'oldies' I'd say Warren has the longest expiration date.
How has nobody else figured out (in the USA) that no matter which party is in question, corporate donations are the driving force of policy?
There is no "let's try again next election and hope things are better." Rich people are going to get richer regardless of who holds congress, SCOTUS, or any other branch of government. This has to change if our country has a chance of getting better.
|
On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them?
I think you would need a lot more then just 1 for true reform.
|
On June 13 2018 13:30 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:03 Plansix wrote:
At some point congress will need to handle this shit. But it is going to need to be an entire political platform. An entire presidential run on “we are breaking up these companies that are way to big”. But campaign finance will need to happen first: If only there was a candidate that could raise money outside of traditional networks and had an agenda of leveling the playing field by taking big businesses corrupting influence and exploitative conglomerates down a notch. Where oh where could we find them? I think you would need a lot more then just 1 for true reform.
That's why people were supposed to get behind those candidates instead caping for candidates like Manchin or the party in general.
As was pointed out before a pretty good portion did get behind candidates that actually want to do those things despite the party's best efforts to stop them. It's unlikely to come all at once, but becomes more likely every time the Democratic leaders demonstrate they are the opposition to the reforms people want.
|
On June 13 2018 05:54 On_Slaught wrote:Federal judge approves At&t Time Warner merger against Trumps wishes. I suppose the DOJ will appeal. I expect him to tweet soon. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1006638979989590016
This is one of the only (if not the only) issue I agree with Trump on. Super mergers like this essentially creates monopolies, and should not be allowed to happen.
|
On June 13 2018 16:09 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 05:54 On_Slaught wrote:Federal judge approves At&t Time Warner merger against Trumps wishes. I suppose the DOJ will appeal. I expect him to tweet soon. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1006638979989590016 This is one of the only (if not the only) issue I agree with Trump on. Super mergers like this essentially creates monopolies, and should not be allowed to happen.
Trump doesn't have a stance on the issue of media monopolies. He's driven by his bias around CNN and Fox. This is why he was congratulatory about one merger and wanted to fight the other.
|
On June 13 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You see, I don’t see that as a problem. Bernies platform sounds nice and a big part of the progressive agenda. But I pause when so many people in a political part are opposed to him. Even Obama. I questions what is going on there? Is it that they are opposed to his agenda? Or is it something else? Is he a toxic asshole with poor management skills that surrounds himself with like minded assholes he doesn’t control? Is he more interested in grinding an ax than accomplishing things? Because there are all things I’ve read and heard from people who are not big defenders of the democrats.
Also I live near his state and know people from Vermont who are very aware of his short comings. I’ve never been impressed with him. And none of this supporters have changed that opinion. lol "even Obama". Of course they are opposed to his agenda. He's not perfect either, he's abrasive and isn't one for rubbing elbows with donors. He's got some blind spots for us on the left, but it's his opposition to center-right economic policy, which has gained popularity in the Democratic party and is the foundation of their funding network, that upsets them the most. He's got some management issues as well but pointing to how far it is from 2020 isn't going to hold for long on who the viable alternative is. Every sign from Democrats show they have no interest in putting one forward. Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2018 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it. It's really not Depends whose lifetime really. It could plausibly be your favoured candidates lifetime away. heh, If I was a betting man I'd put it on Trump going before Bernie. Of the 'oldies' I'd say Warren has the longest expiration date.
Out of curiousity, GH, have you paid much attention to Jeremy Corbyn across the pond?
He's kind of our version of Bernie Sanders. Popular with the same voters (younger-leaning and strong left), pushes the sort of policies you'd expect from someone there, and viciously resisted by the establishment. With the exception that our establishment can't actually stop him (the leader of our parties is directly voted on by the members, and who wins gets it; JC annihilated his opposition the last time, despite a sustained campaign of character assassination against him by the Labour Party and most of the media).
But he might also be a sign of problems Bernie could have if he actually won. Corbyn's a half-decent speaker (Bernie's definitely better there), but he has his own weird charisma, attached to dreadful ability to choose people or to keep a party organised and in line.
Unfortunately, those last two qualities make him almost unelectable outside the Labour Party.
I'm not sure a chaotic left-wing American administration would be much better than a chaotic right wing American administration. You want the guys in charge to be able to keep the government running like clockwork, one way or the other. If Sanders got in but ended up fighting his own guys all the time... well, you seem to hate Obama, and I'm not sure Sanders would get much more done if he wound up in a similar position.
|
On June 13 2018 17:34 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2018 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:45 Plansix wrote:
You see, I don’t see that as a problem. Bernies platform sounds nice and a big part of the progressive agenda. But I pause when so many people in a political part are opposed to him. Even Obama. I questions what is going on there? Is it that they are opposed to his agenda? Or is it something else? Is he a toxic asshole with poor management skills that surrounds himself with like minded assholes he doesn’t control? Is he more interested in grinding an ax than accomplishing things? Because there are all things I’ve read and heard from people who are not big defenders of the democrats.
Also I live near his state and know people from Vermont who are very aware of his short comings. I’ve never been impressed with him. And none of this supporters have changed that opinion. lol "even Obama". Of course they are opposed to his agenda. He's not perfect either, he's abrasive and isn't one for rubbing elbows with donors. He's got some blind spots for us on the left, but it's his opposition to center-right economic policy, which has gained popularity in the Democratic party and is the foundation of their funding network, that upsets them the most. He's got some management issues as well but pointing to how far it is from 2020 isn't going to hold for long on who the viable alternative is. Every sign from Democrats show they have no interest in putting one forward. On June 13 2018 10:56 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2018 10:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 13 2018 10:27 Plansix wrote:
2020 is a life time away. And I’m sure we will be hearing about how Bernie is our only hope for all of it. It's really not Depends whose lifetime really. It could plausibly be your favoured candidates lifetime away. heh, If I was a betting man I'd put it on Trump going before Bernie. Of the 'oldies' I'd say Warren has the longest expiration date. Out of curiousity, GH, have you paid much attention to Jeremy Corbyn across the pond? He's kind of our version of Bernie Sanders. Popular with the same voters (younger-leaning and strong left), pushes the sort of policies you'd expect from someone there, and viciously resisted by the establishment. But he might also be a sign of problems Bernie could have if he actually won. Corbyn's a half-decent speaker (Bernie's definitely better there), but he has his own weird charisma, attached to dreadful ability to choose people or to keep a party organised and in line. I'm not sure a chaotic left-wing administration would be much better than a chaotic right wing administration. You want the guys in charge to be able to keep the government running like clockwork, one way or the other.
I like Corbyn more or less. From my perspective it's not even close, obviously Sanders administration would be magnitudes better than a Trump presidency in countless ways. Even if he wasn't that good at managing. Something like half the positions he's supposed to fill are empty and most people don't notice a lick of difference as a result in their lives.
The things people notice are the things he's actually able get done (often with Democratic support) not the fact that tons of agencies don't have heads or important positions filled. Several of them are being run by people who think they shouldn't exist, and the only things they've actually passed through congress have sub 50% approvals.
So no, I don't think a 'chaotic left-wing' administration ala Bernie would be remotely comparable to what Trump has given us. Not to mention the establishment would be resisting positive change not a tyrannical man-child (which they are failing at btw).
|
Well, the cogs of a well oiled engine will continue to spin even in the absence of maintenance... for a while. But I'm sure you'll eventually run into multiple problems that come from having entire departments understaffed and their work backlogged. Claiming life goes on without the government is an argument I'd expect Danglars or wegandi to make, not you. You appear to like things like the EPA, FDA Medicare/Medicaid, the IRS, or the department of housing to function and do their job. Something they can't do when understaffed (even if they are not necessarily underfunded).
The executive branch's primary job is to keep all those various parts of the government working. And it is possibly the part of governing that Trump is failing most at, possibly even willfully with deVos, Pruitt and Carson in charge of some of them.
And you can say that Sanders will be better than that and I'll believe you, because it's hard to do worse. But that wasn't really the question. If Sanders is a bad manager, can he do well enough to reverse (some of) the harm done here? Because Trump also promised to havw the best people and drain the swamp, but instead just added crocodiles to the flourishing swamp.
|
On June 13 2018 02:34 Plansix wrote:
Sounds like the folks who bet on teh collapse of the subprime market. A way to make money, but also profiting from the suffering of others.
Them were good people. We needed more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
