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.
It was mostly due to poor economic policy. There entire government was funded by selling oil. When the oil price dropped by half, they had half the budget for their government. But they never changed spending levels. And it has only snowballed since then.
On June 30 2018 02:31 On_Slaught wrote: I am far from being on xDaunts side, but lets not ignore what is obviously an EU crisis. Migration is literally the number one issue being discussed at the EU summit this week, even overriding Brexit. Entire political parties have risen and fallen in recent years on the back of the migrant crisis. There are countless stories about the impacts of immigration on a micro and macro level across Europe. It is a major issue which is far from being fixed.
Recognizing that there is a problem does not necessarily mean one denounces migrants. It just means there is a problem.
It's not as if the west has anything to do with the conflicts the people are fleeing from right? That's the problem. That the people are painted as the problem rather than the western nations, systems, and circumstances that got them there.
Recognizing that a problem exists is not mutually exclusive with assigning responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there as it needs to be done here. The specifics is where the fight should be, not whether there is a problem. Especially when the problem is so self evident.
Worth noting that addressing border and integration issues is only half the equation. Definitely needs to be time spent considering how to diminish peoples need to flee their homelands.
That is a hard nut to crack, especially when it is due to violence in their country. We would need to send a peace keeping force down there and then we have a peace keeping force in a violent country. A refugee crisis can only really be managed, not stopped. One thing that would help is to find an effective way to slap down politicians that run on promising to stop the refugees from coming to the country.
I agree this half is much harder. One step, though, is to not make things worse by destabilizing regions. Cant unring the bell but we can minimize this going forward.
@others, that some people take a problem and use it to stir fear is demagogue/populist 101. That should be countered where possible. Our reaction shouldn't be to ignore the problem outright simply because the other side is blowing it out of proportion, though. That's all I'm trying to make clear.
Arms blockages where an idea thrown around for a while. That the surrounding nations and others would starve the conflict by preventing arms and ammo from being supplied. That the conflict would starve itself out, while the outside world provided aid.
On June 30 2018 02:31 On_Slaught wrote: I am far from being on xDaunts side, but lets not ignore what is obviously an EU crisis. Migration is literally the number one issue being discussed at the EU summit this week, even overriding Brexit. Entire political parties have risen and fallen in recent years on the back of the migrant crisis. There are countless stories about the impacts of immigration on a micro and macro level across Europe. It is a major issue which is far from being fixed.
Recognizing that there is a problem does not necessarily mean one denounces migrants. It just means there is a problem.
It's not as if the west has anything to do with the conflicts the people are fleeing from right? That's the problem. That the people are painted as the problem rather than the western nations, systems, and circumstances that got them there.
Recognizing that a problem exists is not mutually exclusive with assigning responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there as it needs to be done here. The specifics is where the fight should be, not whether there is a problem. Especially when the problem is so self evident.
Worth noting that addressing border and integration issues is only half the equation. Definitely needs to be time spent considering how to diminish peoples need to flee their homelands.
That is a hard nut to crack, especially when it is due to violence in their country. We would need to send a peace keeping force down there and then we have a peace keeping force in a violent country. A refugee crisis can only really be managed, not stopped. One thing that would help is to find an effective way to slap down politicians that run on promising to stop the refugees from coming to the country.
I agree this half is much harder. One step, though, is to not make things worse by destabilizing regions. Cant unring the bell but we can minimize this going forward.
@others, that some people take a problem and use it to stir fear is demagogue/populist 101. That should be countered where possible. Our reaction shouldn't be to ignore the problem outright simply because the other side is blowing it out of proportion, though. That's all I'm trying to make clear.
I agree with this to an extent. The problem that I have with it is that for every 10 issues that the right wing bring up to do with immigrants, maybe 1 is valid. its just nonsense about taking our jobs and healthcare, nonsense about claiming benefits and housing, and then the occasional valid point about how the demographic make up of small towns is changing radically and segregating leading to local tension. When its all blown out of proportion to the incredible extent that it is, and using outright lies, not just mildly deceptive talking points, it becomes impossible to engage the argument on that level.
Put another way, there's no crisis, except that which the right wing has created using lies. There are small local issues that need to be looked at but there's no way you can call it a crisis. Its similar to the 'anti-semitism crisis' that hit the Labour party in the UK where there were about 5 cases of antisemitism but the media called it a crisis to get their job done. A crisis is where everything is going to turn to shit if you don't immediately solve the problem. I don't see that with immigrants in the EU right now.
On June 30 2018 02:55 Velr wrote: Romanticising Chavez is stupid. His general idea wasn't bad because by overtaking all the oil industry "hard" he lost all the knowledge to get the actual Oil... It was a matter of time until shit goes down the drain. Not because of the general policy but because of the utter disregatd for anything positive capitalist exploitation brought (knowledge).
Not romanticizing, just not swalling western propaganda whole without thinking. But Bernie is too radically left for most people here so I don't think I'm going to be changing any minds about Chavez. Or the insanely debilitating actions taken by global capitalist to smite them for their resistance.
I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of intentionally destabilizing or just outright assassinating leaders like that. Crippling sanctions, sponsoring terrorism, and merging Maduro and Chavez into a single person goes a long way to paint a different picture when people focus on the propaganda and not the real love millions of people still have for Chavez.
I mean do people think the US suddenly stopped trying to assassinate and overthrow socialist governments at some time?
On June 29 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway.
Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps).
Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border.
What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right?
What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores.
Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
Didn't Chavez completely turn Venezuala around and make it an incredibly successful country during almost his entire tenure? I mean... that's why he became famous, wasn't it? Because he made socialism work for a bit?
Found this from a basic article about Maduro, discussing his predecessor: "Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate halved, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined"
Doesn't sound like 'murdering his country' to me.
If your argument is going to be about short-sighted, short term economic policy that wasn't sustainable... well... I'm not sure that's the path to take, given that's all the US has done recently.
My boss is from Venezuala, he came because of the violence, corruption and he will never go go back even to visit. I think you can reasonably say leadership there has done a terrible job and the country is in a much worse state then it was before them. They also slowly changed a democracy into a dictatorship.
Anything about Trump is this line is impossible to know because he hasn't been around long enough. The comparison is not a good one.
The secondhand story of someone (probably from a class of people socialism doesn't favor) weighed against the significant improvements in the quality of life for millions doesn't add up to much.
It is more then a secondhand story. It is reality, all classes are suffering. Venezuela is having huge issues, violence is insane, economy is crumbling. There once solid heath care system is barely functional.
If you are going to use a country as an example 2018 Venezuela is not the one I would pick. I'm surprised you would talk about it the way you have without some basic knowledge.
"Hyperinflation in Nicolas Maduro’s socialist paradise is now running at 43,378 percent. It takes a full fifth of a minimum-wage worker’s monthly salary just to buy a cup of coffee in a cafe, Bloomberg reports.
And it’s getting worse: If inflation continues as it has during the last three months, the rate would hit 482,153 percent. That’s a fast track to economic Armageddon"
Of course western capitalist propaganda is going to tell you it's terrible and totally unrelated to their opposition to US domination.
On June 30 2018 02:53 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:44 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:31 On_Slaught wrote: I am far from being on xDaunts side, but lets not ignore what is obviously an EU crisis. Migration is literally the number one issue being discussed at the EU summit this week, even overriding Brexit. Entire political parties have risen and fallen in recent years on the back of the migrant crisis. There are countless stories about the impacts of immigration on a micro and macro level across Europe. It is a major issue which is far from being fixed.
Recognizing that there is a problem does not necessarily mean one denounces migrants. It just means there is a problem.
It's not as if the west has anything to do with the conflicts the people are fleeing from right? That's the problem. That the people are painted as the problem rather than the western nations, systems, and circumstances that got them there.
Recognizing that a problem exists is not mutually exclusive with assigning responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there as it needs to be done here. The specifics is where the fight should be, not whether there is a problem. Especially when the problem is so self evident.
Worth noting that addressing border and integration issues is only half the equation. Definitely needs to be time spent considering how to diminish peoples need to flee their homelands.
That is a hard nut to crack, especially when it is due to violence in their country. We would need to send a peace keeping force down there and then we have a peace keeping force in a violent country. A refugee crisis can only really be managed, not stopped. One thing that would help is to find an effective way to slap down politicians that run on promising to stop the refugees from coming to the country.
I agree this half is much harder. One step, though, is to not make things worse by destabilizing regions. Cant unring the bell but we can minimize this going forward.
@others, that some people take a problem and use it to stir fear is demagogue/populist 101. That should be countered where possible. Our reaction shouldn't be to ignore the problem outright simply because the other side is blowing it out of proportion, though. That's all I'm trying to make clear.
My point was that it's dangerous when it's a small minority of people who even recognize what the problems are, while the majority is easily manipulated into believing it's the victims faults.
Except it is not capitalistic propaganda. I know at least 20 people from their and they all say the same things. We have a lot of refugee's from their in my cities. These are not the upper class mad that the wealth was spread out or what ever bullshit you believe.
You know nothing about it and are the one spreading propaganda.
The elite their are doing great, as long as they support the government. They are doing as well or better then our elite. That country is running about as well as East Gemany pre the wall coming down, or mother Russia nearing the end of the cold war.
I honestly can't tell if you are trolling on purpose or completely ignorant.
You seem to be talking about Maduro and taking no consideration for the economic or global conditions. So I don't see how we can continue.
On June 30 2018 02:55 Velr wrote: Romanticising Chavez is stupid. His general idea wasn't bad because by overtaking all the oil industry "hard" he lost all the knowledge to get the actual Oil... It was a matter of time until shit goes down the drain. Not because of the general policy but because of the utter disregatd for anything positive capitalist exploitation brought (knowledge).
Not romanticizing, just not swalling western propaganda whole without thinking. But Bernie is too radically left for most people here so I don't think I'm going to be changing any minds about Chavez. Or the insanely debilitating actions taken by global capitalist to smite them for their resistance.
I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of intentionally destabilizing or just outright assassinating leaders like that. Crippling sanctions, sponsoring terrorism, and merging Maduro and Chavez into a single person goes a long way to paint a different picture when people focus on the propaganda and not the real love millions of people still have for Chavez.
I mean millions loved Stallin too, in fact over 100 people died at his funeral trying to get close to the casket. Perhaps we should talk about what a great leader and person he was for a while.
We could, but we'd be pretty far afield from US politics until Marxism is really inside the US Overton window.
On June 30 2018 02:55 Velr wrote: Romanticising Chavez is stupid. His general idea wasn't bad because by overtaking all the oil industry "hard" he lost all the knowledge to get the actual Oil... It was a matter of time until shit goes down the drain. Not because of the general policy but because of the utter disregatd for anything positive capitalist exploitation brought (knowledge).
Not romanticizing, just not swalling western propaganda whole without thinking. But Bernie is too radically left for most people here so I don't think I'm going to be changing any minds about Chavez. Or the insanely debilitating actions taken by global capitalist to smite them for their resistance.
I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of intentionally destabilizing or just outright assassinating leaders like that. Crippling sanctions, sponsoring terrorism, and merging Maduro and Chavez into a single person goes a long way to paint a different picture when people focus on the propaganda and not the real love millions of people still have for Chavez.
The problem with Chavez (in my eyes) isn't the socialism but the totalitarian violence. You should never accept that just because of a similar economic ideology. Maybe its lies - I'm open to the possibility - but I've only seen evidence of the violence, never any evidence of happy poor people.
No one is probably going to want to watch it since it's so long but it's shorter if you watch it 2x speed
You don't have to believe it all without looking into it yourself, but if you want to learn more, or consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject like Jimmi I advise you check it out.
Needless to say western media, even "left"media is either uninformed, misinformed, or both and they spread it like wildfire.
On June 30 2018 02:55 Velr wrote: Romanticising Chavez is stupid. His general idea wasn't bad because by overtaking all the oil industry "hard" he lost all the knowledge to get the actual Oil... It was a matter of time until shit goes down the drain. Not because of the general policy but because of the utter disregatd for anything positive capitalist exploitation brought (knowledge).
Not romanticizing, just not swalling western propaganda whole without thinking. But Bernie is too radically left for most people here so I don't think I'm going to be changing any minds about Chavez. Or the insanely debilitating actions taken by global capitalist to smite them for their resistance.
I mean it's not like we don't have a long history of intentionally destabilizing or just outright assassinating leaders like that. Crippling sanctions, sponsoring terrorism, and merging Maduro and Chavez into a single person goes a long way to paint a different picture when people focus on the propaganda and not the real love millions of people still have for Chavez.
The problem with Chavez (in my eyes) isn't the socialism but the totalitarian violence. You should never accept that just because of a similar economic ideology. Maybe its lies - I'm open to the possibility - but I've only seen evidence of the violence, never any evidence of happy poor people.
No one is probably going to want to watch it since it's so long but it's shorter if you watch it 2x speed
You don't have to believe it all without looking into it yourself, but if you want to learn more, or consider yourself knowledgeable on the subject like Jimmi I advise you check it out.
Needless to say western media, even "left"media is either uninformed, misinformed, or both and they spread it like wildfire.
I edited before you replied I honestly know shit all about politics in that area so I should never have commented in the first place. I was just kind of on a roll. haha.
On June 30 2018 00:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote: [quote] What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right?
What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores.
Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
Didn't Chavez completely turn Venezuala around and make it an incredibly successful country during almost his entire tenure? I mean... that's why he became famous, wasn't it? Because he made socialism work for a bit?
Found this from a basic article about Maduro, discussing his predecessor: "Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate halved, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined"
Doesn't sound like 'murdering his country' to me.
If your argument is going to be about short-sighted, short term economic policy that wasn't sustainable... well... I'm not sure that's the path to take, given that's all the US has done recently.
My boss is from Venezuala, he came because of the violence, corruption and he will never go go back even to visit. I think you can reasonably say leadership there has done a terrible job and the country is in a much worse state then it was before them. They also slowly changed a democracy into a dictatorship.
Anything about Trump is this line is impossible to know because he hasn't been around long enough. The comparison is not a good one.
The secondhand story of someone (probably from a class of people socialism doesn't favor) weighed against the significant improvements in the quality of life for millions doesn't add up to much.
It is more then a secondhand story. It is reality, all classes are suffering. Venezuela is having huge issues, violence is insane, economy is crumbling. There once solid heath care system is barely functional.
If you are going to use a country as an example 2018 Venezuela is not the one I would pick. I'm surprised you would talk about it the way you have without some basic knowledge.
"Hyperinflation in Nicolas Maduro’s socialist paradise is now running at 43,378 percent. It takes a full fifth of a minimum-wage worker’s monthly salary just to buy a cup of coffee in a cafe, Bloomberg reports.
And it’s getting worse: If inflation continues as it has during the last three months, the rate would hit 482,153 percent. That’s a fast track to economic Armageddon"
Of course western capitalist propaganda is going to tell you it's terrible and totally unrelated to their opposition to US domination.
On June 30 2018 02:53 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:48 Plansix wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:44 On_Slaught wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:39 GreenHorizons wrote:
On June 30 2018 02:31 On_Slaught wrote: I am far from being on xDaunts side, but lets not ignore what is obviously an EU crisis. Migration is literally the number one issue being discussed at the EU summit this week, even overriding Brexit. Entire political parties have risen and fallen in recent years on the back of the migrant crisis. There are countless stories about the impacts of immigration on a micro and macro level across Europe. It is a major issue which is far from being fixed.
Recognizing that there is a problem does not necessarily mean one denounces migrants. It just means there is a problem.
It's not as if the west has anything to do with the conflicts the people are fleeing from right? That's the problem. That the people are painted as the problem rather than the western nations, systems, and circumstances that got them there.
Recognizing that a problem exists is not mutually exclusive with assigning responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there as it needs to be done here. The specifics is where the fight should be, not whether there is a problem. Especially when the problem is so self evident.
Worth noting that addressing border and integration issues is only half the equation. Definitely needs to be time spent considering how to diminish peoples need to flee their homelands.
That is a hard nut to crack, especially when it is due to violence in their country. We would need to send a peace keeping force down there and then we have a peace keeping force in a violent country. A refugee crisis can only really be managed, not stopped. One thing that would help is to find an effective way to slap down politicians that run on promising to stop the refugees from coming to the country.
I agree this half is much harder. One step, though, is to not make things worse by destabilizing regions. Cant unring the bell but we can minimize this going forward.
@others, that some people take a problem and use it to stir fear is demagogue/populist 101. That should be countered where possible. Our reaction shouldn't be to ignore the problem outright simply because the other side is blowing it out of proportion, though. That's all I'm trying to make clear.
My point was that it's dangerous when it's a small minority of people who even recognize what the problems are, while the majority is easily manipulated into believing it's the victims faults.
Except it is not capitalistic propaganda. I know at least 20 people from their and they all say the same things. We have a lot of refugee's from their in my cities. These are not the upper class mad that the wealth was spread out or what ever bullshit you believe.
You know nothing about it and are the one spreading propaganda.
The elite their are doing great, as long as they support the government. They are doing as well or better then our elite. That country is running about as well as East Gemany pre the wall coming down, or mother Russia nearing the end of the cold war.
I honestly can't tell if you are trolling on purpose or completely ignorant.
You seem to be talking about Maduro and taking no consideration for the economic or global conditions. So I don't see how we can continue.
You are using quotes from one dictator on the performance of his predecessor to make your argument. Then now you are dismissing the actions of the person who's quote you are trusting. Perhaps it is time to do some basic research on your own.
You :"found this from a basic article about Maduro, discussing his predecessor: "Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate halved, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined" "
Yes while oil was super high there was some trickle down to the poor. There is no way of saying that wouldn't be true with a different form of government. What is clear is that without that cash cow it is failing miserably and the poor are the ones suffering not the rich. Way to be socialists!
If it's true that the poor are suffering and not the rich, and that the rich aren't rich people who with the support of the US prevented the nationalization/appropriation to the people of their resources and instead are allies of the Maduro, and the current economic decisions are the fault of a dead man then it's not socialism that's the culprit.
The argument people are making isn't even against socialism (as an economic system), it's the belief that it's impossible to have better checks and balances on corrupt humans in a socialist system than a capitalist one. I think Trump's fucking that illusion up for everyone.
I feel like I am caught between two competing efforts of propaganda on this issue and withhold all judgment due to that. Maybe I’ll find some old NPR stories about the country and see what I can figure out.
On June 29 2018 22:28 xDaunt wrote: Let’s just presume that we abolish ICE. What next? What do we put in its place, if anything?
Go back to not having it. Immigration isn't a big problem. If anything we have a refugee issue at the border. ICE doesn't really do much for that in the first place. The little it does can be put back under control of the Customs and Border Protection. It a wasteful and redundant organization you should probably be in favor of abolishing anyway.
Of course I would go further, but it would be no big deal at all if they ceased existing tomorrow (other than people lost in their system perhaps).
Refugees are a problem. Illegal immigration is a problem. And if Obrador becomes the next Chavez, we are going to be fucked if we don’t lock down the southern border.
What is the data that shows we have a problem? Everything I've seen is that migration comes in waves throughout US history. The from South America wave looks done - most new immigrants are from Asia now, right?
What, are you not paying to attention to the mess over in Europe? Yeah, the Europeans are clearly having a great time with the massive influx of refugees and migrants arriving at their shores.
Also, Trump is clearly the 'next Chavez'.
I expect better than this from you. Chavez murdered his country and Maduro is putting the final nails in the coffin. Comparing Trump to Chavez is simply retarded.
Didn't Chavez completely turn Venezuala around and make it an incredibly successful country during almost his entire tenure? I mean... that's why he became famous, wasn't it? Because he made socialism work for a bit?
Found this from a basic article about Maduro, discussing his predecessor: "Under his rule, Venezuela’s unemployment rate halved, income per capita more than doubled, the poverty rate fell by more than half, education improved, and infant mortality rates declined"
Doesn't sound like 'murdering his country' to me.
If your argument is going to be about short-sighted, short term economic policy that wasn't sustainable... well... I'm not sure that's the path to take, given that's all the US has done recently.
iirc, no he didn't. but it's been awhile since I looked. so I may be wrong. my limited understanding: venezuela was already doing ok. mostly what he did was a large amount of unsustainable social welfare programs, funded by high oil prices; and a bunch of nationalizations that ruined the sustainability of the economy (because they didn't keep investing in the maintenance of those places, they were using the funds, sans proper upkeep, to support the spending programs, and they replaced people who knew how to actually do the work of running places with unqualified loyalists). he also heavily damaged the limited amount of democracy they had. the current massive problems in venezuela are a direct extension and direct result of what chavez did.
Everything I learned about South American politics came from this heavily left wing movie: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy Its definitely worth a watch. GH especially I would recommend you watch it, Pilger's journalism is kind of legendary in leftwing circles in the UK.
In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action." —Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August.
Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back).
It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely.
But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this.
You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality?
Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won.
I agree they matter alot (sadly). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the facts on it. and I wouldn't say it's the entire reason; as there's so many factors involved it's hard to point to one as the entire reason.
unrelatedly: Jock -> I and many others dispute some of your categorizations of Hillary of course. but no great need to get into it (unless you want to) since it's not pertinent to your argument with gh, and when you're arguing with him it makes sense to use his definitions.
I don't particularly want to get into it, but to explain myself a little... Hilary is the epitome of establishment politics. While she may not be personally corrupted (I have no idea about her personally because I've not met her or spent any time around her), she is associated extremely heavily with people who are, she has been bought and paid for many times over, and symbolically she represents everything that anti-establishment politics hates. I'm coming at this from a totally different pov than you though so I don't expect we would ever reach a point of agreement on the matter.
you gotta pick one: either DONT get into it. or do. if you don't want to get into it; don't discuss it so much! you've clearly chosen to discuss it.
the statements you make here don't seem to match your stated view from earlier that I disputed:
"Look at the vociferous support for Clinton in the last election - who was by all accounts an awful candidate. No-one even questioned the idea that Clinton should be running for president, and they just set aside all of the obvious corruption in their minds and campaigned as hard as they could for what they saw as a lesser evil."
so either it's a result of a different formulation of the same sentiment, and you stand by both statements; or you mean to retract/rephrase your earlier statement. which is it?
also, your new statement doesn't really explain/justify your prior one at all.
In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action." —Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August.
Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back).
It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely.
But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this.
You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality?
Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won.
I agree they matter alot (sadly). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the facts on it. and I wouldn't say it's the entire reason; as there's so many factors involved it's hard to point to one as the entire reason.
unrelatedly: Jock -> I and many others dispute some of your categorizations of Hillary of course. but no great need to get into it (unless you want to) since it's not pertinent to your argument with gh, and when you're arguing with him it makes sense to use his definitions.
I don't particularly want to get into it, but to explain myself a little... Hilary is the epitome of establishment politics. While she may not be personally corrupted (I have no idea about her personally because I've not met her or spent any time around her), she is associated extremely heavily with people who are, she has been bought and paid for many times over, and symbolically she represents everything that anti-establishment politics hates. I'm coming at this from a totally different pov than you though so I don't expect we would ever reach a point of agreement on the matter.
you gotta pick one: either DONT get into it. or do. if you don't want to get into it; don't discuss it so much! you've clearly chosen to discuss it.
the statements you make here don't seem to match your stated view from earlier that I disputed:
"Look at the vociferous support for Clinton in the last election - who was by all accounts an awful candidate. No-one even questioned the idea that Clinton should be running for president, and they just set aside all of the obvious corruption in their minds and campaigned as hard as they could for what they saw as a lesser evil."
so either it's a result of a different formulation of the same sentiment, and you stand by both statements; or you mean to retract/rephrase your earlier statement. which is it?
also, your new statement doesn't really explain/justify your prior one at all.
I'm not interested in arguing with you about it because it always ends the same way with you saying the other person is arguing dishonestly blah blah blah. I'll happily discuss it with someone who doesn't immediately fly off the handle though.
On June 30 2018 02:57 Plansix wrote: It was mostly due to poor economic policy. There entire government was funded by selling oil. When the oil price dropped by half, they had half the budget for their government. But they never changed spending levels. And it has only snowballed since then.
On June 30 2018 02:31 On_Slaught wrote: I am far from being on xDaunts side, but lets not ignore what is obviously an EU crisis. Migration is literally the number one issue being discussed at the EU summit this week, even overriding Brexit. Entire political parties have risen and fallen in recent years on the back of the migrant crisis. There are countless stories about the impacts of immigration on a micro and macro level across Europe. It is a major issue which is far from being fixed.
Recognizing that there is a problem does not necessarily mean one denounces migrants. It just means there is a problem.
It's not as if the west has anything to do with the conflicts the people are fleeing from right? That's the problem. That the people are painted as the problem rather than the western nations, systems, and circumstances that got them there.
Recognizing that a problem exists is not mutually exclusive with assigning responsibility. Doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done there as it needs to be done here. The specifics is where the fight should be, not whether there is a problem. Especially when the problem is so self evident.
Worth noting that addressing border and integration issues is only half the equation. Definitely needs to be time spent considering how to diminish peoples need to flee their homelands.
That is a hard nut to crack, especially when it is due to violence in their country. We would need to send a peace keeping force down there and then we have a peace keeping force in a violent country. A refugee crisis can only really be managed, not stopped. One thing that would help is to find an effective way to slap down politicians that run on promising to stop the refugees from coming to the country.
I agree this half is much harder. One step, though, is to not make things worse by destabilizing regions. Cant unring the bell but we can minimize this going forward.
@others, that some people take a problem and use it to stir fear is demagogue/populist 101. That should be countered where possible. Our reaction shouldn't be to ignore the problem outright simply because the other side is blowing it out of proportion, though. That's all I'm trying to make clear.
Arms blockages where an idea thrown around for a while. That the surrounding nations and others would starve the conflict by preventing arms and ammo from being supplied. That the conflict would starve itself out, while the outside world provided aid.
To even propose an arms blockade just sounds insane to me. Has there been any point in the entirely of human history where one man wanted to kill another but didn't because he couldn't find a pointy stick?
If people want something they will get it. If you forbid it someone else will smuggle it for them.
In 'Major Step' Toward Making Democratic Party More Democratic, DNC Votes to Roll Back Power of Superdelegates "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
In an important and long-overdue step toward making the Democratic Party more accountable to voters and less captive to the interests of establishment insiders, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Rules and Bylaws arm voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to drastically curtail the influence of superdelegates by barring them from voting on the first ballot of the presidential nomination.
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action." —Sen. Bernie SandersSen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has long criticized the party's superdelegate system as undemocratic, congratulated DNC chair Tom Perez and the Rules and Bylaws Committee for the move in a statement following the 27-1 vote, saying the "decision will ensure that delegates elected by voters in primaries and caucuses will have the primary role in selecting the Democratic Party's nominee at the 2020 convention."
"This is a major step forward in making the Democratic Party more open and transparent, and I applaud their action," Sanders added.
Nomiki Konst, a Sanders appointee to the DNC's Unity Reform Commission, similarly praised the DNC's move to limit superdelegates' power in a series of tweets late Wednesday, attributing the nearly unanimous vote to a wave of grassroots activism that began during the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, when progressives recognized the way in which the system tilted the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton over Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"This is a YUGE deal," Konst wrote shortly following the committee's vote. "Thanks to all of the incredible activism, superdelegates will soon be a thing of the past."
The push by progressives to scale back the influence of superdelegates intensified in the wake of the heated 2016 Democratic primaries, when former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton secured the support of hundreds of superdelegates before a single vote was cast.
"No candidate should have an accumulated lead, whether real or perceived, before a first ballot is cast," DNC chair Tom Perez said during a conference call about the new rule on Wednesday. "We have to make sure that we rebuild the trust among many who feel alienated from our party."
The Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to officially certify the new superdelegate restrictions next month before they are adopted by the full DNC in August.
Better late than never, I suppose. This is encouraging news, and a pretty big concession on the side of the DNC (assuming the power of the superdelegates truly is rolled back).
It should be zero, but I will accept this. This is a step in the right direction and makes super delegates significantly weaker. The delegate count starting at +34235236 Clinton before any voting took place made the entire primary look like a joke. This still allows for the same shit to happen, just way less grotesquely.
But fact remains, it should be zero. We should continue working towards zero, but be happy with this.
You know super delegates were always very weak, right? and that the issue is more about optics than reality?
Optics matter very, very, very much. It is the entire reason Trump won.
I agree they matter alot (sadly). I just wanted to make sure you were aware of the facts on it. and I wouldn't say it's the entire reason; as there's so many factors involved it's hard to point to one as the entire reason.
unrelatedly: Jock -> I and many others dispute some of your categorizations of Hillary of course. but no great need to get into it (unless you want to) since it's not pertinent to your argument with gh, and when you're arguing with him it makes sense to use his definitions.
I don't particularly want to get into it, but to explain myself a little... Hilary is the epitome of establishment politics. While she may not be personally corrupted (I have no idea about her personally because I've not met her or spent any time around her), she is associated extremely heavily with people who are, she has been bought and paid for many times over, and symbolically she represents everything that anti-establishment politics hates. I'm coming at this from a totally different pov than you though so I don't expect we would ever reach a point of agreement on the matter.
you gotta pick one: either DONT get into it. or do. if you don't want to get into it; don't discuss it so much! you've clearly chosen to discuss it.
the statements you make here don't seem to match your stated view from earlier that I disputed:
"Look at the vociferous support for Clinton in the last election - who was by all accounts an awful candidate. No-one even questioned the idea that Clinton should be running for president, and they just set aside all of the obvious corruption in their minds and campaigned as hard as they could for what they saw as a lesser evil."
so either it's a result of a different formulation of the same sentiment, and you stand by both statements; or you mean to retract/rephrase your earlier statement. which is it?
also, your new statement doesn't really explain/justify your prior one at all.
I'm not interested in arguing with you about it because it always ends the same way with you saying the other person is arguing dishonestly blah blah blah. I'll happily discuss it with someone who doesn't immediately fly off the handle though.
I only do that if the other person is in fact arguing dishonestly; which some do, and many don't. the ones that do of course remember it more so they seem like a more common occurrence. at any rate; I'll simply assume you're making false assertions on clinton based in ignorance (since your statements were false, and thus the only question is why you made them, ignorance is a good default answer for such, and is a very common occurrence that can affect us all).
On June 30 2018 03:23 Jockmcplop wrote: Everything I learned about South American politics came from this heavily left wing movie: http://johnpilger.com/videos/the-war-on-democracy Its definitely worth a watch. GH especially I would recommend you watch it, Pilger's journalism is kind of legendary in leftwing circles in the UK.
Looks interesting. But yeah, at least it puts forward a much more realistic point of view than was being presented here by some people.
Short selection:
. He investigates the School of the Americas in the US state of Georgia, where Pinochet’s torture squads were trained along with tyrants and death squad leaders in Haiti, El Salvador, Brazil and Argentina.
The film unearths the real story behind the attempted overthrow of Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez in 2002 and how the people of the barrios of Caracas rose up to force his return to power.
It also looks at the wider rise of populist governments across South America lead by indigenous leaders intent on loosening the shackles of Washington and a fairer redistribution of the continent's natural wealth.
John Pilger says: "[The film] is about the struggle of people to free themselves from a modern form of slavery". These people, he says, "describe a world not as American presidents like to see it as useful or expendable, they describe the power of courage and humanity among people with next to nothing. They reclaim noble words like democracy, freedom, liberation, justice, and in doing so they are defending the most basic human rights of all of us in a war being waged against all of us."
EPT
