- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 48,281
- Reaction score
- 25,273
- Location
- Western NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Unfortunately, as long as the two parties have a stranglehold on the electoral process, that's going to happen from time to time.
Yes, but that is no excuse to take over someone else political faction.
Yes. I never denied that Sanders' influence extant over to the Democratic party as well. I do not know how powerful the Left wing of the Democrats is, but there certainly will be a rebellion against the establishment.That's fine, but the Democratic civil war is coming one way or the other. We can be in denial of this fact for a while, but it's as obvious to me now as the downfall of the Republican party was to me in 2010 with the rise of the Tea Party. It's fine if you feel differently, but, again, demographics alone pretty much make the case alone.
I did not make myself clear. My objection was not that you ignored other groups. I disputed if there lie a growing divide among the groups. It is simply that Sanders' message appeals to Millennials but does not have that much of resonance among the others. It is not those different groups are having increasingly different agendas (on the contrary, I feel like they are coming together). It is Sanders' rhetoric's limitation that politicize the (white) Millennials but fail to strike a chord in others.Well, let's be fair now. That's not what I said; what I said was that there are two voting blocs that were crucial to Obama's success and the continued success of the Democratic party. I never said there was only two blocs --quite the contrary, I literally mentioned a third bloc, Latinos, in the OP. There's many others, but they don't seem to care one way or the other, or otherwise openly agree with Millennials, and thus weren't really relevant to the OP.
I do not disagree.Partially agreed, but I think that it's a little sloppy to follow the Clinton framing that it's "white youth." I think it's also naive to, again, accept the Clinton framing of this as "white youth want more free stuff." It's dangerous for a few reasons, but not the least of which is that it takes real Leftist policy choices as boils them down into Rightist claptrap: "Lazy people want free stuff!" with all of the intended connotations. But otherwise, yes, that's clearly true.
That was a typo, I meant the "middle class." I was disputing with the articles you've stated that "most blacks are middle class." True, obviously most black American are above the poverty line, but that does not say anything in regard to the stark wealth inequality and class polarization. There is no real middle class today. Its last vestige of political power is dying. In the future, there would only be the working-class and the capitalists. So we should not, like the article is claiming, focus on moderate "middle class politics."Unless you meant something completely different than this, a straightforward reading of that statement is pretty absurd.
I have to apologize for my carelessness. I meant "this is not due to some arbitrary generation difference (there are always been more active youth than elders) but the polarization of classes and death of the middle ground known as the middle class." The division is this: some are becoming more militant and "partisan" while others still believe in the dying "middle ground middle class politics." But this division would cease rather quickly, even Clinton' supporters are not really that "enthusiastic" for her anymore. Of course, we have to be uncompromising regarding the Democratic establishment.Agreed, but again, this is another thing discussed in the OP.
A few things here. "Breaking up the big banks" is a reactionary sentiment. The merging of banks is simply to due continuing socialization of labor; it is simply more efficient than having numerous small banks. The true progressive way is to increase direct state regulation, but alas, that is too radical for Sanders.Breaking up the banks, reigning in on Wall Street's fraud, jailing bankers who commit crimes, etc, you think will have no affect whatsoever on the future of the American economic stability?
That's either very ignorant or very naive. Perhaps you mean that until capitalism is removed from the public, there will always be economic instability (and income inequality). That I largely agree with, but let's not pretend like there's no shades of grey here in terms of economic and social equality.
...
Am I going to fight for it? So long as I live in a society supporting Neoliberal Capitalism, then the answer to that is "Hell yes."
You're assuming we want the things Hillary would get done. The only such things we do are things she's taken directly from more liberal positions she hasn't claimed until the polls in this election cycle say she should in order to stay relevant. Everything that falls outside that envelope? That's where character assessment, political affiliations, and track record comes into play, and Hillary loses it entirely. I'm more afraid of Hillary in the White House than I am of Donald Trump. Hillary would get more done? Lord, I hope not. This country is corporatist enough.That's an inaccurate interpretation of what I said. My premise is that Sanders is making promises that he can't keep (IE: free college education and single pay healthcare) and I don't see either of those passing congress which means Bernie isn't going to get anything done. On the other hand, Hillary isn't making unrealistic promises ...but incremental bills toward that same goal could, will and have passed congress...which means she stands more of a chance to get more things done than Bernie.
Her time in the US Senate suggests that she can not only work with Republicans but get their bipartisan support as well. The number of republican co-sponsors to bills she introduced and the republican majority approval of her tenure as senator and nomination as Sec. of State bears this out.Surviving attacks is not the same thing as getting legislative support from republicans, which is crucial to your argument.
I'm really not seeing the conservative or republican support for Bernie. However, Bernie supporters might be similar to Ron Paul supporters in youth, gender and spirit....but in shared values?? Bernie's socialist platform of universal healthcare and free college education seems antithetical to Ron Pauls libertarian platform of free market ideals that doesn't support government programs or subsidies at all. So the notion of Sander supporters switching sides doesn't seem likely unless they don't know what they believe or stand for.I thought that was the case, but after some fruitless searching I suppose I was abstracting from the general support he's receiving from republicans, conservatives, and libertarians. I think this article sums up that phenomenon:
The Lifelong Republicans Who Love Bernie Sanders
There was also Ron Paul who basically disavowed his own son to point to Bernie Sanders as the most libertarian of the 2016 race. It wasn't an endorsement, more of a grudging concession of some shared ideals, but it's significant.
What a wonderful thing to bring up. You do realize Bernie has much more, right?Her time in the US Senate suggests that she can not only work with Republicans but get their bipartisan support as well. The number of republican co-sponsors to bills she introduced and the republican majority approval of her tenure as senator and nomination as Sec. of State bears this out.
Sanders is a libertarian socialist. It's not the socialist part they're attracted to. His honesty is certainly a large part of it, though.I'm really not seeing the conservative or republican support for Bernie. However, Bernie supporters might be similar to Ron Paul supporters in youth, gender and spirit....but in shared values?? Bernie's socialist platform of universal healthcare and free college education seems antithetical to Ron Pauls libertarian platform of free market ideals that doesn't support government programs or subsidies at all. So the notion of Sander supporters switching sides doesn't seem likely unless they don't know what they believe or stand for.
You seem too willing to switch from one extreme ideology to the other to know what you really want.You're assuming we want the things Hillary would get done. The only such things we do are things she's taken directly from more liberal positions she hasn't claimed until the polls in this election cycle say she should in order to stay relevant. Everything that falls outside that envelope? That's where character assessment, political affiliations, and track record comes into play, and Hillary loses it entirely. I'm more afraid of Hillary in the White House than I am of Donald Trump. Hillary would get more done? Lord, I hope not. This country is corporatist enough.
I'm not going to claim that Bernie's challenge isn't immense, but he has a strategy to meet it, and more importantly, the goals are things that both conservatives and liberals can get behind.
What a wonderful thing to bring up. You do realize Bernie has much more, right?
Sanders is a libertarian socialist. It's not the socialist part they're attracted to. His honesty is certainly a large part of it, though.
Libertarian isn't an extreme ideology. It's the underpinning of all american political discourse since the declaration of independence and the only thing that unifies our country politically or culturally.You seem too willing to switch from one extreme ideology to the other to know what you really want.
Libertarian isn't an extreme ideology. It's the underpinning of all american political discourse since the declaration of independence and the only thing that unifies our country politically or culturally.
But I really don't care what you think. The fact of the matter is that Hillary has no chance at the white house because she doesn't have the youth vote, so if she's the nominee the republicans will preside over the next recession.
You can say that, but you seem quite perturbed that I would consider not voting for Hillary. It seems pretty clear then that you're rightly terrified about what the far Right has planned for America. You can draw your line in the sand at a different place than I do, but we both agree that making serious concessions to the far Right is dangerous and stupid.
Yes, I want to enforce my personal political ideology through the force of law. That's called democracy. We all do it every time we vote.
It depends on what the compromise is. The 3/5ths compromise was a pretty dirty compromise.
That's an absolutely idiotic argument to fling out 150 years later.
No one is arguing for limiting freedom of speech.
They get their vote, sure, no one is saying we should deny them that. I'd love it if they also stopped stymieing minorities and the poor in their states from voting. That'd make me believe their elections were actually representative and legitimate.
If there was a good reason to believe that the Congress actually fairly representing the views of Americans (and there isn't any good reason), I would agree with this.
I sincerely doubt congress will ever do that again, until the party's have a major shift and one ideology comes out on the top. Then there will be a lasting political narrative for some 40 years, and that'll become the new definition of "moderate."
Just to be clear here, you're responding to me\\ responding to someone else, so this section of the post wasn't intended for you. So I wasn't accusing you of anything.
This is kind of a silly point, don't you think? The whole reason democracy works is because people join together in groups and fight for what they believe in. Millennials is a real term, it has real ramifications for the people in that group just like there's real ramifications for being an African-American or being a rich white person. Every group in America is naturally going to share similar experiences, it's going to influence their political views, etc. Saying that most Millennials feel X way (Which is factual), that most Millennials vote X way (which is factual), etc, shouldn't be re-interpreted as a question about whether or not they feel like Americans. That'd be like grilling a woman on abortion about whether or not she was "a fellow American" because she kept on joining feminists in a fight for reproductive rights.
That's wholly inaccurate. The idea that "Clinton and Sanders are basically the same candidate but Hillary is just more likely to get a little bit less done than Sanders is, and thus you should split the difference and go for the candidate that's more likely to accomplish their more limited goals." is preposterous. That narrative only makes sense if you refuse to read candidates histories and trust them that they suddenly believe "Not X", rather than the position "X" which they've been advocating for their entire careers.
I think Hillary will build on Obama's policies and so would Sanders since they both voted the same on 90% of the bills passed through congress.
But one of the things that seems to separate the two is that Hillary wants to make incremental changes whereas Bernie wants to make a big change all at once.
I think Bernie is a "revolution of high expectations" and his supporters are going to be disappointed whether he wins or not. Of course they'll be disappointed because their enthusiasm wasn't enough for Bernie to win the nomination...and because of their high expectations if he won the presidency they will be disappointed because he won't be able to fulfill his revolutionary promises at all. Millennials need to learn that change doesn't happen all at once...at least not in this country it doesn't. Hillary's approach to change may not be revolutionary, but imo, it is more realistic because it's do able and will have more endurance.
What? I have no idea what you are attempting to say. Political parties change throughout time. The Republican Party was once fill with radical left influence; the Democratic party was a party closely associated with the KKK. What do you mean by "take over someone else political faction?" A mass party does not "belong to anyone." If voters support the change, it usually change. If not, it probably would not. What is the logic?
When you have two political parties having absolute control over the national politics, it is a de facto suppression of other opinions and democratic engagement. The two parties of the US do not even function like traditional parties anymore. It has almost become a part of electoral platform.
Unfortunately, as long as the two parties have a stranglehold on the electoral process, that's going to happen from time to time.
Calling for a revolution because your preferred candidate is losing free and fair elections doesn't sound to me like "what democracy looks like." Quite the opposite, actually.
I'm not terrified of anything. You are completely distorting what I said. I said that I am terrified that the far right AND the far left are dangerous and stupid.
No one except you.
Yeah. They were. Because you don't like the result, that's a declaration of "war" ? Are you seriously insane?
Are you completely out of your mind?
You're psychic delusion means utterly nothing.
You made a public post on a public forum. A post I found incredibly idiotic. If you believe that my response to your idiocy was against the DP forum rules, feel free to report it.
Unfortunately, as long as the two parties have a stranglehold on the electoral process, that's going to happen from time to time.
What did Obama achieve, really? When did he ever stand up for workers? (Never.) I learned everything I needed to know about then-Senator Obama when he supported Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont.Obama is just a slightly gentler imperialist. He assassinates the people Bush would have tortured. Obama has deported more immigrants than Bush. The Obama administration has been much harsher than the Bush administration in punishing whistle blowers, such as Edward Snowden. He supports neoliberal trade policies (As does Clinton, despite what she's saying, now.), etc., etc. I think you are right, in essence, I think Hillary would be just as bad. Perhaps a little worse, but probably not much worse. As you can probably tell, I have never supported Obama. Even in 2008, as far as I was concerned, he was the lesser evil, at best.
That's true, but it doesn't mean what you're suggesting. The fact that they have similar voting patterns doesn't change the fact that there are enormous differences between them. If you listen to their rhetoric, the difference is immediately apparent. While Sanders identifies as a democratic socialist, his platform is pure New Deal liberalism. Clinton, on the other hand, is to the right of Eisenhower.
Look at foreign policy. She supported the war in Iraq. As someone who, like Senator Sanders, opposed it before it began, I'm not particularly sympathetic to her on that point. She was one of the biggest players behind intervention in Libya, and that country’s resultant decay into a failed state, and terrorist haven. She was also instrumental in backing the 2009 coup in Honduras. Now it's the murder capital of the world, a brutal police state whose thugs murder activists like Berta Ceceres. I don't see that Clinton has any regret, or remorse regarding those whose lives she has destroyed. I don'the think she's learned anything. She considers the mass murderer, and war criminal Henry Kissinger to be a trusted advisor, and friend. She is practically Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.
They don't share the same goals. Clinton is presently employing liberal rhetoric because she's running against Sanders. Clinton has never been an ally of the working class. As soon as Clinton no longer has to compete with Sanders, all of this will be forgotten.
First, this misunderstands how political change, real political change actually happpens. If you look at the civil rights movement, gay rights movement, the labor movement, etc., it doesn't follow a pattern of gradual, incremental gains. Sure, there is motion, but these things tend to progress in fits, and starts, with minimal activity followed by periodic bursts, that is, if they are successful.
Second, if you ask for a loaf of bread, it's likely you'll end up with a half a loaf. The idea that asking for a half a loaf, or, in Clinton’s case, crumbs, would yield greater results in the long term. That doesn't really follow.
The primary reason why Democrats can't turn out the vote is because they keep chasing the Republicans to the right. Clinton is, essentially, a moderate Republican. If Democrats ever stood up for workers, more workers would vote for them. The Democratic party is the worst 'friend' workers have, the betray them at nearly every opportunity. This, as I said, is the reason workers need to build an alternative institution to replace, and defeat the Democratic party.
Stop creating divides when there are none. Sanders agrees that Hillary is NOT a Republican lite. If you support him you should listen to him. Sanders may very well have a place in the Clinton Administration and biting off your nose to spite your face will not fix anything.
Stop creating divides when there are none. Sanders agrees that Hillary is NOT a Republican lite. If you support him you should listen to him. Sanders may very well have a place in the Clinton Administration and biting off your nose to spite your face will not fix anything.
Is Hillary just a Republican-lite? No and yes. The term "Republican" is vague; Hillary is definitely to the far right of, for instance, the Republican president Eisenhower. So was Carter, so was Bill, so was Obama. Is Hillary to the far-left of Ted Cruz? Oh yes. I think a more beneficial set of terms here is just to reference the economic and social philosophy that everyone is a part of. Hillary is socially in the Center/Center-Left, and economically a Center-Right neoliberal. What's a neoliberal? Someone who supports Neoliberal Capitalism --deregulate industries, introduce trade agreements, wants to do 'reforms' on welfare/social/security/etc, thinks introducing some level of austerity (sometimes mixed with stimulus) will help recessions, and so on. And whether Hillary supporters like it or not, this Reaganomics is definitely something Hillary has fought for her whole career. Is she an neoliberal extremist like Ted Cruz? No. Does she think that the American economic system is more or less okay and just needs a more competent manager, and once that happens most of the problems will go away? Yeah, that seems to me to be a pretty accurate categorization of her views. Most progressives are New Deal, Keynesian Social Democrats. Would it be fair to categorize Hillary as a supporter of that? No, it wouldn't, because she is not that, anymore than she's a far-right Republican..
So to her, taking corporate money is regrettable but necessary, representing industry's interests will ultimately be in the best interest of everyone, she'll make an attempt to help out minorities when it's politically expedient and she thinks she can get it done, and so on.
No one is comparing this to being "just like" Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, but is it fair to say that she represents post-Reagan neoliberalism and the center-right economic platforms? Yeah, that's fair because it's true. She isn't conservative (particularly in the modern Right-wing extremist sense), but she's definitely not progressive, either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/06/why-hillary-clinton-is-more-progressive-than-bernie-sanders-in-one-sentence/Bernie Sanders attracted a 20,000-person crowd in Boston over the weekend with his uncreative wish list of a platform, in which college would be free for all, Social Security would be expanded for all and medical coverage would be highly subsidized for all — regardless of whether you actually need the help. Hillary Clinton finally pushed back Monday against “progressives” who propose shoveling public benefits at rich and poor alike. One sentence in particular drew a clear distinction between her campaign and Sanders’s:
“I am not in favor of making college free for Donald Trump’s kids,” she said, after explaining that “I’m a little different from those who say free college for everybody.”
She then pitched her college affordability proposal, which would allow students to graduate debt free but wouldn’t end tuition or work requirements. Clinton’s system would be means-tested: Those who can afford to invest in their educations would have to. Sanders’s wouldn’t be.
Sanders’s platform isn’t visionary, it’s dull. Rather than devising smart solutions that target scarce federal resources where they’re most needed, he wants to waste massive amounts of money Congress wouldn’t ever give him — and shouldn’t — to provide benefits to a lot of people who don’t need them. The government already spends astounding amounts subsidizing the housing, education, health care and retirement of the upper and upper-middle classes through tax breaks for mortgage interest, cut-rate student loans, in-state tuition, the tax exemption for employer-provided health-care, universal Medicare and universal Social Security. That’s billions upon billions every year that could go into anti-poverty programs, research or roads without raising taxes. Rather than scaling back this nonprogressive nonsense, Sanders proposes to double down on it — just as the impending retirement of the boomers is straining the social programs we already have and just as the country’s infrastructure requires upgrading.
Perhaps we don't want or need the "wish list" that Sanders is proposing, especially when it requires massive increases in taxes and Federal spending that Congress won't give him. The good is not the enemy of the "perfect". I also fear you are overly confident that Sanders could win on a platform of increasing taxes on the middle class. That is playing with fire and certainly not something we want to risk given the candidates in the opposition.
1.) It's amazing how quickly liberals start using right-wing talking points as soon as they've lost the policy discussion, and use those talking points to argue against progressive policies. This happens every time I point out that Hillary is a neoliberal, and everytime that I point out that election cycle after election cycle, the more we vote in neoliberals (Democrats or Republicans) the more the entire country's ruling elite shift further to the right, and the more outlandish things they ask for --and they keep on getting.
2.) It's also amazing how selective liberals are about the facts on the ground regarding Hillary's electability. Let's ignore that she has the lowest favorability rating of any candidate running for presidential office in modern history, let's ignore than in every poll (polls which by now in the Spring are historically reliable indicators) that she either statistically ties with or outright loses to every Republican running for nomination. None of these are problems that Sanders suffers, but let's ignore these facts anyways and keep on running with our gut that she's more electable. It's fine if you believe she's more electable than Sanders is, it'd just be nice if any Hillary supporter bothered to address any of these very valid concerns whilst they declare in unison that Hillary's more electable.
Yeah, it's shocking that the newspaper that endorsed Hillary during a primary can't even hide their disdain for actual progressive policies. The argument that she is more progressive... It isn't even in the article. They don't even bother with attempting to defend that claim. Instead they go on a tirade about how he's going to give "free stuff to rich people." This, of course, typically ignores the very obvious fact that whenever Democrats or Republicans create a program where the rich don't get entitlements as well, the entire program is re-branded as "lazy people stealing off of the backs of the working class and job creators" and then the program is summarily "reformed" 10 or 20 years later until it becomes useless, and then it gets blamed for "failing to solve the problem" and gets cut or nearly cut.
Also note that, by this reasoning, both social security and medicare/medicaid should be considered "not progressive" because the rich get to take out of these, too. It's a pretty stupid argument, but you'll catch neoliberal institutions like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and so on, making this case because it's in their class interests to do so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?