The Left better brace itself for war

[Frank Apisa]

I'm still shaking my head.

Well...continue to shake your head.

People like you are a MUCH GREATER danger to the kinds of programs for which Bernie Sanders advocates than people like Ted Cruz.

Get your head out of wherever you've it stuffed...and get with the program. Hillary Clinton needs the support of everyone who wants to see the nation's INSUFFICIENT safety net programs protected and expanded.

And cry-babies who are now in a snit have to grow up enough to see the situation as it actually is...rather than as they want it to be.

 

[gavinfielder]

Get your head out of wherever you've it stuffed...and get with the program. Hillary Clinton needs the support of everyone who wants to see the nation's INSUFFICIENT safety net programs protected and expanded.

Like she did in the 90's?

That kind of hypocritical irony requires a lot more stuffing than we have. It continually amazes me how well she inspires memory loss and denial.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Well...continue to shake your head.

People like you are a MUCH GREATER danger to the kinds of programs for which Bernie Sanders advocates than people like Ted Cruz.

Get your head out of wherever you've it stuffed...and get with the program. Hillary Clinton needs the support of everyone who wants to see the nation's INSUFFICIENT safety net programs protected and expanded.

And cry-babies who are now in a snit have to grow up enough to see the situation as it actually is...rather than as they want it to be.

Whether we've had a Republican or a Democrat in office, those precious social safety nets you mention have been taking a ramming from both Democrats and Republicans. Over the course of the last 25 years, the entire Washington political dialogue continues to go to the Right (and conspicuously while the country has continued to go the Left). Bill Clinton harmed social safety nets just like Ronald Reagan harmed social safety nets (in addition to deregulating and lowering taxes on the rich). Hillary Clinton is now firmly to the Right of Ronald Reagan in most of the policies she's supporting, and definitely her foreign policy. As far as social safety nets, it's unlikely to be expanded --the most we could hope for is that they might get less assaulted under Hillary. And every Democratic president has been getting increasingly more conservative than the last. Barrack Obama, by the way, offered the "grand bargain" --do you remember what that was? He'd been discussing it since before he even campaigned for president.

So you can argue that Democrats are marginally, nominally better about social safety nets, but what you really mean is that all politicians are taking a sledge hammer to our social safety nets --but Democrats are taking softer swings. And if you can't understand why that's just as dangerous in the long term as a Trump presidency is in the short term, you need to at least reconsider what those dangers are and at least be aware of them.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Like she did in the 90's?

That kind of hypocritical irony requires a lot more stuffing than we have. It continually amazes me how well she inspires memory loss and denial.

There will always be a group who think Area 51 houses flying saucers; Kennedy was killed by a shot from the grassy knoll; and the CIA orchestrated the 9/11 disaster.

Nothing can be done for those people but to feel sorry for them.

In the meantime...Hillary Clinton is the best chance of protecting and expanding safety net programs that are essential to our nation.

Vote for whom you want...or don't vote.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Whether we've had a Republican or a Democrat in office, those precious social safety nets you mention have been taking a ramming from both Democrats and Republicans. Over the course of the last 25 years, the entire Washington political dialogue continues to go to the Right (and conspicuously while the country has continued to go the Left). Bill Clinton harmed social safety nets just like Ronald Reagan harmed social safety nets (in addition to deregulating and lowering taxes on the rich). Hillary Clinton is now firmly to the Right of Ronald Reagan in most of the policies she's supporting, and definitely her foreign policy. As far as social safety nets, it's unlikely to be expanded --the most we could hope for is that they might get less assaulted under Hillary. And every Democratic president has been getting increasingly more conservative than the last. Barrack Obama, by the way, offered the "grand bargain" --do you remember what that was? He'd been discussing it since before he even campaigned for president.

So you can argue that Democrats are marginally, nominally better about social safety nets, but what you really mean is that all politicians are taking a sledge hammer to our social safety nets --but Democrats are taking softer swings. And if you can't understand why that's just as dangerous in the long term as a Trump presidency is in the short term, you need to at least reconsider what those dangers are and at least be aware of them.

Do what you want, FieldTheorist. And then complain when things get worse if the results are wrong.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Do what you want, FieldTheorist. And then complain when things get worse if the results are wrong.

I fought very hard for the candidates I believe in and I will continue to do so, but the results are going to be wrong no matter what the outcome now. Well, not unless both houses of Congress can get flipped with actual progressives being the ones getting elected, which won't happen either.

 

[gavinfielder]

There will always be a group who think Area 51 houses flying saucers; Kennedy was killed by a shot from the grassy knoll; and the CIA orchestrated the 9/11 disaster.

Nothing can be done for those people but to feel sorry for them.

In the meantime...Hillary Clinton is the best chance of protecting and expanding safety net programs that are essential to our nation.

Vote for whom you want...or don't vote.

I'm sorry are you seriously claiming that Hillary pushing welfare reform in the 90's never happened?

 

[FieldTheorist]

I'm sorry are you seriously claiming that Hillary pushing welfare reform in the 90's never happened?

Honestly, gavin, the new tactic of Hillary supporters is the declare every bad choice and decision that Hillary made to be a "hoax" or a "conspiracy theory." You can't really reason with that mentality. Denial is apparently the new stage of the Hillary campaign, which is an odd state to be in given that they've virtually won.

 

[gavinfielder]

Honestly, gavin, the new tactic of Hillary supporters is the declare every bad choice and decision that Hillary made to be a "hoax" or a "conspiracy theory." You can't really reason with that mentality. Denial is apparently the new stage of the Hillary campaign, which is an odd state to be in given that they've virtually won.

I didn't want to respond to this before giving Frank a chance. Even if you appear accurate in this case, I still want to say that I wouldn't take it so far as to generalize that level of denial to her entire support base, or to her campaign itself. While some denial and bias is to be expected of political people and lord knows polarization hasn't helped, flat-out denial of those facts that can't simply be creatively reinterpreted must (god I hope) be an abnormal level of psychosis. I was surprised by that particular response because I was simply too flummoxed by its extremity; I'm still willing to believe it's the exception rather than the rule.


Might as well respond to someone who had a point, though.

For some people, a $12 minimum wage instead of a $7.25 minimum wage actually is a meaningful difference.

For the 20 million who would be thrown off their insurance if the ACA were repealed, that's actually a big deal.

For those who feel their fundamental rights may hinge on who fills open SCOTUS seats, this matters.

To millions of women whose access to basic health services hinges on both a legal respect for their privacy and public funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, this is important.

For those who would be directly affected by the institutionalization of Trump's xenophobia (whether that's Hispanics who would be rounded up in Trump's Operation Wetback 2.0, or Muslims and refugees shut out by his kneejerk closed borders approach), this is a big deal.

Being able to not care about the outcome of an election (or worse, actively hoping others suffer to build support for an imagined "revolution") is a luxury, it's privilege at its worst.

Yes, white college-educated millennials would likely weather a Trump presidency just fine; to those with privilege it probably doesn't really matter who's president, their day-to-day lives won't be hugely impacted either way. They can afford the gamble that waiting on progress--indeed, "temporarily" reversing that which has been hard-won over the past 10 years--will ultimately lead to bigger gains down the road after enough have suffered. All this is theoretical to them, none of it really matters.

But to vulnerable Americans, it matters a great deal.

Putting aside the fact that some of those outcomes are very unlikely,

Yes, I plan to, at least, vote against what I see as the bigger problem of the country--that among other things, the lesser of two evils paradigm has gone too far and will engender destructive consequences on our tenuous democracy--over the immediate self-interest, and indeed, while vulnerable myself, I'm not quite so vulnerable that I won't weather it capably. Labeling the ability to do so as privilege is fair enough. I wish everyone had that privilege. For that matter, I wish that ability were a right. If our society had put more stock in Roosevelt's four freedoms, maybe it would be.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I didn't want to respond to this before giving Frank a chance. Even if you appear accurate in this case, I still want to say that I wouldn't take it so far as to generalize that level of denial to her entire support base, or to her campaign itself. While some denial and bias is to be expected of political people and lord knows polarization hasn't helped, flat-out denial of those facts that can't simply be creatively reinterpreted must (god I hope) be an abnormal level of psychosis. I was surprised by that particular response because I was simply too flummoxed by its extremity; I'm still willing to believe it's the exception rather than the rule.

Honestly, I wouldn't say this, but it's been going on for months now. Sanders supporters are very passionate, and have been overly optimistic (sometimes to the point of denial) over Sanders chances, but in terms of policies and political analysis, most Sanders supporters have been reasonably (or at least largely) rooted in fact and haven't been denying reality. There's many notable exceptions, but I'm speaking in generalities.

Contrarily, Clinton's supporters, again speaking in generalities, as the months have gone by are sounding more and more like conservatives --and not just in their own open disdain for people supporting liberal/Leftist policies, but also in simply refusing to look at the numbers and see where they stand. Look, I've seen it more and more as the months go by. They are turning into a pretty bizarre lot, and if they let this go much farther, they keep in standing a worse and worse chance in November. As much as I dislike Hillary, I don't want Trump in office. (I'm not going to vote her unless she changes her tune at least partially, but that's a separate discussion that I'm having on another thread.)


To make this a little more precise, Hillary, her mouth pieces, and her average supporters seem to have a narrative that in their group they've determined is true, and you start to see all of these general themes:

1.) Hillary's status quo/sustained neoliberalism is the future of the Democratic party.
2.) The only people who matter in an election are Democratic loyalists.
3.) The only thing needed to secure the Democratic party's victory in 2016 are Hillary loyalists.
4.) Bernie supporters are largely crazy people (Possibly sexist? Maybe racist?), and we don't want them in our party.
5.) We all want a progressive future, but we just can't have that right now, so it's important that we election someone who is a realist and won't try. That's very important, or that future progressive dream will never happen.
6.) Therefore, people who want to fight for a progressive future are really just setting progressivism backwards. We just need to take the current system we have and tweak it a little. Be loyal, and we'll succeed in the future.
7.) Republicans are evil, vicious monsters, and anyone who is against Hillary is probably a closeted Republican or, at the very least, is aiding and abetting them. The way to avoid this is to be a loyalist.
8.) An important reason why Hillary can't just give us the progressive dream, is because even Barrack Obama had Democratic opposition when he tried to implement Obamacare. If even Democrats are fighting us, how can we succeed?
9.) Remember, all we need to do is get rid of Republicans to have our progressive dream. This is why sometimes we have to take money from Wallstreet/Big Oil/etc; it's the reason why Hillary has to take that money is to help other Democrats bid for political positions. See, she's a loyalist, and loyalists are good.


In short, it's positively Orwellian, and unless someone pops their bubble, they keep on increasing the likelihood of a Trump presidency. Some of it is just fanboy/fangirl thinking and they're purposefully overlooking negatives, but some of it is just the right recipe for a Trump presidency.

 

[gavinfielder]

Contrarily, Clinton's supporters, again speaking in generalities, as the months have gone by are sounding more and more like conservatives --and not just in their own open disdain for people supporting liberal/Leftist policies, but also in simply refusing to look at the numbers and see where they stand. Look, I've seen it more and more as the months go by. They are turning into a pretty bizarre lot, and if they let this go much farther, they keep in standing a worse and worse chance in November. As much as I dislike Hillary, I don't want Trump in office. (I'm not going to vote her unless she changes her tune at least partially, but that's a separate discussion that I'm having on another thread.)


To make this a little more precise, Hillary, her mouth pieces, and her average supporters seem to have a narrative that in their group they've determined is true, and you start to see all of these general themes:

1.) Hillary's status quo/sustained neoliberalism is the future of the Democratic party.
2.) The only people who matter in an election are Democratic loyalists.
3.) The only thing needed to secure the Democratic party's victory in 2016 are Hillary loyalists.
4.) Bernie supporters are largely crazy people (Possibly sexist? Maybe racist?), and we don't want them in our party.
5.) We all want a progressive future, but we just can't have that right now, so it's important that we election someone who is a realist and won't try. That's very important, or that future progressive dream will never happen.
6.) Therefore, people who want to fight for a progressive future are really just setting progressivism backwards. We just need to take the current system we have and tweak it a little. Be loyal, and we'll succeed in the future.
7.) Republicans are evil, vicious monsters, and anyone who is against Hillary is probably a closeted Republican or, at the very least, is aiding and abetting them. The way to avoid this is to be a loyalist.
8.) An important reason why Hillary can't just give us the progressive dream, is because even Barrack Obama had Democratic opposition when he tried to implement Obamacare. If even Democrats are fighting us, how can we succeed?
9.) Remember, all we need to do is get rid of Republicans to have our progressive dream. This is why sometimes we have to take money from Wallstreet/Big Oil/etc; it's the reason why Hillary has to take that money is to help other Democrats bid for political positions. See, she's a loyalist, and loyalists are good.


In short, it's positively Orwellian, and unless someone pops their bubble, they keep on increasing the likelihood of a Trump presidency. Some of it is just fanboy/fangirl thinking and they're purposefully overlooking negatives, but some of it is just the right recipe for a Trump presidency.

Hmm. It's true that I have never seen any Hillary supporter say anything contrary to any of those points. It's clear that some realize their error on at least a few points (such as #3 when they rail against us for not supporting Hillary) but aren't willing to say something to the same effect as would be to refute them.

And yes, that situation could be described as Orwellian. As to your connection to that decreasing her chances of winning the election--on the outset, a convenient forgetfulness and denial, even among those who weren't committed and then convert, would seem to help her win; surely, if the proles are falling in line, then all is well for the Inner Party. You must be thinking, though, that this effect will ultimately limit the number of converts.


I'm also still more concerned about a Hillary presidency than a Trump presidency. At least Trump's not a team player. Sure, Hillary has promised all sorts of things she normally wouldn't in order to get elected (if nothing else, we can thank Bernie for that) but on how many more policies would her and the establishment screw us on, versus what Trump might realistically accomplish? Neither Clinton was ever a liberal and had no business being called liberal; they're neoliberal (which should appeal to conservative voters, granted) and corporatist (which too few people seem to get), and as a political insider she has every means to silently implement multitudes more policy than what she's promised, like when both houses, both parties, and the president saw fit in 2013 to tie student loan rates to the 10-year treasury note, and nobody noticed. **** like that. Granted, I've no idea who Donald Trump would put on the supreme court--it'd likely be worse than Merrick Garland, but Merrick Garland, whom Hillary would certainly consent to, isn't anything resembling liberal and can't be counted on for anything that matters (like campaign finance) anyway. Why on earth would I fear a Trump presidency more than I fear another Clinton?

 

[Frank Apisa]

Honestly, I wouldn't say this, but it's been going on for months now. Sanders supporters are very passionate, and have been overly optimistic (sometimes to the point of denial) over Sanders chances, but in terms of policies and political analysis, most Sanders supporters have been reasonably (or at least largely) rooted in fact and haven't been denying reality. There's many notable exceptions, but I'm speaking in generalities.

Contrarily, Clinton's supporters, again speaking in generalities, as the months have gone by are sounding more and more like conservatives --and not just in their own open disdain for people supporting liberal/Leftist policies, but also in simply refusing to look at the numbers and see where they stand. Look, I've seen it more and more as the months go by. They are turning into a pretty bizarre lot, and if they let this go much farther, they keep in standing a worse and worse chance in November. As much as I dislike Hillary, I don't want Trump in office. (I'm not going to vote her unless she changes her tune at least partially, but that's a separate discussion that I'm having on another thread.)


To make this a little more precise, Hillary, her mouth pieces, and her average supporters seem to have a narrative that in their group they've determined is true, and you start to see all of these general themes:

1.) Hillary's status quo/sustained neoliberalism is the future of the Democratic party.
2.) The only people who matter in an election are Democratic loyalists.
3.) The only thing needed to secure the Democratic party's victory in 2016 are Hillary loyalists.
4.) Bernie supporters are largely crazy people (Possibly sexist? Maybe racist?), and we don't want them in our party.
5.) We all want a progressive future, but we just can't have that right now, so it's important that we election someone who is a realist and won't try. That's very important, or that future progressive dream will never happen.
6.) Therefore, people who want to fight for a progressive future are really just setting progressivism backwards. We just need to take the current system we have and tweak it a little. Be loyal, and we'll succeed in the future.
7.) Republicans are evil, vicious monsters, and anyone who is against Hillary is probably a closeted Republican or, at the very least, is aiding and abetting them. The way to avoid this is to be a loyalist.
8.) An important reason why Hillary can't just give us the progressive dream, is because even Barrack Obama had Democratic opposition when he tried to implement Obamacare. If even Democrats are fighting us, how can we succeed?
9.) Remember, all we need to do is get rid of Republicans to have our progressive dream. This is why sometimes we have to take money from Wallstreet/Big Oil/etc; it's the reason why Hillary has to take that money is to help other Democrats bid for political positions. See, she's a loyalist, and loyalists are good.


In short, it's positively Orwellian, and unless someone pops their bubble, they keep on increasing the likelihood of a Trump presidency. Some of it is just fanboy/fangirl thinking and they're purposefully overlooking negatives, but some of it is just the right recipe for a Trump presidency.

The Orwellian part of this post....is that you think it accurately portrays the position of Hillary Clinton, her staff, or the vast majority of her supporters.

If the Sanders enthusiasts actually desert the Democratic Party nominee...that is their right. If that helps get someone like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz elected...we will have to live with that.

I only hope I am NEVER so short-sighted that I would be part of move in that direction.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Why on earth would I fear a Trump presidency more than I fear another Clinton?

Well, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't. We're just damned, that should be evident --even if Sanders got in, the obstruction he would have received would have damned us still, probably.

Let's set aside the issues of a Clinton presidency (although I think in many respects they're actually worse than what you're stating, because you haven't discussed the implications for so-called left policy if the bubble finally pops during Hillary's presidency and if the "left" gets blamed for it).

The long and the short of a Trump presidency is that, first off, Trump is no libertarian. He has no interest in your personal rights and civil liberties. He's already gotten on Muslims and Latinos, he's gone after women, and this all makes sense given that his father literally marched with the KKK at the end of the 1920's when his father was a young man --it tells you oodles about what type of a person we're dealing with. On the brightest note, you can expect that he'll take bribes like mad (remember, he's openly telling everyone that he's out to get a good deal for himself), he'd pump out a bill 10x worse than the PATRIOT act for sure, and he'll likely be wildly incompetent to boot and could make the impending crash worse by orders of magnitude, like George Bush did. That's the most obvious, most likely threat from a Trump presidency, coupled with the idea that populism is what caused this, so you need to hand the reigns back to the Wise Overlords and their neoliberal agenda.

On a more extreme possibility --and we have the right conditions, so this has to be taken seriously-- is that he pushes the country to fascism. Do not ever forget that there has been a long standing faction of Americans who are fascists (there were so many prior to World War II, it was partially a question amongst the populace as to who we should side with, and when we refused to let in Jewish immigrants). During that same time period, the KKK had deep political influence and power. The white nationalists, fascists, extreme proponents of "traditional" America (WASPs), and authoritarian white socialists have not disappeared, and they have only gotten more tenacious during their loss of power over the last 70 years. People doubted what Hitler's intentions were for the longest time, they said that he was using racism to cleverly drum up votes until he started sending Jews off to the gas chamber. The descent into fascism goes with a thousand little cuts. Lest we forget, Germany had extreme (neo)liberalism and corrupt Republicanism (just like we did, and do now) prior the rise of fascists, and his rise entirely correlated with a sense that accepting non-traditional life styles (including sexual relationships), the extreme greed, the extreme callousness of society, etc, was all due to the opulence of the previous two decades. Under the right conditions, we could easily lead to Germany, and even if they are the minority in terms of support, the non-democratic aspects (e.g. voting districts, Senate seats) gives these people an inordinate, unjustifiable amount of political power that represents them well beyond their numbers, coupled to increased voter obstruction. Neoliberalism isn't the most destructive ideology simply because it's abhorrently corrupt, deliterious, and unstable --it's instability opens a gateway to far, far worse systems that wouldn't normally be conceivable outside of such extreme wealth inequality, imperialism, and class ignorance due to the propaganda necessary to prop up neoliberalism.

There's many systems to prevent that, but there were many systems to prevent that in Germany, as well. If Trump continues down the line of attacks that he's currently giving, then my hand will be forced to vote for Hillary and not Jill Stein.

 

[Frank Apisa]

There's many systems to prevent that, but there were many systems to prevent that in Germany, as well. If Trump continues down the line of attacks that he's currently giving, then my hand will be forced to vote for Hillary and not Jill Stein.

I cannot imagine what is causing you to think that Donald Trump will ever be something other than what he has shown us regularly and with great clarity to be already.

We know what he is.

He will "continue down this line"...or he will intensify the level of his phoniness to convince people that he has changed so they will vote for him in the General Election. Either way...the man is a serious threat to anyone who wants the things I hear you saying you want.

The ONLY sensible alternative in the General Election, if it comes down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, is a steadfast vote for Hillary Clinton. In fact, it should be an enthusiastic vote accompanied by an enthusiastic endorsement leading up to the vote...in an effort to persuade others on the fence to make the correct move.

A vote for a third party...or a withheld vote is aiding an abetting a great danger to America and the world.

One last thing: She MAY, indeed, be the president presiding when "the bubble" bursts. Someone is going to hit with that blast...because great economic turmoil is on its way in a rush. Technology is putting workers permanently out of work...the concept of "one must earn one's living" is coming to a violent end.

Let the person who is in the office take the heat when it happens, but that is no logical reason to excuse allowing someone like Trump (or any other Republican) to get into that office.

 

[calamity]

The Berniebots are nuts, but give them a few months of seeing the Republican candidate and they will vote for Hillary in a NY minute.

 

[FieldTheorist]

Prepare to bow to the Queen!

"We do not kneel."

"But it is customary to bow before the king when you have been defeated."

"All the same, I do not kneel."

 

[Frank Apisa]

The Berniebots are nuts, but give them a few months of seeing the Republican candidate and they will vote for Hillary in a NY minute.

I sure hope so. It is the only smart thing to do.

 

[calamity]

"We do not kneel."

"But it is customary to bow before the king when you have been defeated."

"All the same, I do not kneel."

Do I still have that sig?

Time to blow it away.

 

[FieldTheorist]

I cannot imagine what is causing you to think that Donald Trump will ever be something other than what he has shown us regularly and with great clarity to be already.

I certainly think that he is a fascist at heart. I'm not discussing what I think, I'm discussing what I think the average voter from different voting blocs will think after 6 months of blatant lies from both Hillary and Drumpf.

Either way...the man is a serious threat to anyone who wants the things I hear you saying you want.

The ONLY sensible alternative in the General Election, if it comes down to Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, is a steadfast vote for Hillary Clinton. In fact, it should be an enthusiastic vote accompanied by an enthusiastic endorsement leading up to the vote...in an effort to persuade others on the fence to make the correct move.

A vote for a third party...or a withheld vote is aiding an abetting a great danger to America and the world.

No it's not. We're still in the primaries. If Hillary wants my vote, she should do what she must to earn my vote --i.e. by actually attempting to be a progressive instead of a neoliberal. It'll be as phony as Donald Trump, but at least there will be some hope that she'll give an attempt at a few issues (like Obama did after the gay rights lobbyists got large amounts of donations from bundles, then suddenly Obama was as pro-gay rights as a person could be, and we mysteriously went from "impossible" to "could be done halfway through his next term"). If you light a fire under neoliberal's asses and bribe them sufficiently well, then virtually any "impossible progressive fairytale" suddenly becomes a "something that only takes couple of years."

And that's about as much as I can hope out of Hillary. It's literally our only remaining bargaining power (modulo who gets sent to congress, which is the next real battle), and if Hillary thinks she can play chicken with the Progressive Left, she's rolling the dice, not us.

One last thing: She MAY, indeed, be the president presiding when "the bubble" bursts. Someone is going to hit with that blast...because great economic turmoil is on its way in a rush. Technology is putting workers permanently out of work...the concept of "one must earn one's living" is coming to a violent end.

Frank, have you ever stopped to ask yourself the following question: "Why is it that a huge, even larger economic turmoil is coming plummeting towards us?"

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why is it that even though the majority of the country is moving to the Left and more so every year, our political dialogue keeps moving further to the Right, more about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, more attacks on universal healthcare, and so on, even though the majority of everyone, including so-called Republicans, want the government to pay for our healthcare? Why is it that the majority wants marijuana to be legalized, but that proposal is literally laughed at by every so-called mainstream politician?"

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why is it every election cycle, the Republican candidate keeps on getting worse? How come every election cycle, the Democrats keep on following them out to the Right? Hillary Clinton is as right-wing as Ronald Reagan on a majority of issues, and in many important instances, she's more right-wing than he was. Why is that the trend?"


It's not that I'm not afraid of Donald Trump, it's that I expect Donald Trump to lose and I'm afraid of what happens not merely in the next 4 years, but the next 40. I'm worried about what fanatic the Republicans find in 2020, 24, 28, etc, and how frustrated, angry, and betrayed Americans will be and feel by then. That's how Democrats felt when they pushed through Ronald Reagan (who won the so-called "Democratic loyalists" in California). Worse still, I'm wondering when it is that Democrats push for a candidate as right-wing as George Bush, all to avoid a fanatic worse than Hitler. That's the madness we push for every 4-to-8 years when we vote for more neoliberalism because we're afraid of worse neoliberalism, worse conservatism, and the Democrats whisper sweet-nothings about equality, liberty, and justice in our ears --when we know, and they know, they don't mean a word of it.

How long do you expect that to last, and what form of extreme fascism do you think that will bring?

 

[Frank Apisa]

I certainly think that he is a fascist at heart. I'm not discussing what I think, I'm discussing what I think the average voter from different voting blocs will think after 6 months of blatant lies from both Hillary and Drumpf.

People lie. Anyone in any voting bloc who thinks the candidate they favor lies less than the candidate they oppose...is almost certainly wrong.

Using sophomoric nonsense like "Drumpf" is beneath you. You ought really to get rid of it.

No it's not. We're still in the primaries. If Hillary wants my vote, she should do what she must to earn my vote --i.e. by actually attempting to be a progressive instead of a neoliberal. It'll be as phony as Donald Trump, but at least there will be some hope that she'll give an attempt at a few issues (like Obama did after the gay rights lobbyists got large amounts of donations from bundles, then suddenly Obama was as pro-gay rights as a person could be, and we mysteriously went from "impossible" to "could be done halfway through his next term"). If you light a fire under neoliberal's asses and bribe them sufficiently well, then virtually any "impossible progressive fairytale" suddenly becomes a "something that only takes couple of years."

And that's about as much as I can hope out of Hillary. It's literally our only remaining bargaining power (modulo who gets sent to congress, which is the next real battle), and if Hillary thinks she can play chicken with the Progressive Left, she's rolling the dice, not us.

What you seem to WANT is for Hillary Clinton to lie to you even more.

I doubt she will.


She will get done what she can...and it will be seen as "incremental and too little" by the folk on the left...and seen as "leading the country into destruction" by the right.

She will be doing what she can.

(more coming)

 

[Frank Apisa]

Frank, have you ever stopped to ask yourself the following question: "Why is it that a huge, even larger economic turmoil is coming plummeting towards us?"

Yeah, I do. And the answer I always come up with is: Because neither the conservatives or liberals will do the thing that most needs doing...mainly, eliminating the notion that ANYONE must earn his/her living.

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why is it that even though the majority of the country is moving to the Left and more so every year, our political dialogue keeps moving further to the Right, more about cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, more attacks on universal healthcare, and so on, even though the majority of everyone, including so-called Republicans, want the government to pay for our healthcare? Why is it that the majority wants marijuana to be legalized, but that proposal is literally laughed at by every so-called mainstream politician?"

Yeah, I have. Why on Earth would you think I have not?

Have you ever asked yourself, "Why is it every election cycle, the Republican candidate keeps on getting worse? How come every election cycle, the Democrats keep on following them out to the Right? Hillary Clinton is as right-wing as Ronald Reagan on a majority of issues, and in many important instances, she's more right-wing than he was. Why is that the trend?"

Yeah, I have. Why on Earth would you think I have not.

BETTER YET...why do you suppose you have come up with better answers to those questions than I?

It's not that I'm not afraid of Donald Trump, it's that I expect Donald Trump to lose and I'm afraid of what happens not merely in the next 4 years, but the next 40. I'm worried about what fanatic the Republicans find in 2020, 24, 28, etc, and how frustrated, angry, and betrayed Americans will be and feel by then. That's how Democrats felt when they pushed through Ronald Reagan (who won the so-called "Democratic loyalists" in California). Worse still, I'm wondering when it is that Democrats push for a candidate as right-wing as George Bush, all to avoid a fanatic worse than Hitler. That's the madness we push for every 4-to-8 years when we vote for more neoliberalism because we're afraid of worse neoliberalism, worse conservatism, and the Democrats whisper sweet-nothings about equality, liberty, and justice in our ears --when we know, and they know, they don't mean a word of it.

Get over it. Stop unnecessarily lamenting.

If you really care about these things...HOW IN THE NAME OF ANYTHING REASONABLE CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE THINKING ABOUT SITTING THE ELECTION OUT OR VOTING FOR A THIRD PARTY?

That is insanity.

How long do you expect that to last, and what form of extreme fascism do you think that will bring?

I hope fascism never visits us, but if it does, it does and it will destroy us.

Something will take its place.

In the meantime...and election is scheduled for November of this year...and you ought to be getting your head screwed on properly rather than dealing with what you are dealing with in this post.

 

[Greenbeard]

As far as social safety nets, it's unlikely to be expanded --the most we could hope for is that they might get less assaulted under Hillary. And every Democratic president has been getting increasingly more conservative than the last. Barrack Obama, by the way, offered the "grand bargain" --do you remember what that was? He'd been discussing it since before he even campaigned for president.

This is absurd. Safety net spending has expanded by literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year under the Obama administration.

Despite GOP efforts, Obama's safety net expansion is historic

The latest expansions came in the $1.8-trillion budget deal that Congress approved last month, which made permanent hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for low- and moderate-income families and boosted aid for college students.

The tax credits have received much less public attention than other social welfare spending, including the Affordable Care Act, but they have become the government's largest cash-assistance program to fight poverty, with more than 40 million people receiving benefits each year.

The assistance was broadened on a temporary basis, mostly in Obama's first year. Making that expansion permanent will help at least 16 million people, according to estimates from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

That “would rank among the biggest anti-poverty achievements, outside of health reform, in years,” said Robert Greenstein, the center's executive director.

But Republicans have been unable to use their majorities to reverse the growth in social programs, as the year-end budget deal underscored.

In addition to the tax benefits for low-income families, the deal, which gained support from majorities of Democrats and Republicans, also boosted federal aid for low- and middle-income college students through increased grants and tax breaks.

The 2010 healthcare law has extended government-subsidized health coverage to millions of poor and working-class Americans in the last two years.

The ACA alone (not even counting the host of other anti-poverty initiatives that've been instituted over the last ten years) is the largest addition to the safety net since the Johnson administration.

 

[gavinfielder]

This is absurd. Safety net spending has expanded by literally hundreds of billions of dollars per year under the Obama administration.

Despite GOP efforts, Obama's safety net expansion is historic

The Clintons are to the right of Obama. Their welfare cuts in the 90's were also historic. If she actually does raise the federal minimum wage, it'll likely be the most significant thing she does for the social safety net, and she wouldn't even bother doing that if it weren't the political order of the day.

 

[Frank Apisa]

The Clintons are to the right of Obama. Their welfare cuts in the 90's were also historic. If she actually does raise the federal minimum wage, it'll likely be the most significant thing she does for the social safety net, and she wouldn't even bother doing that if it weren't the political order of the day.

If you cannot see that the Democratic Party candidate will be a MUCH, MUCH better friend to the safety net programs of this country than the Republican Party candidate...

...you simply are not thinking the problem through carefully enough to make an informed vote.

Hey...that happens.

Anyway...raising the minimum wage is not going to do that much to deal with the problems we currently have with employment. Machines...the fruit of our technological evolution...are better at doing the work humans have historically done...and they end up being cheaper. We need a way to deal with the problem of not having anywhere near enough decent paying jobs for the people who need and want one.

Neither party is do anything significant about that, because the voters will not react kindly to their doing so.

 

[gavinfielder]

If you cannot see that the Democratic Party candidate will be a MUCH, MUCH better friend to the safety net programs of this country than the Republican Party candidate...

I'm sorry, let me clear this up for you.

Hillary Clinton is every bit as conservative as the average republican.

Which should have been clear the moment she supported Barry Goldwater. But I'm guessing to you, that didn't happen either.