Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 02 2005
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 46833
Posted: April 03 2016 at 13:21
and just how have they sh*t on the younger folk.. serious question. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming that sentiment is fueled by temper trantrums of not having your choice be the presumtive nominee. I don't see how the youth have been sh*t on, their choice simply appears is not going to be the nominee. Two enter, one wins one loses. It isn't like the Dems took it alway from him or railroaded him by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Personally I thought the whole process has actually been quite healthy and constructive. Sanders has energized a lot of voters and got a lot of issues out that might not have otherwise. Clinton ignores both at her peril. I doubt she will, she is many things, but stupid or not politically savy are not among them.
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 03 2016 at 13:36
micky wrote:
It isn't like the Dems took it alway from him or railroaded him by changing the rules in the middle of the game.
Nah, that was what affected Lessig, who suspended his campaign after the DNC changed the rules for who was allowed in a debate right before. It also recently happened to a Green party candidate in Maryland, who was invited to a debate twice, before they decided she was not allowed.
Well I thank you for that, because despite basically being a Green Partier (or on the formerly progressive fringe wings of the Democratic Party) I have always supported and voted Dems and always back the nominee whoever it is.
Clinton is the first time I am seriously considering changing my mind.
I think the Clinton campaign/its surrogates and the DNC have not been very welcoming to youth because of comments like how females, who support Sanders, are either in it for boys or have that special place in hell for them, or the constant mentioning of "unrealistic" "too dream like" DWS's comments about how the Super Delegate system is designed to thwart populist candidates, and so many big name articles I see (we all know sorry to say: many major media sources obviously back her) talk about how the youth are just entitled whiners, how we're dumb for not wanting to back Clinton. Just IDK, it all has been very divisive.
Perhaps I can't talk as a white person, but I've also found the constant "Bernie only wins white places" a tad insulting, especially as he's done increasingly better in that area. This again is a bit of a slap to younger voters who have been more supportive of Sanders even among non white groups.
I agree the process has been helpful and it could be constructive to the Democratic Party, IF they handle it well. This is not just another campaign: Yell, fight, when it's over shake hands and be buds. This is kind of like the left's Ron Paul movement, so the Dems really need to tread carefully. I think a big help would be officially adopting some of Sanders' ideas and assuming she wins the nomination, he is made a cabinet member, like Obama did in 08.
We shall see if this changes, last I heard Sanders may be given a spot to talk at the DNC. No mention of a cabinet position. It may just be too early, but if they deny this movement the party will lose long run.
Sanders is a chance to bring back many working class voters who have abandoned the party over time, fire up the youth like Obama did and draw Independents and totally new people into the party. I fear Clinton won't do this, and now that's it's far more possible Trump doesn't get the nomination...Dems should be worried. If there's a brokered convention and they give it to Kasich, or a well liked GOP darkhorse, Clinton may not fare so well.
Related to Clinton (aka corruption) and government in general: This may be relevant to libertarianism.
Anyone reading these Panama Papers? Seems the conspiracy theorists or crazy liberals were right, there really is quite a global web of wealthy/gov/business links all over the world, hiding $ and influencing things.
I hear more info is coming out, I will be shocked if no Americans are involved.
I understand it would be very bold, and ballsy, to hit US officials/businesses/people so I am not sure it will happen, but I think we all kinda know the situation.
I have no idea if the Clinton Foundation is involved with any of this stuff, and if so if they would dare release info on it, but there has been very some very shady stuff from that organization. More I hear about other stories like the Clinton's role in Haiti, just it makes me very ill. I understand politics aint perfect, never clean, and I have a tolerance for things, but just I don't know if I can stomach all this.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 16:58
Some people can't afford to be idealistic.
Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.
A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.
Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.
A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.
That's been the other line.
Sanders supporters who may not support Clinton are "entitled". I've seen several articles along this line, we're spoiled...we can afford a Trump Presidency. Or "screw the country!"
I will personally wait and see how things are looking come election time. My vote will depend on
1: How polling from NJ looks. If it looks like the Dem will win easily, as if often the case, I'll vote Green. If it's close, I'll vote Dem. Yeah people in swing states don't have this luxury but hey, people tell us to quit moaning about the system so I might as well use the system in place to my advantage
2: How polling looks in general
3: The Repub nominee. With a brokered convention looking likely, let's see. I know the Dems secretly WANT Trump since he's a guaranteed loss, but if its contested, who knows what will happen. Cruz is also hated by the party and unelectable, I am very sure the GOP doesn't want him.
If they make it Kasich, polling has shown he's consistently beat Clinton and he doesn't have many of the issues Trump and Cruz do. So we shall see.
I would also like to say, my family, like tens of millions, have seen a steady decline in well being from 2001, basically, to today. We were lucky to have a parent who was becoming a fairly big name manager at a payroll company in the late 90s...so we did very well at that time, many many families did not have that luxury.
Despite going from 1 job family to 4, cutting out pretty much all not necessary spending, and negotiating bills to ease the burden a bit....we're somehow doing worse today than 15 years ago.
I take some offense to being "spoiled" and can afford to go against the Dems. Seems to me we already can't afford the status quo, and the situation is much worse for many many other Americans. Is Clinton better than the Reps? Yes, (though I can see trump abandoning all his policies since he'll do anything for power and really is a not so secret liberal) but if I back Clinton I want to see the Dems then embrace the progressive movement.
If we back the party, and moment they win it's back to the same, back to ignoring the progressive movement and takes 0 attempt to make hard changes.... That'd be Clinton, then Obama then Clinton II. 3 strikes and you're out. If the party doesn't adapt..they're out.
She and others in the party have been quick to adopt Sanders-esque language or show "Hey hey we really do support this!" Is there validity to it? Time will tell...given many of her $ ties and actions as Secretary of State I find it hard to believe she wont continue supporting trade deals, wall st coddling, war hawkishness etc etc but hopefully there can be a wave of progressives who enter Congress, the left tea party, to balance this
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:29
I will answer with more detail tomorrow (with a phone it is unbearable) but quickly:
1. I didn't mention the word "spoiled" (though in some cases it could be inferred). Plenty of not-spoiled liberals are also voting with their egos when they join the #BernieOrBust thing.
2. Still, in case a Republican wins the White House (we can't discard anything at this point), the Supreme Court will be completely conservative and with time all gains in freedom for women, minorities, etc, will be eroded. And money in politics will be an even surer thing than now. Now, I'm not saying whoever Hillary would appoint would be oh so progressive, but at least I'm sure it works be Scalia # 2.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:32
The thing is, any Republican presidency (even a "moderate") terrifies me to a point not even close to what any Hillary or not-too-progressive candidate does.
Joined: November 10 2008
Location: __
Status: Offline
Points: 65760
Posted: April 04 2016 at 19:39
I do not think it would be ego-centric to vote for a candidate that actually comes close to representing me. The "well we just gotta vote dem, the gop is worse!" line of logic has done nothing functionally but cushion our fall to the right. There are a lot of serious problems people in the US face, particularly minorities, and their situation will only get worse with more of the same from Clinton. I don't think it's folly, or selfish, or unreasonable that people have started to look elsewhere for a real sense of democracy.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 05 2016 at 08:39
A Person wrote:
I do not think it would be ego-centric to vote for a candidate that actually comes close to representing me. The "well we just gotta vote dem, the gop is worse!" line of logic has done nothing functionally but cushion our fall to the right. There are a lot of serious problems people in the US face, particularly minorities, and their situation will only get worse with more of the same from Clinton. I don't think it's folly, or selfish, or unreasonable that people have started to look elsewhere for a real sense of democracy.
I'm not attacking voting for Sanders in the primaries. Hell, I vote for Sanders. I don't even have anything to say about people who are not "progressive" or "liberal" and they prefer not to vote than to vote for Clinton.
But those who say that they have liberal or more so progressive values and don't want to see the US as a whole being dragged back to the past should think twice before putting their own sense of self-worth first and ignoring that a GOP president will get to nominate likely 2 Supreme Court justices and this country being how it is, basically altering the entire course of American society.
If the Supreme Court wasn't at stake it would still be awful to prefer a GOP presidency where labor, environment, and many other issues will go the wrong way for progressives. But even more so with the SC at stake.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 05 2016 at 08:43
JJLehto wrote:
The T wrote:
Some people can't afford to be idealistic.
Helping the GOP (Cruz or Trump or even Kasich) get the possibility to nominate one and maybe more Supreme Court justices will destroy a lot of what said idealism is supposedly about.
A "screw the country if Sanders doesn't get the nomination" is not idealism, it's just ego-centrism with good make-up.
That's been the other line.
Sanders supporters who may not support Clinton are "entitled". I've seen several articles along this line, we're spoiled...we can afford a Trump Presidency. Or "screw the country!"
I will personally wait and see how things are looking come election time. My vote will depend on
1: How polling from NJ looks. If it looks like the Dem will win easily, as if often the case, I'll vote Green. If it's close, I'll vote Dem. Yeah people in swing states don't have this luxury but hey, people tell us to quit moaning about the system so I might as well use the system in place to my advantage
2: How polling looks in general
3: The Repub nominee. With a brokered convention looking likely, let's see. I know the Dems secretly WANT Trump since he's a guaranteed loss, but if its contested, who knows what will happen. Cruz is also hated by the party and unelectable, I am very sure the GOP doesn't want him.
If they make it Kasich, polling has shown he's consistently beat Clinton and he doesn't have many of the issues Trump and Cruz do. So we shall see.
I would also like to say, my family, like tens of millions, have seen a steady decline in well being from 2001, basically, to today. We were lucky to have a parent who was becoming a fairly big name manager at a payroll company in the late 90s...so we did very well at that time, many many families did not have that luxury.
Despite going from 1 job family to 4, cutting out pretty much all not necessary spending, and negotiating bills to ease the burden a bit....we're somehow doing worse today than 15 years ago.
I take some offense to being "spoiled" and can afford to go against the Dems. Seems to me we already can't afford the status quo, and the situation is much worse for many many other Americans. Is Clinton better than the Reps? Yes, (though I can see trump abandoning all his policies since he'll do anything for power and really is a not so secret liberal) but if I back Clinton I want to see the Dems then embrace the progressive movement.
If we back the party, and moment they win it's back to the same, back to ignoring the progressive movement and takes 0 attempt to make hard changes.... That'd be Clinton, then Obama then Clinton II. 3 strikes and you're out. If the party doesn't adapt..they're out.
She and others in the party have been quick to adopt Sanders-esque language or show "Hey hey we really do support this!" Is there validity to it? Time will tell...given many of her $ ties and actions as Secretary of State I find it hard to believe she wont continue supporting trade deals, wall st coddling, war hawkishness etc etc but hopefully there can be a wave of progressives who enter Congress, the left tea party, to balance this
Now that I can type better, yes, this is sensible. Your state luckily is not a swing one so it's less of a problem. Also, I see your point and agree with it. I'm not calling you spoiled (sorry if you though I did, come on) and you don't have a "Bernie or f**k the country" mentality like sadly many Bernie supporters do have. They actually would prefer to see this country in flames just because their preferred choice doesn't win the nomination (choice that I would also preferred, believe me I'm deeper to the left than most Bernie supporters).
Joined: July 12 2015
Location: Rust belt
Status: Offline
Points: 261
Posted: April 05 2016 at 10:18
The notion that trump can't possibly win might be presumptuous. The mentality of voting for the party not the candidate because I'm afraid of what the alternative is could swing to the other side. Trump brings MANY new voters to the table if conservatives end up feeling like a lot of liberals do in the end I think he could run away with this. Sure it's hard to see this happening with the current state of the GOP, but in 2004 bush made people terrified of Kerry becoming president basically leading people to believe another terrorist attack would be inevitable. With Hilary's email scandal this is possible again, it does look a bit far fetched for trump to "rally the troops" but if he somehow does the primaries have already indicated record numbers of voters on the GOP side. Obama beat Romney by 4 million votes trump has brought far more than 4 million people to the table.
Songs are like tightly budgeted meals Nobodies doing anything new or even real
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: April 05 2016 at 11:34
The T wrote:
The thing is, any Republican presidency (even a "moderate") terrifies me to a point not even close to what any Hillary or not-too-progressive candidate does.
I don't think the best short term strategy really extends to larger time scales.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 05 2016 at 12:19
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The T wrote:
The thing is, any Republican presidency (even a "moderate") terrifies me to a point not even close to what any Hillary or not-too-progressive candidate does.
I don't think the best short term strategy really extends to larger time scales.
Probably doesn't. I'm not sure with the presidency and the impact it has (especially this coming one) one can't really think long-term...
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: April 05 2016 at 12:20
There is always the option that, say, an atrocious Trump or Cruz presidency would NOT lead to the dreamed-of future revolution #FeelTheBern people talk about, instead leading to just a less radical version of conservative rule. I'm just not seeing the US moving into a European-style system in my lifetime.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20623
Posted: April 06 2016 at 09:34
JJLehto wrote:
Anyone reading these Panama Papers? Seems the conspiracy theorists or crazy liberals were right, there really is quite a global web of wealthy/gov/business links all over the world, hiding $ and influencing things.
.
Not a conspiracy since the Bilderberg group has been around since the 1950's....and meet every year, and I don't think they are there to discuss their golf games. As we all know no cameras or reporters are allowed to report on the topics and meetings in any specific manner. So global influence and control has been going on a very long time in modern days and even before that. Baron Rothschild allegedly once said something to the effect that 'I don't care what government is in power; give me the banks and I'll control things' (paraphrased).
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Trump's campaign is deplorable and disturbing, but if he was somehow elected President god knows what would actually happen given the fact he has no actual beliefs
I could see him 180ing on everything and being some normal President that goes with whatever is feasible. Would piss off his base (maybe they are so locked in his cult of personality who knows) but he doesn't care a lick about his base.
OR he sticks to his guns and really tries all this. He gets 0 accomplished and maybe Congress tries to impeach him over something But really, imagine if Trump actually tried all this stuff. He'd be one of the greatest failures in history.
Cruz is a lot more terrifying and while Kasich is better than the rest, he does scare me economically especially since his views are normal for the party. So like I said, will depend on a number of factors for how I vote. Also the Senate is expected to go Dem this cycle, and in the future after that probably swing GOP. So we may just be in deadlock anyway
Anyone reading these Panama Papers? Seems the conspiracy theorists or crazy liberals were right, there really is quite a global web of wealthy/gov/business links all over the world, hiding $ and influencing things.
.
Not a conspiracy since the Bilderberg group has been around since the 1950's....and meet every year, and I don't think they are there to discuss their golf games. As we all know no cameras or reporters are allowed to report on the topics and meetings in any specific manner. So global influence and control has been going on a very long time in modern days and even before that. Baron Rothschild allegedly once said something to the effect that 'I don't care what government is in power; give me the banks and I'll control things' (paraphrased).
Well that was of course the joke but yes, whenever I'd bring up stuff about tax havens and offshore etc etc people either think it's thriller fiction stuff, or just Im whacky or know it's true but shrugged it off. This showed how true it is, there's a two tier system for the wealthy/powerful and us...with different rules and they can make their own often. This is just Panama too! Imagine what goes on all over.
As for the other stuff, eh that's getting a bit out there for me, though I see truth to it in shades. As I looked more into stuff after our last crisis I was a little disturbed how govs/banking/business/wealthy all do seem to have a bit of a global cabal thing going on, but I dont really cave into the world planning type stuff. I just think tis wealthy peddling influence and self betterment No doubt there is agreement on things such as neo liberal policies and etc
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.344 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
"Freedom" thread or something
Topic Options
micky wrote:
) and government in general: This may be relevant to libertarianism. 
I'll hit those later. 
but yes, whenever I'd bring up stuff about tax havens and offshore etc etc people either think it's thriller fiction stuff, or just Im whacky or know it's true but shrugged it off. This showed how true it is, there's a two tier system for the wealthy/powerful and us...with different rules and they can make their own often. This is just Panama too! Imagine what goes on all over.