American Politics the 2016 edition |
Post Reply | Page <1 2223242526 146> |
Author | |||
Smurph
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 11 2012 Location: Columbus&NYC Status: Offline Points: 3167 |
Posted: May 16 2016 at 21:48 | ||
Are you saying that other countries are non interventionist with us? I don't see Chinese or British military bases on American soil? it's almost like we can trade with other countries instead
|
|||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: May 16 2016 at 21:49 | ||
perhaps not... but that line of thought is and has been for years. It is one of the few things the f**king GOP has gotten right. In theory at least. Practically speaking.. well... best leave that alone. |
|||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||
micky
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 02 2005 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 46838 |
Posted: May 16 2016 at 21:53 | ||
not to leave you hanging.. perhaps it is late... but that made no sense to me. Usually a good clue I'm up past my bed time. |
|||
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip
|
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: May 16 2016 at 21:57 | ||
Well I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist, but on the topic of the military personally I'd personally like to see a huge reduction in terms of spending and the military as a whole. Obviously it is not as simple as that, it's the US's biggest job program after all. |
|||
Smurph
Forum Senior Member Joined: January 11 2012 Location: Columbus&NYC Status: Offline Points: 3167 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 09:51 | ||
Hahah. I understand. I didn't mean to get heated. My thoughts is that just because we decreased our military involvement wouldn't make us isolationist. We could stand to trade even more. Trade is good. Traditionally isolationist countries like Japan had extremely limited trade as well.
|
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 11:41 | ||
Actually speaking of Japan and military bases, people there have been protesting them quite a lot lately. Here is one article I can currently find on it.
|
|||
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member Joined: December 29 2005 Location: Lilliwaup, Wa. Status: Offline Points: 5319 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 15:36 | ||
http://www.mediaite.com/online/stop-everything-and-watch-this-bonkers-cartoon-of-hillary-clinton-singing-i-will-survive/
|
|||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 21:48 | ||
Awesome results from Kentucky. Sanders lost, but by just .4% when the best poll for him showed behind by 5% and this is from a closed primary, southern state. Much closer result than I ever would've expected, and I think sends a message that even though this race is over, people are still coming out for him and in big numbers. I expect he'll win Oregon later, and probably a few other states still.
Now that I can sit down and reflect, really have to be impressed how well he has done given where he started, what he was up against and what he advocated, which I thought may have sticking power but not this much. I am a progressive so I admit I'm biased, but I really think the Democratic Party has no choice but to adopt the CPC's budget and policies, or at least some good degree of it if they want to survive long term. Of course, that is basically just going to what they were pre 90s
Edited by JJLehto - May 17 2016 at 21:48 |
|||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 21:55 | ||
While I do believe Hillary will win, it will be a painful victory, and dare I say a pyrrhic one. Of all the arguments used to support Clinton the "electability" one is total BS. In a general election he would obviously win all the blue states, and as for the swing states...I think his message would resonate and he's proven to do very well with working class voters, youth and independents. I have no doubt he'd do as well as Clinton, if not more. No one has addressed this, just throw out the usual "hes weak" or worse "hes unelectable" with no real argument. I've like to see someone tell me why I am wrong. I think this election will either have high turnout, or low turnout. If it's high it's because lots of people hate both and want to stop the other, if low it's because lots of people hate both and wont bother. It's a very sad picture, and as I've said the Dems are basically costing themselves their future to win this election. Saddest part is they would've won this election anyway.... But hey, Ron Paul and the Tea Party (while I strongly disagree with them) did bring a bit of a purge to their party, I hope the progressive movement can do the same.
Edited by JJLehto - May 17 2016 at 22:02 |
|||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 22:17 | ||
While I also hope to see Warren as the future of the party, this is my fear: That Clinton sets us back so far, it can't happen. Hear me out. How can you compromise? Either start close to the opponent and move forward from there, or aim far and hope to meet in the middle but farther ahead. Dem strategy since the 90s has been to concede from the start. They have faced a very hostile enemy in the Republicans, but they have met them just outside the GOP door. So when compromise happens, it's generally been backwards. Sanders could start from a farther point, thus when forced to compromise it may meet at a better point. Trump has actually shown this works. He aims VERY far, then walks it back. He's walked back almost every comment he's made. He says he'll take a flamethrower to the walls of the establishment, but is now shopping all the mainstream candidates as VP. He made the GOP vomit in disgust, and now has Christie under his fold, Paul Ryan is suddenly meeting with him and discussing unity. He is proof you can succeed in aiming for the stars, then settling for the mountain top, opposed to trying to climb a vertical ice wall from the bottom. I fear Clinton will pursue the latter. This may not just set us back in terms of policy, but perception. People wanted universal healthcare. The public option was a popular idea. ACA is not so much. Obama moderated on the stimulus, despite pushing for more by some of his economists, to try and get GOP support. He got 0 and we got a watered down stimulus. THEN, (Paul Krugman called this) the GOP can say "haha! $787 billion and it did nothing! See how worthless government is!" Clinton sought a moderate stance from the get go, things regressed, Obama sought a moderate ground from the get go, I think it hurt the party politically, and there's still been some regression. We got austerity cuts that continue to hurt us, and of course can then be used by the GOP. People are kinda dumb...I've seen those who want lesser gov angry at the "obama cuts" to the military, or "Thanks Obama" with these 2-3 hour lines to go through TSA thanks to layoffs. Drives me up a wall how people want less gov, then not to deal with the results but this is what happens. I fear Clinton moderate-ism may cause damage that wont allow Warren to happen when the time comes.
Edited by JJLehto - May 17 2016 at 22:43 |
|||
Atavachron
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: September 30 2006 Location: Pearland Status: Offline Points: 65310 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 22:42 | ||
Great candidates come along maybe every twenty-five years. Great nominees maybe every fifty; John Kennedy, Barack Obama. This is not one of those times.
|
|||
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
|
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 22:46 | ||
I agree, the current perception seems to be very right wing, someone who is center-left at most like Sanders is considered unthinkably radical at this point, never mind that his positions are nothing extraordinary. I have only been alive to remember back to Bill, so maybe I am biased in that way, but to me it seems like since then the dems have basically just adopted a more moderate version of the GOP's economic policies, slapped on some more progressive wedge issues and called that being left wing.
I think the dem party could attract the younger crowd if people like Sanders and Warren stay vocal and their supporters help vote in like minded candidates like Tim Canova (who is running against DWS), and use that support to build more explicitly new-deal-esque/Keynesian flavored policies. Letting slide austerity measures and having even Obummercare neutered from the start by immediately conceding defeat and then picking up a few crumbs off the floor and calling it a successful compromise is obviously not working, and people are more aware of it than ever. |
|||
JJLehto
Prog Reviewer Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
Posted: May 17 2016 at 23:55 | ||
That is exactly what has happened. Economically, the Democratic Party has become the Republican Party lite. Even their liberal policies, are just schemes and different ways to trickle down or stimulate our dear job creators. No one (till Bernie) just said: Create the damn jobs directly! Obama really was bold, for the first time in 30 years we pursued direct gov stimulus, (opposed to tax cuts/defense spending) but over half the stimulus was tax breaks and aid to state/local govs. This is good. However, it's not much of a stimulus. Once it ended he did indeed cave in to austerity, and from the get go there was talk of a "grand bargain" he would accept various cuts/social security reforms in exchange for a tiny bit more tax on the wealthy...He's been open to Soc Security reforms, including raising the retirement age and obviously he's supported our trade bills. Of course ACA is actually what conservatives pushed for in the 90s and Dodd-Frank seems to have largely failed. Another reason I feel we can't continue the status quo is the $ in politics has neutered/killed all these bills. It will be impossible for a Sanders, Warren or anyone to accomplish much long as Wall St and big $ interests retain this power Oh and you saw me "joke" on Facebook about how austerity is gunna cause me grief the airport tomorrow, but it's true. TSA layoffs not only cost people jobs, but it's causing these 2 hour lines now. Or ya know, conservatives gripe about how the "Obama cuts" to the military have hurt their pay, states can't afford to repair their crappy roads, schools face cuts, universities hike tuition. Austerity causes very real pain and no one wants to deal with it The Dems moderation on this topic means they are accomplices. They should say no, I wont accept a 4.6% hike on the wealthy in exchange for spending cuts, if that is the choice that was faced, or maybe instead push for defense spending cuts, less corporate welfare etc If the GOP says no, then I'd say well enjoy the deficits you claim to hate. Edited by JJLehto - May 18 2016 at 00:08 |
|||
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer Joined: September 03 2006 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 9869 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 02:12 | ||
2 hour lines?? For real? Which airport(s) and are these domestic or international flights? I have never seen 2 hour long queues for security check in India, not even in Chennai which is the worst of the major airports. When any of your amenities fall behind even India, you need to worry because that takes a lot of doing given how corrupt our govt is. I do remember encountering really long queues at O Hare, Chicago on a Sunday morning whilst flying to NY (this was two years back). But they opened more counters and quickly cleared the lines.
|
|||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20631 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 11:12 | ||
A politician is a politician is a politician......
|
|||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:09 | ||
Reasons why I despise Trump: inspiring people to beat up homeless mexicans
|
|||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:18 | ||
|
|||
|
|||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:18 | ||
|
|||
|
|||
A Person
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 10 2008 Location: __ Status: Offline Points: 65760 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:22 | ||
I don't think it's Sanders' fault Clinton has become just as unfavorable as Trump. |
|||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20631 |
Posted: May 18 2016 at 12:47 | ||
I can't argue with that.....imho both Clinton and Trump are pathetic choices for president of the US and apparently people are scrambling to justify why they will vote for the lessor of two evils depending on their personal politics.
|
|||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 2223242526 146> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions 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 |