| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you don't believe...
... that Saint Hillary would have continued to expand our already unconscionable incarceration rates (expansion begun under a Democratic president she happened to be married to), continued to wage overseas wars to disastrous effect on our young people and economy (as did the last Democratic president), and continued to abet Wall Street's destruction of the middle class (as every president, Democrat and Republican alike, in recent memory)?
I'm guessing she's doing all this after eating a baby and before she dies of Parkinson's?
You're honestly saying that those would not have been her policies? Because that view is... drastically at odds with all the evidence.
I'm guessing she's doing all this after eating a baby and before she dies of Parkinson's?You're honestly saying that those would not have been her policies? Because that view is... drastically at odds with all the evidence.
Only if you cherry pick your evidence.
Because lets be real clear here, you're claiming there is no evidence at all that indicates any of your statements are false.
you're claiming there is no evidence at all...
Point of pedantry acknowledged: I should indeed have said, "the preponderance of evidence," rather than "all the evidence." Otherwise the point stands.
Let's look at scenario. A US government agency announces a change to it's policy, quite significantly.
Candidate A, who belongs to the same party as in power (when the change is announced) says that this is a good policy and should be continued.
Candidate B, who belongs to the opposition party, says the change is bad.
Which candidate is more likely to follow through on those changes?
if they're not sufficiently pure.
If by "sufficiently pure" you mean "not totally determined to destroy the middle class," then sure.
Are you sure your evidence isn't just a hoax perpetrated by China?
Come on, wasn't it Russia that made your candidate lose? At least get your story straight.
And, bear in mind, I had profoundly hoped that Trump end up in prison, not the White House. I'm not a right wing shill here. I'm an independent middle class American who doesn't want my daughter to grow up in a feudal serfdom run by our corporate overlords.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But similarly, if you're going to pretend that bigotry of various kinds is irrelevant, you're already living in a fantasy world.
And what happened when Clinton got honest about it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, you're not right wing but you do believe Hillary Clinton had a secret (or maybe not secret) plan to turn America into a feudal serfdom? That's your reality?Are you sure your evidence isn't just a hoax perpetrated by China?Come on, wasn't it Russia that made your candidate lose? At least get your story straight.
And, bear in mind, I had profoundly hoped that Trump end up in prison, not the White House. I'm not a right wing shill here. I'm an independent middle class American who doesn't want my daughter to grow up in a feudal serfdom run by our corporate overlords.
It's more that the exit point of American economic and political life since Ronald Reagan is plutocracy - governance by the rich.
And after plutocracy, when the American middle class is dead, who knows ? Serfdom it may be ; though I would call it corporatist serfdom, more than feudal serfdom.
As for Hillary Clinton she's (to my eyes, at least) a typically corrupt politician, bought and paid by for the tenth of the 1% who are the plutocracy. It's not that she has a plan to turn the USA into a serfdom, it's that that is what lies logically ahead of her policies.
For what it's worth, I hope that the american people will cling to their democracy long enough to give the boot to the likes of Clinton, Trump and Obama, and to establish a more decent and caring society for themselves.
And how exactly does any of that refute the point that the right has spent years creating their own sense of reality?
At some point we have to stop falling back on "Well, our party isn't quite as bad as the other guys," as a cover for their failures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear, you're not right wing but you do believe Hillary Clinton had a secret (or maybe not secret) plan to turn America into a feudal serfdom? That's your reality?
What's secret? Is she in favor of for-profit prisons, based on her past voting record, etc.? Check for yourself. And did Bill Clinton in fact start the massive upward trend that now leaves us with 1% of the adult population in prison (far greater than any other nation on Earth)? Again, check for yourself.
Has Hillary come out in favor of expanded foreign wars, based on her record and debates? Did previous Democratic presidents (Obama) continue our involvement in those wars? Do both Democrats and Republicans both continue to spend far more on those wars than on all our own internal problems put together?
Has Hillary been on record saying "Wall Street isn't really responsible for '08"? Again, don't take my word for it. Inform yourself.
The reality I'm inhabiting is the one you're ignoring, which is entirely distinct from the alt-right hellhole.
So, do you think this is an actual goal or just something Democrats are stumbling into by not being willing to do whatever it is you think they need to do to change direction?
The latter, entirely.
What that might be and how you get the current US electorate to accept it being another question.
The electorate put Donald Trump into the White House. That proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you can convince them of absolutely anything at all, as long as you package it right and cover it with a fancy slogan.
So, do you think this is an actual goal or just something Democrats are stumbling into by not being willing to do whatever it is you think they need to do to change direction?The latter, entirely.
What that might be and how you get the current US electorate to accept it being another question.The electorate put Trump into the White House. That proves beyond any reasonable doubt that you can convince them of anything at all, as long as you package it right and cover it with a fancy slogan.
Actually the majority of the electorate voted for Clinton by a margin of 3 million votes or so.
Don't discount the mechanics of the Electoral College which has now elected two Presidents in less than two decades, who did not achieve the majority of the actual votes submitted. The United States is the only country in the world where this can happen in a process that does not involve a post election coup de' tat.
Your defense of republicans creating their own reality was Hillary Clinton advocates for a feudal serfdom. If you're point is democrats deny reality then it is literally you making the argument that republicans aren't as bad as the other guys.
"You're either for us or, uh, you hate America!" Man, you sound exactly like Dubya at his worst. ANY criticism of Democrats, to you, is support of Republicans? Even when we're talking about instances in which those two parties have the exact same policies?
The reality I'm inhabiting is the one you're ignoring, which is entirely distinct from the alt-right hellhole.At some point we have to stop falling back on "Well, our party isn't quite as bad as the other guys," as a cover for their failures.
"Their" meaning the Democrats'. Yes. It is actually possible to feel that (a) the Republicans are in fact worse, but also (b) the Democrats currently aren't much better, if at all, on a number of fairly major issues.
So when I was discussing the right's tendency to live in their own manufactured reality, you bringing Hillary Clinton's secret serfdom strategy was a non sequitur?
Maybe you could read some of the posts where I point out actual issues, instead of using the Republican strategy of making stuff up? It's like you're yelling "Death Panels!" or something.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But apparently it doesn't matter. The first order of business is to destroy the Democratic party because it's the real problem.
First step.. convince the Democrats to re-elect Nancy Peolosi as the Minority Leader despite the fact that she has been leading Democrats to Congressional losses for five straight years.
So republicans are bad, democrats are bad but only democrats have failures? Or try to cover up thier failures? Do you know what point you're trying to make? Because I sure don't.
It helps if you take of the binary glasses and look at each thing separately.
The Republicans are very, very bad. Much worse than the Democrats, to be sure. They're totally out of touch with reality, try to cover their failings with made-up nonsense, and nothing is too vile or juvenile for them to stoop to. There is absolutely no excuse for them. You and I seem to agree completely on this point.
This does not, however, make the Democrats blameless. In the past few decades, the Dems have been happily following the Republicans' lead on issues like ruinous foreign wars and squeezing the middle class to enrich the 1%. They're arguably even worse when it comes to prison expansion.
Given these policies, and the results of the election, Democrats can no longer, in my opinion, keep coasting along as the "we're not as bad as them!" party. It's true, but it's not getting us anywhere except in a race to the bottom, economy-wise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But apparently it doesn't matter. The first order of business is to destroy the Democratic party because it's the real problem.
Are you a Republican? No? Then you can't fix the Republican party. Are you a Democrat? Yes? Then you can help fix the Democratic party. That would probably be a lot easier and more useful than destroying it. But that would also require being honest with yourself, when their policies are a continuation of the Republicans', or even an expansion of them (in at least one case).
"Republicans are bad, therefore Dems can do no wrong!" is precisely what's allowing a number of the Republicans' worst economic policies to continue.
I'm honestly having trouble following you at this point.
Read the posts you're ignoring and see if they help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do very much disagree with the narrative that both parties are the same and are part of some secret plot to destroy us all. Maybe that's the same thing to you, I don't know.
They're not the same.
There is no secret plot; there are very open policies. And those policies won't destroy us all -- only the middle class.If that end is OK with you, by all means let it continue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, the "But both parties suck!" analogy just leads to people not voting or becoming involved, or protest voting. The two parties are very different on a variety of issues. Sure they could be more progressive in some areas...but if folks want that they need to go and get more progressive folks elected.
On a different but related note:
What Really Matters for the first three weeks of the Trump presidency
I thought this discussion interesting, in the sense that, its pretty easy right now if you go to certain websites or hang out in certain circles to think that Trump is doing poorly. But really...he still has as much of the Republican voters approving of his job performance as democrat voters disprove. And Republican senators and congressfolk may make snide comments on him, but they have in overwhelming numbers backed every nominee.
Probably about 90% of every "What the Hell?" moment I have had about Trump in the last month basically is something that doesn't matter at all. Even when I think it really should. Which means that all this Trump anger on the left probably won't actually translate into any actual benefit for the dems in 2018, except in a few purplish states perhaps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
that Saint Hillary would have continued to expand our already unconscionable incarceration rates (expansion begun under a Democratic president she happened to be married to), continued to wage overseas wars to disastrous effect on our young people and economy (as did the last Democratic president), and continued to abet Wall Street's destruction of the middle class (as every president, Democrat and Republican alike, in recent memory)?
No, that she would have expanded (or at least kept) the dob frank bill to prevent the next economic crash
That she wouldn't have an attorney general that actively suppressed the black vote by having community activists arrested
That she's be appointing a supreme court justice that wouldn't be in favor of citizens united, which is what keeps the people from having any say in their government
That she's not going to start a war with Elbonia in three years
That she would spin reality, not make it up.
We'd at least acknowledge that global warming is a thing, not a scam to get free trips to the arctic circle
People have a reasonable expectation of what they were getting with hillary. It was okay, but compared to trump it was amazing.
The secretary of education wouldn't be stockpiling weapons in kindergarten to fend off grizzly bears
If you want to stop the republican/democrat light consortium from destroying the middle class you need to move the government from republican/democrat light to democrat and democrat light. To do that, you need to ungerrymander the country. To do that you need to elect the republicans light.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That she wouldn't have an attorney general that actively suppressed the black vote by having community activists arrested
Yes. Don't get me wrong -- she has some stances that I very much approve of.
That she's be appointing a supreme court justice that wouldn't be in favor of citizens united, which is what keeps the people from having any say in their government
I'm all in favor of overturning CU, but I'm not sure this follows from electing HRC. Justices are still (hopefully) beholden to precedent and other jurisprudence, not to the person appointing them. Also, at this point it would require a Constitutional amendment. Still absolutely necessary to fight for, though.
That she's not going to start a war with Elbonia in three years
Syria maybe. Staying in Afghanistan and Iraq, almost certainly. But, I agree, not Elbonia.
We'd at least acknowledge that global warming is a thing, not a scam to get free trips to the arctic circle
See #1.
People have a reasonable expectation of what they were getting with Hillary. It was okay, but compared to trump it was amazing.
That's my issue -- as long as we keep comparing sand to ground glass, of course we'll keep eating sand. But I'd like more nutrient value in my diet than that -- this way we just starve instead of dying faster and in more agony. I'm not even asking for filet mignon or anything -- just something to keep us (the middle class) from wasting away.
If you want to stop the republican/democrat light consortium from destroying the middle class you need to move the government from republican/democrat light to democrat and democrat light. To do that, you need to ungerrymander the country. To do that you need to elect the republicans light.
I agree. Let's get to it, then!
So...
We shouldn't excuse failures of one party by pointing to the failures of the other party
Stop right there. You'll understand me completely, if you do that.