I am probably too late, but I hope purity tests don't take over the dems like it has the repubs. That's what all this Bernie is an independent and he backs pro-life liberals stuff appears to be. I hate that i'm about to defend Tomi Lahren but she pretty much got canned for stepping out of line. She is also simply a media commentator. I understand that a single issue can be of utmost importance to a person but in politics we all live in the same pool and their are hundreds of issues to consider.
The other issue is folks/politicians like to cherry pick issues and clobber people with them. Often, bills are loaded with hundreds of pages of legislation. Sure, there might be some awful "must view ultrasound" garbage in a bill, but it might also have low income housing/medical/education assistance attached as well. The media/commentators are great at hiding the larger picture.
I guess what i'm saying is when you see these laser focused criticisms make sure to stop and look into them before condemning someone whether they align with your viewpoint or not.
You can't complain about the lack of purity in the Democratic party, and then complain that there are purity tests.
If the debate is over who is more progressive, then people are going to point out faults of others. That's going to keep happening. If you want it to stop... be the change you want to see in the world.
You left out his voting FOR a ban on abortions after 20 weeks in 2010.
In my mind, it was included in the part about "stuff I hadn't seen mentioned before" and, since I linked the article, I assumed people could read for themselves.
Later in the article, it mentions Kaine also signing a bill banning late-term abortions (it doesn't mention at what stage), so, I guess you're right, Bernie has been campaigning for anti-abortion candidates.
|
I am probably too late, but I hope purity tests don't take over the dems like it has the repubs. That's what all this Bernie is an independent and he backs pro-life liberals stuff appears to be. I hate that i'm about to defend Tomi Lahren but she pretty much got canned for stepping out of line. She is also simply a media commentator. I understand that a single issue can be of utmost importance to a person but in politics we all live in the same pool and their are hundreds of issues to consider.
The other issue is folks/politicians like to cherry pick issues and clobber people with them. Often, bills are loaded with hundreds of pages of legislation. Sure, there might be some awful "must view ultrasound" garbage in a bill, but it might also have low income housing/medical/education assistance attached as well. The media/commentators are great at hiding the larger picture.
I guess what i'm saying is when you see these laser focused criticisms make sure to stop and look into them before condemning someone whether they align with your viewpoint or not.
You can't complain about the lack of purity in the Democratic party, and then complain that there are purity tests.
If the debate is over who is more progressive, then people are going to point out faults of others. That's going to keep happening. If you want it to stop... be the change you want to see in the world.
I want leaders to talk about policies and ideas the way Bernie did. There was/is a large lack of that in the party right now. I am not making perfect the enemy of good. I want more progressive candidates not perfect ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love how people talk as if Clinton didn't propose any policies. If she weren't a Clinton and hadn't been Secretary of State (ie. no e-mail scandal), everyone would be complaining about how boring she was because all she talked about was policy.
Because that's mostly what she did.
In fact, she had tons of policy ideas. She had more policy plans concerning health care than Trump had for everything else combined. She didn't have a grandiose, unifying vision (which was a huge weakness), but she had more policy than any other candidate I can think of, laid out and ready to go if she won.
A common complaint last summer was that she wasn't very charismatic, because she'd lose her audience while explaining all of her policies.
In one speech in August, she named 30 specific policy plans, compared them to Trump's, explained how he had no agenda to improve things for working families, then went on to name several more policies she had ideas for to help working families.
Saying she didn't talk about policy is b&#@$+*&.
Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-free
Because people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?
|
|
I want leaders to talk about policies and ideas the way Bernie did. There was/is a large lack of that in the party right now. I am not making perfect the enemy of good. I want more progressive candidates not perfect ones.Bernie was far from a perfect candidate, he was the best in the 2016 cycle, but as I said earlier, that's like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. What I liked about Bernie is his willingness to talk about the issues and his position on many of them. He was very much substance over style. I don't think there's such thing as a perfect candidate but there certainly are flawed ones. In theory primaries should be in place to weed them out.
Exactly. Just because I like some things about Bernie doesn't mean I am pissed off about him not getting the nom. It was his ability to influence people and drive them to action that has been lacking from the party. Instead of telling people how its going to be, he was telling them how it could be. He wanted participants, not hostages.
Well that would appear to be the Clinton campaign manager's position.Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-freeBecause people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?
I mean, he's not wrong. It's a time-honored tradition (for good reason) to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to attract a following. If you're not part of that group, you're not likely to be a primary target for the candidate's courtship, unless said candidate isn't serious about winning.
My opinion is that this was a particularly slimy talking point concocted by a pre-unity Perez on behalf of the Clinton campaign while he was serving as Secretary of Labor.
I much preferred Shaun King's piece back in February of 2016:
Destroying the myth that Bernie Sanders doesn't address race or racism
Much too late to edit, so new post.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying she didn't talk about policy is b$+&#&+!.
Agreed. However, just because she talked about something, doesn't mean people believed her. According to this vox article, the most common words in her speeches were "jobs" and the "economy". The problem was that the American people had decades of experience with the Clintons and their effects on jobs and the economy. The people knew that she was full of ... what was your word... B+@*&!#%! She had no credibility on the issue, so people were not very enthusiastic about supporting a shameless b&~~@#!@er. (At least not one who's b%+&&~@! had been exposed for decades).
I don't think things are currently about the left/center/right divide as much as a battle over neoliberalism. If the Democrats keep pushing neoliberal b*%+#~@@ers like Clinton and Perez and Schumer, they need to be destroyed as a party. The other option is to join the vast majority of voters who don't like neoliberalism, and start winning elections by double digits. However, that would mean going against their millionaire and billionaire donors, so that is just not going to happen.
As near as I can tell, Citizen Humual, for the neoliberals, Bernie's tame social democracy is so far outside of the realm of the possible that it's as equally bullshiznit as Trump's.
But I will agree with them that she wasn't a bullshiznitter in the Trumpian mode. She, I imagine, honestly believes that global capitalist imperialist exploitation is the best of all possible worlds and only market-based solutions, like those so avidly promoted by the Clinton Foundation, are the only possible alternatives to addressing our social ills.
It goes all the way back to her stay in the Arkansas governor's house and Wal-Mart and I imagine she thinks that it works.
That lack of trust of course was based purely on reasoned experience. The decades of propaganda can't have had any effect.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. People lived through the Clinton years and saw the effects that neoliberal globalization and wall street deregulation had on the middle class. People know the Clintons SUCK on economic and job issues from years of direct experience. I don't think people are "sheeple" who just do what propaganda tells them. And if voters were that easily swayed, Clinton outspent Trump something like 2:1 and had massive support from most of the major (non-fox/Breitbart) news organizations, while Bernie was almost blacked out, so things should have gone differently. NOTE: There is the issue of the Mercers, Breitbart, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, but that is another thread.
For the second half, I understand you think that. I'm much less sure of this massive surge of voter support that somehow doesn't seem reflected in any election results. At any level in the process.
I've posted the links in this thread in the past. While terms like "free Trade" might get positive respones (or not) if you ask about the specifics, it looks like this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People didn't like her, not because they thought she was a b%##&&*$ter, but rather because she didn't b&#~#$*% enough. They wanted the great big gobs of b%~&@~!# promised by Trump and Bernie. You can't tell me people were tired of b&$@*#&~ so they voted for Trump.
~Shrug~ In a way you are right. However, Obama told many of the same lies Trump did (coal jobs, anti-NAFTA, etc), and he won fairly easily. The key difference between Trump and Clinton, was that Trump had never held office, and was perceived to be wealthy as sin. I don't honestly think most voters believed him, so much as thought there was a chance he might just throw them a bone. Getting booed during the primaries and being open about bribing Clinton made him seem like a plausible outsider candidate. Clinton on the other hand had spent most of her life using politics to become exceedingly wealthy. She was so deep in pay-to-play politics that there was no credibility left to mortgage. Voters knew from decades of experience that there was ZERO chance Clinton would serve their interests rather then the ultra rich. And they were right!
Finally, Clinton has such an awful reputation among the areas of the country economically devastated by neoliberalism*, that it was downright insulting to be told or expected to vote for her. The more of an asshat Trump was, the more their vote would be a big ole F-you to all the politicians, pundits, and over educated s*$@heads who kept telling them that "it would be in their best interests" to vote for Clinton. While some here might disagree, there is a lot of truth that the poor and middle class were getting screwed either way, so at least throwing a wrench into the mix provided some satisfaction.
* It should be noted that the Clintons are only a small part of modern neoliberism. (edit: Carter), Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush(neo-con), Obama, and now Trump all push a hardcore neoliberal agenda. Most voters don't like that, so you generally need "outsider" credentials if you want to be successful. Trump and Bernie were the only mainstream candidates who could plausibly claim to be against neoliberalism.
Well I'm not so sure about Carter, but the others certainly weren't that different regarding their appeasement and deferrals to Wall Street, big oil, big pharma, and the military contractors. Certainly we've seen a lot of US involvement in the Middle East on behalf of oil companies.
War on drugs basically unchanged.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That lack of trust of course was based purely on reasoned experience. The decades of propaganda can't have had any effect.I'm not sure what you are saying here. People lived through the Clinton years and saw the effects that neoliberal globalization and wall street deregulation had on the middle class. People know the Clintons SUCK on economic and job issues from years of direct experience. I don't think people are "sheeple" who just do what propaganda tells them. And if voters were that easily swayed, Clinton outspent Trump something like 2:1 and had massive support from most of the major (non-fox/Breitbart) news organizations, while Bernie was almost blacked out, so things should have gone differently. NOTE: There is the issue of the Mercers, Breitbart, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, but that is another thread.
People lived through the Clinton years, and so did Hillary. I find it incredible that these same people don't believe she could have learned anything from her experiences.
People lived through the Clinton years, and so did Hillary. I find it incredible that these same people don't believe she could have learned anything from her experiences.That lack of trust of course was based purely on reasoned experience. The decades of propaganda can't have had any effect.I'm not sure what you are saying here. People lived through the Clinton years and saw the effects that neoliberal globalization and wall street deregulation had on the middle class. People know the Clintons SUCK on economic and job issues from years of direct experience. I don't think people are "sheeple" who just do what propaganda tells them. And if voters were that easily swayed, Clinton outspent Trump something like 2:1 and had massive support from most of the major (non-fox/Breitbart) news organizations, while Bernie was almost blacked out, so things should have gone differently. NOTE: There is the issue of the Mercers, Breitbart, Cambridge Analytica, SCL Group, but that is another thread.
Yes and somehow they entered the office with a very low net worth, and 20 years later are in the top 10 wealthiest (former) presidents. What lesson should be learned there?
Fair enough. Best to discuss the future in this thread anyway.
Except of course this article suggests that Clinton historically had the lowest policy content in her ads. Less then any other candidate. So, it would seem that people what a little substance, but again, let's get back to what we need to talk about going forward.I mean, he's not wrong. It's a time-honored tradition (for good reason) to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to attract a following. If you're not part of that group, you're not likely to be a primary target for the candidate's courtship, unless said candidate isn't serious about winning.Well that would appear to be the Clinton campaign manager's position.Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-freeBecause people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?
Then stop bringing up the last election.
People didn't like her, not because they thought she was a b%##&&*$ter, but rather because she didn't b&#~#$*% enough. They wanted the great big gobs of b%~&@~!# promised by Trump and Bernie. You can't tell me people were tired of b&$@*#&~ so they voted for Trump.~Shrug~ In a way you are right. However, Obama told many of the same lies Trump did (coal jobs, anti-NAFTA, etc), and he won fairly easily. The key difference between Trump and Clinton, was that Trump had never held office, and was perceived to be wealthy as sin. I don't honestly think most voters believed him, so much as thought there was a chance he might just throw them a bone. Getting booed during the primaries and being open about bribing Clinton made him seem like a plausible outsider candidate. Clinton on the other hand had spent most of her life using politics to become exceedingly wealthy. She was so deep in pay-to-play politics that there was no credibility left to mortgage. Voters knew from decades of experience that there was ZERO chance Clinton would serve their interests rather then the ultra rich. And they were right!
Finally, Clinton has such an awful reputation among the areas of the country economically devastated by neoliberalism*, that it was downright insulting to be told or expected to vote for her. The more of an asshat Trump was, the more their vote would be a big ole F-you to all the politicians, pundits, and over educated s&@#heads who kept telling them that "it would be in their best interests" to vote for Clinton. While some here might disagree, there is a lot of truth that the poor and middle class were getting screwed either way, so at least throwing a wrench into the mix provided some satisfaction.
* It should be noted that the Clintons are only a small part of modern neoliberism. (edit: Carter), Reagan, HW Bush, W Bush(neo-con), Obama, and now Trump all push a hardcore neoliberal agenda. Most voters don't like that, so you generally need "outsider"...
You've got to stop using the word "neoliberal". You use it so much, I have no clue what you mean by it. It's like you think it's a catch-all word for anything you don't like. My eyes seriously glaze over every time you use it, because you use it in such vague ways that your sentences lose all meaning.
"The neoliberals have neoliberalized the neoliberalization of neoliberalism."
Then stop bringing up the last election.Except of course this article suggests that Clinton historically had the lowest policy content in her ads. Less then any other candidate. So, it would seem that people what a little substance, but again, let's get back to what we need to talk about going forward.I mean, he's not wrong. It's a time-honored tradition (for good reason) to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to attract a following. If you're not part of that group, you're not likely to be a primary target for the candidate's courtship, unless said candidate isn't serious about winning.Well that would appear to be the Clinton campaign manager's position.Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-freeBecause people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?
something something history something something doomed to repeat it something something nothing has changed something something bernie would have won.
am i doing it right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then stop bringing up the last election.Except of course this article suggests that Clinton historically had the lowest policy content in her ads. Less then any other candidate. So, it would seem that people what a little substance, but again, let's get back to what we need to talk about going forward.I mean, he's not wrong. It's a time-honored tradition (for good reason) to appeal to the lowest common denominator when trying to attract a following. If you're not part of that group, you're not likely to be a primary target for the candidate's courtship, unless said candidate isn't serious about winning.Well that would appear to be the Clinton campaign manager's position.Strange then that Hillary Clinton's TV ads were almost entirely policy-freeBecause people don't respond to rational policy considerations they respond to rhetoric?something something history something something doomed to repeat it something something nothing has changed something something bernie would have won.
am i doing it right?
No, you're doing it wrong. I'm not the one complaining about bringing up the past.
edit: though I do think that taking any one "lesson" from an election is a dangerous idea. A national campaign is a big, messy ordeal with hundreds of factors. Many of those factors will be different in the next election cycle. In fact, it's one of the central problems from this campaign. They relied on the numbers from 2008 and 2012 being stable and assumed they would hold dependable states from those elections. Turns out that those numbers weren't dependable and history did not repeat itself in the way they expected.
We don't know who the democratic candidates are. We don't know how many wars we'll be in. We don't know what the economic situation is going to be. We don't know if Obamacare will still be around. We don't know if Republicans will push through a tax plan. We don't know how many SC justices will have died/retired. We don't know what further scandals will envelope the Trump administration. We don't know if the next FBI director is going to announce active investigations weeks before the election.
I'm all for learning from history, but pretending it's possible to accurately predict ALL of these factors and many more is ludicrous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The opening paragraph of this article has stuck with me since I read it last year:
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in conversation and you’ll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?
Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems
You've got to stop using the word "neoliberal". You use it so much, I have no clue what you mean by it. It's like you think it's a catch-all word for anything you don't like. My eyes seriously glaze over every time you use it, because you use it in such vague ways that your sentences lose all meaning.
That is a fair criticism, after all, it is a word that's meaning has evolved over the decades. I'm also the first to admit I don't fully understand macro economics.
Perhaps if you shared your definition of neoliberalism, that would help us communicate better.