| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something to also keep in mind...When parties crash (which again has not happened, at least to a major party, in 150 years), it's not like the politicians in office are magically replaced with new ones. Typically the members of the defunct parties just end up joining one of the existing major parties. IIRC that was what happened to the Wiggs.
So it's probably naive to hope that a democrat collapse would somehow completely change governance, unless you count Republicans having a solid decade or two to completely do whatever they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get why saving the Democratic Party is so important, we are a two-party system after all, all we need is two parties, if the Democratic Party goes into decline, some other party will take its place, that is what happened to the Federalist Party and the Whig Party.
It's not that I don't want the bullet gone, it's that in my estimation taking the bullet out would do more harm than good. There is no good way to Transition from Democrats to the hypothetical Oxen party. While the Oxen party is building momentum , our winner take all system would keep handing votes to republicans, which we've seen would not only let them make things worse, but also let them entrench themselves further in power so that they can't be removed through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and making being a leftist illegal.
This seems to me like a particularly inopportune time to make the switch. The middle class made the great gains that it did simply because the rich needed workers and soldiers to make money and secure their interests overseas. With drones and watson about to do for blue collar workers what robotics did to the blue collar workers, we're looking scarily close to a society where those with money simply have no need for anyone else.
Big Data and unlimited campaign contributions and bribery let people with money control the voters and the government, preventing the people from taking control back or gaining any benefit from a system that no longer needs them. Take a look at trumps tax plan for what he thinks of anyone that isn't investing for a living.
Now for all that risk you get... what exactly? The democratic party is what it is because its a coalition of people that can challenge the 40% of people who are republicans, compromising progressiveness for electability in a money fueled system. If you build a party from the ground up, even IF You somehow manage to not get democrats jumping onto your boat (you know, people that actually have experience doing what you're trying to do?) you're STILL looking at... a party compromising progressiveness for electability in a money fueled system.
Things are the way they are for a reason. You cannot just change one fact and hope that doing the same thing is going to get you different results. You need to change the underlying structure or you'll be right back where you started.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly it's the moneyed conservative Democrats in power who need to be driven out. Not the progressive voters who actually want healthcare for everyone.Unfortunately you need money to win an election, hence why big money democrats keep winning elections.
This.
"Moneyed" Democrats aren't the problem. Money in politics is the problem.
I don't get why saving the Democratic Party is so important, we are a two-party system after all, all we need is two parties, if the Democratic Party goes into decline, some other party will take its place, that is what happened to the Federalist Party and the Whig Party.It's not that I don't want the bullet gone, it's that in my estimation taking the bullet out would do more harm than good. There is no good way to Transition from Democrats to the hypothetical Oxen party. While the Oxen party is building momentum , our winner take all system would keep handing votes to republicans, which we've seen would not only let them make things worse, but also let them entrench themselves further in power so that they can't be removed through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and making being a leftist illegal.
This seems to me like a particularly inopportune time to make the switch. The middle class made the great gains that it did simply because the rich needed workers and soldiers to make money and secure their interests overseas. With drones and watson about to do for blue collar workers what robotics did to the blue collar workers, we're looking scarily close to a society where those with money simply have no need for anyone else.
Big Data and unlimited campaign contributions and bribery let people with money control the voters and the government, preventing the people from taking control back or gaining any benefit from a system that no longer needs them. Take a look at trumps tax plan for what he thinks of anyone that isn't investing for a living.
Now for all that risk you get... what exactly? The democratic party is what it is because its a coalition of people that can challenge the 40% of people who are republicans, compromising progressiveness for electability in a money fueled system. If you build a party from the ground up, even IF You somehow manage to not get democrats jumping onto your boat (you know, people that actually have experience doing what you're trying to do?)...
I think your reasoning is mostly sound but let me play the devil's advocate:
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party? When making sure lawmakers are going to favor you becomes important and you have vast amount of money at your disposal, making sure you play "on both sides of the board" is surely a sensible strategy don't you think?
-If Obama (during his first campaign at lest), Sanders and now Corbyn show us something it is that well motivated and organized volunteers who believe in something greater than themselves can make up for a difference in electoral funding. The problem after the elections becomes keep their hopes alive and them beileving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?
Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party? When making sure lawmakers are going to favor you becomes important and you have vast amount of money at your disposal, making sure you play "on both sides of the board" is surely a sensible strategy don't you think?
If they were taken over then they would be the same as republicans. They're not. So while they are certainly INFLUENCED by said money its not a complete take over.
Razing the ground also wouldn't help, as there would be no way to prevent a take over of your next candidate. The reason third party candidates are pure is that they're not worth buying. The individuals currently running them can indeed be immune to bribery, but the system itself is hard to insure against publicity, and bribery is the easiest way to get that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Giving me socialism or give me death seems to be an increasingly powerful ethos for a lot of left-leaning voters and I doubt its going away anytime soon.
In the past 18 months of politics I actually haven't seen a lot of "socialism or death" people. They're loud, but a very small group. The only time they dominate a rally is when it's specifically their rally and the numbers are roughly 100 or less.
For all their talk, Socialist Alternative (and they're the largest socialist organization I'm aware of in the area) is still a really minor player in my area, and I might be wrong, but I think Minneapolis is one of their areas of stronger support. Amongst the politically active left that I've been encountering lately though, they still make up less than 5%. At major rallies (I'd count anything 500+) you'll see them occupying a prominent position with their banner, but no one really pays attention to them.
Last year, of the 50 people in my state senate district who were either precinct chairs or vice-chairs, 0 of them identified as Socialist Alternative (we didn't take an active poll, but SA is trying to recruit pretty strongly and no one tried to recruit anyone from what I could tell).
People want solutions. If socialism happens to provide those solutions, people might be drawn towards it, but otherwise they don't give a shit. They just want things in their life to get better.
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".
Do you remember that she gave speeches? Or do you actually remember the content of those speeches?
If you're referring to content, what in particular stood out to you?
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".Do you remember that she gave speeches? Or do you actually remember the content of those speeches?
If you're referring to content, what in particular stood out to you?
The following one in particular: as I interpret it she's trying very hard to ingratiate herself with Goldman's people while also keeping up with her past as a middle class person which she "obviously" isn't anymore. Duplicitous at best imo.
*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".
I'm not going to re-fight the primaries again. But politicians who can work across the aisle with reasonable opponents, who understand policy and nuance, and who will process new data and move their positions (Left-ward) to reflect it with are rare. If they have any experience under their belt, they will have had to compromise on some points to achieve. They will make enemies of the wealthy and powerful, and those enemies will work hard to smear them. And if they are going to get elected, they will need money, both in the bank and the ability to raise it. Politicians like Clinton will never be pure or perfect enough for too many.
I still believe that it is better and easier to change the Democratic Party from within--especially when their 2016 platform is far more Left and Left-leaning than it has ever been--than hoping for some accelerationist burn-it-all-down fantasy where the Underpants Gnomes magically built a new perfect party.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".Do you remember that she gave speeches? Or do you actually remember the content of those speeches?
If you're referring to content, what in particular stood out to you?
The following one in particular: as I interpret it she's trying very hard to ingratiate herself with Goldman's people while also keeping up with her past as a middle class person which she "obviously" isn't anymore. Duplicitous at best imo.
*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]Source
Wait, that quote? She's comparing the realities of her experience growing up, recognizing the privileged life she has now, against the very real difficulties the non-wealthy vast majority now face. She recognizes how much has been lost for so many and the need to return to that better way of life, and surpass it.
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".I'm not going to re-fight the primaries again. But politicians who can work across the aisle with reasonable opponents, who understand policy and nuance, and who will process new data and move their positions (Left-ward) to reflect it with are rare. If they have any experience under their belt, they will have had to compromise on some points to achieve. They will make enemies of the wealthy and powerful, and those enemies will work hard to smear them. And if they are going to get elected, they will need money, both in the bank and the ability to raise it. Politicians like Clinton will never be pure or perfect enough for too many.
I still believe that it is better and easier to change the Democratic Party from within--especially when their 2016 platform is far more Left and Left-leaning than it has ever been--than hoping for some accelerationist burn-it-all-down fantasy where the Underpants Gnomes magically built a new perfect party.
I never advocated for a "new perfect party" (which does not and will never exist) but I do believe that with people like HRC in charge the Democratic party will not win again for the forseeable future and even if it does its policies will mostly benefit those "fiancially powerful people" backing said candidates with the big bucks, because they are not giving money with no string attached they are INVESTING MONEY to influence an outcome that FAVORS THEM, and not the rank and file of the Democratic Party and the common people.
As for HRC quote you read it that way, I read it as someone trying to please powerful (and well paying) hosts with a tale about the american dream and how she embodied it (but no fear because she USED TO BE middle class but thanks to the "economic fortunes that she and her husband now enjoy" she "obviously" isn't middle class anymore and is therefore qualified to connect with Goldman's people on an equal footing. Pretty difficult to immagine presenting herself the same way to real middle class people "Hi there! I used to be like you but now I enjoy the lifestyle of the super rich thanks to, you know, politics! Life is great! And remember vote Hillary 2016!"...).
That said I might be biased against HRC because she also "used to be" a randian and a repubblican before digging her way into the Democratic Party.
P.S.
What if Bernie had won the primaries?
Edit: Also, personal opinions aside, if given a choice between the original and a shabby copy people will always choose the original. The Democratic Party trying to mimic (some times outperforming) the Repubblican party on instituting the neoliberal agenda isn't going to win elections, if people want that kind of policies they will choose the "originals".
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Guy, That is not how I read it at all.
I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up.
That quote reads to me as "I grew up middle class, but middle class back then was pretty comfortable. People today don't have good public schoools, don't have accessible healthcare. The game may or may not be rigged, but we need to do whatever it takes to get back to a healthy middle class for America."
She is acknowledging the differences between what middle-class meant then and now, and "not taking a position on any policy" that we should ensure quality public education and access to healthcare for everyone.
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
For all their faults, the Democrats are the only sane solution currently. I'm all for changing the Democratic Party from the inside to New Deal and Left-y positions and plans. But trying to fork the kernel right now just hands victory to the fascist, looter kakistocrats and granny starvers.
Very well: how do you do that?
Because I keep remembering the speeches Hillary Clinton gave to those Wall Street seminars revealed by wikileaks and it seems to me that the democratic party if not taken over has been at least "boarded".Do you remember that she gave speeches? Or do you actually remember the content of those speeches?
If you're referring to content, what in particular stood out to you?
The following one in particular: as I interpret it she's trying very hard to ingratiate herself with Goldman's people while also keeping up with her past as a middle class person which she "obviously" isn't anymore. Duplicitous at best imo.
*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and...
That's how you want to read it. I see no reason why the debate should be framed or centered on your perception of things.
This is hardly "proof" of anything, other than what your opinion is. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, and there might be validity to it. That doesn't make it objective reality though.
Clinton was and will continue to be an "elite" within the party, but her speaking for Goldmansachs isn't proof that they've taken over the party. You'd probably give them a speech too if they offered you that kind of money.
I would agree that moneyed interests have inordinate amount of control over both parties, but there are significant differences even between who those moneyed interests are. They aren't the exact same people. You're not looking at who, why and how.
There's an interesting conversation to be had on this topic, you're far from it right now though.
@Guy, That is not how I read it at all.
I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up.That quote reads to me as "I grew up middle class, but middle class back then was pretty comfortable. People today don't have good public schoools, don't have accessible healthcare. The game may or may not be rigged, but we need to do whatever it takes to get back to a healthy middle class for America."
She is acknowledging the differences between what middle-class meant then and now, and "not taking a position on any policy" that we should ensure quality public education and access to healthcare for everyone.
Interpretations of that quote seem to say more about the reader than about her.
For some, there is nothing she could have said there that would have helped. She talks about her middle class background, but if she didn't acknowledge that she was wealthy now she'd just be lying and since she does, she's obviously reassuring them.
I guess she could have talking about still wanting to hang banksters from the nearest lamppost. Maybe that would have been enough.
Yeah... she was clearly being forced to give those paid speeches to Goldman's people.
Look, I'm not dishonest enough to claim I like or ever liked HRC. I've compared her to a vampire in the recent past (and Trump to an ogre to be clear), I've had to deal with a fair share of people like her (on a much lesser scale of course) and I always fought them so I might very well be clouded in my judgement.
What I'm saying is a bit different though: by dint of their own life choices and what they became and how they appear, people like HRC aren't able to galvanize strong support from electors (HRC was actually able to galvanize those who hated her), and that's a fatal flaw in today's politics. Trumpo won because, like it or not, he was able to stir sentiment in a lot of people. Low and base emotions like hate and fear? For sure, but those were real, they resonated with some people. HRC was never able to do the same and not just because of other people's faults.
I remain convinced she lost because she was the wrong candidate.
I remain convinced she lost because she was the wrong candidate.
Would Biden have preferable enough over Trump that you'd have accepted Biden/Kaine as the Democratic ticket for PotUS/VPotUS in 2016?
wrong candidate
What, policy wise, makes her any different than Biden?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-What if the democratic party has already been effectively taken over by the same people who also back the repubblican party?Nope, stop, full halt, does not compute. There is no f!cking way the people running the Democratic Party are anywhere near the insane, hate-everyone-who-isn't-rich-&-white !ssholes throwing the full weight of the Republican Party behind Trump. There is no comparison to the two.
Except that it is almost identical a$$holes running both parties.
Haim Saban on the left, and Sheldon Aldelson/Mercers on the Right. Both parties fill themselves with all kinds of Goldman Sachs/JPMorgan Chase scum. Both parties get their foreign policy from the Council on Foreign Relations. Both parties are all about neoliberal economics.
There are some substantial differences, but pretending that the democrats are drastically different then Republicans on most issues does not stand up to reality. I should note that Democratic rhetoric and messaging is VERY different, but the reality of Democratic party rule is very similar (although slightly better) then Republicans.
EDIT:
Even this Russia nonsense is a bi-partisan affair. We all know about Manafort and his work for pro-Russia Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. We also know about Flynn failing to disclose he had taken money for foreign lobbying. Dirty bad stuff, right? Well, guess who else was suckling off that teet, and just recently decided to admit it? The Podesta Group!
Clinton-Connected Lobbying Firm Registers As Foreign Agent Of Pro-Putin Ukrainian Group The democrats could not even find a scandal to go after the Republicans that they are not also guilty of!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have not convinced me that they're the same. How many more pages do you want to spend trying?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” *“And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
Wait...that's IT? That's the proof that the Democratic party has been taken over by bankers?
In the context of a system that makes money integral to politics, that's actually pretty benign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have not convinced me that they're the same. How many more pages do you want to spend trying?
Well, there are other people here besides you, so maybe this is not specifically about you.
Also, I never said they were the same. I simply pointed out a variety of similarities and shared traits. You are welcome to dispute these statements if you like, but simply saying you are unconvinced, without disputing any of the statements, says more about your faith, then addressing the facts about the two parties.
EDIT: Are you disputing anything I said about Saban, Bankers, The Council on Foreign Relations, neoliberal economics, or The Podesta Group? I would prefer we discuss issues, rather then make this about either of us as individuals.
|
|
Well you have to remember who she's talking to and who she's trying to appeal to. You're not going to bring up anger or resentment she might have felt to the wealthy, even if she had that anger or resentment, if she's saying she's on their side.
Holy cynicism, batman.
Instead she talked about her father who did have those feelings, and tries to show how things like education and healthcare placated them.
Not at all.
My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care.
Someone who loves to complain does not harbor anger or resentment. They love to complain. The man's daughter became Hillary Rodham Clinton. His generation had opportunity to give their children afforded by education and healthcare. That is not placating, that is empowering.
She might indeed be laying out a case for higher taxes to pay for better services for the American people but the fact that she tried to keep these speeches away from the American public leads me to believe that she might not have intended the more favorable reading.
Or maybe she suspected people like you would interpret them in the worst possible light? She's had years of experience as a public figure. It's made her a distressingly private person for a reason.
We know she's got a public and private position and it's clear from the way this speech was written she's trying to come across as on the side of the bankers.
Everyone has a public and private position, from politicians to PFS Venture Officers. It's not a bad thing. It turns out that Clinton supports healthcare and education both publicly and in private. I fully support a politician that can talk to a room of bankers about increasing funds for public initiatives and come across as on their side.
Well, there are other people here besides you, so maybe this is not specifically about you.
Also, I never said they were the same. I simply pointed out a variety of similarities and shared traits. You are welcome to dispute these statements if you like, but simply saying you are unconvinced without disputing any of the statements says more about your faith then addressing the fact about the two parties.
Oh for heaven's sake. OF COURSE two political parties are more alike than different; they're political parties operating in the same country with the same legal framework. Who cares? What matters is that the platforms, actions, and candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties are materially different. They may not differ in the way(s) -- or to the degree -- that you'd personally prefer, but if you dispute that they're substantively different, then you simply live in an alternate reality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh for heaven's sake. OF COURSE two political parties are more alike than different; they're political parties operating in the same country with the same legal framework. Who cares? What matters is that the platforms, actions, and candidates of the Republican and Democratic parties are materially different. They may not differ in the way(s) -- or to the degree -- that you'd personally prefer, but if you dispute that they're substantively different, then you simply live in an alternate reality.
Sorry with text based communication being what it is, I can't tell if you are serious of joking.
I just posted, "[Discussing the two parties] There are some substantial differences,..." like twenty minutes ago, while acknowledging both similarities and differences.
If you are looking to rail against a statement like "The two parties are identical", you are going to need to find someone else to make that statement.
EDIT: Oh and to be clear, I was talking about the actions of the parties, not their branding. Party Platforms, speeches, ads, etc. are just salesmanship. They have little connection to what those in power really do.
You have not convinced me that they're the same. How many more pages do you want to spend trying?Well, there are other people here besides you, so maybe this is not specifically about you.
Also, I never said they were the same. I simply pointed out a variety of similarities and shared traits. You are welcome to dispute these statements if you like, but simply saying you are unconvinced, without disputing any of the statements, says more about your faith, then addressing the facts about the two parties.
EDIT: Are you disputing anything I said about Saban, Bankers, The Council on Foreign Relations, neoliberal economics, or The Podesta Group? I would prefer we discuss issues, rather then make this about either of us as individuals.
You haven't countered numerous things from previous pages.
Yes, the parties do share some similarities. That's to be expected. You'll find that major parties capable of winning outright 40%+ shares of votes in most countries share similarities (with other parties in that country). Why? Because that country has a culture and major parties with broad political support are going to reflect aspects of the values of that culture as a whole.
Metaphorically, you're acting shocked that parents and children seem to share more than a random amount of genetic material.
I remain convinced she lost because she was the wrong candidate.Would Biden have preferable enough over Trump that you'd have accepted Biden/Kaine as the Democratic ticket for PotUS/VPotUS in 2016?
Biden could have won against Trump because he wasn't as hated by the repubblicans as HRC was. Policy wise there would have been very little difference between him and HRC.
That said, I honestly think Sanders would have been the best candidate and the best president.
Wait, were we arguing that the two parties are similar, or different? I think I usually see them as too similar, with others accusing me of failing to see differences.
Are you arguing that they are very similar or very different?
Either way, I assure you I am more confused then shocked.
EDIT: Again, I would rather discuss issues then either of our lovely personalities. So I'll try again, does anyone dispute anything I said about Saban, Bankers, The Council on Foreign Relations, neoliberal economics, or The Podesta Group? Or any other issue?
You have not convinced me that they're the same. How many more pages do you want to spend trying?Well, there are other people here besides you, so maybe this is not specifically about you.
Also, I never said they were the same. I simply pointed out a variety of similarities and shared traits. You are welcome to dispute these statements if you like, but simply saying you are unconvinced, without disputing any of the statements, says more about your faith, then addressing the facts about the two parties.
EDIT: Are you disputing anything I said about Saban, Bankers, The Council on Foreign Relations, neoliberal economics, or The Podesta Group? I would prefer we discuss issues, rather then make this about either of us as individuals.
You haven't countered numerous things from previous pages.
Yes, the parties do share some similarities. That's to be expected. You'll find that major parties capable of winning outright 40%+ shares of votes in most countries share similarities (with other parties in that country). Why? Because that country has a culture and major parties with broad political support are going to reflect aspects of the values of that culture as a whole.
Metaphorically, you're acting shocked that parents and children seem to share more than a random amount of genetic material.
I don't think that has to be the case. What parties should share is fealty to the Constitution, period. Certainly I don't expect both parties to expouse the same neo liberal views and mind frame. To me what makes a difference is how the parties approach economic policies (Structure) and finding out they are on the same page means all other differences between them are at best cosmetic.
By the way go back to 1932: Hoover was incumbent president and candidate for the Repubblicans, FDR was the challenger for the Democrats. FDR won by a landslide expousing a political and economical program that was radically different than Hoover's. Back then the parties were allowed to have very different ideas about the economy and policies. How is that they are so similar now? If FDR was alive now people would claim he was a communist (in his time he was accused of being a socialist though).
P.S.
Personally I consider FDR the greatest president in all of US history.
Giving me socialism or give me death seems to be an increasingly powerful ethos for a lot of left-leaning voters and I doubt its going away anytime soon.In the past 18 months of politics I actually haven't seen a lot of "socialism or death" people. They're loud, but a very small group. The only time they dominate a rally is when it's specifically their rally and the numbers are roughly 100 or less.
For all their talk, Socialist Alternative (and they're the largest socialist organization I'm aware of in the area) is still a really minor player in my area, and I might be wrong, but I think Minneapolis is one of their areas of stronger support. Amongst the politically active left that I've been encountering lately though, they still make up less than 5%. At major rallies (I'd count anything 500+) you'll see them occupying a prominent position with their banner, but no one really pays attention to them.
Last year, of the 50 people in my state senate district who were either precinct chairs or vice-chairs, 0 of them identified as Socialist Alternative (we didn't take an active poll, but SA is trying to recruit pretty strongly and no one tried to recruit anyone from what I could tell).
People want solutions. If socialism happens to provide those solutions, people might be drawn towards it, but otherwise they don't give a s@#*. They just want things in their life to get better.
Forgive me, but I had to look up precinct chair and the internet spit out that they were posts within the Democratic Party.
If so, of course there are no Socialist Alternative precinct chairs in your district, because we're not Democrats.
It's true, though. We're still small.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
A republican Goldwater girl.
So no one ever changes from their first beliefs. Not even if they actively work for the Democratic platform for decades after those few years?
My problem with Clinton isn't the fact that she presented the case for boosting healthcare and education thusly, my problem stems from the fact that first it was presented behind closed doors and the argument was kept from the public,
For heaven's sake, she's been working on a national healthcare plan since 1993. In fact, much of the vitriol thrown at her then for not behaving like previous First Ladies was because she was being effective.
She's been consistent for more than 20 years. What more evidence do you need?
Giving me socialism or give me death seems to be an increasingly powerful ethos for a lot of left-leaning voters and I doubt its going away anytime soon.In the past 18 months of politics I actually haven't seen a lot of "socialism or death" people. They're loud, but a very small group. The only time they dominate a rally is when it's specifically their rally and the numbers are roughly 100 or less.
For all their talk, Socialist Alternative (and they're the largest socialist organization I'm aware of in the area) is still a really minor player in my area, and I might be wrong, but I think Minneapolis is one of their areas of stronger support. Amongst the politically active left that I've been encountering lately though, they still make up less than 5%. At major rallies (I'd count anything 500+) you'll see them occupying a prominent position with their banner, but no one really pays attention to them.
Last year, of the 50 people in my state senate district who were either precinct chairs or vice-chairs, 0 of them identified as Socialist Alternative (we didn't take an active poll, but SA is trying to recruit pretty strongly and no one tried to recruit anyone from what I could tell).
People want solutions. If socialism happens to provide those solutions, people might be drawn towards it, but otherwise they don't give a s@#*. They just want things in their life to get better.
Forgive me, but I had to look up precinct chair and the internet spit out that they were posts within the Democratic Party.
If so, of course there are no Socialist Alternative precinct chairs in your district, because we're not Democrats.
It's true, though. We're still small.
Is there a rule in SA that you're not allowed to belong to a major party? Cause I'm pretty sure you could get away with it in reverse (ie. take a position in the DFL but still be a member of something else... just not Republican).
Ellison runs one of the best organized neighborhood parties in the country with some of the highest voter turnout for urban areas. Most major cities have turnout rates in the low to mid 40's, but Minneapolis proper has turnout in the low 70's. If you're liberal/progressive and not looking to tap into that, I think it's hard to claim your goal is affecting politics.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well you have to remember who she's talking to and who she's trying to appeal to. You're not going to bring up anger or resentment she might have felt to the wealthy, even if she had that anger or resentment, if she's saying she's on their side.Holy cynicism, batman.I suppose we should always take a politician at their word then? Believe every word they speak in every room to every crowd is their heartfelt convictions?
I believe a woman who has been working for the same things for a few decades. I believe she lets herself be more honest behind closed doors where she feels her words are less likely to be taken out of context (deplorables!).
Someone who loves to complain does not harbor anger or resentment. They love to complain.So when people say groups like BLM love to complain we can then say that they don't actually harbor any anger or resentment.
Try not to equivocate. A woman sharing an anecdote about her father is very different from talking heads talking down on minority movements. Words used in different contexts have different meanings.
His generation had opportunity to give their children afforded by education and healthcare. That is not placating, that is empowering.Well yes, but that's not necessarily how a Republican sees it.
Hillary Clinton is not a Republican.
A Republican will complain about the EPA regulations on big business without realizing that the EPA keeps their drinking water safe. I can't imagine that mindset has changed much over the years.
Are you trying to say that rich corporations and the super wealthy are really good for us? That we shouldn't complain about them?
Education was leveling the playing field for the rich and the poor and while Clinton's father might still have complained he was certainly seeing the benefits as his daughter got a good education and it didn't cost him or her an arm or a leg.
That is exactly her point.
People like me, who are cynics, realize that you have to tailor the speech to fit the room. The reason I'm suspicious of her now is because she didn't release the transcripts earlier. I don't see anything here that's changes my perception of Clinton in the slightest, but because she didn't want to share these speeches it feels like she's hiding her actual private beliefs. Something she's not comfortable sharing with the public.
It doesn't take a cynic to know how to Understand Your Audience and speak to a room. You don't have to be dishonest to do it. As for her reasoning, you are a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Her giving those speeches in the first place was to me the most damning thing about them. I hated her doing it but Trump was, and still is, a flaming dumpster fire, and I'd have voted for a scarecrow on a donkey over Trump.
I simply don't agree that accepting money to give a speech is somehow damning.
It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.
If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?
It's more about who she gave the speeches too and how much she was paid.If Goldman-Sachs offered you $200k US to come give an hour speech, would you say no?
Itd probably depend on whether or not i had enough money to live comfortably for the rest of my life at the time or not.