Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
What legislation has the tea party run congress passed?
The New Hampshire Primary |Feb 9|: Live Free or Die
- Thread starter A Human Becoming
- Start date
- Status
What legislation has the tea party run congress passed?
Angry Fork
Member
I wonder how liberals think Hillary would do anything about Wall Street when she has the same history with them as Obama (who attempted nothing and hired banker-friendly people to positions of power).
Unless of course they don't actually care about that because they're middle class/comfortable voters and not working class/young people who are feeling the real effects of rich people's class war against us.
Unless of course they don't actually care about that because they're middle class/comfortable voters and not working class/young people who are feeling the real effects of rich people's class war against us.
boiled goose
good with gravy
In some ways Bernie has already won. Even if Hillary somehow gets a nomination the fact that her new Hampshire defeat speech was all about money in politics means that Bernie s message has had an effect.
The media is talking about it. The whole last debate was framed by it. Hell the Clinton campaign has no decided to campaign on it.
The natural question is ... if that money had no effect on you whatsoever,then why is it a problem that you want to fix. You can't have it both ways. It can't be both a problem and also inconsequential.
The media is talking about it. The whole last debate was framed by it. Hell the Clinton campaign has no decided to campaign on it.
The natural question is ... if that money had no effect on you whatsoever,then why is it a problem that you want to fix. You can't have it both ways. It can't be both a problem and also inconsequential.
Seriously. I keep seeing Bernie supporters saying stuff that fits their worldview, rather than having facts shape it.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
He gave no indication he would compromise, and Republicans know they could get the white house four years later if nothing gets done.
That's all assuming Trump doesn't beat him to begin with.
boiled goose
good with gravy
The Tea Party school was for the government not to do anything and that way they were very successful...
There are lots of fair criticisms of Bernie but I don't see any in your post
Huh... one thing I like about Hillary is that she seems like she would compromise with Republicans less than Obama.
There is no real evidence that Bernie will not negotiate the negotiations will you start further from the left instead of obama did which was giving away half the house before sitting down
Angry Fork
Member
Nothing. Their ideals/efforts have shifted the party significantly to the right though which is a good thing in their eyes.
They won't be able to elect a president that signs bills though because a majority of the country aren't fascists. A majority would sympathize with Sanders however. A left leaning democratic party with a left leaning president (not establishment "centrists") would actually work. Only Sanders has a chance of inspiring people to vote for real liberal politicians.
She's been campaigning on it from the beginning of her campaign.
This is straight nonsense, hell one of his closing statements was about him compromising.
Angry Fork
Member
As Obama did. It's a cute trick that people should be done believing by now but apparently aren't. The other guy is taking money from labor organizations/unions and working class people instead and doing really well.
balladofwindfishes
Member
They found a fatal flaw in our system and exploited it.
The system was never intended to be obstructed this badly. It was meant to be cautious and hesitant to major swings, but never to remain entirely ineffective for a decade or more.
Even when the GOP was the minority party, it was still too easy for them to obstruct everything.
The system can't handle a large solid block of nameless politicians who all vote in exactly the same way every single time, and that way is always "no."
there is a significant difference in costs if it ends up being 2x more expensive than what he is estimating right now (and in most of the Europe, it is around 2x more expensive % wise).
So how acceptable would be "free healthcare" (with limits) when you pay 15%-18% of your salary towards it? There is certainly no perfect system but I dont consider our European taxing system all that great at all. It leads to considerably lower net pay compared to the USA.
And I assume you also don't count all of Clinton's endorsements by labor organizations because "establishment"?
boiled goose
good with gravy
Bullshit. It's time to be real honest with yourself here. Have you really not seen a shift in her campaign? Have you not seen a shift in the tone of the debates? Did she not say that money did not affect her? If it money does not affect politicians why is it a problem? Again you can't have it both ways.
I also think Bernie has shifted his position on this. His campaign started focused on income inequality and has slowly shifted to focus on money in politics driving that income inequality
Angry Fork
Member
A microcosm of this happened in NY when the working families party (at least its leadership) endorsed Andrew Cuomo for governor instead of the more liberal/anti-corrupt alternative, despite the wishes of its members. They got tons of shit for it and since then let their members vote for who they should endorse for president, with the overwhelming amount being for Bernie.
Basically in a majority of cases the less democratic, leadership-centric unions and organizations vote for establishment candidates, the ones where ordinary members votes matter end up backing people like Sanders.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Depends on the limits.
Many in the US are already paying more than that 15-18 percent number, and that still doesn't mean everything is paid for.
balladofwindfishes
Member
You're probably already paying 15-18% of your income to Health Care. Taxes for healthcare is basically always cheaper in the end than the private option in all countries.
If my work didn't pay 2/3 of my insurance, it would be a little over 15% of my income. If I had a family plan, it would be even more.
Honest to God, hand on my heart, there's been very little shift since I started researching about a year ago. It's been a pillar of her campaign. Maybe she's talking about it a little more, but it's always been there. No one cares, but that's another story.
Angry Fork
Member
When Ted Cruz takes money from bankers and oil companies he's totally corrupt and bought.
When Hillary does it, she's actually playing a trick on them she's really on our side. idk what she said to them behind closed doors but i'm sure it was tough.
Please believe me.
When Hillary does it, she's actually playing a trick on them she's really on our side. idk what she said to them behind closed doors but i'm sure it was tough.
Please believe me.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Obama or whomever can appoint tons of great minorities and women to the federal bureaucracy while putting folks like Eric Holder in charge too with or without campaign finance reform.
reggieandTFE
Member
Then why is her campaign refusing to issue transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs?
gutter_trash
Banned
You guys are getting annoying as the Benghazzi Republicans
aspiegamer
Member
Can the mods start some kind of "official Sanders vs Clinton shitposting thread"? It'd really be a lot easier than it derailing absolutely every other political topic.
No that had nothing to do with it at all. Sorry. Revisionist history rings false here. It didn't occur for so long because nobody had the votes to actually change laws to make it happen legislatively, and because the LGBT activist smartly understood the courts weren't ready to hear the case and possibly allow them a victory until within this past decade.
Liberals not being gun-ho for gay marriage had less than nothing to do with it, because if they thought it was politically expedient and they could muster the votes they would. They couldn't, so it wasn't worth wasting political capital on the idea. Really simple. Another example of pragmatism that Bernie needs to understand to actually, ya know, have a functioning presidency.
This is where you can start easily seeing the face of the Bernie myth start cracking. He's getting more youth to come out and vote for him than Hillary, who denied otherwise? Unfortunately, Democratic turnout despite youth vote has been quite low for primary season to date, showing that he doesn't really have a strong complete Democratic coalition and neither does Hillary. Youth vote is not making up any sort of gap, and never has. You need a coalition to win. Please don't show me how he won most demographics in NH Democratic primary as evidence he's going to have a coalition in the GE. Please. We can skip past such weak arguments to save time.
We don't even need to get into his numerous other problems that don't quantify on polls, like how Hillary has received 99% of all Republican attacks, and how Bernie doesn't even have a single clue how bad it will get the second he would hypothetically (not happening, but still) be nominated. This is a country that swiftboated John Kerry on some bullshit, as I've said repeatedly. Bernie is going to have ads swing up across the country about his trip to the USSR and his self-admitted "Democratic" socialism, and it'll be over. Screams have taken out campaigns on the trail before. If you don't understand how serious a problem this is with the American electorate, then you simply don't understand full stop.
This is bullshit, Hillary would veto Republican legislation just the same as Obama did and just the same as Bernie would. Fantasies don't really augur good arguments.
I mean, lol. But if you believe he has a better shot at winning the GE legitimately, that's cool. Vote for him. I've been around American politics long enough to understand intimately how much trouble Bernie would be in the second he got nominated and the spotlight went on him. He'd be eviscerated. I'd feel honestly terrible for the man, because he will be torn apart to pieces. Just one of the many skeletons (relatively speaking: skeletons to the general American public) would take out public figures five times as charismatic as he is. And Bernie's coalition of young folk is not going to overcome that, even if there was evidence he was inspiring a real big movement.
You can cross your fingers and hope now, this time, the American public will be more understanding. Maybe you will also win the powerball. I wish you luck on both ends.
No, the tea party simply demonstrated a capacity to shut down government. Bernie is not a tea party style movement first off, and second off all that means is that Bernie still isn't passing legislation. The tea party had the benefit of also hustling in a bunch of tea party members into Congress in mid-terms so they could even achieve their goal of passing no legislation.
So what you're saying is: Bernie might be able to mirror a movement in which no legislation is passed, by doing something that has no conceivable chance of happening (hustling in enough Dems to win critical votes or block legislation) until after the 2020 US Census and we can re-gerrymander the districts or end gerrymandering for good.
Sounds about right. So, once again, Bernie is going to accomplish nothing.
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
Yep and keep in mind even with insurance everything isn't free. You still have copays and deductibles and shit.
As a family of 4 I can tell you insurance isn't cheap even with help from where we both work.
Angry Fork
Member
Transparency and demands from citizens is lame.
This thread would just be numbers if it didn't allow explanations for why young/working class people don't like Hillary.
I was under the impression most of these organisations endorsed Clinton last year while she was the presumptive nominee without any real challenger. I'm not 100% sure that's accurate. Anyone have some facts for that?
I'm sure many of them like and believe Clinton genuinely, just as I'm sure some of them have close friendship ties at the top, which could indeed be questioned as "establishment".
I'm starting to find the 'lol you are dismissing anything as "establishment" lolol' refrain just as needlessly dismissive as I'm sure you find Bernie supporters' dismissiveness. I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere though that suggests there is probably a degree of buddy-buddy closed-door handshake politics at play but also a genuinely held belief that Clinton will be better than Sanders.
I personally find the latter belief perplexing, though, so I'd like to hear some arguments why it makes sense to back Clinton over Sanders (besides the argument that Sanders for some reason will refuse to compromise?).
Almost everyone here is. People are passionate in their disagreement, and people on all sides are accusing the other side of being the unreasonable ignorant ones. Let's not get sucked into it though. Less dismissiveness, more facts and figures and trying to understand the other side's arguments, I say.
Not enough close. When the number one issue undermining democracy in America is campaign finance - legal bribery - dealings with possibly the most corrupt institution in America should be transparent.
Unless you're willing to pretend that Ted Cruz's leanings on climate change aren't influenced by his 2nd highest campaign contributions being directly from the oil industry, you should also not be willing to pretend that Hillary is somehow immune.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The president can't do anything about finance reform (neither can Congress), besides elect Supreme Court justices, and both Democrat candidates have already said SC justices they elect would likely overturn Citizen's United.
I'd rather have Trump as president than any other GOP person running. He's honestly one of the most center Republicans running, once you strip away immigration reform and some of his stupid war statements.
So if it comes down to having a Republican president, I want it to be Trump. Although I'd prefer Hillary or Bernie (Hillary over Bernie, but either is fine)
I'd rather have Trump as president than any other GOP person running. He's honestly one of the most center Republicans running, once you strip away immigration reform and some of his stupid war statements.
So if it comes down to having a Republican president, I want it to be Trump. Although I'd prefer Hillary or Bernie (Hillary over Bernie, but either is fine)
They endorsed her. It doesn't matter when. It's still an endorsement. That signifies they feel she will do the best job for them.
And I didnt mean it as a refrain to everyone, just one specific poster. Sorry if you took it that way.
Angry Fork
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM
She said all that because she actually cares so much. She dived on the knife and said bad things so one day!, god willing, we would achieve the progress she so staunchly believed in under the fake veneer of her actual words. She's playing chess like Obama was, thinking 12 moves ahead of her opponents.
People under 40 don't about the USSR anymore.
The revisionism is strong if you're that quick to ignore the right wing shit Obama willingly passed and defended.
As will Hillary since she will inspire nobody to vote in midterm elections (unlike Sanders).
I want an actual liberal president who is less likely to compromise with right wing. His accomplishments will be in not repeating Obama's triangulations. Hillary will defend and extend the worst of Obama's presidency (banker appointees, drones on children, NSA, etc.)
boiled goose
good with gravy
Then i dont know what to say to you...
In the last debate she said money did not influence her. NH speech it was the focus of her speech.
She has received millions of dollars in speakers fees and then millions of dollars in donations to a super PAC from financial institutions in this very election.
I mean.. her cognitive dissonance must be greater than yours
Number 1 issue for you. It's not an objective measure by any stretch. Some people may feel that black people being systematically disenfranchised in republican states may be more important, or the gerrymandering to destroy districts and create safe seats.
It's also worth noting that this is now the second cycle where the monetary advantage doesn't seem to be bearing much fruit, other than making a lot of consultants very very rich. Bush is hardly crushing people right now despite the insane cash he's throwing around.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Obama, one of the most charismatic, popular and persuasive presidents we've had, couldn't manage to get people to vote in midterm elections.
If Obama was unable to get people out to vote in midterms, I have little hope that Sanders would.
Sanders is no Obama. And he couldn't do it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Umm... there are polls showing that Americans care about money in politics... so yeah objective.
What I will acknowledge is that you do bring a big point that not all issues are related to money in politics directly. Your issue about voting rights of minorities could be one of them. However I still think that money ruling our government affects all issues because we are not choosing politicians that actually are interested in the well being of the country.
Aaronology
Member
Bernie has been for gay marriage since day one, Hillary isn't an actual liberal, no knew cares about Socialism anymore. We're just hitting all the talking points.
I tried to be nice, and you still pulled out the "cognitive dissonance" card. I'm out.
Angry Fork
Member
Abandoning the policies people wanted you to fight for isn't popular. If Sanders abandoned universal healthcare and college then sure people would become disillusioned. Obama could have used his position of power to challenge the right wing and galvanize democrat grassroots to vote for dems.
Instead he spent most of his presidency trying to be nice to the gop to get right wing bills passed (which he sometimes still couldn't do since they became so nutty). It's not surprising at all that people became disenchanted with Obama when he advocated things that weren't very democratic. ACA was a right wing idea, nothing about college until near the end of his presidency, same with the justice system, indefinite drones and creating/defending a surveillance state. None of this is left wing or even center-left.
Young and working class people are not feeling the positive changes people keep claiming Obama created, because they don't exist (at least not to the extent middle class people claim). If they were in a fine situation they wouldn't be so enthusiastic about Sanders. Surely they would be fawning over Hillary as the extender of Obama. This election has proved there's a very strong widespread rejection of that in the dem party.
Elizabeth Warren has basically said as much, but no anti-Sanders people dare criticize her despite them sharing virtually the same views. If she were running instead of Sanders it would be a wrap, she'd be a shoe-in and I wish she was.
While money in politics may not be directly related to disenfranchisement or gerrymandering, they are tangentially related just due to the fact that our elected officials are completely paralyzed to move legislation because when they're not voting, they're tied to a desk phone begging for cash to be re-elected. It's a negative feedback loop. The efficiency of government itself is tied to this issue.
You can say that economics isn't the be-all end-all but in many ways, it actually is, and it's a sad reality that this is one of the prime bottlenecks keeping us from addressing anything else.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Morning update!
Democrats
Voting percentage reported 95%
Bernie Sanders 60%
Hillary Clinton 38%
Republicans
Voting percentage reported 95%
Donald Trump 35%
John Kasich 16%
Ted Cruz 12%
Jeb (John E. Bush) 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Chris Christie 7%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Ben Carson 2%
Cruz is about 1.5k votes ahead of Bush still, who himself is 1.5k votes ahead of Rubio. Doubt the order will change with only 5% left to count.
Democrats
Voting percentage reported 95%
Bernie Sanders 60%
Hillary Clinton 38%
Republicans
Voting percentage reported 95%
Donald Trump 35%
John Kasich 16%
Ted Cruz 12%
Jeb (John E. Bush) 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Chris Christie 7%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Ben Carson 2%
Cruz is about 1.5k votes ahead of Bush still, who himself is 1.5k votes ahead of Rubio. Doubt the order will change with only 5% left to count.
I agree with half of what you're saying, but think it's much more complicated than that.
My opinion, and I agree: Obama is more charismatic than Sanders, and possibly at this point in their campaigns (comparing '08 and '16) slightly more popular.
However: I don't think he was nor will be necessarily more persuasive than Sanders.
My personal view is that Obama was inspiring at a very dark time in US history, with his refrain of hope and change, but not that he necessarily persuaded anyone in a particularly emphatic direction regarding policy or overall vision.
His biggest vision (in 2008 at least) was healing the divide between red and blue states, but one could argue that that vision failed. And while I supported Obama in '08, I personally was not persuaded that he had a tangible plan to heal the divide.
Now, will Sanders heal that divide if President? Probably not, but I personally would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, at the very least. However, that is not the crux of his platform. His platform is, well, it's well known at this point so I shan't repeat it, but so far he's done extremely well so far to persuade many people.
His true test of course is whether his message can persuade minorities. I don't think anyone disagrees there. That factor will determine whether his "revolution" actually takes place, surely. In other words, he needs an incredible ground game in a short period of time to make in-roads in the upcoming Southern primaries.
Again, I would give him the benefit of the doubt that his message, tailored in the right way, will persuade the South.
But if all this does work out in his favor, I dunno, for some reason I give Bernie the edge in being a constant passionate message-based stalwart in the White House rallying people to stand up and vote at every chance. Obama felt like he crumbled under the weight and influence of the establishment once he got in power.
(No, sorry. It's simply that I've been accused of the "establishment!" dismissal a few times this week, like when I accused the NYT's endorsement of Clinton etc., etc. Perhaps it can be overstated, of course, but ultimately, I mean, it is actually a thing; it's just a question of to what degree (IMO). It's not a conspiratorial organisation, of course, but there are facets of establishment at work, by its very definition; it can be a little exhausting trying to confront fierce antidisestablishmentarianism, whether it's right or smart to do so or not.)
As for endorsements, well, I would've thought it's possible to rush to judgment, and if you're endorsing one person over another before you're really aware of the other, then it's not quite accurate to say they've endorsed one person over another. But anyway, this is a bit semantic, but I think union endorsement can be overstated.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He has 11 times as many votes as he got in Iowa. If you extrapolate this, then you'll find he's actually the projected winner.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's actually going up very slowly. The remaining districts are in large pop areas taking longer to count and report; the same sort of districts favour Sanders. I mean, it's not going to change to 61% but he's pushed Clinton down by 0.2% and himself up by the same amount since this morning.
This is completely false, I think a lot of Bernie supporters are starting to live in some false reality where Bernie was always super liberal and Obama/Hillary are some sort of secret republicans
Both Obama and Hillary are liberals, and that Bernie and his supporters keep trying to argue otherwise is a massive turnoff to everyone who's been a democrat for more than a couple years
- Status