PoliGAF 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada

Status
Not open for further replies.
disastermouse said:
I dunno...a lot of these folks are pretty good at getting on a train once it's obvious that they can't stop it.
Click to expand...

I do believe that, outside of a presidential election year, one could probably look at how Labour is dealing with Corbyn for an idea of how most dems would react.

Alas, it is one of those years, so doubt it would be so overt once he got the nom. (Which most likely wont happen)


(Plus, even then its faulty. Jeremy has a very long history in the party)
 
pigeon said:
It is worth comparing this behavior, incidentally, to the behavior of the GOP establishment with regards to the Tea Party.
Click to expand...

I guess the difference is that the Tea Party is taking the GOP into untested, choppy waters. They're also doing it by throwing the ever increasing population of Hispanics under the bus. Not very forward thinking.

Bernie is basically just arguing for the New Deal liberalism that dominated this country for 30+ years to come back and he's doing it by pointing out that many other Western democracies have already implemented his positions.
 
Black Mamba said:
But again, this is not a plan. It's an ideal.

I agree with the ideal. Everyone should be able to get the treatment they need irrelevant of the costs (with some limitations, of course...ala Terry Schiavo). That's all Bernie is saying. It's a concept.




FTR, I'm not looking for super specific details. The technical stuff is for later. But I'd like to know what type of single payer system Bernie is talking about. Is he going to allow more people to become doctors? What will happen to doctor pay? Things like that. And those can be answered somewhat generally, but just "single payer" isn't enough.

Tweaking the ACA is just technical stuff, more or less, so it doesn't bother me. She's also talked about an initiative for autism and alzheimer's (the latter being very important to me due to personal experience). Though I'm sure Bernie would support this (in fact I'm a bit saddened by how little attention these get...if anything should be bipartisan, sigh).

And I have no problem voting for Bernie because this is his position. I was merely reacting to, I believe you, saying Bernie has an actual plan. He really doesn't, yet. I am just asking for a sketch, not a technical one.

I support Hillary for numerous reasons over Bernie. Single payer issue isn't actually one of them.
Click to expand...

I hope hillary raises more NIH and NIMH funding! Would love to work on autism/neuropsychiatric disorders instead of twiddling my thumbs for funding (alzheimers isn't my forte but there are some awesome people working on it already even with the sorry state of science in this country).
 
dabig2 said:
I guess the difference is that the Tea Party is taking the GOP into untested, choppy waters. They're also doing it by throwing the ever increasing population of Hispanics under the bus. Not very forward thinking.

Bernie is basically just arguing for the New Deal liberalism that dominated this country for 30+ years to come back and he's doing it by pointing out that many other Western democracies have already implemented his positions.
Click to expand...

You realize that the only reason New Deal liberalism was able to dominate was because part of the deal was that non-white people got none of the spoils, right? It's not a coincidence that the New Deal coalition cracked once black people started getting stuff as well.

I'd also point at the current issues those vaunted European democracies are having right now that non-white people are consisting more and more of the poor and the rightward lurch in those countries.
 
dabig2 said:
I guess the difference is that the Tea Party is taking the GOP into untested, choppy waters. They're also doing it by throwing the ever increasing population of Hispanics under the bus. Not very forward thinking.
Click to expand...

I don't know that anyone, including people actually in The Tea Party, would claim the group is forward thinking. This is a group that legitimately thinks things would be better if we went back to the policies of the 18th Century and parades around in period costume and powdered wigs to demonstrate that point. These people fetishize the past to an alarming degree.
 
OrangeGrayBlue said:
So first you say that^ in defense of Hillary...




And then you say this as a means of legitimizing John Lewis' critique. There seems to be some cognitive dissonance here. If Hillary's support for Goldwater does not call into question her democrat credentials, then Bernie failing to become MLK Jr's right-hand man does not call into question his civil rights credentials. That seems to be the more consistent view, in my mind.

Also, I don't hear Bernie talking about the march on Washington much. His supporters seem to ride that horse more than Bernie does. And when exemplifying his devotion to civil rights over the course of his life, it absolutely makes sense to bring that up. It's only when someone argues that marching with MLK is in itself justification to win over black voters that it's problematic.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a fair assessment. Bernie has mentioned marching with Dr. King. He did it at one of the dinners in South Carolina a few months ago. His campaign uses it quite frequently, not to mention people online using it as some time of rationale for people of color to support him. I don't think Rep. Lewis was trying to belittle Bernie's actions during the civil rights movement. I think it is fair to point out, though, that Bernie's campaign has a history of overselling his importance on specific issues. For better or worse, he's been a backbencher most of his career. (Part of that is because he's an Independent, part of that is because he's also to the left of most of the country, far left until very recently.)

You're taking this in a really narrow way. I mean, at what point is it fair to critique Bernie's past, then? He, or at the very least his campaign, have made the marching with Dr. King thing a part of this campaign. They don't get to be all shocked and outraged if someone adds more light on it. I don't think Rep. Lewis is being shady or anything. He's just pointing something out that he has first hand knowledge of.

Hillary never pretended the Goldwater thing didn't happen. She talked about it in her book. I think it's a stupid line of attack. People are welcome to make it, of course, but I still think it's a silly one.
 
JesseEwiak said:
You realize that the only reason New Deal liberalism was able to dominate was because part of the deal was that non-white people got none of the spoils, right? It's not a coincidence that the New Deal coalition cracked once black people started getting stuff as well.

I'd also point at the current issues those vaunted European democracies are having right now that non-white people are consisting more and more of the poor and the rightward lurch in those countries.
Click to expand...

Well thats because europe really screwed up with integrating their immigrants for years now. I would be interested to read more about how minorities/black people played into the shift away from New Deal/Great Society era liberalism into 3rd way democrats.
 
ugaboga232 said:
Well thats because europe really screwed up with integrating their immigrants for years now. I would be interested to read more about how minorities/black people played into the shift away from New Deal/Great Society era liberalism into 3rd way democrats.
Click to expand...

To put it bluntly, previously moderate Republican's who were cool with non-white people, but didn't like taxes got turned off by the Southern strategy and embrace of the Moral Majority then replaced previous white Democrat's who liked government programs when it comes to their own kind, but didn't like it when it came to non-white people and were also socially conservative.

There's a reason why the Democrat's moved right on economics - it's because between 1968 and 1988, they only won one election and even that was a lot closer than people thought.

That's the actual problem I have with Bernie supporters. The thing is, whether you liked the policies or not, there was at least evidence on the ground that the GOP should move right based on Reagan's policies thanks to the fact that he and other conservatives had won elections and moved policies thanks to things like Prop 13 and the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 'swing' states. Show me the massive leftward policy shift in swing states and I'll back Bernie happily.
 
JesseEwiak said:
To put it bluntly, previously moderate Republican's who were cool with non-white people, but didn't like taxes got turned off by the Southern strategy and embrace of the Moral Majority then replaced previous white Democrat's who liked government programs when it comes to their own kind, but didn't like it when it came to non-white people and were also socially conservative.

There's a reason why the Democrat's moved right on economics - it's because between 1968 and 1988, they only won one election and even that was a lot closer than people thought.

That's the actual problem I have with Bernie supporters. The thing is, whether you liked the policies or not, there was at least evidence on the ground that the GOP should move right based on Reagan's policies thanks to the fact that he and other conservatives had won elections and moved policies thanks to things like Prop 13 and the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 'swing' states. Show me the massive leftward policy shift in swing states and I'll back Bernie happily.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, all I can think of off the top of my head (my home state and current state are not swing states at all) is weed in colorado and it kinda being a thing in ohio last year and will be this year.
 
Also, sorry if this is not related to anything, but my Berniebro just showed up at my job and brought me a debate watch party box to have at my desk. He knows I was bummed about missing the debate.

I'm going to marry him. Seriously. Ya'll are all invited.
 
adam387 said:
Also, sorry if this is not related to anything, but my Berniebro just showed up at my job and brought me a debate watch party box to have at my desk. He knows I was bummed about missing the debate.

I'm going to marry him. Seriously. Ya'll are all invited.
Click to expand...

one of us. one of us. one of us
 
adam387 said:
Also, sorry if this is not related to anything, but my Berniebro just showed up at my job and brought me a debate watch party box to have at my desk. He knows I was bummed about missing the debate.

I'm going to marry him. Seriously. Ya'll are all invited.
Click to expand...

Damn, gurl.

My TrumpBot hasn't done anything like that for me. Always too busy at the gym.
 
RustyNails said:
Personally I have never seen anyone survive saying something like that, joking or not. So when he said it, I was confused and slightly shocked. And I like the guy! He's really smart and is not a mindless drone.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how serious he was about the Australian bit but it isn't necessarily super offensive here. You could say it to a friend if you thought they were being a jackass. Its really tonally dependant though. The offensive variation is pretty high up there on the offensive scale. Not something I'd use in text except maybe with my closest friends when context was super clear.
 
adam387 said:
I don't think this is a fair assessment. Bernie has mentioned marching with Dr. King. He did it at one of the dinners in South Carolina a few months ago. His campaign uses it quite frequently, not to mention people online using it as some time of rationale for people of color to support him. I don't think Rep. Lewis was trying to belittle Bernie's actions during the civil rights movement. I think it is fair to point out, though, that Bernie's campaign has a history of overselling his importance on specific issues. For better or worse, he's been a backbencher most of his career. (Part of that is because he's an Independent, part of that is because he's also to the left of most of the country, far left until very recently.)

You're taking this in a really narrow way. I mean, at what point is it fair to critique Bernie's past, then? He, or at the very least his campaign, have made the marching with Dr. King thing a part of this campaign. They don't get to be all shocked and outraged if someone adds more light on it. I don't think Rep. Lewis is being shady or anything. He's just pointing something out that he has first hand knowledge of.

Hillary never pretended the Goldwater thing didn't happen. She talked about it in her book. I think it's a stupid line of attack. People are welcome to make it, of course, but I still think it's a silly one.
Click to expand...

When there's something objectionable I think it makes sense to criticize Bernie just like every other politician. Bernie pushing to have F-35s stationed in Vermont, for instance. Some of his votes on gun control as well. Bernie is not beyond criticism, I just don't see what there is to criticize about the fact that a Jewish 20-something was not a leader of the civil rights movement.

I've only ever seen Bernie or his campaign bring up his history with the civil rights movement as a means of showing his consistency, I've never heard them try to state that he was an important figure at the time. So I guess I just don't understand Lewis' point. I do know, however, that John Lewis understanda how political messaging works. The story out of this is "Sanders' civil rights history called into question" and I don't think Lewis is unaware of that.
 
JesseEwiak said:
To put it bluntly, previously moderate Republican's who were cool with non-white people, but didn't like taxes got turned off by the Southern strategy and embrace of the Moral Majority then replaced previous white Democrat's who liked government programs when it comes to their own kind, but didn't like it when it came to non-white people and were also socially conservative.

There's a reason why the Democrat's moved right on economics - it's because between 1968 and 1988, they only won one election and even that was a lot closer than people thought.

That's the actual problem I have with Bernie supporters. The thing is, whether you liked the policies or not, there was at least evidence on the ground that the GOP should move right based on Reagan's policies thanks to the fact that he and other conservatives had won elections and moved policies thanks to things like Prop 13 and the Rockefeller Drug Laws in 'swing' states. Show me the massive leftward policy shift in swing states and I'll back Bernie happily.
Click to expand...
Economics also moved right during this time period because Communism was discredited as an actual viable form of running an economy. The Dems were following the mainstream knowledge here.
 
Roland_Gunner said:
Looks like a Koch brothers SuperPac is spending $1.5M is SC attacking Ted Cruz. Crazy that they hate that much more than Trump
Click to expand...

attacking Trump doesn't work. We've seen this a million times by now.

The only realistic option is to narrow down the field enough that you consolidate the anti trump vote behind someone else enough that he loses. Since the Kochs probably like Jeb!, and Marco is cratering Cruz is the only other candidate running with any significant support in SC.
 
Roland_Gunner said:
Looks like a Koch brothers SuperPac is spending $1.5M is SC attacking Ted Cruz. Crazy that they hate that much more than Trump
Click to expand...

The Kochs are at least somewhat libertarian (they actually played a reasonably significant role in defining the term in the US political sense) so its not that hard to see their being no love lost between them and Cruz (his Fundamentalist cred risks their tax breaks in a general and they probably don't care about any of that stuff).
 
Roland_Gunner said:
Looks like a Koch brothers SuperPac is spending $1.5M is SC attacking Ted Cruz. Crazy that they hate that much more than Trump
Click to expand...
Yeah, I posted about that yesterday about the American Future Fund having an attack ad on Cruz declaring him weak on immigration and defense. Said he voted in conjunction with Bernie Sanders and supports the traitor Edward Snowden.
 
JesseEwiak said:
You realize that the only reason New Deal liberalism was able to dominate was because part of the deal was that non-white people got none of the spoils, right? It's not a coincidence that the New Deal coalition cracked once black people started getting stuff as well.

I'd also point at the current issues those vaunted European democracies are having right now that non-white people are consisting more and more of the poor and the rightward lurch in those countries.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm well aware. In fact, I've repeated this often enough myself on this board to counter the whole "the left overreached on x liberal agenda which ushered in neoconservatism". The party wasn't abandoned because they were looking to implement universal healthcare or free college, it had all to do with giving black people rights and that's how Nixon absconded away with the racist South and Midwest.

But my point still stands. Bernie's ideals are based in the past and in reality. That's how he is different from the Tea Party extremists. The times have changed in that non-whites are now starting to have more power and more of a voice in this country because the population is growing more diverse. Also, 40 years of conservative-oriented politics have only made the rich richer, destroyed the middle class, and stagnated wages and that helps the message of bringing New Deal liberalism back into the fold.
 
ugaboga232 said:
one of us. one of us. one of us
Click to expand...

Then you better pray he asks me to marry him prior to the Ohio Primary. Cause, once I'm married, I'd have to do exactly what my husband told me. :P

Wilsongt said:
Damn, gurl.

My TrumpBot hasn't done anything like that for me. Always too busy at the gym.
Click to expand...

Since neither of us has been to a gym (ever), I don't have to worry about that. Thank god we're both into chubby guys. I want to wear the Hillary sticker so bad, but I'm not going to risk it. Although, he did tell me if I put the Bernie one on, he'd totally help me find a new job if they fired my ass XD

OrangeGrayBlue said:
When there's something objectionable I think it makes sense to criticize Bernie just like every other politician. Bernie pushing to have F-35s stationed in Vermont, for instance. Some of his votes on gun control as well. Bernie is not beyond criticism, I just don't see what there is to criticize about the fact that a Jewish 20-something was not a leader of the civil rights movement.

I've only ever seen Bernie or his campaign bring up his history with the civil rights movement as a means of showing his consistency, I've never heard them try to state that he was an important figure at the time. So I guess I just don't understand Lewis' point. I do know, however, that John Lewis understanda how political messaging works. The story out of this is "Sanders' civil rights history called into question" and I don't think Lewis is unaware of that.
Click to expand...

I think we're saying the same thing here. I mean, running for President is a resume competition in a way. Bernie needed something to show his support for the AA community, and what he did in the 60s is admirable. A lot of people didn't od anything to help, and that's shitty. However, if you look at my resume, I'll tell you I helped facilitate the transition from paper based to a wireless insurance delivery system at my first job. That's a fancy way of saying I set up the scanners and taught people how to scan shit.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out how someone may be overselling something a little bit. And, as I said before, Bernie's campaign has a history of doing this already. Simply pointing out that Bernie hasn't been in the AA community until he needs to be isn't really slandering him. It's just pointing out a fact. To be clear, I'm not attacking him over it. If that's the nail he wants to hang his hat on, then he can definitely do it. I don't think it's a way to win minority support, though. Like my best friend and I were talking, she's AA, it rubbed her mom and grandmother the wrong way. (Both of them, especially her grandmother) were involved in the Civil Rights movement. I'm not presuming to speak for anyone at all, though.
 
Roland_Gunner said:
Looks like a Koch brothers SuperPac is spending $1.5M is SC attacking Ted Cruz. Crazy that they hate that much more than Trump
Click to expand...
I don't really know the details of their business so this might be BS because they are a multinational company, but they might have reason to think Trump wouldn't be particularly hard on their business.
 
dabig2 said:
Yeah, I'm well aware. In fact, I've repeated this often enough myself on this board to counter the whole "the left overreached on x liberal agenda which ushered in neoconservatism". The party wasn't abandoned because they were looking to implement universal healthcare or free college, it had all to do with giving black people rights and that's how Nixon absconded away with the racist South and Midwest.

But my point still stands. Bernie's ideals are based in the past and in reality. That's how he is different from the Tea Party extremists. The times have changed in that non-whites are now starting to have more power and more of a voice in this country because the population is growing more diverse. Also, 40 years of conservative-oriented politics have only made the rich richer, destroyed the middle class, and stagnated wages and that helps the message of bringing New Deal liberalism back into the fold.
Click to expand...

Smart Tea Partiers would day that the last 40 years of stagnant wages are due to a lack of a true free market including onerous occupational licensing requirements that keep minorities from acquiring jobs that will allow them to open their own small businesses, too many regulations in education and health care that stop people from getting the health insurance or education they need instead of what the government requires, and entirely too many government agencies telling job creators what to do instead of trusting Americans with their own money and indeed, the New Deal would've ended sooner if not for the excess spending of the Roosevelt White House.

Now, I don't believe that version of history, but not everybody who believes in the conservative vision of things are idiots. Hell, they'd point to the Gilded Age and show that despite the problems, wages grew for all, so in reality, it's the institution of Progressive Era reforms that are locking the chains of American prosperity and by supporting Tea Party policies, they're trying to get back to true American principles.
 
JesseEwiak said:
Smart Tea Partiers would day that the last 40 years of stagnant wages are due to a lack of a true free market including onerous occupational licensing requirements that keep minorities from acquiring jobs that will allow them to open their own small businesses, too many regulations in education and health care that stop people from getting the health insurance or education they need instead of what the government requires, and entirely too many government agencies telling job creators what to do instead of trusting Americans with their own money and indeed, the New Deal would've ended sooner if not for the excess spending of the Roosevelt White House.

Now, I don't believe that version of history, but not everybody who believes in the conservative vision of things are idiots. Hell, they'd point to the Gilded Age and show that despite the problems, wages grew for all, so in reality, it's the institution of Progressive Era reforms that are locking the chains of American prosperity and by supporting Tea Party policies, they're trying to get back to true American principles.
Click to expand...
The occupational licensing thing is definitely real. (the others I don't buy on a systemic level.) Some degree of it is absolutely ok and necessary. But it's often used as an intentional barrier to entry by entrenched interests in order to reduce competition entering the market.
 
kirblar said:
The occupational licensing thing is definitely real. (the others I don't buy on a systemic level.) Some degree of it is absolutely ok and necessary. But it's often used as an intentional barrier to entry by entrenched interests in order to reduce competition entering the market.
Click to expand...

Sure, I think some of it is an issue, but a lot of it is a way for neoliberals and conservatives who fully believe in free trade and destruction of public sector unions (who have a lot of minorities in them) as a way to say, "see, we care about poor people!"
 
I've reached the point ever I'm tired of watching debates and reading rhetoric until the primary is over. It's too much.

At least, on the Democratic side of things. They can do whatever they want with their dumpster fire on the Republican side.
 
She's giving examples of people who took donations from Wall Street to prove that it's okay for her. This seems like a major blunder!
 
JesseEwiak said:
Smart Tea Partiers would day that the last 40 years of stagnant wages are due to a lack of a true free market including onerous occupational licensing requirements that keep minorities from acquiring jobs that will allow them to open their own small businesses, too many regulations in education and health care that stop people from getting the health insurance or education they need instead of what the government requires, and entirely too many government agencies telling job creators what to do instead of trusting Americans with their own money and indeed, the New Deal would've ended sooner if not for the excess spending of the Roosevelt White House.

Now, I don't believe that version of history, but not everybody who believes in the conservative vision of things are idiots. Hell, they'd point to the Gilded Age and show that despite the problems, wages grew for all, so in reality, it's the institution of Progressive Era reforms that are locking the chains of American prosperity and by supporting Tea Party policies, they're trying to get back to true American principles.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean most of that is what neoconservatives have already argued for decades. Irving Kristol (the so-called godfather of neoconservatism and also a former Marxist believe it or not) formed the entire movement on battling against the excesses of the New Deal and crippling regulations and such. He extolled the virtues of the free market and successfully convinced people that it was the 'Great Society' who was fueling the inequality and poverty seen in the 70s. Tea partiers are just the more extreme version of that mixed in with Goldwater's nightmare - the religious right. But not the same religious right that back in the 70s concern trolled the country into believing that left-wing politics would lead to a godless, unpatriotic country; this is now a religious right that has largely lost the culture wars they started back then and is really, really angry about it. But going to these 2 extremes of conservative economics and religion in this day and age is foolish and has never been seen or done before and it's not really supported by anyone born after this time period or the growing nonwhite population. That's what I mean by uncharted waters and why the comparison between extreme right and Bernie's "extreme" left is missing some much needed context.

What happened during the party realignment of the 70s was just really bad luck for the Democrats. Parties realign in intervals and we were due for one around then anyways. It just happened to coincide with the civil rights movement, Vietnam War, Middle East oil crises, and women's rights like abortion. It was a witches brew of shit all happening at seemingly the same time and the Dems found themselves (during those days of course) on the wrong end of all of those crises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
941
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented
395 396 397 398 399
20K
1M
PKrockin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Top Bottom