-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Ziltoidia 9
Member
The only people that think both parties are exactly the same are people that don't follow the news or policy stances. But people voting in the primaries are hardcore in following what is going on, and just by watching the debates and stump speeches, it is entirely clear that both parties are not the same. All this infighting like its a general election. The freaking issues will be clear as day when the GE comes around.
Coffee Dog
Banned
it does surprise me that despite both having racially exclusionary voting bases and issues with minorities, riding the white vote is paying off much more for Trump than Bernie. I guess it just comes down to fear motivating much more efficiently.
None of them is untrue.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I don't think there are many who argue that both parties are the same in terms of platform, so much as people argue that both parties are similarly willing to engage in legally and rhetorically shady bullshit in order to further their agenda and will rationalize said bullshit as a necessary evil.
Snowden gave the information to the press, he didn't just post it on wikileaks. That was Julian Assange.
Obama's administration has been exceptionally aggressive in extraditing Snowden to the point where Snowden actively fears for his own safety, hence the reason why he left Hong Kong and went to Russia instead. He did not break any laws as he did not leak any sensitive information and would technically fall under the Whistleblower Protection Act.The administration was embarrassed when they had to apologize to Chancellor Merkel for tapping her personal cell phone. It's technically retribution.
Lighten up bro/sis...young people are getting educated....this talk show is #15 most watched news show on you tube. I haven't disagreed with anything he has said much ...and believe me that is rare...
You just said people who point out money has undue influence on both parties must be priveleged. Its an ad hominem argument designed to get a dig in at those people while avoiding having to address that actual claim.
Go back and look again because i did.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Lie about what's clearly written out for all to see brehs
Well, you try running for public office of significant worth and see if you get lucky like Bernie with millions of dollars in personal contributions. Fact is, unless you suddenly want the GOP to own practically every significant seat of political power in this country, you need money to run. The average Joe isn't going to finance any happy-go-lucky liberal that decides to run for office at state, local levels. That's why the parties in this country are structured the way they are and that's why money plays such a big deal in politics. It cost money to run and WIN.
You're trying to present me a scenario of a perfect world in politics. Money has influenced American politics since practically its founding. Corporate america always has a vested interest in influencing policy thus the reason to play a hand in politics. You can't wipe out corporate America. The idea that you can restraint their influence? Sure, doing away with Citizens United is one way... but they will always find a way to support their guy... even in a fairy tale scenario of $0 money in politics.
Here is the thing about having an emotional vested interest - or the suggestion of lack there of in some sort of purity vacuum. The reason this country exist (and the success it has been) is because of its political system and its two-party system. I mean I don't think anyone can't be so oblivious to the fact that politics basically shape a nation and society. Everyone at some point or another has a vested interest in a policy issue and thus, an emotional vested interest in a political party. I mean, look around you, walk outside, think of every thing and anything that is made possible today as a result of policy and politics. You start to count to the point where you count over your head and you realize how vested you're into politics, and by extension the political system and the parties that represent that system.
Lets cut the "disgust", "purity" mantle and lets be real.....
One party is soundly and almost unapologetically corrupt.
The other party only within the last six months eased up on a self-imposed ban on large corporate campaign contributions, and purely just to make their down-ticket candidates viable.
Even when it comes to big money in politics, both parties are not the same.
neurosisxeno
Member
I'm sure all several hundred of them will completely change the outcome of the election.
Wow, you must really be ignorant of the laws if you believe any of this. First, giving information to the press does not make it okay. The press is not authorized to receive classified communications/information. And, Snowden doesn't fear for his safety that is complete and utter nonsense dreamt up by paranoid conspiracy theorists, he fears prosecution for the crimes he committed.
I mean just wow, Snowden is not in ANY way covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Like, all I can tell you to do is to look up and read the act so you can understand why he isn't covered. I'll give you a hint you cannot leak classified information to the public simply because you disagree with the policies of an administration.
Joke post right?
"Highly classified intelligence program"
Sure seems "non-sensitive"...
If you want to argue that "money in politics" is a meaningful enough similarly between the Democrats and the Republicans to try to say "both are the same" with a straight face - that means you have to evaluate addressing that issue as more important that reproductive rights, LGBT rights, religious freedom, immigration and racism. You're going to find A LOT of people who vehemently disagree with that.
Basileus777
Member
He dropped out.
You Know Nothing
Member
He didn't give classified information to the public, he gave it to the press. We can argue semantics all day but that doesn't make him a traitor.
I'll walk back and concede he may have broken the law, but it was not willful malice against the US. He didn't sell the information to another country or attempt to overthrow the government. He publicly exposed a massive spying program that may have had some sensitive materials along with it.
Sorry man, you are wrong.
This thread isn't about Snowden or that program (which I don't agree with btw), so I'm backing out to let others argue politics, keep believing what you want on this one, but the law is clear.
Even that should be absurd to anyone who noticed that the Republicans threatened to ruin America's credit rating several times in the past 8 years, shut down the Federal government, and said that passing any budget was a bargaining chip in unrelated disputes with Obama.
If people think that Dems inability to overcome Republican obstructionism is the Same as Republican obstructionism, then their tactics really worked. What a fucking shame.
I didn't call him a traitor, look back at my post. He did, however, unequivocally break the law. That is the only thing at issue with regards to Snowden. And, what he exposed is not a program that "may have had" some sensitive materials with it, the entire program was classified and he leaked more than just the NSA's metadata collection efforts as I described above.
Im not saying democrats are evil or that they are immoral people. Simply that they are beholden to a corrupt finance system that undermines our democracy. Im not disgusted with Hillary, i understand that its nearly impossible to get where she is without playing the game. I just dontvwant to support that system if i dont have to, and bernie gives me that shot. I should be able to voice that opinion without being part of a group thats accused if unjustly dividing progressives.
I disagree. SuperPACs are new entities yes, but democrats have been closely linked with private corporations and lobbyist groups for a very long time. Again, this doesnt mean that democrats are evil or akin to republicans in ideals and policies. But it does mean that they have very little accountability to their average constituents. This disrupts the political process in profound ways and it was this problem that spurred many to support sanders. Portraying them as pie in the sky fools or ignorant noncomnformists is unfair and insulting. Not saying you did that, but many others have, and that was my original point.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Depends on how you view capitalism.
exmachina64
Banned
Sorry for the oversimplification; these threads move quickly and the conversation becomes heated.
Unfortunately, since the mainstream of both parties supports free trade, blue collar voters voting against Democrats for NAFTA and the TPP in retaliation is ultimately futile. I do support redistributive policies and retraining programs.
The thing is that most people on both sides of the political spectrum like capitalism.
Prodigal Son
Member
Trump 2016
Let's make it happen people.
#Greatagain
Let's make it happen people.
#Greatagain
nitekrawlwer
Member
A Black Falcon
Member
It's great that Hillary won Nevada, she needed it. As for South Carolina, if Rubio does end up winning the nomination somehow, Democrats will need to really show how far right the guy is; he's no moderate.
But importantly, basically, there is no way that the Iraq War would ever have happened under a Democratic administration. That war only happened because the Bush Administration was determined to attack Iraq to make up for Bush I not taking out Saddam, for oil, etc. No Democrat would have done what Bush did, with the lies about Saddam's (nonexistent) connections to 9/11, the lies about WMDs, etc., all designed to get support for an unnecessary war. With the full intelligence picture that only the Executive Branch had, anyone not determined to start a war there would have known that there was not reason for it. And only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co. were so determined. Hillary and other Democrats certainly were not. Even if she voted for a bill that resulted in the war happening, she'd never have started that war herself, and I do think that matters.
Further, if you watch the debates, Bernie is no pacifist; on foreign policy, Bernie and Hillary agree on almost everything -- the main disagreements on our foreign policy issues today are issues like 'what tone should we have with Iran' and the like. Watching the debates, their near-total agreement on foreign policy is striking. Bernie has to constantly bring up that he voted against Iraq because it's one of the only things that separates them on foreign policy -- he voted for most all the other military actions that she also supported, in Kosovo, Libya, etc. Bernie wants to cut the military budget more than Hillary, yes, but he's not a full-on pacifist.
On the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden, though, yes, I would say that she's on the wrong side of those issues. On Syria, I'd probably agree with her that we need to do more.
What Hillary voted for was a 'maybe use force if negotiations break down' bill; it was not a 'war on Iraq' bill. She wrongly believe Bush's lies that he's only attack if necessary, if negotiations failed and the search for WMDs was stopped. Of course, he was lying, and went to war anyway. I saw that coming and thought that Hillary and the other Democrats voting for it were making a big mistake, but she believed him, unfortunately, and has since said that she was lied to and the vote was a mistake. That's not as good as opposing it from the start, but is much better than nothing.
But importantly, basically, there is no way that the Iraq War would ever have happened under a Democratic administration. That war only happened because the Bush Administration was determined to attack Iraq to make up for Bush I not taking out Saddam, for oil, etc. No Democrat would have done what Bush did, with the lies about Saddam's (nonexistent) connections to 9/11, the lies about WMDs, etc., all designed to get support for an unnecessary war. With the full intelligence picture that only the Executive Branch had, anyone not determined to start a war there would have known that there was not reason for it. And only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and co. were so determined. Hillary and other Democrats certainly were not. Even if she voted for a bill that resulted in the war happening, she'd never have started that war herself, and I do think that matters.
Further, if you watch the debates, Bernie is no pacifist; on foreign policy, Bernie and Hillary agree on almost everything -- the main disagreements on our foreign policy issues today are issues like 'what tone should we have with Iran' and the like. Watching the debates, their near-total agreement on foreign policy is striking. Bernie has to constantly bring up that he voted against Iraq because it's one of the only things that separates them on foreign policy -- he voted for most all the other military actions that she also supported, in Kosovo, Libya, etc. Bernie wants to cut the military budget more than Hillary, yes, but he's not a full-on pacifist.
On the Patriot Act and Edward Snowden, though, yes, I would say that she's on the wrong side of those issues. On Syria, I'd probably agree with her that we need to do more.
Well, no, but the Senate has a built-in Republican bias since there are more right-leaning states than there are left-leaning ones. More of the left-leaning states have larger populations, which matters for the House and the Electoral College, but not for the Senate. If all states voted with their current partisan alignments, the Senate would be Republican and would probably stay that way for a long time.
Hence the problem with the Democratic party.
You Know Nothing
Member
I like capitalism. I just think it needs very strict government regulation.
Unfettered capitalism isn't good for anyone except the already rich.
I think some Sanders supporters are focusing too much on getting money out of politics as being the key to fix many current issues. Getting money out of politics is nice, but politicians won't start suddenly working for the workers interests once you remove it.
They aren't inherently "evil", but the hierarchical nature of many corporations benefits the people on top that feed off of the working class. Outside of that, a fair amount of large corporations exploit the third world and have owners that shift politics for their benefit.
They aren't inherently "evil", but the hierarchical nature of many corporations benefits the people on top that feed off of the working class. Outside of that, a fair amount of large corporations exploit the third world and have owners that shift politics for their benefit.
Yes it's. Politics and economics are intertwined. You can't break that bond. As long as that bond exist, policy decisions will be made with/for vested (special) interest - that at times align with good policy. The absence of money doesn't eradicate influence from special interest towards some sort of policy aka lobbying. Just because one policy decision (made as a result of lobbying) fails to have a favorable outcome doesn't mean that all of the sudden vested interest are bad for politics - how many have been good and no one bats an eye? Yep. Trade policy is a perfect, easy example to pull. But it's everywhere in some form or another. Somehow you add money into the mix and it changes everything? There is a fine balance to play by the politicians elected for office and the degree to which they value special interests request and/if in their judgement should pursue in policy form. The problem is that lobbying is out of control (due to the amounts of money being poured) and thus policy decisions made with vested interest in mind fail to represent the general populace at large or push any public good in certain visible areas.That's what excessive money in politics can do. So you limit it or take it away but you can be damn sure economic power players will always have a say in policy - in one way or another. And that, is the american way. Now if you're solely referring to Citizens United... we can have a conversation about why it's aggravating the relationship between vested (special) interest and elected representatives and moving that relationship to a dangerous realm.
I don't disagree with the bolded at all. Capitalism and Socialism at their extremes suck. It's just the sense I'm getting from some posters here is that they'd like to get rid of capitalism all together. Have I misunderstood? If not then the issue is that most voters aren't interested in getting rid of capitalism at this point in time. If the voters don't care, its hard for the parties to care since its their job to represent the interests of the voters.
There's also the fact that money isn't the primary root cause for issues some groups are experiencing. Racism being one big example.
There's a few of us here, yes.
Basileus777
Member
That's not strictly true, Obama won 26 states in 2012. The problem is that Democrats don't turn out in mid-term elections. Democrats are quite capable of winning Senate majorities in presidential election years.
I know Bernie's supporters just hate the phrase 'there's too much at stake!', but there really is. I'd rather not see us roll all the way back to the 1950s due to a temper tantrum by a bunch of young white liberals who won't be adversely affected (at least not directly) by a Republican President. There are far too many marginalized people who teeter on the brink as is (like your brother), and it disgusts me to think about what a conservative President, Supreme Court and Congress could ruin in just a few short months.
As a whole, the country is starting to tilt further leftward, though not quite as fast as Bernie's supporters want it to. I fully expect a Bernie-like candidate to receive enough support to become President in the next 10 to 20 years (honestly, I'd be thrilled if it happened sooner, but it *will* happen). It would be an absolute shame if that candidate's policies were completely ignored or destroyed by a Supreme Court that became conservative due to the spiteful actions of a relatively small segment of the electorate way back in 2016. A Social Democratic President will have a much easier time enacting his or her agenda if they're actually backed up by Congressional and judicial support.
If wanting to ensure that future Presidents have their backs covered when they put their Bernie-like policy bills on the line is somehow me 'supporting the establishment' or being a shill for the oligarchy, then that's fine with me. By supporting Hillary now (which I do absolutely enthusiastically, by the way - we're not all 'unexcited' supporters), I know that we're paving a path forward to enacting the policies of a future Bernie Sanders, rather than setting the clock back for potentially decades. Note that I'd still gladly vote for Bernie if he were to win the nomination, but I'm pretty sure that won't be necessary at this point.
GregLombardi
Member
The problem with doing away with capitalism altogether is that it does indeed drive innovation in a lot of areas. It just happens that big companies allow innovation to drive their processes far less than profits. But small business and small ideas can both become big because of innovation, and that innovation can help society. So I don't see how you completely remove capitalism from society, as it provides incentive to try things in a new way that is theoretically better.
This is bullshit. Snowden exposed unconstitutional policies by the Obama administration. He's a whistleblower by any reasonable definition. Yes, he released some details which were not unconstitutional (spying on allies, for instance) but he deserves protection from prosecution.
I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans that the majority want to charge him with treason or what the fuck ever. It's a travesty.
Market socialism. Not the ultimate goal, but preferable to capitalism, and certainly one that could feasibly be argued in the US later on down the line.
You don't need the means of production to be privately controlled to still have a market system.
gutter_trash
Banned
did you guys listen to Sanders' speech tonight? the guy is almost conceding South Carolina and moving to Super Tuesday states instead
he has given up on the South all together
he has given up on the South all together
Politicians have very little incentive to listen to voters when 90+% of their funding comes from corporations and other private organizations. If money did not buy influence in this way, the interests of the people would matter much more to politicans because they cant rely on established donors to support their re election. This is why there used to be limits on how much businesses and individuals could contribute to campaigns. When most influence comes from money, the wants and needs of average voters mean less and less. This means oil companies can block environmental legislation with ease. Health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals block or neuter serious aytempts at healthcare reform, investment groups and banks can overturn regulations which will eventually crash our economy, gun manufacturers can block gun control reform in the midst of a gun violence epidemic that leaves thousands dead per year, and yes, the interests of workers and consumers are undermined by corporatist influence in the system (paid leave, minimum wage, equal pay for women, tax reform, social services etc.). So yes, some issues like gay marriage or abortion or systemic racism arent really impacted by money in politics, but many of our other biggest issues are.
- Status