SpeedySwaf
Member
Sometimes I want a reporter to ask them if they need Obama to hold their hand when using the bathroom.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes I want a reporter to ask them if they need Obama to hold their hand when using the bathroom.
I can't say its not expected, but it is nice to see people seeing through the bullshit.
Fenderputty
Banned
This is awesome.
StopMakingSense
Member
Probably an amplified effect of being in Virginia, but great to see.
RustyNails
Member
Virginia is probably the hardest hit state with regards to federal government shutdown. Pretty much everyone that works in DC lives in Virginia suburbs so this is not unexpected. I don't think Cucinelli is going to recover from this though.
Just came here to post pretty much the same thing. It will log me in, but the site just gives an error message once I get in. Super frustrating.
I unlike a lot of others actually completed my application or what have you, but then when I go on to try and read the results to see what I am eligible for, I get a error code box... with no code.
Lovely.
Last night, I could have actually told it I agreed to whatever it determined I was eligible for, despite not having the opportunity to review what it determined. So naturally I did NOT confirm the results as I could not see them, as doing so would have meant I'd have to appeal if I didn't like the result.
I <3 Obamacare, but good lawd the website is a steaming pile of glitchy crap.
Lovely.
Last night, I could have actually told it I agreed to whatever it determined I was eligible for, despite not having the opportunity to review what it determined. So naturally I did NOT confirm the results as I could not see them, as doing so would have meant I'd have to appeal if I didn't like the result.
I <3 Obamacare, but good lawd the website is a steaming pile of glitchy crap.
JesseEwiak
Member
Of course, those Democrat's he was talking about are now Republican's.
Heh yeah but you have guys like McCain citing Teddy as one of the greatest Presidents. Do they even realize where they were really coming from? Both sides have crossed streams over the many years, it's just kind of crazy.
He'd never make it through a republican primary though, his environmentalism and views on the labor movement would kill him. Teddy would be a perfect fit for modern Dems.
Teddy and how many others? Looking at his politics as a whole, the dude would be a fine fit for the Democratic party today.
We don't have a long history to look at, but American interest in religion has generally had an ebb and flow to it. It's amusing that some things have changed drastically (abortion wasn't a big deal in the early 1800s; it's because of science and ultrasounds that it has become as large an issue as it is now), but it's sort of to be expected. The coming generation is as a whole far less religious (I would hesitate to say less spiritual) so in that sense the Christian Right has already lost, but that doesn't mean it would resurge at some point.
That's a place where you can't neatly categorize past politicians. Take any of those jingos--and despite his many strengths I'd say Teddy was a jingoist--and their idea of running into countries for the glory of war, for the noble death in battle... no one thinks that any more. Sure there are the lip service guys, but remember Teddy believed so much in the glory of war and the fear of never fighting that he gave up his political career to go fight the Spaniards. Can you imagine any of our current political breed doing that?
On the other hand, Teddy was certainly progressive for his time and many of his policies fit neatly in the democratic party platform these days--Pure Food and Drug Act, National Parks, Endowments for Arts and Sciences, etc.
Yeah, he loved war; LBJ did as well, who was a staunch liberal on domestic issues. I think you can be to the left but also be extremely aggressive when it comes to war -- particularly with the way the world was back in the 1900's.
Which is why I always roll my eyes and get frustrated whenever a Republican talks about themselves as a member of the the "party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt." Lincoln and Roosevelt were the progressive liberals of their time, not conservatives.
rocketknight
Member
I used this as our pub trivia team name tonight, but nobody laughed.
Since when did democrats become liberal? Did I miss when they passed universal healthcare when having a super majority? Did they make sure all gay people can get married across the country while they had a supermajority? Did they give us free higher education and get rid of "rich kids race to get more funding while poor districts, largely minorities, get fucked"(race to the "top"[bottom really])? Did they nationalize anything? Did they break up monopolies? Did they punish the people who created the financial collapse and regulate the market so it couldn't happen again?
Yea..they are a center-right party.
theprodigy
Member
right, which left-wing parties in other large countries did anything besides the first two
oops
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Thread title should be "How do you drive over the same cliff twice?"
Mercury Fred
Banned
The Democrats would be considered far right wing in many countries.
There really is simply nothing they won't try to pin on him.
The Democrats aren't an ideologically pure party. The Progressive caucus of the party is actually quite liberal, and is the largest subset of the party currently, but there are still many moderates and conservatives within the party that steer leadership to the center.
Most countries pay students to go to college and have free tuition. So I already proved your entire statement wrong as that was the third question, I don't really have to go into more detail about the party's point on the political spectrum.
If you actually go trough liberal policies and prove me wrong that way, it's work, but you'd only come to the conclusion that democrats are center-right. It's how the politics are setup(if I can find the name to the system that works by I'll post it tomorrow)
Let me explain how the spectrum works in America.
You have 100% of the voters who are on the line.
23 far right
34 are center right
27 are center left
16 are left
Now, we have a single member districts hitch lead us to having a 2 party system.
What republicans do is cater to the far right and hope they can convince enough center right people to vote for them.
In order to win democrats have shifted center right making the odds of republicans winning in large elections much slimmer and harder to do so.
What republicans don't realize is the upcoming voters are more liberal than the hippies are, and have not moved left which will ultimately fracture their party between their fringe(which they created with the tea parties through gerrymandering) and their conservatives.
That speech is from 1912, Teddy Roosevelt led the progressive party at the time.
And historically, the Democratic Party was for state rights. For the most part, in the US right wing supported strong federal government and left wing supported limiting federal power and state rights.
This predates the democratic party and go all the way back to the Federalist party and Jeffersons Republican party (which is now mostly referred to as the Democratic Republican party because people thought that calling it Republican would be confusing and calling it Democratic Republican somehow wouldnt*).
Its only when states' rights became codeword to let us keep segregation and the Democrats beat the Republican to the civil rights punch that it switched (its perfectly possible that had the GOP was the party in power during the 60s they wouldve done most of the civil rights work and the racists wouldve stayed in the Democratic party).
* and if that confusion wasnt enough, you can actually trace both of todays major parties back to that Republican party, because history loves to play mind games. But the point is that back then the (Democratic) Republican party was for states rights and right wing Federalist was against it
On the super majority: The dems had a really small window where they actually had a super majority. When Ted Kennedy got sick in May and then passed on in August the super majority was gone. Not to mention the problem of blue dog democrats who wanted concessions from the party to support key legislation.
I agree that the dems aren't "left wing" by the standards of other countries. But that pressure to change needs to come from the bottom. How many liberals actually went out and campaigned for a single payer style system in 2009 when the health debate took place? A pittance compared to the number of people who stormed town hall debates in opposition to the bill.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Oh hmm, this I actually did not know. Although I guess Moderate + Conservative caucuses >>> Progressive explains why the party seems fairly center-right.
theprodigy
Member
I thought that was just one part
Progressives aren't the liberals in the party however.
There is a liberal caucus as well, and often progressives and liberals fight over policies.
Labor in the Democratic Party tends to be where we get conservative elements in the party, and as my other post(which everyone quoted before I got to finish the strategy behind being center-right is detailed) explained why it's strategic to be center-right for democrats
The party as a whole is pretty near the center, probably right of center, but the Progressive caucus is full of 70 people like Bernie Sanders. Not all Democrats are center-right.
I'd like to point out Bernie Sanders is a socialist-democrat he only caucuses with the democrats, he's actually part of his own party.
<3 Bernie sanders
True, but he's still a member of the Progressive caucus.
Invisible_Insane
Member
Sort of good news, but basically half the people have misidentified the blameworthy target, which doesn't end up seeming that advantageous.
Well, considering I'm talking about democrats and you pointed out Bernie sanders...yea...
Anyways, mathematically it's better election wise for the democrats to be center-right, which is what I've talked in greater detail in my other posts.
My point was that those 70 members more closely align with the policy objectives of Bernie Sanders than President Obama or Harry Reid. But I agree with your overall point that the Democratic party taken as a whole is pretty much center-right. Although if there were a sustained movement on the left in the population, I'm sure those members would be able to apply pressure to move the party left. It's why I was disappointed to see Occupy languish and die before it got to turn into anything substantive.
empty vessel
Member
And also thinks the deficit should be reduced. So...
Jon Stewart put Secretary Sebelius in the hot seat on the ACA rollout. He did a good job of highlighting how complex the current law is and used it as a driver for single payer. Good interview, worth a watch.
TheHeretic
Banned
So he's not a crank I suppose.
Given the cost of debt, unemployment levels and inflation, if anything, Keynesian economics (which used to be called mainstream economics before the dismal science went full retard) would prescribed a higher deficit, not lower.
Expansionary austerity is a fringe theory that have been proven to be bullshit.
And even if you reject Keynes, calling deficit spending and countercyclical fiscal policy "crank theories" is a bit off (and I'm being kind here).
TheHeretic
Banned
Bernie Sanders isn't running on ending the deficit "right now", he's running on cutting it at some later date. That isn't inconsistent with keynesian economics, what is inconsistent with keynesian economics is MMT nonsense that gets floated around all the time, which i'm sure you are equally critical of as a devout keynesian, no?
airmangataosenai
Member
Today's crazy:
He actually did advocate an immediate reduction of the deficit and he called a crisis more than once.
Listen, I really love me Bernie Sanders and I actually agree with a many parts of his deficit reduction plan for reasons that are not fiscal, but I think he's wrong the bigger point that we should cut the deficit right now.
Way too early to be pushing for single-payer...
TacticalFox88
Banned
Just imagine for a sec if HCR was Single Payer way back in 2010.
The tears of the right would've been so delicious!
The outrage would have been the exact same. That's the absurdity of it.
We are speaking with the benefit of hindsight though. Did anyone think four years ago that the Republicans were going to shut down the government over a health care law?
But when you take the long view of it, it's kind of amazing: for a bill that has its roots in conservatism, the republicans were unable to provide a single vote and are now threatening the country with default over its implementation. Truly breathtaking.
If anything it would have been more focused; i.e. they could rant about the Government takeover of healthcare and then actually cite the Public Option, for example, being a legitimate example of Washington getting in the way of the health care industry.
In the long run I don't think it would have made a bit of difference. But I will say it could have tipped the balance on the SCOTUS for upholding the law... who knows what Roberts would have thought about a Public Option?
The public options got removed very late in the game, and by that point I think it was pretty clear the bill is not going to get any meaningful republican support (that was way after the death panels nonsense).
But I think it was done mostly to get blue dog democrats on board.
Have we all really forgotten Joe Lieberman so soon?
wsj said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html
This man is the reason we lost the public option, straight up.
- Status