benjipwns
Banned
Ooch, someone should have told Lenin, Stalin...and Mao...and Pol Pot...and...Woodrow Wilson and...
-
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 2016 |OT| Ask us about our performance with Latinos in Nevada
- Thread starter Makai
- Start date
- Status
Elaugaufein
Member
Are you deliberately confusing goals and outcomes ?
Am I asking rhetorical questions?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, there was the Corporate Crime Accountability amendment to the Victims Justice Act of 1995, which required offenders who are convicted of fraud and other white-collar crimes to give notice to victims and other persons in cases where there are multiple victims eligible to receive restitution"; there was the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 to H.R.6, which allowed the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education to make competitive grants available to colleges and universities that cooperated to reduce costs through joint purchases of goods and services, there was the amendment to the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2003 stopped the IRS from being able to use funds that violate current pension age discrimination laws", there was the amendment to H.R.3338, where Sanders got Republicans to agree to an increase in $100mil for federally qualified community health centres, there was the Affordable Care Act, to which Sanders was a co-author, there was...
I can actually keep going for quite a long time on this. Like, Sanders is called the amendment king for a reason; he passed more amendments per senate term than any senator in postwar history. Where's Clinton's list?
benjipwns
Banned
Not to cast aspersions on those guys motives or anything, but I think their private or unstated goals ran pretty close to the outcomes.
Neither Hillary or Bernie would be able to govern as the progressive stalwarts they are attempting to make themselves out to be. Bernie however has proposals that are not grounded in reality; there is absolutely no chance whatsoever the GOP would have anything to do with any of it. A lot of Democrats would probably shy away from it, even. To a lesser extent, the same could be said for Hillary but she would better know how to work with a bitterly divided Congress upon taking the oath of office. Bernie is campaigning like there's a Democratic supermajority in the House and Senate. There isn't, and there won't be even if he somehow managed to win the general election. That's a problem. He's selling his oh so loyal supporters snake oil. He has no foreign policy credentials or really any kind of insight into how he'd lead in that regard. He's shouting the same ideas over and over again without taking pause to see what's actually in front of him.
The best we can hope for is defending Obama's legacy, sensible executive action, workable bipartisan legislation, keeping the GOP from ramming everything through and shifting the SCOTUS back to the left (which will most likely happen if Hillary wins). If you're hoping for a revolution, you're a fool. The only kind of 'revolution' you'd see is the GOP winning, solidifying the SCOTUS as right-wing for the rest of your life which is a nightmare, and Democrats likely being shut out for another 7-10 years while the GOP enacts even more toxic legislation that we have to live with. More destructive foreign policy. More harmful social policy.
The best we can hope for is defending Obama's legacy, sensible executive action, workable bipartisan legislation, keeping the GOP from ramming everything through and shifting the SCOTUS back to the left (which will most likely happen if Hillary wins). If you're hoping for a revolution, you're a fool. The only kind of 'revolution' you'd see is the GOP winning, solidifying the SCOTUS as right-wing for the rest of your life which is a nightmare, and Democrats likely being shut out for another 7-10 years while the GOP enacts even more toxic legislation that we have to live with. More destructive foreign policy. More harmful social policy.
Nah, that stuff doesn't count. Just like you handwave Hillary's achievements man, I can do it too
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, all handwaving off the table, Clinton's most significant legislative achievements, go: I'll give you CHIP and PREA free.
EDIT: Or even foreign policy achievements, where achievement doesn't mean "something happened", but "some good policy outcome happened and Clinton was a positive causal factor in that good happening".
Elaugaufein
Member
Yeah, that's probably true. But I think that leads into a discussion of what's a progressive goal vs what's a private goal of someone who is of the political left wing. And at that point we may as well discuss how much purple weighs.
shinra-bansho
Member
I like that we've reached the point where we're echoing GOP talking points #ghostofcarly #thedreamwillneverdie.
benjipwns
Banned
Also I did some shower musing after reading two Jacobin pieces and...wait, don't fall asleep yet!
If Hillary wasn't so risk-adverse she could take advantage of the fact that Bernie's financial reform proposal is incredibly thin for being such a large part of his campaign platform. And utilize her Wall Street ties in a way that nullifies them. And show she can get things done for the country without needing it to be all about her. (Well, okay, pretend that.)
The systemic risks of the last crash were noticed by all sorts of people, few put the pieces together but individual ones were there, some saw the overleveraging, some the underwriting, some the questionable ratings, so on; as were things about frauds like Madoff.
People's fear of Wall Street's power isn't the same as Bernie's, the left, myself, etc. it's more that it can harm them as it did in 2008 than their systemic power.
So...and here's where it gets nuts. Hillary pulls in her contacts, gets deniers/dissenters from Wall Street, rounds up economists from Keneysian, Chartalist, Monetarist, Austrian and one Marxist (for the others to pick on), and uses part of her campaign funding (SuperPAC would be ideal) to organize a panel "study" that requires no agreements and no conclusion for a plan of action. Instead, their goal is to identify possible systemic risks. And publish them via her broad campaign messaging. Essentially, giving these mice a megaphone.
Nobody has to (or can) create government regulations or agencies or plan anything, avoiding that attack. It's protecting "Main Street" from Wall Street's excesses, so Bernie's gotta shut up and the GOP is leery. And it's actual public service since she's sacrificing campaign resources. And she doesn't have to be held to anything since it's simply informational with the implied threat of her having to act if they don't before she gets in office. And she's already getting stuff done on relevant issues before even being elected.
This actually isn't unprecedented, it's how many electoral politics careers got made. Ralph Nader, George Romney,Joe the Plumber, etc.
It's actually more of a Trumpian, you wanna get nuts? let's get nuts! move, and it'd serve Bloomberg especially well, but it'd amuse me greatly to see Hillary who has every advantage in the book use it to try and nullify Sanders presumed greatest strength.
Sigh...why do campaigns have to be so boring that Donald Trump campaigning normally but not poll testing every word out of his mouth is shocking and exciting.
Clinton (or other) campaign, I only accept 1/4 oz American Eagle gold coins. NOT Krugerrands. You will know why.
If Hillary wasn't so risk-adverse she could take advantage of the fact that Bernie's financial reform proposal is incredibly thin for being such a large part of his campaign platform. And utilize her Wall Street ties in a way that nullifies them. And show she can get things done for the country without needing it to be all about her. (Well, okay, pretend that.)
The systemic risks of the last crash were noticed by all sorts of people, few put the pieces together but individual ones were there, some saw the overleveraging, some the underwriting, some the questionable ratings, so on; as were things about frauds like Madoff.
People's fear of Wall Street's power isn't the same as Bernie's, the left, myself, etc. it's more that it can harm them as it did in 2008 than their systemic power.
So...and here's where it gets nuts. Hillary pulls in her contacts, gets deniers/dissenters from Wall Street, rounds up economists from Keneysian, Chartalist, Monetarist, Austrian and one Marxist (for the others to pick on), and uses part of her campaign funding (SuperPAC would be ideal) to organize a panel "study" that requires no agreements and no conclusion for a plan of action. Instead, their goal is to identify possible systemic risks. And publish them via her broad campaign messaging. Essentially, giving these mice a megaphone.
Nobody has to (or can) create government regulations or agencies or plan anything, avoiding that attack. It's protecting "Main Street" from Wall Street's excesses, so Bernie's gotta shut up and the GOP is leery. And it's actual public service since she's sacrificing campaign resources. And she doesn't have to be held to anything since it's simply informational with the implied threat of her having to act if they don't before she gets in office. And she's already getting stuff done on relevant issues before even being elected.
This actually isn't unprecedented, it's how many electoral politics careers got made. Ralph Nader, George Romney,
It's actually more of a Trumpian, you wanna get nuts? let's get nuts! move, and it'd serve Bloomberg especially well, but it'd amuse me greatly to see Hillary who has every advantage in the book use it to try and nullify Sanders presumed greatest strength.
Sigh...why do campaigns have to be so boring that Donald Trump campaigning normally but not poll testing every word out of his mouth is shocking and exciting.
Clinton (or other) campaign, I only accept 1/4 oz American Eagle gold coins. NOT Krugerrands. You will know why.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Then she can just ahem do something about Bernie easily...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I thought we already established I am either Cenk Ugyur or Jeff Weaver? I can't be Carly too.
Elaugaufein
Member
It's inevitable ? Its probably the best argument why primaries are terrible. A more centrist Democratic candidate is going to make the same sort of arguments against a more progressive Democratic candidate that a Republican would make against a Democrat , and vice versa for the other side. I'm not sure what you could do about it though, the US Presidential election is so important that any method for selecting candidates is going to become a media circus and thus a public spectacle and decided de facto by the court of public opinion by default.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Marcomentum is back baby
#thepartydecidesMarcomentum is back baby
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
? We've known Rubio would get 3 since the day the NH results were released. That's some Kotaku-level tweeting right there.
benjipwns
Banned
During this one she should challenge Bernie to another debate.
In Fort Marcy Park.
At night.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Surely the whole point of a democratic system is to have the presidency decided by the court of public opinion? The question is how best to identify and represent public opinion rather than whether it should be represented or not.
Elaugaufein
Member
Public opinion and the court of public opinion aren't necessarily the same thing. Because the public who hear things in passing aren't the same beast as the public giving things their detailed attention. I listened to radio feedback today talking about how hard an estate tax would be on struggling mums and dads when the proposal in question applied only to estates with values in excess of $AUS 5 000 000 and specifically excluded primary residences or a family business from being included in that figure and I wanted to beat my head on a dashboard.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's true. I'm not sure that's a problem you can ever solve, though. I mean, how would you ensure neutral or impartial news? How would you ensure the public watches it?
benjipwns
Banned
A convention doesn't really change this other than moving the decision making process behind closed doors.
There were still battles over candidates among factions, I'm sure if there was a GAF, there was a hotly debated Q. Adams, Jackson, Clay, Crawford thread in 1824 and a thread full of bans over the Clay nomination for Secretary of State.
One thing a head-to-head battle does is inherently polarize it. If it was Sanders, Clinton, Biden, Warren and Jim Gilmore in the Democratic race things would be much more spread out like we're seeing in the GOP race.
There were still battles over candidates among factions, I'm sure if there was a GAF, there was a hotly debated Q. Adams, Jackson, Clay, Crawford thread in 1824 and a thread full of bans over the Clay nomination for Secretary of State.
One thing a head-to-head battle does is inherently polarize it. If it was Sanders, Clinton, Biden, Warren and Jim Gilmore in the Democratic race things would be much more spread out like we're seeing in the GOP race.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think it would have been that hotly debated, we'd all have been Adams people.
amirite guys
Elaugaufein
Member
This is true. And this was on a a fairly impartial news source. Its just that people who are only listening in passing just hear the word tax and reflexively freak out.
And to put that $AUS 5 000 000 in perspective: you can, as an individual, be in the top 1% of household income earners , from entirely passive income (ie investments), and still have an estate under that value without the property exemption. To steal a line from This Week Tonight unless you're comfortable calling it an Estate it doesn't apply
benjipwns
Banned
fuck Adams he's a Federalist at heart
Crawford all the way, hopefully nothing happens to him before the election
Jackson second choice, he was great during the War
FloydtheFathead
Member
Considering Jackson's presidency.. Wouldn't we have all been?
In a battle where the war was already over..
Black Republican
Member
since there wont be any prior polls for Nevada who do yall have winning the state vote wise?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Why not both?
Racism. No one actually likes George Bush.
benjipwns
Banned
This is a disgusting smear campaign against a great American hero, the modern era's George Washington.
Hillary and Trump.
But the problem with this definition is that "good" is measured by who? In the end you'd handwave and say, "well this wasn't really good, so it doesn't count".
I mean, you like numbers, right? Hillary Clinton voted on and sponsored some 1023 amendments. So accomplished. Go fish for what adheres to your definition of accomplishments from there.
I'm not interested in a list war with you. You're trying to sell Bernie as more accomplished here, but you're pulling out amendments. A lot of congresspeople do all sorts of amendments. But you don't see them going on the campaign trail and saying, "Hey I did this amendment on this bill, aren't you proud of me?" Yeah sure. (You can argue that people wield the Hyde Amendment as a weapon, because it's so good to chase after anti-abortion votes.) This amendment and that amendment counts, but Hillary's worldwide advocacy and charity work doesn't. Bernie's "support" of gay marriage counts, but Hillary's change of policies in the State Department to make it an LGBT-friendly workplace doesn't.
If it's not a "something good happened" it doesn't count, like Hillarycare, which was well intentioned and yet somehow spurned by the likes of you, who appreciates Bernie's good intentions. Adoption and Safe Families Act? Forgotten. Extra funding and research for children, veteran, women's health? Forgotten. Global hunger and food security? Nope.
But amendments, they are such accounts of accomplishment.
With Hillary Clinton, something has to have "happened" or else it doesn't count. With Bernie Sanders, the "promise" of something that has no possibility of happening? Counts!
benjipwns
Banned
Mitt Romney (D) and None of the Above (R)
FloydtheFathead
Member
He should be a role model for Bernie Sanders after all.. He did kill the Bank of the United States.
shinra-bansho
Member
Is it confirmed or just assumed? Although polling is apparently not great in the state anyway.
I'll go with the inconsequential woman, but not by as much as she'd like, and the man who builds great things by yuge margin.
benjipwns
Banned
No, he promises to, if elected. That's why Q. Adams has to be stopped, to kill this Bank lest it kills us.
FloydtheFathead
Member
Just like the Indians in Jackson's eyes..
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
But Carly Fiorina dropped out...
FloydtheFathead
Member
Is Martin O'Malley Clay in this scenario or a Trump?
Although comparing Clay to both is insulting to Clay.
Black Republican
Member
Rachel said on her show yesterday no pollsters want to mess up their average since caucuses are hard to poll, makes sense after Iowa too..
shinra-bansho
Member
John Kerry-level cowardice.
benjipwns
Banned
Who? I'm starting to suspect you don't even realize the national debt is at an unsustainable $16 million.
Carly dropped out, but maybe her superpac can still run in her place. They did everything else anyway.
Macho Madness
Member
Got an email from the Hillary campaign this morning (I signed up for both Democratic campaigns a week or so ago just to see what they send me, so far Bernie's has been much more active averaging one per day) and it was a survey asking what my most important issues are in this election, and what will ultimately most influence my vote.
Turns out, deep down, I'm mostly afraid of an entirely Republican run government and paired with the other main issues of this election, my main issue is healthcare. I never took a step back to evaluate my place on this until now.
Turns out, deep down, I'm mostly afraid of an entirely Republican run government and paired with the other main issues of this election, my main issue is healthcare. I never took a step back to evaluate my place on this until now.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked