Support NeoGAF

[shinra-bansho]

So I've touched on it slightly before, but it's something that often leaves me curious.

On the whole, what role do people here actually see the US playing in the world?
What degree of interaction and intervention do they expect or think is necessary? Is it time to force other Western allies to take more active roles?
To what extent is it okay for the US to exert its hard and soft power?
Would people want to roll back on trade interactions? Reverse trade agreements? Implement tariffs?
Would they be indifferent to China and Russia expanding their spheres of influence, not only in their immediate vicinity?
Does the US have the obligation or authority to prevent atrocity? When? At what cost?

 

[Jenov]

why hasnt free college been taken up by any state? why hasnt a public option been take up by a state?

There are a few states that use state lotteries to fund free 4 year degrees. It's dependent on up keeping your GPA and being an in-state resident.

Interestingly enough, they're all Southern states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright_Futures_Scholarship_Program

http://www.sceducationlottery.com/educationwins/money.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educa...Educational_Excellence_Scholarship_.28KEES.29

 

[Diablos]

There's been a quiet push from the left here in PA for single-payer. It would never pass of course.

 

[benjipwns]

There are a few states that use state lotteries to fund free 4 year degrees. It's dependent on up keeping your GPA and being an in-state resident.

Disclosure, I received a state grant due to high testing scores (MEAP) that because I went to Community College for core courses and to decide on a major, was basically two years of university credits free.

So I've touched on it slightly before, but it's something that often leaves me curious.

On the whole, what role do people here actually see the US playing in the world?

The shining city on a hill.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Can the next debate Republican debate thread be Metal Gear Solid.

Jeb had a hard life.

Late to this, but hell no. Jeb does not deserve to be Solid Snake. He's Otacon as fuck.

That's not to say I'm against a MGS themed thread, it's just Jeb can't be Snake. No way.

 

[User 463088]

I got Bright Futures from Florida. It helped a lot. It was a decent program. Not sure how it is now.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Disclosure, I received a state grant due to high testing scores (MEAP) that because I went to Community College for core courses and to decide on a major, was basically two years of university credits free.

Hello, fellow MEAP bro. Did the exact same thing. It has been dead for awhile though, right?

 

[Suikoguy]

There's been a quiet push from the left here in PA for single-payer. It would never pass of course.

It's tougher for states to do it.
If they start leveraging prices, doctors or other services can just move to another state next door. A ton more difficult for them to move out of the country.

 

[benjipwns]

Hello, fellow MEAP bro. Did the exact same thing. It has been dead for awhile though, right?

Yeah, Granholm dumped the grant part of it.

Now there's MSTEP which is like ten times as many tests, but no money to students that I'm aware of.

EDIT: Should mention that MEAP wouldn't pay for as much if you went straight to a four-year. Think it would effectively pay for about a years worth of credits. (But dispensed over four semesters.) This is simply because of the cost difference for credits between community colleges and universities.

 

[Elaugaufein]

So I've touched on it slightly before, but it's something that often leaves me curious.

On the whole, what role do people here actually see the US playing in the world?
What degree of interaction and intervention do they expect or think is necessary? Is it time to force other Western allies to take more active roles?
To what extent is it okay for the US to exert its hard and soft power?
Would people want to roll back on trade interactions? Reverse trade agreements? Implement tariffs?
Would they be indifferent to China and Russia expanding their spheres of influence, not only in their immediate vicinity?
Does the US have the obligation or authority to prevent atrocity? When? At what cost?

Are we talking morally in an ideal world, morally in a realistic world (where in return for moral action the US demands it quid pro quo?) or in a realpolitik sense ?

In the latter sense the US doesn't do too badly now* (it's been a lot worse in the past), but it would be nice too cut down on some of the hypocrisy re things like free countries vs surveillance states and claiming moral actor stance while condoning torture. Not overthrowing governments without a realistic plan to replace them with a functioning independent government would also be good though I understand it's not always possible

* I don't think that realistically any country in its position would be significantly better. You can't maintain that position without some degree of "bad action" and no country would want to lose it.

 

[Bowdz]

Late to this, but hell no. Jeb does not deserve to be Solid Snake. He's Otacon as fuck.

That's not to say I'm against a MGS themed thread, it's just Jeb can't be Snake. No way.

Jeb is Johnny from MGS4. Just shitting his pants all campaign only to be the big hero at the end. Except Trump is Snake and still wins.

 

[Zona]

So I've touched on it slightly before, but it's something that often leaves me curious.

On the whole, what role do people here actually see the US playing in the world?
What degree of interaction and intervention do they expect or think is necessary? Is it time to force other Western allies to take more active roles?
To what extent is it okay for the US to exert its hard and soft power?
Would people want to roll back on trade interactions? Reverse trade agreements? Implement tariffs?
Would they be indifferent to China and Russia expanding their spheres of influence, not only in their immediate vicinity?
Does the US have the obligation or authority to prevent atrocity? When? At what cost?

These are incredibly hard questions, and I've been drinking, but I'll try and give my views at least in brief.

For better or for worse I think the US is stuck in the position of, if not world police, then at least the worlds moderating force. Basically "Don't make me come over there". This is a combination of ability, whether we like it or not the US is unmatched in power projection, and my personal bias. Personally I believe sincerely in western democratic ideals despite being a moral relativist and knowing that no society has ever actually lived up to them.

The degree of intervention and interdiction depends almost entirely on the situation, which in international politics is almost always a morass. I do think the other western nations should take a more active role then they currently do, if only to potentially curb the worse of the US's excesses.

This us fundamentally unanswerable. I will say I'm more comfortable with the exertion of soft power in most cases.

I think the genie of an intergraded global economy is definitely out of the bottle, and that protectionist policies are somewhat silly in the face of increased automation. Post-Industrial economies like the US should be looking to head off the problems inherent to the diminished place of human labor in production rather then attempting to revert to an economic base that isn't coming back.

Again I'm bias, I prefer the western democratic tradition as a base for future societies in ideal if not in practice. With this end in mind I'm okay with steps to reduce the hegemonic power and spheres of influence of both China and Russia.

All societies have the obligation to prevent atrocities. The problem is that in very few cases can we agree on what an atrocity is, and ideally the cure can't be worse then the problem its seeking to solve. You also fly face first into the realm of realpolitik, if stopping a massacre starts a war was it worth it?

It's times like this I wish GAF was a speech based medium. I'm far better at verbal communication then written.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Oh shit, Fox News has a gay Trump supporter on. His reasons for supporting him are 1. infrastructure 2. Immigration and 3. equality.

 

[Makai]

why hasnt free college been taken up by any state? why hasnt a public option been take up by a state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOPE_Scholarship

 

[Cerium]

Oh shit, Fox News has a gay Trump supporter on. His reasons for supporting him are 1. infrastructure 2. Immigration and 3. equality.

Trump's greatest general election strength is that everyone can tell that he doesn't really give a single shit about religion.

You can hit him on the racism and xenophobia, but when it comes to abortion and marriage it'll be difficult to nail him to that shit. He even talked about nominating his sister to the Supreme Court, and she's fiercely pro-choice.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Trump's greatest general election strength is that everyone can tell that he doesn't really give a single shit about religion.

You can hit him on the racism and xenophobia, but when it comes to abortion and marriage it'll be difficult to nail him to that shit. He even talked about nominating his sister to the Supreme Court, and she's fiercely pro-choice.

Well he has said he supports gay rights fairly recently, but at the same time hasn't came out and said he supports gay marriage. I think Trump doesn't believe half the shit he says and is just saying it to get the nomination. He's pretty liberal other than his immigration stance.

 

[East Lake]

So I've touched on it slightly before, but it's something that often leaves me curious.

On the whole, what role do people here actually see the US playing in the world?
What degree of interaction and intervention do they expect or think is necessary? Is it time to force other Western allies to take more active roles?
To what extent is it okay for the US to exert its hard and soft power?
Would people want to roll back on trade interactions? Reverse trade agreements? Implement tariffs?
Would they be indifferent to China and Russia expanding their spheres of influence, not only in their immediate vicinity?
Does the US have the obligation or authority to prevent atrocity? When? At what cost?

Be mindful maybe? I wouldn't know where to start. Anyway since people are generally supportive of free trade here I'll provide a counterpoint (not that all free trade is bad).

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — The earthquake not only smashed markets, collapsed warehouses and left more than 2.5 million people without enough to eat. It may also have shaken up the way the developing world gets food.

Decades of inexpensive imports – especially rice from the U.S. – punctuated with abundant aid in various crises have destroyed local agriculture and left impoverished countries such as Haiti unable to feed themselves.

While those policies have been criticized for years in aid worker circles, world leaders focused on fixing Haiti are admitting for the first time that loosening trade barriers has only exacerbated hunger in Haiti and elsewhere.

They're led by former U.S. President Bill Clinton – now U.N. special envoy to Haiti – who publicly apologized this month for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production. Clinton in the mid-1990s encouraged the impoverished country to dramatically cut tariffs on imported U.S. rice.

"It may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked. It was a mistake," Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 10. "I had to live everyday with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people because of what I did; nobody else."

Street markets have reopened, filled with honking trucks, drink sellers clinking bottles and women vendors crouched behind rolled-down sacks of dry goods. People buy what's cheapest, and that's American-grown rice.

The best-seller comes from Riceland Foods in Stuttgart, Arkansas, which sold six pounds for $3.80 last month, according to Haiti's National Food Security Coordination Unit. The same amount of Haitian rice cost $5.12.

"National rice isn't the same, it's better quality. It tastes better. But it's too expensive for people to buy," said Leonne Fedelone, a 50-year-old vendor.

Riceland defends its market share in Haiti, now the fifth-biggest export market in the world for American rice.

But for Haitians, near-total dependence on imported food has been a disaster.

Cheap foreign products drove farmers off their land and into overcrowded cities. Rice, a grain with limited nutrition once reserved for special occasions in the Haitian diet, is now a staple.

Imports also put the country at the mercy of international prices: When they spiked in 2008, rioters unable to afford rice smashed and burned buildings. Parliament ousted the prime minister.

Now it could be happening again. Imported rice prices are up 25 percent since the quake – and would likely be even higher if it weren't for the flood of food aid, said WFP market analyst Ceren Gurkan.

Three decades ago things were different. Haiti imported only 19 percent of its food and produced enough rice to export, thanks in part to protective tariffs of 50 percent set by the father-son dictators, Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier.

When their reign ended in 1986, free-market advocates in Washington and Europe pushed Haiti to tear those market barriers down. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, freshly reinstalled to power by Clinton in 1994, cut the rice tariff to 3 percent.

Impoverished farmers unable to compete with the billions of dollars in subsidies paid by the U.S. to its growers abandoned their farms. Others turned to more environmentally destructive crops, such as beans, that are harvested quickly but hasten soil erosion and deadly floods.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/with-cheap-food-imports-h_n_507228.html

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Along with an increase on populism, more positivity, and the increased mention of donors and special interests of other, Trump's greatest gem added to his stump speech is that China trains negotiators since the age of three.

 

[docbon]

I got Bright Futures from Florida. It helped a lot. It was a decent program. Not sure how it is now.

Same. I think the requirements got more stringent and the award doesn't cover nearly as much as it did before.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well gang, I've finally decided to step up my donation game by setting up $25 recurring contributions to Russ Feingold (Wisconsin Senate) and Doug Owens (Utah's 4th), in addition to one I've already set up for Angie Craig (Minnesota's 2nd). I feel pretty good about Russ' chances anyway, but he's the fucking man so I'll open up my billfold for him all the same.

Will certainly be adding more candidates as each month passes, Patrick Murphy is next in the quartet of Senate races that will decide who controls the chamber (FL-NH-NV-PA).

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Nobody is polling NV. What the hell.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Warren needs to do the right thing and endorse Hillary. Then together they should put up a legislative draft for Warren - Clinton College Education Plan.

I know Warren probably loves Bernie but she is a saner person and she needs to realize what will happen if Republicans win Presidency. All her accomplishments will be gone.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Nobody is polling NV. What the hell.

Polling caucus states sucks and no one wants to hurt their accuracy by trying. Iowa only got done because its first and thus important.

 

[disastermouse]

Warren needs to do the right thing and endorse Hillary. Then together they should put up a legislative draft for Warren - Clinton College Education Plan.

I know Warren probably loves Bernie but she is a saner person and she needs to realize what will happen if Republicans win Presidency. All her accomplishments will be gone.

If she wanted to endorse Hillary, she'd have already done it. I think she's waiting to see if Bernie clears enough to be even more competitive and then she can endorse the way she wants.

Abstaining doesn't put her too far onto the shit-list of the Clintons, there's no need to kill the momentum of Sanders until it's obvious that he can't win.

 

[benjipwns]

Why the assumptions that Warren will endorse Hillary or Sanders over Trump?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Warren needs to do the right thing and endorse Hillary. Then together they should put up a legislative draft for Warren - Clinton College Education Plan.

I know Warren probably loves Bernie but she is a saner person and she needs to realize what will happen if Republicans win Presidency. All her accomplishments will be gone.

Are you trying to cause a block of people already dissatisfied with the Democratic party to leave it* ? Hillary's already on track to win , so the only thing more left leaning Dems need to do is to not endorse Sanders (which is what they are already doing).

If Bernie was actually winning or looking like he might actually win , then it might be time to consider some subtle nudging. You don't want to "steal" it at a brokered convention obviously because that's just as dumb as non-subtle nudging.


* Or potentially worse cause the next person who largely agrees with the Democrats more than the Republicans but is a bit to the left to run 3rd party instead ? Because if they don't think they'll be treated fairly inside it, that would be the logical option.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Why the assumptions that Warren will endorse Hillary or Sanders over Trump?

With Gilmore out of the picture it's pretty much anyone's game.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Are you trying to cause a block of people already dissatisfied with the Democratic party to leave it* ? Hillary's already on track to win , so the only thing more left leaning Dems need to do is to not endorse Sanders (which is what they are already doing).

If Bernie was actually winning or looking like he might actually win , then it might be time to consider some subtle nudging. You don't want to "steal" it at a brokered convention obviously because that's just as dumb as non-subtle nudging.


* Or potentially worse cause the next person who largely agrees with the Democrats more than the Republicans but is a bit to the left to run 3rd party instead ? Because if they don't think they'll be treated fairly inside it, that would be the logical option.

If Warren endorsing Clinton would cause Democrats to leave the party, doesn't that suggest that they'd already not vote for Clinton? I'm honestly not even sure what their point is if they're willing to leave the party over something as stupid as that. Obviously they won't be voting in the Presidential election and it's not like it'd change their vote on a local issue.

 

[Elaugaufein]

If Warren endorsing Clinton would cause Democrats to leave the party, doesn't that suggest that they'd already not vote for Clinton? I'm honestly not even sure what their point is if they're willing to leave the party over something as stupid as that. Obviously they won't be voting in the Presidential election and it's not like it'd change their vote on a local issue.

Warren endorsing Clinton by itself wouldn't inherently. Just like Sanders losing wouldn't inherently. What's dangerous is the perception that the Democrats will actively fuck over anyone on their left side at any opportunity. And they've been awful at managing that perception already*. Which is why something that would otherwise be harmless (like the Warren endorsement) would be received with greater negativity.

Its a lot easier to hold your nose and vote for something you don't entirely agree with if you think they are genuinely doing their best than if you think they are trying to actively fuck your interests over.

If you're going to do Machiavellian bullshit for the greater good do it well. And if you're not doing Machiavellian bullshit badly and it looks like you are you are too incompetent for words and shouldn't be anywhere near a job involving public perception to address the other possible branch.

* Like having very few debates, at awful times (which usually benefits the front runner by starving the others of oxygen) and a whole bunch more appearing when it turned out that contrary to previous politically wisdom that they were helping Hillary.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Warren endorsing Clinton by itself wouldn't inherently. Just like Sanders losing wouldn't inherently. What's dangerous is the perception that the Democrats will actively fuck over anyone on their left side at any opportunity. And they've been awful at managing that perception already. Which is why something that would otherwise be harmless (like the Warren endorsement) would be received with greater negativity.

Its a lot easier to hold your nose and vote for something you don't entirely agree with if you think they are genuinely doing their best than if you think they are trying to actively fuck your interests over.

If you're going to do Machiavellian bullshit for the greater good do it well.

I'm not really sure if I agree with you here or if it really matters in the long run. What it kinda sounds like is 'Warren isn't allowed to endorse anyone unless it's Sanders' which seems kinda weird. It also suggests that Warren is an establishment figure which is not how I thought she was perceived.

 

[disastermouse]

If Warren endorsing Clinton would cause Democrats to leave the party, doesn't that suggest that they'd already not vote for Clinton? I'm honestly not even sure what their point is if they're willing to leave the party over something as stupid as that. Obviously they won't be voting in the Presidential election and it's not like it'd change their vote on a local issue.

A lot of people vote Democrat because they think it's a saner option than voting Republican. That doesn't mean they're in love with the party. I left last year, which I never would have thought I'd do.

The best thing that can happen if Bernie's not the nominee is for the DNC to get hamfisted and guarantee a loss in November.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm not really sure if I agree with you here or if it really matters in the long run. What it kinda sounds like is 'Warren isn't allowed to endorse anyone unless it's Sanders' which seems kinda weird. It also suggests that Warren is an establishment figure which is not how I thought she was perceived.

Well, by not endorsing him, she'd becomes establishment.
But really, she missed her chance to endorse the one true king anyway, because he announced today he wouldn't be running.

 

[disastermouse]

Well, by not endorsing him, she'd becomes establishment.
But really, she missed her chance to endorse the one true king anyway, because he announced today he wouldn't be running.

Who's that?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Why wait until Sanders gets a possible path to nomination? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[nocturnalis]

Who's that?

I think they mean Jim Webb.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Just so we are all clear, reparations are not practical buy single payer healthcare is. If only black people would understand this stuff they would Bern themselves over it.

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

There is quite an anti Bernie crowd here.

To be honest, I really dont care if Bernie doesnt expand beyond economics for racial issues. As a Native American I really dont expect any person outside of my community to have an inkling of the sort of challenges we face.

I think its a terrible expectation of people to ask a loaded question like what's his plan to fight hundreds of years of racism, hate, and genocide. The truth is that no one has the answer. Hell if my parents couldn't help support me while going to school, I wouldnt have been able to graduate magna cum laude with a Mathematics degree and pre-health. Economics provides opportunities, but its up to people to take advantage of those opportunities. Its easy for us minorities to blame institutional racism, but sometimes it's our own fault for not working hard or smart enough.

Bernie seems to get a lot of hate for being too much of an idealist. I think solving institutional racism demands much more idealism than getting money out of politics. Perhaps Bernie just isnt the right kind of idealist...

 

[Elaugaufein]

Just so we are all clear, reparations are not practical buy single payer healthcare is. If only black people would understand this stuff they would Bern themselves over it.

I don't think I've ever said that black people should be supporting Sanders let alone that.

There's also the matter of degrees of disappointment for aspirational goals. I mean I think we all agree that that telling a person you're going to reunite them with their missing parents and then not doing so is worse than typical election promises of dubious validity. There's relativity there. Would you want to the person who promised reparations and then failed ?

 

[dabig2]

Just so we are all clear, reparations are not practical buy single payer healthcare is. If only black people would understand this stuff they would Bern themselves over it.

It would definitely be easier to garner enough goodwill and populist fervor to enact some sort of universal healthcare than reparations, yes.

Kaiser Poll: 58% of Americans support Medicare for all

Meanwhile on reparations...
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

It sucks, but white people, even the liberal ones, aren't about that life (well Jill Stein and the Green Party are but everyone fucking hates them for 2000).

But anyway, Bernie isn't a radical. I think he says it just to be cute because he knows his ideas aren't really that radical. He's a New Deal democrat offering up New Deal ideas that were abandoned by a certain selfish subgroup in America but were implemented to some degree of success elsewhere in the world throughout the decades. Like him saying "I have a radical idea guys!" to me is him saying how backwards as shit this country has been since the rich took it over. It didn't always use to be this way.

And honestly, universal healthcare >>> reparations in terms of how it will help even just black people in this country. Reparations don't even begin to solve the systematic racism problem in this country, but at least healthcare can reduce the negative effects of it by fundamentally fixing this other system used to destroy black lives, particularly the most vulnerable and poor of us.

Ending the drug war and mass incarceration would be another fix to a system used for oppression. Like universal healthcare it doesn't solve the inherent racist problem the white majority has with black people, but it helps defeat another weapon used against us while solving some mega problems on its own.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

It would definitely be easier to garner enough goodwill and populist fervor to enact some sort of universal healthcare than reparations, yes.

Kaiser Poll: 58% of Americans support Medicare for all

Meanwhile on reparations...
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

It sucks, but white people, even the liberal ones, aren't about that life (well Jill Stein and the Green Party are but everyone fucking hates them for 2000).

But anyway, Bernie isn't a radical. I think he says it just to be cute because he knows his ideas aren't really that radical. He's a New Deal democrat offering up New Deal ideas that were abandoned by a certain selfish subgroup in America but were implemented to some degree of success elsewhere in the world throughout the decades. Like him saying "I have a radical idea guys!" to me is him saying how backwards as shit this country has been since the rich took it over. It didn't always use to be this way.

And honestly, universal healthcare >>> reparations in terms of how it will help even just black people in this country. Reparations don't even begin to solve the systematic racism problem in this country, but at least healthcare can reduce the negative effects of it by fundamentally fixing this other system used to destroy black lives, particularly the most vulnerable and poor of us.

Ending the drug war and mass incarceration would be another fix to a system used for oppression. Like universal healthcare it doesn't solve the inherent racist problem the white majority has with black people, but it helps defeat another weapon used against us while solving some mega problems on its own.

If 58% of people actually wanted to show their support for Medicare for all then Democrats would not have seen a bloodbath after Obamacare passed. So, saying we can just generate some populism and pass Medicare for all is also a fantasy. Especially when less voters are turning out than they did in 2008. Obamacare faced lots of issues when just plans of a a few hundred thousands existing plans got cancelled. How will that look when everybody's plans get cancelled to switch to single payer system?

The issue really isn't just reparations here, but if Bernie can believe in all these other things so strongly he can also believe in reparations. At the end of the day, free college, universal healthcare, tax increases on people earning 50k/year and reparations have close to 0% chance of getting enacted. Bernie's pivot on all issues to talk about Wall Street is not the answer to issues being faced today. Add to that there is no proper info on his single payer plan, his math doesn't add up, what kind of system he wants doesn't add up.

Progressives should always get the change they can get because it still represents a path forward. Bernie is a risk, a risk that can make us move backwards because GOP gets a Republican President. But also a risk because we stop making a path forward.

 

[Elaugaufein]

If 58% of people actually wanted to show their support for Medicare for all then Democrats would not have seen a bloodbath after Obamacare passed. So, saying we can just generate some populism and pass Medicare for all is also a fantasy. Especially when less voters are turning out than they did in 2008. Obamacare faced lots of issues when just plans of a a few hundred thousands existing plans got cancelled. How will that look when everybody's plans get cancelled to switch to single payer system?

The issue really isn't just reparations here, but if Bernie can believe in all these other things so strongly he can also believe in reparations. At the end of the day, free college, universal healthcare, tax increases on people earning 50k/year and reparations have close to 0% chance of getting enacted. Bernie's pivot on all issues to talk about Wall Street is not the answer to issues being faced today. Add to that there is no proper info on his single payer plan, his math doesn't add up, what kind of system he wants doesn't add up.

Progressives should always get the change they can get because it still represents a path forward. Bernie is a risk, a risk that can make us move backwards because GOP gets a Republican President. But also a risk because we stop making a path forward.

There's always going to be a non-Democrat running for president ergo there is never a time to do something significant. And it's a given one of them will win eventually: either you'll get an economic downturn or people will decide Democrats are boring/sub-par and try the other guy.

On the other hand Republicans are running on incredibly ambitious plans of dubious economic or social validity and still challenge you in elections. And if they get in due to one of the above they'll probably implement some of them or a compromised version thereof.

And because you never provided a counter vision people will think that's normal.

I don't think Democrats should run Sanders for president (even though I agree with him more so than the standard Democratic position), your political landscape is to fucked for it to work normally (Sanders is viewed as being more extreme than Marco Rubio).

I do think you need people with an actual loud voice putting those positions forward though because it makes substantially progressive policies look more moderate. That's one of the things the GOP do brilliantly.

They'll tacitly support people proposing returns to the Gilded Age and then propose policies that only lead in that direction and pretend it's a moderate position that its irrational for the Democrats to reject, just look at what that guy is proposing. And the Democrats have no counter argument.

And if it expands your political landscape on the left so much the better.

 

[dabig2]

If 58% of people actually wanted to show their support for Medicare for all then Democrats would not have seen a bloodbath after Obamacare passed. So, saying we can just generate some populism and pass Medicare for all is also a fantasy. Especially when less voters are turning out than they did in 2008. Obamacare faced lots of issues when just plans of a a few hundred thousands existing plans got cancelled. How will that look when everybody's plans get cancelled to switch to single payer system?

It's funny you bring this up because I believe it's the dissatisfaction with the ACA's compromises that really led to that 2010 beatdown. The Democrats lost the message and didn't bother to build that populism nor educate the populace before, during, or after the public option was nixed. Didn't help that conservative Dems were running away from it either. Thus the tea party and GOP were able to define the message. Not to mention people generally have no clue about how government works so those who are pissed or too depressed to show out don't truly understand that their lack of voting may screw them over for a generation. People simply don't understand how government works and what any role actually does. That's the sad truth so we need to stop taking the public for granted.

What I'm saying is that the onus was on the politicians to educate and galvanize the public. That didn't happen and 2010 happened. Obama ignored his grassroots and took for granted the fact that people would remain invested in the government even when they're pissed at it. Americans don't work like that. They need a constant push. That was Bernie's problem with Obama. The revolution should have happened back then, but Obama was instead making backroom deals and letting guys Lieberman and Ben Nelson take hostage key elements of the legislation with little bounce-back. He had a mob and should've used it. He should have been on television every single day arguing and pleading and applying pressure.

As for your last point regarding single payer healthcare, I don't think Bernie is about dismantling the entire healthcare system from day 1. He's just saying that's the end goal and that he will actually devote time and effort to seeing it achieved; because the healthcare system with the ACA is still really expensive and shitty for a lot of people. Even regular folks who don't pay much attention to the politics behind it recognize that it still isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's better to be upfront about it then to tout the ACA as some great ultra-liberal achievement that only needs to be fixed in a couple places here and there. Because after a couple more years of more dissatisfaction, it's very possible for people to think the ACA is the cause of the problems instead of just being not strong enough to fix the existing shitty foundation of a for-profit, insurance-dominated healthcare system.

The issue really isn't just reparations here, but if Bernie can believe in all these other things so strongly he can also believe in reparations. At the end of the day, free college, universal healthcare, tax increases on people earning 50k/year and reparations have close to 0% chance of getting enacted. Bernie's pivot on all issues to talk about Wall Street is not the answer to issues being faced today. Add to that there is no proper info on his single payer plan, his math doesn't add up, what kind of system he wants doesn't add up.

Progressives should always get the change they can get because it still represents a path forward. Bernie is a risk, a risk that can make us move backwards because GOP gets a Republican President. But also a risk because we stop making a path forward.

I mean, I don't necessarily disagree. All I'm saying is that my problems with Obama and Hillary to an extent is that they have this huge contingent to work with and to galvanize for even greater change, but they compromise before they even start the discussion. The Dems have been compromising for 40 years now and the country is still kinda shit. Those incremental steps of progress can be undone if people remain dissatisfied and uninformed.

http://prospect.org/article/no-cost-extremism

[...]
Equally important, those who recognize the dangerous implications of extremism are going to have to make a concerted case for effective governance. Currently, Democrats are caught in a spiral of silence. No one defends government and government looks increasingly indefensible. Public life and government are seen as hopelessly gridlocked and corrupt, so they become more hopelessly gridlocked and corrupt. Even politicians who know that government has a vital role to play in making our society stronger have little incentive to make what is now an unpopular and unfamiliar case. Consider the almost complete silence of Democrats about the Affordable Care Act—a law that despite its limitations has unquestionably delivered considerable benefits to the majority of Americans. A 2014 study found that spending on anti—Obamacare ads since 2010 outpaced money spent for ads defending the law 15 to 1. No wonder public opinion remains doubtful even as actual results of the law look more positive.

As difficult as it surely will be, there is no substitute for restoring some measure of public and elite respect for government’s enormous role in making society richer, healthier, fairer, better educated, and safer. To do that requires encouraging public officials to refine and express that case, and rewarding them when they do so. And it requires designing policies not to hide the role of government, but to make it both visible and popular. A tax cut that almost nobody sees, and which those who do see fail to recognize as public largesse, will make some Americans richer. It will not make them more trusting of government.

We are under no illusion about how easily or quickly our lopsided politics can be righted. But put yourself in the shoes of an early 1970s conservative and ask how likely the great right migration seemed then, when Richard Nixon was proposing a guaranteed income and national health insurance and backing environmental regulations and the largest expansion of Social Security in its history. Reversals of powerfully rooted trends that threaten our democracy take time, effort, and persistence. Yet above all they require a clear recognition of what has gone wrong.

 

[benjipwns]

Reagan almost upset Ford in 1976 and we got The Great Deregulator out of it. And Paul Volcker. And necessary major income tax code reform. And arms control and elimination agreements. And a-ha's "Take on Me" video. And New Order's "Blue Monday" which Orgy later made a great cover of.

Case closed.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Reagan almost upset Ford in 1976 and we got The Great Deregulator out of it. And Paul Volcker. And necessary major income tax code reform. And arms control and elimination agreements. And a-ha's "Take on Me" video. And New Order's "Blue Monday" which Orgy later made a great cover of.

Case closed.

A little off topic but you've said you're a libertarian (and made some statements implying you largely agree with the Pauls positions) so I wanted to ask:

What's your position on the Tragedy of the Commons (eg environmental issues like global warming) ?

And same question regarding natural monopolies and things that are quasi-indistinguishable (like utility delivery channels) ?

 

[Diablos]

It's tougher for states to do it.
If they start leveraging prices, doctors or other services can just move to another state next door. A ton more difficult for them to move out of the country.

True, I don't know how many would actually do that though. I wonder if there would be a way to have a state funded single payer system to forbid this behavior.

 

[Elaugaufein]

True, I don't know how many would actually do that though. I wonder if there would be a way to have a state funded single payer system to forbid this behavior.

Sure. Provide enough of a market with some (real) profit and someone will take it. Its why universal healthcare works in other countries and our public pharmaceuticals schemes can leverage their market power on pricing (its not like our medical companies can't all pack up and move to America or that drug companies couldn't just choose not to sell here).
Its just more difficult in an environment where your neighbor may engage in a race to the bottom and the capital requirements for effective flight is thus less and thus their bargaining position is stronger.

 

[FiggyCal]

It would definitely be easier to garner enough goodwill and populist fervor to enact some sort of universal healthcare than reparations, yes.

Kaiser Poll: 58% of Americans support Medicare for all

Meanwhile on reparations...
https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/06/02/reparations/

It sucks, but white people, even the liberal ones, aren't about that life (well Jill Stein and the Green Party are but everyone fucking hates them for 2000).

But anyway, Bernie isn't a radical. I think he says it just to be cute because he knows his ideas aren't really that radical. He's a New Deal democrat offering up New Deal ideas that were abandoned by a certain selfish subgroup in America but were implemented to some degree of success elsewhere in the world throughout the decades. Like him saying "I have a radical idea guys!" to me is him saying how backwards as shit this country has been since the rich took it over. It didn't always use to be this way.

And honestly, universal healthcare >>> reparations in terms of how it will help even just black people in this country. Reparations don't even begin to solve the systematic racism problem in this country, but at least healthcare can reduce the negative effects of it by fundamentally fixing this other system used to destroy black lives, particularly the most vulnerable and poor of us.

Ending the drug war and mass incarceration would be another fix to a system used for oppression. Like universal healthcare it doesn't solve the inherent racist problem the white majority has with black people, but it helps defeat another weapon used against us while solving some mega problems on its own.

I'm genuinely curious if anyone in this thread (maybe besides yourself) actually supports reparations or if it's just a lazy attack that the so-called utopian candidate found an idea he doesn't find feasible and that's bad because he should be in favor of everything that costs money ever.

 

[CCS]

I'm genuinely curious if anyone in this thread (maybe besides yourself) actually supports reparations or if it's just a lazy attack that the so-called utopian candidate found an idea he doesn't find feasible and that's bad because he should be in favor of everything that costs money ever.

It's not so much that I support them, as I believe that you can argue that support for reparations should logically follow from Bernie Sanders' beliefs. Since he doesn't support them, I want to know how he justifies it within his beliefs.

 

[FiggyCal]

It's not so much that I support them, as I believe that you can argue that support for reparations should logically follow from Bernie Sanders' beliefs. Since he doesn't support them, I want to know how he justifies it within his beliefs.

Well. If it was the case that reparations followed from whatever Bernie believes in; then he probably would be in favor of it.

 

[Manmademan]

It's not so much that I support them, as I believe that you can argue that support for reparations should logically follow from Bernie Sanders' beliefs. Since he doesn't support them, I want to know how he justifies it within his beliefs.

curious how this one pans out