metalslimer
Member
Nancy Pelosi has done more for this country than whatever politician you idolize. She is damn good at her actual job and I can't see who exactly would be any better.
-
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 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
shinra-bansho
Member
The same reason the Republicans don't like her. Which I fixed for you.
BlastProcessing
Member
So we should replace her with someone Republicans like? Not attacking you here, just the people who follow that logic.
HanShotFirst
Member
Ah, yes. The pendulum of American politics!
neurosisxeno
Member
Absolutely not. Pelosi gets shit done, and the Democratic Party is lucky to have such a capable individual in a leadership position.
hipsterpants
Member
So I just started reading about my new governor Eric Greitens (which I should have been doing before anyway) and what the fuck he literally could not be anymore shady. He literally hold no press conferences and neither him or his staff answer any questions. Then there's the whole taking in insane amounts of out-of-state money from mysterious donors that he won't reveal and starting a totally not suspicious non-profit. Also he's gone and visited Trump like 4 times. And supported the AHCA.
Kander please save us in 2020.
Kander please save us in 2020.
shinra-bansho
Member
Unemployed man Jason Kander should probably be the House Minority Leader. Regardless of if he ever gets a job.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Because she passed a bad bill, sexism, pundits pretend Paul Ryan is a serious individual, etc.
I can't believe I was stupid enough to vote for Bernie in the primaries. When even conservatives in my twitter feed are calling out the rampant white nationalism in the GOP, the bros only want to look at wall street as the source of all our issues. Wall st needs serious reform, but they aren't the ones bringing the blood & soil ethnic nationalism into the mainstream.
This fucking cult of personality wants to champion Tulsi Gabbard as some progressive icon, question Tom Perez's liberal credentials, and are still throwing hissy fits about the primary & DNC elections.
They're best ignored. Seriously.
neurosisxeno
Member
I mean, yea that doesn't look great but his Wikipedia paints him in an impressive light;
Carpe Libertatem
Member
He actually started out as a pretty progressive Democrat
No idea what happened. Stuff I've read paints him as opportunistic and slimy. It's kind of a shame, if he didn't change he would've been a solid Democratic candidate!
whyamihere
Banned
He was a Democratic recruit attempt a few year earlier!
Not dealing with wall st is sorta like trying to run a marathon with an injured foot. They blew up the economy, helped to handicap the recovery, have no problem funding white nationalists, and will blow up the economy again under the right conditions, giving the white nationalists plenty of support if we're unlucky and the next recession happens to be under a democrat.
neurosisxeno
Member
He's a previously divorced, Jewish, Rhodes Scholar recipient who went to Oxford. But he was a Navy Seal and lives in Missouri so he's the ideal the Republican candidate.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
They both are. You characterizing my opinion or another person's?
Aaron Strife
Banned
I mean sure, but then Steny Hoyer becomes the new punching bag. Or whoever would replace her.
People act as if Pelosi herself is this big drag on the Democratic Party, but anyone in her position is going to get the same treatment and vilification by the right. Being a liberal woman might help with making this perception mainstream, but replacing her with Tim Ryan solves the problem for like, five minutes, and then you're taking a gamble on his ability to corral votes and legislation etc. when you already know Pelosi can get shit done. We got a stronger ACA (with public option), cap and trade, DREAM Act out of the House in the 111th Congress. It was the Senate that gummed up the works.
Speaker of the House imo determines the midterm elections about as much as DNC Chair. In spite of all the concern trolling and hand-wringing on the far left, that's about zero. It's all about who the president is. Do you think the GOP would have had a good 2010 if we had Speaker Pelosi under President McCain? Hell no.
Got the Shakes
Member
Not sure if you can from the web, but I use Tweetbot on iOS and it shows you when you tap on the tweet details.
shinra-bansho
Member
I was assuming Wall St was just being used as a shorthand for wealthy people as opposed to attributing all problems from white nationalism to the rate of the economic recovery directly to Kev.
I didn't realise we were unironically actually thinking that fixing Wall St with more stringent regulations or apparently even better just eliminating financial services magically solves everything else.
I didn't realise we were unironically actually thinking that fixing Wall St with more stringent regulations or apparently even better just eliminating financial services magically solves everything else.
When I say Bernie is/was scapegoating, the whole thing with Glass-Steagal being treated as a cure-all when mosts economists think itd do jack is very much a part of it.
Are you responding to me? If so you should quote and give up the strawman arguments.
Most economists wouldn't know how to fix wall st.
Sirpopopop
Member
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Greitens winning after releasing that completely fucked up ad of him shooting a machine gun for 30 straight seconds and that was the entire ad was impressive.
So we're just going to ignore the people who spend their lives studying the issue, and everything we know about what happened in the financial crash, then? Good plan.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Most economists don't study financial macro so this is technically correct!
CrimzonSamurai
Member
Simple solutions are a myth. There is no political panacea, personified or otherwise.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Trump ran a clearly anti-Wall St campaign. I'm not sure you can say they have no problem funding "white nationalism" - corporations actually have been pretty good about not funding white nationalism, fwiw. Not all, of course. (Look at the YouTube ad thread in OT for a recent example)
But I guess I have no idea what you even mean when you say "Wall St." It's a useless, vague scapegoat.
But a man with no proven legislation would?
The idea that we should no longer listen to experts and instead trust our feelings is a very extremist view to take. Not progressive. Extremist.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Breaking up the big banks (or other centralized industries) isn't just about preventing another financial crisis, but about curbing their political power and democratizing it. Our deregulation and lack of antitrust enforcement has lead to wealth being concentrated not just in a few individuals but in a few geographic areas. Breaking up Standard Oil wasn't just about keeping it from price gouging, but about limiting its political power and keeping the wealth it generated from being consolidated.
Sounds like politics of envy to me!!!
I don't think very many people disagree with further regulation (breaking up) of big financial institutions. That's not the problem. If that were the problem Barney Frank and Elizabeth Warren wouldn't be so popular. It's the continued myth that tackling "Wall Street" will cure all that ails us. Not to mention that "how" that Bernie and most of his ilk have a difficult time answering.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
This is an example of good criticism of Wall St. (a lot of which I agree with).
On the other hand, saying that "Wall St. blew up the economy" is not a productive or even necessarily accurate criticism. A lot of different things caused the economy to "blow up" - some of which was Wall St., some of which wasn't. It's just not that simple. If you don't want people to be dismissive of your posts, EastLake, I recommend you think about that and come up with more constructive criticism of specific Wall Street institutions.
To be honest, people who are still talking about Wall Street are missing a trick. Wall Street is not the focus of people who want to make money or wield political power any more. Silicon Valley is. In part this is because Dodd-Frank really did make significant changes to the way the industry works, in part it's because Silicon Valley is just so much more powerful (it's very important to note that many companies in SilVal are both successful and able to raise huge amounts of capital without ever going public at all), and in part it's that indexing is a lot easier and more effective than trying to find alpha.
I'm pretty confident that in ten years the entire discussion will be about what we need to do about Google. (I have no idea.)
...aren't those called cities?
I am really unclear on why people hate New York City so much. I mean I get why some people hate it but I'm not really clear why hypothetically progressive people do. Cities have a lot of money because cities are more productive and better to live in than rural areas. The desire to break up the urban bourgeoisie is literally why every Communist revolution immediately led to mass unnecessary famines. Socialists should really think about that! Cities are good. They allow for more efficient delivery of social services!
I'm pretty confident that in ten years the entire discussion will be about what we need to do about Google. (I have no idea.)
...aren't those called cities?
I am really unclear on why people hate New York City so much. I mean I get why some people hate it but I'm not really clear why hypothetically progressive people do. Cities have a lot of money because cities are more productive and better to live in than rural areas. The desire to break up the urban bourgeoisie is literally why every Communist revolution immediately led to mass unnecessary famines. Socialists should really think about that! Cities are good. They allow for more efficient delivery of social services!
I'm not sure what the point is here, is it that other wealthy individuals fund white nationalism? If that's the case then I'm not sure what the point is because I didn't say otherwise. If it's that those billionaires spend more on white nationalism than whatever you define as wall st and all its donations, I'm again not sure what the point is because I only claimed wall st funds white nationalism, which seems fairly uncontroversial.
Who spent their whole life studying this issue? And who knew it was coming, serious people like Krugman?
Experts in what, trade, macro, money, econometrics.... Or securities fraud?
I wouldn't say Trump ran a clearly anti-wall st campaign. For one it wasn't a major policy point of his. That was mostly directed towards immigrants/obamacare/taxes/crime etc... Wall st was an occasional bullet point. Second it depends on what you define as "white nationalism", but I'm currently going by the conservative generally accepted gaf definition which would probably be something like donating to the republican party, in which case wall st even vaguely defined supports white nationalism.
(Canada did the opposite. Their banking system is much more stable than ours.)
Because they hate centralized power- it's why you see stupid things like "we shouldn't have police", where the known end result of a lack of police presence (which you can see in poor neighborhoods, black markets, and large swaths of Mexico and Latin America) is that you end up with a bunch of private armed forces/gangs/cartels/etc. competing and jockeying for power and making the lives of people trying to live there a living hell.
I don't really care if people are dismissive of my posts, and don't believe it really reflects on the quality either. I don't see my recent posts being obviously of any less quality than anyone's in this discussion and it seems most of the whining comes from the opinions not the quality.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Populist in the streets, bougie fuck in the sheets?
Regulation (at least as most liberals propose it right now) isn't the same as leveraging antitrust to break up existing power structures.
But I will say that you're missing how these monopolies and concentrated power has had devastating effects on our economy and culture in ways that we don't normally think about, including effecting minority groups. With the rise of monopoly power, black-owned businesses have dropped steadily and these were often cornerstones of the Civil Rights movement (as I probably don't have to share with you). While breaking up monopolies didn't fix racism, the greatest gains of equality for nonwhite Americans were made at the time when these powers were most held in line.
Not all cities were created equal.
This is especially troubling because as these areas concentrate wealth, they eventually push out those who haven't concentrated the wealth who are forced to move to poorer locations.
This is why when I run for the Iowa State House I'm going to talk about how great nationalizing airlines will be.
For what it's worth though, I love cities and I've wanted to move to one since I was a kid. My hope is that when I graduate I'll get accepted into a PhD program somewhere like Madison or Minneapolis and head east, and I've been wanting to visit New York a lot now that I've made a trip to Chicago.
shinra-bansho
Member
You should tell them how then.
Cities aren't going to be equal. It's far more efficient to have Hollywood in one place than spread across 50 different cities- that's why we have Hollywood!
It's exponential growth- larger places are more efficient, have more trading partners available, allow for greater diversity in skill-sets, etc.
It's exponential growth- larger places are more efficient, have more trading partners available, allow for greater diversity in skill-sets, etc.
CrimzonSamurai
Member
We live in the most complex human civilization ever conceived with such interconnectedness that a diplomat can't fart in the opposite corner of the globe without the market taking notice and yet some people just don't believe in any room for nuance.
Christ.
All these overly progressive people wouldn't even consider antitrust an option in comparison to crippling the financial industry when the simple ability to open a small business offering a service that isn't already monopolized by some shits in SanFran would be a major boon to middle and lower class growth. As Bonen pointed out.
But no let's just compromise the entire world economy with hamfisted rhetoric driven nonsense.
Christ.
All these overly progressive people wouldn't even consider antitrust an option in comparison to crippling the financial industry when the simple ability to open a small business offering a service that isn't already monopolized by some shits in SanFran would be a major boon to middle and lower class growth. As Bonen pointed out.
But no let's just compromise the entire world economy with hamfisted rhetoric driven nonsense.
Quite easy! Start jailing CEOs when they commit fraud.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm all for jailing people who committed crimes. If you want to elaborate on what specific CEO and particular fraud you're referring too it would probably help.
I don't see how that "fixes" "Wall St" and thus snowballs into solving everything else.
I don't see how that "fixes" "Wall St" and thus snowballs into solving everything else.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
It's not the only necessary solution but ending moral hazard is a big plus imo
shinra-bansho
Member
Manchester isn't London and whogivesacrap Idaho isn't New York. News at 11.
They're centralized power. Lots of power in one place tends to earn their ire.
For context, this very bad article/idea triggered this all a few days ago:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/25/opinion/sunday/break-up-the-liberal-city.html?_r=0
Libertarian communists and anarchists, sure I can see that. But Marxist-Leninists? They're all about centralized power.
The issue is who holds the power.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked