US Election Thread - Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa

[TheKitttenGuard]

4 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

If you really think that the Democrats lost the House, the Senate and 900 seats in state legislatures because registered Democratic voters were disappointed that the Affordable Care Act wasn't progressive enough, you are delusional. This is exactly the magical thinking I was talking about up above, where very, very liberal Democrats have adopted the belief that the key to Democratic electoral success everywhere and anywhere is to be very, very liberal. This is narcissism masquerading as political theory. 

Compromises is thinking down to reality.  If you do not come with all your magical thinking the you can not get to the reality you more want.  Accepting what you say is reality before any sort of negotiating gets you jack squat more so then not.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Except that's not what he's depending on for his agenda. He says it right in his fucking speech that he can't do it alone.

And if enacting any sort of liberal reforms is a "pipe dream" then liberals in the U.S. may as well cede permanent control to the Republicans, because that's exactly what is going to happen anyway if U.S. liberals are so convinced of that.

You are contradicting yourself again. He's not depending on it and yet he's saying in his speech he's depending on it?

Honestly, I have no idea what you are trying to say. You said Sanders believes none of his agenda will be accomplished unless people follow through on the revolution that he's talking about. And since, as I've said, his revolution is a pipe-dream, then his agenda ain't gonna happen. According to you he's said his agenda depends on that revolution, which is why I said he is not the pragmatic politician that you contested he was in your original reply.

 

Also, enacting liberal reforms is not a pipe-dream and I never said that. Sanders idea of a political revolution is. But you don't need that kind of thing for liberal reforms.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Compromises is thinking down to reality.  If you do not come with all your magical thinking the you can not get to the reality you more want.  Accepting what you say is reality before any sort of negotiating gets you jack squat more so then not.

Wait...are you arguing that magical thinking should be part of any negotiation? So that means I should ask a prospective employer for 350 vacation days to ensure I can get to at least 15?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Here goes:

http://time.com/4168680/barack-obama-gun-control-tears/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/05/politics/obama-gun-control-evolution-executive-order/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/02/11-mass-shootings-11-speeches-how-obama-has-responded/73177526/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9746910/US-school-shooting-President-Obama-cries-as-he-expresses-condolences-to-victims.html

Obama has spoken so many times on gun control that Fox News mocks him over it.

Now, I am generalizing a bit here from Newtown to mass shootings in general, but surely you can see the pattern. Someone uses a firearm to kill many people, Obama talks and talks about it, Congress ignores him, lather, rinse repeat. 

Now, do you still reject the premise that Obama has tried to rouse public support for gun control measures?

I reject the premise that he has made a meaningful effort- clearly he has at least spoken about it. You've just linked me two articles about Obama making statements after mass shooting events and two about him crying during his recent announcement of an executive order on guns. There's nothing about him shouting himself hoarse crisscrossing the country on the issue.

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I reject the premise that he has made a meaningful effort- clearly he has at least spoken about it. You've just linked me two articles about Obama making statements after mass shooting events and two about him crying during his recent announcement of an executive order on guns. There's nothing about him shouting himself hoarse crisscrossing the country on the issue.

Sigh. "Shouting himself hoarse" was a touch of hyperbole, one I did not think would be taken hyperliterally. However, let me correct myself and say that I have no knowledge that President Obama has ever become hoarse talking about gun control. 

I am also not 100% certain of all the places he's given speeches on gun control. However, I know he's made at least a dozen speeches on this very topic since 2009. Here's also a handy list of the many things the White House did in the wake of the Newtown shooting. Given this, can you tell me what Bernie Sanders would have done differently to rouse the anger of the grassroots to force Congress towards gun control?

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

Wait...are you arguing that magical thinking should be part of any negotiation? So that means I should ask a prospective employer for 350 vacation days to ensure I can get to at least 15?

I think most negotiating begins two side having their wish list and it gets widdled down.

I think movies and the MPAA is a nice example.  Film makers will present material knowing it will not make it through to get a scene they really want.  Sometimes even that stuff will get through.

So, you do not know if you get something if you never put it out there.

I found "Magical Thinking" to be somewhat sneeringly condescending and dismissive, so I wanted to turn it around some.  There are limits but the idea that you do not bring what you want to the table is absurd and is against a simple rules of negotiations. 

 

[Altherion]

24 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

When Obama ran on "Hope and Change," I didn't believe him. Not that I doubt his sincerity (well, I do, but I also accept that it's a legitimate slogan), but I don't think he, alone, can do much about the shitty political environment of DC. I supported Hilary in the primary season and was sad to see her lose. Turns out that Obama still managed to do a lot of good things in office, probably about the same amount of good as a Clinton presidency would have, on balance. But he did try to shift the climate, like in the lead-up to the PPACA, and he was chewed up, spat out, and shat on. By both the GOP and the Democrats. So rather close to what I thought would happen.

Being the ethical guy in a rigged game earns you only spiritual brownie points. Nothing else.

To shift the climate, you need the support of the people and to have the support of the people, you have to follow through on what you were elected to do. Obama did not do this -- he spent the lion's share of his resources on policy that has nothing to do with the main theme of the times. If he had actually gone after Wall Street in a meaningful way, the 2010 elections would have been different and so would the rest of his presidency. Instead, he did nothing even when they committed obvious, provable fraud (the filing of false affidavits to expedite foreclosures) on a massive scale. The states sued the banks and the latter paid some fines, but nobody went to prison. The main power of the executive branch is to enforce the law and Obama made it clear that he would do it as softly as possible with respect to a wide variety of corporations.

Quote

So that's why I will continue to support the pragmatist candidate, Clinton, even if I disagree more with her platform items. She is a dyed-in-the-wool career politician who will wring the marrow out of you and deny doing it. That's the type of person I want in the WH.

Why? I personally would not support such a person even if she was unequivocally on my side, but Clinton is certainly not -- she is on the side of the people who pay her.

[TrackerNeil]

4 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I think most negotiating begins two side having their wish list and it gets widdled down.

I think movies and the MPAA is a nice example.  Film makers will present material knowing it will not make it through to get a scene they really want.  Sometimes even that stuff will get through.

So, you do not know if you get something if you never put it out there.

I found "Magical Thinking" to be somewhat sneeringly condescending and dismissive, so I wanted to turn it around some.  There are limits but the idea that you do not bring what you want to the table is absurd and is against a simple rules of negotiations. 

 

I do agree that in negotiations both sides often start off asking for more than they expect to get, but that doesn't mean they ask for the plainly impossible. Ask a Wharton professor how you handle a negotiation in which one side starts off with fantastical demands and you'll likely be advised, "Walk away."

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

Sigh. "Shouting himself hoarse" was a touch of hyperbole, one I did not think would be taken hyperliterally. However, let me correct myself and say that I have no knowledge that President Obama has ever become hoarse talking about gun control. 

I am also not 100% certain of all the places he's given speeches on gun control. However, I know he's made at least a dozen speeches on this very topic since 2009. Here's also a handy list of the many things the White House did in the wake of the Newtown shooting. Given this, can you tell me what Bernie Sanders would have done differently to rouse the anger of the grassroots to force Congress towards gun control?

I'm not taking it hyperliterally, I understand that actual hoarseness is not the pertinent question. The question is whether he's attempted a prominent public campaign to rally support for his position. I say he has not. Holding a press conference after a shooting is not sufficient. The list of thing he's done with executive power is all well and good, I think he's made real attempts to do something using executive power, which I appreciate. But he has not meaningfully tried to build public support to pressure Congress to do more.

As for what Sanders would do differently- he's been terrible on guns in the past, so probably not much. On an issue he cares about, like, say a 15 dollar minimum wage, I would hope he would carry on doing what he's doing now, drawing crowds to speak about the issue and building public support for it. I would hope he would ask his supporters to make their stance known to their representatives, and I would hope he would have surrogates "shouting themselves hoarse" in the media about it.

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

But he has not meaningfully tried to build public support to pressure Congress to do more.

This feels like the true-communism-has-never-been-tried argument, which is impossible to refute, so I'm going to leave off. I think you and I just have different perceptions as to what qualifies as rousing the grassroots, and different standards for what is possible and provable.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

As for what Sanders would do differently- he's been terrible on guns in the past, so probably not much. On an issue he cares about, like, say a 15 dollar minimum wage, I would hope he would carry on doing what he's doing now, drawing crowds to speak about the issue and building public support for it. I would hope he would ask his supporters to make their stance known to their representatives, and I would hope he would have surrogates "shouting themselves hoarse" in the media about it.

I'm having trouble seeing how this advocacy you are describing is that different from what Obama tried to do to push gun control.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

This feels like the true-communism-has-never-been-tried argument, which is impossible to refute, so I'm going to leave off. I think you and I just have different perceptions as to what qualifies as rousing the grassroots, and different standards for what is possible and provable.

Tracker,

Which has always struck me as the "no true scotsman" fallacy writ large.  

[TheKitttenGuard]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I do agree that in negotiations both sides often start off asking for more than they expect to get, but that doesn't mean they ask for the plainly impossible. Ask a Wharton professor how you handle a negotiation in which one side starts off with fantastical demands and you'll likely be advised, "Walk away."

Some of what is reality today use to be considered as impossible.

The best example I see was the LGBT and marriage.  20 years ago it was magical thinking and impossible.  They were advised not to call it Marriage and use Civil Union.  They stuck to their guns even through some dark times, and today Marriage with people within the community is now reality.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

After the Newtown shooting, Obama went on the road to use "the power of the pulpit" to shame Congress into enacting gun control legislation. The bill never even got past a Senate filibuster, much less a House vote. What does that say for the power of grassroots support?

This is sadly very true.

[Marcus Agrippa]

http://qz.com/608913/germany-is-getting-closer-to-nuclear-fusion-the-long-held-dream-of-unlimited-clean-energy/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/01/japanese-firm-to-open-worlds-first-robot-run-farm

The bottom one needs to be watched by Americans, we will be out done by robots and AI in the next 10-15 years, Jobs will no longer be what they were. This is another problem that needs to be brought up now by politicians, because the writing is on the wall. Why have human workers when you have robots who don't tire, don't get exausted, and don't make mistakes. The world is changing, and none of these people have the mental capacity to see us through it.

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Some of what is reality today use to be considered as impossible.

The best example I see was the LGBT and marriage.  20 years ago it was magical thinking and impossible.  They were advised not to call it Marriage and use Civil Union.  They stuck to their guns even through some dark times, and today Marriage with people within the community is now reality.

This happened without any President advocating for it, and in fact most elected politicians were pretty cowardly on it, so I fail to see how it is relevant to the power of the President. This is a change that came from a popular movement and a cultural change, not because any politicians pushed it.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Some of what is reality today use to be considered as impossible.

The best example I see was the LGBT and marriage.  20 years ago it was magical thinking and impossible.  They were advised not to call it Marriage and use Civil Union.  They stuck to their guns even through some dark times, and today Marriage with people within the community is now reality.

Notably, gay marriage did not become the law of the land because gay people and their supporters in Congress held out for some 20 year negotiations in which the other side, finally having become exhausted, simply collapsed and gave into their demands. Gay marriage became the law of the land because five Justices of the Supreme Court bought a legal argument and felt it was worth imposing on a lot of people who hated it - including states who passed laws and constitutional amendments against it. 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

11 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm having trouble seeing how this advocacy you are describing is that different from what Obama tried to do to push gun control.

I've done my best to explain the difference between holding some press conferences and actually taking a case directly to the American people. Obviously you can, like TN, agree to disagree with me on this point.

Let me note, though, that Obama has this year decided to operate differently than he has in the past. Instead of making simply making appeals during press conferences, he is going to the media, and threatening every Democrat that he will withhold his support if they don't get in line on guns. If you don't see what Obama is doing now as distinct from before, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you do see it as distinct, then we both recognize that there is more he could have done in the past.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

6 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Some of what is reality today use to be considered as impossible.

The best example I see was the LGBT and marriage.  20 years ago it was magical thinking and impossible.  They were advised not to call it Marriage and use Civil Union.  They stuck to their guns even through some dark times, and today Marriage with people within the community is now reality.

Also, for the record, "magical thinking" doesn't mean that you really, really want something that's not politically viable. Magical thinking is when you wrongly attribute causal relationships between actions and events which are not justified by reason or observation.

Feeling very strongly about the moral righteousness of gay marriage, even twenty years ago, is not magical thinking. That's just having a deeply held belief.

Believing that you can pass gay marriage legislation democratically in a state where the vast majority of people are opposed to it because you really, really want it to happen - that's magical thinking.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Notably, gay marriage did not become the law of the land because gay people and their supporters in Congress held out for some 20 year negotiations in which the other side, finally having become exhausted, simply collapsed and gave into their demands. Gay marriage became the law of the land because five Justices of the Supreme Court bought a legal argument and felt it was worth imposing on a lot of people who hated it - including states who passed laws and constitutional amendments against it.

This.

And it's a mistake to think Sanders will be able to spark a grass roots movement in a way Obama couldn't.