Jump to content

US Election: Saint Bernard the obstinant


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Notone said:

Which part?

The GOP talking the big game about integrity and morality? Or the Democratic party, who actually drop their politicians over that stuff?

I gave a few examples. My bet is, if Spitzer had been a Republican somewhere in the south, he would have come forward with some half-hearted apology, that he did some soul searching, and found that Jesus had forgiven him (basically what Sanford did). And Sanford is in congress now, while Spitzer is kinda done. 

And this year's flag bearer for that moral majority party, is the Donald...

And somehow the immoral candidate is Hillary, because she did not leave her cheating husband.

How about all the love given to President Clinton, despite his sordid history with women?  He's still very popular with the Democratic Party, despite admitting to multiple affairs.  He was accused by Gennifer Flowers of having an affair during the 1992 elections, which he subsequently admitted to, yet he still was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats to win the 1992 election and his reelection in 1996.

Unless you do a comprehensive cataloging of all the politicians in the last several decades, I don't see how you can say Democrats are more moral than Republicans based off a couple of cherry picked examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, no. Trump controls half the debate and can make 50% of it about whatever the fuck he feels like. And that would be shitting on Clinton and the Democrats while inviting Sanders to agree with him. The only way Sanders can not play along is to either completely ignore him or go back on his recent campaign stances and defend Clinton and the DNC and the like. So the best outcome here is only half the debate is an attack ad in Trump's favour.

Of course the reality is Trump was probably never gonna go along with it because just accepting and then turning down the invitation gets him more then enough out of this. He gets his name in the headlines again for a few days and gets the news to again report on him shitting all over Clinton and the Democrats and rile up Sanders' supporters by pushing the idea that he was robbed of the nomination. It's almost the same outcome as the debate, but at no risk or downside.

The idea that he "got trolled" here is farcical. Sanders just served him up an opportunity to shit all over all his opponents. And Sanders got ... nothing out of this. Except pissing off the Democratic Party even more since reports so far from other Senators and such are that they are pissed off at his bullshit over this. He tried to make a play to show that he was the one that could beat Trump, not Clinton, and all he got out of it was giving Trump a chance to call him a loser and attack Clinton and the Democrats.

So this is a good example of the tortured logic that Swordfish was talking about.  Trump won by backtracking on his agreement to debate Sanders?  Wow.

Trump can get his name in the headlines anytime he wants.  The press is all over him.  He doesn't need to look like coward by refusing to debate Sanders in order to get headlines.  He just needs to call a press conference or give another interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Except here's the weird thing with that logic - this implies that it needs to be fixed right this second. Even though there's very little sign that it actually does. Furthermore, we have evidence from FDR 1.0 that it not only can be fixed, it can be fixed fairly quickly. And the first time it was fixed it was not after really incompetent government or hated people or something like that, and it's certainly not like FDR was some odd outsider. 

So to me, it's weird to classify these 'problems' which are at best speculative as a major emergency, and accept that we should cause major suffering right this instant to fix problems that aren't actually there yet. And even better, do so by completely obliterating the prior system

I have a hard time using the events of FDR's administration to support the notion that the the current inequality crisis can be readily corrected.  There are several elements that convince me that our current situation is not readily comparable to that in 1933.  One, there were a lot more people out of work.  It was a catastrophic situation.  IIRC correctly, when FDR took office, the unemployment rate was somewhere around 25%.  What we have now, is much less an unemployment crisis, than a case of endemic underemployment and depressed wages.  While an increasing number of people are falling into an economically marginalized netherworld just above poverty but excluded from a shrinking middle class, it also doesn't create the sense of urgency that FDR was able to channel to create dramatic change.  Two, we now don't have the counterbalance of a powerful communist nation to make the ruling elites feel genuinely threatened.  The existence of the Soviet Union and the communist movements it inspired created in real threat of revolution in the early 1930's US.  While, we now know that the USSR was a despotic nightmare, that wasn't common knowledge at the time in the US.  The existence of an alternate system and the reality of a communist revolution in a major European country in recent memory, put pressure on the powers that be to make changes to prevent upheaval.  There is ample reason to believe that if the 1932 election had not produced a bloodless revolution, that a bloody one would not have been far behind.  The new deal happened because the elites didn't want to be facing angry mobs and firing squads.  While alternatives to the US system still exist, they don't have the backing of  a major nation and have been systematically repressed for many years.  There is no leverage to pry concessions out of the elites.  

While change is achievable, its a much different and more difficult situation from that which FDR faced.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mudguard said:

How about all the love given to President Clinton, despite his sordid history with women?  He's still very popular with the Democratic Party, despite admitting to multiple affairs.  He was accused by Gennifer Flowers of having an affair during the 1992 elections, which he subsequently admitted to, yet he still was supported overwhelmingly by Democrats to win the 1992 election and his reelection in 1996.

Unless you do a comprehensive cataloging of all the politicians in the last several decades, I don't see how you can say Democrats are more moral than Republicans based off a couple of cherry picked examples.

I don't think either party has a monopoly on the more moral behaviour. What I find enjoyable however, is that Democrat's do not talk that much about morality and stuff. And I find generally speaking, that Democrats are somewhat less forgiving. The last part might very well be influenced, because I can simply recall those "cherry picks" easier. Confirmation bias at work? Quite possible. But I simply can't recall that many Democrats to survive a sex scandal, apart from "slick Willy" Clinton of course. Spitzer or Weiner, are pretty much done for politically. And so is John Edwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

I don't think either party has a monopoly on the more moral behaviour. What I find enjoyable however, is that Democrat's do not talk that much about morality and stuff. And I find generally speaking, that Democrats are somewhat less forgiving. The last part might very well be influenced, because I can simply recall those "cherry picks" easier. Confirmation bias at work? Quite possible. But I simply can't recall that many Democrats to survive a sex scandal, apart from "slick Willy" Clinton of course. Spitzer or Weiner, are pretty much done for politically. And so is John Edwards.

Fair enough.  I don't recall many others either.  I do remember Larry "Wide Stance" Craig" though.  He was a Republican who's career ended due to some toe tapping in a bathroom stall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Except here's the weird thing with that logic - this implies that it needs to be fixed right this second. Even though there's very little sign that it actually does. Furthermore, we have evidence from FDR 1.0 that it not only can be fixed, it can be fixed fairly quickly. And the first time it was fixed it was not after really incompetent government or hated people or something like that, and it's certainly not like FDR was some odd outsider. 

So to me, it's weird to classify these 'problems' which are at best speculative as a major emergency, and accept that we should cause major suffering right this instant to fix problems that aren't actually there yet. And even better, do so by completely obliterating the prior system

The problems most certainly are actually here now -- even the IMF has taken some tentative steps towards recognizing them and you can see them in measured parameters which are not skewed by summing or averaging with the inclusion of the ruling class (e.g. various medians of wages, income and wealth, suicide rates, etc.). The sooner we start fixing them, the less painful the fix will be... though even if we started now, it wouldn't be nearly as simple as it was for FDR (davos makes some excellent points about this above). Indeed, the whole point is to fix the problems without completely obliterating the prior system, which is what will eventually happen if the maladies of a large and heavily armed portion of the population continue to be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't post here much but...

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36401174

Trump would pull out of the Paris climate change deal. As a foreign observer this is probably the one that scares me the most. He has the capacity to do severe (and irreparable) global environmental damage. And Congressional republicans would back him completely on this. I am praying the Democrats get their shit together soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans who continued their career despite marital infidelity: Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, David Vitter. Gingrich, Henry Hyde, and Robert Livingston all prosecuted Clinton's impeachment in the House while carrying on their own affairs. And let's not forget that the party who thinks government should be small enough to fit in your bedroom because Jesus commands it, is now rallying behind a serial philanderer casino mogul who habitually bragged about all the women he's had affairs with.

Wikipedia has a list of federal political sex scandals:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The problems most certainly are actually here now -- even the IMF has taken some tentative steps towards recognizing them and you can see them in measured parameters which are not skewed by summing or averaging with the inclusion of the ruling class (e.g. various medians of wages, income and wealth, suicide rates, etc.). The sooner we start fixing them, the less painful the fix will be... though even if we started now, it wouldn't be nearly as simple as it was for FDR (davos makes some excellent points about this above). Indeed, the whole point is to fix the problems without completely obliterating the prior system, which is what will eventually happen if the maladies of a large and heavily armed portion of the population continue to be ignored.

I'm saying that while the problems certainly exist, they are not emergency problems that would warrant the idea of voting for someone who would undoubtedly make them significantly worse in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, things might  get better later.

It makes sense to do that sort of thing when you think that you're in an emergency situation and you have little help of anything else working. It makes no sense at all to do it if you think things can be fixed without major disruption.

And if the whole point is to fix the problems without completely obliterating the prior system, why would you think Trump would be a good choice? While a Clinton presidency might continue the status quo (I doubt that incredibly seriously), a Trump presidency would exacerbate problems while making them far more difficult to actually change further given that the supreme court would be significantly more conservative (and there probably being more debt, more war, less jobs and less tax revenue). All of those things make change without massive disruption incredibly hard. Furthermore, history is littered with examples of countries who went authoritarian after a Democracy and never, ever recovered. 

But that's what you want. Which again, makes no sense given what you state you want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, davos said:

I have a hard time using the events of FDR's administration to support the notion that the the current inequality crisis can be readily corrected.  There are several elements that convince me that our current situation is not readily comparable to that in 1933.  One, there were a lot more people out of work.  It was a catastrophic situation.  IIRC correctly, when FDR took office, the unemployment rate was somewhere around 25%.  What we have now, is much less an unemployment crisis, than a case of endemic underemployment and depressed wages.  While an increasing number of people are falling into an economically marginalized netherworld just above poverty but excluded from a shrinking middle class, it also doesn't create the sense of urgency that FDR was able to channel to create dramatic change.  Two, we now don't have the counterbalance of a powerful communist nation to make the ruling elites feel genuinely threatened.  The existence of the Soviet Union and the communist movements it inspired created in real threat of revolution in the early 1930's US.  While, we now know that the USSR was a despotic nightmare, that wasn't common knowledge at the time in the US.  The existence of an alternate system and the reality of a communist revolution in a major European country in recent memory, put pressure on the powers that be to make changes to prevent upheaval.  There is ample reason to believe that if the 1932 election had not produced a bloodless revolution, that a bloody one would not have been far behind.  The new deal happened because the elites didn't want to be facing angry mobs and firing squads.  While alternatives to the US system still exist, they don't have the backing of  a major nation and have been systematically repressed for many years.  There is no leverage to pry concessions out of the elites.  

While change is achievable, its a much different and more difficult situation from that which FDR faced.  

I think that's got some good points, but it simplifies a lot of things about the New Deal I don't agree with - especially the notion that this was a bloodless revolution or that the New Deal ended up being massively successful in turning things around. That being said, the main thing I agree with here is that FDR had a significantly bigger problem with significantly bigger motivation than what this looks like - which is my point.

My point is that the US has proven to be pretty resilient. When it needs to be, it does change. The idea that we need something like that right now when by your words things were significantly worse - a 25% unemployment rate, massive inflation, and a threatening superpower starting to rattle sabers. This? This isn't that. We have income inequality, and that sucks. We have racial slavery by means of prison, and that really sucks. We do not have a quarter of the country out of work. We have more people with more jobs and more higher education than at any point in our history. Things can be better, and certain things should be a LOT better - and we should make those changes.

But none of that justifies Trump winning. None of it justifies panicking and wanting to get to that crisis mode sooner. 

My point was simply that the current inequality crisis is not at a crisis point, is probably not going to be there for a while, and if it gets to there chances are really good that we'll be able to fix it. And if it isn't a crisis, perhaps we shouldn't try insanely stupid measures and should instead focus on incremental changes that can help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanders now doubling down on his Trump-esque "gimme what I want or we riot in Philly:

Quote

 

Rachel Maddow just reported that the Sanders campaign has demanded that Governor Malloy of Connecticut and Barney Frank be removed from their positions as chairs of the Platform and Rules committees at the convention because they won’t be fair enough to Sanders. If the DNC does not give in to this demand, the Sanders campaign has announced that it will use all procedural means to grind the Convention to a halt.


 

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/1531896

Full letter is there as well if you want to read it yourself and see what is specifically said.

 

But yeah, this is apparently a thing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Ok, wait a second here....

Isn't this the EXACT thing you guys are going ballistic about Sanders NOT doing?  

Coming out and endorsing Clinton?

I don't see any connection between my comment and anything Sanders is doing or not doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Sounds like something a Republican would do.  Lose an election and still claim that they should get everything that they want otherwise it's an outrage.

He's threatening to drive the whole thing off a cliff if he doesn't get his way.

Which also fits your first sentence actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Notone said:

I don't think either party has a monopoly on the more moral behaviour. What I find enjoyable however, is that Democrat's do not talk that much about morality and stuff. And I find generally speaking, that Democrats are somewhat less forgiving. The last part might very well be influenced, because I can simply recall those "cherry picks" easier. Confirmation bias at work? Quite possible. But I simply can't recall that many Democrats to survive a sex scandal, apart from "slick Willy" Clinton of course. Spitzer or Weiner, are pretty much done for politically. And so is John Edwards.

The other Democratic scandal survivor I can think of is Edwin Edwards. But Louisiana is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Shryke said:

He's threatening to drive the whole thing off a cliff if he doesn't get his way.

Which also fits your first sentence actually.

It's what we get letting non-democrats run for our party's nomination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lokisnow said:

It's what we get letting non-democrats run for our party's nomination. 

Eh.

I mean, yes on the one hand a large part of this behaviour can potentially be attributed to Sanders not giving a shit about the party itself because he's not a part of it and feels no loyalty to it.

But at the same time it's a good thing for outside voices to try and come in and shift the party if they can get the support for it. That's how a party works. That's how you bring new people and new ideas into a party.

And, quite frankly, I don't think the idea that he's not a party member is really the main issue here. Whether or not you identify as a Democrat, just being someone vaguely near the centre or to the left of it or just being someone sane with a brain in your head, you do not want Trump anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders himself expressed this opinion not long ago, although before his recent escalation. But that is straight up what Sanders is threatening hear. That's his leverage.  A lack of party unity or whatever is not the core threat here, it's the idea that Trump could win. And that's something that goes beyond party politics and being invested in the Democratic party itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a problem with Bernie running for the Democratic nomination. He's been a Democratic ally ever since he entered Congress 26 years ago. He recognises that in a two party electoral system, to further the cause of the left in the US, you need to work with the Democrats (since pulling a Nader is dangerously counter-productive). Et cetera.

There are various reasons for preferring Clinton over Sanders, but his role as an independent is pretty far down the list. I mean, if you wanted to be petty, there's the counter-argument that Hillary came from a Republican household, and worked for Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I don't see a problem with Bernie running for the Democratic nomination. He's been a Democratic ally ever since he entered Congress 26 years ago. He recognises that in a two party electoral system, to further the cause of the left in the US, you need to work with the Democrats (since pulling a Nader is dangerously counter-productive). Et cetera.

I didn't either, until he began to (selectively) criticize the legitimacy of the primary and to undermine the results by attempting to debate the other party's nominee. Fact is, whoever emerges from the Democratic primary will be the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, which would be a strange position for a guy who has done an awful lot to spit in the face of the party. It's like Jon Snow inveighing against the oath of the Night's Watch while training to be Lord Commander. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...