Jump to content

U.S. Politics: By Gawd King, That's Joe Biden's Music!!!!


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DMC said:

This is what I was, admittedly briefly, referring to in terms of the fantasy of moving what's generally described as (if stupidly, but my animus there is irrelevant to the discussion) the "Overton window."  Bernie's more extreme positions are not going to solve this within Congress.  It's incredibly naive to think a Sanders administration will somehow magically change how the beltway has always worked.  I guess maybe he'd push the limits more than Biden with EOs, but to prioritize that over the concern of getting elected in the first place?  Nah.  Anyway I'm rambling - I disagree with you point about Manchin as well.  If they caucus with the Dems and are mostly reliable on key votes - which Manchin has been, especially since Trump - then I don't really give a shit how much you have to dumb it down for your constituents.

I think Obama achieved a pretty great thing passing the ACA, but that's just me.  Kinda sad you think that's the republican plan.  Have you seen where national republicans have been at for the past quarter century?  Because it's far and away from "Romney-care."

I absolutely think that obtaining power is the primary goal, but I also think that the centrist wing of the party has lost their way. They have gone too far down the third way rabbit hole which basically comes down to not speaking to their material interests. It was literally just in the Obama administration that the Democrats were cutting a deal with McConnell to cut social security and Medicare. We've stood by and at times even led the fight to kill the social safety net, unions, and the American worker, NAFTA was passed under a Democratic administration, Dems let the banks off after they fucked our economy. The rise of the corporate Democrat is why we are in our present situation.

As for the ACA, it absolutely did some very important things, most of those things were on how Healthcare was regulated. The consumer protections and the Medicaid expansion are the single greatest achievement since LBJ and the great society, but that can't change the fact that it could have, and should have, been something more.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

  Anyway, the "LBJ treatment" is no longer a factor in contemporary interbranch relations.  He employed intimidation styles that nowadays fellow MCs would just be like "uh, dude, wtf are you doing?"

I'm not saying that anyone should do exactly what LBJ did, not just because it probably wouldn't work, but also because that is unacceptable in terms of how we should treat our fellow human beings. I'm saying that you have to control your coalition, rather than having your leadership actively punching to the left. The moderate Democrats do just as much to undermine progress as the Republicans do by undercutting progressive policies by whining about how you pay for it or about how it will play in battleground states before voters are even given the chance to learn about how it will positively effect their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DMC

Responding to your reply in the other thread (I wrote it then decided to just move it here):

Well, DMC, I wasn't actually lumping you into the centrist category. You may be, you may not be, but I remember you were supportive of Bernie when he was front runner (I can't remember if you outright supported him). 

I'm also thinking of Civil Rights movement, abolitionism, the American Revolution (which was about far less than income inequality especially considering the gap that currently exists), first wave feminism, Black Panthers, etc. These people were all told to be more pragmatic too and aside the Revolutionary War, we can look at and see these calls for pragmatism as pretty backwards. 

I'm glad FDR was able to build a coalition. Sanders doesn't have that luxury. I suppose medicare for all is a lot like you're saying your going to cure cancer in modern U.S. Sanders is fighting to move social consciousness to a more humane, empathetic place, but man are people resisting hatefully. 

As I said in the last thread, Bernie is ahead of his time. He likely won't win the nomination process. But young people are growing up and soon they will force this broken party that claims to care about the vulnerable to actually become a party that gives a shit about people and not the elites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

As I said in the last thread, Bernie is ahead of his time. He likely won't win the nomination process. But young people are growing up and soon they will force this broken party that claims to care about the vulnerable to actually become a party that gives a shit about people and not the elites.

In the same way that conservatives say that Barry Goldwater was ahead of his time (being destroyed by LBJ in the 1964 election, but being the father of neoconservatism and libertarianism), it may well be that in the fullness of time the same is said of Bernie Sanders. He'd probably like that better than being likened to Jeremy Corbyn, which is I think what would happen in a full general election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

It was literally just in the Obama administration that the Democrats were cutting a deal with McConnell to cut social security and Medicare

Wait, what?  Obama and McConnell cut social security and Medicare?  Musta slept through that one, please specify when that happened.

I am sympathetic to your general point.  Starting with the Clinton administration with Rubin and Summers specifically, the Democrats looked a hell of lot more like Republicans, and we were running scared.  I think Obama helped modify that, and now we got almost half the party that's full-on socialist.  So, in that way I think progress has been made.

9 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

but that can't change the fact that it could have, and should have, been something more.

This is like a parent going out of her way to make sure their kid gets the best Christmas present possible.  And, just kinda out of luck but also persistence, the parent is able to get that gift.  Then after ten minutes the kid's like "meh, I want something more."  

15 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

The moderate Democrats do just as much to undermine progress as the Republicans do by undercutting progressive policies by whining about how you pay for it or about how it will play in battleground states before voters are even given the chance to learn about how it will positively effect their lives.

No they don't.  This is in your head.  Moderate Democrats do not undermine or undercut certain policies in any way that remotely resembles how the GOP attacks that shit.  Electoral concerns does not equal demonization.  It's absurd to link the two.

16 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

These people were all told to be more pragmatic too and aside the Revolutionary War, we can look at and see these calls for pragmatism as pretty backwards. 

I'll give ya that one.  Social movements should be and have been attacking the status quo.  That wasn't really what I was talking about though.

25 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Sanders is fighting to move social consciousness to a more humane, empathetic place, but man are people resisting hatefully. 

Again, this is where your assumption pisses me off.  No one left of, I dunno, Frum or Romney, is doing so "hatefully."  We just disagree with the way to actually get it done.  "My name is Shay and I'm from New Rochelle, and I just don't understand, why you so mad?"

29 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

But young people are growing up and soon they will force this broken party that claims to care about the vulnerable to actually become a party that gives a shit about people and not the elites.

I hope so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Wait, what?  Obama and McConnell cut social security and Medicare?  Musta slept through that one, please specify when that happened.

Maybe McConnell is the wrong person to reference, but Social Security cuts were a major part of the original Simpson Bowles, which the Obama administration wanted to get done. We actually have the Tea Party to thank for the fact that it never came to fruition, because they refused to accept anything that Obama supported.

Quote

I am sympathetic to your general point.  Starting with the Clinton administration with Rubin and Summers specifically, the Democrats looked a hell of lot more like Republicans, and we were running scared.  I think Obama helped modify that, and now we got almost half the party that's full-on socialist.  So, in that way I think progress has been made.

I think that Obama helped, but that doesn't change the fact that instead of going in hard for a stimulus, they turned to austerity, which only increased the human suffering that the financial collapse caused. He also lead a global drone war, kept the Bush tax cuts in place and refused to use the powers if the executive where they could. Obama was not the worst, but once again, he failed to live up to his lofty rhetoric, mostly for a lack of trying in his first two years in office.

Quote

This is like a parent going out of her way to make sure their kid gets the best Christmas present possible.  And, just kinda out of luck but also persistence, the parent is able to get that gift.  Then after ten minutes the kid's like "meh, I want something more."  

Given that the Democrats had a super majority and a mandate for a progressive agenda, I'd say it it more like a parent who has the means and has promised to get the Death Star Lego set, they drag their feet so much that all that is left is a X-Wing which is cool, but it isn't a Deathstar.

Quote

No they don't.  This is in your head.  Moderate Democrats do not undermine or undercut certain policies in any way that remotely resembles how the GOP attacks that shit.  Electoral concerns does not equal demonization.  It's absurd to link the two.

Are you saying that Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership have been shit talking the green new deal? Pelosi has publicly mocked and even attacked members of the progressive parts of the house. She has used right wing lines of attacks to oppose Medicare for all by focusing on the cost. They constantly use right wing frames to attack progressive proposals. It may not be on the level of the GOP, but their actions seriously inhibit our ability to build momentum for a progressive agenda that they pay lip service to until it comes time to actually take action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

In the same way that conservatives say that Barry Goldwater was ahead of his time (being destroyed by LBJ in the 1964 election, but being the father of neoconservatism and libertarianism), it may well be that in the fullness of time the same is said of Bernie Sanders. He'd probably like that better than being likened to Jeremy Corbyn, which is I think what would happen in a full general election.

Corbyn's complicated by 2019 being a de facto referendum on Brexit.

That said, Sanders/Goldwater ("it took sixteen years to count the votes and Goldwater won") inherently assumes that progress will run in that particular direction. It's entirely possible that 2036 sees the Trump Dynasty up against Random Democratic-leaning Celebrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

That said, Sanders/Goldwater ("it took sixteen years to count the votes and Goldwater won") inherently assumes that progress will run in that particular direction. It's entirely possible that 2036 sees the Trump Dynasty up against Random Democratic-leaning Celebrity.

Oh yes, I didn't say it would happen, only that Sanders will hope it does. I'm not sure that progress will run in that direction under the current system of gerrymandering and the next 20 years of a conservative Supreme Court (plus other thing besides) but you can never tell. I'm not actively rooting for one, but anything can happen after a big economic shock (including making things worse in favour of plutocracy).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really glad that Warren called out how the need to categorize candidates as moderate or progressive was detrimental to some. I felt this especially hurt Booker and Harris who didn't fit cleanly into either category. Buttigieg reversed himself on some things in order to cleanly fit the label of "moderate" though he's a bit more like Warren in that he lands in that space between the middle and the left. The moderate/progressive label has also led to the false impression that Sanders and Warren are very close together on the issues which isn't true at all when one takes a comprehensive view and accounts for Sanders' anti-capitalism which tends to be ignored by a party who primarily see things through a social issue lens. We're now seeing Biden start to move left which is more organic to his past history but wouldn't have served him well in a crowded field with a hyper-focus on labels and categorization.

I wish the candidates had been given more space to breathe and just be themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I'm really glad that Warren called out how the need to categorize candidates as moderate or progressive was detrimental to some. I felt this especially hurt Booker and Harris who didn't fit cleanly into either category. Buttigieg reversed himself on some things in order to cleanly fit the label of "moderate" though he's a bit more like Warren in that he lands in that space between the middle and the left. The moderate/progressive label has also led to the false impression that Sanders and Warren are very close together on the issues which isn't true at all when one takes a comprehensive view and accounts for Sanders' anti-capitalism which tends to be ignored by a party who primarily see things through a social issue lens. We're now seeing Biden start to move left which is more organic to his past history but wouldn't have served him well in a crowded field with a hyper-focus on labels and categorization.

I wish the candidates had been given more space to breathe and just be themselves.

What past history would that be?  The bankruptcy bill that literally launched Warren into to politics?  Pushing the 1994 crime bill?  Fighting for higher profits for drug manufacturers?  Berating Anita Hill?  The Iraq War?  Oh right, that ghost of organic leftist past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here we go again - the Dow looks like it could go down another 1,000 points today again.

And remember when I rang the alarm on the 10-year bond slipping below 1% to .99% for the first time ever? Was that just on Monday? It’s now dipped as low as .739% this morning.

Money has been so cheap for so long many companies loaded up on debt because they could expand at such a low cost. Debt-loaded companies could be under a lot of stress over the rest of the year.

A lot of consumers loaded up on debt as well. This is especially true in Canada where, as I previously mentioned, we never had a housing crisis and subsequent drop in housing prices.

I think this is really important because many of us kept saying ‘Trump is going to be re-elected because the economy is so good’. You will be seeing endless numbers of Republicans on tv saying ‘we have a great economy, don’t worry’ but that seems to be unraveling very rapidly.

Realistically speaking, I think this is going to sink Sanders. The federal government is going to be asked to bail out various sectors and I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of money or support for the broad program spending that forms an important part of his platform. 


Maybe I’m wrong, maybe everything will be swell by November. But if I were the Democrats I’d be planning how to deal with some potentially grim scenarios.

Mike Pompeo is on CNBC right now talking about how great the economy is, how low the unemployment rate is and how the lower price of gas is going to be helpful (not to oil sector workers or investors!)

Oh, and India has just announced it is withholding 10% of the raw materials used in the manufacture of drugs that it exports because they have to think about the people of India first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

per majority and a mandate for a progressive agenda, I'd say it it more like a parent who has the means and has promised to get the Death Star Lego set, they drag their feet so much that all that is left is a X-Wing which is cool, but it isn't a Deathstar.

 

A lot closer to a landspeeder and Luke doesn't come with a lightsaber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What past history would that be?  The bankruptcy bill that literally launched Warren into to politics?  Pushing the 1994 crime bill?  Fighting for higher profits for drug manufacturers?  Berating Anita Hill?  The Iraq War?  Oh right, that ghost of organic leftist past.

Maybe, but what about the Obama Memes???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Realistically speaking, I think this is going to sink Sanders. The federal government is going to be asked to bail out various sectors and I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of money or support for the broad program spending that forms an important part of his platform.

I would say on the contrary that this may be the only thing that could save Sanders at this point. A substantial economic crisis would allow him to double-down on his criticism of capitalism and point out that crises are a feature of the current financial system, hence that strong regulations are required. It would magically make his radical positions much more credible for a lot of people.

Oh, it wouldn't save ervything and everyone, and it would probably not be enough for him to be the nominee, let alone elected, but his message would be considerably enhanced by a crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

I would say on the contrary that this may be the only thing that could save Sanders at this point. A substantial economic crisis would allow him to double-down on his criticism of capitalism and point out that crises are a feature of the current financial system, hence that strong regulations are required. It would magically make his radical positions much more credible for a lot of people.

Oh, it wouldn't save ervything and everyone, and it would probably not be enough for him to be the nominee, let alone elected, but his message would be considerably enhanced by a crisis.

I disagree because what is driving this is a virus, not a flaws in regulations.

What could help Sanders is a lot of people getting sick, to bolster M4A, but you still have the money issue. A recession seems to be looming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rippounet said:

I would say on the contrary that this may be the only thing that could save Sanders at this point. A substantial economic crisis would allow him to double-down on his criticism of capitalism and point out that crises are a feature of the current financial system, hence that strong regulations are required. It would magically make his radical positions much more credible for a lot of people.

Oh, it wouldn't save ervything and everyone, and it would probably not be enough for him to be the nominee, let alone elected, but his message would be considerably enhanced by a crisis.

Medicare for all might not sound so crazy when our current healthcare system encourages a covid19 outbreak.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remain convinced that if Trump looks strong, it benefits Sanders in the primary, because Trump v Sanders will not be a conventional election fought on conventional ground.  It makes people more willing to accept his vague promises of a "revolution".  If Trump looks weak, it benefits Biden in the primary, because Biden is going to make the election a referendum on Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I just haven't seen it, but I'm supprised not to see more messaging from the Sanders camp about how many aspects of the US make it vulnerable to outbreaks like Covid-19. People who won't self-quarantine because under right-to-work they can just be fired for not turning up to work. Or even if they won't get fired, they still won't get any paid sick leave, so they have to go to work anyway since they can't afford to miss a single paycheck. And since a lot of these precarious workers are in sectors with a lot of customer interaction like food service or retail, that just enhances the opportunities to pass on infections.

Then of course are the issues with people being unable to afford to get tested for the disease, let alone treatment. Underfunded public services and unstaffed federal agencies mean there's no coordination or strategy for dealing with the crisis.

Widespread disease outbreaks puncture notions of rugged individualism more generally. With infectious diseases, when people can't afford healthcare and can't afford quarantine, you're only as safe as your society's most vulnerable members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DMC said:

Huh?  I honestly don't know if you're agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or just being a smartass.

Why not both? :D

13 hours ago, Rhom said:

It was a side kick... give me the Diamond Cutter any day of the week!

It’s a super kick to the face, and the sound it makes is amazing. It’s the most realistic finisher and it’s so clean.

13 hours ago, DMC said:

Michaels is my favorite wrestler ever, full stop, but if we're talking about finishers the correct answer is Austin's double-flick off then stunner.  It made more money than any other.  Suppose Taker's tombstone could argue with that, but that's just cuz of longevity since Calaway doesn't have neck problems.

It’s funny how we almost always like the same things, but for different reasons. Stone Cold has always been my favorite, but the stunner requires the victim to play it up and a lot of guys suck at it. That said, nothing is better than when he hits The Rock with it, well except this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I would say on the contrary that this may be the only thing that could save Sanders at this point. 

I think this is hyperventilating a bit. Sanders is still in an excellent position. He can win this. Let's not write him off just yet. 

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...