US Politics

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

My words are in regards to "making threatening remarks about alliances." Condemning Donald Trump's words is totally different than that.

If you think that's a good idea, I entirely disagree.

ah ok - thanks for clarifying

well, thing is, Trump is the one pulling out, or threatening to pull out of international agreements/alliances, and cosying up to dictators - he's the one threatening alliances right now

and when it comes down to sharing sensitive intel in these alliances, i do think Trump is a risk, so yeah, i do think steps might need to be taken to safeguard the rest of the West from his lack of diplomacy and recklessness - the man is leakier than a sieve

[anitram]

I have read a lot and I mean a LOT of research on universal basic income.

The truth is that there are no reasonable or adequate answers as to where this enormous amount of $ to fund it is going to originate. That is the most basic issue behind it, but there are others (like the predictably necessary duplication of social services which would be cut but would have to spring back up because inevitably you would still have people who for one reason or another are reliant on them in spite of receiving an income).

[patternshirt170]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Such motions are shortsighted. The last thing we need is to create longterm political fallout between Five Eyes and Seven Eyes countries, because Donald Trump is a clown.

Fuck Brexit, fuck Scottish independence, fuck Marine Le Pen, and fuck Donald Trump. Stronger together, period.

Donald Trump is not an excuse to have rational leaders stoop to his level and become tough guys/gals.

Are you really putting Scottish self-government alongside the rest of that actual shite?

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by patternshirt170

Are you really putting Scottish self-government alongside the rest of that actual shite?

Yes, I am REALLY equating a nationalist movement to another nationalist movement and two nationalist figureheads. Scotland attempted to leave the UK on a nationalist platform and it failed. Just because the UK now seems like the Brexit bad guys doesn't change that fact - Scottish independence is driven by nationalism and identity.

[DaveC]

i guess starting a war with qatar is the plan to distract everyone from comey's testimony this week.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yes, I am REALLY equating a nationalist movement to another nationalist movement and two nationalist figureheads. Scotland attempted to leave the UK on a nationalist platform and it failed. Just because the UK now seems like the Brexit bad guys doesn't change that fact - Scottish independence is driven by nationalism and identity.

surely you can see the difference between the kind of soft nationalism expressed in the scottish independence movement, and the hard, exclusionary kinds espoused by brexit/le pen/trump though?

nationalism is not necessarily negative all the time.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by DaveC

surely you can see the difference between the kind of soft nationalism expressed in the scottish independence movement, and the hard, exclusionary kinds espoused by brexit/le pen/trump though?

nationalism is not necessarily negative all the time.

Also, right-wing nationalists in France, the US, UK are not advocating secession from their existing nations; on the contrary they are advocating strengthening the nation's own sense of nationalist pride and reducing globalist ties. The Scots are basically a people without their own nation, and you can argue the benefits/drawbacks of leaving and the historical reasons why but it's not really analogous in a strict sense.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by DaveC

surely you can see the difference between the kind of soft nationalism expressed in the scottish independence movement, and the hard, exclusionary kinds espoused by brexit/le pen/trump though?

nationalism is not necessarily negative all the time.

Just because some are objectively worse than others does not excuse "softer" nationalism.

And there was nothing "soft" about the SNP and their Scottish independence referendum. Just because they're progressive and not a bunch of hateful assholes does not mean they weren't inciting unnecessary destabilization over a namesake. A Scottish independence movement post-Brexit has some justifiable undertones, but let's not pretend like that's where it started or where it's rooted.

As the child of a mother from Northern Ireland and a father growing up in religious persecution in Egypt, you'll be hard pressed to find me appreciating any kind of nationalism. Nationalism is blindness. Cute patriotism is akin to being a fan of a sports team. It doesn't actually mean anything. It only makes for trouble.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by anitram

Also, right-wing nationalists in France, the US, UK are not advocating secession from their existing nations; on the contrary they are advocating strengthening the nation's own sense of nationalist pride and reducing globalist ties. The Scots are basically a people without their own nation, and you can argue the benefits/drawbacks of leaving and the historical reasons why but it's not really analogous in a strict sense.

The United States under Trump is taking an anti-globalist stance. Le Pen would have been the same, in pair with a euroskeptic stance. Obviously, Brexit is the same. Sure, Scottish independence doesn't match either of those two things, but it's definitely an anti-union movement.

You're right, it's not analogous in a strict sense. They don't have some evil selfish motive. But they don't have the greater good put forth, either. They have themselves, over some identity that they already rightfully have.

[Irvine511]

Whereby we witness the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum once again

Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Dismiss Hacking Allegations

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by BVS

What should they have learned? You're not still suggesting they should be pushing single payer when they have no power, or yelling capitalism kills?

The plan for the Democrats has always been "people aren't ready for actual leftist policies, so let's run center-left candidates, take control, and then work slowly up to it." And then they're left stumped when these compromise candidates, who never get anything done, are frequently voted right out of office after a short stint. The accomplishments of the Obama administration are a healthcare bill that they let Joe Lieberman take out at the knees, and the progress of gay rights, which was a victory of the courts. What else did they do with their two years of control in 2009 and 2010?

I'm not saying that Labour is going to win in England (it's not), but they're outperforming expectations, and part of why is that they're effectively appealing to self-interest. It's quite a contrast to the Democrats, who spent all of 2016 saying "This will be better for everyone." People vote on how it impacts themselves. And there are way more people who can benefit from leftist economic policy than people who benefit from the current system. You just need to make the case, which they've been unwilling to do.

Even Bernie Sanders was surprised by how much his message got through to people. He didn't take himself seriously as a candidate at first (which is a big part of why he never caught up to Clinton). Research shows that politicians (and consequently the media) think the population is farther to the right than it actually is in reality.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Whereby we witness the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum once again

Glenn Greenwald, Tucker Carlson Dismiss Hacking Allegations

I'm sorry, didn't Glenn Greenwald's publication just post documents about Russian hacking ... uh, yesterday?

[Wide Awake n AZ]

There needs to be some kind of post-secondary tuition. Skin in the game is always a motivating factor, even if it is your parent's skin. But when the 4 year state college prices out of the market for someone who is paying for themselves, that is when I start to feel like this is on purpose, that the wealthy hate that middle class and lower middle class and poor American kids might be smarter than their dumber progeny and kick their ass in a head-to-head environment. The elite whose kids are actually smart and went to prep schools, etc, will always have an advantage in the high dollar sectors. But, at least at my middle class level, we could put ourselves through school and compete in the marketplace, and my perception is the people in power (that nebulous idea that I generally reject but works for the purpose of this post) don't much care for the idea of true social/financial mobility.


My stats? When I enrolled in my state university (then a high tier 2 school, the University of Arizona), I paid $795 a semester as an in-state student/state taxpayer. 5 years later, my last semester was $995. This was 1994. Today, 23 years (uggh) later, that same education (actually, due to reduced funding, the school's rankings have fallen some) is $6409 a semester.

$995 to $6409. $995...I could swing that, along with other costs (I had some help) with 4 or 5 shifts waiting tables and a summer of full time work. $6409? A semester? Just tuition...not living or books, etc. The "cost of attendance" is over $14,000 a semester. You can't "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" and work your way through school at $14,000 a semester. You just can't. And student loans are anchors with special protections that do not allow for discharge like other debt through bankruptcy filings. That shit is for life.

Tell me again why I am wrong to think someone doesn't want kids to actually make it on their own through post-secondary (Uni) education? When I see the splits on average income for those with a secondary education (high school), 2 year (associates), trade school, and 4 year degrees, it is clear the 4 year degree still is needed, maybe more than ever, and might just be our baseline need now for success outside of the lightning strike of tech development or a small business/sales rep becoming a mogul.

I am considered, based on a DES range released this last week, at the very, very, very top of middle class in my state. The range was wide, but I am within a couple thou of the highest designation. I have saved. Scrimped. And there is no way I can afford to send my kids to a 4 year university for a traditional experience if they don't receive scholarship help (my oldest is a junior and has elite GPA and test scores and activities that suggest she will win scholarships. But the steps necessary are just so antithetical to the idea of a good educational experience).


It may be emotion, but it just makes perfect sense to me that the people who control state funding for education and set tuition really don't want to see self-made graduates.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The plan for the Democrats has always been "people aren't ready for actual leftist policies, so let's run center-left candidates, take control, and then work slowly up to it." And then they're left stumped when these compromise candidates, who never get anything done, are frequently voted right out of office after a short stint. The accomplishments of the Obama administration are a healthcare bill that they let Joe Lieberman take out at the knees, and the progress of gay rights, which was a victory of the courts. What else did they do with their two years of control in 2009 and 2010?

I'm not saying that Labour is going to win in England (it's not), but they're outperforming expectations, and part of why is that they're effectively appealing to self-interest. It's quite a contrast to the Democrats, who spent all of 2016 saying "This will be better for everyone." People vote on how it impacts themselves. And there are way more people who can benefit from leftist economic policy than people who benefit from the current system. You just need to make the case, which they've been unwilling to do.

Even Bernie Sanders was surprised by how much his message got through to people. He didn't take himself seriously as a candidate at first (which is a big part of why he never caught up to Clinton). Research shows that politicians (and consequently the media) think the population is farther to the right than it actually is in reality.

these awful center left Democrats have won the popular vote in every election but one since 1992 (and 2004 was incredibly close), and you cannot pass any progressive legislation unless you have Democrats in congress who will pass progressive legislation. it seems pretty unfair to call 1992-2000 and 2008-2016 as periods of time when these respective presidents "never got anything done" -- it's kind of hard to take that seriously.

we've had real leftists candidates before -- Dennis Kucinich or a Bill Bradley comes to mind ... and going further back we could talk about McGovern -- and they've gone nowhere during the primaries, which should be the place these candidates would supposedly get traction. and nothing. and i say this as someone who supported Bradley over Gore in 2000 (granted, i was barely of voting age). we can only blame the DNC so much -- they have very little power to actually tilt the scales in terms of anything, so the case has to be made by the individual candidates themselves with the voters. I'd say that Sanders was easily the most talented politician to take a more leftist policy approach, but even he was crushed by the terrible awful no good very bad candidate Hillary Clinton by 4m votes.

what is is about leftist policies that seem to be lost in translation to the American public? beyond a small group of white voters? why hasn't leftist economic policy hd the appeal you think it should? candidates have made the case, they do so in every Democratic primary. and they go nowhere.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I'm sorry, didn't Glenn Greenwald's publication just post documents about Russian hacking ... uh, yesterday?

although i should have checked the date on the article i posted, we welcome Glen (who has no byline on the article) and the rest of the Seth Rich conspiracy crowd to the anti-Putin party. it doesn't change the fact that he's been downplaying Russia for months because god forbid anyone make Putin, Assange, and Snowden look bad. or that another source got burned.

which nicely reflects the problem -- they'd rather make a point than be either correct, or useful.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

The plan for the Democrats has always been "people aren't ready for actual leftist policies, so let's run center-left candidates, take control, and then work slowly up to it." And then they're left stumped when these compromise candidates, who never get anything done, are frequently voted right out of office after a short stint. The accomplishments of the Obama administration are a healthcare bill that they let Joe Lieberman take out at the knees, and the progress of gay rights, which was a victory of the courts. What else did they do with their two years of control in 2009 and 2010?

People vote on how it impacts themselves. And there are way more people who can benefit from leftist economic policy than people who benefit from the current system. You just need to make the case, which they've been unwilling to do.

I think this is far too simplistic of an answer.

There are several things at play here:

1. There is still a very sizeable population in the US that will take pause when speaking of purely left/ socialists economic policy.
2. Who CAN make the case? This is the part of your argument I take the biggest issue with, we haven't had anyone be able to make this case. Sanders was abysmal when talking specifics when it cane to economic issues. Most of his outspoken supporters in here, the same. So where are the experts on leftist economic policy that can sell it and make the case?
3. Like you pointed out, and like we're seeing now, just because you have control, it doesn't make it easy to pass sweeping agendas. There are still ways to obstruct.

Most of what Trump will "accomplish" in his term, if finished and can be held to only one term, while having long term effect won't last long if replaced in 2020. It's one of the effects of not slowly working to it and making the changes through the courts and by law.

[TheFox]

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

Yes, I am REALLY equating a nationalist movement to another nationalist movement and two nationalist figureheads. Scotland attempted to leave the UK on a nationalist platform and it failed. Just because the UK now seems like the Brexit bad guys doesn't change that fact - Scottish independence is driven by nationalism and identity.

Couldn't agree more. It's all the same side of the nationalistic coin.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by BVS

2. Who CAN make the case? This is the part of your argument I take the biggest issue with, we haven't had anyone be able to make this case. Sanders was abysmal when talking specifics when it cane to economic issues. Most of his outspoken supporters in here, the same. So where are the experts on leftist economic policy that can sell it and make the case?

This is a big concern of mine, too. Not so much because I don't believe there's somebody out there who could make the case well-I think it's quite possible, actually-but because we're living in an era now where people believe Pizzagate is a real thing, or lump Fox News into the "liberal media" now simply because Megyn Kelly called out Trump a few times, or they fired Bill O'Reilly. We have voters believing in the Seth Rich conspiracy. And so on. I'm curious to know what it will take for a politician, be they a Clinton sort or a Bernie Sanders sort (or heck, a mix of both), to cut through that "lol librul bias" nonsense and get people on board and bring the country back to supporting policies based in actual facts. If that's even possible.

I think Irvine's question about why leftist policies seem to get lost in translation is a good one for the Democrats to ponder and consider going forward.

[Danny Boy]

So now Trump wants to cover The Wall™ in solar panels so it can pay for itself.

[BEAL]

Can Sessions please quit ???