Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
I don't really agree with much of BigMacPhisto's reasoning here, only on the point that Lena Dunham is genuinely awful. Not really sure that Woody Allen deserves defending either.
you voted for Nader?
unconscionable.
but, honestly, i haven't made up my mind between HRC and Bernie, but the smug attitude in your posts are the reason why the Bernie fanatics and their insufferable posts are hidden from my FB timeline at the moment.
they're the flip side of the Trump coin.
So I value electability in the general election, and after that, the ability of a potential president to wheel and deal and get things passed. Politics is the art of the possible, we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Which is why I'm generally pleased with Obama. His accomplishments are many, perhaps half-measures, but real and permanent steps in the right direction.
I worry that a Sanders presidency would have little luck with the Congress we have. His ideas, while appealing to young white liberals, don't feel like plausible national policies. We have states for a reason -- Vermont (which I know and love) is very different from Nevada.
Yeah, nah, Sanders fans can be somewhat cringeworthy in their celebration of watered down social democracy but Clinton supporters veer very close to being completely unbearable.
Not really sure of the 'flip side of the Trump coin' sentiment though, it's a bit crude, as if Sanders is the opposite equivalent of Trump.
You're giving Obama way too much credit. He's the biggest strategic failure as President in American history in terms of getting his agenda across thanks to the unprecedented Republican obstructionism. But in turn, Obama was nearly willing to make sacrifices to major programs like Social Security just to let the Republicans get their way and in turn he allowed his administration to consistently water down legislation in the hopes of getting Republican votes that they never received in the first place (the Charlie Brown and Lucy football situation if there ever was one).
Literally Obama's entire achievements since the health care bill have been via executive action. He's been stonewalled everywhere else thanks to congress with nothing of real significance being passed on his watch. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will both have the exact same fate because there's literally zero chance either will have a Democratic controlled House (at least in their first term). But better to have the guy that will espouse liberal principles and go further with executive actions to help the environment, etc. in my opinion.
Hell, Obama was consistently tarnished by the right as taking the most leftist stance imaginable, so why not have the guy that actually takes up said stances? You'll end up with the same exact result (nothing being passed via congress), but at least it will be principled.
Trump and Sanders fans are very similar; neither is electable to the general public, but both sides are clinging to these polls like they're gold. Might as well bank on winning tomorrow's powerball.
In all actuality this is a pretty depressing election. On one side you have a clown car making a mockery of this country. On the other you have a pretty decent man who is right on most issues but is too old and doesn't have answers as to how a lot of his platform will be paid for and a Clinton. I think Clinton will be fine, but other than being the first woman she doesn't really excite me.
This is entirely unsurprising, and why I have issues with the Bernie folks. There's no understanding of how politics actually works.
If you ask Cruz or Trump, the GOP has rolled over and let Obama win on everything.
Same coin. Two sides.
People aren't scared of "socialism" and the damn ballot would say "Democrat" next to Bernie's name.
Literally Obama's entire achievements since the health care bill have been via executive action. He's been stonewalled everywhere else thanks to congress with nothing of real significance being passed on his watch. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will both have the exact same fate because there's literally zero chance either will have a Democratic controlled House (at least in their first term). But better to have the guy that will espouse liberal principles and go further with executive actions to help the environment, etc. in my opinion.
So helpless he won in another landslide.
Obama had a Democratic House of Representatives and Democratic Senate From January 20, 2009 - January 3, 2011.
Large majorities in both houses:
255 Dems - 179 GOP in the House
59 Dems - 41 GOP in the Senate (The Democrats had a 'rare' supermajority in late 2009 that dropped back to 59 in early 2010 when Scott Brown was elected in MA)
This 111th Congress passed the most legislation since the 89th Congress during the LBJ term.
So helpless he won in another landslide.
Anyway, I appreciate your posts because it helps me better understand that there is a left wing bubble that's just as impenetrable as the right wing bubble. Right Wing media was light years ahead of Left Wing media starting in the Clinton years and up through Bush 2. There's now a much more successful left wing echo chamber able to spawn left wing true believers. I guess that's a good thing.
The demographics of this country ensure that the President will be a Democrat from now on. What's so hard to understand about that? Then Republicans win virtually the rest of the elections when nobody votes because it isn't a Presidential year.
And I never said Obama wasn't liked enough by the public or anything, but he's been completely useless without having a favorable Congress, just like any President would be. He lost control around 2010 and since then can't pass significant legislation. There's nothing that's hard to understand about this. If Republicans control one or more of the two houses of Congress, there's zero chance you can pass left-leaning bills. They are entirely the reason why we have gridlock.
Again, the same fate awaits Hillary or Sanders. But Hillary will actively screw over the American people like Bill did by working with Republicans on legislation. Much rather have Bernie sit in there for eight years and basically wait out the clock for more Republicans to die until we can take back Congress then have someone fuck over the American people just so the history books can say Hillary "increased military spending 50%" or "deregulated the banks even more"
Someone has to be an adult and govern. That means working with people you don't necessarily like or agree with.
But Hillary will actively screw over the American people like Bill did by working with Republicans on legislation.
This whole Hillary-Bernie discussion has glossed over some of the real, legitimate issues with Hillary Clinton that has caused some of us to support Bernie Sanders. I'm heading to sleep, but I hope to expand on my thoughts soon.
That's a nice Centrist echo chamber you've got going on here. I guess that's a good thing.