Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Honestly, the "single-payer will never happen"(just baffling, due to moi coming from a country with free healthcare) and "TPP is brilliant"(yes, she retracted that one, but not before the backlash made it clear no one who likes TPP can be electable) comments would be enough for me to be really sad if she ended up the Democrat victor.
edited 8th Feb '16 3:30:49 AM by Luminosity
Lost in Space
The thing is that she's probably telling the truth about single-payer. It simply has zero chance of coming to pass in our country as things stand today. Now, Bernie wants to lead a political revolution, and that's great, but how'd that work out for Republicans? Answer: It put a class of uncompromising assholes into Congress who proceeded to make sure that nothing happened at all. Like, may I remind you, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
edited 8th Feb '16 4:59:47 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Of course it worked out that way for Republicans. When was the last time they weren't on the wrong side of history?
In some aspects, the USA is so spectacularly backwards it makes us look more progressive, healthcare being the most blazingly obvious. Sure, it might be impossible now, but the same was said about a black president, and gay marriage, and a new Star Wars movie before all three happened. At the very least, one could try to lay groundwork for it to happen in the future, instead of throwing her hands in the air and saying "Nope, never. Fuck you and die in a pit of lava." Especially if one self-proclaimingly "gets things done".
My best friend in America is crippled for life over a condition that over here, is treatable for free. It's a bit of a hot button issue, and Clinton's words strike a personal blow. That alone would make me resolve to only vote for her if the alternative is a zombie demon werewolf orc who is anti-fair-use.
Lost in Space
While I sympathize with your friend, we cannot let anecdotes drive policy. You may recall the GOP parading around a few cases of people who lost good insurance because of Obamacare as proof that the law was broken. Whoever takes the White House next February must contend with the reality of getting things done, not the ideology of getting elected.
Even Sanders has admitted that he can't get single-payer on day one, nor likely even within the first few years of his presidency. Why? Because the politics simply don't allow it. It'll come up for votes in Congress, and fail, and that'll be that. He intends to use his election to kick off a wave of change that may take many election cycles to come to fruition.
I can respect that point of view, but anyone who votes for him in the belief that, in January 2018, they'll be signing up for Medicare For All is as deluded as anyone who believes that Trump's election will herald the construction of the Great Wall of Mexico.
edited 8th Feb '16 5:35:34 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
When it comes to whoever's getting elected, I'm more concerned about legal immigration.
No one can get single-payer on day one and no one ever said he will. Stop strawmanning Sanders supporters into star-eyed unicorn dreamers. No, I don't expect him to definetly get single-payer done, even possibly througout his entire presidency. But even if he doesn't, the next one will have easier time doing this. "Will never ever happen" is the complete opposite of "getting things done". You can't claim both. That's not "realism", that's an old and tired inaction excuse.
I'd vote for him with a belief that the stagnating establishment needs to be challenged, possibly even bulldozed through with however much it takes, so that progress would come through the wall cracks. You won't "get things done" by catering to the Congress that is dead-set on opposing as much as breathing the same air with a Democratic president.
Lost in Space
And what if what comes through the cracks after the bulldozer passes through is not the progress you wanted, hmm? You know that there is a substantial demographic out there that fanatically opposes Sanders' ideas and may well revolt for real if they are attempted. Do you have the stomach for that fight? I ask this in good faith. If you are prepared, great. Go for it. But what if it doesn't go your way?
Edit: The problem with revolutions is that what comes out on the other side may not be what you had imagined.
edited 8th Feb '16 6:31:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Honestly? I'd be more surprised if something went my way for once.
This substantial demographic already revolts. We see states doing their best as a last ditch attempt to curb gay marriage, government shutdown over Obamacare, et cetera. And they will keep revolting against anyone short of Trump. That fight is inevitable under any president if you want progress in a place so unbelievably, unphantomably backwards in some ways. "Will never ever happen" is evidence of Clinton's disinterest in fighting that fight, and to me, perfect evidence for why she's no progressive.
Dude. Russia. More aware of that than you think.
A nice butterfly
Bernie sanders is ALL the dragons.
In space.
At least according to the internet.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Lost in Space
I believe in Clinton's ability to hold the regressive, reactionary forces in check while continuing to advance the goals of progressives. I am concerned that, if Sanders gets elected and does not enjoy a sweeping Congressional mandate, he'll be stuck in perpetual opposition and won't get any of his policies enacted.
Conversely, I am concerned that Clinton's nomination may cause a lot of voters who are excited by Sanders' firebrand politics to stay home. I believe in Sanders' ability to motivate the base and get people excited about politics. Should he not get the nomination, we might face a tighter race than we would otherwise.
It's not a slam dunk either way.
What concerns me more than either of those candidates' weaknesses, however, is the degree to which they are dividing the Democrats at a time when we desperately need to remain together, lest we face the horrors of a Trump, Cruz, or Rubio presidency. The thing we are fighting against is far worse than any difference of opinion on our side.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:21:31 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
The Mod with the Migraine
"It was striking that three different people on that stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military," Cruz said. "I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was: Are you guys nuts?" "We have had enough with political correctness — especially in the military," Cruz said to loud applause in the town building. "Political correctness is dangerous, and the idea that we would draft our daughters, to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close contact — I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain't doing it."
Cruz pointed to his daughters to complete the contrast with those rivals. "I'm the father of two little girls. I love those girls with all my heart. They are capable of doing anything in their hearts' desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in the foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them, doesn't make any sense at all."
Cruz also shared an extensive rebuke of eminent domain abuse, something that has been part of his closing argument in this state. Cruz has attacked Donald Trump for his support for eminent domain power for private use — which is opposed by much of the conservative movement and is controversial in New Hampshire — though Trump's name was unsaid. But Cruz's arguments may have fallen on the wrong ears. When an introducer asked how many of the people packed in to the town center here were not from New Hampshire, about half of those gathered raised their hands.
The problem with Clinton is the same with Obama.
When it comes to compromise, they don't start on the left and then meet in the center. They start on the center and meet the Republicans' crazy right demands to form a right wing compromise.
Assuming Bernie isn't going to be completely stubborn, we might actually get better compromises with him.
Lost in Space
It depends on your definitions of "left" and "center", which are open to dispute.
Yeah, Cruz, don't put your girls in a foxhole with those rapists in the Army. Cuz, you know, all soldiers just rape women; they can't help themselves. They're like rape machines.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:23:06 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Why are you discussing a draft anyway? Is that really a possibility that a number Americans want to consider?
I don't. When they decided to oppose Obama full-force even on policies that were originally their own, they made it clear holding them in check means submitting to them. It's inches and miles. They will inevitably decide to oppose Clinton too, should she not abandon her claim to progressiveness, which I believe she will. I base that belief on comments like "will never, ever happen", which betray her lack of either interest or will to advance progress. I am confident she at best will stay where Obama is, and at likeliest - set you back.
I see the opposite. Trump and the others have left the Republican party in a crisis of simultaneously trying to disown his rabid nonsense and still reclaim votes earned by said rabid nonsense. They are at their absolute weakest. This is the best chance of getting a progressive president in power, especially if Trump does win the Republican spot. "Anyone but Trump" is a powerful voter base to build your own policies upon.
Lost in Space
We do not have a draft, but all American males are required to register for Selective Service upon reaching 18 in case a draft is ever needed in the future. Since females are now able to serve in all combat roles — in other words, they are no longer second-class soldiers — it is reasonable to require them to also register for the draft.
It's a thing that you hope you never need whilst keeping it around just in case.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Focusing so much on that one comment from Clinton seems short-sighted of you. I mean, I get why it matters to you, but like Fighteer said, you don't base decisions like this off of anecdotes.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:33:03 AM by LSBK
I confess, that comment would have been enough for me, because I believe no progressive should ever say that, let alone about something America is horridly backwards about. It strikes me exactly as the defense against gun control - "Oh no, we can't ever solve the problem" when the entire developed world already has. You are not special enough to warrant this kind of call to inaction disguised as "cynical pragmatism".
But it's not just that comment. "I plead guilty to being moderate and centrist", and "TPP is brilliant"(of course she won't claim that now, it'd be political suicide. But an initial reaction like that to this horrid mess is bad enough) also come to mind, showing that she doesn't have what it takes to stand as a progressive.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:40:57 AM by Luminosity
Lost in Space
TPP is not the apocalyptic horror from the underworld that rises up, like Ry'leh, to consume us all with its gibbering, tentacled mouth-vaginas. Let us not pretend that it is. We would survive as a nation if it were to be ratified. If we oppose it, let it be for rational, not reflexive reasons. Hysteria is the enemy of sound policy.
"Moderate, centrist" ideology bought us a recovery from the Great Recession, it removed the bans on gays and women serving in the military, it saw the legalization of gay marriage in the United States, it oversaw fantastic reductions in the price-per-kilowatt-hour of renewable energy sources, it saw the passing of substantial, if not perfect healthcare reform, it kept us out of major wars, it saw the forging of a deal with Iran that will prevent it from acquiring nukes, and much more. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Compromise is how politics works.
edited 8th Feb '16 7:48:58 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I don't want to say "I don't believe in labels/hate labels" because labels are useful but when they're being applied as stringently as you are concerning something that takes more... handling, I guess, they sort of become useless.
A nice butterfly
IT'S R'LYEH AND IT IS JUST THE NON EUCLIDEAN CITY THE GREAT ELDER GOD SLEEPS ON AND NOT THE ACTUAL THING THAT IS GOING TO DEVOUR US. THAT IS CTHULHU.
GOD DAMN KIDS THESE DAYS SO POLITICALLY IGNORANT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW THE WORLD IS GOING TO END IN A MADDENING SPIRAL WHERE WE DROWN FROM THE AMNIOTIC WRETCH SPAWNED FROM BEFOULED WOMBS OF UNEXPLICABLE ALIEN ENTITIES
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Actually, it's literally apocalyptic. It allows, among many things, for nations to be sued by coroproate lobbyists.
Which means, for example, oil companies would be able to sue the US(and anyone else who signed the TPP) into repealing climate change regulations. That is literally apocalyptic.
When it was opposed exactly as if it was the extremest of the extreme. It made no difference to the opposers, they got dead set in their "Obama is an evil socialist" fort and poured cannons from outta there. Government shutdown over Obamacare, ridiculous revolts over gay marriage, constant attempts to stop Obama from generally breathing, over and over again. And they have only become more viscious in time.
Yet its the moderate creed that held him back and tried to compromise with invididuals who had no intention of ever compromising with him. Sure, moderate policy wasn't completely do-nothing, but that's like defending a half-assed job with "sure, at least there was a job".
And it's not like moderation hasn't done bad things either. For example, Obama's foreign policy. The "moderate" decision seemed to be "invade briefly, kill Bowser, then leave triumphantly", which satisfied no one and left Lybia a mess.
And foreign policy is the only place where I see Clinton not compromising, because her warhawkiness already naturally aligns with Republican wishes. As a Russian, I'm concerned she's gonna start some shit with us and then we'll be hit again with sanctions and countersanctions, which won't achieve anything in repealing our government, but will hurt us, because Putin loves to "bomb Voronej".
Lost in Space
I'm not sure that anyone can top Vladimir Putin for "starting shit" with the rest of the world. In fact, Obama pulled back from his insistence on supporting Syrian revolutionaries because of Russia's backing of Assad. So I really don't see where you're getting this from.
Obama's foreign policy has been pretty good from where I'm sitting, given that he cannot get Congress to authorize any use of military force (and if you think Sanders could do that, I've got a bridge in Siberia to sell you), and given that a half-million-man occupying force in Syria and Iraq for the next twenty years is not a reasonable possibility.
Sanders wants to get us out of all of those areas of engagement. How is that going to improve anything? Be specific.
edited 8th Feb '16 8:18:11 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I'm confused here. Nowhere have I mentioned Obama in that paragraph. I said Clinton can start shit with Russia and thus hurt no one else, but us. If anything, she risks undoing what Obama did, by. for example, calling more santions against Iran, thus damaging the Iran Deal. If you value Obama's achievements in foreign policy, shouldn't you be concerned about Clinton turning the course around?
That misses the point what I said so hard I think it's about to hit VY Canis Majoris. It helps to ask what people's views actually are before jumping to assumptions and conclusions. Nowhere have I said that I want the US to use military force, especially occupying force.
If you had asked, you'd know that I believe in the "either, or". What that means is that either you invade with full acknowledgment of need to stay and help the people rebuild what you set on fire, or you stay out altogether. Either, or. Great power must come with great responsibility. Sanders wants the second option. It's valid in my book. You don't start shit you can't afford to maintain.
In fact, if I remember correctly, haven't you had the same argument with Shinra and supported the US leaving the Middle East alone? That's exactly what Sanders wants and is the least likely thing in the world for Clinton to do. Am I misunderstanding that? Have you chaged your position?
edited 8th Feb '16 8:33:21 AM by Luminosity
"DAD"?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman