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
I still don't understand why Obama called for sanctions on Russia to begin with. Because they intervened in a Nazi-infested shithole in the middle of a civil war on their own border? Said shithole has and had a GDP per capita and style of governance comparable to mid-tier sub-Saharan African countries, mind.
Anyway, an interesting article on Sanders' "plan".
Thorpe isn't some right-wing critic skeptical of all single-payer proposals. Indeed, in 2006 he laid out a single-payer proposal for Vermont after being hired by the legislature, and was retained by progressive Vermont lawmakers again in 2014 as the state seriously considered single-payer, authoring a memo laying out alternative ways to expand coverage. A 2005 report he wrote estimated that a single-payer system would save $1.1 trillion in health spending from 2006 to 2015.
But he nonetheless concludes that single-payer at a national level would be significantly more expensive than the Sanders campaign believes, and would require workers to pay an additional 20 percent of their compensation in taxes. He also argues it would leave 71 percent of households with private insurance worse off once you take both tax increases and reduced health care expenditures into account.
tl;dr: he's pulling the money out of nowhere.
edited 8th Feb '16 8:51:20 AM by Nihlus1
I too think Clinton on foreign policy is about the best one can ask for. All the good of Obama's tenure but with a bit more backbone in certain matters (without going into Dubya territory) where it is required as opposed to doing it for jingo's sake, as is the case with a Rubio or Christie or standing down unnecessarily, which Obama has done and which Sanders would only double down on.
Student of Story
So this time we're incorporating Russian propaganda in our assertion that it's justified to invade or overthrow countries if they're too poor.
Makes for an interesting mix.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Ukraine being infested with Nazis isn't Russian propaganda. "There are no Russian troops in Ukraine" would be an example of Russian propaganda. I only pointed out Ukraine's poverty to further underline how totally not worth it getting involved is. Though, at the very least, the sanctions served as a nice reminder to the Russian leadership that they run a one-dimensional economy with a smaller GDP than Italy's.
I wouldn't fault the USA for intervening in Canada if it devolved into civil war and Nazis were running wild in the streets and building tanks not too far from parliament after openly threatening to overthrow the government. I don't fault the Russians either. Furthermore, even if I did dislike what the Russians were doing, I still don't see it as really worth taking action over. They're not committing genocide or anything, they're just helping to carve up Euro-Angola.
edited 8th Feb '16 10:01:30 AM by Nihlus1
Fuck me, I'm agreeing wiht Nilhus.
Student of Story
Personally, Clinton's foreign policy has too many elements of Attack! Attack! Attack! in it for my liking. (Note that isn't strictly limited to physical attacks, but also things like slapping on sanctions or talking tough when it doesn't serve any purpose.) She occasionally comes off a bit like someone with a Napoleon Complex whose friends can always egg them into fighting the biggest person in the room.
As for Clinton getting things done better than Sanders, it's worth noting that Sanders does have decades of senate experience where he was acknowledged by everyone he worked with as an exceptional builder of coalitions and making reasonable compromises to get stuff done, and again just about everyone who worked with him, on either side of the aisle, has nothing but good words for him on those subjects. So he is very much not of the mindset of letting perfect be the enemy of good, or being too pure to ever work with anyone of lesser idealogical purity.
Not that I think that counts for much. Even if Sanders or Clinton can manage to sway a few senators who regard them well into making some compromises, the House will be a whole other issue. And the powers that be will probably refuse to accept any Democratic president as legitimate, so at least certain parts of the House and Senate will always threaten revolt rather than work with a D in the White House.
What will be interesting will be seeing how long Republicans can keep up an official policy to simply not work with Democrats and sabotage the system as best they can. Another 8 years? There are already signs that some want to relax the Republican quest for true idealogical purity. And if a Democrat wins two terms and then another Democrat looks likely to take the presidency? Are Republicans committed to being the "Do Nothing" party for eternity if there's a D in the White House? How long can it last, before even their own rabid righties get tired of it or come to realize that they actually really need a functioning system?
See, if Canda had a ruler who was frantically embezzling every cent the country had while being acknowledged as the puppet of the US, and fled to the US when people started getting angry enough to demonstrate about him stealing from the country, and the US responded to that by trying to crush the Canadians and install a new puppet to give them what they want, I'd say the Us was in the wrong, rather than urging the US on while essentially shouting "Make those fucking filthy, poor peasants fear the iron fist that will rightfully crush them for daring to be poor peasants!"
But hey, that's just me. Whatever floats your boat, dude.
edited 8th Feb '16 10:12:26 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNN Money. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.
Friedman found that if Sanders became president — and was able to push his plan through Congress — median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.
In addition, poverty would plummet to a record low 6%, as opposed to the CBO's forecast of 13.9%. The U.S. economy would grow by 5.3% per year, instead of 2.1%, and the nation's $1.3 trillion deficit would turn into a large surplus by Sanders' second term.
This more sweeping analysis was not commissioned by the candidate, though Sanders' policy director called it "outstanding work." Friedman previously scored the Vermont senator's Medicare for all plan.
Sanders may not win, but he might be rolling back the Reagan Revolution (at least as it applies to the Dems).
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/clinton-sanders-democrat-identity-1.3437810
Yeah. As I've said before, I think very much we're at the death of the era of the Reagan Revolution. A lot of the people influenced by it are getting older and older, while the younger generation is, again, more likely defined by the 2008 financial crisis.
I remember Trump saying a while ago that his position on trade legislation (including TTP/TTIP) is fairly close to Sanders's one, except that "he's got more chances to implement it".
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Lost in Space
Trump, stop being reasonable! It's blowing your image with the base! 'Twould be hilarious if Republicans end up voting for someone who stands explicitly against both the establishment's and the Tea Party's pet principles.
'Twould be doubly hilarious if Trump goes up against Sanders, who shares his economic populism to a large degree.
edited 8th Feb '16 11:36:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
There's an argument to a degree that a good subsection of the GOP really really doesn't give a rats ass about the economics platform of the GOP and would greatly embrace massive expansion of the welfare state and protectionism and crushing of the hand of the free market.
They just vote GOP to keep African Americans and Hispanics from climbing up and gaining social privilege.
Two Twitter Essays I think that are worth reading:
Basically that the New Dems' capitulations to the Republicans on Welfare, Deregulation, along with the increase of housing prices, spiraling tuition and insurance costs have basically all lead to the Millennial Generation being effectively turned into a new age preliterate who find themselves being crushed by the system (and their parents' generation). The reason you're seeing such a youth swing to Sanders is because the younger generation have basically been squeezed under the exact economic conditions that lead to socialist revolt.
i.e. Occupy Wall Street, Sanders' exploding popularity (and I wouldn't be surprised if BLM is another face of this) aren't separate incidences, they're bubbles popping up from the same wallpaper.
edited 8th Feb '16 11:47:04 AM by PotatoesRock
Lost in Space
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I completely agree. We are on the verge of a total revolt against the system that enshrines privilege (be it white, male, wealthy, insider, whatever). Sanders and Trump embody different aspects of that revolt.
V
Which makes the situation particularly dangerous. If mishandled, well, you could be back to an outbreak of Domestic Terrorism from the Far-Left and Far-Right.
edited 8th Feb '16 12:09:09 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Shameful Display
@ Solipsist Owl And how long before that prosperity comes crashing down around us. The original US welfare state did not last forever, and neither did much of the British welfare state.
edited 8th Feb '16 12:11:05 PM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
Can we please not have an insurrection in a country with the world's most powerful army and second largest stock of nukes?
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Lost in Space
One might note that the left and right revolt in different ways. The American right gets their guns and goes off to shoot some folks. The left riots and destroys their own property.
edited 8th Feb '16 12:12:37 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Of course the right going nuts could radicalize the left.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Interesting thought. Personally, I consider myself nearly the exact opposite. Which is part of why I dislike Trump-he combines my least favorite aspects of both parties.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"
Field Marshal of Cracked
that would no surprise me, the amount of "all liberals are traitors" rhetoric that comes from the far right would probably mean they WOULD start shooting those left of centre if they started an insurrection, radicalising the left as they defend themselves, and making everything worse in the long run
advancing the front into TV Tropes
Lost in Space
The violent left tends to be of an anarchist or anarcho-communist bent, of which there are precious few in America. For all that the left might riot against a government that enshrines privilege, it will turn to that government to protect it from the right. The violent right, for its part, will just as happily shoot at police as at blacks or Hispanics; in fact, police are its preferred target.
edited 8th Feb '16 12:19:05 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Yeah, the American radical left is likely to only do half of the end of V For Vendetta: no explosion, but a bunch of people filling the street and staring down armed oppressors, but not actually attacking them.
Trouble being that in V, the army backed down. I couldn't see the police doing that in America today.
Also, no, there's not going to be a "total revolt". People now are living better than they ever have. Worst case scenario is that we get morons like Sanders voted into office, who then fuck up the economy enough that everyone remembers basic stuff like "economists said free trade was good", "wait, where was that money supposed to come from again?", and "oh yeah, the credit bubble was bad".
edited 8th Feb '16 12:24:41 PM by Nihlus1
Lost in Space
I'm using "their own property" in a collective sense. The rioters in Ferguson destroyed property in Ferguson, not some other city. Oh, and don't let your prejudices show in your writing, please. We wouldn't want that.
It wouldn't take all that much for a massive revolt to occur. People only need to be subjected to a bit more privation than they are now, or have someone like Cruz enter the White House who is a True Believer in austerity and Free Markets(tm).
edited 8th Feb '16 12:26:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I would like, with pie in the sky idealism, to leave the Middle-East alone. I acknowledge that leaving the Middle-East alone, while there are important economic factors and while there are other nations, like Russia, that would gladly move into the power vacuum we leave behind, is not a feasible strategy. Moreover, we bear a moral responsibility, having worked so hard to destabilize the region and supply it with weaponry, to fix the shit we broke.
I do not believe that Clinton would reverse the clock and start an aggressive interventionist policy above and beyond what Obama has done. I don't think she's that kind of person. I could be wrong, but frankly the intense concern over such things is a massive distraction from our domestic issues. Terrorists only wish they could kill as many Americans as we kill of our own, in ways that are one hundred percent preventable.
edited 8th Feb '16 8:38:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"