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
@172,864: Huh? What'd Tulsi Gabbard do wrong?
@172,870: Everyone keeps saying the info was manipulated, but I haven't seen anyone provide evidence of it.
No, that was ONE of the things in the e-mails, but it wasn't the worst or only thing (see post 172,882)
Do we know the hacks on both parties came from the same place, or that the hacks targeting the RNC were successful at breaching their security system? If so, I too think it was wrong for the hackers to only release the DNC's dirty laundry and not the RNC's, but I'm still glad that SOMEONE'S corruption was exposed.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:20:01 AM by SeriesOfNumbers
That's basically my opinion on the Social Democrats (who will undoubtedly be called "Socialist Democrats" by opponents on all sides); they have some things I agree with, and I know they're coming from a good place, but I disagree with a lot of their platform.
EDIT: Also, these Democrats are almost certainly going to be the Herbal Tea Party of the Democrats.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:16:32 AM by DingoWalley1
![]()
The neoliberal center is collapsing around the world along with the center's economic paradigm. They're going to be replaced one way or another, and its up to them whether they're being replaced at the hands of a relatively moderate (at least in the United States) left wing or the extreme right that Trump represents.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:23:07 AM by CaptainCapsase
About "Justice Democrats": I don't see what's so different from the normal democratic platform, but with non-interventionism. So I don't see where's the difference with usual Democrats, is it that they are Progressives
?
Also, about last paragraph:
. 1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV![]()
They're basically the ancient mystical society of "No Hillaries!"
edited 7th Feb '17 10:24:05 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
It's either the "far" left or Trump's neopopulism. In places like the United States where the far left end of the Overtown Window is really quite moderate in the grand scheme of things, I think the choice should be obvious.
The center is incapable of holding their ground in the current political climate, that much has been made clear by the trends of the last year; they're going to become the junior partner one way or another to the populist right or the populist left, and in the case of the United States, the "far" left is really quite moderate in the grand scheme of things. You can either repeat the mistakes of Weimar Germany and ally yourself with right wing extremists to crush the left, or make concessions to them as was done in the case of the New Deal era in America.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:30:04 AM by CaptainCapsase
"I think the choice should be obvious." Invade a scandinavian country and on the peace treaty make the main condition be that the US are annexed by that country, so they're under control of their politicians?
edited 7th Feb '17 10:30:28 AM by IFwanderer
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KVI am definitely no neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism is one of the reasons we're in this situation in the first place. It's a full on Republican platform.
Jimmy Carter and Reagan are the two presidents that shifted the parties away from social democracy.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376
Main points of neo-liberalism:
1.THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics — but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
2.CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
3.DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
4.PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
5.ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
![]()
Neoliberaism was a response to the breakdown the Kenysian economic paradigm in the 1970s, which was something that was predicted many years in advance by a critic of Keynes; tying the economy to full employment rather than to inflation requires unsustainable wage growth, and shifts the balance of power strongly in favor of debtors and labor unions over creditors and employers. The neoliberal program has now run into essentially the exact opposite problem; creditors and employers are king, the economy is merely "okay" even with massive amounts of money being pumped into the economy via historically low Federal Reserve interest rates, and creditor-debtor standoffs are happening all over the place.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:39:37 AM by CaptainCapsase
@Tactical: Thanks for that.
Anyway, if you're all interested, here are my specific objections:
Campaign Finance Reform: I understand the intentions, but I think banning all donations by private individuals or organizations is not a good idea, as it means funding is largely based on who has the most money to begin with, which is directly counterproductive of the idea's goal. Furthermore, I personally believe it should be within people's and organization's rights to donate, as long as a hard cap is placed on how much can be donated, and possibly a ban on for-profit corporations doing so, maybe, but I'm less sure about that.
Non-Interventionism: As much as we hate it, a lot of the world is protected by the US Military, particularly in Europe through NATO and in East Asia. If a solution could be found to wind back the involvement while keeping stability and American power I'd be for it, but just stopping seems like a bad idea to me.
Trade Deals: As I understand it, free trade actually largely helps the American economy-protectionism is going to be counterproductive, as we could see with Trump.
The rest of the agenda is stuff I'd agree with on paper, but I see it and think, "OK, but how are you going to actually do all that?"
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." -Thomas EdisonDoes it mean private donations as in donations from individuals or anonymous donations? Because I'm down with individual donations, but anonymous donations are one of the biggest factors of corruption.
And also, no isolationism. We're long past the point where that's a viable option. Globalism is coming, and we can either accept and adapt, or we can shut ourselves away and be left in the dust.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:41:45 AM by danime91
From the Justice Democrats platform:
This shit right here is why I can't take them seriously.
Any freshman law student could tell you that these charges would be LAUGHED out of court in the pursuing of charges let alone the mountain to climb to get a conviction would be higher than the Olympus Mons.
New Survey coming this weekend!@Tactical: Bill Clinton was a self-described neoliberal, and nobody in the party is really keen on rolling back the key reforms made in the Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton period that put the current neoliberal paradigm in place.
America only manages to avoid having each and every one of its presidents and a huge number of public officials tried for war crimes by virtue of Might Makes Right. If the decline of American power continues, we're inevitably going to be held accountable by our peers, and we might as well get used to that, or at least take steps in that direction.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:44:16 AM by CaptainCapsase

edited 7th Feb '17 10:11:28 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised