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
![]()
Uh no, that's not true in the slightest. The more forward thinking members of this "new left" want to rethink the economic paradigm that was put into place between the late 70s and the early 00s (neoliberalism), in contrast to the orthodox democrats who, at least until Trump's election came as a wakeup call, still believed on a certain level that we were living in the "end of history" where free market capitalism and democracy would inevitably triumph forever, with the '08 global recession and the war on terror just being minor glitches in the system rather than clear signs that the neoliberal paradigm was every bit as unsustainable as the one it replaced.
Economists will point out that, in the long run, many of the proposed changes are sub-optimal, and it's very likely we'll end up in another stagflation crisis 30 years down the line. But in the long run, we are all dead. Most people are concerned about their day to day lives over having the most efficient economy possible.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:50:00 AM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
We're not looking at white working class Americans, certainly not white rural American, I'm looking at union workers, young voters, and poor minorities, three demographics that saw noticeable drops in turnout in 2016, particularly in critical states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and South Carolina.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:51:45 AM by CaptainCapsase
Eh, any attempt to radically restructure the broader economic paradigm would result in higher taxes or higher prices, leading to another Democratic implosion at the ballot box. We're never getting back the old economy — the world is too interconnected and, beyond the influence that corporations undoubtedly possess in our government, our people are too short-sighted and stupid to realize that in order to build Paradise, we all have to pitch in — we can't get what we want while maintaining our current levels of consumption and paying as little as we do in taxes.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."They should be able to assume, and enforce (via the courts), that contracts will be adhered to and negotiations are done in good faith. But they also need to do the same.
Other than that, nothing more than benefits we all get from the rule of law, etc. They shouldn't be whipping boys for society, not arbitrarily anyway, but they don't need special protections.
What about Austria (2016), and Canada (2015); who brought in relatively moderate (by their Overton windows' standards) governments instead of going to one extreme or the other? And a moderate is currently ahead in the French presidential race (thanks to a well timed scandal).
edited 7th Feb '17 10:55:24 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.![]()
That's inevitable when your society exalts stupidity, rural provincialism, and a romanticized past over intellectualism, internationalism, and the possibilities of the future. You can build any society you want — for a time — but you can't change human nature.
edited 7th Feb '17 10:59:28 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."I mean, if it were only up to me, the right to death and nothing else.
Failing that, maybe the right to property, given that the purpose of corporations is theoretically to pool money, people and resources together to create some product or achieve some purpose for the sake of generating profit. Owning things, like the product you're producing, is helpful for that, I guess.
@Crimson Zephyr It also doesn't help that most of the people who reject the anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and nostalgia tend to move to more accommodating places if they have the opportunity to do so. Which does affect how much their votes actually matter thanks to gerrymandering and the E.C.
edited 7th Feb '17 11:00:38 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@Capsase: I'm not saying those people don't exist, I'm saying that the divide here is not between "new" and "old" left, but between "like Hillary" and "don't like Hillary". Otherwise Warren would be firmly on the "new left" side, but search her name on r/'''pol'''itical_revolution
and you'll see everyone's calling for her head.
Regarding the leaks: among the other issues with releasing massive amounts of personal information on people, the reason why the leaks are slammed as a pro-Trump tool rather than an attempt at transparency is because...well, they are. Ignoring their questionable validity having come from Russia, they're precisely target to accomplish a specific agenda.
Imagine that Bob and Jake are running for office. Bob once got into a bar fight and broke a man's jaw. Jake is a pedophile and a rapist. I have documented evidence on both of these things, and I release the information I have on Bob to the public. However, I withhold the evidence on Jake.
To the public eye, this creates a false impression that Bob is prone to reckless violence, while Jake is an upstanding citizen with a spotless record. Even though the information I released was true, I used that information to mislead and misinform through a procedure known as Lying Through Omission. Jake wins the election because I have convinced you, via selectively editing the facts I have told you without actually telling a single falsehood, that he is a better person than Bob.
edited 7th Feb '17 11:01:34 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.@Crimson Zephyr: Note to self: sell humanity out to the Borg/the Cybermen/Skynet/whatever our robot/cyborg overlords will be, and have them eliminate human nature from the equation.
"Cynic, n. — A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be." - The Devil's DictionaryHeh, a more honest logo for the "Justice Democrats" would be a portrait of HRC in a prohibition "no" symbol.
edited 7th Feb '17 11:03:02 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised@IFWander: Did you even look at your own link? More importantly, did you bother to tally pro-Warren comments versus anti-Warren comments? Most of the people there like Warren, not as much as Sanders, but a great deal.
@M84: I'm going to be sadly shaking my head when this place starts heiling the fuhrer to stave off the red hydra. As I said, you can either repeat the mistakes of the past or try something different.
edited 7th Feb '17 11:04:49 AM by CaptainCapsase
That is why Democrats are quick to condemn the leaks, as well as the Sanders backers who were too quick to regurgitate them at every opportunity, never realizing that instead of showing support to Sanders, they were acting as naive tools of the Trump regime.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

@Capsase: "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." The problem here is that most of the differences are in the names of politicians than in political positions. The biggest things the "center" and the "far" left disagree on is whether the far right conspiracies about Clinton have merit or not and if you are required to swear an oath of allegiance to their deified and distorted idealization of Bernie Sanders to be part of the party*.
*The real Sanders is, exempt of swearing allegiance to it, but they won't acknowledge anything he says if they disagree with it.
@Series: "I only see claims there with no evidence to back them up." Then it should be trivial for you to refute them, right? Please do.
1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV