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 would argue that the university/college problem can be solved if you grab a couple of leaves from our education guidebook:
1) Nationalise or build a series of new universities. Ensure that even private universities need to conform to a standard of education set by the federal government if they want their diplomas to be legitimate.
2) Award the university money per application, but have a maximum number of 'seats' in each individual class. This prevents the budget from suddenly ballooning, but it runs the problem of making the selection process difficult. I would go into a bit more detail on the process but I'm typing from a phone at 2:30 PM.
3) Subsidise students. This is where we get into 'no American would touch this' territory. Here, you get a subsidy from the government if you're a full time student, to the tune of 5.200 kroner (around 750 bucks) a month if you live in your own apartment, to make sure you can afford rent (and food if you budget correctly) so you don't need to depend on a side job with a ton of hours.
4) Raise your minimum wage, Jesus.
![]()
![]()
![]()
And Russia's health care system is butts. I thought the point was to make a single payer/universal healthcare system that was actually good.
Also, doesn't help the UK that Corbyn is just...terrible at his job and Labour's been bleeding voters under him.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:36:49 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.
As far as minimum wage goes, there's the issue of different localities having drastically different costs of living in different parts of the United States; anything less than $15.00/hour is a starvation wage in southern New York, whereas out in the middle of Arkansas what we have now is pretty much fine.
There's a similar problem with students living in Copenhagen vs. where I study in terms of the stipend I outlined above. In theory you could help the system along by having the individual states adjust the stipend?
That'd be ripe for abuse in red states, though.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:39:58 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Yeah. Alternatively have the federal government adjust it for cost of living from on high.
In which case we're back to the accusations of Bolshevism.
But that's gonna be the case either way. This is 'how would I try and implement the Danish system in the US' thinking.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:42:20 PM by math792d
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.The fringe left calls her that because they do not and never have understood the nuances of foreign policy and want to just repeat "war is bad", ignoring any sort of context. The hard right played on that, and you can't claim it's because of real concerns because we had self-proclaimed leftists in this very thread and others repeating the alt-right claim that she would start a war with Russia. That's a Trump talking point coming out of the mouth of supposed progressives.
You have literally no concept of what a compromise is. If the so-called "True Progressives" want to come to the table and talk, that's fine. But they don't. They've been screaming for people to accept Sanders' entire platform, unedited, and that's not a compromise, that's a surrender followed by a hostile takeover.
The final version of Clinton's platform? That was a compromise. It was not, however, something that the diehards were prepared to accept. And so despite getting nearly everything they wanted, they stayed home, or voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson (how progressive). And now that it's all over they're demanding that the Democratic Party overhaul itself to give them everything they ever wanted.
The party tried to compromise. The diehards rejected the compromise. If they've got a different compromise they want to go with they are welcome to present it. But demanding that they be given the keys to the kingdom on the basis of exactly nothing, is not a compromise. Neither are their threats to primary everybody, etc, etc. "Give us what we want or we try to sink the boat" is not a compromise, and it is not hypocrisy to reject that attitude and anyone who carries it.
And that's still a BS comparison. I don't like, oh, pretty much everything about how the state of Israel operates. But to call them the bad guys is a pretty questionable outlook nonetheless.
No, I did not but nice try strawmanning. Good luck next time.
I specifically said "I doubt" that he's an advocating for a white only form of socialism.
And the only reason you gave for your doubts is that he marched in the Civil Rights movement. Not a strawman; it's literally what you said.
Then why the endless condemnation of her, but not of him? She's basically vanished since the end of the election. He's still out there trying to pitch his ideas. Should he not, logically, become the target of your ire since he's active politically and she is not?
And that viewpoint is in and of itself highly toxic and dismissive of the concerns of minorities. You cannot tell someone who has experienced very real prejudice based on their skin tone that it's secretly because of class. Particularly given the well-documented history of middle class and even wealthy African-Americans being targeted for racist abuse.
Racism and classism are tied together, certainly, but they are not two sides of the same coin and if you act like solving class issues will automatically fix race issues then you do not get to complain when minorities are not interested in voting for you.
Got something to actually back that up? Without the Democrats the Republicans would have gutted all forms of social security decades back and the poor would be a whole lot poorer.
The horrors of TPP are grossly exaggerated, and I hate to break this to you, but the Democratic candidate for president disavowed the TPP anyway. And no, "she was lying and would have upheld it" is not a counterargument. You can't claim most Democrats are for it when the party's standard bearer no longer wanted anything to do with it. As for eagerly cutting social programs...examples please?
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:50:01 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
Strictly speaking, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean, I don't agree that they only help the rich - you only need to look at the millions of people who have healthcare thanks to the ACA to know that's not true - but it's theoretically possible for both parties to only care about the rich.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:50:09 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Whether they care about the poor or not, the Democrats have actively helped the poor and the Republicans have not. That's the difference. And of course the changes that certain elements are arguing for won't actually help the poor that much, because once you demand an abandonment of "identity politics" you ensure that poor minorities get no help whatsoever.
Reality is the precious WWC will not support policies that help minorities. And trying to hide that a policy will help minorities won't cut it, because 1) there's another party out there who will inform them anyway and 2) you risk losing minority voters who don't understand the smokescreen you're throwing up.
Talk about economic justice all you want. But everytime someone says "let's move away from identity politics" I am going to give them a very, very askance glance.
But helping Trump stay in power by talking nonstop about the Democrats' failings does nothing but screw the people the "True Progressives" supposedly care about.
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:53:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Actually...I'll be honest, I'd like a source on that. How have its horrors been exaggerated?
Oh God! Natural light!@Ambar: And what's your alternative? Building genuinely inclusive institutions is all but impossible even in the best of times, and trying to do it in the middle of a crisis will probably make things even worse than they already are. The fact of the matter is that, as far as I can tell, you and other proponents of the political status quo have no plan other than sticking your head in the sand and hoping people come to their senses.
edited 3rd Apr '17 6:06:06 PM by CaptainCapsase
Well no one sure explained how someone to the left of Barack Obama is going to somehow win a fickle voting block that thinks socialism is a scary word and that abortion is the evil... no ifs/ands/buts
Not to mention liberals complained that Bill Clinton moved the Dems to the right to win over the wwc. So why are they now okay when Sanders make the same suggestion?
Why is it that Hillary caught flack from the left for trying to win over sane Republicans, yet Sanders say we can't antagonize Republican voters and his suggestion is somehow seen as brilliant?
Tim Kaine became a governor/Senator of a Red State by appealing to the wwc. Yet the Bernie wing can't stand him for some goddamn reason. Seriously, what exactly does the wing want?
edited 3rd Apr '17 6:20:04 PM by NoName999
![]()
There's a difference between personally antagonizing/shaming voters (which is pretty high up on the list of things no official up for reelection should do under any circumstances) and meeting them halfway in terms of policy. One is practically Stupid Evil (the former), the latter comes with drawbacks and benefits which may or may not be worth it. Sanders view is that there's been too much of both, though I don't necessarily share that on the second part.
edited 3rd Apr '17 6:23:44 PM by CaptainCapsase
Hillary's platform was good but would her actions have matched her words? Democrats talk big about leftish policies.
And again, people did not see her as trustworthy.
That said most Bernie supporters went for Hillary. You're talking about a very small fringe .
The party tried to retain control by saying they're compromising.
Eh, it's a difference in morality system.
I didn't know I was supposed to bring out an essay on why I doubted Bernie being a racist?
My point was that you were saying that I think he can't be racist because he marched in the Civil Rights Movement which wasn't what I was saying.
Racism and classism are tied together, certainly, but they are not two sides of the same coin and if you act like solving class issues will automatically fix race issues then you do not get to complain when minorities are not interested in voting for you.
When did he complain about that?
No, she didn't. She said it didn't meet her standard implying that she would've made a slightly friendlier version of TPP.
edited 3rd Apr '17 6:23:22 PM by MadSkillz
And absolutely no-one was surprised:
Trump signs internet privacy repeal
edited 3rd Apr '17 6:33:25 PM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!Several Members of the Tuesday Group (Moderate Republicans), specifically Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Penn), plan to work with Democrats to fix Obamacare, instead of just trying to Repeal and Replace it.
There are several hurtles the Group is facing from both sides, but they will try their hardest to make it work.
Good for them, especially Dent. Hopefully we get something good out of it.

Can we talk about some of the other organizations to resist Trump, instead of the Justice Dems. The people who we are going to watch out for are Indivisible, Swing Left, Sister District, and Flippable. A big part of why the AHCA was pulled was due to Local indivisible groups putting pressure on congress, and all of these groups as well as a few smaller ones were instrumental in keeping a democratic seat in Delaware, and are leading the charge to flip Georgia's 6th district.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/gonzales/democrats-delaware-special-election
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/delaware-special-senate-election_us_58b22659e4b060480e089560?3uk9zh353rq7zxgvi&&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
https://thegavoice.com/georgia-progressives-move-flip-6th-congressional-district/
Indivisible: https://www.indivisibleguide.com
Swing Left: https://swingleft.org
Sister District: https://www.sisterdistrict.com
Flippable: https://www.flippable.org
edited 3rd Apr '17 5:33:04 PM by megaeliz