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
Because they were voted in by conservative districts who then proceeded to vote them out of office in 2010.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not really. Again. A bunch of the Democrats involved were and are financially cconservative, who never go past what Obamacare did, because it goes against their Republican esque views of government.
Also, Krugman's been specifically critical of the fact Sanders' Single Payer plan suffers from Magic Asterisks, i.e. he just hand-waves sections of costs because inconvenience or "haven't gotten to it yet", which he has also been brutally critical of Paul Ryan's government budgets doing.
Krugman has not suddenly decided he's against single-payer. However, he was taken aback by the sheer virulence of Republican opposition to anything and everything Democrats attempt, even if it's their own ideas, and he would rather try to make Obamacare work than try to scrap it and replace it with something else a bare few years after it took effect.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Speaking of Krugmans and Clintons, Krugman notes that based on his own experience
, what's classified is probably really banal stuff. That's technically already known to the general public, but the Government hyper censures everything anyways.
Max Fisher of Vox explains:
Basically the items deemed classified are "Sent Classified", which are often banal information, not "Born Classified" (which would be like American bombing plans in Libya), and the the American government has a really bad habit of classifying more than needed, as "When in doubt, classify" is the rule at play.
(Said article also notes, according to Government officials, much of what caused 9/11 was this really shitty policy. And for everyone at home, guess who's at fault for it? The Gipper. i.e. Ronald Reagan.)
edited 29th Jan '16 5:34:50 PM by PotatoesRock
Yeah most classified stuff doesn't need to be for security reasons. A joke over here (from Yes Minister) goes "The official secrets act doesn't exist to protect secrets, it exists to protect officials"
edited 29th Jan '16 5:37:02 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTo resurrect an old quote from way back in the thread...
The Democrats want black, the Republicans want white, so the compromise position would be grey. The Republicans refuse to accept grey, they want white. The Democrats offer light grey. The Republicans refuse: they want white. The Democrats offer really light grey, basically off-white with a little shading to it. The Republicans still refuse, demanding white or nothing. Since the Democrats can't pass legislation without the Republican Congress, and the Republicans can't pass legislation through the Democratic veto, no legislation is passed.
The cult of centrism blames both parties equally for this, despite the Democrats doing damn near everything they can to make the Republicans happy, short of doing exactly what the Republicans want for nothing the Democrats want in return.
Thanks to Native Jovian for that, by the way.
edited 29th Jan '16 6:10:26 PM by pwiegle
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.![]()
Until he advocates common ownership of industry, a bloody global revolution vice a feel-good political upset wearing the term, and the ultimate abolishment of the state and the money that functions as its blood, we probably shouldn't think of him as "extreme left."
![]()
![]()
To add to that, you can see it in action when the Democratic candidates have been asked at their debates how they're going to reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans.
But I can't remember any instance where Republicans are ever asked how they're going to cooperate with the Democrats, because it's contrary to their entire foundation, at this point.
![]()
I agree. Feel free to scrutinize and criticize Sanders' policies all you want, but I'm not convinced "extreme left" really fits, even if no one can deny that he's farther left than damn near every other American politician.
Though today, most people's conception of "extreme left" is based on social issues, "trigger warnings," "safe spaces," etc.
edited 29th Jan '16 6:56:05 PM by Eschaton
Trigger warnings and safe spaces aren't actually exstream things, it's just that their constant misuse by idiots on social media and at college (where people are meant to be idiots) has made them seem so.
edited 29th Jan '16 6:43:12 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranRE: President Clinton deregulated the banking industry and Wall Street.
Just to point out, that was done under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999
, a bill proposed by 3 Republican congressmen, and this occurred before the Filibuster was used on every bill that went through the Senate.
> Against ALL free trade agreements ever made by the United States.
> Wants to get rid of guest worker programs and H1-B visas
> In favor of withdrawing from the World Trade Organization
> Proposed minimum wage twice as high as Canada's in addition to universal healthcare and free college
> Rabidly in favor of unions, which make up a big portion of his support base
> Thinks any ties
to pharmaceutical companies makes you unreliable even when you basically have to have said ties to be an experienced drug researcher in America; but hey, who needs these so-called "professionals". Why, we can just hand this job to a union plumber and he'll do it fine. And we'll have a union factory worker run the Federal Reserve.
No, he's about as "extreme left" as US politicians can possibly get. If he can't be categorized as "extreme left", than Trump can't be categorized as "extreme right", even though I'm fairly sure that people in this thread would categorize Trump that way.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:11:28 PM by Nihlus1
Trump is extream right due to his actual support for Facist policies, like internment camps.
And Sanders being as far left as an elected US politican can get doesn't make him extreme left, the extreme are often unelectable, they're currently not on the right but they remain unelectable on the left.
Edit: No joke, just bad at spelling and on an iPad.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:03:52 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTrump is not uber-right wing in anything other than his immigration policy. In many areas, he's well over to the Democratic side of the aisle, or used to be before he threw his hat into the ring. This is part of what makes him such a mystery: his demagoguery is entirely centered around his bluster and his willingness to say the most ridiculous or offensive things possible to feed his supporters' frenzy, but his actual expressed policy views are not nearly as far right as those of, say, Ted Cruz, except on racism.
He is not a politician. He's a showman and a reality TV star with an ego the size of his buildings. He cannot back down from a challenge, but he is hilariously unqualified for a job that requires statesmanship and diplomacy. Many have suggested that he knows this, and is trying everything he can to alienate his base enough that he won't win the nomination, like a living manifestation of Poe's Law.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:20:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"But now we also run into the issue "being" extreme, versus "appealing" to the extreme. For example, Trump certainly doesn't consider himself racist, but he is the go-to candidate for that people that actually do (small as that number may be). And I'm certainly curious if Sanders' support includes those farther along that political spectrum as well.
Funnily enough, I'm of the exact opposite opinion, far left as Sanders may be, if only of how Trump has used race as such an explicit cornerstone of his campaign (which leads to people seeing other fascist undertones), even though other Republican candidates' positions on the issue aren't necessarily all that different.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:31:42 PM by Eschaton
![]()
![]()
No, I do not buy for a single minute that Trump is further to right than Bernie is to the left. Or that Bernie can be described as anything other than far left when he's against literally every single free trade agreement and in favor of absolutely ridiculous levels of government protection including a universal single payer healthcare system plus free college plus a $15 minimum wage (which is nearly twice as high Canada's PPP-adjusted wage) plus support for unions.
He also blames corporate conspiracies for absolutely everything and considers qualified professionals to be tainted and unqualified if they have any ties to big corporations. Unless they're auto workers who support him of course. Full on left wing.
![]()
Yes, he is in favor of UHC, protectionism, increased corporate taxes (to pay for the latter), and other distinctly left wing positions. He's an odd one.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:26:18 PM by Nihlus1
x5 The far left and right follow the horseshoe theory on gun control, in that they'd both agree that the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force should be absolute. Both usually climb to power via big-r Revolution, and want to pull the ladder up after them. Trump is far-right in that he's appealing to virulent populist sentiment in the form of race, religion, and nation instead of class. Sanders appeals to class to a lesser extent since he apparently doesn't want to abolish class, wealth, and the state the way that Trump talks about abolishing immigration, Muslims, and China.
If you find some of those latter traits in Sanders, that pushes him right and implies that he isn't as left as he could be.
edited 29th Jan '16 7:30:30 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."edited 29th Jan '16 7:33:46 PM by Nihlus1

Reminder, the Democrats' supermajority included the Blue Dog Democrats, who are essentially a bunch of RIN Os wearing donkey ears.
And my point is, Krugman's saying "Protect Obamacare first, get it locked in before fighting ANOTHER battle of even more expanded healthcare". He turned his tune because of the political realities of the day.
2008 and 2005 didn't have Republicans being this fucking INSANE.
edited 29th Jan '16 4:20:56 PM by PotatoesRock