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
Saying Bernie is privileged just because he's Jewish is actually, both Incorrect and anti-semitic.
Bernie is the child of Immigrants and Holocaust survivors who grew up in a relatively poor neighborhood in Brooklyn who went to Public High School. The other Wiki also says: As his older brother Larry remembers their childhood, the family never lacked for food or clothing, but major purchases, "like curtains or a rug," were difficult to afford.
I wouldn't say that's 'privileged'
A lot of the racial criticisms of Sanders seem more like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me than anything else. I do think that more than economic action is needed to correction racial problems in America, but people seem to be ignoring the fact that economic action is a mandatory prerequisite for getting racial action in the first place. The ugly truth is that poor white people don't care about poor black people, it's the comfortable middle class that has the time and energy to protest for the sake of people not like them.
And while Sanders definitely should be held accountable for when his political ideals aren't held up by good, hard numbers, if you look between him and Clinton, Clinton seems a lot more likely to be the one to screw over minorities in political wheeling and dealing. She's a more practical, less idealistic politician, but she's also prone to emotional manipulation and pandering, and is relying on continuing a legacy of compromises with a rabid dog political enemy. Sanders might not get what he wants done, but he's not going to trade Park Place and Boardwalk away for a railroad and then tell you it's for your own good.
And even besides all their relative merits and problems, there's something really infuriating about a 'democracy' that consists of passing along the highest office in the land between two families. That's admittedly more of a philosophical bugbear on my part than a strictly practical objection, though.
That's not to say I completely hate Clinton as a candidate. In a sane political landscape, I'd probably be 100% behind her. But the political landscape is not sane right now, and compromising with insanity just gives up control of the overall dialogue in exchange for bad deals.
If we're thinking of Clinton as the next Obama, well, Obama gave us an environment that resulted in Trump being the 'best' Republican candidate, while everything good he accomplished, he got done in spite of them. Do we really want to see what happens next election if we continue that course? Are we going to rely on the Republicans just imploding? What happens if they don't?
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.You know, I wonder if the "Republicans are doomed" meme exist because everybody considers the White House the be-all and end-all of politics. Thus, GOP HQ will consider problems in a presidential election as an emergency even though most other elections are going fine for them.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynmanedited 2nd Feb '16 9:04:04 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI don't doubt that Sanders is the best candidate in terms of ideals — I'd much rather have someone in office pushing for as high a minimum wage as they can get and trying to enact single-payer health care than someone who basically says "this is good enough, let's not rock the boat too much". But the question is who would get better results in practice? Clinton has enough give in her positions that she can compromise without abandoning her policies entirely. Sanders really doesn't — and his policies, as proposed, are unworkable anyway, even if he could get them passed (which he can't).
So basically it's a question between fighting the good fight and probably losing, or being more pragmatic and having a better shot at winning. I'd certainly like to believe that Bernie would be the best thing for the country, but I'd rather not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (Or, well, the better be the enemy of the good, anyway.)
Bernie is basically the high risk/high reward candidate. If he can get elected, and if he can implement his policies, then that'd be fantastic, but it's not very likely. Clinton is less risk (it's more likely that she can get elected and get her policies implemented) but less reward (her policies aren't as good). Given that a Republican winning the White House would be an unmitigated disaster compared to either Democratic candidates, a lot of people are understandably less keen on trying for a Hail Mary.
edited 2nd Feb '16 9:14:16 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I know you said this isn't a sticking point so I'm just going to address the point in general and not you specifically; I have never gotten this "I'm uncomfortable with two people who share the same name getting elected to office." The key there is the elected part, if people like people from the same family and think they'll actually do a good job, what should it matter if someone related to them got it first. The worry about "dynasties" and such always just seemed like paranoia or principle without an actual cause.
I mean, apparently there are some DNC people effectively trying to queen Hilary but that sounds like a different problem.
The other concern is for some of the more progressives burned by Bill and Obama is "Will Hillary be a fox guarding the hen house". The whole "social safety net up for sale" doesn't play well with that end of the party.
Name recognition is a major factor even in electoral politics, though. So yes, the possibility that elections are biased in favour of candidates with well-known family names is something worth being concerned over, even if I don't share such a concern.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
Conservative minorities won't join the GOP while the party still treats them like 2nd class citizens. By the time the GOP is able to tame the old base, they will be solidly Democratic anyway. The GOP has somewhat soften their stance on African-Americans since the 60s, hasn't really helped them.
And young minorities tend to be as progressive as young whites; if not moreso in many cases.
edited 2nd Feb '16 9:24:33 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Bret Stephens blames Bill Clinton for the whole mess of the present election:
Blame Bill!
Or perhaps we should even say "Blame Ross Perot!" because if he hadn't thrown his hat into the ring we might all be saying "Bill who?" today.
edited 2nd Feb '16 9:26:35 AM by Bense
Look, Bense, character flaws have been front and center in Presidential election politics since John Adams and Thomas Jefferson went to town on each other. This person has a disgustingly myopic point of view that is driven by pre-existing bias.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"TBH, I would not consider military service to be a good prerequisite for an office of political power. Generally a good sign of patriotic loyalty, sure, but being a good soldier doesn't necessarily translate well into politics. Wasn't that proven with Ulysses Grant?
edited 2nd Feb '16 9:49:42 AM by DrDougsh
Grant wasn't bad, just a bit too trusting. He put men he thought he could rely on in key positions and it turned out that they were corrupt shitheads. He took the blame for their crap.
Combine that with alcoholism and probable PTSD... the man had a lot of crap on his plate while he was in office. And he still got a lot done.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

But Ach. Whose posts am I supposed to give least credence to in Tumblr if I cannot measure their privilege?
edited 2nd Feb '16 8:26:19 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes