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
~Ramidel: I am not talking about giving Sanders the nomination, technically.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanI was talking about his tax plan, not the nomination.
![]()
Not sure whether you're serious or not. Basing his plans on a strengthened economy is a sign of wild optimism on Sanders' part - he assumes that what he does will generate enough increase in taxable income to offset the costs.
It makes sense, but he needs to be up front about what he plans to do if he doesn't hit fair weather.
edited 21st Mar '16 10:19:18 AM by Ramidel
Not sure if posted already, but FWIW, Bernie Sanders didn't speak at AIPAC, citing the need to be on the campaign trail, but did provide the text of a speech
.
I'd guess this is sort of a compromise approach and the "need to campaign" thing is something of a Lame Excuse, since I think all of the other candidates showed up (no idea as of yet on what they spoke about/whether their speeches and Sanders will be publicized). On the other hand, the article mentions something to the effect that unlike previously, speakers had to be on-site and couldn't deliver speeches remotely, so who knows?
edited 21st Mar '16 10:36:29 AM by Hodor2
Just saw your edit. I appreciate the clarification. I was going to see if the text of Sanders' speech had been posted and I see that seemingly every news outlet frames the "story" in a misleading way- presumably to frame him as an opponent of Israel (which depending on the news source is a positive or negative thing).
I doubt he was being specifically targeted since the policy was against any of the U.S. Presidential candidates speaking remotely. It would be different if say Kasich was allowed to do so and Sanders wasn't.
No idea on the decision though. Seems stupid as I'd assume in general that attendees at any event would rather listen to a teleconference-style speech than no speech at all.
edited 21st Mar '16 11:21:07 AM by Hodor2
Because that's a fair way of summarizing both organizations' histories, and because two examples make a trend. Tu sais ce qu'elle te dit, la gauche?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Honestly, the biggest "magic happens" any of the tax plans that call for an increase has is trying to barrel said increases through the devout opposition that is the Republican Congress.
Oliver had a good segment regarding their opposition to Garland last night, too.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"The Jacobin piece is actually kinda important. The magazine, questionable name aside, is pretty much the leading American Left Wing publication in terms of being actually "Left Wing". (The owner/founder is pretty much a hard leftist/communist, but he realizes you can't get to Workers seizing the means of production without building up a Democratic Socialist base first. i.e. People like Sanders and similar need to be the transition.)
And Sanders' campaign has basically set up the magazine (which is actually rather new apparently, only a bit older than Vox), to massively expand its readership and influence the left for years to decades to come.
Yglesias made a similar point, apparently. Not sure which article, but basically Sanders-esque Democratic Socialism is very very likely the future of the Democratic voter base. Much of Hillary's winning at the moment is lack of name recognition of her opponent, and her own institutional advantages and a relatively strong history.
Basically: Democratic Socialism has won the war of ideas, what we have is institutional lag.
Ah, here's the Yglesias Piece:
Clinton-style Centrist Economics is built on a castle of Sand
. Basically Hillary has the advantage of institutional trust with African Americans and Labor Unions are willing to square the circle with her trusting she'll stick to enough Labor commitments. But it's very very likely the Unions, A As and younger voters in a future voting cycle are VERY VERY likely to bolt to the left.
edited 21st Mar '16 12:54:40 PM by PotatoesRock
![]()
Hmmm...does Sanders really mean this?
Probably, even though they're not the same thing.
edited 21st Mar '16 1:00:44 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnHe might be avoiding using the word Democrat without adjective-ing it because Sanders refuses to list himself as a Democrat, because the Democrat Party Elite are too right wing for his tastes.
But yes, yes it is, at least for Americans.
Long story short: The Dem Voterbase is a lot warmer to socialist policies via democratic process than it has been in 40-50 years.
But it seems to be an either-or with how Sanders is rolling the term around.
Basically, what Sanders is after is taking the Capitalist society the country has, but install a lot more strengthened Socialist/Safety Net programs to protect workers, the infirm, the young, etc. So that if their lives take a down turn, they don't get completely assfucked.
edited 21st Mar '16 1:05:04 PM by PotatoesRock
Depends on implementation. A proper Welfare State doesn't ever claim to be glorious. Glory is inefficient, flashy, expensive, wasteful. Welfare is all about effectiveness and efficiency.
I cannot conceive of a proper democracy that isn't socialist. How else are the least wealthy meant to have leverage, power, to have their voices heard? Also, how else can a society end up when the working and "middle" classes don't have a disproportionately small voice?
edited 21st Mar '16 1:34:48 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.There's ways around that. Checks and balances. Oversight. A vigilant and free press. An active and informed citizenry.
And it's not like private enterprise is free of the very same problem.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.The Mitch confirms Garland will never ever be confirmed in a Lame Duck session.
I swear this guy pretty much stands on a pillar of "Never Do Anything Ever".

Which, I mean, really. Do I really have to explain this to this thread, of all places?