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
Agreed; it is true that Sanders has to choose between working with a party that doesn't share his philosophy or being marginalized.
I think calling the Democratic party "neoliberal" is stretching the definition a bit thin; if it were I'd expect a lot of deregulation for one thing.
Also, I just found out that there is a tradition apparently of using the lights of the Empire State Building to announce election results, and that it was done after this primary.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman![]()
![]()
He wouldn't be marginalized in a properly functioning proportional system however; a sizable plurality or majority of Americans support all of his policy positions; I imagine this hypothetical Sanders party would be about as mainstream as Labor is in the UK.
![]()
Not necessarily democrats as a whole, but I'd certainly say neoliberalism is the best descriptor of Clinton's economic policy, if Bill Clinton's presidency is anything to go by. IIRC he's a self-identified neoliberal.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:49:15 AM by CaptainCapsase
I thought those overlapped a lot. Are they drastically different, in practice? Although you see the latter praising Nordic countries, from what I can tell it's more of a mix there also, flexicurity seems like combining the two ideas than rejecting one or the other.
That's also why the Basic Income seems more logical than traditional welfare to me, it seems like you would get your cake and eat it too, satisfying everyone.
![]()
In practice, they often are. Neoliberalism would favor privatization of welfare services, and while that view isn't universal among neoliberal economists, it's definitely in favor of minimizing the social safety net rather than maximizing it.
They aren't, but given how politically active she was even then, I'm skeptical of her not having a great deal of input on policy during his Presidency. She certainly hasn't really opposed neoliberalist policies except when campaigning against Sanders.
edited 20th Apr '16 11:54:34 AM by CaptainCapsase
I don't think I've once heard Hillary Clinton talk about privatizing social services; quite the opposite in fact. So whence the claim that she is a neoliberal deregulator?
edited 20th Apr '16 11:53:07 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I think the "Clinton is neoliberal" meme is a product of the fact that lots of liberals don't like her. Kind of like demonization where you invent/grossly exaggerate negative traits of someone you dislike.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWhat on earth happened to the rules about not insulting other member of the forum? Calling other people "deranged, loose cannons" sure sounds like like a personal insult and it's getting tiring to see people constantly making broad brush statements that throw shit on people who support Sanders, we've rightly banned people for doing this kind of shit to Clinton and her supports.
Can we please have a reasonable discussion about views instead of an insult hurling contest?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
I agree with this sentiment, for the record. However, a lot of Sanders supporters are on record as saying that they would watch the party burn rather than vote for Clinton. It's not unfair to point this out.
And I know some who've very loudly proclaimed the opposite, along with some rather nasty personal attacks.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Septimus: Bill Clinton was definitely a neoliberal though (self identified even I think), and Hillary Clinton obviously was an enthusiastic supporter of those kinds of policies (and basically everything else he supported, for obvious reasons) when he was in office. She isn't now, not the same extent, but that's really my core issue with Hillary Clinton; I can't really gauge her agenda; her opinions are typically whatever polls indicate her constituency's (or more specifically her constituency's voting base, which isn't always the same thing) opinions are at a given time, and while I would deeply respect a politician who would put the opinions of the people who they're supposed to be representing ahead of their own personal opinions, Clinton's proclamations that she's always supported a particular issue (ie LGBT rights) is both disingenuous and a tad bit Orwellian for my tastes.
Every politician does it to some extent, but Clinton stands out not only because this cycle, she's running against an unusually consistent politician, but also because she's frequently in several cases actively opposed a movement only to claim that she was at its vanguard once the movement's positions become mainstream.
edited 20th Apr '16 12:17:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
It's almost as if personal anecdotes aren't as useful as actual statistics.
I'd bet money that there's a serious difference in the beliefs of Sanders voters and people on social media who loudly proclaim their status as a Sanders supporter.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThere are Dems saying they'll vote Trump if Sanders doesn't get the nomination and there are Reps saying they'll vote Democrat if it keeps Trump out of office.
I find myself wondering how many of these threats are hyperbolic. Talk is cheap, after all.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.To quote Sherlock, bitterness is a paralytic. I can easier see people pissed that their candidate didn't win the nomination staying home on polling day than going out of their way to sabotage their party. I suspect a lot of people threatening to, quote, "watch the party burn" are blowing smoke.
But that's just my opinion.
edited 20th Apr '16 12:10:52 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

edited 20th Apr '16 11:40:58 AM by CaptainCapsase