Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.
Warrens still my pick and it’s looking like she’ll get the nod, Wall Street be damned.
I'm not optimistic enough to call it for Warren.
This timeline is too dark.
Glad we're having this discussion while Drew is in Spain
Honestly, I think we're experiencing an especially rosey "on our best behavior" perception of Wall Street right now, but I'm expecting one bubble or the other to burst and for us to see this decade's version of the mortgage meltdown or savings and loan scandal all over again to expose SOME network of bullshit. If it happens sometimes in the next year, she's gonna walk right into that Presidency.
I've believed for a while now that this "great economy" is merely short term solutions that are going to cause major long term problems.
The GOP wants Hunter Biden and the whistleblower to testify. They really don't get how this whistleblower thing works, do they?
They do. What they want is for anyone still in the white house thinking about whistleblowing to know that they will be dragged out in public and smeared, accused of treason, and threatened by millions of devoted Trump supporters. They also want to keep the entire narrative about whether Hunter Biden committed crimes and whether the whistleblower is a "never Trumper" rather than Trump's own corruption and crimes.
Whether Hunter Biden committed a crime or not doesn't matter to me that much. The issue is that we accept that kind of influence-bartering as normal for people as wealthy and powerful as the Bidens, the Trumps, the Clintons, and everyone like them. It's completely normal for children of the powerful and wealthy, and it's disgusting. That's why I'm not very invested in the impeachment. Partisans are acting like this is the straw that broke the camel's back, even though it's relatively minor compared to a lot of the administration's decision.
It's so predictable watching Warren continue to bow to the wealthy and the establishment. Once the establishment realized how visible and obvious Biden's flaws as a candidate are, they started to shift their support to Warren to hedge their bets. She's another technocrat who'll promise reforms and then, like Obama, accomplish very little actual change. Warren's entire campaign is premised on Chuck Schumer's electoral philosophy, and I don't think Warren is different enough from HRC to be able to overcome that dead-end approach.
And then the GOP will promptly blame her and the Dems for it for 4 years, and it will work.
Also I hope it happens cuz I'm gonna swoop in and buy a boomer-house while they get carted off to the retirement home.
Agreed up until the last sentence.
Hillary had some VERY deep flaws that went way back, and some totally unnecessary self inflicted wounds (like passing out at a fucking 9/11 memorial, pissing herself and being dragged into a waiting van like a malfunctioning robot, then lying about it three different ways). Warren perpetuates the sexist stereotype Hillary started of the shrieky school principal but that and the corporate donations aren't enough to draw a 1:1 IMO.
I think at this point if I could pick one of the frontrunners to run in the general it would be Warren... but, IMO, rumors of the demise of the Biden campaign seem to have been greatly exaggerated. Warren has surged in the polls and has been steadily gaining for some time, true, and she's come across as a polished, well prepared, and highly competent candidate. I have some policy disagreements with her, but would have no problem voting for her. But, her momentum seems to have stalled a little, and despite her rise Biden still has held onto the frontrunner position in the polling. To a certain extent you can make arguments that you need to handicap polling to account for other factors, like the fact Warren is gaining ground or the potential for the Ukraine scandal to implicate the Biden family somehow, when trying to project who the eventual nominee will be... But at the end of the day this will be put to a vote, and the closer you get to the polling dates the more credence you have to give the polling numbers, or come up with plausible reasons why they may be biased (in the statistical sense of the term). And I'm not sure I see those reasons.
I think either Biden or Warren is pretty likely, and if I had to put money down on the question I'd have to choose Biden. Two months ago I don't know if I'd have said that, and honestly at this point I think the single biggest reason I'd have to give the edge to Biden is the passage of time, and two months later he still leads in the polling.
Spain was fucking awesome, btw.
IMO, he's keeping his options open. Bloomberg is pretty centrist and can't be wild about the way the left wing of the Democratic party is surging this cycle, but he also clearly wants to see Trump lose and the last thing he wants to do is totally blow up the primary. It would be unprecedented for a candidate to declare THIS late in the cycle, and it's hard to believe he REALLY thinks he could declare and start peeling votes off from the likes of Warren or Sanders. If somehow the Biden campaign blows up and Buttigieg doesn't seem to be able to fill the gap I think we'd have to give pretty serious consideration to the possibility, but I think the main reason for his decision to file in Alabama is the deadline to do so is today.
HRC is obviously infinitely worse than Warren, because she's a hawk with blood on her hands. I'm not saying they're 1:1 equivalent, just that they're fulfilling a similar role. If you like I could compare Warren to Obama instead. They're both technocratic reformers espousing the same neoliberal program the US has stuck to since Reagan.
One of the reasons Trump won (besides our broken electoral system and how godawful of a candidate Clinton is) is because he actually admitted that things are bad for a lot of people. He actually admitted that there's a problem. Unfortunately, he misdiagnosed the source of the issue and used the typical scapegoats. But at least he acknowledged that things are pretty bad. Now that the mask is off, you can't run a "I'll make everything continue as normal with slight changes" candidate again.
Take M4A. M4A is the biggest issue of this election, for obvious reasons. After Warren announced her stance on healthcare, stocks rose for the private healthcare industry. Investors know Warren isn't a threat to business as usual. Just like how Obama had a Democratic senate, house, and Supreme Court and the milquetoast ACA only limped through, to be promptly dismantled under the current admin. Warren would be useless after her 100 days of executive reforms were done.
I don't agree with Sanders on some things, and I don't think electing him and calling it a day would accomplish much. But his policies are a huge step in the right direction, and he's the only one talking about actual bottom-up pressure rather than just top-down reform. Which is why the media is acting like he's too far left, or that his base is racist frat bros, or openly ignoring him, or whatever the current strategy is. More and more polls are showing Bernie beating Trump, unlike the rest of the field. But the political and financial elite would rather have Trump over Bernie, as Bill Gates openly admitted.
I've said it here before, but Bernie and Trump essentially both ran the same campaign - "Everything is bad, and it's not your fault." They just blamed different people. There are lessons there, of course, and I agree that anyone who doesn't think America wants the status quo to change hasn't been paying attention, but I also think there's a pretty big disagreement on what those changes need to be, and maybe it'd be helpful here to also think a bit about what we as a country do well. (Also worth noting in passing was that this read doesn't really do the Clinton platform justice, exactly, as while her read was a lot more nuanced, it was intended to address a lot of the same outcomes as Sanders' platform, it just sought to do so within the system rather than through wholesale tearing it down to build it back up)
Only thing I'll specifically disagree on, though:
Virtually every single plausible nominee in the Democratic party has pretty consistently beat Trump in hypothetical head to head matchups, so I've been surprised to see Sanders supporters latch onto this talking point. It's neither true, nor really a differentiator. I'd say the bigger message to take away here is Democrats of any point on the left wing spectrum is more popular than Trump, which IMO is a good thing for all Democratic candidates.
That said, the gist of the argument here that Sanders supporters are making is an appeal to electibility, and the thing I'd be concerned about if I was a Sanders supporter is the other way of formulating this question, which is of the candidates who consider the ability to beat Trump their top priority in selecting a candidate, who are they choosing? And there, both Biden and Warren are getting the most support, with Sanders as a fairly distant third.
Here's an actual discussion about how the US politics and media work if you are not too brainwashed to listen to that type of stuff:
Trump and Bernie have completely different platforms in almost every aspect. I'm not a proponent of horseshoe theory, and the comparison doesn't make sense beyond a surface level "both ran populist campaigns" take.
Calling Clinton's platform more nuanced is bizarre to me. Centrism is not the same as nuance. When unethical systems exist, compromising with them is not the more nuanced take, it's just bowing to the powers that be. Do you honestly think Clinton would have any positive impact on, say, private prisons? Or ending the War on Drugs (which Bill ramped up during his presidency)? Even if her stated goals were good (they were paper thin), there's nothing to indicate she would be any more capable or willing to fulfill them than Obama was.
I wouldn't extrapolate from what I've said to Sanders' base as a whole, I'm not that plugged in. I've only seen a scattering of random polls and I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. Polling methodology is weird anyway. I think 2016 turned most of us off to most polls.
But I agree. An appeal to electability is what tanked the 2016 primary. But if you're right that all candidates are beating Trump, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support Sanders. He's a socdem, so he's not actually too far left for liberals. He's better on every issue (IMO obviously) than the rest of the field, and has been for his entire political career. As for electability, I think he has fewer weaknesses. No major scandals, no serious baggage. I don't get why people are so insistent that we need a safer, more centrist candidate in a post-Trump era.
Investigative journalist Lee Smith uses his unprecedented access to Congressman Devin Nunes, former head of the House Intelligence Committee, to expose the deep state operation against the president--and the American people.
Investigative journalist Lee Smith's The Plot Against the President tells the story of how Congressman Devin Nunes uncovered the operation to bring down the commander-in-chief. While popular opinion holds that Russia subverted democratic processes during the 2016 elections, the real damage was done not by Moscow or any other foreign actor.
Rather, this was a slow-moving coup engineered by a coterie of the American elite, the "deep state," targeting not only the president, but also the rest of the country. The plot officially began July 31, 2016 with the counterintelligence investigation that the FBI opened to probe Russian infiltration of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. But the bureau never followed any Russians. In fact, it was an operation to sabotage Trump, the candidate, then president-elect, and finally the presidency. The conspirators included political operatives, law enforcement and intelligence officials, and the press.
The plot was uncovered by Nunes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and his investigative team. They understood that the target of the operation wasn't just Trump, but rather the institutions that sustain our republic. A country where operatives use the intelligence and security services to protect their privileges by spying on Americans, coordinating with the press, and using extra-constitutional means to undermine an election then undo a presidency is more like the third world than the republic envisioned by the founding fathers.
Without Nunes and his team, the plot against the president -- and against the country -- never would have been revealed.
Told from the perspective of Nunes and his crack investigators -- men and women who banded together to do the right thing at a crucial moment for our democracy -- the story of the biggest political scandal in a generation reads like a great detective novel, feels like a classic cowboy movie. The congressman from the cattle capital of California really did fight corruption in Washington. Devin Nunes took on the "deep state."
It was also turned in to a movie...
People insist on a centrist because they're tired of the populist hysteria see-saw and just want to stabilize the nation before it derails entirely
Occasional vanilla is actually very good for everyone in a 2 party system
Hell, TRUMP is the one that figured it out and pandered to it. A crude, pussy-grabbing, philandering, racist, mysoginist, greedy and scheming suit still subconsciously seemed more FAMILIAR and thus "far safer" than a Democratic party seemingly hell-bent on pitching a choice between minorities, skirts, commies, and gays.
Ooo wee, I've never gone flaccid so fast.
I think his point was that the American interpretation of centrism isn't the same thing as pragmatism. One hallmark of centrists in both parties is relaxed regulations on corporations and on the stock market, and one could argue that our "boom and bust" see-saw is just as dangerous as the supposed "ideological extremes". Centrism is a version of ideological extremism.
it is interesting to me that it only takes 3 senators to force a private impeachment vote. murkowski, collins and rommney have not yet signed onto graham's bill calling the process flawed.
if senators can vote privately i think its an entirely different ball game...
Two major themes here, I'll address separately.
First, you described Trump's platform more or less as so:
That's where I was getting at. Trump and Sanders had different solutions - at least, beyond the fact both were isolationist anti-trade populists - but the overall theme of their campains were things in this country were irrepairably broken, and that they had a scapegoat to blame. That's not a view I necessarily share, and when I described Clinton's campaign as "more nuanced" I meant specifically that - that she did think there were a lot of ways America wasn't working for Americans, but that it could still be made to work for Americans without blowing the whole thing up. You specifically mention private prisons and the war on drugs - Clinton praised the DoJ decision to move away from their use in a debate, and had supported medical marijuana and loosening sentencing on marijuana use, and was potentially open to legalization, pending more time to observe what was coming out of states that had legalized. Bill Clinton may have pushed the war on drugs in the 90s, but Bill is not Hillary. Pretty interesting read on her explicit agknowledgement that the criminal justice system was itself part of the problem, in her acceptance speech.
And, if you're going to argue, "sure, she said she would do it, but we all know she wouldn't actually deliver," I'd say the same criticism could be leveed at Sanders. I have no doubt he'd, as did Obama, try to deliver on most or all of his pledges. I just think unless he had a house majority and a fillibuster-proof Senate majority, and both chambers were 100% on board with his proposals - which he wouldn't and they weren't - he wasn't going to be able to deliver.
Second, on Sanders' appeal to electability... I see plenty of reasons I wouldn't support Sanders. I'm a liberal, center-left economically, pretty solidly left socially, and I don't support him, though in a pinch I'd probably hold my nose and vote for him if he were to win. He's a socialist and I'm not, for one rather large one, and I don't like the fact he's trying to co-opt the Democratic party to fund a run for the presidency, when he refuses to join the party himself. I don't think he has a very good understanding of mechanically how capital markets function, and some of his proposals from 2016 - a transaction tax on all financial transactions and trades to pay for his health care proposals for example - would be absolutely devastating to the abilty of the capital markets to function. He's also 78 years old and had a heart attack a month ago, which is a pretty major concern if we're thinking of handing him one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I also have problems with populists of ANY stripe, and don't want to see the United States pull back from the global stage. In fact, I would say more or less the opposite - considering their high degree of policy overlap, I don't see what the point of supporting Sanders is in a race where Elizabeth Warren is also a candidate - younger, far more thoughtful and substantive in her policy proposals vs Sanders big ideas but relatively light substance, and a woman at a time where I really hope we can do better than running one angry old white man against another angry old white man.