All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[ZombieHavoc]

But your right, it is comic book message board, people are just here for some fun.

This thread is a whole lot of fun. As much as America has been since 2016.

I begrudge the **** out of third party voters. When it happens in mass, we get shitty republican leadership.

[ZombieHavoc]

Or we look at getting fewer war hawks into office. I'm not saying this will be easy or that Rome was built in a day, but in my mind, there is things that are taken as conventional wisdom that need to challenged, like being a war hawk is a good thing. Sure people should have voted for Clinton when she won the nomination in 2016, but now that she lost, maybe should look to some new ideas, rather then rehashing the old ones from the 90s.

Sounds good in theory. That's why we have primaries. From my perspective, everyone should vote for their person in the primaries, but then dammit, whichever candidate wins the primary, everyone needs to then get behind that candidate, because that's what republicans do. If we're going to vote in the primaries, and then sit out the general because our preferred candidate didn't win, then we get republicans.

My main fear is that for 2020, we do not get a candidate that excites this very specific crowd that hold their vote hostage, so they aren't gonna come out for whatever establishment candidate is likely going to get the nom. That's nuts to me. They're just, like, okay with Trump shitting all over everything because at least they're sticking it the man or whatever.

[The Overlord]

I'll vote for any democrat as long as they're not Clinton, or Clinton like. I personally think Sanders and Clinton had their chance. Let's see who else has any ideas.

Here is the thing, I like Sanders for his ideas, I think he is getting too old, but if someone younger picked up his torch, I think that would be good. Its all about moving the needle.

[The Overlord]

Sounds good in theory. That's why we have primaries. From my perspective, everyone should vote for their person in the primaries, but then dammit, whichever candidate wins the primary, everyone needs to then get behind that candidate, because that's what republicans do. If we're going to vote in the primaries, and then sit out the general because our preferred candidate didn't win, then we get republicans.

My main fear is that for 2020, we do not get a candidate that excites this very specific crowd that hold their vote hostage, so they aren't gonna come out for whatever establishment candidate is likely going to get the nom. That's nuts to me. They're just, like, okay with Trump shitting all over everything because at least they're sticking it the man or whatever.

Sure I understand the importance of getting behind the candidate when that person is chosen, but maybe its time to rethink what that candidate stands for and what that candidate should do to win.

I am glad the Dems are getting rid of super delegates and supporting medicaid for all, so that's moving the needle. But that is just the begining, we have to look at everything with a critical eye and see if we can't move the needle on promoting a peace economy, reducing mass incarceration, etc. Let the GOP own these wars and this terrible prison system. Its going to be slow going, but we should look towards moving from the Clinton policy set to a Sanders style policy set. Pragmatism should advance a goal, not exist for its own sake. I think some of this would be popular and you can have this stuff and gay rights, you can try to have it all.

[ZombieHavoc]

Sure I understand the importance of getting behind the candidate when that person is chosen, but maybe its time to rethink what that candidate stands for and what that candidate should do to win.

I am glad the Dems are getting rid of super delegates and supporting medicaid for all, so that's moving the needle. But that is just the begining, we have to look at everything with a critical eye and see if we can't move the needle on promoting a peace economy, reducing mass incarceration, etc. Let the GOP own these wars and this terrible prison system. Its going to be slow going, but we should look towards moving from the Clinton policy set to a Sanders style policy set. Pragmatism should advance a goal, not exist for its own sake. I think some of this would be popular and you can have this stuff and gay rights, you can try to have it all.

Ha, well good luck. Trump 2020 I guess.

Time to go back to ignoring the news so I can pretend we're gonna be okay.

[Gray Lensman]

Gary Johnson was not very bright, but he seemed like a decent guy and would've been better Trump at least, but that's about it. He had no chance of winning at all.
I like Jill Stein, but she also had no chance of winning. At all.

So the choices were:
-a warhawk who would not lead an administration hellbent on obliterating civil rights or
-a warhawk who leads an administration that is hellbent on obliterating civil rights, and a host of other things too.

Seemed like an easy choice to me. Oh well, I don't know **** because look where we are.

Even the Libertarian party regrets Johnson. Most of them wish Bill Weld had been on top of the ticket instead of the bottom.

[Mister Mets]

And what did Trump being President that actually cost the GOP? They got 2 Supreme court picks from this and giant upper-class tax cut, it cost them nothing and they gained a lot from it. If Trumps is the cost for them getting they want, its no cost at all and Trump using the office enrich himself, they are fine with that too. This is not a real cost, it's an incentive for them to play dirty all the time.

The GOP actively makes government worse when they are the power so they can say ''look how bad the government is, you should vote for more Republicans and put more power into the private sector.'' Trump is not a bug, he's a feature, Trump's incompetence and corruption ultimately serve their goals.



I think voter backlash is less of a problem for certain politicians because the GOP base is fanatically partisan and will always support the GOP no matter what and GOP politicians will use voter suppression to ensure that their base will be represented at the ballot box and the other side's base will not. How is Kemp being able to count the votes in an election where he is a candiate even remotely fair?

Look at this way, what if Abrams brings a lawsuit to contest Kemp's victory, the case goes to the Supreme Court and the court rules in Kemp's favor along party lines. How would not make the whole system seem illegitimate? Heck, The Supreme Court gutted the Voter Rights Act, which let the GOP politician in many states to start to suppress the votes of people they do not like.

And saying Democrats do it too, one ignores that the GOP has been doing it better for the past decade or so and two, shows the system needs massive top to bottom reform, not just putting a Obama bandaid on it. Frankly, I am critical of the two-party system in addition to everything else, so I am not going to carry much water for the current Democratic party, I think the two party system is it is now is part of the problem.

I didn't really think I'd have to make the case that Trump is less competent and effective than he could be, but there have been administration posts that took way longer to seat than was necessary. We didn't have an ambassador to South Korea until June.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/polit...rea/index.html

With the economy and unemployment, a better Republican President would probably have kept the US House, and been able to keep the Arizona Senate seat, and flip Montana.

The system would seem illegitimate if there were a 5-4 Supreme Court choice on party lines against Abrams. This is a bit of hypothetical since there hasn't been a suit yet, and it does assume that the five conservative justices would go against the law rather than the four liberals.

But here is an interesting question and I would love anyone to answer this, why does there have to be a choice between choosing between left economic issues and left-wing social issues, why is it one or the other? Why can't someone choose both? Especially economics and structural racism are interrelated.

The issue with candidates who are left-wing on both economic and social issues is that they're seen as less likely to win.

It gets to an unresolved question for the left: Does Trump represent more of a crisis or an opportunity?

Should the left be willing to compromise to get him out of office, or should they use his flaws as a candidate to push the most progressive agenda possible because it's a better chance to make it happen than ever before? They did go with the latter approach in the last general election, and it didn't work out.

There can be the argument that Hillary Clinton was a fatally flawed candidate, but she didn't give reasons for moderates and conservatives to back her, beyond being an alternative to Trump. This allowed Republicans to paint Trump as an alternative to her.

Two final general election points-
There is the argument that another candidate wouldn't need to emphasize their left-wing bona fides as much, which would allow them to have a different tone in the general election.
The biggest problem in the primary wasn't that Democrats chose Clinton over Sanders. It's that all the other top Democratic presidential contenders (Booker, Biden, Gilibrand) were discouraged from running.

The only reason that Florida is a long shot is the Republicans are trying to make sure all the votes aren't counted.

Not really.

Five figure leads shouldn't be overturned barring fraud or systematic problems.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...56621442494464

RIP.

[The Overlord]

Ha, well good luck. Trump 2020 I guess.

Time to go back to ignoring the news so I can pretend we're gonna be okay.

And how do you know picking another Clinton style centerist would beat Trump? If picking Clinton was the safe choice, she should have won. The fact she did not should make people rethink the supposed accepted wisdom.

[Dalak]

I have seen people mock others for voting for a third candidate in the past, I'm not saying you did it, it is sometimes I have seen.

That being said people get cynical about voting because politicians say one thing and then do another. Really Obama promised to be a change agent and really he just maintained the status quo in a lot of places. Increase in drone strikes, NSA spying, massive deportations, how are people supposed to remain enthusiastic when they vote for someone and then in office, the guy does a lot of stuff that is contrary to someone's values. Of course there is going to be voter cynicism if voting for someone means they going to do a lot of stuff contrary to what they promised when they get into office. Obama had a chance to reverse the national security state Bush created, but he didn't, that is when I think I became pretty cynical about the modern Democratic party and I think a real change agent is needed.

And what change happens when you vote for someone who can't win? I don't mock others for voting Third party, but I will point out that it is a supreme waste of time as we are stuck with the 2 party system.

Well I am sorry I did not list everything in order regarding what happened in the 2016 election in alphabetical order? Did want a list with bullet points? I am finding really obnoxious that I am being labeled as privileged disingenuous reactionary simply for saying that Clinton is not as progressive as some people were making her out to be and that part of the reason she lost was due to being a flawed candidate and frankly we should worry more about the stuff we can control then the stuff we can't? Unless you have a fool proof to stop Russia from meddling in the next election, that is not a factor we can control, because you know Trump is going to do nothing to prevent it from happening it again, what we can control is what sort of message we put out and who we put forward and that is where the real policy debate begins. I think its important to move the needle beyond what the Dems have been since the 90s. Also I did mention voter suppression in mentioning Georgia on this thread, that is a fight that has to be taken on. Also why do some people on this thread say there is a binary choice between between left wing economic issues and social issues? Why is that presented as a choice by some on this thread?

And how do you know picking another Clinton style centerist would beat Trump? If picking Clinton was the safe choice, she should have won. The fact she did not should make people rethink the supposed accepted wisdom.

This is why you are disingenuous by not acknowledging all the issues with the 2016 election, since it seems like you are going back to claiming her loss is all her fault. Oh, do you often just . . skip words when you get excited? This isn't the first time you've done it today and you are portraying yourself as a voting American, so it's a fair question. I grew up in the Texas public education system so I don't think things have gotten that much worse over the years.

[Emperor-of-Dragons]

Here is the thing, I like Sanders for his ideas, I think he is getting too old, but if someone younger picked up his torch, I think that would be good. Its all about moving the needle.

This basically where I am right now.

[Robotman]

Here is the thing, I like Sanders for his ideas, I think he is getting too old, but if someone younger picked up his torch, I think that would be good. Its all about moving the needle.

#Beto2020!!!

[zinderel]

Oh my god, you guys...

It is now 2018, and this board is STILL arguing Sanders v. Clinton?! How about NEITHER of them ever run for president again, because both failed in their bids and are too goddamned old to be leading the country into the future? How about we leave the Sanders v. Clinton crap in the past, where it belongs, and look towards the future we all hope won't be completely destroyed, come 2020? How about we use the energy we waste arguing about issues we can't do anything to change - like the Democratic Party treatment of Bernie Sanders (a political outsider who was not really a Democrat but ran as one and was then surprised that the party he piggy-backed on wanted someone who was actually one of them) or the Clinton loss to Trump - and focus on how we fight to have a goddamned future?

Would Clinton have been a better president than Trump? Undeniably, yes.
Would a Clinton presidency have done some things lefists would object to? Again, undeniably, yes.
Would a Clinton presidency have done some things right wingers would object to? Again, undeniably, yes.
Does any of that matter in the here and now, where Trump is president and the world is burning down around us while we argue about wonkery from two years ago? F***ING NO!!!!

The Democratic Party is not perfect. Expecting it to be perfect is expecting it to rain chocolate milk. Neither is it 'the same as' the Republican Party. While there are absolutely surface similarities - The Democratic Party has uncomfortable ties to corporate influences that also influence the Republican Party and thus, also makes decisions based on money more often than it takes risks on what's right - those similarities end once you get past the surface. The differences, based on their ACTUAL POLICIES, are stark:

Democrats support civil rights for the minority.
Republicans support civil rights for the majority.

Democrats support public assistance programs designed to help feed, clothe and house the poor.
Republicans support letting the poor starve, naked and homeless.

Democrats support taxation as a means of paying for necessary programs and infrastructure.
Republicans support taxes on the poor, but not on those most able to pay taxes.

Democrats prefer diplomacy and outreach when interacting internationally, but will support a war if they believe they must, and are capable of recognizing when their support was misplaced.
Republicans prefer grandstanding, threats, saber-rattling, and mocking mercilessly anyone who decides they might have reservations.

Democrats support a healthy government that works.
Republicans want to make the government small enough to drown it like a baby in a tub. Their words.

Again, people...the future is calling, and this ENDLESS, INTERMINABLE rehashing of the past helps no one but the party in power. Infighting on the left has done, and will continue to do, more to help elect Republicans than anything the right does. They are PLAYING US and we allow it. Stop letting right wingers and corporate interests splinter us, stop letting them control the dialogue.

Democrats are as left wing as we get in America right now, and that sucks, but...it's just reality. Compared to other nations, sure, Democrats are a center right party, and the Republicans are a far right party. Isn't that enough, in a political climate where those are OUR ONLY VIABLE OPTIONS, to support the center right and work to pull it left? It would be GREAT for a third party to get huge and have a chance of ACTUALLY challenging the Big Two. But realistically, that will not happen any time soon, and is more likely to come as a result of the Big Two splintering internally along idealogical lines, so lets stop pretending it's a viable option. We have two options in America, and the choice is stark.

The only feasible path forward for progressive-minded people is to throw our support behind the Democratic party, even if we have to sometimes hold our noses and work with people we don't really like. That's what being adults is about. We support them, and we hold them accountable, when they cross lines. We speak out, loudly, when they do things we dislike. We remain registered as libertarians, or green party, or working families party, or whatever, and support our candidates on local levels, where grassroots change can actually take root, but support Democrats on the national level wherever possible. When a blue dog who votes with Republicans 8 out of 10 times is up for re-election, support his challengers in the primary, but when it's down to a blue dog versus a red devil, back the goddamn dog! We can always replace him later...the red devil will cheat his way to a lifetime post, if we let him. We need to take control of the Democratic Party from within, the way the authoritarian and religious wings took control of the Republican Party in the 80's. Fighting for change from the outside, the way we have been, CLEARLY DOESN'T WORK, even if it looks cool and hip and rebellious. It just helps the Republicans keep winning, and validates the stereotypical image of progressives as flighty idiots and humorless perfectionists who can't stop getting in our own way.

[Kirby101]

Not really.

Five figure leads shouldn't be overturned barring fraud or systematic problems.

And what we are seeing in places like Georgia and Florida ARE systematic problems. Thanks to the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act by the Roberts Court.

[BeastieRunner]

Team Mueller update:

Jerome Corsi said that he expects to be indicted by prosecutors working for special counsel Robert Mueller on a charge of lying to investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 election. He said he plans to take a plea because what Junior lied about was worse.

It begins ...

[zinderel]

I forgot...there IS another path to breaking the Two Party system, but it's a lot less photogenic than pussy hats at protest marches, and is a LOT more risky than gradual change.

We, the people, could rise up in rebellion and tear the entire corrupt system down. It would cost a lot in lives, it wouldn't be a sure victory for progress and would, in fact, set progress back quite a bit in the rebuilding, and would be a world-altering event with far-reaching repurcussions no one could plan for, however it went. I know that's a lot harder to justify for some than just going to a protest march after hitting up a Starbucks, and then stopping to get a new sweater afterwards. Looking at how Antifa is talked about in supposedly progressive circles tells me that, while lots of leftist self-identifiers talk the talk, the thought of actually risking their lives - and their comfort - for the change they claim to want is too scary.

So if actual uprising and revolution are off the table for most leftists, then the only reasonable option left that I can see is the one I outline above: gradual, internal change leading to progress.

Imagine that...