All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[mogwen]

The bolded is not true. The Presidential system in the US has always been tilted toward conservative power . . . but Dems know that. They've always had to adjust for it.

Okay, but will it prevent him from cheating? I know the democrats are doing their best, but he just made a mockery of laws and the political system. He doesn't play by the rules, he only knows cheating, even in Golf, and when Ginsburg will leave the supreme court, he will name another right-wing nutjob, then good luck all!

[The Overlord]

Yes, 2016 voters definitely elected the most progressive candidate. Ha. /sarcasm

Cracks me up that people point to her policies as the reason Trump won.

Who's fault is that? I'm sorry, but Trump is a product of the system, not a demon that came from Hell and ruined an already good system. The status quo the Clintons created in the 90s created an environment where the Democrats moved to the right and in reponse, the GOP moved to the far right. The failure of third way economics is what led to Trumpism, do you want to try to use that against him again or try something different? Trump did not come out of the blue, Trump is the logical end result of what the GOP has been doing for 40 years, he is not fluke, he is a feature, not a bug.

The bolded is not true. The Presidential system in the US has always been tilted toward conservative power . . . but Dems know that. They've always had to adjust for it.

That is why I think the system is the problem, Trump is just a product of it.

With gerrymandering and what happened with Georgia election last year, I think the US system is dysfunctional.

[ZombieHavoc]

Who's fault is that?

Uh, the voters, duh.

[The Overlord]

Uh, the voters, duh.

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She won the majority of votes. As long as you try to the game the way its stacked now, you will lose. Either flip the script or lose.

That's the problem, you seem unwilling to look critically at how the system allowed Trump to win.

The US has this 2 party system that promotes dysfunction, with only a center right party as opposition, nothing has stopped the GOP from becoming far right. As long as you do nothing about gerrymandering or what went on Georgia in 2018, the system will produce more Trumps, over and over again.

[Dalak]

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She won the majority of votes. As long as you try to the game the way its stacked now, you will lose. Either flip the script or lose.

That's the problem, you seem unwilling to look critically at how the system allowed Trump to win.

The US has this 2 party system that promotes dysfunction, with only a center right party as opposition, nothing has stopped the GOP from becoming far right. As long as you do nothing about gerrymandering or what went on Georgia in 2018, the system will produce more Trumps, over and over again.

I've asked you before: How do we just 'do something' about Gerrymandering as voters and not as elected officials? Unless you are advocating violent rebellion there's little that petitions, marches, and PACs seem to be doing about it, and with the packing of the courts going on we might not have that recourse anymore.

[mogwen]

I've asked you before: How do we just 'do something' about Gerrymandering as voters and not as elected officials? Unless you are advocating violent rebellion there's little that petitions, marches, and PACs seem to be doing about it, and with the packing of the courts going on we might not have that recourse anymore.

That's what I'm trying to tell you, Trump is the proof that your electoral system is rigged and in the end doomed. And I'm not so sure you will have another chance. The trend of the world goes to Right-wing autocracy. Be wary. I am for you.

[TriggerWarning]

That's not the issue, the issue is who can best take on Trump, a left winger like Sanders or a centrist like Joe Biden? If Trump beat Clinton by attacking her neoliberal policies and her war hawk record, why would Biden, who has a worse record on that stuff, not get beaten by Trump in the same way?

Because Biden is not universally despised by half the country like Hilary Clinton was. Trump and Clinton were both HATED by half the country and I know a lot of people who didn't so much vote for one as they were holding their nose to vote against the other.

Plus the 2016 election was about voters wanting a change from the status quo. Its why Sanders and Trump played so well during the primaries because people on both sides were rejecting career politicians. While Sanders himself is a career politician he's always come off as the guy kicking over the apple cart of the other career politicians and had the democratic primaries not been rigged for Clinton he might have beaten Trump.

Because political trends tend to be cyclical in 2020 voters will comfortable again with a career politician and want someone familiar to unseat Trump. Enter Biden who comes across as everyone's favorite uncle.

[numberthirty]

Except people see her as someone who would say open thing and do another thing that power and really how ''progressive'' was her platform?

http://www.sevenbowie.com/2015/10/hi...s-center-left/

Is her support of wars like Iraq progressive? She supported the war in Libya and now that country is in chaos. She seems like another hawk who will want to waste a bunch of money on wars that do not help American people.

How is she is a follower of neoliberal economics? Seems like it. She seemed to oppose raising caps on Social Security. Doesn't seem like she wants to bring back Glass-Steagall and she and her husband undermined left wing economic policies back in the 90s. When Trump attacked NAFTA, did she do anything? Did she defend NAFTA, did she attack NAFTA in a different way or simply agree with criticize of NAFTA and come up with policies to fix it? I do not think she did anything about Trump's attacks on NAFTA, because she did not want anyone to attack her 90s era neoliberal economic policies.

Bernie opposed the death penalty back in 2008, while Clinton supported it, so sorry if I wouldn't trust her if she flipped on that issue.

Hillary Clinton is only a progressive due to how screwed up the political environment is in the US.

Honestly, there's not even much of a point in responding to nonsense like that.

HRC probably ran the most progressive platform ever...

Please ignore that she wasn't even for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in 2016 while we try to sell you on some jive turkey nonsense about how she was taking on white privilege.

[The Overlord]

I've asked you before: How do we just 'do something' about Gerrymandering as voters and not as elected officials? Unless you are advocating violent rebellion there's little that petitions, marches, and PACs seem to be doing about it, and with the packing of the courts going on we might not have that recourse anymore.

Go to town halls and pressure politicians on the issue of gerrymandering, support political leaders who oppose gerrymandering, support ballot initiatives to get rid gerrymandering, you can do a lot if you try. I am not saying that would be easy, but what is the alternative?

Getting rid of gerrymandering is easier than getting rid of the Electoral College and you got start somewhere. Gerrymandering survives because no one bothers to oppose it, I have never heard of a good argument for it.

Honestly, there's not even much of a point in responding to nonsense like that.

HRC probably ran the most progressive platform ever...

Please ignore that she wasn't even for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in 2016 while we try to sell you on some jive turkey nonsense about how she was taking on white privilege.

Yes, how foolish of me, I should have just said ''Hillary is the most progressive candidate'' over and over again and put all other thoughts out of my brain.

Seriously I can understand the logic of voting for Clinton or Biden over Trump as a short term goal, but I think if nothing changes in the long run, you are fighting a losing battle against Trumpism and I do not think either Biden or Clinton have the political will to make the changes that are needed.

[Xheight]

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. She won the majority of votes. As long as you try to the game the way its stacked now, you will lose. Either flip the script or lose.

That's the problem, you seem unwilling to look critically at how the system allowed Trump to win.

The US has this 2 party system that promotes dysfunction, with only a center right party as opposition, nothing has stopped the GOP from becoming far right. As long as you do nothing about gerrymandering or what went on Georgia in 2018, the system will produce more Trumps, over and over again.

The Founding fathers would say they got it just right in preventing multi-party hostage taking politics. I grieve over it too but not for its instability as it seems to promote the opposite.
Parliamentary politics there's no guarantee that the right couldnt take charge as easily as the left. Israel, Hungry to name a few.

[The Overlord]

The Founding fathers would say they got it just right in preventing multi-party hostage taking politics. I grieve over it too but not for its instability as it seems to promote the opposite.
Parliamentary politics there's no guarantee that the right couldnt take charge as easily as the left. Israel, Hungry to name a few.

1. Is the 2 party system really that better if one party has become a far-right reactionary one? I do not see any political price they have to pay for their increasing reactionary stances. Heck I think some of the Founding Fathers were critical of political parties themselves, but we have crossed that Rubicon.

2. The world the Founding Fathers lived is far different from the one we live in, trying to apply logic from over 200 years ago to today does not make sense. I am not even saying that to be critical of the Founding Fathers, but their world is gone and they were not fortune tellers, they could not see everything that could happen in the future when they founded the US. Just because they founded something, like the Electoral College, does mean its a good thing for modern times, maybe it no longer serves the purpose it was meant for.

3. No system is perfect, but saying that is an excuse to not change the US system is a mistake IMO. The US does not have to copy another country wholesale, but maybe there is bits and pieces worth looking. Again, a lot off other countries do not have gerrymandering. Surely getting rid that is a good step and one of the more achievable ones.

This video goes into why the current system favors conservatives over everyone else and simply leaving it in place is a losing proposition if you are not conservative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAbab8aP4_A

I think the GOP has become experts in completely gaming the system in their favor and it's naive to think otherwise.

[Mecegirl]

It never fucking ends...https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uncc-ac...SR6r94W5CVBduQ

[numberthirty]

Yes, how foolish of me, I should have just said ''Hillary is the most progressive candidate'' over and over again and put all other thoughts out of my brain.

Seriously I can understand the logic of voting for Clinton or Biden over Trump as a short term goal, but I think if nothing changes in the long run, you are fighting a losing battle against Trumpism and I do not think either Biden or Clinton have the political will to make the changes that are needed.

I believe that you might have got me wrong.

What I was saying is more like "There is not much of a point in even shooting down an assertion as stupid as "HRC ran one of the most progressive Presidential platforms ever!"

While you can do so, I don't see any real reason to bother.

[The Overlord]

I believe that you might have got me wrong.

What I was saying is more like "There is not much of a point in even shooting down an assertion as stupid as "HRC ran one of the most progressive Presidential platforms ever!"

While you can do so, I don't see any real reason to bother.

I know, I was joking with my response (humor does not always translate with mere text), I agree with you about Clinton, but it seems like people insist on this myth here, that she is ''the most progressive candidate''. The whole '' I should have just said ''Hillary is the most progressive candidate'' over and over again and put all other thoughts out of my brain'' was some irony and satire on my part, but it was meant to agree with you, not criticize you.

To me, we cannot go anywhere on a debate on Biden or Bernie's policy differences if we do not address whether Clinton's was much of a progressive or not, because Biden will do the same thing Clinton did and he may lose because he will just repeat the same strategy.

[numberthirty]

I know, I was joking with my response (humor does not always translate with mere text), I agree with you about Clinton, but it seems like people insist on this myth here, that she is ''the most progressive candidate'' to me we cannot go anywhere on debate on Biden or Bernie's policy differences, if we do not address whether Clinton's was much of a progressive or not, because Biden will do the same thing Clinton did and he may lose because he will just repeat the same strategy.

Ah, copy that.

Biden is sort of a toss up.

While I would agree that he would run the same sort of "Progressive(but really not)" platform and there should be discussion of if that makes sense, I get the feeling that no Democratic primary candidate will make the same sort of flawed assumptions that were part of what tripped HRC up the last time out.