2016 Presidential Primary

[redbreegull]

Obama has been a real liberal for the most part. Even Sanders says he has significant progressive elements to his politics. I don't really understand what liberals even mean anymore when they say they want a "real" liberal. Relative to what? I think when you talk about being liberal or conservative you should be asking how much change you want on what issue and how fast you want it. Otherwise they just become meaningless buzz words to reinforce ingroups and outgroups.

there is zero doubt in my mind that if Sanders were to be elected, his base would turn against him in a year or two just like Obama's because people are asking for a kind of change that can't come from the government, but continue looking for it there over and over

[Elphenor]

Relative to the majority of Western democracies or hell just our own 50 years ago

We have been pushed so far to the right that just displaying some level of human decency makes you on the left in the US

[redbreegull]

I also don't think it is illegitimate to point out that the US simply is different from European democracies in many ways. Our enormous population and demographic diversity contribute to slowing down change or consensus or any kind. These demographics often do not grow together, but apart individually, and thus simply have truly different interests. There is no "American nation," not really. Plus our government is specifically designed to be moderate, to foil quick change and passion-fueled factions. If we did it the other way, more like European parliamentary democracies, we would have a whole other set of problems to torture us.

[fuzzyroes]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

"We have to go after their families"

he just meant that in a sense of if a families aware of a member committing terrorism and not doing anything to stop it... If a familiy's proven to have been aware of evil acts before they happened, they should be held accountable. You can't just turn a blind eye to some major malicious shit because it happens to be your son-in-law committing them

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Relative to the majority of Western democracies or hell just our own 50 years ago

We have been pushed so far to the right that just displaying some level of human decency makes you on the left in the US

well yeah that is true, the US has moved very far to right economically and in terms of foreign relations since WWII. But in terms of civil rights and social issues we have had a more or less slow and steady move to the left.

[Elphenor]

Think that might be because social issues don't particularly concern Corporations

If we talk about the American people and not politicians. This is actually a liberal country, overall, that supports things like universal healthcare, raising the minimum wage, paid leave, etc.

But wherever we see policy intersect with corporate interests...

[Elphenor]

In fact what is happening now is you have southern states having to drop anti-gay laws because it's bad for business and companies will leave their state

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Think that might be because social issues don't particularly concern Corporations

If we talk about the American people and not politicians. This is actually a liberal country that supports things like universal healthcare

yeah, you are right here as well, our population is more liberal than our representation in gov't. I don't think this was as true even 10 years ago though. Overarching culture in the US has become a lot more liberal even just since Obama became president. He seemed so liberal in 2008, but his base moved left a lot faster than he did.

and yes corporations have a lot of interest in battling america becoming a more liberal society. you see the government itself resisting as well. How many GOP Congresspeople are in office because of gerrymandered districts? A lot. Personally, I see the progression of McCain/Palin –> Tea Party –> Trump as cornered animal behavior. The crazies know they are fucked, they know they have lost the long game, their numbers are diminishing, and they are losing it. America has changed.

That doesn't necessarily mean liberals are ready for Bernie Sanders, or even that Sanders is the next thing most liberals want. I know the feeling amongst Bernie supporters is that they are the popular revolution being crushed by the establishment, but it just isn't reality. Yes Clinton is a dirty player and yes the system is rigged to favor the establishment candidate but none of that is enough to account for how many more people, specifically minorities who Sanders claims to speak for, still prefer Clinton. I don't believe that most of the Clinton voters just don't trust Sanders or don't think he can accomplish what he says... that's really not giving people enough credit. More people honestly prefer her, and I think that is something a lot of leftists are choosing to melt down about instead of seeking to understand, and that's not a smart way to shape a more appealing leftist candidate next time

[Elphenor]

Obama did face the most obstructionism of any president probably in American history though so liberals are not totally fair on him

[redbreegull]

I imagine your experience here is probably closer to actually being the retarded kid on the bus

[killtrocity]

You think he's actually an authoritarian, though? I feel like there's a strong chance he's just marketing to a particular demographic with the authoritarian rhetoric. 99% of politicians do it, he's just more outlandish

[killtrocity]

Didn't you guys take 9th grade social science? The first thing they taught us was that comparing politicians to Hitler weakens your argument

[killtrocity]

Oh he absolutely is. If he'd quit saying dumb shit about brown people and women, I might actually like him. Regardless, the biggest benefactor of his presence in the race is Hilary Clinton. The us versus them bullshit works extremely well with someone so easy to dislike. The R's want the Trump wrecking ball out of their club, and the D's want as much attention on him as possible because it makes team D look better. Meanwhile every major media outlet is engaged in a clusterfuck for the Trump ratings boost. This article sums it up pretty well:

What you may come to realize is that establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are quite similar. They're the two horns on the head of the same goat. But don't think about this now. You'll never get to sleep.

There is something that may make you shut your eyes. It's that monster hiding under your bed: Donald Trump.

Trump is the bogeyman now. And if you insist on staying awake, Hillary would like you to focus on The Donald.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...30-column.html

[killtrocity]

Look at that inverse relationship between Trump and Clinton approval:

A vote for one candidate is indistinguishable from a vote against the other guy.

I'm not sure that the Trump train is out of gas like the author suggests, but it's possible the unification of the establishment against him is negating his ability to say whatever he wants

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/31/1133688...-polls-winning

The last thing the R's and D's want is a 3 or 4-way election. This would mean a loss in shares of power. Bill Clinton knows this. That is why he has pledged to vote with the base: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2584140


Trump is a wild card. The establishment R's cannot simply assimilate him into their tribe like they did with Ron Paul, and like the D's will very likely do with Sanders (assuming Sanders doesn't actually win, which is by all means mathematically possible).

[killtrocity]

As a big FU to the DNC, I agree. If they had played fair throughout the primaries, I might not feel so strongly. On top of the inherent structuring of the primaries and the superdelegate system which have been around since the 70's, they're now committing voter suppression in Arizona, removing self-imposed restrictions on PAC contributions, minimizing the number of debates, imposing media blackouts, not to mention Bill Clinton stumping in Massachusetts, confirmed accounts of push polling in Nevada, and on and on... oh yeah, and the DNC conveniently forgot to submit Sanders for the fucking ballot in DC.

It could get very interesting if the RNC forces this brokered convention, which is becoming increasingly more likely: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...tion-bets-soar
This would split the R vote and embolden Sanders to go independent as well (there's no chance in hell of a 72 year old suddenly selling out and joing HRC as VP, not to mention the fact the he is officially an Independent). Then there's Gary Johnson who recently reached double digits in the polls. Regardless it seems HRC for president is a foregone conclusion at this point until one party fractures first. The cracks have been showing in the GOP since 2008 due to changing racial demographics. If Trump wasn't so cavalier about alienating non-whites and females, his populist ideology would probably defeat Clinton in a landslide because people are sick of the establishment. Congress has something like a 12% approval rating.

[killtrocity]

Trump:

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

Elphenor, you hit the nail on the head when you said she would adapt to whatever the mainstream thinks on social issues, but apply that to everything. She is an establishment populist. She will sit wherever she judges the center of mainstream liberal America to be, which is exactly why Bernie remains so important even if he can't win. He makes her a stronger, better, smarter candidate and he brings her more in touch with millennial liberalism which she doesn't get.

Establishment populist? Isn't that an oxymoron? Over half of the US Congress are millionaires.

It's more than a little disingenuous to call Clinton a liberal when she lies politically to the right of Reagan and Nixon and overlaps almost perfectly with George W. Bush. She's a Lieberman democrat through and through, the worst of the fucking slime. So what if she rejected the Bush tax cuts - she voted for the 2004 corporate tax giveaway bill

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

Trump:

good times

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by killtrocity

Establishment populist? Isn't that an oxymoron? Over half of the US Congress are millionaires.

It's more than a little disingenuous to call Clinton a liberal when she lies politically to the right of Reagan and Nixon and overlaps almost perfectly with George W. Bush. She's a Lieberman democrat through and through, the worst of the fucking slime. So what if she rejected the Bush tax cuts - she voted for the 2004 corporate tax giveaway bill

no it's not. populist can mean a lot of different things, obviously. It doesn't exclusively mean someone who is anti-establishment. Clinton's platform matches the views of the largest number of voters. She aligns with popular opinion. And this is why she is going to win. Trump's populism is actually the populism of a much smaller group of voters. Clinton has been all over the liberal map in her career, again for the same reason. Maybe you are specifically talking about issues like tax cuts when you say she is right of Nixon or Reagan, but overall that's a hard sell.

[redbreegull]

hey I finally got my Bernie sticker in the mail! guess I better go put this on my car before his campaign ends

[reprise85]

i was thinking about getting the birdie sanders one but pretty sure in 6 months no one will remember why the fuck we had the birdie sanders hashtag at all

[redbreegull]

Abraham Lincoln campaigned in slave states and swore up and down he wasn't for freeing the slaves.


welcome to politics

[reprise85]

lol so edgy

[redbreegull]

poots needs to take some time off, the rapid fire trolling doesn't work well for him

[Elphenor]

"Right and Left doesn't mean anything because they are statists"

That is some seriously dumb shit right there

[Elphenor]

But it's also stupid to call Hillary a populist

Or Trump

Pretending to be a populist to win elections is not the same thing as actually being one

[Elphenor]

I don't think Democrats would screw us

I am afraid they won't do enough and the banks will screw us

The "both sides are the same" argument is straight out of the know nothing book of politics

[Elphenor]

The last Clinton in office certainly did screw us though

Continuing the deregulation of the banks

Welfare "reform"

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

The last Clinton in office certainly did screw us though

Continuing the deregulation of the banks

Welfare "reform"

This is true and he was still one of least damaging presidents in modern history

[redbreegull]

IMO the crux of populism is catering to what the people want before any other ideology. It is in fact the ideology of pandering and adapting to popular opinion. Clinton, Sanders, and Trump are all populists in their own way, but Clinton's coalition is the broadest and cuts across the most voting blocs.