Macho Madness
Member
Learn you some politics, hicks
It also needs to be state that the US as a single entity has a population equivalent to basically all of Europe.
It's what TYT basically did last night. Ranting and raving about how people should lose their gov't services so they'd appreciate Sanders more. Like, this is the damn straw-man that the GOP has used for years to argue against gov't programs.
Learn you some politics, hicks
Is there a clip of this anywhere? I heard people talking about it in the Primary thread, but nothing's been posted on the TYT YouTube. Maybe there's a reason they don't want to post something like that though.
To give just one example, a candidate who doesn't propose single payer healthcare in the US wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it in a country where it already exists. This is one of the huge problems with trying to map one country's political spectrum onto another's.
And hella vice versa too.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a lot of Conservative politicians in Canada would, if in the US, fight an attempt to implement single payer tooth and nail. By and large the Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were first implemented, then adapted to the reality that the programs were in place and popular, i.e., they ostensibly support the programs and attempt to weaken them indirectly.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a lot of Conservative politicians in Canada would, if in the US, fight an attempt to implement single payer tooth and nail. By and large the Republicans fought Social Security and Medicare when they were first implemented, then adapted to the reality that the programs were in place and popular, i.e., they ostensibly support the programs and attempt to weaken them indirectly.
What makes the comparison even more difficult, is the multi-party style government of many european countries, versus the 2 party coalition government in the US. It basically necessitates a degree of compromise before the party is even formed.
honestly i've only ever seen that distinction as "when the coalitions are formed"
with the multi-party governments, coalitions get formed after elections, and as a result seem to be more malleable (they can shift pretty drastically from election to election). with the 2-party government, coalitions are baked into each party before elections and the shifts are a lot slower.
What makes the comparison even more difficult, is the multi-party style government of many european countries, versus the 2 party coalition government in the US. It basically necessitates a degree of compromise before the party is even formed.
I'd say a few key differences that are huge in terms overall importance and political skew. So whilst they converge or correlate on most policies, there are major contrasts in certain key areas that actually still make a huge amount of difference, Eg healthcare, foreign policy, taxation, big business and economics, degree of support for Israel and so on.
I'd actually argue there were greater politically opposed campaign differences between Hillary and Bernie, than say Labour (left wing) and Conservative (right wing) campaigns during the last UK election.
Jill Stein isn't a member a of the Democratic party.even in the Democratic party, there are still political leaning differences between say, Jill Stein, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who fall in to the more liberal almost socialist bracket
If not A then not A. Because I have a distaste for incremental legislation doesn't automatically mean I want Trump to win. How the hell did you get to that point?
Ironic being called the accelerationist, when the current pace of our climate curbing practices will get us to a point of ruin faster.
This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just made?Go on. Elaborate on what you intend to revolt against in detail. And the alternative practical implementable solutions you propose.
Of course there were, most people who follow UK and US politics would tell you that. The people who keep citing the "93%" aren't really grasping the situation, or maybe just refusing to have a meaningful engagement. It's always more satisfying to be smug and dismissive once you have a "gotcha" line firmly in place.I'd actually argue there were greater politically opposed campaign differences between Hillary and Bernie, than say Labour (left wing) and Conservative (right wing) campaigns during the last UK election.
No they weren't Hillary and Bernie basically agree on the same things, but differ on how they want to get things done. You didn't not state on what the exact differences there is between Hillary and other persons besides broad categories. Healthcare for example; Hillary wants to expanded upon Obamacare so eventually everyone can have it that really. Foreign policy for European countries is an entirely regional thing, while western Europe may not care about Russia, eastern Europe will be more hawkish. France is interventions in some countries in Africa and is at times wanting more things done in Syria. Pretty much most of the EU countries are involved in Iraq with their own forces.
I could go on like that Hillary wants to cut taxes and increase taxes on the wealthy, wants to make college more affordable, increase the minimum wage, etc . Most of this stances are shared by Democrats. I fail to see what exactly based on some of the categories you listed makes Democrats and Hillary more right wing unless you going to focus on select aspects, then that just becoming purity . Also Jill isn't a Democrat she is part of the Green Party and while Bernie is officially a democrat; he wasn't for most of his life until recently.
I don't get this notion that Hillary is center or even right-wing. It seems like it has something to do with people being specific with their priorities and if some don't line up to them then they are on the opposite end, despite other areas were they agree. Many self-describe liberals focus their attention on economics and if don't line up with their points 100% and/or don't follow the same strategy then you are right-wing to them, despite agreeing on various other issues that aren't really economic. It also could be that some don't really look into the policies that candidates run on. Regardless, Hillary really isn't that much of a centrist that people are making her out to be; she largely agrees with Sanders on many issues, but prioritizes different issues, or has a different strategy to accomplish that issue. In Europe's case, it seems more if the country has it or doesn't; that decides if ever the country/people/a person is more liberal or not. That is actually kind stupid and narrow-minded . Simplifying it, the political climate prevents the certain actions to be taken. That doesn't mean certain groups or people don't want certain programs. The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton do support efforts to increase welfare or benefits to help the poorer group of people.
I did state differences, but when you're willing to conflate two entirely different healthcare proposals together as somehow similar or the same, like Obamacare (even extended) with actual Universal Healthcare, it's obvious you're not really going to grasp the differences irrespective of how they're laid out. And I love how you skirted the foreign policy differences with some random EU babble.
I don't even….
Just to be clear, Hillary is campaigning for Universal Healthcare. She wants that. Its written on her website (she also wants a public option! shocking!). Sanders is advocating Single Payer Healthcare (i.e. the state pays for everyone).I did state differences, but when you're willing to conflate two entirely different healthcare proposals together as somehow similar or the same, like Obamacare (even extended) with actual Universal Healthcare, it's obvious you're not really going to grasp the differences irrespective of how they're laid out. And I love how you skirted the foreign policy differences with some random EU babble.
I don't even .
Just to be clear, Hillary is campaigning for Universal Healthcare. She wants that. Its written on her website (she also wants a public option! shocking!). Sanders is advocating Single Payer Healthcare (i.e. the state pays for everyone).
aka despite the rhetoric and pandering, they really aren't that far apart on this issue.
Considering you're advocating for anarchy, I can confidently say people like you should be suppressed - yes. You are openly admitting that you want things to get very bad for many people for no reason whatsoever, and even if you had a reason, you'd still be arguing for the detriment of civilization.
There is no defending that. Even people voting for Trump or Cruz believe that there is a benefit to their presidency, one that helps them. But you? You just don't give a shit about anything and advocate for destruction. You should not vote.
People like you are dangerous. You think you know better than others and are more privileged to vote. My right to vote for anyone should be fiercely defended by all. Its irrevevalant how I come to my decision or why I am doing it.
People like you are dangerous. You think you know better than others and are more privileged to vote. My right to vote for anyone should be fiercely defended by all. Its irrevevalant how I come to my decision or why I am doing it.
This legitimately reads like a parody.I can vote for whoever I want. I vote on my gut.
My gut tells me Hillary would be the worst choice for me personally. Get off your smugness. It is not against the law to switch over and vote for the other side. Ideology and policies do not matter to me. Switching from Bernie to Trump is what I want just for the hell of it and fun.
Who are you to say otherwise? Don't like Democarcy? Tough shit. I have as much right to vote as you.
Then why are you even voting at all?Ideology and policies do not matter to me.
reminder that corporations have been allowed to sue nations since 1966
Feel free to address the point rather than going for a painfully obvious and incorrect deflection.
I pointed out the Clintons were there doing *real work* 10 years ago, that it is a significant and central part of her presidency platform, and you deflected to bullshit.
You know what Sanders' presidential policy differs from Clinton on? An ever-so-slightly stronger stance on fracking. By, as usual, ignoring the nuance of our energy situation and assuming that we can transition to renewable sources without even using Nuclear power -- a complete fantasy.
What the Clinton Foundation has actually done, rather than engage in cheap talk?
- Planted millions of trees
- Helped transition developing economies from Diesel to Solar
- Retrofitted thousands of homes to renewable energy in Arkansas in a pilot program
- Developed carbon credit programs in Indonesia
- Funded millions in additional research in climate-positive policies
It's all in their public, easily accessed anual reports.
The evidence you have? Shitty controversies on the impact of the TPP -- something that is only supported by Greenpeace (who, by the way, is anti-GMO: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/) and a few other environmental activist groups, based on their own understanding that the TPP *may* help corporations sue countries for environment-positive policies.
I'll stick to the evidence and the people that have put their money and time into studying and impacting climate change.
I apologize if you're not for accelerationism. Been in too many Bernie threads were incrementalism was attacked by someone that was
This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just made?
Of course there were, most people who follow UK and US politics would tell you that. The people who keep citing the "93%" aren't really grasping the situation, or maybe just refusing to have a meaningful engagement. It's always more satisfying to be smug and dismissive once you have a "gotcha" line firmly in place.
It also needs to be state that the US as a single entity has a population equivalent to basically all of Europe.
I dunno, from here in America, just reading a bit of British press and having some UK friends, it seems like Labour started losing elections and had to make huge concessions on austerity and social justice issues, out of the perception that the British voting public was shifting. So now you have Labor and Conservative agreeing on austerity somehow being the path to prosperity (*makes gagging motion*), a Labour party having anti-antisemitism scandals, etc vs a Conservative party that isn't vowing to overthrow the universal health care system that's already in place, It'll be a cold day in hell when American Republicans support UHC. Hell, can you imagine how huge it would be if Hillary adopted support for UHC like Bernie did? She calls it "unrealistic."Um, there were still significant differences between labour and the conservatives at the last election in the UK - far more than between Bernie and Hillary. I don't see how anyone who was involved in the election could say otherwise. Just because labour (foolishly) agreed with the need to cut the deficit doesn't remove the differences both parties had on practically every other issue and even how to cut the deficit.
As someone who had to go through each manifesto in detail, whilst labour absolutely failed to get their message out and failed to differentiate themselves on the deficit / austerity issue, there's no realistic way to claim the two parties were closer than Hillary and Bernie. Two candidates who agree on practically everything and are arguing the fine details of how to get it done and the level you do it at.
I do think this is another case of smug Europeanism again- we haven't done ourselves many favours in this election.
Yes, please. Get the off the race already. United front against Trump the sooner the better.
Jill Stein isn't a member a of the Democratic party.
As noted in the follow on post, I probably would have settled for at least some indication of a rudimentary understanding of any of the systems he called for overthrow. Given the complete lack of that displayed in past posting.This strikes me as a bit bad faith. No one is allowed to believe that a revolution would be a good thing unless they write you a new constitution, right here right now? Is there any post -- of any length, or detail -- that would satisfy the request you just
Hell, can you imagine how huge it would be if Hillary adopted support for UHC like Bernie did? She calls it "unrealistic."
Yeah, but that means uniting behind four years of Hilldawg. If I vote for her, I don't want it to be because she's not republican, I want it to be because I think she's the best person for the job and the United States.
No she didn't. She called Bernie's plan of implementing single payer unrealistic. She supports UHC.
I mean, a single payer healthcare system isn't the only way to UHC. Ask Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Switzerland, Israel, South Korea, etc.
Then why are you even voting at all?
Not being a Republican by default makes her this.
What Sanders and Trump say are irrelevant to me. I've worked in the DoD, and can say that plenty of people do dumb shit for convenience. And it's not a line of attack any other candidate can really use since "poor judgement" can get levied much more easily at her opponents.
And anyone running with Trump quotes as a serious argument should consider their position. Far too many people on the left posting shit from Breitbart and Glenn Beck this season.
Edit: That last part is a general comment, not aimed at you! It just went under my last quoted reply.
None of them, including Hillary used email --private or otherwise-- to conduct business as SoS. I believe there was one (1) official correspondence with another diplomat in Hillary's email
What they all used personal email for (to the extent that Rice used email at all) was their internal office communications. In fact, the entire senior GWB administration did to the tune of millions of (Deleted) emails
So yes, they did the same thing. If you ask Powell now he says well he didn't use it to discuss classified matters because he used the classified terminal for that -- the exact same answer you get from Hillary. and just like Hillary they found some should-have-been-but-werent classified emails were sent to him and Rice's staffers