• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Sanders defends Killer Mike, Attacks Bill Clinton & Doesn't Want To Be Lectured On CR

Status
Not open for further replies.

SamVimes

Member
Jun 21, 2010
5,847
1
0
This isn't what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the VCCLEA wasn't enacted to target and disenfranchise minorities.
It was a reaction to David Koresh's very public stupid idiocy and other high profile violent crimes.
This isn't something Clinton could have foreseen when he signed it into law or even when that Dem Congressman presented it in the 1rst place.
Heck Sanders voted FOR IT so clearly there was something worse putting your name on it.

Sanders said at the time that he voted for it because it contained an important section about violence against women but he criticized it and said it would disproportionately affect minorities. There's video of him speaking in the senate about it.
 

Mael

Member
Oct 23, 2009
23,428
0
0
France
Sanders said at the time that he voted for it because it contained an important section about violence against women but he criticized it and said it would disproportionately affect minorities. There's video of him speaking in the senate about it.

And in the end he still voted for it.
Clinton didn't make the law either, the Congress, which Sanders was part of, did.
If you have to blame a law on some part of the government take it to the legislative branch, not the executive.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
I agree with you that Hillary as the first female nominee is inspirational. I also agree that she is experienced at deflecting GOP attacks, but wouldn't you say that at times she does so in a slippery way that actually costs her support, that increases her negatives? And her skeletons are concerning, in some ways more so than Bernie's. They are ethical issues, whereas Sanders skeletons are more ideological.

I would not say that... or rather, I would not say it was her actions causing that, I would say she is adept at weathering attacks most candidates could never even conceive of (11 hour Benghazi clown shows, for example), and that in politics sometimes the only way out of such attacks is to be a bit slippery. It's the nature of politics. I would say her negatives are a symptom of the Republican attacks being so consistent and withering, and that had Bernie faced such scrutiny for the entirety of the last three years, his negatives would be worse since he would be unable to weather them in the same fashion.

All I know for sure is that, whoever emerges from the Democratic primary, we need to get out and vote to keep Trump/Cruz/Rubio out of the White House. A year ago I'd have said President Clinton was a foregone conclusion. Now I think it's going to be a harder road that expected.

It's still going to be Hillary. The narrative that it's somehow a tight race is as valid as people saying it was a tight race between Romney and Obama. Once Super Tuesday comes, there will be no Bernie has a shot narrative except from his most diehard supporters. He might stubbornly stay in the race, but he won't be able to overcome the delegate lead at that point and the narrative will remain firmly in the "Hillary got this" camp for the remainder.

You do realize that charisma is subjective, right? There is no objective standard.

I've had this argument in the poliGAF thread many months ago, but basically I feel that Bernie has a very natural charisma in the sense that he's like your old gramps who let's off a lot of steam but is very endearing and you get the sense that he actually cares about your well-being. When he advocates for you, you can see his sincerity, and that kind of appeal can be very inspiring.

Obama on the other hand speaks in a very pre-meditated and calculated way, which comes across as wholly manufactured. Now the cool thing about Obama is that he's extremely talented in making his act seem genuine enough to the general public, so it's never off-putting. Unfortunately, his persona sticks out like a sore thumb to me, so his 'charisma' has the opposite effect on me, and all I see is fake, fake, fake. Nevertheless, Obama's alright in my book.

Now Trump, that's a man with some charisma. He just commands attention whenever the camera is facing him. He motivates in a different kind of way; one that's a big self-aggrandizing, but it works for him.

Anyway, I suppose we agree in principle, but not with these particular candidates. Oh well, to each his own.

There is some subjectivity built in, but there are certain trademarks that anyone with genuine charisma is sure to display. For example, if you asked yourself who you thought the experts on the subject would say is demonstrably more charismatic, I'm sure you'd admit most average people and most experts would agree that Obama is infinitely more charismatic than Bernie. That you had some sort of reverse effect on you is something more like the exception that proves the rule.

Obama is so charismatic even his worst Republican rivals often admit his talents in those areas (often as an off-handed insult, like the temporarily successful "Obama is a celebrity" attack) before proceeding to tear him apart in every other.

Obama is the type of charismatic personality who can get out of things like "America's chickens have come home to roost" by turning around and giving one of the most aspirational and multilayered speeches on discrimination/racism in modern American history. Bernie simply has not demonstrated that sort of talent, his speaking abilities are average at absolute best, and he has yet to even face the majority of Republican attacks unlike Hillary. This is not the sort of man I'd want having to defend his record on going to the USSR and "Democratic socialism."

For me, he's the type of man who would actually set back the movement to have a real socialist elected for generations: either by being elected and having his supporters furious and dejected when they see the reality that he can get none of his ridiculously lofty promises done, or before that as the Republicans pick him apart by bullying him with their socialist/USSR narrative (a skeleton, btw, that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as Bernie in a general election) and we have to wait 20 or 30 years before we get a candidate who can adequately explain why those skeletons aren't negatives per say and get elected and actually pass legislation.
 

Oriel

Member
Dec 30, 2013
4,210
0
0
Nah too the bushes with Mike


The "SJW" jibe is infantile.
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
There is some subjectivity built in, but there are certain trademarks that anyone with genuine charisma is sure to display. For example, if you asked yourself who you thought the experts on the subject would say is demonstrably more charismatic, I'm sure you'd admit most average people and most experts would agree that Obama is infinitely more charismatic than Bernie. That you had some sort of reverse effect on you is something more like the exception that proves the rule.

Obama is so charismatic even his worst Republican rivals often admit his talents in those areas (often as an off-handed insult, like the temporarily successful "Obama is a celebrity" attack) before proceeding to tear him apart in every other.

Obama is the type of charismatic personality who can get out of things like "America's chickens have come home to roost" by turning around and giving one of the most aspirational and multilayered speeches on discrimination/racism in modern American history. Bernie simply has not demonstrated that sort of talent, his speaking abilities are average at absolute best, and he has yet to even face the majority of Republican attacks unlike Hillary. This is not the sort of man I'd want having to defend his record on going to the USSR and "Democratic socialism."

For me, he's the type of man who would actually set back the movement to have a real socialist elected for generations: either by being elected and having his supporters furious and dejected when they see the reality that he can get none of his ridiculously lofty promises done, or before that as the Republicans pick him apart by bullying him with their socialist/USSR narrative (a skeleton, btw, that would derail candidates 10x as charismatic as Bernie in a general election) and we have to wait 20 or 30 years before we get a candidate who can adequately explain why those skeletons aren't negatives per say and get elected and actually pass legislation.

No, charisma is completely subjective. In fact, if you planted Obama in countries/tribes with societal norms that were widely divergent from our own, Obama could end up with all of the charisma of a black hole. Cultural bias has a profound effect on our perception of concepts like attraction and charisma, which is why you'll see different trends and patterns depending on what general population you're looking at. Hell, it could even vary from state to state. But just like there isn't an objective standard for beauty, there isn't one for charisma.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not worried about Bernie in the general. I'm also not worried about Hillary in the general. I think they'd both do fine.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
No, charisma is completely subjective.

Charisma is not completely subjective, and you probably didn't realize your post supported that argument:

In fact, if you planted Obama in countries/tribes with societal norms that were widely divergent from our own, Obama could end up with all of the charisma of a black hole. Cultural bias has a profound effect on our perception of concepts like attraction and charisma, which is why you'll see different trends and patterns depending on what general population you're looking at. Hell, it could even vary from state to state. But just like there isn't an objective standard for beauty, there isn't one for charisma.

Anyway, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not worried about Bernie in the general. I'm also not worried about Hillary in the general. I think they'd both do fine.

IF charisma was 100% subjective, then you would have no "societal norm" for which to reference charisma. If you're honest with yourself, you know that within American society, Obama is generally considered to be massively charismatic - it was why the "Obama is a celebrity" attack was so successful, once more - and why Republicans love to aim in on that "accomplishment" to set up better attacks. And Bernie is simply not considered that sort of charismatic within the "societal norms" of America.

Things don't exist in a vacuum, and we even have metrics that we can use to determine the type of charisma someone has - the type of person who can draw 90,000 people to see him accept the nomination, for example. We usually can measure something like someone's charismatic competence by the devotion they can actually draw with a general electorate.

So while you are correct charisma has subjectivity built in, if we did not have any reference points for what a person who we'd typically call charismatic was, it would be a useless term. Instead, it is a quite useful term to use when applied correctly.
 

lednerg

Member
Feb 27, 2006
8,156
0
0
NJ
Bernie's success is one of many signs that Democratic voters are done with so-called centrism. There is a grassroots effort that's been building for more progressivism, one that didn't start with Sanders, nor will it end with him. He just happens to be the candidate with an agenda that better resonates with them at this time. His overwhelming support from the under 45 crowd is a look into the future. It would be a mistake to brush this off as a one time thing, or to cynically link Bernie voters to the astroturfed Tea Party like Bill Clinton is doing.
 

cocopuffs

Banned
Jun 16, 2014
361
0
0
When you say #alllivesmatter, you're also not technically wrong.

Not trying to make a 1:1 comparison, just noting that context does matter.
Context being people going crazy over an innocuous enough statement?
 

EatinOlives

Member
Oct 23, 2011
16,849
0
0
Context being people going crazy over an innocuous enough statement?

Is it really innocuous when it reduces a person and their platform to a single gender-specific part of the anatomy?

I know the argument goes "but he's only saying vote on the record, not on whether she's a female", but said record supports her feminist angle. So we're not left with anything of substance.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
Why are people trying to vilify Michael Render and defend corperatist Bill Clinton?

Do they need to see the quotes in context? Not surprising that Clinton's PAC strategist was the first one to tweet it out. What scum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXYBIEc9OTw

Michael basically echoed the same thing Jane Elliot said and which they both and everyone else should agree on. Having policy that is endemic of social justice is paramount for becoming President of the United States, and not your gender, race or whatever else it may be, which Hillary has brought up multiple times in the past to indicate how she would somehow be different than Obama, or anyone else running for President, even against being establishment.

And so the argument comes over semantics like "well he said uterus!" Give me a break.

And yet, when Gloria Steinem ACTUALLY attacks female Bernie Sanders supporters by saying they are only supporting him to get men, that's brushed aside and Hillary can say and i quote "oh golly, people are offended by everything these days! It seems like you can't say anything without anyone being offended!"
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
And yet, when Gloria Steinem ACTUALLY attacks female Bernie Sanders supporters by saying they are only supporting him to get men, that's brushed aside and Hillary can say and i quote "oh golly, people are offended by everything these days! It seems like you can't say anything without anyone being offended!"

Are we already at the persecution complex phase of the debate?
 

Arkeband

Banned
Mar 11, 2015
11,981
0
0
When you say #alllivesmatter, you're also not technically wrong.

Not trying to make a 1:1 comparison, just noting that context does matter.

To make a 1:1 comparison, he called himself a SJW before the tweet he retweeted used it in a different manner.

It's hard to perpetuate the "he's mocking SJW's" narrative when he'd be mocking himself.
 

lednerg

Member
Feb 27, 2006
8,156
0
0
NJ
That video needs to be in the OP.

Is it really innocuous when it reduces a person and their platform to a single gender-specific part of the anatomy?

I know the argument goes "but he's only saying vote on the record, not on whether she's a female", but said record supports her feminist angle. So we're not left with anything of substance.

He was quoting what anti-discrimination activist and feminist, Jane Elliott, told him personally.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
Are we already at the persecution complex phase of the debate?

Debate me, don't talk down to me, and that goes for all of you other posters who are the exact same ones in every Bernie Sanders or Hillary thread.

If you want to act like you or anyone else is being persecuted by statements Michael Render made that are factual, what i first suggest you do is actually come up with legitimate points, instead of becoming a circle jerk of the same few posters when people actually disagree with you.

Is it really innocuous when it reduces a person and their platform to a single gender-specific part of the anatomy?

I know the argument goes "but he's only saying vote on the record, not on whether she's a female", but said record supports her feminist angle. So we're not left with anything of substance.

Says who? Against Bernie? Supporters of him would say otherwise in regards to her feminist record. If we're actually going on record, he has probably done more to advance the equity and fair treatment of women in the senate than most congress people who have ever been there based on his voting record and stances on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm


But of course those who don't know that Hillary was on the board of directors with WalMart and stayed silent at a time with their highest discrimination against colored and female workers was at an all time high probably would not know that.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-wal-mart-ties-breed-mistrust-amon/?page=all

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509
 

Henchmen21

Banned
Apr 14, 2008
9,668
1
0
Debate me, don't talk down to me, and that goes for all of you other posters who are the exact same ones in every Bernie Sanders or Hillary thread.

If you want to act like you or anyone else is being persecuted by statements Michael Render made that are factual, what i first suggest you do is actually come up with legitimate points, instead of becoming a circle jerk of the same few posters when people actually disagree with you.



Says who? Against Bernie? Supporters of him would say otherwise in regards to her feminist record. If we're actually going on record, he has probably done more to advance the equity and fair treatment of women in the senate than most congress people who have ever been there based on his voting record and stances on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm


But of course those who don't know that Hillary was on the board of directors with WalMart and stayed silent at a time with their highest discrimination against colored and female workers was at an all time high probably would not know that.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-wal-mart-ties-breed-mistrust-amon/?page=all

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509

They also conveniently forget that Hillary went out of her way to victim blame & smear the women who were harassed or assaulted by Bill.
 

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Jul 26, 2014
26,221
2
0
America
They also conveniently forget that Hillary went out of her way to victim blame & smear the women who were harassed or assaulted by Bill.

That as well. My point is not to disparage anybody...

My whole view stems from, if your going to talk on substance, know your shit number one and number two, don't be disingenuous and tie yourself into a pretzel even when you don't believe what your saying just to win an argument.

That video needs to be in the OP.



He was quoting what anti-discrimination activist and feminist, Jane Elliott, told him personally.

Its annoying because it doesn't even need that defense! Michael could have said it for himself instead of having Jane tell him that and it would have been the exact same truthful statement!

And Jane Elliot herself rebukes the insanity as well on her own terms. Its no different from Susan Sarandon saying "a vag doesn't automatically qualify you to be president" a few weeks ago herself, or anyone else.

Lets stick to debating policy instead of trying to become surrogate mouthpieces for political campaigns that are inherently disingenuous with the people.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Oct 27, 2004
103,709
3
0
36
Nowhere, PA
Debate me, don't talk down to me, and that goes for all of you other posters who are the exact same ones in every Bernie Sanders or Hillary thread.

If you want to act like you or anyone else is being persecuted by statements Michael Render made that are factual, what i first suggest you do is actually come up with legitimate points, instead of becoming a circle jerk of the same few posters when people actually disagree with you.

If you want people to take your talking points seriously, you can probably start by not ending your argument with the latest panicked handwaving about how unfair everyone is to Sanders in comparison to Hillary.

We're talking about a world in which Hillary has received a comically disproportionate amount of the attacks from Republicans and Democratic rivals for three years straight now. And you're seriously going to want a rebuttal about how the latest nonsense about the unfair campaigns is just that?
 

EatinOlives

Member
Oct 23, 2011
16,849
0
0
Debate me, don't talk down to me, and that goes for all of you other posters who are the exact same ones in every Bernie Sanders or Hillary thread.

If you want to act like you or anyone else is being persecuted by statements Michael Render made that are factual, what i first suggest you do is actually come up with legitimate points, instead of becoming a circle jerk of the same few posters when people actually disagree with you.



Says who? Against Bernie? Supporters of him would say otherwise in regards to her feminist record. If we're actually going on record, he has probably done more to advance the equity and fair treatment of women in the senate than most congress people who have ever been there based on his voting record and stances on the issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bernie_Sanders.htm


But of course those who don't know that Hillary was on the board of directors with WalMart and stayed silent at a time with their highest discrimination against colored and female workers was at an all time high probably would not know that.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...s-wal-mart-ties-breed-mistrust-amon/?page=all

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509

Against Hillary, not Bernie.
 

biggersmaller

Banned
Sep 14, 2007
4,670
0
1,100
MPLS
If you want people to take your talking points seriously, you can probably start by not ending your argument with the latest panicked handwaving about how unfair everyone is to Sanders in comparison to Hillary.

We're talking about a world in which Hillary has received a comically disproportionate amount of the attacks from Republicans and Democratic rivals for three years straight now. And you're seriously going to want a rebuttal about how the latest nonsense about the unfair campaigns is just that?

Wah. Trump easily brunts the most attacks (not that I care). Also, Sanders defended Clinton when it came to her most vulnerable and oft abused controversies: Benghazi.

Not to mention she isn't exactly laying off Bernie when it comes to scheming and attacking (which she shouldn't, because politics is kill-or-be-killed).
 

brainchild

Banned
May 12, 2015
4,116
0
0
Charisma is not completely subjective, and you probably didn't realize your post supported that argument:



IF charisma was 100% subjective, then you would have no "societal norm" for which to reference charisma. If you're honest with yourself, you know that within American society, Obama is generally considered to be massively charismatic - it was why the "Obama is a celebrity" attack was so successful, once more - and why Republicans love to aim in on that "accomplishment" to set up better attacks. And Bernie is simply not considered that sort of charismatic within the "societal norms" of America.

Things don't exist in a vacuum, and we even have metrics that we can use to determine the type of charisma someone has - the type of person who can draw 90,000 people to see him accept the nomination, for example. We usually can measure something like someone's charismatic competence by the devotion they can actually draw with a general electorate.

So while you are correct charisma has subjectivity built in, if we did not have any reference points for what a person who we'd typically call charismatic was, it would be a useless term. Instead, it is a quite useful term to use when applied correctly.


I think we might be making different arguments, so I'm glad that you were able to articulate yourself to the point where I could see the distinction.

If by 'charismatic' you mean, 'the efficacy in exuding charisma', then sure, there can be an objective metric for that; you just look and see how many people have been affected by that charisma. I suspect this is the connotation that you're operating under. Similarly, you could make the same arguments about 'objective beauty'.

If by 'charismatic' you mean, 'possessing the quality of charisma', then no, it's 100% subjective because this has to do with actuality of the existence of charisma, which varies from observer to observer. This was the connotation I was operating under. Similarly, you could make the same arguments about 'subjective beauty'.


Now what's interesting is that even if we acknowledge that Obama is more charismatic, I'd have to say, that is only one factor in the many factors of persuasion, especially when talking about candidates running for president. As an example, in the exit polls for the New Hampshire primary (in which Bernie amassed more votes than anyone else in the history of NH primaries, including Obama, BTW) the most important factor for those who voted for Bernie was not his policies, or even that he'd make a great leader, but his perceived honesty/trustworthiness.

There are certain issues where the right person to talk about them, and truly inspire people to support their message, is not necessarily the most charismatic person, but the most sincere or trustworthy person. When that issue fundamentally has to deal with tackling distrustful relationships and a corrupt political system, the ideal person to spearhead that movement is someone who most people feel that they can trust.

There are a lot of people who have abstained from voting in the past because they felt like there were no good options since every candidate came across as an insincere candidate (despite some being charismatic) making promises that they have no intention on fulfilling. A lot of those same people have come out and said that they're voting for Bernie Sanders because they think that he really means what he says (even if ultimately he won't be able to achieve his goals).

If Bernie wins the nomination, it won't be because of his charisma, but because he was effective in delivering his message through some other means, like his perceived sincerity and trustworthiness.
 
Oct 8, 2009
16,977
4
0
My point is, Hillary Clinton in 2016 isn't in the top 20 of Democratic candidates when it comes to hawkishness or neoliberalism "ever" to use your own words. I mean, fuck, Kennedy went to the right of Nixon on national defense during the 1960 election.

Regardless of how many democrats- be in 2 or 20, Hillarys track record is anything but democratic, when viewed from a globalized democratic perspective. You're instigating this like, Hillary is off the hook. Unlike presidential candidates and views of blue warhawkish democrats, the fact is, that her record is out there, paved with blood, and that is what matters. Everything else is hypotehtical- particularly when you try to paint her as better than Kennedy, when he governed in a way more hostile era. Unlike the cold war, the war on terror is completely misguided, self serving and paved with lunacy.
I'm not trying to paint all of this on Hillary and Bill, but they certainly have been democratic. Particularly from the views of most democratic countries. Perhaps only the UK- Or England specifically share their strong conservative values. In some cases, Australia and NZ too.

Do I believe that Democrats are more liberal on a number of issues compared to where they have been before? I do, but I still don't think that says much. What is more, the democrats have failed to become more liberal at a pace as the democrats have gone more far- right ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...vious_democrats_haven_t_gone_as_far_left.html )



Actual studies show politicians actually try to follow up on their promises (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mag...1.php?page=all / https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...A9DQ_blog.html) so even if yo believe Hillary is a secret Republican, she's still going to attempt to pass some of the things she's stated.

This is anecdotal, and cannot be applied as a guideline for every politician. Furthermore, flipflopping doesn't disclose what I said. There are many instances- not just in America, but all over the world where lawmakers don't follow through. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, and you cannot expect everyone to fall through with everything. The concept of flipflopping is that you flip on issues under the guise that it is popular and will get you elected, not that you're sincerer.

I never said, she wouldn't try to pass what she says she will. I said, her integrity is compromised due to her flipflopping, and that is something that comes up repeatedly with her.
Hillary couldn't come out for 15 USD minimum wage despite having been called on for many years by unions and labor and activists groups for the things that she has championed the most through her career- women and children. Not until summer of 2014 she came forward on that.
On issues like marijuana, she is even less consistent, taking a no-position, by adhering to keeping it illegal but in a lower class drug, which is awful. She is essentially partaking in the untrue war on drugs bullshit she has claimed to remove herself from, but still partaking on it in a less awful capacity, that might actually stilt it from becoming legal down the road.
Furthermore, it's issues like that has given her the label as an opportunist who tries to honk voters from both sides of the aisle, instead of taking a stand and then staying with it.



As for the usual "the 1990's were horrible and sucked and the Clintons are terrible human beings," I'll simply point out that prior to Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party was in the same exact position the GOP is in now - they'd lost 5 out of the last 6 general elections and they were perceived as extremists, rightly or wrongly by the middle of the nation.

So, a social democrat or a New Dealer was not going to win the 1992 election. So yeah, Bill Clinton did some shitty things. He also helped preside over the strongest economy in decades, and the first economy in decades where African Americans and Hispanics actually had wealth grow - probably part of the reason why older minorities still love him - because for many of them, it was the last time the American Dream seemed possible for them.
The alternative in 1993 was not Bernie Sanders or hell, even Barack Obama if Bill Clinton wasn't the nominee. The alternative was George H.W. Bush winning another term and being forced right by his own Congress and then an even more conservative nominee from the Democrat's in 1996.

I'd also point out that every history by those within the Clinton White House during that time paints Hillary as somebody who was always making the liberal argument for policy.

Nostalgia blinds and misunderstandings are a rift. Short term economic prosper and growth by the free markets in the 90s was due to irresponsible deregulation of wall street that didn't significally undid the shit Reagan pulled with his administration. You talk about how African Americans and Hispanics had wealth grow, but a more apt way to put it; would be how the massive disproportion of wealth continued. Which is also reflected by the mass incarnation exodus, who mostly consisted of poor people of color.
It might have started in the early 80s, but the seeds flourished by clintons administration. Too much growth, and too much corruption paved the way for Bush era.
It instigated a lot of the conditions that allowed the fraud of 08 to occur, and while not directly related Steagall-Glass, the moniker of Clintons "too big to fail" as evident by the disasterous NAFTA law ( http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html )

What is more, you even have people who oversaw TARP under Geitner who originally were defending the Steall-Glass act, who admit that they need to reign in the banks; http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/federal-reserve-bank-president-need-break-big-banks.html
In total- Bill Clinton somehow being the pavement dubber of the best economy in decades is false. Short term economic gain, followed by instability and crashes is not good economy. Too aggressive economic policies lead to bubble bursts, and the economic crisis of 08 can easily be traced back to Clinton.
Do I think the 90s were horrible? Depends on where you live and who you were. Was it the last great time of the middle class? Yeah, I'd agree with that. And thew middle class back in the 90s was a sizeable chunk- a significant portion of which today are in poverty, or in some cases, extreme poverty. And as such I understand the sentiment. Furthermore, it's hard to make Clinton look back when you see the guy who was after him and how unqualified he was. It just makes him look terrific by comparison.

In fact just weeks after was sworn into office in early 2011, the economy began to sink again. There was no doubt that republicans who opposed the tax increase were in the wrong, but it is also wrong to ignore a lot of the factors going into the 90s prosperity and productivity which was not a product of Clinton, but of circumstances.

"...But many other factors, having little or nothing to do with government, also were at work during the Clinton years. Personal computers and the Internet came of age, bringing a revolution in the efficiency of processing information and making workers more productive. Manufacturing companies embraced more efficient production methods. A massive reduction in military spending, begun during the George H.W. Bush administration following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, allowed capital to be deployed to more economically productive ends. No major war disrupted the world’s rapidly growing trade.
Good luck also played a role. Oil prices declined during much of Clinton’s presidency.. "
( http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/clinton-and-economic-growth-in-the-90s/ )

That's not to say that Clinton didn't do good, or that Bush Jr wasn't incompetent along with the democrats who went on the charade of starting wars, which many many people from across the political spectrum- from out the fringes candidates like Ron Paul, to Chomsky warned that the guerilla warfare that would come from trying to tame tribal socities would spark new waves of violence and misery.



Other countries are upfront with the cost - they tax middle class people a lot on their income and also have things like VAT which add additional cost to things. Which I'm fine with - but they don't throw out things like "oh, you'll save money because you won't be paying student loans or a health insurance premium." They say, "we all need to pay higher taxes to prove for society."

From what I've seen, it is clear that people will pay more in taxes, on the middle class spectrum. I've understood it as, it is only with regards to the poor mobility compared to single player in Canada where they get more from less. ( http://www.nber.org/bah/fall07/w13429.html ) Partially due to big pharma. I've understood Bernies comments about that his health plan being cheaper has just as much as shutting down the expendure and make-up achievable on your drugs.

You're right that many other countries pay more. US GDP revenue from taxes is almost half of some countries. But you know what- the extreme tax deductibles of the rich would offset that. ( http://fortune.com/2016/02/17/bernie-sanders-taxes-2/ )
It's clear that middle class will pay more. Has Sanders camp not communicated that enough? Maybe not, but it's no secret.
America can pay for it. It is realistic. American is immensely wealth, and so much of it's wealth doesn't go back into the economy. It's a charade that it would be unrealistic policy. A lot of people are seriously not understanding of marginal taxes. (the 90% tax myth)




Yes, that's fine. But, we're not talking about them. We're talking about the columnist who was the only real liberal voice on TV and in the New York Times throughout Bush's Presidency pouting cold water on the insanity of the Republican economic plans and one of the economists who authored the study that gave the idea of minimum wage hikes any positive momentum within the economics sphere.

That's not even getting into the trashing of a civil rights hero like John Lewis or an organization like Planned Parenthood simply because they chose to endorse somebody insufficiently pure.

As I said, I don't know this economist, but I find it hard to believe that this person was the only liberal voice on TV(Joseph E. Stiglitz ( http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/12/bush200712 ), ralph nader( http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/01/03/country-you-destroyed-letter-george-w-bush ), Warren( http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warren-takes-aim-at-democrats-republicans-1420642851 ), Sanders himself( Bernie schooling Alan Greenspan; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPh-qGcYruw ). Regardless, doing something good doesn't make you incapable of also doing bad shit. Things don't exist in a vacuum, and you can't use good deeds to vouch off conflict of interest. You insistently tried to argue the US Democratic party as being pure and uncompromised. I then explained to you, that Wall Street obviously had their fishhooks deep into the democratic process, the DNC, and both Clintons and Obamas administration.
So the idea that you would water down all the good fucking deeds about established fat cats as some hail-marry get out of jail card is outrageous.




Again, this is simply false. Before recently, the Labour Party picked their leadership through a system where the couple of hundred MP's had 1/3 of the vote. Most leaders in parliamentary systems are decided by the vote of the members of parliament and you're selected for a parliamentary seat by leadership within the party, not a primary.

In fact, the primary systems is one of the most open systems for deciding a nominee for leader in the world.

As for the "Democrats have moved right" silliness, the Democrat's have moved right on economics as compared to 1968. Because staying still on economics got them killed because many people who were left leaning on economics were only left leaning on economics when it came to poor white people.

So, the DNC had to go where the votes were - and those votes where with socially liberal, but economically moderate former Republican's who didn't like the Republican's embrace of populist social conservatives in the south.

Until very recently, there frankly wasn't a coalition of white liberals who were liberal on economics and social policy _and_ minorities that could win a national election. Again, numbers, not dreams.

Even putting that aside, since 2004, the Democratic Party has moved very far to the left economically. Go find the economic plans of Howard Dean, John Kerry, and the like from 2004. Now, compare them to even Hillary's promises. Hillary sounds like Kucinich compared to them.

Re-read what you just quoted: "And really, even if they did- what does being a majority have to do with being credible?
The democratic party in the united states is a proto center party that has been pushed to the right by a far-right republican party. Unlike most other places in the world, the US democratic values within the democratic party, are not very democratic party.
"
You're talking about elective process. That has NOTHING to do with the concept of being credible. You talked about the democratic party was credible in its numbers, and you back it up with how government officials are elected? Credibility in politics is having credible positions- as in, you have consistent track record, you're not compromised by corruption- Which America doesn't do too well in ( https://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results )

Furthermore, explaining DNC undemocratic behavior by "thats where the votes are" bullshit, is the quintessential douchey compromised rhetoric and inconsistent lack of consistency that has made so many people lose faith in the democratic party. You don't change your political views because of popularity. That is the definition of an opportunist, and not a politician who you can actually belief in. Sure as hell fuck not, when you're running on shutting down wall street corruption and ends up doubling down, by putting high ranking people who were responsible into your administration to oversee Geitner. Or talking about protecting Americas freedom by taking campaign funds from Sunni funded terrorist monarchs.
Iraq, Iran (hillary!), Syria, Libya, Yemen all attest to a democratic funded invasive policies along with the drone program, and domestically with regards to patriot act, whistleblower, all is unprecedented policies from the democratic party compared to what we have seen before. Regardless of what the democratic party has moved left or right on, it's still not very liberal with the things that it has done.


And as such you really see Clinton personifying this. As you said, particularly on Economic issues (corporate interests);

Senator Warren; For example, in her 2003 book, Warren slammed Clinton for reversing her previous position as first lady by voting in 2001, as a New York senator, for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes, yachts and investment properties from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill’s provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.

"As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. ... The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.”
Link; http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clin...g-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810
Interview; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg




Even if I agree or disagree with the policies you stated, what does that have to do with democracy? A majority of the populace, including many Democrat's were for the war in Iraq. The vast majority of Democrat's are not isolationists, they're liberal internationalists who don't believe we should let Libya burn and let Gadaffi kill thousands or we should let ISIS and the Syria regime battle it out while tens of thousands are killed or stuck under the reign of people so extreme they make Al Qaeda go "what the fuck are you doing guys?" And frankly, I know you guys hate to hear this, but outside of Reddit and the Internet, nobody gives a damn about the NSA reading your emails.

We're talking about democratic process, and being on the wrong side of history. The Iraq war is the biggest war crime of the 21th century. Unmotivated, unjustified, and not sanctioned by the UN, it has shaped up to be one of the most grotesque Imperialistic and justifiedable acts in the last 50 years, going back to the vietnam war.
The Iraq war faced major opposition and many polls- along with mass protests (all over the world) argued that the war unjustified. Particularly after the UN inspectors quit. Much like they had done in the mid 90s when the sactions against Iraq caused, what they called a genocide, killing more than half a million Iraqi Children. This was under Clinton ( http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9 ).

As to summing this poor rundown of events as the acts of "liberal internationalists" I have to really ponder at this. Like with Saddam, dealing with Gadaffi has NOTHING to do with the interest or well being of the people, and everything to do with US foreign policy interests.
As to letting Libya burn, that makes absolutely no sense, as America is the one who created so many of these problems with their invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It completely destablized the regions, hitting it with a sledgehammer. Watch this noam chomsky video with a rundown of the events ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1XkceXiAms ) (and against why Libya was a unmotivated disaster; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V61NAS0Fi38 )

Listen; It is not up to the United States to police the world, or enact justice. Its direct military response, as propelled by the military industrial complex is an instigator over common sense or humane decency. Labeling this as a "liberal internationalists" is quite frankly, insulting.



To enact change in America, you're going up against a political system built to make change as difficult as possible and that means small incremental changes take blood, sweat, and tears that'll largely be ignored by extremists on both ends.

No. It's caused by gridlock. As evident by many American leaders, even going back to the likes of Lincoln who argued that it was apparent that they stopped the two parties from stilting progress.
If you think Bernie Sanders is an extremest, then you're not educated on democratic policy around the rest of the world (and the UK- as you brought up the labour party before).
What is more, the United States has repeatedly, done the same atrocious acts of war and invasion. There are many parallels you can draw from the cold war eras shadow CIA destabilization of regions around the world, to the unjustified war on terror, who- let's be clear, is very much created by the US. By enabling a facist regime, like Netanyahus government, supporting and selling enmass arms (along with the UK) to SA, it has created a new era of sectarian conflict, and now also a whole new wave of xenophobia across the European continent.
 

AxelFoley

Member
Dec 11, 2014
2,268
0
0
Yeah because Barack Obama had so much time with a democrat controlled senate and house for 2 out of 8 years to change everything he wanted. We only got the most massive change to healthcare and most massive reforms to other areas including the American reinvestment act.

This.
 

lednerg

Member
Feb 27, 2006
8,156
0
0
NJ
Barack Obama, back in September 1995, talking for just under an hour about his new book, "Dreams from My Father"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5JlqDnoqlo
22-CityView presents Barack Obama speaking at the Cambridge Public Library. Recorded on September 20,1995, this originally aired on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show "The Author Series." In this episode Obama discusses his book "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance," which at the time had just been released a few months previously.
Absolutely brilliant footage. The part where he's talking about pussy starts @ 14:43.
 
Nov 9, 2013
6,435
3
0
Yeah because Barack Obama had so much time with a democrat controlled senate and house for 2 out of 8 years to change everything he wanted. We only got the most massive change to healthcare and most massive reforms to other areas including the American reinvestment act.

And it's important to remember Obama got the ACA through the Democrat-controlled Congress by the slimmest of margins. There is no way Sanders' plans are going anywhere in a Republican or Democratic Congress, unless literally every seat is blue.

Clinton was very fortune that he was president during the dot com era.

Guy would have been less than mediocre otherwise.

Holy shit, that Sanders hyperbole is now just reaching insane levels. You may want to do some actual research before saying shit like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.