Murrica: fuck yeah

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8501 by jester » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:23 pm

Dog wrote:I thought Obama didn't have the votes to pass a public option and reverted to the current scheme as what could get passed. All knew it was imperfect, but was what could get done and the hope was that once insurance was available to many more people that there was no going back and the system would eventually get fixed. The GOP's fumbling over repeal or repeal/replace has made a public option, even a single payer option more viable than ever now.

Seems to me to be textbook "gradualism".

:dunno:

Not saying gradualism is always the answer, but pointing to healthcare in the US since the ACA as an example of failed gradualism seems wrong.


The public option passed in the House and died in the Senate. In fact, Pelosi had to rally some of the troops to pass the ACA w/out the public option because they were wavering out of anger at its removal (in related news, Pelosi ain't perfect but she was a very good Speaker). Moreover, the Dems voted for the ACA fully aware that an electoral bloodbath would await them on the other side of the vote, which is why compromising was a very tough pill for many Dems in the House of Reps. This is just one of many problems of presenting "dems" as a monolithic bloc ideologically on healthcare. Additionally, there are a lot of reasons the ACA was written as it was, but one of the most significant has been readily apparent from the outset. The lack of GOP embrace of the ACA has created legislative and legal headaches ever since passage ... which is why Obama and the Dems worked *very hard* to craft a bipartisan bill. By and large, the ACA has worked pretty well where states have implemented it as intended, and struggled where states have not implemented it as intended. We can all guess which party controls the latter states.

Needless to say, targeting the Dems for the ills of the US healthcare is a singularly myopic line of critique. The GOP simply does not give a shit about expanding healthcare coverage, and it has never lifted a finger to help and the Dems have never been in a position to unilaterally establish a single payer system.

One of the reasons the public option / single payer option is more viable is because the electorate has shifted considerably since 2008, and the bad faith of the GOP ever since has led to many Dems determining that it is simply not worth it to reach out on healthcare policy. In fact, this ties into wider polarization and partisanship. Essentially, if you're a centrist Dem that desires universal coverage you have no allies to find in the GOP ... so, if you want votes to expand coverage, you need to look to the left. What do we see on the left? Polling consistently showed that a significant chunk of the weak polling for Obamacare was ALWAYS progressives that did not accept it because it did not go far enough. This did not get reported on nearly enough in recent years due to focus on GOP obstruction, but the dynamic we look ahead to on health policy is one where the GOP has effectively maneuvered itself into a position where (short of blowing the system up) it cannot play a constructive role in shaping healthcare policy due to intransigence.

So, this is a moment where (as evidenced by Bernie) Progressives can have real influence on issues (just like hard-right conservatives!) if they learn to play well with others and not demand purity tests for everyone.

Worth adding: The constant mantra about "single payer" is probably one of the more corrosive aspects of the debate on the left right now. The goal should be universal coverage in an efficient and affordable fashion, full stop. Single payer is one of a number of options for achieving that.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8502 by Dr_Chimera » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:49 pm

LOL @ mooseoak repping that dogshit.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8503 by Dr_Chimera » Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:49 pm

Cons/libs - same thing.

User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8504 by Dr_Chimera » Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:00 pm

User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 35503
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 103 times
Received rep: 217 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8505 by PredsFan77 » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:39 pm

yea but they love bubba more
CDX.NA.IG.9









[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8506 by jester » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:20 pm

PredsFan77 wrote:yea but they love bubba more


There's good evidence that older black voters take a more pragmatic view due to hard experience. Millennial vote is a different beast and points to the strength of the generational divide these days.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8507 by jester » Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:21 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:LOL @ mooseoak repping that dogshit.


Better than cat vomit, I'll take it.
User avatar
mooseOAK
Registered Broad
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:58 am
Has given rep: 11 times
Received rep: 108 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8508 by mooseOAK » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:10 am

It's all you got.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8509 by Dr_Chimera » Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:12 pm

User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8510 by Dr_Chimera » Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:01 pm



Image
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8511 by Dog » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:31 pm

Just you wait until Trump and Schumer hash out a deal for single payer universal coverage!
User avatar
PredsFan77
Posts: 35503
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:53 am
Location: 7 TIME LOUNGE JEOPARDY CHAMP!!!
Has given rep: 103 times
Received rep: 217 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8512 by PredsFan77 » Sat Sep 16, 2017 2:49 pm

Some German bint at the sushi place today asked me if Bernie would've won against Trump. It took all my strength to not spit out all of my green tea.
CDX.NA.IG.9



















[LEFT]Image[/LEFT]
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8513 by Dr_Chimera » Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:09 pm

Image

:donger:

twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909105862848983040
User avatar
chiclet
Registered Broad
Posts: 16609
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:09 pm
Location: 3FE
Has given rep: 297 times
Received rep: 146 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8514 by chiclet » Sun Sep 17, 2017 7:40 am

PredsFan77 wrote:Some German bint at the sushi place today asked me if Bernie would've won against Trump. It took all my strength to not spit out all of my green tea.


Please bear in mind how much we paid for your cloth and suiting before you spit on them again, predo. I honestly don't have the strength to do more fund raising.
User avatar
Pennywise
Registered Broad
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: Orbit
Has given rep: 135 times
Received rep: 14 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8515 by Pennywise » Sun Sep 17, 2017 8:20 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Image

:donger:

twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909105862848983040


"I am royalty at least. Donald" said the old witch from wherever.
senate
Registered Broad
Posts: 6565
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:36 am
Has given rep: 248 times
Received rep: 183 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8516 by senate » Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:01 am

Dr_Chimera wrote:Image

:donger:

twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909105862848983040


Image
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8517 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:40 pm

More hilarious shit from Hillary's book. Here is her team trying to go "outside the box."

Image
Image

*loudspeaker voice* Maybe that's a bad, rather than good, thing Hillary!
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8518 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 12:59 pm

You may be a little hillarybsessed, Doc.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8519 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:02 pm

Dog wrote:You may be a little hillarybsessed, Doc.


Yep, but not surprising. Clinton lives rent free in the heads of FNC and the angry left.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8520 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:11 pm

I do think they have a valid point. She was a horrible candidate. Both in terms of being (or being perceived as) far too "establishment" at a time of polarization and in terms of lacking charisma. I think both things are true and both need to be addressed. She's sorta like the Dem's Romney (in terms of being an uncharismatic establishment type losing to a "change" rhetoric candidate. Romney was succeeded by Trump. I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.
User avatar
The Bytown Boozer
Registered Broad
Posts: 1602
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 4:29 am
Has given rep: 196 times
Received rep: 107 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8521 by The Bytown Boozer » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:22 pm

WOW SOME GUY FROM GEORGE MCGOVERN'S CAMPAIGN WHAT A FUCKING COUP FOR HILLARY!
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8522 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:46 pm

Dog wrote:I do think they have a valid point. She was a horrible candidate. Both in terms of being (or being perceived as) far too "establishment" at a time of polarization and in terms of lacking charisma. I think both things are true and both need to be addressed. She's sorta like the Dem's Romney (in terms of being an uncharismatic establishment type losing to a "change" rhetoric candidate. Romney was succeeded by Trump. I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.


Clinton is not a particularly effective politician, but I think care is necessary with the "horrible candidate" stuff. Donald Trump was a horrible candidate, but he won. He knew fuck all about the actual subject matter of the job he was running for, and carried a bag of horrific ideas and ideology along with him for the journey. Clinton is not the candidate I would have preferred to have running, but she also gets treated with a complete lack of fairness at the same time. For example, if health care policy is something you care a great deal about, then making Hilary Clinton out to be a political villain demonstrates a rather remarkable degree of ignorance.

As far as a "strong and competent moderate" type of message may very well look appealing in the wake of Trump. One of the reasons Clinton struggled to find breathing space this past cycle is due to the fact that she was trying to replace Obama, who governed as a pragmatist for the most part. That being said, I think Clinton was the last gasp of Baby Boomer's playing a decisive ideological role in Dem thinking. At least I hope she was.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8523 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:47 pm

Dog wrote:I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.


We know the answer to this.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8524 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 1:54 pm

jester wrote:
Dog wrote:I do think they have a valid point. She was a horrible candidate. Both in terms of being (or being perceived as) far too "establishment" at a time of polarization and in terms of lacking charisma. I think both things are true and both need to be addressed. She's sorta like the Dem's Romney (in terms of being an uncharismatic establishment type losing to a "change" rhetoric candidate. Romney was succeeded by Trump. I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.


Clinton is not a particularly effective politician, but I think care is necessary with the "horrible candidate" stuff. Donald Trump was a horrible candidate, but he won. He knew fuck all about the actual subject matter of the job he was running for, and carried a bag of horrific ideas and ideology along with him for the journey. Clinton is not the candidate I would have preferred to have running, but she also gets treated with a complete lack of fairness at the same time. For example, if health care policy is something you care a great deal about, then making Hilary Clinton out to be a political villain demonstrates a rather remarkable degree of ignorance.

As far as a "strong and competent moderate" type of message may very well look appealing in the wake of Trump. One of the reasons Clinton struggled to find breathing space this past cycle is due to the fact that she was trying to replace Obama, who governed as a pragmatist for the most part. That being said, I think Clinton was the last gasp of Baby Boomer's playing a decisive ideological role in Dem thinking. At least I hope she was.


By "horrible", I meant for the current political climate which seems quite polarized. She could have faired alot better in a different climate. Despite governing as a pragmatic, Obama did run and present himself as a "change" type candidate and that seems to be where the mood is at.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8525 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:00 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.


We know the answer to this.


Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8526 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:03 pm

Dog wrote:By "horrible", I meant for the current political climate which seems quite polarized. She could have faired alot better in a different climate. Despite governing as a pragmatic, Obama did run and present himself as a "change" type candidate and that seems to be where the mood is at.


Sure, but even that goes too far. She won the primary, and won it easily. The only reason it was close was because Sanders took advantage of caucuses--which we should do away with because they are horribly undemocratic in nature. She then won the popular vote, but lost the presidency because of an antiquated system that overemphasizes rural white voters. The latter fact points to a problem for *liberal candidates* going forward. Was she as strong a candidate as Obama? No, and she never was going to be. But it's important to remember how different the narrative is if she had picked up just 100,000 extra votes sprinkled strategically throughout a handful of states.

As far as the mood, it's always set to change and there is always a handicap to being the party in power--though, incumbents retain advantages. And if you are looking to 2018/20, "change" is going to mean something different than it did in 2017. Predicting the future too far out is a fool's errand, and strong claims about even the near-future of politics is a difficult and largely useless exercise. In the last decade and a half we've gone from a permanent GOP majority!, to a Dem wave, to Obama, to a GOP wave, to Trump. In the midst of that, the GOP itself laid out a game plan for regaining the WH ... that was entirely opposite of the campaign that Trump ran.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8527 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:07 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:I do wonder how successful you can be with a status quo / "strong and competent moderate" type message in the current (post 2008?) climate.


We know the answer to this.


Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.


Another important factor is that the partisan out group has a tendency to get a lot more willing to compromise on candidates. People lose sight of the "lesser evil" reality of voting when the individual in power is closer to their perspective. So, if you're a Jill Stein voter that cares a great deal about the environment, maybe you don't throw away your vote the next time around because you more clearly recognize the stakes.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8528 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:08 pm

True. Que sera, sera.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8529 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:10 pm

Dog wrote:Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.


Obama did not run on pragmatism. He ran on a campaign of hope - a little superficial, but very effective because his message, appearance and presentation connoted change in various ways. Of course he was full of it, but people still see him as a candidate of change due to what they remember.

You can fool many people of course, but Dems don't even want to do that anymore. They are now unapologetic corporatists and turgid pragmatists and people can see it.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8530 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:12 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.


Obama did not run on pragmatism. He ran on a campaign of hope - a little superficial, but very effective because his message, appearance and presentation connoted change in various ways. Of course he was full of it, but people still see him as a candidate of change due to what they remember.

You can fool many people of course, but Dems don't even want to do that anymore. They are now unapologetic corporatists and turgid pragmatists and people can see it.


Agreed, you need a charismatic candidate.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8531 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:13 pm

jester wrote:So, if you're a Jill Stein voter that cares a great deal about the environment, maybe you don't throw away your vote the next time around because you more clearly recognize the stakes.


I love the way you kiss the ring of power.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8532 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:14 pm

Dog wrote:
Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.


Obama did not run on pragmatism. He ran on a campaign of hope - a little superficial, but very effective because his message, appearance and presentation connoted change in various ways. Of course he was full of it, but people still see him as a candidate of change due to what they remember.

You can fool many people of course, but Dems don't even want to do that anymore. They are now unapologetic corporatists and turgid pragmatists and people can see it.


Agreed, you need a charismatic candidate.


Look at how well that idiot Trudeau is doing because of his hair and charisma!
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8533 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:14 pm

Dog wrote:Agreed, you need a charismatic candidate.


What happened to your variables?

Look at how well that idiot Trudeau is doing because of his hair and charisma!


We don't have massive amounts of people dying on the streets of Canada. Different set of problems.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52226
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 938 times
Received rep: 533 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8534 by Dog » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:15 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Agreed, you need a charismatic candidate.


What happened to your variables?


Still there. Charisma + fitting political climate = winz! Seems to be hard to do, though.
User avatar
mooseOAK
Registered Broad
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:58 am
Has given rep: 11 times
Received rep: 108 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8535 by mooseOAK » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:17 pm

I'm thinking of marketing Hillary Clinton blow up dolls for conservatives to hate fuck. Could be the million dollar idea.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8536 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:19 pm

Dog wrote:Still there. Charisma + fitting political climate = winz!


Bernie needs to abandon his simplistic idealism for this.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8537 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:23 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:So, if you're a Jill Stein voter that cares a great deal about the environment, maybe you don't throw away your vote the next time around because you more clearly recognize the stakes.


I love the way you kiss the ring of power.


It's called reality, Chim. You can rage against it, but it doesn't make it any less real.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8538 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:27 pm

jester wrote:It's called reality, Chim. You can rage against it, but it doesn't make it any less real.


Of course history will remember how the voters failed Hillary and the liberal establishment. You are definitely pointing the finger in the right direction.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8539 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:33 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
Dog wrote:Not really, lots of variables and small sample size. It's really not an "evidence" at all that going with a much further left candidate make you more electable. Charisma counts for alot and that's not tied to an ideology. For all the tearing up of shirts on the back of racism, it's quite likely that Obama would have won a third term vs Trump (based on favorability ratings). Also, you have to count on losing support from the center the further left the candidate. Basically, I don't know. Will depend on the candidate and the message.


Obama did not run on pragmatism. He ran on a campaign of hope - a little superficial, but very effective because his message, appearance and presentation connoted change in various ways. Of course he was full of it, but people still see him as a candidate of change due to what they remember.

You can fool many people of course, but Dems don't even want to do that anymore. They are now unapologetic corporatists and turgid pragmatists and people can see it.


One wonders how much you paid attention, or how well you remember Obama's first campaign. Obama very explicitly ran an aspirational, hopeful campaign ... but what was he aspiring towards? He wanted to dissolve partisan divides, and he was most certainly not full of it. THAT was the constant mantra of change and hope in his rhetoric throughout his first campaign. Probably the most pointed critique of Obama's early years is that he refused to cave in and become a purely partisan actor. He worked very hard to bridge divides and generate bipartisan dialogue, but he was dealing with a GOP that had no interest in working with him. Where do we end up? The right lampooning him as a progressive tyrant, and the progressive left lampooning him as an "unapologetic corporatist and turgid pragmatist."
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8540 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:40 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:It's called reality, Chim. You can rage against it, but it doesn't make it any less real.


Of course history will remember how the voters failed Hillary and the liberal establishment. You are definitely pointing the finger in the right direction.


Voters didn't fail anyone, Chim. They made choices. In future elections, they will make different choices based on new circumstances and experiences. For example, having watched Trump's administration run roughshod over environmental protection policies.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8541 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:44 pm

jester wrote:One wonders how much you paid attention, or how well you remember Obama's first campaign. Obama very explicitly ran an aspirational, hopeful campaign ... but what was he aspiring towards? He wanted to dissolve partisan divides, and he was most certainly not full of it. THAT was the constant mantra of change and hope in his rhetoric throughout his first campaign. Probably the most pointed critique of Obama's early years is that he refused to cave in and become a purely partisan actor. He worked very hard to bridge divides and generate bipartisan dialogue, but he was dealing with a GOP that had no interest in working with him. Where do we end up? The right lampooning him as a progressive tyrant, and the progressive left lampooning him as an "unapologetic corporatist and turgid pragmatist."


You actually believe that people elected Obama for his stance on bipartisanship? You want to tell me that if you walk up to the average Obama voter now (outside of your gated community) and ask them to articulate what they remember about him, this will be the word to come out their mouth?
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8542 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:49 pm

jester wrote:Voters didn't fail anyone, Chim. They made choices. In future elections, they will make different choices based on new circumstances and experiences. For example, having watched Trump's administration run roughshod over environmental protection policies.


So far it looks like the opposite is happening. Sanders is campaigning for single payer and more and more Dems are joining him in the effort.

It is the Dems who will change, not the voters. The voters are getting younger and more firm on issues like healthcare. They know what's going on and bipartisanship isn't it.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8543 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 2:55 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:One wonders how much you paid attention, or how well you remember Obama's first campaign. Obama very explicitly ran an aspirational, hopeful campaign ... but what was he aspiring towards? He wanted to dissolve partisan divides, and he was most certainly not full of it. THAT was the constant mantra of change and hope in his rhetoric throughout his first campaign. Probably the most pointed critique of Obama's early years is that he refused to cave in and become a purely partisan actor. He worked very hard to bridge divides and generate bipartisan dialogue, but he was dealing with a GOP that had no interest in working with him. Where do we end up? The right lampooning him as a progressive tyrant, and the progressive left lampooning him as an "unapologetic corporatist and turgid pragmatist."


You actually believe that people elected Obama for his stance on bipartisanship? You want to tell me that if you walk up to the average Obama voter now (outside of your gated community) and ask them to articulate what they remember about him, this will be the word to come out their mouth?


So, you just said Obama was full of it ... now you want to move the goalposts to what? People did not understand the words coming out of his mouth?

For the record, Obama--like most politicians--had a very good track record of following through on campaign promises. The notion that candidates do not follow through on campaign promises is largely a fallacy.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8544 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:03 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:Voters didn't fail anyone, Chim. They made choices. In future elections, they will make different choices based on new circumstances and experiences. For example, having watched Trump's administration run roughshod over environmental protection policies.


So far it looks like the opposite is happening. Sanders is campaigning for single payer and more and more Dems are joining him in the effort.

It is the Dems who will change, not the voters. The voters are getting younger and more firm on issues like healthcare. They know what's going on and bipartisanship isn't it.


So, yeah, that doesn't actually refute the point that I was making at all ...

And of course the Dems will change ... political parties are not static things. They constantly shift and change. The writing has been on the wall with healthcare for a decade plus with the Democratic party. Sanders has made it a central bit of his rhetoric, but Obama pushed for a public option in the ACA and Clinton had the public option as her campaign policy platform.

You might gripe about gradualism, but this is literally what it looks like. You pass the ACA, which moves the posts, and this is the next step.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8545 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:03 pm

jester wrote:So, you just said Obama was full of it ... now you want to move the goalposts to what? People did not understand the words coming out of his mouth?

For the record, Obama--like most politicians--had a very good track record of following through on campaign promises. The notion that candidates do not follow through on campaign promises is largely a fallacy.


Obama made several dozen campaign promises, including some very direct and impassioned once (like closing Guantanamo). Your suggestion that people adored him because of his bipartisanship is misleading and stupid.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8546 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:06 pm

jester wrote:So, yeah, that doesn't actually refute the point that I was making at all ...

And of course the Dems will change ... political parties are not static things. They constantly shift and change. The writing has been on the wall with healthcare for a decade plus with the Democratic party. Sanders has made it a central bit of his rhetoric, but Obama pushed for a public option in the ACA and Clinton had the public option as her campaign policy platform.

You might gripe about gradualism, but this is literally what it looks like. You pass the ACA, which moves the posts, and this is the next step.




:dunno:
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8547 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:11 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:So, yeah, that doesn't actually refute the point that I was making at all ...

And of course the Dems will change ... political parties are not static things. They constantly shift and change. The writing has been on the wall with healthcare for a decade plus with the Democratic party. Sanders has made it a central bit of his rhetoric, but Obama pushed for a public option in the ACA and Clinton had the public option as her campaign policy platform.

You might gripe about gradualism, but this is literally what it looks like. You pass the ACA, which moves the posts, and this is the next step.




:dunno:


Repeal and Replace.

What Bernie just put forward will never pass, Chim. It's literally a rainbow pooping unicorn. But I suspect he knows that, and he put that out there as an opening bid to allow for the compromise to a public option scheme that will take over the marketplace like the borg.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8548 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:15 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:So, you just said Obama was full of it ... now you want to move the goalposts to what? People did not understand the words coming out of his mouth?

For the record, Obama--like most politicians--had a very good track record of following through on campaign promises. The notion that candidates do not follow through on campaign promises is largely a fallacy.


Obama made several dozen campaign promises, including some very direct and impassioned once (like closing Guantanamo).


Which he attempted to do, but the legislative branch refused to do ... so, yeah ... guess that's on Obama and not Lindsay Graham?

Your suggestion that people adored him because of his bipartisanship is misleading and stupid.


That's not what I said, Chim. People vote for candidates and adore them for all sorts of reasons. Some legitimate, some projections onto the candidate. What I did was rebut your characterization of what Obama the candidate said, which was incorrect. You may know all about Obama voters, but perhaps you need to read a little bit more carefully.
User avatar
Dr_Chimera
Registered Broad
Posts: 21002
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:50 pm
Has given rep: 56 times
Received rep: 168 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8549 by Dr_Chimera » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:21 pm

jester wrote:That's not what I said, Chim. People vote for candidates and adore them for all sorts of reasons. Some legitimate, some projections onto the candidate. What I did was rebut your characterization of what Obama the candidate said, which was incorrect. You may know all about Obama voters, but perhaps you need to read a little bit more carefully.


It is exactly what you said - that people saw Obama's message of hope and change as having to do with bipartisanship. I know you don't actually believe this.

But if you are simply addressing Obama's real intentions and tactics, then his bipartisanship is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about: the effectiveness of his campaign and why people voted for him.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17029
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 73 times

Re: Murrica: fuck yeah

Post #8550 by jester » Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:30 pm

Dr_Chimera wrote:
jester wrote:That's not what I said, Chim. People vote for candidates and adore them for all sorts of reasons. Some legitimate, some projections onto the candidate. What I did was rebut your characterization of what Obama the candidate said, which was incorrect. You may know all about Obama voters, but perhaps you need to read a little bit more carefully.


It is exactly what you said - that people saw Obama's message of hope and change as having to do with bipartisanship. I know you don't actually believe this.

But if you are simply addressing Obama's real intentions and tactics, then his bipartisanship is completely irrelevant to what we're talking about: the effectiveness of his campaign and why people voted for him.


Go read the post again, Chim. At no point do I try to grapple with what Voter X thought Obama was talking about. While you're at it, go read the Iowa caucus speech. Obama clearly and consistently presented himself as a post-partisan figure. It was an argument that began with his DNC "two Americas" speech in 2004.

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests