Glad to see you’re coming around!
Ha, no. There’s an ocean of difference between “perfect” and “bowl of shit.”
A death spiral is a bit hyperbolic, where do you think it’s all going?
Laws take Congress to write and pass and the President to sign into law. Presidents can’t make laws, they can just propose it then and a Congressperson has to create the bill. Then it’s trashed around in Committees to debate and screw things up. That’s what democracy is. (sorry for the civics lesson that probably wasn’t necessary)
The really only way you can get a very progressive bill through is to convince the other isle it’s a good idea, or just have a majority in Congress. The latter is really the only way since forever.
So, the really big deal is to make sure you elect the most progressive Representatives and Senators you can get for your state. Do you know your States Congressmen? Are they up to the task for what you want? If not, get the right one elected, or you are just wasting resources on the wrong targets. How about your state government? Governor, legislature? Mayors, city council? Sheriffs, Judges? For most of the social or law enforcement issues, this is where the changes need to be made. Even if you aren’t a parent, you have a say in school board elections, elect the best, that is probably the most important choice for improving education, and better education makes the country better. So the little things, the small steps are just as important to keep things progressing forward.
I get the feeling that you didn’t listen to or read any of the speeches made at the DNC. That’s where people make their case for the candidate. And they (especially Obama and Tim Kaine) did a good job of focusing on what would make her a great President rather than what would make Trump a poor one.
VERMIN!!!
I think we can all agree that he’s a national treasure.
They do a lot actually, Bernie completely made Hillary change her positions toward his. She listened to his supporters embracing his ideas and knew she would have to shift to win. Then people did all that flip-flop crap, and stealing his ideas. The ideas are not owned by Bernie. If you wanted his ideas to be listened to and fought for, you got a hell of a lot accomplished. Now lets get to the rest of the election and make it happen.
Changing positions are not a bad thing. If you had a bad plan and it’s not working, you shouldn’t defend it, you should find a better plan and make that work. Politicians must listen to their constituents, not the other way around, which means they need to react to changing social ideas.
Yeah, I don’t get all this TPP thing. It’s like the Republicans hate it and the Democrats are starting to hate it too. I know it’s really just a trade deal, but maybe we should rethink it.
Speaking of trade deals, I love how Trump keeps referencing NAFTA being terrible, and then talking about China trade deals like it has anything to do with them. The North American Free Trade Agreement is just between Us, Mexico and Canada. As far as I have recently read it’s really a Meh agreement, no one has really gained jobs or lost jobs, nor has it really increased imports and exports. It’s just really boring business wise
So, in the comment you just replied to, I mentioned that listening is a two-way street. This response gives me a strong sense that you’re not actually listening to the people who you think should be listening to you.
It’s not entirely clear to me what you’re referring to by “they do a lot actually”, but assuming you mean “compromise with the far left”, then you’re simply wrong.
Mainstream Democrats often pay lip service to compromising with the far left, but when it comes to implementing policies, we see something altogether different:
- Under William Clinton, the war on drugs was escalated, the banking industry was deregulated, free trade was promoted at the expense of human rights abroad and jobs in the US, and the welfare system was essentially abolished. Also, Clinton failed to intervene in Rwanda because – in his own freaking words – US interests were not at stake in that conflict.
- Under Barack Obama, an extremely neoliberal insurance scheme which forced payments from the poorest Americans directly to large insurance companies was implemented (no, ACA is not a victory for liberals, it’s a victory for neoliberals and especially insurance companies), more free trade policies were pushed and implemented, banking deregulation was not reversed and may have proceeded, nothing changed about the structure of the financial system, civil liberties were further curtailed, William Clinton’s heavy-handed foreign policies were maintained, whistleblowers were prosecuted at a greater rate than ever before, and federal drug policy became even more draconian than it was before.
So please excuse my skepticism that Clinton is doing anything more than paying lip service – that’s been the MO of her and her party since I’ve been old enough to understand what’s going on and even before that.
As I tried to show above, the assertion that Clinton is merely saying what the polls say she needs to say to get elected can be corroborated with a really good evidence-based case. To point out that she just says what she says to get elected and not because she actually believes it is not unfair in my opinion. (And again, you should seriously consider my opinion if you want me to seriously consider yours.)
Republicans hate it because it’s an Obama administration trade deal. Liberals hate it because…well, read any of the very many BB posts about why it’s terrible. It’s very corporate friendly. Very neoliberal. Like pretty much every policy that is actually pursued by William or Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama for that matter.
If mainstream Democrats are starting to see that it is incredibly problematic, that is a good thing.
In other words, there’s more than just the Presidential election; you also have to to elect the Congress that will pursue your agenda, and have a Supreme Court that won’t overrule it. Unless you have a national apparatus, expect that to take a while.
That’s probably why Tom Clancy cut the Gordian knot by flying a 747 into a joint session of Congress.
That’s exactly what’s disconcerting.
I’ve won plenty of small political battles in the corporate world, and after I win I always get better results if I’m extremely gracious and make sure that if the other ‘side’ had good points that I incorporate them enthusiastically.
Clinton’s taken some steps that I DEFINITELY would not have taken. My VP would’ve been more blatantly progressive and a known ally of Sanders. I would definitely not have given Wasserman-Shultz in a position of power …especially at this point. I’d have met with key members of my opposition (at high and low levels) to identify key platform components that they’d find meaningful, and I’d be inviting them to be part of that process enthusiastically.
Some key points I’d have factored in would be.
Health Care - There’s no reason NOT to pursue a single payer limited option for a subset of the population (childless adults?)
College - A move away from loans and towards free college would also make us more competitive
Drugs - The democratic side is generally more pro-legalization, jump on the bandwagon
Finance/Banks - Holy shit, stop being a Republican-lite
And so on. I’d have been enthusiastic and gracious and made sure that the Bernie crowd (i.e. actual progressives who are dissatisfied with the status quo) know the’re being listened to because I’d have listened to them.
Clinton ALWAYS had the power to solve this by being extra gracious, instead we just had Bernie doing a few minor platform improvements behind the scenes that honestly should’ve been there years ago.
Both Clinton and Obama started their terms with Democratic majorities in Congress.
It’s not that they pursued liberal policies and were thwarted by a hostile Congress or Supreme Court. They never pursued liberal policies and did pursue Reagonian neoliberal policies. They pushed for them very hard and personally advocated for them.
- I don’t watch live television
- Why would I be watching the DNC? I already know who the candidate is and I only joined the party to participate in the primary to vote for Sanders. I’m an independent and not interested in their sideshow.
- Speeches mean nothing.
A fascist dictatorship police state run for the elites by whomever they prop up with police and military protecting the compounds and protected zones of the rich. Basically, Mexico or similar nations. You can be the elite rich, you can be the technocrats (Hi Mom!) or cops that keep their stuff working, or you can be the feudal serfs who service them (or just starve). That’s it.
Coincidentally given the other BB post today about 100% mortgages driving up housing prices, that’s why I’m opposed to expanded student loans and free tuition. Now, if it was similar to Medicare with the government dictating the cost of tuition as well as paying it, along with penalties to discourage colleges from abusing the system, I’d be happier with that. But that’s not what I got from Sanders’ proposal.
So, you say “nobody has said anything to convince you” of Hillary’s credentials, but you refuse to actually listen to anyone’s pitch for her?
I’m not sure why you’d proudly admit to ignorance, but I’m glad we’re on the same page.
It’s good that nobody ever told JFK or MLK that “speeches mean nothing”.
Yes, that’s one of my problems in this whole mess. I don’t think government subsidized higher education under the current system is a good idea. The last gesture the government made in this direction caused the current student debt crisis, and I can’t imagine a full subsidy would do anything but make that situation worse.
I think there’s also some really good questions about what the actual value of a college education is, but it’s probably a little fruitless to go into that here.
