A. Reading. You’re asking others to abandon what they hold as their principles in the name of pragmatism. No one doubts that you think you’re right. ?I never said Obama did so.? What you don’t get, what many don’t get when they invoke pragmatism as practicality as a way of saying that X is not practical or achievable, is that pragmatism is for after the vote. After. People didn’t vote for Obama for the watered down Obama they got, and they damn sure wouldn’t have if that’s how he’d held himself out. AFTER the vote.
BTW, equating achievable public policy initiatives with “free ponies” makes you an asshole. Just so you know, I’m helping you by telling you that. I’m in Canada too, but from the US, so it’s okay for me to call you an asshole when you are one. It’s a special place reserved for people who have something telling other people they can’t have it. It’s how you might refer to an American who told you you weren’t free.
Oh and don’t bother insulting me in kind, because I’m not telling you you can’t have free ponies, so you can’t. Insulting me back because I pointed out you’re an asshole is a waste of time, mine and yours, don’t bother.
A. 2004 was the bumper crop, 2006 was when you noticed, good of you to let me know you predicted gay marriage. Thanks.
B. Your issue is that the US does things by way of revolution and you don’t get that. Got it. good. You want it to be like Canada because you think that works up here, so it’d be good there too. Got it. Good. Oh one problem, it’s not Canada, it’s the US, and they do things by way of revolution and always have, daily revolutions issue by issue and it’s how they do it and that’s one revolution they aren’t going to have, the one that makes them Canada. Let me say Duh. Canada never had a revolution? You know, I just finished Woodcock’s A Social History of Canada (again) and you are right I didn’t read of one successful revolution against the Crown.
C. Anti-establishment candidates aren’t magicians, tehy can’t take money and power out of money and power. Oh. Thanks. You say they just hand it over to someone else? OH YAH THINK? Ahem. That is the point, maestro.
HaHa those funny gong show Republicans. I laugh too, but then when I do I look at MY AVATAR. Something you should practice if you want to be a Canadian discussing US politics.
I don’t think so. To me the main argument was who would enact more progressive principles in general. I said Hillary because I don’t think Sanders will be able to deliver.
To me “Change we can believe in” basically means “My ideals are X and I think we can do subset Y”. Perhaps you read different but I got almost exactly the Obama I expected from the campaign.
I was being glib, not an asshole. I pointing that the argument was meaningless since universal health care and free tuition are literally giving away free stuff so people will always be in favour.
The opposition shows up when you talk about how to pay for it and that’s where Americans will reject it (btw, they’ll also be in favour of tax cuts!).
I wasn’t planning to.
You said I believed that things never changed. I pointed out that at a time when the US was > 60% opposed and talking about a constitutional amendment to ban it I said it was inevitable within 20 years (I think my actual estimate was 15).
I think that qualifies as evidence that I do believe things can change.
I recognize the US is different than Canada. That’s why I’m in the position that the US shouldn’t be trying to make a sudden jump to Universal Healthcare.
And I do think the US’s propensity for revolution is a bad thing. I think a lot of the negative aspects of the US’s international interventions come from the idea, based on the American Revolution, that you can break down the bad institutions, spark a revolution, and get a functioning democracy.
I think you missed my point. The money isn’t going to the poor or the middle class, it’s staying in the institutions of power. You’re just putting different people in change of those institutions.
Rob Ford is a fascinating exception though he really is an exception, and a mayor at that. I suspect a lot of his success was due to the fact he was ridiculously affable, did a lot of handshaking, and people really don’t care as much about mayors.
I can’t think of another major Canadian politician in the same ballpark.
The US Republican party however has been supplying them regularly and I really think it’s tied to the US tradition of being anti-establishment and promoting the fringes.
A-fucking-men. My sentiments exactly. I won’t vote for Hillary either, for those same reasons. And if Trump/Cruz/Rubio win, then fine, let the GOP continue to show their true colors, and then in another four years lets see what happens.
[quote=“Wanderfound, post:50, topic:74046”]
She’s a poll-driven weathervane.
[/quote]This isn’t a very good argument against her, unless you think the Democratic party is going to become more conservative than the GOP some time during her term.
I think this is why Bernie is an important candidate, even if he doesn’t get the nomination.
Getting out there. Saying this. Hearing it said. Normalizing this conversation. For the long-term plan, that’s important. It’s important that Hilary knows that HALF of her party thinks she’s weak on these issues. It’s important that she knows she can’t safely ignore them. It’s important that the people who will become the DNC establishment in the next 10 years understand that the message is important.
8 years ago, we wouldn’t have heard this.
This year, it’s paving the way for an Elizabeth Warren presidency. In my mind, Bernie’s already done an AMAZING thing. The spark is lit. All we have to do is tend the fire.
Hilary wouldn’t be a disaster as a president (Trump would; Rubio would; Cruz would; Carson would), though she’d be wrong in so many ways. No worse in many ways that Obama has been (and he’s been awful in some ways). She’s good at what she does.
But I’d be looking for house members and senators that were inspired by Bernie Sanders in the next 8 years.
This isn’t an argument against Sanders. He protested, he took a stand. The nature of his punishment by the establishment wasn’t something he could control. So… try again.
You’re hearing from people who say their views are best represented by Sanders and specifically not Clinton, and you’re saying they should vote Clinton anyway because pragmatism. You can say that you don’t think that’s what you’re doing, but if you read your posts, you’ll find you are doing that. Pragmatism mixed with a swill of fear: [quote=“aluchko, post:43, topic:74046”]
I think you need to choose Hillary because you can’t afford to lose this election.
[/quote][quote=“aluchko, post:61, topic:74046”]
pragmatism pragmatists pragmatist
[/quote]
Perhaps read Change We Can Believe In by Barack Obama. In that book, released several months before the election where the slogan you reference was utilized, Obama laid out an uncompromising plan supporting his ideals with specific goals which were not met. You were mentioned in the conclusion, but you were named “cynic” and described as the one who would tell people they could not do the things they might be able to.
Now, I said that he --campaigned-- as such as is described in that book, which specifically counters your point.
But maybe that book wasn’t real and I imagined it. I think it is real and I didn’t imagine it, and that Obama campaigned exactly as I described, on “Yes Wen Can” and “Hope” and (an un-bastardized) “Change we can believe in” and not the “Hey, we’ll settle with what we can get, folks, that’s change we can believe in” that you suggest. Campaigns, particularly the invigorating ones, may include messages of compromised ideals, but not principles. The difference is not a subtle one if you take the time.
But I’ll read a book before investing my vote, so what the fuck do I know. Maybe I’ll try just assuming next time.
“free ponies” is the quote, scroll up to find your own damn post with those very words.
Wow, I’m gonna have to ask you to turn in your Canadian card, if you’re going to insult our educational system by failing to recognize glib as shallow and insincere, traits that can definitely be associated with irritating and contemptible people/behaviours i.e. an asshole.
Alex, I’ll take “Canadian” for $2000 please.
Okay FunkDaddy, here’s your clue: This Canadian describes Universal Health Care as “giving away free stuff”
Alex, what is an Asshole Canadian?
Right you are FunkDaddy, our judges tell me that tax-dodging Canadian would also have been an acceptable answer. Universal Healthcare pays societal dividends even when it helps persons in poverty who do not pay income taxes that support the healthcare system, thus it is never actually “free” even when an individual benefits by it without ever contributing directly via taxation.
Thanks Alex!
No problem FunkDadddy!
Nonsense, I never said that. READING.
I said: “Your assumptions aren’t just negative, sad and cycnical(sic), they’re also weak and seemingly based on the completely failed and dis-proven notion that things never change.”
Sanders is trying to change the system from within, that’s what Obama did. Using Obama as an example of why Sanders can’t advance his agenda is laughable, particularly in the context of Clinton.
Obama’s goals were laudatory and high, and he missed, but did get much done. Sander’s goals are laudatory and high, and have as much chance now as Obama’s did then. BOTH campaign(ed) on their goals without compromise excepting acknowledging that they would work with opposition, which is required and not equivalent to lessening an objective in campaigning.
Sudden jumps is how the US does things. It may not seem to be the case when you need a wheelbarrow to transport your hardcopy of the Federal Register, but revolution is a sudden jump or a series thereof, and revolution is the American Way.
Yes, it has drawbacks, so does Canada’s way of doing things, I’ve always thought we should end the tradition of dressing up the PM in the Queen’s old clothes, but HABITS DIE HARD no matter where you are.
You can in fact break down bad institutions, spark a revolution, and get a functioning democracy. That’s how they got where they are and there’s a lot of good there. You don’t think they should make a sudden jump into Universal Healthcare, well, they will, but it’ll be a series of jumps. Many of which have already occurred. FEHB, IHS, VHA, Medicare/Medicaid, TRICARE/Military Health System, CHIP, PACE, SPAP are federal examples and there are at least a half dozen state examples that include actual universal, single payer systems albeit in various states of disrepair/functionality.
It’s actually not so terribly different than the less protracted process that Canada saw, you are aware it didn’t occur over night?
Even one for you specifically antidisestablishmentarianistically, it means you’re not specifically antidisestablishmentarian, but that you seem predisposed towards being so.
Just to be crystal clear, anti-establishmentarianism is not by necessity at all about doing away with establishments. It is about changing them.[quote=“aluchko, post:63, topic:74046”]
Rob Ford is a fascinating exception though he really is an exception, and a mayor at that. I suspect a lot of his success was due to the fact he was ridiculously affable, did a lot of handshaking, and people really don’t care as much about mayors.
I can’t think of another major Canadian politician in the same ballpark.
The US Republican party however has been supplying them regularly and I really think it’s tied to the US tradition of being anti-establishment and promoting the fringes.
[/quote]
No he isn’t. Ford was exceptional because he’s a laughable bumblefuck, but the beliefs he purported to support and gave voice to are common enough that you can go out and find them everyday at any level of govt and you can find laughable bumblefucks of a lesser degree left right and centre. Ford is to Canada as Trump is the US, over-the-top. But a significant number of people will espouse the same exact dogma with complete seriousness and no laughable bumblefuckery whatsoever.
Another example at teh Muni level, Good ol George Mammoliti, whom I had the pleasure of chasing off of private property I had rented, after he (not me) engaged in a bit of screaming match over being told to leave said property. If we can find even 2 such bumblefucks in one city, there will be plenty if you keep looking. And then take that number x10, we’re not so different up here.
I think that says more about the Republicans than Hillary. She is an opportunist who changes her views to attract conservative voters, but the Republican party has been conservative-reactionary to pseudo-primitivist for at least the last 25 years.
Hillary is one of the reasons why I have a strong aversion to calling myself a liberal. She has far more in common with the republican clown car candidates than my hard left voluntary-collectivist views. I don’t think that Bernie is my ideal politician, but he is closer than Hillary is.
Yes, I live in the UK and can’t vote in the US elections, but I have voted for Larry Sanders, Bernie’s brother (who is a former Green Party of England and Wales politician) when he was standing in Oxford East. I trust his views on his brother more than I would from a random person from the US regardless of their politics, and from what Larry has said about Bernie he is the best option on offer.
I would still rather have anarcho-syndicalist collectives everywhere but that isn’t being offered.
And that’s you’re right, for sure. However, I’m done. I won’t vote for the corporatist candidate again. I’m just sick of it all and it’s not going to get better doing the same thing. It’s just not.
If history is any indication, it will take 50 years after black men before women of any color get to hit the same milestone. A woman immediately after a black man for president? You know that would freak out a significant percentage of the U.S. population.
The executive branch is part of law enforcement. How about stop selling military surplus to the police? How about drive reform in federal law enforcement where he can? He’s started taking unilateral action where he can in various areas (Cuba, being on example that comes to mind).
We need to vote these bastards out too.
So we can keep brutalizing brown bodies around the world? No thanks. She’s not progressive. obama is not progressive. They are corporatist pragmatists. They are center right. We need change.
At our expense.
I am unhappy about the things she’s done that aren’t conspiracy theories. I am unhappy about her record. It’s not where I think this country should go.
You have the second part correct.
Look, you vote for who you feel is the best president. More power to you for that. But to imagine Clinton as some sort of progresive who can get shit done just flies in the face of reality. I’m voting for Sanders in the primaries and I’ll either vote for him in the general, or I’ll go for a third party candidate. The democrats have lost me.
I’m not sure it’s possible for anyone one to go further right than the GOP right now (at least parts of it), but there is little doubt that the current Dems are center right at this point.
In my mind, Bernie’s already done an AMAZING thing. The spark is lit. All we have to do is tend the fire.