First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
I don't get this whole left right thing
22866 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

kevz_210 wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

Oh and this is from the guy that would have been vice president if Hillary had won:



The attacker drove a car through students and stabbed them. An officer shot the guy while he was assaulting people.


Ugh Kaine, easily one of the biggest morons in modern US politics. No how idea how he got the VP slot on the ticket over somebody with some common sense and charisma like Sanders...


I heard what happened around that time, though so much has happened since then I only remember the general events. After the primary they wanted to give Bernie a more prominent position in the DNC to get his supporters on their side instead of against them. By doing that they had to move someone out of that role and promote them higher. What was higher was Kaine's old position.

Though the Podesta e-mails implies that Kaine was chosen as the pick before Hillary even won the Primaries.
21696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

Ravenstein wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:

Ugh Kaine, easily one of the biggest morons in modern US politics. No how idea how he got the VP slot on the ticket over somebody with some common sense and charisma like Sanders...


I know how. You won't like the reason because it just adds up to more Hillary being corrupt.

Tim Kaine was previously the head of the DNC. He resigned and his successor was Debbie Wasserman-Schultz who was Hillary's campaign manager in her 2008 bid for the presidency and as we know was deeply tilting the scales against Sanders in the Democrat primary. So the theory goes Kaine resigned as DNC head after being promised a top job in the future Hillary presidency allowing Wasserman-Schultz to take over and rig the primary.

I don't have anything to back this up, but Kaine suddenly resigning as DNC head to allow Wasserman-Schultz in who then rigged the election seems very fishy and given what we know of the internal workings of the DNC and the Hillary campaign from WikiLeaks would have been pretty standard fare for them.


Yeah makes sense now that I think about it...
1155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Somewhere Drinking
Offline
Posted 12/2/16 , edited 12/2/16
Its mostly boxing terminology or toolbox terminology

Toolbox: righty tighty and lefty loosy

Boxing: Right Hook In and Left Hook Out or vice versa
37723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/2/16 , edited 12/2/16
The chief issue seems to me to be that the Democratic Party is being run by wrongheaded people who are trying to operate according to rules that no longer apply. They still think the appropriate position setting strategy is to gin up support from progressives by making appeals to economic populism and social liberalism during the primary race and then to reverse those positions whenever it proves politically expedient to do so once the nomination is given and the general election begins in earnest. They still think they can lie about or conceal blemishes in their candidates' public service records, that it's difficult to determine whether they're doing so, and that the most effective way to deal with someone who challenges them when they do this (or even for doing so) is to attempt to assassinate the accuser's character (or at least their credibility). They don't think their base voters have anything meaningful to contribute to discussions on either strategy or policy, instead choosing to believe their marching orders should simply be blindly followed. When people don't blindly follow their orders and won't back down in the face of character assassination attempts they attempt to blame those people for any setbacks or failures that may later occur. As they did so in the recent election they attempted to reach out for soft support from their political enemies in order to make up the difference, believing that there would be enough to be found there because they were convinced the GOP had lost a significant amount of strength as a party and so was a ripe field of deserters.

Even now, after having failed in virtually every measurable capacity and facing a nation that is only a breath away from the GOP being able to start and finish a constitutional convention entirely on its own terms whenever it bloody well pleases they continue to have faith in their previous approach, insisting that a very obviously necessary changing of the guard and shift in policies and priorities be even further delayed. Figures like Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, and Ellison would, given the right circumstances and a well-constructed plan, be able to restore the Democratic Party's image and return peoples' faith in the party's commitment to economic populism and sensible promotion of social liberalism. But the Democratic Party won't cooperate. They've already put Sanders in a leadership position whose purpose is merely to convince people to vote for Democrats. They've made Schumer, the man who thought Republicans could be used as a substitute for Democratic base voters, their leader in the Senate. They've stuck with Nancy Pelosi in the house, though to her credit she's bucking orthodoxy and opening up positions to younger members of the chamber rather than leaving them appointments (much to the chagrin of those who had already spent many years shining shoes and browning their noses among the party brass). They'll probably go with Howard Dean in the DNC leadership race. They're fools, and any future success they experience will be a product of blind luck rather than anything even remotely resembling actual skill.

It's simple, guys: promote economic populism and social liberalism, do it honestly, do it sensibly, commit yourselves to it wholeheartedly, maintain transparency and don't accept corruption as a necessary evil, and people will flock to you. The polling indicates that people support a great deal of the Democratic Party's agenda as stated in its platform. It's just a damned shame the Democratic Party itself apparently doesn't and is willing to do literally anything to stop anyone else who does.

Edit: It seems Dean dropped out of the DNC leadership race, so that part is now stricken.
14167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

kevz_210 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


Labour is very close to that of Americas left so it's considered left whilst liberals are considered right here.

I don't see how being left inclined in politics is bad it's just a different belief set.
Most people are for the left where I live and hate the right as they want to remove
Universal healthcare and outsource our jobs.

Now I'm not to say they are wrong but I disagree with that and think universal
Healthcare is mandatory and many others agree.

So I don't get why so many people hate on the left it makes so little sense to me.

Maybe it's cultural?


The Democratic party isn't a friend to labor anymore, they are just as bad and useless as Republicans when it comes to economic policy. There is no party that defends labor in this country, why do you think Trump of all people won? Most people here don't trust either political party because other on social issues it is hard to tell them apart anymore.

Oh and they are totally on board with our NeoConservative/Policeman of the world failed foreign policy.

There is no left party in the US. We have a right wing party that favors tax cuts for the rich, and a centrist party that is also warmongering that also does nothing other than giving more money and power to corporations.

Why do you think there is no universal healthcare here? Both the Democrats and the Republicans get paid with legal bribes (lobbying money) from the Health Insurance industry to ensure that it never happens.

The left hates the right, and the right hates the left here, when in reality we should be uniting against the corrupt cesspool known as Washington DC


In terms of definitions of left/right, liberal/conservative those definitions vary by each country and region of the world and should be taken into consideration of which country the speaker is referring to.


Nailed it. Political discourse in the U.S. has moved so far to the right that we now have a far-right party (GOP) and a center/center-right party (Democrats, on most things besides social issues). I can't tell you how much I hate the two-party system here. I have some serious envy for the way that a lot of countries in Europe do it, where people's views are much better represented by their officials. In an ideal world, I think we should have at least four political parties here - Progressive, Democratic, Libertarian, Republican. Hell, some progressive dem's should just split and start a new party already. This election has shown that the Democratic party is beyond repair.
14167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

BlueOni wrote:

The chief issue seems to me to be that the Democratic Party is being run by wrongheaded people who are trying to operate according to rules that no longer apply. [...]


Completely agree with everything you said. At least Dean dropped out of the race for DNC chair today though. Looks like Ellison will get it after all. Baby steps, I guess.

20 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 12/2/16
Is it just me or is this the wrong site to talk about politics?




And also:

Rujikin, I would appreciate if you didn't outright insult liberally minded people. It's not particularly polite.
21696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 12/2/16 , edited 12/2/16

Breakthrough wrote:


kevz_210 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:


Labour is very close to that of Americas left so it's considered left whilst liberals are considered right here.

I don't see how being left inclined in politics is bad it's just a different belief set.
Most people are for the left where I live and hate the right as they want to remove
Universal healthcare and outsource our jobs.

Now I'm not to say they are wrong but I disagree with that and think universal
Healthcare is mandatory and many others agree.

So I don't get why so many people hate on the left it makes so little sense to me.

Maybe it's cultural?


The Democratic party isn't a friend to labor anymore, they are just as bad and useless as Republicans when it comes to economic policy. There is no party that defends labor in this country, why do you think Trump of all people won? Most people here don't trust either political party because other on social issues it is hard to tell them apart anymore.

Oh and they are totally on board with our NeoConservative/Policeman of the world failed foreign policy.

There is no left party in the US. We have a right wing party that favors tax cuts for the rich, and a centrist party that is also warmongering that also does nothing other than giving more money and power to corporations.

Why do you think there is no universal healthcare here? Both the Democrats and the Republicans get paid with legal bribes (lobbying money) from the Health Insurance industry to ensure that it never happens.

The left hates the right, and the right hates the left here, when in reality we should be uniting against the corrupt cesspool known as Washington DC


In terms of definitions of left/right, liberal/conservative those definitions vary by each country and region of the world and should be taken into consideration of which country the speaker is referring to.


Nailed it. Political discourse in the U.S. has moved so far to the right that we now have a far-right party (GOP) and a center/center-right party (Democrats, on most things besides social issues). I can't tell you how much I hate the two-party system here. I have some serious envy for the way that a lot of countries in Europe do it, where people's views are much better represented by their officials. In an ideal world, I think we should have at least four political parties here - Progressive, Democratic, Libertarian, Republican. Hell, some progressive dem's should just split and start a new party already. This election has shown that the Democratic party is beyond repair.


Basically impossible in a first past the post voting system with a single member elected per district. The system discourages third parties because they "split the vote."
22474 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

BlueOni wrote:

The chief issue seems to me to be that the Democratic Party is being run by wrongheaded people who are trying to operate according to rules that no longer apply. They still think the appropriate position setting strategy is to gin up support from progressives by making appeals to economic populism and social liberalism during the primary race and then to reverse those positions whenever it proves politically expedient to do so once the nomination is given and the general election begins in earnest. They still think they can lie about or conceal blemishes in their candidates' public service records, that it's difficult to determine whether they're doing so, and that the most effective way to deal with someone who challenges them when they do this (or even for doing so) is to attempt to assassinate the accuser's character (or at least their credibility). They don't think their base voters have anything meaningful to contribute to discussions on either strategy or policy, instead choosing to believe their marching orders should simply be blindly followed. When people don't blindly follow their orders and won't back down in the face of character assassination attempts they attempt to blame those people for any setbacks or failures that may later occur. As they did so in the recent election they attempted to reach out for soft support from their political enemies in order to make up the difference, believing that there would be enough to be found there because they were convinced the GOP had lost a significant amount of strength as a party and so was a ripe field of deserters.

Even now, after having failed in virtually every measurable capacity and facing a nation that is only a breath away from the GOP being able to start and finish a constitutional convention entirely on its own terms whenever it bloody well pleases they continue to have faith in their previous approach, insisting that a very obviously necessary changing of the guard and shift in policies and priorities be even further delayed. Figures like Sanders, Gabbard, Warren, and Ellison would, given the right circumstances and a well-constructed plan, be able to restore the Democratic Party's image and return peoples' faith in the party's commitment to economic populism and sensible promotion of social liberalism. But the Democratic Party won't cooperate. They've already put Sanders in a leadership position whose purpose is merely to convince people to vote for Democrats. They've made Schumer, the man who thought Republicans could be used as a substitute for Democratic base voters, their leader in the Senate. They've stuck with Nancy Pelosi in the house, though to her credit she's bucking orthodoxy and opening up positions to younger members of the chamber rather than leaving them appointments (much to the chagrin of those who had already spent many years shining shoes and browning their noses among the party brass). They'll probably go with Howard Dean in the DNC leadership race. They're fools, and any future success they experience will be a product of blind luck rather than anything even remotely resembling actual skill.

It's simple, guys: promote economic populism and social liberalism, do it honestly, do it sensibly, commit yourselves to it wholeheartedly, maintain transparency and don't accept corruption as a necessary evil, and people will flock to you. The polling indicates that people support a great deal of the Democratic Party's agenda as stated in its platform. It's just a damned shame the Democratic Party itself apparently doesn't and is willing to do literally anything to stop anyone else who does.


It's also the simple fact that the Democrats only pander to their most devoted followers. I won't forget the primary season where they had the arrogance to assume that Trump would lose no matter which candidate was chosen. I wouldn't even say they tried to get soft support from enemies, they didn't try to get support from anyone outside those who would vote for them anyways, they just thought that people would happily vote against Trump either way. They underestimated the hatred for Clinton, and when I bring this up or see others do so they usually point to the 'unfairness' of her being made out to be some sort of folk demon by the right ($500 million dollars+ of character assassination and smear propaganda will make anyone look like Satan's offspring), as if fairness mattered in the least.

In terms of on the longer side the Democrats have been feckless in Congress. They continually compromised for the uncompromising, gridlock obsessed GOP, pushing themselves further and further away from the left; while the right made no intention to do anything more than continue with their extremism. And now, those moderates and reasonable on both the right and the left in congress over the past 10-8 years have slowly left in frustration seeing their attempts to be civil silenced by the frozen government, only leaving congress more open seats to polarize.

They had their chance with Sanders, with every reason on the earth to believe he was by far the best chance for them which they blatantly ignored. They had the audacity to push away the positive and hopeful working class who had gathered at their doors with a candidate who spoke to them with a message of hope; and then had the gall to act dumbfounded when they did not return to support them. I have little sympathy for the Democratic party, and like you said it seems to me like they still have not learned their lesson.
17710 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 12/2/16
I think it's only america that has the left vs right, republican vs democractic thing...

or are there other countries that has it like this?
14167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/16 , edited 12/2/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Basically impossible in a first past the post voting system with a single member elected per district. The system discourages third parties because they "split the vote."


Yep, and it's a damn shame. Also doesn't help that the two parties collaborate to make sure that there is never even a hint of competition. Johnson and Stein should have both been allowed into the debates, but especially Johnson since he was polling at 5-10% support. Their arbitrary poll percent requirement of 15% is ridiculous and undemocratic. IMO anyone who is polling at an average of 3% should be let into the debates (the first one, at the very least), since that is already millions of people who want that candidate to be heard.
22474 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

Breakthrough wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Basically impossible in a first past the post voting system with a single member elected per district. The system discourages third parties because they "split the vote."


Yep, and it's a damn shame. Also doesn't help that the two parties collaborate to make sure that there is never even a hint of competition. Johnson and Stein should have both been allowed into the debates, but especially Johnson since he was polling at 5-10% support. Their arbitrary poll percent requirement of 15% is ridiculous and undemocratic. IMO anyone who is polling at an average of 3% should be let into the debates (the first one, at the very least), since that is already millions of people who want that candidate to be heard.


Nawe, it doesn't matter either way because of the spoiler effect. The only way to begin making 3rd parties anything more than a dangerous courtesy to one side is to implement alternative voting. Do that first, and then we can think seriously about considering 3rd parties, and also it would make for a much better union.
37723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

Breakthrough wrote:

Completely agree with everything you said. At least Dean dropped out of the race for DNC chair today though. Looks like Ellison will get it after all. Baby steps, I guess.


I hadn't heard yet, so thanks for letting me know.


ClothStatue wrote:

It's also the simple fact that the Democrats only pander to their most devoted followers. I won't forget the primary season where they had the arrogance to assume that Trump would lose no matter which candidate was chosen. I wouldn't even say they tried to get soft support from enemies, they didn't try to get support from anyone outside those who would vote for them anyways, they just thought that people would happily vote against Trump either way. They underestimated the hatred for Clinton, and when I bring this up or see others do so they usually point to the 'unfairness' of her being made out to be some sort of folk demon by the right ($500 million dollars+ of character assassination and smear propaganda will make anyone look like Satan's offspring), as if fairness mattered in the least.

In terms of on the longer side the Democrats have been feckless in Congress. They continually compromised for the uncompromising, gridlock obsessed GOP, pushing themselves further and further away from the left; while the right made no intention to do anything more than continue with their extremism. And now, those moderates and reasonable on both the right and the left in congress over the past 10-8 years have slowly left in frustration seeing their attempts to be civil silenced by the frozen government, only leaving congress more open seats to polarize.

They had their chance with Sanders, with every reason on the earth to believe he was by far the best chance for them which they blatantly ignored. They had the audacity to push away the positive and hopeful working class who had gathered at their doors with a candidate who spoke to them with a message of hope; and then had the gall to act dumbfounded when they did not return to support them. I have little sympathy for the Democratic party, and like you said it seems to me like they still have not learned their lesson.


Well stated.
21696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Leanbox, Gameindu...
Offline
Posted 12/2/16

ClothStatue wrote:


Breakthrough wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Basically impossible in a first past the post voting system with a single member elected per district. The system discourages third parties because they "split the vote."


Yep, and it's a damn shame. Also doesn't help that the two parties collaborate to make sure that there is never even a hint of competition. Johnson and Stein should have both been allowed into the debates, but especially Johnson since he was polling at 5-10% support. Their arbitrary poll percent requirement of 15% is ridiculous and undemocratic. IMO anyone who is polling at an average of 3% should be let into the debates (the first one, at the very least), since that is already millions of people who want that candidate to be heard.


Nawe, it doesn't matter either way because of the spoiler effect. The only way to begin making 3rd parties anything more than a dangerous courtesy to one side is to implement alternative voting. Do that first, and then we can think seriously about considering 3rd parties, and also it would make for a much better union.


There would be no spoiler effect if we had instant runoff voting.
Everyone lists 1st, 2nd and maybe even third choice. After the first round of voting just tally up the votes for the top two finalists. If someone voted for somebody other than those 2 as their first choice in round 1 then whichever one of the finalists they ranked higher would get their vote in the 2nd round.
14167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 12/2/16 , edited 12/2/16

ClothStatue wrote:


Breakthrough wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Basically impossible in a first past the post voting system with a single member elected per district. The system discourages third parties because they "split the vote."


Yep, and it's a damn shame. Also doesn't help that the two parties collaborate to make sure that there is never even a hint of competition. Johnson and Stein should have both been allowed into the debates, but especially Johnson since he was polling at 5-10% support. Their arbitrary poll percent requirement of 15% is ridiculous and undemocratic. IMO anyone who is polling at an average of 3% should be let into the debates (the first one, at the very least), since that is already millions of people who want that candidate to be heard.


Nawe, it doesn't matter either way because of the spoiler effect. The only way to begin making 3rd parties anything more than a dangerous courtesy to one side is to implement alternative voting. Do that first, and then we can think seriously about considering 3rd parties, and also it would make for a much better union.


I would like the % requirement to be lowered anyways so more viewpoints can be heard. There are millions of people who want to air their policy positions on the national stage, but they were completely ignored this election. I would love to have alternative voting, but good luck getting congress on board with that

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.