Author Topic: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries  (Read 100317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2016, 11:27:12 pm »
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist". The hardcore socialists don't even like Sanders, and they won't be caught dead  supporting a neo-liberal like Clinton. I say this as someone who is more of a "social democrat"and we aren't fans of neo-liberalism for the most part.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2016, 11:50:49 pm by nickiknack »

Offline Ironchew

  • Official Edgelord
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1888
  • Gender: Male
  • The calm, intellectual Trotsky-like Trotskyist
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2016, 01:58:40 am »
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist".

Consumption is not a politically combative act — refraining from consumption even less so.

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2016, 02:22:43 am »
Look if you're not a Trot you may as well be a laizzes fair libertarian.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2016, 04:08:09 am »
Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a "socialist". The hardcore socialists don't even like Sanders, and they won't be caught dead  supporting a neo-liberal like Clinton. I say this as someone who is more of a "social democrat"and we aren't fans of neo-liberalism for the most part.

Okay, I tried. Now, my initial response was to tell you to "sit in the back of the class with the mercantilists and the luddites." But that would be about as productive as your post, so I'll delve a bit deeper. Now, I get it, in spite of acknowledging that Hillary is a robot sent from the future to enslave humanity so that our robot overlords of the future can have a cheap means of sustenance, I'm still dickriding Hillary. But, and I am invoking the direct question rule, out of the list of conspiracies, biases, and plots against Bernie, how many of them--if any--do you actually believe are occurring or have occurred?

I only invoke this rule because every time we have debated the Democratic nominee and its collateral issues, you elide my points, goalpost shift, or throw your hands up saying "I don't care." I want to get a straight answer from you.

ETA: and the more I think about it, the more I think you're being incredibly hypocritical. You mentioned in several posts being offended that someone implied you couldn't be a feminist because you support Bernie, which is a perfectly reasonable position for you to take. However, now you are implying that I cannot be a socialist, a political identity that I have held for almost half my life, dating back to the times when "liberal" was a dirty word, all because I support Clinton (on mostly pragmatic grounds) and because I support free trade. In simpler words, I feel like this is a "No true Scotsman" argument that you are making to strip me of my political identity for not dickriding a certain politician.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 04:44:24 am by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2016, 11:58:38 am »
I've never said anything supporting the conspiracies so I don't believe them for the most part, though I do think that The DNC doesn't want any challenge to Hillary, because they have no interest in giving a shit about the progressives within the party. The DNC has proven that they don't care about the opinion of the base, because if they did they would be more inclined to support economic populism over the selling out of the working class in favor of Wall Street. Again, you don't see the damage that neo-liberalism has done to the working class, we replaced our manufacturing jobs that payed a decent wage with Service jobs that pay a poverty wage, which has contributed to wage stagnation. If they continue to run candidates like Hillary, nothing is going to change, she doesn't even want to move to non profit Healthcare, she is part of the problem, and you just don't see that.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 12:26:17 pm by nickiknack »

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2016, 06:13:35 pm »
I've never said anything supporting the conspiracies so I don't believe them for the most part, though I do think that The DNC doesn't want any challenge to Hillary, because they have no interest in giving a shit about the progressives within the party. The DNC has proven that they don't care about the opinion of the base, because if they did they would be more inclined to support economic populism over the selling out of the working class in favor of Wall Street. Again, you don't see the damage that neo-liberalism has done to the working class, we replaced our manufacturing jobs that payed a decent wage with Service jobs that pay a poverty wage, which has contributed to wage stagnation. If they continue to run candidates like Hillary, nothing is going to change, she doesn't even want to move to non profit Healthcare, she is part of the problem, and you just don't see that.

Oh, fun. So, to summarize your position "I don't believe there are conspiracies, but the DNC is totally trying to skew the nomination to Hillary and I assert this with no evidence or reliable backing of any kind. I just know it is true." What evidence do you have to support the position that the DNC is trying to push the nomination to Hillary? Second, you've previously asserted that the mainstream media was doing the same, referring to Hillary as the "anointed one." Should I take this to mean that you believe the mainstream media also has a bias against Bernie? If so, what evidence do you have of this?

Second, any democrat would go a long way towards reforming our current system. There is this thing called the Supreme Court. There are nine Justices on it. Four of them are over 75. At the time Citizen's United was decided, one of the Justices was appointed by Obama and two were appointed by Bill Clinton.* Both presidents were corporate democrats. Yet, the three Justices that they appointed came down in favor of upholding the campaign finance regulations in McCain-Feingold. If anyone thinks for a minute that Hillary is going to appoint corporate Justices who will continue Citizens United, then you're making assumptions that have no basis in reality. In fact, in the realm of judicial appointments, since Hillary practiced law and has a Juris Doctorate, I am more inclined to trust her SCOTUS appointments over Bernie, albeit the difference is minor as both will appoint liberal (or as liberal as possible with the obstructionist Congress) Justices.

Third, this whole time you've been complaining about free trade, and I'm trying not to get too into the issue. I believe you've mentioned that your dad lost his job due to NAFTA. Him losing his job does not make me happy. That said, I repeat from a post I previously made, that you ignored, that free trade doesn't kill jobs, it just shifts jobs from sectors that rely on government intervention, to more productive markets that can thrive without government intervention. The link I gave you, by Professor Blinder, indicates that protectionist policies may cost the American economy as much as $1,000,000 per job to maintain, which is not very feasible when the job pays $35,000 a year. Also, as Captain Random indicated in WSJ, if not for NAFTA, then Random probably wouldn't have the job that he has. And then, even if I am wrong and this hurts America jobs, this isn't the kind of thing to shout and be aggressive about. We are both motivated by a desire to help people, and simply debating the issues is a far more productive way to change my mind then telling me I'm not a real socialist because I support free trade.

Finally, I can admit that Hillary was dead wrong about Universal Healthcare. Thing is that you never asked me about this: you just assumed that I would dickride Hillary as though she were Barack Obama. Universal healthcare will save America money relative to our current system.** The thing is, look at what both of them are proposing. Hillary is endorsing altering Obamacare. Bernie is insisting on universal healthcare. I don't think Bernie could get 50% of democrats on board with this plan, let alone a single Republican. Hillary's idea is far more likely as democrats are more inclined to take the smaller step, more willing to work with Hillary, and since Hillary is arguing from a position of power (the last SCOTUS case on Obamacare gives off the impression that SCOTUS is done with the issue and will not get involved, meaning a presidential veto wins out), she is in a better position to give the GOP little things that they want in return for more pragmatic changes to the law that will help people out today (er, well, relatively sooner than otherwise). Or, if the GOP plays intransigent, nothing changes and Obamacare is still law. In contrast, a Republican president all but ensures the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and sets us back a great deal in fixing our broken healthcare system. I would also appreciate it if you  would stop acting like people who are not dickriding Bernie cannot see obvious truths.

*The fourth, John Paul Stevens, was appointed by Ford.
*There is some debate as to how much. Relative to other countries, America spends vastly more on research and development for treatments, and utilizes treatments that may have no positive effect more often. Regardless of how much is saved, getting corporate hospitals and insurance out of healthcare would only help.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 06:23:14 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2016, 10:35:44 pm »
And why won't Democrats want to sign on, Oh I know why Because they're too beholden to Wall Street, and they have no business being part of the damn party because they want to be GOP lite. But god forbid the DNC actually listen to the base and run progressives, oh no we have to run corporate shrills that just keep to the status quo and nothing ever changes, and we wonder why we have a voter apathy problem, especially among the working class. Also you fail to understand we didn't get jobs that pay a decent wage in return, instead we got jobs that pay poverty wages, which is the damn problem, meanwhile some pos CEO is making killing off of the profits from cheap labor, but you keep on calling yourself a socialist, even though you're a ok with that happening.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2016, 10:55:58 pm »
And why won't Democrats want to sign on, Oh I know why Because they're too beholden to Wall Street, and they have no business being part of the damn party because they want to be GOP lite. But god forbid the DNC actually listen to the base and run progressives, oh no we have to run corporate shrills that just keep to the status quo and nothing ever changes, and we wonder why we have a voter apathy problem, especially among the working class. Also you fail to understand we didn't get jobs that pay a decent wage in return, instead we got jobs that pay poverty wages, which is the damn problem, meanwhile some pos CEO is making killing off of the profits from cheap labor, but you keep on calling yourself a socialist, even though you're a ok with that happening.

You do realize that wages have been stagnating since the 70's, and free trade took off in the 90's. You also realize that there were many other things occurring throughout this time: Reagan re-writing the tax code to favor the 1%, union-busting, defunding state college education, gutting the social safety nets, and the CIA inventing crack cocaine played a much bigger role in the stagnating wages than free trade.

Likewise, you completely elided my point about SCoTUS and how a Hillary presidency would very likely be the end of Citizen's United. At the least, more democrats in power means less union-busting, means more powerful unions, means more union donations, to one specific party... You catch my drift.

And you know what, I've played nice long enough, two can play this game. Why don't you go back to your protectionist policies that favor your oligarchical family, because that is what the government exists to do: help you at the expense of everyone else. Meanwhile, people like myself who live paycheck to paycheck and still give what they can must absorb the cost of those jobs through a weaker economy, less jobs, and increased taxes. But go ahead, keep on saying you care about helping the poor, even though your policies exacerbate our poverty. You only care about helping yourself.

The last paragraph was jest. I don't actually believe it, although I do feel it shows just how hostile you're being. If you really think that I hate poor people and that is why I support free trade, as opposed to simply being mistaken on the effects it has while having my heart in the right place, then you have been ignoring just about every post I've made since I've joined this forum, left, and rejoined.

Finally, a certain someone brought your facebook post about me to my attention. Let's not pretend that this whole you denying my socialism thing is about free trade. It's all about Bernie and Hillary. If you were any more transparent, birds would fly into you.

ETA: Going back to your claim that I cannot be a socialist who supports free trade, I think it is noteworthy that Sweden and Finland are often referenced by Bernie when discussing socialism, and yet are part of the European Union, one of the larger free trade zones in the world. Norway, the third Scandinavian Socialist Nation, while not part of the EU, is still part of European Free Trade Association. So, your comment ("Yeah, with your hard core Hillary support and defense of neo-liberalism I don't think you can call yourself a 'socialist'.") does not mesh with reality.

I also think it is worth getting on the same page. I've never said anything specific about neo-liberalism (with the exception of a time that you used it almost interchangeably with free trade, and I really did not think you were arguing free trade). So, for purpose of clarity, I would like if we didn't use different words (like neo-liberal and free trade), if only because that leads to assumptions that may be inaccurate.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 11:34:31 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2016, 11:32:51 pm »
Queen, I do have one honest question for you. One I do so hope you take as intended, slightly a touch more than idle curiosity and not an attack. And one I tend to ask staunch supporters of any candidate.
Hillary or Bernie. The two are different, have different ideals and so on and so forth. So my question is this. With a (currently) hostile congressional body (one either will likely have to face either this cycle or in two years), what good can Sanders do that Clinton can't or won't? The president may indeed set the tone, even direct conversation. But the executive branch is by far the weakest of the three. It's it his force of personality that'll bring about the changes you seek, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did? Seizing advantage where it may be found like Cheney?
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline The_Queen

  • Royalty & Royalty-free
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
  • Gender: Female
  • And here we go...
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2016, 11:44:48 pm »
Queen, I do have one honest question for you. One I do so hope you take as intended, slightly a touch more than idle curiosity and not an attack. And one I tend to ask staunch supporters of any candidate.
Hillary or Bernie. The two are different, have different ideals and so on and so forth. So my question is this. With a (currently) hostile congressional body (one either will likely have to face either this cycle or in two years), what good can Sanders do that Clinton can't or won't? The president may indeed set the tone, even direct conversation. But the executive branch is by far the weakest of the three. It's it his force of personality that'll bring about the changes you seek, as Presidents Clinton and Reagan did? Seizing advantage where it may be found like Cheney?

A good question. But, if there is any chance of working across the aisle, then it is imperative that the president get his or her party on board with his or her agenda. Bernie's history of alienating colleagues already hampers him vis-a-vis Clinton. Further, Obama, with a supermajority of Congress took almost a year to pass Obamacare. While in part due to the obstructionist Republicans, a large reason was that Obama could unify the democrats to pass the bill. Hillary has a better track record of crafting legislation and putting together the coalitions to pass laws than Bernie. I mentioned above that Bernie's plan of universal healthcare, while better, has no chance of happening, unlike making minor alterations to the law. I've said it already, but two of the largest, if not the largest, socialists bills in the last fifty years to have a chance of passing (Hillary Care) and that did pass (SCHIP) have her name on them. That is not a coincidence.

So, in sum, if the GOP maintains its uber obstructionism, nothing changes between the two. If there is working across the aisle, I feel that Hillary is in the better position to get more from negotiations than Bernie. I've stressed this for months now, but my support for Hillary is not due to policy platforms, but pragmatism and getting piecemeal improvements as opposed to holding out for idealism that may not materialize.

ETA: Also, don't step on eggshells. If you have a question to ask, ask it.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2016, 11:51:51 pm by The_Queen »
Does anyone take Donald Trump seriously, anymore?

Offline rookie

  • Miscreant, petty criminal, and all around nice guy
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #25 on: January 06, 2016, 12:06:33 am »
First off, you've been kind of on a warpath lately. Granted, mostly in That Other Thread but I didn't want to take chances. Things don't anyways come out the way they sound in my head, if that makes sense.

But I do want to apologize. For some stupid reason I had it in my head you were for Sanders. I know why you're for Clinton. Sane reasons Mrs Rookie is and more than likely the same reasons I'll eventually end up voting for her. I'm sorry about that.
The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542
I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Offline nickiknack

  • I Find Your Lack of Ponies... Disturbing
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 6037
  • Gender: Female
  • HAS A KINK FOR SPACE NAZIS
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #26 on: January 06, 2016, 02:18:50 am »
You really can't compare the Nordic countries to US, when they have a strong safety net already in place, when we have a pile of poo for a safety net, they have cushioning to break the fall all while we hardly have anything to catch people. Again with the issue of trade, you don't get that we got the crappy end of the bargain, we didn't get the  better paying jobs that were promised, we got jobs that pay poverty wages, that's not a trade, that's called getting ripped off, it may not be the sole factor but it still plays a part whether you like to acknowledge it or not. Also a lot of my problem is that Democratic party have moved more to the center right of the political spectrum, and running someone like Hillary isn't going to move the party any place at all, it's just going to be the same old tune, and a fair number of people are sick of it, and does nothing to move the party in better direction.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2016, 02:27:08 am by nickiknack »

Offline davedan

  • Lord Cracker
  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 3539
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #27 on: January 06, 2016, 04:00:22 am »
Then again if the Dems keep winning the Republicans may move closer to the centre, which will push the Dems further left.

Offline Lt. Fred

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 2994
  • Gender: Male
  • I see what you were trying to do there
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2016, 08:34:35 pm »
Then again if the Dems keep winning the Republicans may move closer to the centre, which will push the Dems further left.

Never happen. The party's either going to die or win, it will never compromise.
Ultimate Paragon admits to fabricating a hit piece on Politico.

http://fqa.digibase.ca/index.php?topic=6936.0

The party's name is the Democratic Party. It has been since 1830. Please spell correctly.

"The party must go wholly one way or wholly the other. It cannot face in both directions at the same time."
-FDR

Offline Vypernight

  • The Beast
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Gender: Male
  • Stubborn, pig-headed skeptic
Re: 2016 Democratic Presidential Primaries
« Reply #29 on: January 10, 2016, 05:18:52 am »
Planned Parenthood endorses Clinton.  Don't they have enough bad publicity?

Though Sanders could use this in the next debate.  He could congratulate Clinton and speak highly of PP.  But then he could point out that PP helps middle and lower classes women and families, in other words people not at the top of corporations and Wall Street.  So if she truly plans to fight those two groups, she has nothing to worry about.  But if she ends up being full of **** and only supports Wall Street and corporations, in the next election, she'll not only lose the support of PP but a lot of women and families as well.

Hopefully this either forces her to do things correctly if she wins, or it blows up in her face. 
Whenever I hear a politician speaking strongly for or against abortion, all I hear is, "I have no idea how to fix the economy!"