Bernie Sanders is really the only candidate I actually like. Hillary is acceptable, but I'd rather not perpetuate dynastic presidencies.
Trump actually for real scares me. It scares me more that there are so many people who agree with him.
I generally agree with you, Pete, I just don't know if I would qualify Hillary as a "dynastic presidency." The Bushs, sure they're a Dynastic Presidency no question. If Hillary were to get elected and in 20+ years Chelsea were to run for president, I would call that a Dynastic Presidency.
In Hillary's case, I don't think the fact that she was married to Bill and was a First Lady necessarily makes her dynastic though. I mean if you just look at her resume by itself, forgetting and excluding the fact that she was First Lady, she definitely has the merits and credentials to run on her own. NY Senator, Secretary of State... definitely has the qualifications to run.
JEB Bush on the other hand, besides being a mediocre governor from Florida, what else does he have going for him other than his last name? That's a Dynastic Presidency.
I wonder if the grassroots support for Sanders will translate to midterm elections. That's where the real money is. We might not be able to get a Sanders as president, but if enough people are inclined that way, we might shift the congressional balance.
Say what you will about the Republican Party's stances on the issues, but one thing you have to give them credit for is recognizing the "trickle up" effect in politics. With the current state our national politics is in, you can affect a lot more change at the local level, which builds up towards the national level, than trying to affect wide-spread change on the national level itself. You win control of state legislatures and affect change on local and state levels which lets you affect who represents the state in Congress which affects the national level.
The Republicans saw this strategy years ago and really worked the system well. I don't see Democrats doing that and it troubles me. Democrats have historically been more focused on the national level and trying to affect change in wide-spread measures. More effort needs to be focused on winning back state legislatures and governorships, local town boards, etc because that's where change can be most easily implemented.
The Republicans saw this strategy years ago and really worked the system well. I don't see Democrats doing that and it troubles me. Democrats have historically been more focused on the national level and trying to affect change in wide-spread measures. More effort needs to be focused on winning back state legislatures and governorships, local town boards, etc because that's where change can be most easily implemented.
Those local initiatives require a lot of personal time investment to affect in any meaningful way. I honestly believe that more liberal/progressive people also have a lot more going on in their lives, and aren't as willing to sacrifice those things to throw themselves against an apparently unyielding wall.
I wanted to get involved in Beacon politics. I would have had to take time off work to do so. The only people who were involved were angry retirees, homemakers, and the unemployed.
The Republicans saw this strategy years ago and really worked the system well. I don't see Democrats doing that and it troubles me. Democrats have historically been more focused on the national level and trying to affect change in wide-spread measures. More effort needs to be focused on winning back state legislatures and governorships, local town boards, etc because that's where change can be most easily implemented.
Those local initiatives require a lot of personal time investment to affect in any meaningful way. I honestly believe that more liberal/progressive people also have a lot more going on in their lives, and aren't as willing to sacrifice those things to throw themselves against an apparently unyielding wall.
I wanted to get involved in Beacon politics. I would have had to take time off work to do so. The only people who were involved were angry retirees, homemakers, and the unemployed.
If that's the case, and I don't see why you would be wrong about that, liberals/progressive people are basically ceding the local political battlefield to conservatives then.
In today's take no prisoners, make no compromises, ideological purity politics, what's the point of winning the presidency if you don't also control Congress? Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lawrence Lessig,... whomever, could get elected president, but as long as the Republicans control Congress, there won't be any change or anything really accomplished. It's only when the same party controls both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch that you see real meaningful change and legislative accomplishment.
That's why the Judicial Branch, and the Supreme Court specifically, is playing an increasingly important role in national politics.
I agree, but I have no idea how to fix it. The people who control the low level now set the rules. They actively prevent technology and scheduling from being updated to allow for greater participation.
Town councils should all have live teleconferences, immediate electronic vote results, and should be scheduled on varying weekday evenings. But if I were, say, an old biddy on the council, serving at the behest of the old biddy demographic, I'd make damn sure the meetings were in-person only, voting records aggregated, and schedule during reasonable peoples' workdays.
I agree, but I have no idea how to fix it. The people who control the low level now set the rules. They actively prevent technology and scheduling from being updated to allow for greater participation.
Town councils should all have live teleconferences, immediate electronic vote results, and should be scheduled on varying weekday evenings. But if I were, say, an old biddy on the council, serving at the behest of the old biddy demographic, I'd make damn sure the meetings were in-person only, voting records aggregated, and schedule during reasonable peoples' workdays.
Unfortunately, the only way you can fix it is to take the time/effort to get involved, and then change it form the inside. You have to get on the town councils in order to change the rules to implement all the things you mentioned. It's a Catch 22.
Local Politics is hard, hard to get people to mobilize unless someone really screws up and hard to make people ESPECIALLY Liberals to actually show up. It's a game for people who like pain. Notice that a lot of politicians skip the local step,
I suspect Sanders supporters will vanish into the mist the second he's not the nominee, and will never be heard from again.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
Local Politics is hard, hard to get people to mobilize unless someone really screws up and hard to make people ESPECIALLY Liberals to actually show up. It's a game for people who like pain. Notice that a lot of politicians skip the local step,
Also My dad supports Trump. LOL.
It's the whole distributed costs/concentrated benefits problem on an even smaller scale.
I suspect Sanders supporters will vanish into the mist the second he's not the nominee, and will never be heard from again.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
Can I ask what Sanders would be able to do to mend this nation's wounds, most likely he'll be faced with a republican house and a 50/50 shot at a republican Senate. What is he actually going to do except be a roadblock.
I suspect Sanders supporters will vanish into the mist the second he's not the nominee, and will never be heard from again.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
Can I ask what Sanders would be able to do to mend this nation's wounds, most likely he'll be faced with a republican house and a 50/50 shot at a republican Senate. What is he actually going to do except be a roadblock.
I don't really care for this argument, because I already know how it's going to end. I'm much farther to the left than you, and so I am much more desperate for a candidate I agree with. Sanders and Warren are the most moderate politicians I am willing to support -- and even they propagate systems and myths within or about government that I find problematic. Just knowing you from this forum, I can tell that you want a much more moderate change, and are therefor willing to settle for a much more moderate candidate.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
You doing that is as harmful to the Democratic nominee as if you decided to vote for the GOP nominee instead. You might not like the person who beats Sanders--cough Hillary cough--but one would think that anyone supporting Sanders would also be on team Fuck the GOP.
I don't really care for this argument, because I already know how it's going to end. I'm much farther to the left than you, and so I am much more desperate for a candidate I agree with. Sanders and Warren are the most moderate politicians I am willing to support -- and even they propagate systems and myths within or about government that I find problematic. Just knowing you from this forum, I can tell that you want a much more moderate change, and are therefor willing to settle for a much more moderate candidate.
Are you refusing to comment because you don't want the argument, or because you don't know the answer? Not knowing isn't a bad thing, mind you, especially since Sanders hasn't really outlined any plan to enact any of his policies--which most other candidates have not done either.
I suspect Sanders supporters will vanish into the mist the second he's not the nominee, and will never be heard from again.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
You doing that is as harmful to the Democratic nominee as if you decided to vote for the GOP nominee instead. You might not like the person who beats Sanders--cough Hillary cough--but one would think that anyone supporting Sanders would also be on team Fuck the GOP.
If someone truly nuts gets nominated by the GOP I'll vote Clinton. If it's Walker or Bush, they're about the same amount of bad in my book.
Are you refusing to comment because you don't want the argument, or because you don't know the answer? Not knowing isn't a bad thing, mind you, especially since Sanders hasn't really outlined any plan to enact any of his policies--which most other candidates have not done either.
A little bit of both? I'm not delusional enough to think that everything Sanders says will be enacted. Sanders taps into several things that people are outraged about, and few other politicians address. He would probably reform corporate welfare and campaign finance in ways that Clinton would not, because those are getting enough support from the electorate there's a real chance for change there.
I consider Sanders to be a center-right moderate at best.
Indeed. Sanders seems crazy liberal, until you look outside the USA and see real crazy liberals. The USA is crazy conservative; hell, the GOP would probably be considered fascists most everywhere that isn't the USA.
Probably. If Sanders loses, I'll either vote Green or just not vote in the Presidential game. I will not support a presidency that I think will not mend this nation's wounds.
You doing that is as harmful to the Democratic nominee as if you decided to vote for the GOP nominee instead. You might not like the person who beats Sanders--cough Hillary cough--but one would think that anyone supporting Sanders would also be on team Fuck the GOP.
If someone truly nuts gets nominated by the GOP I'll vote Clinton. If it's Walker or Bush, they're about the same amount of bad in my book.
Are you refusing to comment because you don't want the argument, or because you don't know the answer? Not knowing isn't a bad thing, mind you, especially since Sanders hasn't really outlined any plan to enact any of his policies--which most other candidates have not done either.
A little bit of both? I'm not delusional enough to think that everything Sanders says will be enacted. Sanders taps into several things that people are outraged about, and few other politicians address. He would probably reform corporate welfare and campaign finance in ways that Clinton would not, because those are getting enough support from the electorate there's a real chance for change there.
You don't like Hillary because she's not left or progressive enough for you? That's fine. I can agree with you on that.
When you say that Hilary is just as bad as Walker or Bush, however, that I take issue with for the simple reason of the Supreme Court.
A couple posts before this, I wrote that because of the current nature of our political system and landscape, the only way to enact real change in American politics is through the Supreme Court. The possibility exists that the next president could nominate FOUR Supreme Court Justices. Think of the lasting effect this could have on our country. If Hillary gets elected, despite what you think of her personally, and despite the fact that she's far from the progressive Bernie Sanders type candidate most of us want, and she gets to select FOUR Supremes, this would shift the balance of the court enormously from a 5-4 Conservative leaning (with Kennedy occasionally voting with the Liberals) to a 6-3 Liberal majority. Goodbye Citizens United. Goodbye relaxed campaign finance. Goodbye all kinds of other pro-business, anti-democracy decisions.
Even if you don't like Hillary, the justices she could potentially appoint to the Supreme Court would be infinitely better than anyone that Bush or Walker appoints. Saying that Hilary is the same amount of bad in your book is just wrong.
I don't have faith that Clinton would appoint progressive supreme justices. She's proven herself an Eisenhower conservative, seeking to maintain normalcy, save for the health care issue. I doubt that her justices would make leftist rulings on the important issues.
I don't have faith that Clinton would appoint progressive supreme justices. She's proven herself an Eisenhower conservative, seeking to maintain normalcy, save for the health care issue. I doubt that her justices would make leftist rulings on the important issues.
So you would rather have a Supreme Court that makes things worse? Are you hoping that it all burns down and forces everyone to start from square one?
I don't have faith that Clinton would appoint progressive supreme justices. She's proven herself an Eisenhower conservative, seeking to maintain normalcy, save for the health care issue. I doubt that her justices would make leftist rulings on the important issues.
So you would rather have a Supreme Court that makes things worse? Are you hoping that it all burns down and forces everyone to start from square one?
Except for brief periods of social change that dragged the court to the left, it has almost always made things worse and should be abolished. I feel the same way about the Senate. The argument to get someone to care because of the Supreme Court is mostly moot if they don't live in a state the matters(most of them) and it doesn't take into the fact that the Senate likely isn't changing parties anytime soon. A Democratic President that appoints a justice to the Supreme Court that the Republican Senate would accept would move the court to the Right regardless of which of the oldest justices retires first because there are so many of them that could retire soon. The Supreme Court's trajectory has been unabashedly rightward for decades. Obama's picks moved the court to the right. A Clinton Presidency would largely be a continuation of that process. Not exactly something to get fired up about or outraged over. It isn't like there is a concerted plan to change any of the factors on the ground that would move the court in a more positive direction so why would any individual, even if they are passionate about politics, care so much that it would force them to vote a certain way in November? There are so many factors that go into a person's decision to vote. A meta-analysis of the likely trajectory of the Supreme court doesn't even rank in the top 5.
Are you saying libertarians can't like some socialist policies? Huh!? You wanna go!?
Since his picks for who he'd support are Bernie Sanders and Gary Johnson, who literally could not be further opposite, I'm pretty sure he's just picking based on name recognition and the Facebook school of political analysis, rather than policy.
Comments
The Republicans saw this strategy years ago and really worked the system well. I don't see Democrats doing that and it troubles me. Democrats have historically been more focused on the national level and trying to affect change in wide-spread measures. More effort needs to be focused on winning back state legislatures and governorships, local town boards, etc because that's where change can be most easily implemented.
I wanted to get involved in Beacon politics. I would have had to take time off work to do so. The only people who were involved were angry retirees, homemakers, and the unemployed.
In today's take no prisoners, make no compromises, ideological purity politics, what's the point of winning the presidency if you don't also control Congress? Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Lawrence Lessig,... whomever, could get elected president, but as long as the Republicans control Congress, there won't be any change or anything really accomplished. It's only when the same party controls both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch that you see real meaningful change and legislative accomplishment.
That's why the Judicial Branch, and the Supreme Court specifically, is playing an increasingly important role in national politics.
Town councils should all have live teleconferences, immediate electronic vote results, and should be scheduled on varying weekday evenings. But if I were, say, an old biddy on the council, serving at the behest of the old biddy demographic, I'd make damn sure the meetings were in-person only, voting records aggregated, and schedule during reasonable peoples' workdays.
Also My dad supports Trump. LOL.
When you say that Hilary is just as bad as Walker or Bush, however, that I take issue with for the simple reason of the Supreme Court.
A couple posts before this, I wrote that because of the current nature of our political system and landscape, the only way to enact real change in American politics is through the Supreme Court. The possibility exists that the next president could nominate FOUR Supreme Court Justices. Think of the lasting effect this could have on our country. If Hillary gets elected, despite what you think of her personally, and despite the fact that she's far from the progressive Bernie Sanders type candidate most of us want, and she gets to select FOUR Supremes, this would shift the balance of the court enormously from a 5-4 Conservative leaning (with Kennedy occasionally voting with the Liberals) to a 6-3 Liberal majority. Goodbye Citizens United. Goodbye relaxed campaign finance. Goodbye all kinds of other pro-business, anti-democracy decisions.
Even if you don't like Hillary, the justices she could potentially appoint to the Supreme Court would be infinitely better than anyone that Bush or Walker appoints. Saying that Hilary is the same amount of bad in your book is just wrong.
Though this was a good write up.
Except for brief periods of social change that dragged the court to the left, it has almost always made things worse and should be abolished. I feel the same way about the Senate. The argument to get someone to care because of the Supreme Court is mostly moot if they don't live in a state the matters(most of them) and it doesn't take into the fact that the Senate likely isn't changing parties anytime soon. A Democratic President that appoints a justice to the Supreme Court that the Republican Senate would accept would move the court to the Right regardless of which of the oldest justices retires first because there are so many of them that could retire soon. The Supreme Court's trajectory has been unabashedly rightward for decades. Obama's picks moved the court to the right. A Clinton Presidency would largely be a continuation of that process. Not exactly something to get fired up about or outraged over. It isn't like there is a concerted plan to change any of the factors on the ground that would move the court in a more positive direction so why would any individual, even if they are passionate about politics, care so much that it would force them to vote a certain way in November? There are so many factors that go into a person's decision to vote. A meta-analysis of the likely trajectory of the Supreme court doesn't even rank in the top 5.