Support NeoGAF

[Tesseract]

Neoliberals's' time is almost up, give them their Hillary and watch as punished trump destroys her in the first debate

We've entered a dark timeline, we've rejected Bernie

What could have been 1000 years of dankness, is 8 years of darkness

 

[Aaronology]

This is exactly why progressives have no control over the democratic party while social conservatives have been holding republicans hostage for fifteen years. Progressives are always worried about losing this election. 'But what if the republicans win, they'll set things back?!' Because of this mentality, they give the democrats a pass and watch the party slide slowly to the right.

Progressives don't understand concepts like sacrifice plays or delayed gratification. Yes, the stakes are high - it's always "the most important election of our lifetime". Yes, the republicans will fuck things up and cause significant human misery over the course of 4 or 6 years. But over the course of twenty years, the democrats have done damage on a scale the republicans could never imagine. Since the 1980's, the New Democrats have watched and contributed to the destruction of unions, they've undone the most crucial elements of FDR's bank reforms which gave us 70 years of economic stability, and they've perpetrated a system of mass incarceration so draconian that it has set African Americans back, in aggregate, to the conditions of the Jim Crow era.

Republicans could never have crushed unions in one four year term. A single republican president or class of senators would never be allowed to totally deregulate the banks. And if any republican proposed overturning the civil rights act, they'd be run out of town on a rail. But democrats have, in concert with republicans, accomplished all of these things. As a person of color, I would gladly endure the shittyness of a single Romney term if it meant undoing the New Jim Crow eight years later.

But you can't protect the gains that progressives have made, or push for new gains, if you're not willing to punish democrats every once and a while. You have to sacrifice one election so you can get a stronger candidate in the next three. While a republican term might be harmful to the country, the damage caused by undisciplined democrats over the long term is much much greater.

I guess we're just going to continue ignoring the extreme long term consequences of a Conservative dominated Supreme Court? Your entire post pretends the damage of GOP Presidency ends after one or two terms, and not one or two generations, even in a thread where this mindset has been repeatedly called out (and to no response). Say you "punish" those darn Democrats and they learn their lesson after 4/8 years of Trump. A Progressive candidate twice as liberal as Bernie Sanders follows and wins the White House, congrats! But now none of their Progressive agenda can survive a court shaped by the GOP in an election?

What then, Kame?


Edit:

The thing is.. The effects don't last for "just a few elections." They last for decades. The only thing that keeps many LGBT folks from the GOP's woodchipper in many states is a strong liberal federal judiciary.

But this point has been avoided for pages and pages now.

It has, and it seems it'll continue to be.

 

[Odrion]

True. but then again, how much better do you think the justices the current Democrats nominate will be? :\

I guess better than another Scalia. Ugh.

 

[kame-sennin]

I guess we're just going to continue ignoring the extreme long term consequences of a Conservative dominated Supreme Court? Your entire post pretends the damage of GOP Presidency ends after one or two terms, and not one or two generations, even in a thread where this mindset has been repeatedly called out (and to no response). Say you "punish" those darn Democrats and they learn their lesson after 4/8 years of Trump. A Progressive candidate twice as liberal as Bernie Sanders follows and wins the White House, congrats! But now none of their Progressive agenda can survive a court shaped by the GOP in an election?

What then, Kame?

Good point. There's never been a time in our history where a progressive executive outmaneuvered a conservative judiciary...

During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following his election popularity he boldly proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8] Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Supreme Court aren't gods. They're extremely powerful - too powerful in my opinion - but they are still susceptible to political pressure and hard ball politics.

Other examples of conservative appointees acquiescing to a leftist political climate would be Nixon's appointee giving us Roe v. Wade and Eisenhower's appointee, Earl Warren, leading the most socially progressive Supreme Court in American history.

 

[The Adder]

Good point. There's never been a time in our history where a progressive executive outmaneuvered a conservative judiciary...

During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following his election popularity he boldly proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8] Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Supreme Court aren't gods. They're extremely powerful - too powerful in my opinion - but they are still susceptible to political pressure and hard ball politics.

Other examples of conservative appointees acquiescing to a leftist political climate would be Nixon's appointee giving us Roe v. Wade and Eisenhower's appointee, Earl Warren, who led the most socially progressive Supreme Court in American history.

See, what you're pretending not to realize is that Roosevelt was dealing with a 5-4 split blocking new legislation he was trying to get passed.

What WE are discussing is trying to prevent a 6-3 or, god forbid, 7-2 court setting regressive precedent under a conservative President who will not try to exert pressure to prevent it.

These are two entirely different situations and you're smart enough to know that so why the fuck are you trying to bullshit us.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Good point. There's never been a time in our history where a progressive executive outmaneuvered a conservative judiciary...

During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following his election popularity he boldly proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8] Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Supreme Court aren't gods. They're extremely powerful - too powerful in my opinion - but they are still susceptible to political pressure and hard ball politics.

Other examples of conservative appointees acquiescing to a leftist political climate would be Nixon's appointee giving us Roe v. Wade and Eisenhower's appointee, Earl Warren, leading the most socially progressive Supreme Court in American history.

Considering how much of a division there's between parties, left and right, such a situation would be hard to repeat.

Not to mention, I doubt any contemporary president, either Republican or Democrat would try such an action, considering Obama has been called Emperor for his fair use of executive power. Imagine what would happen if a president pressured the Supreme Court in such an overt way.

 

[Aaronology]

See, what you're pretending not to realize is that Roosevelt was dealing with a 5-4 split blocking new legislation he was trying to get passed.

What WE are discussing is trying to prevent a 6-3 or, god forbid, 7-2 court setting regressive precedent under a conservative President who will not try to exert pressure to prevent it.

These are two entirely different situations and you're smart enough to know that so why the fuck are you trying to bullshit us.

The avoidance of this particular point or the outright intellectual dishonesty addressing it has become somewhat of a hallmark of this thread and others like it.

 

[not psycho]

This is exactly why progressives have no control over the democratic party while social conservatives have been holding republicans hostage for fifteen years. Progressives are always worried about losing this election. 'But what if the republicans win, they'll set things back?!' Because of this mentality, they give the democrats a pass and watch the party slide slowly to the right.

Abstention has been tried, over and over. It's old news. We've had disastrous Republican presidents, we've had disastrous Republican congresses. Recently even. It didn't work.

What we have never tried is voting. Go look up historical voter turnout in congressional elections. It's amazingly consistent over the years: people age 18-34 don't vote. Never did. It's abstention all the way down.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to admire social conservatives without acknowledging that they vote. You won't even type the word "vote" (I searched your post). "I admire the way they hold Republicans hostage, including their ability to... um... something... for their own candidates. What's the word?"

Spoiler

vote

---

Abstention is warping the electorate. Of course politicians in both parties are too far right, they are based on an electorate that doesn't include the abstainers.

Another possibility I would like to raise: what if not all politicians are the same? What I mean is, Bush was only too glad to claim a mandate when he barely squeezed by. But maybe not every politician is like that. Some might actually care about the entire electorate.

If you assume every politician is Bush, then sure, whoever gets elected, by any margin, can claim an ultimate mandate from God. And then you can complain they weren't liberal enough (they had their mandate from God, why didn't they do everything I wanted?).

But if you allow the possibility of differences, then there may be politicians who can be moved by the voters. A sustained voting effort which swept Republicans out of local, state, and federal office, decrying anti-science, anti-minority, anti-women ideology... such an effort might not merely get "Democrats" in office. Fuck Democrats. What it might do is give an actual mandate, not a fake one. A mandate that any politician could believe in. And a credible base of support (as opposed to right now, when the base of support couldn't be less credible... it doesn't vote). Thus moving politicians left and creating opportunities for new people to run for office who may not have considered it.

Maybe not. But it's something nobody has ever tried. Abstention is the same old thing.

 

[Staccat0]

Said it in other threads,

Its not Sanders' job to get people to vote for Clinton after she clinches. Same way minorities talk about Sanders not going after their vote. Clinton hasn't gone after the voting base Sanders has(Much of the younger youth). You can't blame them for their apathy. And if you're argument is, "Well at least its not Trump". You're not making a convincing argument.

And just as much as people say Sanders can't win without the Black vote. It applies doubly true that Clinton can't win if 18% of your voting base doesn't turn up. Talking about the age 18-29 year olds.

Bernie's policies don't have shit to do with young people. That's actually something Bernie supporters say that makes them sound like assholes who just wanted free stuff and that wasn't really his platform.

The "at least it's not Trump" argument is tough. I didn't understand it until I lived through 8 years of Bush. You maybe have to be over 30 to understand how much more damaging to Bernie's ideals Trump will be than Clinton.

Which, in a roundabout way confirms to me that if Bernie gives 2 fucks about his policies he has every single moral obligation to get people to vote for Clinton.

For me, it's all moot anyway. If you belive in science and global warming you are peice of human trash to not be a single issue voter on that front. People on this forum admit we're in the "time is up" phase, but wanna talk about piddly domestic bullshit during this cycle. So weird.

Please vote against the assholes with a gun against your kid's head - even if that means voting for an asshole with a vial of slow-acting poison over their drink.

OR admit you are a climate change denier. Why sre we talking about anything else?

 

[Boombloxer]

See, what you're pretending not to realize is that Roosevelt was dealing with a 5-4 split blocking new legislation he was trying to get passed.

What WE are discussing is trying to prevent a 6-3 or, god forbid, 7-2 court setting regressive precedent under a conservative President who will not try to exert pressure to prevent it.

These are two entirely different situations and you're smart enough to know that so why the fuck are you trying to bullshit us.

Not sure, basically all of the "reasons" I've seen are just different shades of horseshit logic. Punishment doesn't work, but voting does.

There's no way someone who claims to be a progressive can vote for Trump. If you support Sanders, great, support Hilary in the GE, that's moving the ball forward.

Trump or simply not voting? You are a part of the problem.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Court packing.

I'm not sure this is what we want to cite - court packing was a legitimate constitutional crisis and if Roosevelt had had his way it would mean the end of an independent judiciary as a check on federal power. I can't even say he was wrong, as terrible as the situation was in the depression, but if things had gone another way...

Nevertheless, I think your other points are more valid - supreme court appointees are by design difficult to corral. They are much more constrained by the development of legal thought than they are by the people appointing them. Supreme court appointees are less important than is being portrayed in this thread because they serve interpretations of the law that are similar to but not coincident with political ideology (the splits on citizens united would surprise you, and note that the ACLU filed a brief in favor of the majority in that decision). There are a ton of nominees that have behaved differently on the bench than political commentators would expect, because they see things through a political lens and not through a jurisprudential lens.

It's basically for that reason that I think all the people crying about, at least, LGB issues in this thread are crying crocodile tears. I'm gay, I've at least been in law school, I follow all of these things relatively closely, and I just don't see a conservative judiciary overturning stare decisis for either gay marriage or anti sodomy laws. Trans issues are a slightly different thing, but again, you can make as good of a case that dems have thrown trans people under a bus and their Interests would be better served in the long term by holding them accountable for that.

Abstention has been tried, over and over. It's old news. We've had disastrous Republican presidents, we've had disastrous Republican congresses. Recently even. It didn't work.

What we have never tried is voting. Go look up historical voter turnout in congressional elections. It's amazingly consistent over the years: people age 18-34 don't vote. Never did. It's abstention all the way down.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to admire social conservatives without acknowledging that they vote. You won't even type the word "vote" (I searched your post). "I admire the way they hold Republicans hostage, including their ability to... um... something... for their own candidates. What's the word?"

Spoiler

vote

---

Abstention is warping the electorate. Of course politicians in both parties are too far right, they are based on an electorate that doesn't include the abstainers.

Another possibility I would like to raise: what if not all politicians are the same? What I mean is, Bush was only too glad to claim a mandate when he barely squeezed by. But maybe not every politician is like that. Some might actually care about the entire electorate.

If you assume every politician is Bush, then sure, whoever gets elected, by any margin, can claim an ultimate mandate from God. And then you can complain they weren't liberal enough (they had their mandate from God, why didn't they do everything I wanted?).

But if you allow the possibility of differences, then there may be politicians who can be moved by the voters. A sustained voting effort which swept Republicans out of local, state, and federal office, decrying anti-science, anti-minority, anti-women ideology... such an effort might not merely get "Democrats" in office. Fuck Democrats. What it might do is give an actual mandate, not a fake one. A mandate that any politician could believe in. And a credible base of support (as opposed to right now, when the base of support couldn't be less credible... it doesn't vote). Thus moving politicians left and creating opportunities for new people to run for office who may not have considered it.

Maybe not. But it's something nobody has ever tried. Abstention is the same old thing.

You're not entirely wrong. Which is one Of the reasons why I'd encourage all the far leftists to get out and vote - but vote green, at least in the presidential election, and do your research on the down ticket candidates so you know which of them you can be comfortable supporting and which you aren't. When you don't vote, you send the message that you don't care. When you vote green, you send the message that the democrats can have your vote if they work harder for it. Which would work great, except the last time the far left tried to send a message this way the democrats decided to spend an election cycle hippie punching instead of listening to their concerns. Ican't help but think that this is the fault of the democrats rather than the hippies.

And yeah - green voters are punished much more harshly socially than people who don't show up at all. This is your problem. If centrist democrats want to win elections, best focus on turning out the huge portion of their electorate that don't care enough to vote rather than the fraction that do care and have found your candidates wanting.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Good point. There's never been a time in our history where a progressive executive outmaneuvered a conservative judiciary...

During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of the Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan".[2]

In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping reelection victory. In the months following his election popularity he boldly proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age seventy and failed to retire.[6] The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937, and was the subject of Roosevelt's 9th Fireside chat of March 9, 1937.[7][8] Three weeks after the radio address the Supreme Court published an opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[9] The 5–4 ruling was the result of the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts, who joined with the wing of the bench supportive to the New Deal legislation. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his support here was seen as a result of the political pressure the president was exerting on the court. Some interpreted his reversal as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. This reversal came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Supreme Court aren't gods. They're extremely powerful - too powerful in my opinion - but they are still susceptible to political pressure and hard ball politics.

Other examples of conservative appointees acquiescing to a leftist political climate would be Nixon's appointee giving us Roe v. Wade and Eisenhower's appointee, Earl Warren, leading the most socially progressive Supreme Court in American history.

...that's not a particularly reassuring answer given that the role of the Court is to make judgments free of pressure, political or social

 

[Freshmaker]

I can only speak for myself, but who get riled up about the choices of others like yourself is what makes some us want to get closer to voting Trump. You can be progressive and not like Clinton. not liking Clinton doesn't make you anything, it just means you don't like her, that's all.

I don't fully like any candidate really, the one I voted might not make it, and labels just make things worse.

It's always about more than the candidate though. It's what that candidate will mean to how the country is potentially structured for decades to come. A lot of those supreme court justices are old. Odds are they're going to need replacement sooner rather than later...

I'm not excited about Hillary, but I will not vote in a way that opens the door for another Scalia.

The supreme court's just one example of that kinda thing.

 

[UnObtainium17]

I'm about to donate another $10 towards my man Bernie's campaign

. This is what probably what it feels like being rose screaming at the top of her lungs for jack when jack is already 1000+ feet underwater.

All my fellow Bernie bros and sis' better line up for Hilldawg once the worst general presidential elections of our time arrives. Just not Donald.. Just not Donald.

 

[The Technomancer]

Bush was the "lets vote third party or protest vote so the Democrats get a message" candidate. What happened? We got eight years of terrible warmongering and various political regression and then the Democratic party nominated...not some radical Sanders-esque candidate, but pragmatic Democrat Obama. We traded almost a decade of conservative control of the country for...a guy not that different from Gore when you really get down to tacks

 

[teruterubozu]

This thread keeps curving back to Al Gore every time I peek in. Don't you guys get tired?

 

[kame-sennin]

See, what you're pretending not to realize is that Roosevelt was dealing with a 5-4 split blocking new legislation he was trying to get passed.

What WE are discussing is trying to prevent a 6-3 or, god forbid, 7-2 court setting regressive precedent under a conservative President who will not try to exert pressure to prevent it.

These are two entirely different situations and you're smart enough to know that so why the fuck are you trying to bullshit us.

My comment was about what a progressive president would do after a republican term and a conservative court.

Also, you and the person I responded to are way too mad and getting way too personal. People can disagree with you without it being an evil scheme of intellectual dishonesty.

Considering how much of a division there's between parties, left and right, such a situation would be hard to repeat.

I'm not sure this is what we want to cite - court packing was a legitimate constitutional crisis and if Roosevelt had had his way it would mean the end of an independent judiciary as a check on federal power.

It's one example I provided of several. It's proof that SCOTUS is not an impenetrable wall of conservative fuck. Republicans getting the chance to appoint justices is awful and it causes a lot of harm, but it's not a death sentence for the progressive cause, and liberals should stop using it as a cudgel to coerce leftists into voting for the center-right democrat party.

...that's not a particularly reassuring answer given that the role of the Court is to make judgments free of pressure, political or social

That's literally never happened.

 

[AlphaDump]

It's one example I provided of several. It's proof that SCOTUS is not an impenetrable wall of conservative fuck. Republicans getting the chance to appoint justices is awful and it causes a lot of harm, but it's not a death sentence for the progressive cause, and liberals should stop using it as a cudgel to coerce leftists into voting for the center-right democrat party.



That's literally never happened.

It isn't a death sentence, it is a 20-30 year road block. Republicans aren't even trying to hide the true intent. Just look at today's headlines:

McConnell responded that he “can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association [and] the National Federation of Independent Businesses.”

I don't even want to entertain the idea of the Republicans winning. Now is not the time to give away 3 branches to the republicans.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It's one example I provided of several. It's proof that SCOTUS is not an impenetrable wall of conservative fuck. Republicans getting the chance to appoint justices is awful and it causes a lot of harm, but it's not a death sentence for the progressive cause, and liberals should stop using it as a cudgel to coerce leftists into voting for the center-right democrat party.

It potentially stalls progress for 20-30 years. That's an entire generation of progress thrown away.

And heaven forbid the SC rules something like Healthcare reform full stop unconstitutional. Then we need a constitutional amendment to get it, and that entire idea is basically dead right then and there. It could be 100+ years to get the chance to right that wrong.

If you're willing to throw away progress for an entire generation because you can't possibly settle for slightly less than you wanted, you deserve to be ridiculed and shamed since you obviously don't believe in your cause at all.

It's a once in a generation chance to set the country up for progress, but we're going to throw it away because "it just isn't progressive enough" and that's stupid.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Bush was the "lets vote third party or protest vote so the Democrats get a message" candidate. What happened? We got eight years of terrible warmongering and various political regression and then the Democratic party nominated...not some radical Sanders-esque candidate, but pragmatic Democrat Obama. We traded almost a decade of conservative control of the country for...a guy not that different from Gore when you really get down to tacks

Exactly. I can't think of anything more tragic and counterproductive than flushing progress down the toilet because you can't have your 100% ideal candidate.

 

[Y2Kev]

I would like to see one example in history in the us where accelerationism actually worked. I really can't think of one.

 

[SheSaidNo]

I would like to see one example in history in the us where accelerationism actually worked. I really can't think of one.

While not on the national level, the election of reagan led to a huge increase in black vote in the 1980's, which led to lots of black mayors in big cities, like Harold Washington, who was outside the democratic machine even, in Chicago, Young in Atlanta, almost electing the socialist Mel King in Boston, the success of the Jesse Jackson campaign, etc. They couldn't do much because of the federal limitations, but it was a huge increase in blacks recognizing their electoral power.

 

[Nafai1123]

Not voting at all or voting for Trump because Sanders loses seems so stupid.

"I want a Prius V but I can't afford one. A Prius C is 90% the same as a Prius V....but fuck it I'll get a Hummer instead"

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Not voting at all or voting for Trump because Sanders loses seems so stupid.

"I want a Prius V but I can't afford one. A Prius C is 90% the same as a Prius V....but fuck it I'll get a Hummer instead"

But don't you see, that 10% difference is ALL that matters. That 90% similarity? IRRELEVANT! Hillary is just as bad as Trump with that 10% difference!

 

[SneakersSO]

I'm about to donate another $10 towards my man Bernie's campaign

. This is what probably what it feels like being rose screaming at the top of her lungs for jack when jack is already 1000+ feet underwater.

All my fellow Bernie bros and sis' better line up for Hilldawg once the worst general presidential elections of our time arrives. Just not Donald.. Just not Donald.

I'll be lining up for an independent candidate if Bernie loses. Never Hilldawg, or any GOP candidate. Sorry.

 

[Rayven]

I'll be lining up for an independent candidate if Bernie loses. Never Hilldawg, or any GOP candidate. Sorry.

That's how we got GWB. I'm not happy with the game, but I'll be voting for whoever the Dems put up. I'm not interested in destroying the limited social progress we've made.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

If these voters can only be convinced by pie in the sky promises, about free College, breaking up banks and "fuck the establishment" . Then these voters were a lost cause to begin with.

Yes it's Clinton job to state her case and try to persuade them that she'd make a good president. But it's the Voters responsibility to be reasonable.

What's unreasonable about limited free college and instructing institutions with access to the Federal Reserve System to shrink or break-up?

If Bernie can't get the black/hispanic vote and Hillary can't get the Sanders people, then Dems will be in bad shape. I doubt that would happen because you're running against a uniter on the conservative side, but it would be very sad.

 

[Jams775]

But don't you see, that 10% difference is ALL that matters. That 90% similarity? IRRELEVANT! Hillary is just as bad as Trump with that 10% difference!

Yeah that Prius V doesn't have an engine but literally all the rest is the same. like 96% the same.

 

[2AdEPT]

We're only seeing this on the left? Are you kidding me? Establishment Republicans are routinely calling for abstaining or even voting for Hillary because Trump is not an acceptable nominee to them. Check this article by David Brooks - or really, get a National Review subscription, they're amazing right now. The pro-business side of the Republican party isn't going to stand for Trump and they will absolutely defect to the democrats en masse if Trump is the future of the party. That's one reason why they're a powerful constituency - because they've proven that not following their interests cost Republicans elections. If a leftist printed something like the Brooks column about Hillary's record on war and trade, they'd be dismissed - pretty much like they are in this thread, as pie in the sky dreamers that don't understand what real politics are about. You've probably noticed that far rightists have more influence over the Republicans than far leftists do over the Democrats, that tea partiers were more successful than Occupiers, and that the Kochs have think tanks in every state in the country while the closest thing to a communist think tank in America is... I dunno, let's say the Brookings Institute. This is why. Republican constitutiences aren't willing to let themselves be browbeaten into accepting the status quo, so they all get a seat at the table.

The left doesn't need think tanks because real universities serve the same purpose as long as you are interested in facts and truth. The only reason right wing think tanks exist is to obfuscate reality and brainwash people. It is absolutely abhorrent that so many in this thread use so many memes and constructs direct from think tanks or right leaning universities that serve no other purpose but to make a select few rich. This isn't rocket science people . . . . Bernie represents a once in a lifetime political option that may not come back. Canada had ours in 1958 or so and health care came in to stay circa 1966. If not for Tommy Douglas (who almost lost his leg owing to not being able to afford the latest treatment) we would not have had health care any faster than America. We had a third option for a party, the New Democrats, since that time. Neither Tommy Douglas nor the New Democrats EVER got in power, but their influence has been felt and kept Canada sane throughout the last 50 years. I sincerely hope people take this opportunity to vote for Bernie, although it is likely Trump will win if Bernie is ousted, and this will provide the final nail in the coffin for big business in 4-8 years, why not start earlier when you have the chance!? Those that think Hillary cares two shits about anyone but herself is not a good judge of character, and indeed the rich are just clamoring together and pooling their money together to hand it to her if she beats Bernie and Trump. She is the worst choice for America after Ted Cruz.
This guy continues to nail it day after day . . . best analysis by a young person I have ever seen:

https://youtu.be/MGdHrUs9JVo

PS for those minorities worried about Trump, there has been a steady increase in rights for gay people and racial minorities throughout recent history despite the Bush's etc. Dont fall for the fear mongering. The only reason most politicians brings up race and abortions is to get a certain sector of the electorate motivated to vote and increase turn out . . . . laws governing these things don't change much and history has shown a change for the better irrespective of right wing bullshit. Unless Trump proves to be as bad a choices as Hitler or Mussolini, and this is doubtful, he is still may be a faster path to recovery as America will finally have hit rock bottom and be forced to try the last alternative, a science based logical choice.

 

[Aaronology]

This isn't rocket science people . . . . Bernie represents a once in a lifetime political option that may not come back.

Not rocket science, mm? How does Bernie Sander's progressive policies make it through a hostile Congress, Adept?

 

[Tesseract]

Just say no to Hillary, she's Stumbling over herself more every day

She belongs in the big house

 

[Freshmaker]

PS for those minorities worried about Trump, there has been a steady increase in rights for gay people and racial minorities throughout recent history despite the Bush's etc. Dont fall for the fear mongering. The only reason most politicians brings up race and abortions is to get a certain sector of the electorate motivated to vote and increase turn out . . . . laws governing these things don't change much and history has shown a change for the better irrespective of right wing bullshit. Unless Trump proves to be as bad a choices as Hitler or Mussolini, and this is doubtful, he is still may be a faster path to recovery as America will finally have hit rock bottom and be forced to try the last alternative, a science based logical choice.

Tell that to the unions.

 

[2AdEPT]

Not rocket science, mm? How does Bernie Sander's progressive policies make it through a hostile Congress, Adept?

The same way as any figurehead in history, by surviving bribes and death threats. All he has to do is have the people behind him and he can change the rules that service the rich. Referendums can change congress and the constitution can actually be upheld. Your rhetorical question/statement and reason not to vote for Bernie is the stale one. It only took Tommy Douglas 6 years to get health care in Federally, starting from a provincial decision, and it was a different figurehead that made it Federal..... and admittedly it will take Bernie a while longer potentially, and it could be the next figurehead that finally does it, but your have to start the clock rolling forward.... That will not happen with Hillary.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-americans-dont-understand-about-nordic-countries-2016-3

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

The same way as any figurehead in history, by surviving bribes and death threats. All he has to do is have the people behind him and he can change the rules that service the rich. Referendums can change congress and the constitution can actually be upheld. Your rhetorical question/statement and reason not to vote for Bernie is the stale one. It only took Tommy Douglas 6 years to get health care in Federally, starting from a provincial decision, and it was a different figurehead that made it Federal..... and admittedly it will take Bernie a while longer potentially, and it could be the next figurehead that finally does it, but your have to start the clock rolling forward.... That will not happen with Hillary.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-americans-dont-understand-about-nordic-countries-2016-3

And it certainty won't happen with the GOP in charge.

They have spent the last 30 or so years getting more and more radical to the point where nothing less then their brand of theocratic authoritarianism is acceptable. Obama had to fight tooth and nail for even basic stuff, you think the likes of the tea party and other far right groups wouldn't tear Bearnie to shreds?

I'm a fan of the guy, but I have to admit him being able to get anything of his plans through congress are just not likely at this point in time, and won't be so long as the GOP controls the gerrymandered house. The democrats failure in 2010 basically doom any of Bernie's plans.

 

[Mael]

The left doesn't need think tanks because real universities serve the same purpose as long as you are interested in facts and truth. The only reason right wing think tanks exist is to obfuscate reality and brainwash people. It is absolutely abhorrent that so many in this thread use so many memes and constructs direct from think tanks or right leaning universities that serve no other purpose but to make a select few rich. This isn't rocket science people . . . . Bernie represents a once in a lifetime political option that may not come back. Canada had ours in 1958 or so and health care came in to stay circa 1966. If not for Tommy Douglas (who almost lost his leg owing to not being able to afford the latest treatment) we would not have had health care any faster than America. We had a third option for a party, the New Democrats, since that time. Neither Tommy Douglas nor the New Democrats EVER got in power, but their influence has been felt and kept Canada sane throughout the last 50 years. I sincerely hope people take this opportunity to vote for Bernie, although it is likely Trump will win if Bernie is ousted, and this will provide the final nail in the coffin for big business in 4-8 years, why not start earlier when you have the chance!? Those that think Hillary cares two shits about anyone but herself is not a good judge of character, and indeed the rich are just clamoring together and pooling their money together to hand it to her if she beats Bernie and Trump. She is the worst choice for America after Ted Cruz.
This guy continues to nail it day after day . . . best analysis by a young person I have ever seen:

https://youtu.be/MGdHrUs9JVo

PS for those minorities worried about Trump, there has been a steady increase in rights for gay people and racial minorities throughout recent history despite the Bush's etc. Dont fall for the fear mongering. The only reason most politicians brings up race and abortions is to get a certain sector of the electorate motivated to vote and increase turn out . . . . laws governing these things don't change much and history has shown a change for the better irrespective of right wing bullshit. Unless Trump proves to be as bad a choices as Hitler or Mussolini, and this is doubtful, he is still may be a faster path to recovery as America will finally have hit rock bottom and be forced to try the last alternative, a science based logical choice.

This post wouldn't be near hilarious enough if there wasn't think tanks on the left (considering there are in my country with barely 70mil people, there should be some in the US too especially since they're a concept imported from the USA...unless you count these reflection groups or some other masonic house).
but yeah sure only Sanders is a true™ good president wannabe that will lead the US into a new era of progressive goodness or whatever.
And with the Voting Right Act under attack, sure minorities shouldn't be worried about being unable to vote or whatever.
I could smell the Ivory from the tower you're sitting in, be careful to not spill any of that lemonade it would do a number on your furniture though and you might have to suffer looking at the world outside too.

And fuck that, there's plenty of liberal think tanks in the US and if you believe universities serve the same purpose you have to realize that not all universities are for studying politics or whatever.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

Another "Don't vote for Clinton" article: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/21/democrats_you_cant_vote_for_hillary_the_case_for_writing_in_bernie_sanders_if_hillary_clinton_is_the_nominee/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

These articles all mention Hillary's vote on Iraq.

Good read on that here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...n_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

Bernie represents a once in a lifetime political option that may not come back

Maybe not someone exactly like Bernie but the amount he has mobilized people bodes well for more left-leaning candidates in the future. Having 4 or 8 years of relatively left policies from Hillary, were she to win, would probably help that.

Anyway, it is completely unreasonable for people who prefer Bernie to claim one of these clowns from the GOP would be better than Hillary, or indulging in this fantasy that Trump would "destroy the establishment" or somehow cause a cleansing of the system. Not everyone can afford to lose what they have gained so we can start from scratch. It's not even the best solution to the problem.

 

[Aaronology]

The same way as any figurehead in history, by surviving bribes and death threats. All he has to do is have the people behind him and he can change the rules that service the rich. Referendums can change congress and the constitution can actually be upheld. Your rhetorical question/statement and reason not to vote for Bernie is the stale one. It only took Tommy Douglas 6 years to get health care in Federally, starting from a provincial decision, and it was a different figurehead that made it Federal..... and admittedly it will take Bernie a while longer potentially, and it could be the next figurehead that finally does it, but your have to start the clock rolling forward.... That will not happen with Hillary.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-americans-dont-understand-about-nordic-countries-2016-3

Please elaborate on this. Which people do Bernie need behind him and how does he "change the rules that service the rich" without Congress?

 

[SolicitorPirate]

You are wrong about this.

It's fun watching people not directly affected by problems pontificating to people that those problems don't exist, isn't it?

A+ OP by the way

 

[Pepboy]

That's how we got GWB. I'm not happy with the game, but I'll be voting for whoever the Dems put up. I'm not interested in destroying the limited social progress we've made.

I think it's interesting to see the political splintering on both sides. GOP had to pull further right to keep the extremists under the roof, I am curious if the same thing will happen to Dems within the next few elections as they start winning more.

 

[CharminUltra]

When's Bernie receiving his next pummeling again? Tomorrow?

 

[benjipwns]

It seems to me that stalinist quip can go from ironic to unironic as suits the person speaking, and it serves no purpose except to insult. And it's in fact dumb that we even continue talking about it as benji seems content to just watch, he's done his job.

Some of us can't be on GAF 24/7, we have to keep updated about the party line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVGjGGFuFio

 

[Wall]

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/bernie-hillary-and-the-new-democratic-party

Pretty good article summarizing the divide between Clinton and Sanders supporters, along with how the primary played out.

Sanders supporters should vote tactically by voting for Clinton and supporting candidates close to their views in down-ballot races.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Bush was the "lets vote third party or protest vote so the Democrats get a message" candidate. What happened? We got eight years of terrible warmongering and various political regression and then the Democratic party nominated...not some radical Sanders-esque candidate, but pragmatic Democrat Obama. We traded almost a decade of conservative control of the country for...a guy not that different from Gore when you really get down to tacks

Except the fact that Nader actually ended up being consequential in one state doesn't change the reality that he LOST states that Clinton won, by bigger margins than Nader's votes, by being a terrible candidate and running a terrible campaign.

 

[2AdEPT]

Please elaborate on this. Which people do Bernie need behind him and how does he "change the rules that service the rich" without Congress?

I am not here to do your research, I don't even come from your country, but I know enough to know that his strategy (which isn't a popular slogan piece, at least not yet) is to do what it takes to slowly reform congress. It starts by not taking bribes. This is not something Obama and Hillary were/are above. You appear incapable of or unwilling to look up what a referendum is, let's just say the people, I.e the electorate vote directly on it, and it could be something as simple as changing how and who gets to be in congress. The people backing him are the electorate, people like you.... As an outsider I can't vote though I wish I could. There are other options for Presidents not willing to be bought, and the establishment knows it . . . . so should you...do some research.

You people are missing the point that if Bernie were not dangerous to the establishment, he would not be getting obstructed by the media despite having a commanding majority of the popular vote head to head against all other choices. You can't have it both ways . . . . either Bernie is a house fly that can be swatted away, in which case the establishment wouldn't be scared of him, or the establishment is really scared of him and doing everything in their power to get rid of him. I believe it's obvious that its the latter. The idea that whomever the President is can't have any influence in Congress is ridiculous. It should be obvious that Obama got nothing done because he had no balls and no backbone, not because he gave it a good effort and failed. Hillary would be worse.

And yes I am on an ivory tower....where else is a person like my Grandfather, whom was willing to be assassinated and ran for Prime minister of Canada in the hopes to take the money away from banks supposed to sit? He was even older than Bernie when he ran and didn't care . . . he offered me a Million dollars to take over if he was aassassinated, I refused. Regretfully he didn't win. Tommy Douglas, the first social Democrat in North America, is a national hero in Canada and took death threats and his house was bricked with his kids inside...by Doctors of all people who feared medicare but in the end were paid more as they got more business once people didn't have to avoid paying for not having enough. Many Canadians probably dont even realize this. At least Americans seem to be taught their own history and the forefathers would be turning in their graves with the extent of the corruption present in their once fine nation. It doesn't take very long to recognize Bernie can't be bought, and therefore he is the most dangerous politician to the establishment in quite some time. The only guys similar were assassinated. Look up monetary reform and which presidents were assassinated and you will find a common thread...it isn't rocket science at all...it's ethical praxis and integrity...truly caring about your own and others common best interests.

 

[soleil]

Maybe not someone exactly like Bernie but the amount he has mobilized people bodes well for more left-leaning candidates in the future. Having 4 or 8 years of relatively left policies from Hillary, were she to win, would probably help that.

Anyway, it is completely unreasonable for people who prefer Bernie to claim one of these clowns from the GOP would be better than Hillary, or indulging in this fantasy that Trump would "destroy the establishment" or somehow cause a cleansing of the system. Not everyone can afford to lose what they have gained so we can start from scratch. It's not even the best solution to the problem.

Bernie represented an intersection of leftist voters and independent voters sick of the establishment. Hillary lukewarmly represents only the first and none of the second. She is better than the GOP but don't give her too much credit.

 

[KingV]

Not rocket science, mm? How does Bernie Sander's progressive policies make it through a hostile Congress, Adept?

If we're basing our vote off of that, we should just elect a Republican. Hillary will get just as few things done as Bernie with a hostile Congress.

Bernie at least has a history of being able to get things done with Republicans in the Senate (namely VA reform bill). The Clinton legacy of bipartisanship are some of the worst domestic bills passed in the last 30 years.

Edit: I am one that will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, (or maybe Jill Stein since there is no way the Democrat is going to win my deep red state), I just think this is a pointless line of attack.

 

[benjipwns]

Look up monetary reform and which presidents were assassinated and you will find a common thread...it isn't rocket science at all

gasp

they were all President at the time

 

[Mr_Moogle]

In Australia, voting is mandatory and I wouldn't want to live in any democratic country where it isn't.

 

[Dangansona]

And it certainty won't happen with the GOP in charge.

They have spent the last 30 or so years getting more and more radical to the point where nothing less then their brand of theocratic authoritarianism is acceptable. Obama had to fight tooth and nail for even basic stuff, you think the likes of the tea party and other far right groups wouldn't tear Bearnie to shreds?

I'm a fan of the guy, but I have to admit him being able to get anything of his plans through congress are just not likely at this point in time, and won't be so long as the GOP controls the gerrymandered house. The democrats failure in 2010 basically doom any of Bernie's plans.

Well I guess we might as well give up then and join the #NoWeCant democratic candidate.

 

[Staccat0]

PS for those minorities worried about Trump, there has been a steady increase in rights for gay people and racial minorities throughout recent history despite the Bush's etc. Dont fall for the fear mongering. The only reason most politicians brings up race and abortions is to get a certain sector of the electorate motivated to vote and increase turn out . . . . laws governing these things don't change much and history has shown a change for the better irrespective of right wing bullshit. Unless Trump proves to be as bad a choices as Hitler or Mussolini, and this is doubtful, he is still may be a faster path to recovery as America will finally have hit rock bottom and be forced to try the last alternative, a science based logical choice.

This is some offensive levels of bullshit. I'm too annoyed by it to respond in-depth right now other than to say you clearly don't follow American politics closely enough to speak on it.

I'm fine with you having an opinion, but this bullshit literally bellittles stuff that is happening right now in the state I live in. You are just lying.