American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Incelastan]

Accusing a conservative NSer of supporting a social democrat, just because he doubts the fairness of the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primary processes, is a new low, even for you.

I'm not a conservative

Fair enough. I thought that you were. But whatever you are, it's clear that you weren't questioning 2016 and 2020 because of support of Bernie Sanders yourself.

[San Lumen]

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Classic San, having no leg to stand on, resorts to baseless attacks.

I'll give you a buffalo nickle San, if you can find anywhere in my post history that I've endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

You have no leg to stand on either. A bunch of emails means nothing.

[Incelastan]

Classic San, having no leg to stand on, resorts to baseless attacks.

I'll give you a buffalo nickle San, if you can find anywhere in my post history that I've endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

You have no leg to stand on either. A bunch of emails means nothing.

A bunch of e-mails proving that the DNC worked directly with the Clinton campaign to defame Sanders and manipulate debate schedules and coverage, not to mention the Pied Piper strategy? What did Schultz have to do, punch Bernie in the face?

[Tarsonis]

Classic San, having no leg to stand on, resorts to baseless attacks.

I'll give you a buffalo nickle San, if you can find anywhere in my post history that I've endorsed Bernie Sanders for president.

You have no leg to stand on either. A bunch of emails means nothing.

The head of the DNC publically admitting to it, means nothing. fucking lol


Edit: and having no counter to his bs being completely exposed, San logs off. He'll come back in a few hours with some obscure election results and pretend like this never happened.

[Khurkhogur]

What's really baffling to me is that there's a whole section of the progressive movement that opposes Sanders just because he's a man, and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton - who would like to see us bombing Iran. It's like they enjoy perverting their own movement.

[Bradfordville]

What's really baffling to me is that there's a whole section of the progressive movement that opposes Sanders just because he's a man, and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton - who would like to see us bombing Iran. It's like they enjoy perverting their own movement.

I'd hardly call them progressive. They're centrists at furthest left.

[Khurkhogur]

What's really baffling to me is that there's a whole section of the progressive movement that opposes Sanders just because he's a man, and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton - who would like to see us bombing Iran. It's like they enjoy perverting their own movement.

I'd hardly call them progressive. They're centrists at furthest left.

The issue is that a good deal of them are what people think of when they think progressive. Young, committed to socialism (as they conceive of it - free college and UBI and a bunch of other dumb bullshit), publicly indulge in defying gender norms, adamantly in support of abortion, etc. And rhetorically, they would agree with Bernie Sanders on almost anything. But clearly, they'd happily tank his campaign with Clinton as the alternative. It's more than "they're center-left" - we're talking about the people who pride themselves on going beyond centrism.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'd hardly call them progressive. They're centrists at furthest left.

The issue is that a good deal of them are what people think of when they think progressive. Young, committed to socialism (as they conceive of it - free college and UBI and a bunch of other dumb bullshit), publicly indulge in defying gender norms, adamantly in support of abortion, etc. And rhetorically, they would agree with Bernie Sanders on almost anything. But clearly, they'd happily tank his campaign with Clinton as the alternative. It's more than "they're center-left" - we're talking about the people who pride themselves on going beyond centrism.

Who are these people? Could you point to a concrete example and not an anecdotal one?

[Khurkhogur]

The issue is that a good deal of them are what people think of when they think progressive. Young, committed to socialism (as they conceive of it - free college and UBI and a bunch of other dumb bullshit), publicly indulge in defying gender norms, adamantly in support of abortion, etc. And rhetorically, they would agree with Bernie Sanders on almost anything. But clearly, they'd happily tank his campaign with Clinton as the alternative. It's more than "they're center-left" - we're talking about the people who pride themselves on going beyond centrism.

Who are these people? Could you point to a concrete example and not an anecdotal one?

They're the people who basically let the democratic party steamroll Sanders. I don't know what else you want me to tell you
Oh, and another thing - remember when Bernie was shouted down by a couple of BLM activists at his own rally and he was basically forced to stare sullenly at the ground as they took the stage? No such thing has ever happened to a candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton. This is taking into account the fact that there was literally racial controversy around Warren. Clearly, there is animosity for Sanders among progressives.

[Ifreann]

I'd hardly call them progressive. They're centrists at furthest left.

The issue is that a good deal of them are what people think of when they think progressive. Young, committed to socialism (as they conceive of it - free college and UBI and a bunch of other dumb bullshit), publicly indulge in defying gender norms, adamantly in support of abortion, etc. And rhetorically, they would agree with Bernie Sanders on almost anything. But clearly, they'd happily tank his campaign with Clinton as the alternative. It's more than "they're center-left" - we're talking about the people who pride themselves on going beyond centrism.

The people you are describing do not exist.

[Cannot think of a name]

Who are these people? Could you point to a concrete example and not an anecdotal one?

They're the people who basically let the democratic party steamroll Sanders. I don't know what else you want me to tell you
Oh, and another thing - remember when Bernie was shouted down by a couple of BLM activists at his own rally and he was basically forced to stare sullenly at the ground as they took the stage? No such thing has ever happened to a candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton. This is taking into account the fact that there was literally racial controversy around Warren. Clearly, there is animosity for Sanders among progressives.

So...no concrete examples, just some vague notions that you've then patched into your own explanation. Kinda assumed that was the case but I wanted to check.

[Elwher]

Have they polled their constituents and asked them if they want the representatives to walk out? Did they run on a campaign of "we'll leave if we don't like what the majority is doing"? Otherwise, how do they know the constituents want them to not represent them in the legislature?

Does every politician poll on every issue? No. An elected politicians job isn't necessarily to follow the every whim of their constituents but instead to state their policy positions and credentials, get elected (or not), and then attempt to do what they think is best. Constituents vote for who they think will do the best job representing them, Constituents do not have the ability to be fully informed on any issue, let alone every issue. If they have particular feelings about a specific issue they can let their representative know, mail, phones, email, and offices exist after all. If the constituents really don't like how a representative is doing they can vote for someone else in the election or primary. If for some reason a representative is doing a particularly poor job then constituents can try to get their representative impeached/kicked out and vote someone else in.

I think something as contrary to their oath of office like not being present during the legislative session is a major enough change that the constituents should have a voice in it immediately, not somewhere down the line. They elected these people to represent them in the legislature, and if they are not there they cannot do that. They have effectively disenfranchised their constituents.

[Khurkhogur]

The issue is that a good deal of them are what people think of when they think progressive. Young, committed to socialism (as they conceive of it - free college and UBI and a bunch of other dumb bullshit), publicly indulge in defying gender norms, adamantly in support of abortion, etc. And rhetorically, they would agree with Bernie Sanders on almost anything. But clearly, they'd happily tank his campaign with Clinton as the alternative. It's more than "they're center-left" - we're talking about the people who pride themselves on going beyond centrism.

The people you are describing do not exist.

Well, that's a bit extreme. Like your compatriot said earlier, could you point to any evidence? Is that something that's been observed, or are you just deciding they don't exist? If you'd said I'm exaggerating their influence or whatever that would have been a more reasonable statement.
The issue with demanding facts and figures about everything is that you're denying people's senses and observations (including your own), which, contrary to annoying "do you have any sources to back that up??" types, actually can identify real trends. I have met people who are like this. There are real examples of their influence. You should pick a different tack. For example, instead of just denying their existence (because there are definitely at least some people like this), maybe you could try to explain how they had the influence to crash Bernie Sanders' rally?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjt56Tdhhqk
Maybe you'd like to explain the crowd members with BLM signs in their hands. Do they just not exist? Is that your explanation? Just trying to get this straight.

[The Black Forrest]

Enough of this crap. Get some new material. You and others are simply unable to accept your candidate wasn't supported by a majority twice and need to invent a scandal or claim it was rigged to explain why you lost.

Admit it. Vermin Supreme was the main challenger to Obama and would have won 2016 and 2020 if the DNC establishment didn’t exile him from the party.

As in he would have won POTUS? Hmmm I don’t think so. Conspiracies usually are raised in such matters. For example; Had a few liberts in my circles. It was always a conspiracy to why the liberts don’t win much……

[Incelastan]

What's really baffling to me is that there's a whole section of the progressive movement that opposes Sanders just because he's a man, and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton - who would like to see us bombing Iran. It's like they enjoy perverting their own movement.

Woke neoliberals are not progressives. They're just woke neoliberals. Progressives support either social democracy or something very close to it, or distributism in my case, or in certain cases, outright democratic socialism. They have strong populist tendencies in terms of economics. They tend to oppose the surveillance state and support a less hawkish, less imperialistic foreign policy. Nah, you're conflating woke neoliberal centrists who are at best center-left with actual progressives and leftists.

[Bradfordville]

Who are these people? Could you point to a concrete example and not an anecdotal one?

They're the people who basically let the democratic party steamroll Sanders. I don't know what else you want me to tell you
Oh, and another thing - remember when Bernie was shouted down by a couple of BLM activists at his own rally and he was basically forced to stare sullenly at the ground as they took the stage? No such thing has ever happened to a candidate like Elizabeth Warren or Hillary Clinton. This is taking into account the fact that there was literally racial controversy around Warren. Clearly, there is animosity for Sanders among progressives.

I'm not sure I have seen these people. It sounds like they're a very small minority.

[Khurkhogur]

What's really baffling to me is that there's a whole section of the progressive movement that opposes Sanders just because he's a man, and would rather vote for Hillary Clinton - who would like to see us bombing Iran. It's like they enjoy perverting their own movement.

Woke neoliberals are not progressives. They're just woke neoliberals. Progressives support either social democracy or something very close to it, or distributism in my case, or in certain cases, outright democratic socialism. They have strong populist tendencies in terms of economics. They tend to oppose the surveillance state and support a less hawkish, less imperialistic foreign policy. Nah, you're conflating woke neoliberal centrists who are at best center-left with actual progressives and leftists.

I was just being pestered about facts and figures, are we gonna do the whole reddity logical fallacy list now? Because I've got a good one for this. No true scotsman? (I do hate being dragged down to the level of "le extra rational skeptic" but I didn't start it). I recognize that there are consistent, respectable liberals and progressives. I admire them. I also see far less of their rhetoric in public discussion and in all kinds of media. If you're going to define "real leftists and progressives" so narrowly, it applies to only a tiny number of Americans. For me, leftists and progressives in the US are those who are in favor of some kind of socialism (at least rhetorically), support abortion rights, subscribe to self-described anti-racism, and oppose traditional gender roles and gender boundaries. If holding these beliefs isn't enough to make someone progressive, then "progressive" becomes a completely useless term in the context of US politics.
I think at this point, you're really just arguing about who gets to have the nice-sounding mantle of "progressive." It's just a term, and in popular discussion in the US it refers to "woke neoliberals."

[Ifreann]

The people you are describing do not exist.

Well, that's a bit extreme. Like your compatriot said earlier, could you point to any evidence? Is that something that's been observed, or are you just deciding they don't exist? If you'd said I'm exaggerating their influence or whatever that would have been a more reasonable statement.

I've pointed to the same amount of evidence that you have.

The issue with demanding facts and figures about everything is that you're denying people's senses and observations (including your own), which, contrary to annoying "do you have any sources to back that up??" types, actually can identify real trends. I have met people who are like this.

No you haven't. Being generous I might suggest that you are conflating different groups of people. The liberal Democrats who very badly wanted Clinton to be the first woman to be President are not the same people as the ones who want someone further left than Sanders. Less generously you are just making this up because you think it makes progressive Democrats look stupid and you are now waffling about evidence, despite providing none yourself, to cover up for this.

There are real examples of their influence.

There aren't, though.

You should pick a different tack. For example, instead of just denying their existence (because there are definitely at least some people like this), maybe you could try to explain how they had the influence to crash Bernie Sanders' rally?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjt56Tdhhqk
Maybe you'd like to explain the crowd members with BLM signs in their hands. Do they just not exist? Is that your explanation? Just trying to get this straight.

Some BLM activists disrupting a Sanders rally is not evidence for the existence of any of the people you described in the post I quoted, much less evidence that they hold influence within the Democratic Party. Very poor goalpost shifting effort.

[El Lazaro]

Admit it. Vermin Supreme was the main challenger to Obama and would have won 2016 and 2020 if the DNC establishment didn’t exile him from the party.

As in he would have won POTUS? Hmmm I don’t think so. Conspiracies usually are raised in such matters. For example; Had a few liberts in my circles. It was always a conspiracy to why the liberts don’t win much……

He identifies as a fascist, actually. The Libertarian Party just has the most frivolous candidates, so it’s not difficult for a serious candidate to instantly thrash them upon entering the primaries. Unfortunately, after he won New Hampshire (the first state in Libertarian primaries and their main base of support) by 7 points, they resorted to rigging the primaries to make sure he wasn’t allowed to win. All of the crooked party establishments are exactly alike, Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian. As a satire party, I think the Greens would allow a genuine outsider to win, but it’s not like their nomination means anything in terms of electoral success.

[Khurkhogur]

Well, that's a bit extreme. Like your compatriot said earlier, could you point to any evidence? Is that something that's been observed, or are you just deciding they don't exist? If you'd said I'm exaggerating their influence or whatever that would have been a more reasonable statement.

I've pointed to the same amount of evidence that you have.

I totally agree. I was making a point. Demanding facts and figures for every discussion is tired, annoying, and actually contributes nothing to the discussion. Outsourcing everything to an "expert" or a bunch of numbers degrades the discussion. Let's hear what you think, not what someone told you to think.
On another note your point is totally indefensible, obviously there is at least one person in a country of ~300 million who fits the description I gave.

The issue with demanding facts and figures about everything is that you're denying people's senses and observations (including your own), which, contrary to annoying "do you have any sources to back that up??" types, actually can identify real trends. I have met people who are like this.

No you haven't. Being generous I might suggest that you are conflating different groups of people. The liberal Democrats who very badly wanted Clinton to be the first woman to be President are not the same people as the ones who want someone further left than Sanders. Less generously you are just making this up because you think it makes progressive Democrats look stupid and you are now waffling about evidence, despite providing none yourself, to cover up for this.

I'm not conflating anyone. Sanders gets all kind of criticism and scrutiny from progressives that Clinton didn't get. It doesn't matter if these people settled for Clinton or ardently supported her. What matters is that they attacked him when he was weak and supported her when she was strong. That's all that matters to me.

You should pick a different tack. For example, instead of just denying their existence (because there are definitely at least some people like this), maybe you could try to explain how they had the influence to crash Bernie Sanders' rally?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjt56Tdhhqk
Maybe you'd like to explain the crowd members with BLM signs in their hands. Do they just not exist? Is that your explanation? Just trying to get this straight.

Some BLM activists disrupting a Sanders rally is not evidence for the existence of any of the people you described in the post I quoted, much less evidence that they hold influence within the Democratic Party. Very poor goalpost shifting effort.

Why not? Your rejection of the evidence here is completely arbitrary. These are progressives. They oppose Sanders. Maybe they don't hold influence in the democratic party (although the democratic party does fawn over the BLM movement, so make of that what you will), but they certainly hold some kind of influence. They stormed a stage, rallied a crowd, and made Sanders step aside while they gave their speech. At the very least they exist, which kind of invalidates the whole basis of your point.

[Shrillland]

Another measure joins the Plaza:

Texas: The third amendment would raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges from age 75 to 79. It would also remove a provision that requires judges to retire at the end of their fourth year of a six-year term if they reach retirement age within that span.

[Incelastan]

Woke neoliberals are not progressives. They're just woke neoliberals. Progressives support either social democracy or something very close to it, or distributism in my case, or in certain cases, outright democratic socialism. They have strong populist tendencies in terms of economics. They tend to oppose the surveillance state and support a less hawkish, less imperialistic foreign policy. Nah, you're conflating woke neoliberal centrists who are at best center-left with actual progressives and leftists.

I was just being pestered about facts and figures, are we gonna do the whole reddity logical fallacy list now? Because I've got a good one for this. No true scotsman? (I do hate being dragged down to the level of "le extra rational skeptic" but I didn't start it). I recognize that there are consistent, respectable liberals and progressives. I admire them. I also see far less of their rhetoric in public discussion and in all kinds of media. If you're going to define "real leftists and progressives" so narrowly, it applies to only a tiny number of Americans. For me, leftists and progressives in the US are those who are in favor of some kind of socialism (at least rhetorically), support abortion rights, subscribe to self-described anti-racism, and oppose traditional gender roles and gender boundaries. If holding these beliefs isn't enough to make someone progressive, then "progressive" becomes a completely useless term in the context of US politics.
I think at this point, you're really just arguing about who gets to have the nice-sounding mantle of "progressive." It's just a term, and in popular discussion in the US it refers to "woke neoliberals."

It's far from semantic, man. Historically, yes, progressivism has evolved, but it hasn't become about anything to the right of FDR at least economically. The neoliberal types who comprise the corporate, centrist wing of the Democratic Party are significantly to the right of FDR and the New Deal. They have already weakened his regulatory state and have been far too open to "entitlement reform" that would gut or private Social Security or Medicare. This is not about semantics. It's about public policy, and the policies of the Clintonites are not progressive enough by half. Look at how much harder the Clinton Era policies made life for working class families in terms of public assistance that the stagnating wages continue to make necessary. Look at the harm caused by NAFTA and GATT. The last Democrat to the right of Sanders who even addressed that was Edwards and he was no flaming liberal. Look at the evisceration of Glass-Steagall, for that matter.

[Elwher]

Another measure joins the Plaza:

Texas: The third amendment would raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges from age 75 to 79. It would also remove a provision that requires judges to retire at the end of their fourth year of a six-year term if they reach retirement age within that span.

Why should there be a mandatory retirement age at all, and if it exists why should it not be as high as possible? This is ageism at its finest, presuming that no one over a certain age has the capability to make good decisions.

[Tarsonis]

Another measure joins the Plaza:

Texas: The third amendment would raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges from age 75 to 79. It would also remove a provision that requires judges to retire at the end of their fourth year of a six-year term if they reach retirement age within that span.

Why should there be a mandatory retirement age at all, and if it exists why should it not be as high as possible? This is ageism at its finest, presuming that no one over a certain age has the capability to make good decisions.

There is a valid question of elected officials making policy they won't live to see enacted, but that really is on the voters imo

[The Black Forrest]

Another measure joins the Plaza:

Texas: The third amendment would raise the mandatory retirement age for state judges from age 75 to 79. It would also remove a provision that requires judges to retire at the end of their fourth year of a six-year term if they reach retirement age within that span.

Why should there be a mandatory retirement age at all, and if it exists why should it not be as high as possible? This is ageism at its finest, presuming that no one over a certain age has the capability to make good decisions.

Didn’t you listen to Zuckerberg? Young people are just smarter.

When my wife worked at Hitachi Data Systems; A VP summed it up better.

Young people are smart and they do work hard. They don’t always make the wisest decisions.