American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Khurkhogur]

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.

Completely agree with you on the actual members of the democratic party. They pay lip service to various progressive causes but ultimately serve corporate interests. But that's the political elite. What I'm discussing when I refer to progressives is the electorate and more importantly, its activists (because they're often the people who set the tone). Activists and progressives as a chunk of the populace do talk about the degradation of the welfare state and their hopes for socialism, sometimes in a pretty serious capacity. Yet they cooperate with the democratic party and with institutions such as universities which also defend corporate interests. This is the issue. I'm not saying the democratic party is filled with authentic progressives at the elite level. Everyone knows that like, 20 years ago Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and shit like that. I'm saying the democratic party is filled with (or at least supported by) authentic progressives at the common level.

[Elwher]

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

That exists no matter the age of the officials. Unless you can do a Pinero and accurately predict when an official will die, it is always possible that they will not live to see their policy enacted.

[Incelastan]

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.

Completely agree with you on the actual members of the democratic party. They pay lip service to various progressive causes but ultimately serve corporate interests. But that's the political elite. What I'm discussing when I refer to progressives is the electorate and more importantly, its activists (because they're often the people who set the tone). Activists and progressives as a chunk of the populace do talk about the degradation of the welfare state and their hopes for socialism, sometimes in a pretty serious capacity. Yet they cooperate with the democratic party and with institutions such as universities which also defend corporate interests. This is the issue. I'm not saying the democratic party is filled with authentic progressives at the elite level. Everyone knows that like, 20 years ago Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and shit like that. I'm saying the democratic party is filled with (or at least supported by) authentic progressives at the common level.

The ones who supported Hillary in the primaries were largely far more conservative than those who backed Bernie. Same thing with Biden in 2020. Even the ones who backed Warren were generally not as progressive as those who supported Sanders. The progressive wing might fall in line in the primaries, but it's generally not going to prefer centrists to leftists.

[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.

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.

Personally, I don't think this matters because it doesn't touch the real problem: Judges shouldn't be elected. Justice should not be politicised to the extent that it is.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Personally, I don't think this matters because it doesn't touch the real problem: Judges shouldn't be elected. Justice should not be politicised to the extent that it is.

Absolutely! Supreme Court Justices are not elected and that has worked out fine, hasn't it? Hasn't it?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Personally, I don't think this matters because it doesn't touch the real problem: Judges shouldn't be elected. Justice should not be politicised to the extent that it is.

I agree…..to a point. Election of judges is foolish as they would have to consider the effort to get re-elected.

The problem with the current system? The parties have figured out how to place ideologues. Gone are the days were you will find a President lamenting someone getting on SCOTUS.

[Shrillland]

Personally, I don't think this matters because it doesn't touch the real problem: Judges shouldn't be elected. Justice should not be politicised to the extent that it is.

Absolutely! Supreme Court Justices are not elected and that has worked out fine, hasn't it? Hasn't it?

Neither should they be appointed the way that they are. They should be chosen from lists made by the judiciary itself based on merit and conduct with ideology put aside. Plenty of other democratic nations do it that way, and we rarely need to hear about what their courts are doing.

[Elwher]

Absolutely! Supreme Court Justices are not elected and that has worked out fine, hasn't it? Hasn't it?

Neither should they be appointed the way that they are. They should be chosen from lists made by the judiciary itself based on merit and conduct with ideology put aside. Plenty of other democratic nations do it that way, and we rarely need to hear about what their courts are doing.

Who defines merit and what are the standards to be used?

[Tarsonis]

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

That exists no matter the age of the officials. Unless you can do a Pinero and accurately predict when an official will die, it is always possible that they will not live to see their policy enacted.

Fair but that scale tips heavily when a rep is 84, verse a rep who's 45

[Shrillland]

Neither should they be appointed the way that they are. They should be chosen from lists made by the judiciary itself based on merit and conduct with ideology put aside. Plenty of other democratic nations do it that way, and we rarely need to hear about what their courts are doing.

Who defines merit and what are the standards to be used?

Congress can define merit since it wouldn't require an amendment. Ideally, it would be things like expertise and experience handling different fields of law, so many years as a judge, no signs of unethical or illegal conduct, and so on. These are things that judges of all political stripes can and do follow most of the time. The judiciary, through Bar Associations and the circuit/state courts, would be the ones who place names on the list, and the President would choose from the names. Does it completely remove party politics? No, no system can do that as long as humans are humans. Does it at least reduce the role to where people might become more accepting of court decisions? I believe that it will.

[Tarsonis]

Absolutely! Supreme Court Justices are not elected and that has worked out fine, hasn't it? Hasn't it?

Neither should they be appointed the way that they are. They should be chosen from lists made by the judiciary itself based on merit and conduct with ideology put aside. Plenty of other democratic nations do it that way, and we rarely need to hear about what their courts are doing.

Not a lot of other countries have a court system that constantly strikes down laws for being unconditional.

[Khurkhogur]

Completely agree with you on the actual members of the democratic party. They pay lip service to various progressive causes but ultimately serve corporate interests. But that's the political elite. What I'm discussing when I refer to progressives is the electorate and more importantly, its activists (because they're often the people who set the tone). Activists and progressives as a chunk of the populace do talk about the degradation of the welfare state and their hopes for socialism, sometimes in a pretty serious capacity. Yet they cooperate with the democratic party and with institutions such as universities which also defend corporate interests. This is the issue. I'm not saying the democratic party is filled with authentic progressives at the elite level. Everyone knows that like, 20 years ago Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal and shit like that. I'm saying the democratic party is filled with (or at least supported by) authentic progressives at the common level.

The ones who supported Hillary in the primaries were largely far more conservative than those who backed Bernie. Same thing with Biden in 2020. Even the ones who backed Warren were generally not as progressive as those who supported Sanders. The progressive wing might fall in line in the primaries, but it's generally not going to prefer centrists to leftists.

But I feel like Sanders got unwarranted hatred and scrutiny from progressives both in 2016 and 2020. I remember that in 2016, a lot of his supporters were derided as "bernie bros" and "brocialists" in leftist communities online. I think his willingness to entertain the notion that things are shitty in the Rust Belt and conservative parts of the country riled up leftists who are fixated on racial and gender politics. I'm not saying that progressives overwhelmingly came out to support Warren and Clinton/Biden during the primaries. They wavered and split on Sanders, and that's bad enough. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sanders got stomped and that Corbyn was also forced out of leadership of the Labour party. How were Sanders and Corbyn replaced by far more conservative politicians in an era of increasingly vocal and common progressivism? That's where I'm coming from, and my answer is that a large number of progressives (or the "woke" if you prefer we call them that) are basically traitorous.

[Shrillland]

Neither should they be appointed the way that they are. They should be chosen from lists made by the judiciary itself based on merit and conduct with ideology put aside. Plenty of other democratic nations do it that way, and we rarely need to hear about what their courts are doing.

Not a lot of other countries have a court system that constantly strikes down laws for being unconditional.

True, but that's one thing I do agree with our system on, even if I don't always agree on what's constitutional and what isn't. A court should be sharp to keep the other branches in line but malleable enough that aspects of it can be changed if it loses prestige or legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

[Tarsonis]

Who defines merit and what are the standards to be used?

Congress can define merit since it wouldn't require an amendment. Ideally, it would be things like expertise and experience handling different fields of law, so many years as a judge, no signs of unethical or illegal conduct, and so on. These are things that judges of all political stripes can and do follow most of the time. The judiciary, through Bar Associations and the circuit/state courts, would be the ones who place names on the list, and the President would choose from the names. Does it completely remove party politics? No, no system can do that as long as humans are humans. Does it at least reduce the role to where people might become more accepting of court decisions? I believe that it will.

Believe it or not, it used to be that way for the most part. Until Bork.

[Shrillland]

Congress can define merit since it wouldn't require an amendment. Ideally, it would be things like expertise and experience handling different fields of law, so many years as a judge, no signs of unethical or illegal conduct, and so on. These are things that judges of all political stripes can and do follow most of the time. The judiciary, through Bar Associations and the circuit/state courts, would be the ones who place names on the list, and the President would choose from the names. Does it completely remove party politics? No, no system can do that as long as humans are humans. Does it at least reduce the role to where people might become more accepting of court decisions? I believe that it will.

Believe it or not, it used to be that way for the most part. Until Bork.

True indeed. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

[Incelastan]

The ones who supported Hillary in the primaries were largely far more conservative than those who backed Bernie. Same thing with Biden in 2020. Even the ones who backed Warren were generally not as progressive as those who supported Sanders. The progressive wing might fall in line in the primaries, but it's generally not going to prefer centrists to leftists.

But I feel like Sanders got unwarranted hatred and scrutiny from progressives both in 2016 and 2020. I remember that in 2016, a lot of his supporters were derided as "bernie bros" and "brocialists" in leftist communities online. I think his willingness to entertain the notion that things are shitty in the Rust Belt and conservative parts of the country riled up leftists who are fixated on racial and gender politics. I'm not saying that progressives overwhelmingly came out to support Warren and Clinton/Biden during the primaries. They wavered and split on Sanders, and that's bad enough. I don't think it's a coincidence that Sanders got stomped and that Corbyn was also forced out of leadership of the Labour party. How were Sanders and Corbyn replaced by far more conservative politicians in an era of increasingly vocal and common progressivism? That's where I'm coming from, and my answer is that a large number of progressives (or the "woke" if you prefer we call them that) are basically traitorous.

The problem is more with woke neoliberals cosplaying as progressives and also with people who were just moderate enough to let identity politics trump class warfare in terms of their votes. I supported Bernie back in 2016, though, and yes, the whole "Bernie Bros" canard was applied, but I don't consider anyone who used that label, obviously in bad faith, to be a progressive. Ditto the people who kept insisting that Mayor Pete "won" Iowa in 2020 on the basis of SDE in spite of losing the popular vote. Or the people who could have endorsed Bernie and endorsed Biden instead (looking at you, Tulsi Gabbard, though you're frankly an outright center-right type now).

[Ifreann]

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.

So you aren't describing influential people within the Democratic Party, you're making someone up and assuming that they must exist.

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.

None of that happened, though. People who criticised Sanders from the left didn't support Clinton. People who supported Clinton weren't attacking Sanders from the left. I'm sure Sanders did get criticism that Clinton didn't, because there are criticisms of Sanders that would just not be applicable to Clinton. Like, how could anyone criticise Clinton's Medicare For All plan when she didn't support Medicare For All? But that is not the phenomenon you describe, of leftists stupidly attacking the further left candidate and supporting the further right candidate.

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.

Holding BLM signs does not put someone into the category of "[y]oung, 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."

They oppose Sanders.

Do they? Seems to me they thought he was a candidate who they had some hope of bringing around to supporting their cause.

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.

The people at that rally are very clearly not the whole section of the progressive movement that you were talking about, who oppose Sanders because he's a man, despite agreeing with all his policies, and who want President Clinton to bomb Iran.

[Tarsonis]

Believe it or not, it used to be that way for the most part. Until Bork.

True indeed. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned that way.

The politicizing of the court in the modern era is a reflection of the political divide, and symptom of it, more than it's a cause. Every justice on the court is qualified to be there. But with the political stratification, and the large culture war, gone are the days of unanimous confirmations, at least for a while.

It's Langs and Mulreadys, no Sheltons

[San Lumen]

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.

An email is not proof unless you can prove it had any effect on the election. The fact is Sanders never got more than the low thirties expect in a few primaries.

excuse me for having a life outside of NSG and for getting a new job and therefore not being able to post as much as used too.

[Tarsonis]

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.

An email is not proof unless you can prove it had any effect on the election. The fact is Sanders never got more than the low thirties expect in a few primaries.

You're just demonstrating what we've already said. I didn't cite emails, I cited the head of the DNC publically admitting to it. You cant help but lie and deflect to some bullshit about emails, because you've got nothing to stand on.

While yes, Sanders turnout wasn't great, he still won 23 primaries. How many more might he has won, has DWS not let the Clinton campaign effectively run the show, we'll only be able to speculate on.

This is ultimately the point. There are ways of unduly influencing the outcome of an election beyond ballot stuffing, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

excuse me for having a life outside of NSG and for getting a new job and therefore I can't post as much as used too.

Yeah, except this is a pattern of behavior from you, not a one off.

[San Lumen]

An email is not proof unless you can prove it had any effect on the election. The fact is Sanders never got more than the low thirties expect in a few primaries.

You're just demonstrating what we've already said. I didn't cite emails, I cited the head of the DNC publically admitting to it. You cant help but lie and deflect to some bullshit about emails, because you've got nothing to stand on.

While yes, Sanders turnout wasn't great, he still won 23 primaries. How many more might he has won, has DWS not let the Clinton campaign effectively run the show, we'll only be able to speculate on.

This is ultimately the point. There are ways of unduly influencing the outcome of an election beyond ballot stuffing, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

excuse me for having a life outside of NSG and for getting a new job and therefore I can't post as much as used too.

Yeah, except this is a pattern of behavior from you, not a one off.

Sanders lost. Get over it. The people didn't want him. Accept it and move on.

[Celritannia]

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.

An email is not proof unless you can prove it had any effect on the election. The fact is Sanders never got more than the low thirties expect in a few primaries.

excuse me for having a life outside of NSG and for getting a new job and therefore not being able to post as much as used too.

This old chestnut again?
Well, here you go, lots of evidence.

[San Lumen]

An email is not proof unless you can prove it had any effect on the election. The fact is Sanders never got more than the low thirties expect in a few primaries.

excuse me for having a life outside of NSG and for getting a new job and therefore not being able to post as much as used too.

This old chestnut again?
Well, here you go, lots of evidence.

people donated it must have been rigged is that really your argument?

Why can't you and others just accept Sanders wasn't who the majority wanted?

[Celritannia]

This old chestnut again?
Well, here you go, lots of evidence.

people donated it must have been rigged is that really your argument?

Why can't you and others just accept Sanders wasn't who the majority wanted?

Because the US media was weaponised to be against Sanders. It happens regularly in US and UK politics.
US politics is not fair, no matter how many times you try and pretend it is. Sanders was shafted by the DNC through their ploys.

[Urkennalaid]

You're just demonstrating what we've already said. I didn't cite emails, I cited the head of the DNC publically admitting to it. You cant help but lie and deflect to some bullshit about emails, because you've got nothing to stand on.

While yes, Sanders turnout wasn't great, he still won 23 primaries. How many more might he has won, has DWS not let the Clinton campaign effectively run the show, we'll only be able to speculate on.

This is ultimately the point. There are ways of unduly influencing the outcome of an election beyond ballot stuffing, you just refuse to acknowledge it.




Yeah, except this is a pattern of behavior from you, not a one off.

Sanders lost. Get over it. The people didn't want him. Accept it and move on.

I mean, to be honest, Bernie didn't do as well in the end because the establishment Dems did everything in their possible power to fuck him over and make sure he DIDN'T get into the primaries. It's way better to get a liberal warhawk who has a better opinion on American imperialism than a progressive Dem who's against foreign wars, and pushes for universal healthcare and more rights granted to workers. The Democrat party has always been willing to push against the Progressives and ally with republicans, cause at least republicans and dems can find common ground...like on invading Iraq for oil, as an example.