• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Is Joe Biden done? I hope so.

I understand

I think a whole lot had given that delusion up by 2008. Part of Trump's appeal was telling people it was okay, if not dignified, to just be a normal working and middle class republican who likes porn, McDonalds, and wrestling, I think.
 
Meadmaker.

In what way is Bernie an "avowed socialist"? The only problem with it is that he once said it long ago.
There's nothing he proposes that calls for the scaremongering he usually receives.

wikipedia said:
Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist"[5] and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights,[6][7] saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote."[8] He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.[9]

So, he is an avowed "democratic socialist", as opposed to a just plain socialist and is specifically not a Marxist.

For my part, no one who calls himself a democratic socialist would ever be my first choice for a president. If he were called a socialist, with or without an adjective, only by other people, that's different. Lots of us get called that, but when he says it himself, I'm not so keen on it.

I used to like to listen to "Brunch with Bernie" on Al Franken's radio show. I tend to like him in some ways. He had a clarity that you rarely hear from a politician. However, his proposals are all about giving away other people's money, and he goes too far in those proposals for my taste.
 
So, he is an avowed "democratic socialist", as opposed to a just plain socialist and is specifically not a Marxist.

For my part, no one who calls himself a democratic socialist would ever be my first choice for a president. If he were called a socialist, with or without an adjective, only by other people, that's different. Lots of us get called that, but when he says it himself, I'm not so keen on it.

I used to like to listen to "Brunch with Bernie" on Al Franken's radio show. I tend to like him in some ways. He had a clarity that you rarely hear from a politician. However, his proposals are all about giving away other people's money, and he goes too far in those proposals for my taste.

You're hung over a single word? You do know the adjective makes all the difference. That a half a dozen nations in Europe are lead by Democratic Socialists.
 
If bi partisan ship is dead, then democracy is dead, and all we have left is which brand of authorianism to choose.
That is one thing that scares me: that the left adapt the same exact tactics the GOP does on the grounds that "it's what works".
At least we would have a choice.

And it's not matter of if, but when. A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
 

Attachments

  • Tytler.jpg
    Tytler.jpg
    108.1 KB · Views: 8
You're hung over a single word? You do know the adjective makes all the difference. That a half a dozen nations in Europe are lead by Democratic Socialists.

Not exactly.

I'm hung on the fact that the word fits, and yes I know that Europe is full of democratic socialists.

It wouldn't be a nightmare. It just wouldn't be my first choice. I'd prefer a centrist. I liked Bill Clinton. Which candidate do you think is most like him? That's who I'd support.

Come to think of it, the answer is Joe Biden, but he's too old. Which candidate under 70 is most like Bill Clinton?
 
Benghazi? Dude, you've been listening to right-wing talking points too much. There was nothing there.

Benghazi was worth an honest congressional investigation, in order to figure out what happens, and how (if) ambassadors can be better protected going forward without crippling their ability to act as needed for US interests.

It was certainly not worth a series of investigations that served no purpose but to grandstand and smear the then Secretary of State, who likely had little or no ability to prevent it on his/her own. And that's what we got.

As for the "etc.", what does it stand for? You couldn't name more than one thing? Personally the only thing that bothers me about her is that she seems to be in cahoots with Wall Street.

Somewhat a minor concern, particularly relative to the guy in the gaudy gold-plated apartment at the top of a Manhattan tower who was always desperate for approval from Wall St. figures and other "important" people, but who never could actually get into their social circles because he was so incredibly gauche (and a total loser as well).
 
Not exactly.

I'm hung on the fact that the word fits, and yes I know that Europe is full of democratic socialists.

It wouldn't be a nightmare. It just wouldn't be my first choice. I'd prefer a centrist. I liked Bill Clinton. Which candidate do you think is most like him? That's who I'd support.

Come to think of it, the answer is Joe Biden, but he's too old. Which candidate under 70 is most like Bill Clinton?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Bill Clinton isn't/wasn't a centrist.

I've watched 50 years of the GOP moving the needle to the right to the point that slightly left of Attila the Hun becomes a centrist.

Bill Clinton among other things got rid of Glass/Steagall. He as much as anyone removed banking protections. And he did it over the objections of half the Democratic party. In fact, both the banking and insurance modernization acts were passed by almost a unanimous Republican votes and maybe 25 percent of the Democrats. His reforms of the justice system lead to ridiculous incarceration levels. And he changed welfare in a very negative way.

There hasn't been a true progressive President since LBJ and if it wasn't for Vietnam he would easily be my favourite President of my lifetime.
 
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Bill Clinton isn't/wasn't a centrist.

I've watched 50 years of the GOP moving the needle to the right to the point that slightly left of Attila the Hun becomes a centrist.

Bill Clinton among other things got rid of Glass/Steagall. He as much as anyone removed banking protections. And he did it over the objections of half the Democratic party. In fact, both the banking and insurance modernization acts were passed by almost a unanimous Republican votes and maybe 25 percent of the Democrats. His reforms of the justice system lead to ridiculous incarceration levels. And he changed welfare in a very negative way.

There hasn't been a true progressive President since LBJ and if it wasn't for Vietnam he would easily be my favourite President of my lifetime.

:thumbsup:
 
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Bill Clinton isn't/wasn't a centrist.

I've watched 50 years of the GOP moving the needle to the right to the point that slightly left of Attila the Hun becomes a centrist.

Bill Clinton among other things got rid of Glass/Steagall. He as much as anyone removed banking protections. And he did it over the objections of half the Democratic party. In fact, both the banking and insurance modernization acts were passed by almost a unanimous Republican votes and maybe 25 percent of the Democrats. His reforms of the justice system lead to ridiculous incarceration levels. And he changed welfare in a very negative way.

There hasn't been a true progressive President since LBJ and if it wasn't for Vietnam he would easily be my favourite President of my lifetime.

Yeah, the paleo narrative that every Dem is on the left is best disproven with Clinton (or maybe The Clintons, plural). Bill became the darling of the middle of the road for his economic miracle in Arkansas. My old rabble-rousing union buddies (there are a few commie unions left buried around the country if you know where to find them) were apoplectic that major unions were lining up behind his presidential run. The Arkansas miracle was based on luring rustbelt companies with promises of tax breaks and a nice comfy anti-union state. He screwed more rust-belt lunch bucket Democrats than Reagan ever did (with Ronnie's infamous cosmetic attacks on unions).

But the GOP loves that 1950s anti-commie branding. There was an article yesterday about the current (GOP) governor in KY trying to stabilize his campaign and his mouthpiece threw that out again. And it wasn't "so-and-so is a socialist" but extolling the governor's virtuous efforts to keep the state from going Socialist. Do they realize how stupid they sound to educated people?
 
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but Bill Clinton isn't/wasn't a centrist. .

Yeah, the paleo narrative that every Dem is on the left is best disproven with Clinton (or maybe The Clintons, plural).

I think we need a better and more varied political language to describe people and political philosophies. I'd say Bill is typical of neoliberalism (which I see as neither "centrist" nor "moderate". Private, for profit prisons writing the laws is radical.)

Trump is, I guess, a whole new political conglomeration. None of the usual words come close to describing his agenda.
 
On topic:
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017...TKj8bE9WG0ade0HNxouL5LCG1rIw8FUWHD_Wc&gtm=top
We’re living through a kind of Copernican revolution for the political universe: The old guard still insists that everything revolves around “the center,” but the data keep saying otherwise.

In the middle of nowhere.
The notion that there is an easily identifiable, median political ideology in America derives from the “spatial model” of the electorate, which first gained prominence in the middle of the 20th century. Originally formulated by economists, the model imagines a voting public composed of ideologically diverse — but uniformly rational — citizens seeking to advance their coherent political philosophies.

If voters’ views vary across more than one dimension, then there is unlikely to be any median voter for parties to target: One could calculate the median policy preference on each individual issue, and then find that virtually no one in the country holds all of them at once.

A 2014 study from Berkley political scientists David Broockman and Douglas Ahler surveyed voters on 13 policy issues — offering them seven different positions to choose from on each, ranging from extremely liberal to extremely conservative. On only two of those issues — gay rights and the environment — was the centrist position the most common one. On marijuana, the most popular policy was full legalization; on immigration, the most widely favored proposal was “the immediate roundup and deportation of all undocumented immigrants and an outright moratorium on all immigration until the border is proven secure”; and on taxes, the most popular option was to increase the rate on income above $250,000 by more than 5 percent. Meanwhile, establishing a maximum annual income of $1 million (by taxing all income above that at 100 percent) was the third most common choice, boasting four times more support than the national Republican Party’s platform on taxation.

When pundits implore Democrats not to abandon the center, they do not typically mean that the party should embrace legal weed, much higher taxes on the rich, and mass deportation. More often, such pundits call on Team Blue to embrace a combination of moderate fiscal conservatism, a cosmopolitan attitude toward globalization, and moderate social liberalism — in short, to become the party of Michael Bloomberg (minus, perhaps, the enthusiasm for nanny-state public-health regulations). The former New York mayor is routinely referred to as a centrist in the mainstream press, despite the fact that his policy commitments — support for Social Security cuts, Wall Street deregulation, mass immigration, and marriage equality — when taken together, put him at the fringes of American public opinion: In Drutman’s study, the percentage of the electorate that held right-of-center views on economic matters — and left-of center ones on “identity” issues — was 3.8 percent.

As Broockman told Vox’s Ezra Klein in 2014, “When we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want … Within both parties there is this tension between what the politicians who get more corporate money and tend to be part of the establishment want — that’s what we tend to call moderate

Part of what makes the concept of “the center” dangerous is that it is used to legitimize the constraints that the powerful place on policy makers, by pretending that those limitations are actually being imposed by the will of the people. In truth, what’s politically tenable in Washington has relatively little to do with what’s acceptable to most voters. As Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page found in their famous 2014 study on the relationship between public opinion and policy-making in America, “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

The whole article is worth reading in full.
 
I laugh when I hear Sanders described as too far left to be a Democrat. Too much social equality?
 
Somewhat a minor concern, particularly relative to the guy in the gaudy gold-plated apartment at the top of a Manhattan tower who was always desperate for approval from Wall St. figures and other "important" people, but who never could actually get into their social circles because he was so incredibly gauche (and a total loser as well).

You're talking about "socially Manhattan" aspirations vs "policies which enrich and empower Goldman Sachs and Citigroup."

If high finance could manifest itself into human form and speak and run for political office, it would look and sound like Hillary Clinton.
 
I laugh when I hear Sanders described as too far left to be a Democrat. Too much social equality?

It could go too far in theory, but it's not like he's advocating this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
"Harrison Bergeron" is a dystopian science-fiction short story by American writer Kurt Vonnegut, first published in October 1961. Originally published in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, the story was republished in the author's Welcome to the Monkey House collection in 1968.

In the year 2081, the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, loud radios that disrupt thoughts inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic.

Of course, people on the political right will make it out like that ^^^ and having universal health care are basically the same thing, but they're being ridiculous.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom