General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 175

I was just watching on CNN, it had just started more or less. Got up there talking about how awesome cops are, called him self "The law and order president", etc.

 

Maybe he meant the villain on Law and Order

 

SuperStation95 - ICE Agent Commits Suicide in NYC; Leaves Note Revealing Gov't Plans to Round-up & DISARM Americans During Economic & Bank Collapse

Who writes this stuff?

 

McCrory signs bill restricting view of police camera recordings

 

As always, the response is to place more power in the hands of the institutions that murder people.

 

And there's the official endorsement

 

jeez, bernie bros are the worst. so many twitter responses of "you betrayed me", "sellout", etc.

 

I mean, honestly, he has been saying the same thing repeatedly for the past year. The good thing is, he will be there to see all the platforms he advocated dissolve in the blaze of Clintonian pragmatism and neoliberal policies.

 

Because 2017 is totally the same political climate as 1993. And if there's one thing we know about Hillary Clinton, it's that she never changes views to fit a political climate.

 

Wait...is a presidential candidate dropping "implicit bias" in a speech?

 

Yes, like with the tuition-free college plan that bears the hallmark of reforms that appear progressive, but have extremely problematic content,eg, free labor, cost reduction in the form of cutting staff, public-private partnerships, allowing states to opt out and so on and so on. It is important to dig below the surface and not simply believe the hype.

 

Lol, because there's definitely reason to believe 2017 Hillary Clinton won't be a neoliberal pragmatist war hawk

 

Larry the cat staying put in Downing Street

The irony of the cat needing to stay because Downing Street will still have a Rat problem even after Cameroon leaves is poetically beautiful

 

I haven't been following Clinton's foreign policy but is she expected to start another war if president?

 

So a program that would expand college affordability and availability to a shitton of middle and lower class peoples doesn't do everything that you want it to do, so it's not a good idea. Sorry bud. The Medicaid expansion, which works on the same principle, is still a good thing, even if Republican governors are dicks and won't take the money. Because you've increased the amount of people on medicaid by 10 million+.

And, nah, I don't view working 10 hours a week to pay towards tuition as a bad thing either. Your mistake is believing people didn't "dig below the surface" at all, instead of understanding that not everyone who digs below the surface finds something they hate. "Cutting staff" as in cutting administration--the exact type of staff that needs to be cut. While states have been cutting funding, colleges have been using increased tuition to fund things that don't go towards bettering education for their students. You also fault in automatically assuming public-private = bad. I graduated from one of those low-cost, "modest-endowment" non-profit private schools. Believe it or not, they do exist, and they're worth investing in, because my other two choices were a private school that would have put me insanely in debt, and a public school that would have put me insanely in debt.

She'll most likely be a warhawk, because unlike most of her other stances, that seems to be one she never really changed to be with the times but rather actually truly believes.

There's no political advantage for her to do a complete 180 and be the Clinton from 1993, though. And that's why there's reason to believe the campaign she's running is more or less going to be the policy direction she goes in. She doesn't do shit if it's not politically advantageous. If she totally abandons her entire campaign platform, she'll be a one term president and out of power.

 

Considering her past stances on American military involvement, not just in the 90's but as recently as 2013, it'd be hard to believe that she wouldn't get involved if a situation like Syria arises during her presidency. Of course it's easier to talk a big game when you're not the one making the final decision, but she doesn't seem to be backing down from the "America needs to lead rawr" bullshit.

 

Are we talking boots on the ground like 2003 in Iraq?

 

‘Is Angela Eagle really better than Jeremy Corbyn?’ – Guardian writers on Labour’s leadership | Gary Younge, John Harris, Anne Perkins and Maya Goodfellow

 

Wouldn't surprise me, sadly. THough I think it depends on the country and the situation. I.e. I don't see her invading an Iran, at least not without the support of virtually the entire world.

 

BETTER THAN TRUMP

that is all

 

Jeremy Corbyn wins NEC vote over right to stand again for Labour leadership

 

I'll refrain from commenting on the rest of your post. Is this what you actually think the point of contention is? The issue isn't that she doesn't go far enough, it is that pathway itself is rotten. This is what is commonly called "ideological difference". Now the assessment of policy itself is done by looking at the content and character of it, not a vague understanding of what it means to have "left" policy, eg, the government spends money, therefore it is a liberal government. This is clearly a facile position, but one which is common to liberals that hold right of center views and rely on utilitarian justifications after the fact to justify the shortcomings or inherently flawed nature of said policy.

 

Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016 | Black Agenda Report

 

You refrained from commenting on the rest of my post, in which I went into detail on why I believe your assumptions about the policy are wrong-headed, and then called it a facile position. I don't think you get to say I'm ignoring the complex issues of a certain policy when I went into some pretty good detail on the actual policy.

The pathway itself is rotten because you're a communist, dude. Which is part of the reason why so many people stopped posting in this thread that used to post in it all the time--it became a thread where discussion about current politics and policy would get whittled down to "well capitalism and our government are inherently bad so none of this matters at all"....but it does matter, and people like discussing how these policies will work in real world scenarios, not lament that it's not a move to a communist way of life so it's automatically wrong in every way--or, as you say, a "rotten pathway".

I looked at the content and character of the policy, and it's a pretty good policy. It includes transfer payments from more wealthy to middle class and poor people for college, creates incentives for the reinvestment into education by states, and asks for minimal amounts back from the people being helped. For now, anyway. It's a policy goal of a campaign, not even a policy white paper.