General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 72

Yeah that's a good point. I don't know, maybe we should do a poll?

 

I'm new here, but, isn't this site based in the US? I mean if I went on another country's politics forum I wouldn't get sad that they were talking about their own elections.

 

This, along with climate change, are the only issues that really matter. Everything stems from or relates to inequality in some way.

 

Yeah, I mean, when it boils down to it it doesn't matter to me, but I'm sure people find it hard to talk about other things when election talk is going on,and viceversa

 

Ap had a world events or politics thread. A separate election thread is pointless when most users are American and it will end up discussed in here anyway.

 

I disagree, and so do a lot of voters whose votes matter just as much as yours, and deserve to be represented accordingly.

 

Reform the system that gave us Trump or, at the very least, amend one faction of the system so that it may produce a candidate that left-leaning persons want to support.

Yes, but you are not soliciting opposition to Trump: that is already present. You are attempting to rally support for an also-shitty candidate.

That's a statement that completely assumes the virtue of the system and illuminates the different objectives between those left of center who support Clinton and those who do not. Reality didn't do anything to Stein: the system which distorts, corrupts, and transforms American political reality did. You're asking supporters of Stein to prop up a system that consciously excludes her by its modes of organization and its ideological grounding.

 

You can disagree but one is an existential crisis facing the entire planet and the other is an existential crisis facing the country. It's hard to argue anything is more important than resolving these issues when countless others sprout from them.

 

I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that climate change is a problem, I was disagreeing with the fact that it is the ONLY problem. You said that income inequality and climate change are the only problems that matter. I agree they are problems and I agree that they matter a great deal. I do not agree that they are the only problems that matter.

 

They're the only ones that matter in that if they aren't resolved there is no other issue that matters.

 

to continue Eric's point, the world is more complicated than it's ever been. You can talk about those topics the most, but if someone asks you a question and you can't answer, then you can't deal with that problem. It's also helps no one if your like "terrorism is because of world inequality". Bernie won't fix that, and he actually has to deal with ISIS. Even if inequality is the cause of those things, you have to find an answer based in reality to try and fix it.

 

That doesn't mean every other issue should be ignored completely.

 

So I agree the system could use reform, but you are not proposing HOW it should be reformed. Also I think it is important to note that it is possible to move the two parties in the direction that you want, but you have to have organization and funding. Look at what the Tea Party was able to do with the Republicans. They basically hijacked the party. They went from being a little known grassroots organization, and then got members elected to the House, secured funding from the Koch brothers, and then eventually the Senate and ALMOST got Ted Cruz nominated for President in less than 10 years. Now I disagree with their policies, but you have to admit that is pretty impressive.

I think the reason they were successful was because they focused on getting in on the ground floor - getting members elected to lower level positions to show they had organization - rather than taking a top down approach like the Bernie Sanders movement. Bernie's philosophy is that once he is President, a wave of progressive politicians would be elected into office due to him spearheading the progressive movement. It seems that has failed, and, in my opinion, it failed because it was the wrong approach. I think you have to do it the way the Tea Party did it, from the ground up. Start with State legislature races, then move to House and Senate races. And I think it is possible. There is a liberal donor base out there, and Bernie has showed that crowdsourced fundraising can be significant enough to make a serious run for President. However, the will has to be there, and I think thats what the left lacks. I hear so much apathy from the far left about how the system doesn't represent them, its rigged so why even bother, etc. So if they aren't going to be organized enough to turn out and vote, then why should I court their votes as a politician, and why should I donate my money to their cause?

 

Rubio tweetshames Trump critics

Say what you will about Marco, this guy is going to be a big figure in politics for a long time. And he can be pretty witty and has some good one liners.

 

A source “close to Rubio” says he was tired after a long day & has decided to sleep for a few hours before tomorrow’s ZIKA debate in Senate.

 

I disagree with Rubio's policies for the most part. He is pretty far right. But at least he is pretty knowledgeable about foreign policy. Despite what people are saying (that his political career is over, etc.) I think he is going to be around for a while and make a comeback in 10 years.

 

This is also an interesting article. Social media billionaires don't need to give money to campaigns to have a big impact on someone like Bernie.

The New Too Big to Fail

 

You're entirely missing the point of operating within the system to reform the system: your presumption is that, somehow, a vote for a warmongering neoliberal will help mobilize leftists on the ground-- there is no rationale for that. Disregarding the delineation in approaches (because it is rubbish-- a ground-up movement is happening right now; as we speak I'm working on an Independent congressional campaign, as are many both within and outside the Democratic Party), your idea of the left lacking will is silly barring consideration of a narrow far-far-left population who have perhaps abstained. The (even moderate) left just created the most robust grassroots political movement in American history and, upon being ignored, marginalized, and pissed on by the Democratic Party, you want them to lend the party their patronage.

Leftists can exploit the Democrats' infrastructure without voting for Hillary Clinton and being complicit in what she represents, thus again validating the very natures of the party that they oppose. How exactly does voting for Hillary Clinton help move the system to the left? If anything a Donald Trump presidency would more easily parlay into rapid change within the party.

Equating to voting third party to saying "why even bother" is fucking stupid.

 

Also, Marco Rubio and "witty" should never be used in the same sentence.

 

Well people do it.
Rubio stood up to Trump with witty comebacks, setting Twitter ablaze during GOP debate

Maybe you can't understand his humor.

 

Can you point out where I said that? Never said you had to vote for Hillary. In fact, I was arguing that the way to get a progressive movement to gain traction is to start with lower level seats and eventually build the movement up to a presidential run. I think you kind of made some assumptions about me without asking what I think, but regardless I am glad to hear you are working on this in your own district.

But I'm not just saying this stuff to say it. If you look at election turnout, liberals tend to show up for presidential elections in a big way but are absent in the midterm elections to elect their Senators and Representatives. This is why they can't get their policies voted into law. In contrast, this is where the Tea Party did very well. My argument is that if you would like the party to move more to the left, then you need to take a ground up approach similar to what the Tea Party did with the Republicans.

Maybe I am wrong. But tell me, if there really is a large faction of progressives that are serious about enacting change, then why didn't Bernie do better? Why is the Senate and the House both controlled by the Republicans? Was it because their efforts were suppressed? I understand that voter suppression is an issue but I don't think you can blame it for the more than 3 million votes that Hillary is winning by, and I don't think you can blame every single Congressional race on voter suppression. The fact is, the far left just doesn't turn out in the numbers it needs to, to sway things. I think that could change if they changed their tactics, as I said before.

Though you may not agree with Hillary, she is demonstrably more left than any Republican. You can compare her voting record to other members of Congress here: Hillary Clinton, former Senator for New York - GovTrack.us

So maybe she wouldn't stand for the exact same things you stand for and maybe you will disagree with her on some things. I certainly do. But I disagree that Donald Trump would be better for the progressive movement. I have seen this argument that Donald might make things so bad that the people will rise up and we will have a leftist revolution. Maybe. But the more likely outcome is that he would be a national embarrassment and be voted out in 4 years without drastically changing the country. He would have time, however, to nominate 1 or 2 Supreme Court justices from his list created by the Heritage Foundation. Those appointments would do more to derail any progressive movement than anything Hillary could manage to do. Even if you got a progressive majority in Congress to pass laws that fit your ideology, they would be struck down by a conservative Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And those appointments are for LIFE. So it would take a long time before there is another chance to change things.

Lastly, I didn't say third party voting is "fucking stupid". I really don't know where you are getting this. You can vote for whoever you want. But if we are going to discuss this then can you address my points instead of making up arguments that I never actually said?

 

Most people agree with social change from below, which is attached to political parties. For example, if I lived in Seattle, I would vote for Kshama Sawant of Socialist Alternative. Her rise is due to her involvement with grassroots movements and was able to achieve substantial changes, not on her own, but with the people on her side. The point of contention is whether one can do this within the apparatus of the democratic party. I do not think it is possible because the party is structurally welded to the maintenance of neoliberal political economy. This reality has alienated people from the electoral process, hence low voter turnout. And the last point I would make is that voting isn't the only political participation one can engage in. Many people, like those I organize with in Baltimore, reject electoral politics as that which leads the way towards change, but they manage to do meaningful work within the communities and in politics at large through their movement work. The biggest social justice group right now, Black Lives Matters, isn't only oriented towards the political process insofar as they want to interrogate candidates. They've made it a point to say that, we need to do this, you need to be held accountable and, if there's no justice, there will be no peace, and the latter will force you to give into our demands.

 

Can you explain what you mean by "neoliberal political economy"? I don't want to twist your argument, but are you saying that change cannot come from the Democratic party unless they become an anti-capitalist party? I would disagree with that, since the vast majority of people are not anti-capitalist, but I want to hear what you mean before I jump to any conclusions.

 

What I still don't get is that when we talk about this far left revolution, I have seen even Warf Rat say that the reason Venezuela failed was they tried to be socialist in a capitalist world. So how in the hell is pushing for socialism in the US going to lead to anything but the fall of our country, and the loss of countless lives. All it will do is lead to the rise of another capitalist nation, only this time it will be the people of the US that starve in the streets. It will also be another example to the world, that socialism is not a system that can ever work. Am I missing something? It just doesn't seem to help anything currently happening in the world if we base all of our answers on a philosophy that we can maybe achieve in the next 50 years.