General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 40

My point was that they happened within the political system you claim will stop these things from occuring. And yes, people wer organizing outside the party apparatus--i'll ignore your oversimplification of there being no interest in elected officials to do it regardless--and then they voted the people they needed into office to do it. They didn't say "ew, democrats? Pfffft, not voting for them, they have a D next to their name...I mean, after all, they sucked 20 years ago." They instead told the party "do this, and do it now", and/or voted in the people they knew would do it.

Communities aren't going to be nearly as affected by Trump or Hillary as they are by their own local politics, but to pretend there's no major difference that won't result in major infringements of rights and liberties for certain groups of people if Trump wins is major folly.

Organize outside of party politics all you want--once that organization is done, if you aren't using the party to your own end and bending it to your will, you're not getting what you want any time soon.

 

Anyone have a good explainer for how much blame for the Flint water crisis is on Obama's shoulders?

 

I don't think any of it is?? It seems to be something like 80% on the state government and 20% on the local from what I've read.

Unless you mean the response to it on a a federal level?

 

Yeah, the response on a federal level.

 

And the political system you praise has rolled back much of those gains, all with overt or covert democratic support, so what is your actual argument? Mine is that, so long as you focus on party politics, any reform is impossible precisely because democrats and republicans are structurally welded to the maintenance of the status quo.

As for Trump, I've related my views on why I think communities are in danger regardless and the difference is the type of danger. You reject that. You think Trump is bad because of his words, but make no such indictment of the president that deported hundreds of thousands of people. You think Trump will give increase income inequality, but a democrat is pushing through a trade deal that is understood as being devastating to the working class. So, at this point, there is no conversation to be had, because you don't acknowledge reality when it comes to your party. Your only argument for them is that people need to forget the terrible things they've done and look, over there at what Trump is saying.

It doesn't matter which party is in power. It matters if the people are organizing to upend the status quo. That requires disruption, not playing along. Bottom line.

 

everyone can shut up about bernie supporters not supporting clinton now thanks Bernie Sanders fans may not love Hillary Clinton. But they won't vote for Donald Trump.

 

The Democratic party--which has routinely suppressed voter turnout in the primary process to nominate a standard bearer so they would not have to become accountable to the ways in which those people wish the party would change--supposedly gives a shit about what activists on the left think?

 

It’s Their Party | Jacobin

"Any political action comes with opportunity costs, and the costs of a strategic focus on electing Democrats have been grave — from the labor movement’s inability to defend itself against attacks from “their” party to antiwar movements that disappear when a Democrat comes to office. Configuring left politics around electoral action, in the absence of any kind of social democracy, inevitably results in a situation where, as Robert Brenner puts it, reformism doesn’t even reform.

The failure of realignment, then, contains lessons for socialists who fall on both sides of the old “reform or revolution” argument. Its history should not be taken as a verdict against reformism. Indeed, the story of realignment serves to clarify what, exactly, will be required for a successful American reformism. Because ultimately, the kind of grand strategic vision that animated realignment is a prerequisite for both those who wish to see, at long last, social democracy in the United States — and those who wish to go beyond it."

 

Building the Greens Into a Mass Party: Interview with Bruce Dixon

 

on the bright side we've got probably less than 100 years left until the only hospitable environments on earth are parts of northern canada and siberia

 

Certainly you aren't basing that prediction on her actual record. Also, its not like gravity where shit will happen no matter who is elected. I think its being said that people will be oppressed and murdered because Clinton is elected.

Also, if this is acknowledged, can you at least see the merit in someone voting third party precisely because they can't bring themselves to cast a vote in support of such an option?

 

To your last point, isn't that the problem? Upending status quo with no caveats or purpose doesn't result in change, just chaos.

 

That is not some inherent thing to the system itself, they were "rolled back" (I don't really agree with that conclusion) because of the same political climate you claim doesn't effect the reasons why decisions are made. The country made a hard right turn in 1980 (led by, BTW, a guy who usurped a political party that his backers despised, while the party itself successfully stopped him 4 years prior), and that political climate meant nothing further left than moderate was going to win an election. It doesn't matter what type of "system" you have in place short of brutal dictatorship, if the mood of the country swings one way, policy is going to swing with it.
As I think J.C. has pointed out a few times now, working to get Dems to lose elections so they'll crumble to leftist demands doesn't seem to be rooted in any historical context, as losing elections tends to bring them towards the middle, not the other way around. My "argument" is you're conclusions on both parties being unable to "reform" because they are "structurally welded to the maintenance of the status quo" are based on nothing more than your own personal opinion that is biased due to your socialist views and one I happen to think is wrong. Both parties, throughout history, have shown a willingness to do the exact opposite of the status quo over and over again. I don't think you or I or anyone else can see into the future far enough to say it's impossible, or even improbable, that it happens again...even in the near future. We agree that citizens united and other monied interests in politics may make this harder, or at least seem impossible....but I disagree that it actually is impossible. We've had periods of politics owned by money in the past, that were followed by heavy backlash to that status quo.

The president, to a certain degree, has to follow rule of law. He can't just ignore deportation laws because he wants to. He even went out of his way to pass possibly unconstitutional EA's/EO's to protect the most vulnerable of those people. He's still up there giving speeches every month about how broken our immigration system is, how we need to treat these people as the human beings they are, how we need to take in refugees, etc. As someone who is a big proponent of words mattering, you should know how important a difference is to have the leader of the country up there insinuating the majority of those immigrants are rapists and murderers, talking about "sending them back!" as if it's something to be proud of, and basically treating them like the subhumans his followers think they are.

Trade deals...heh, speaking of not acknowledging reality. Surely you, who has chastised people here for supporting certain candidates because they'll be easier on their own people here at home than they will abroad, aren't going to ignore the raises in living standards and decreases in global inequality that have happened due in part to trade deals. Suddenly the American worker takes precedence over the global community? Regardless, a global economy is a hard thing to navigate and I don't think much can be done to stop what has already started. What CAN be done is increases in taxes to pay for programs to help the poor in both the short term and long term. One guy is campaigning on doing the exact opposite of that. His name is Trump. Yes, he will raise income inequality problems.

You can call it "my party" all you want, my "party" is the one of logic. Aka realizing that trying to get change without using already intact infrastructure to get it won't work. I don't feel any loyalty to the Democratic Party, I just know in my lifetime they're more likely to be the party that is beholden to people that share the same policy views I do. And no, it's not about "forgetting" terrible things, it's about realizing that yesterday's reality isn't necessarily today's. Politicians from certain political parties did really shitty things, and then 10, 20, 30 years later they're passing laws we like, or even love.

 

I have to respond to these two things because I really think they're simply exaggerated or wrong.

First, the president has a large degree of enforcement discretion with deportation laws. Executive discretion has very few limits. This is shown by Obama's huge amount of deportation in some areas (near the border) and almost not enforcing others. Obama's aggressiveness has been consistent into the latest term: Deportations revive rift between Obama and fellow Democrats
He is well deserving of his Deporter in Chief moniker. Talk is cheap. That executive orders helped but it only came after backlash from the 2014 mass deportations, and clearly didn't help much overall as he's continued his deportation enforcement on large scales.

Second your characterization of the trade deal as helping the global worker is an unsupported talking point that the left has constantly shut down. How does granting more power and better deals to large corporations and countries with consistent human rights violations help the global worker? The poverty that has been alleviated by trade has been minimal, while in turn income distribution moves heavily from workers to billionaires. This is not progress. (I should add that this is without even acknowledging the environmental destruction that results in mass outsourcing by large corporations).

Your defense on these issues shows major bias for Obama, and I'd bet you wouldn't afford a republican the same leeway. What does he have to do to lose your defenses of him? Even when you are critical of him or other dems you always seem to caveat it with some defense, or some blame deflection. Is there anything?

 

It also sets precedents that are not good to set. Obama could technically, legally, do a whole bunch of shit. The problem is the precedent it sets for future presidents. I.e., if Obama ignores certain aspects of law A that liberals like, what is to stop President Trump from ignoring certain aspects of Law B that liberals will despise? Congress basically being shut down has shifted a lot of power to the executive branch and if future GOP presidents continue on that trend, a lot of left wing people will not be very happy.

Workers get jobs that previously weren't there (many of which were previously here). We can talk about the labor conditions in those countries and would probably agree on how shitty they are, but that doesn't change the fact that people are getting jobs that previously weren't there, and yes this has helped improve quality of life for a lot of people in those countries. And that's in addition to an increase of availability of cheaper products. Income moves heavily from workers to billionaires because we have low taxes on the wealthy and shitty redistribution programs. Focus on changing those, because there's no reversing globalization at this point.

These aren't "defenses", they're pointing out facts. For example, I'm not "defending" TPP--I honestly haven't read enough about it to have any real agreement or disagreement with it, other then my general American worker-centric distrust for trade deals. But there is no denying it would almost definitely lead to higher employment in certain countries involved in the deal (study after study has shown certain countries with certain conditions and their people benefit more from trade deals than others), and people making money they previously weren't making. My general feelings on trade deals are I think the US should be using them to, more than anything, strong arm certain developing countries into better environmental policies, but I understand that's both hard to do because of our own lax environmental policies, and unfair in some ways to developing countries considering how much we used fossil fuel to help ourselves up. Otherwise...as protectionist as I'd like to be sometimes, I don't think protectionism works very well.

I wouldn't afford a Republican the same leeway because I see Republicans as actively trying to pursue policies that I disagree with. I view the Obama's of the world as fighting an uphill battle to go back to the left, and getting the NFL Head Coach treatment where he gets all of the blame for concessions made to the right, and none of the credit for the leftward moves he's been able to make, especially the low key ones. So I find myself getting called a "neoliberal" in a negative context in places like here when I point out Obama isn't nearly as Republican as people here like to pretend he is, and a "communist" or "socialist" or "jackbooted thug" or etc. in other places that are right wing circle jerks filled with people who, and I shit you not, called Hillary a communist earlier tonight. And sadly a few of those people are well educated, as far as I can tell.

 

What an open U.S.-Mexico border looks like | Fusion

 

Can any one of our Florida members give some insight into how the buzz on Tim Canova's popularity is?

It's somewhat surprising to me, given how much more robust and passionate than expect the Sanders swell has been, that the buzz on this guy has seemed to plateau. In terms of actualizing a democratic revolution, Wasserman-Schultz has to be the first head to roll and, while such a displacement would be fairly innocuous in terms of the functioning of the Democratic party, it would send a huge statement, build enthusiasm in the movement, and effectuate a much-needed broadening of the scope of Sanders supporters and a great exercise in utilizing their infrastructure.

 

Overlap between casual Sanders supporters and Trump supporters is a real thing. It is in no way consequential from what I can tell, apart from the anti-establishment types who (a) just want to penetrate the system or (b) believe they can parlay a Trump presidency into more substantial future gains.

There are actually unique theoretical incentives in place for conservatives ideologues who dislike Trump to vote for Clinton and for progressives who dislike Clinton to vote for Trump. It's not a dynamic that will preside over the general election in any way, but it's still fairly fascinating. Because of the vitriol against both candidates (and especially considering the damage that Trump can do to the GOP brand and its continual denial of using racism of misogyny), the losing side will undoubtedly have ample footing for mobilizing support after the general based both off the shittiness of the opposing party's candidate and the fact that their nominee lost to them. No matter which of Clinton or Trump win the presidency, domestic progress will lag and the murder and exploitation of foreign citizens will continue: the presidency will not be a good thing. But it's hard for me to imagine the world ending in either scenario: I actually think both presidencies could have great long-term effects on the evolution of the losing side.

 

Hell yeah

 

It is honestly difficult to respond to this level of delusion, justifications and ahistorical ramblings, so I'll just go ahead and bow out of this conversation.

 

Sanders has done a terrible job of reaching out to candidates like Canova, who would be needed to help undertake this "political revolution" he's been planning. If Sanders had thrown his weight behind some of these candidates, they'd have had a much better shot at winning.

 

Texas Prison Strikes to Wind Down After Achieving Results IWW Prisoners Union Continues to Grow | Support Prisoner Resistance

 

Super cool that the IWW is doing big work like this again. I understand they've been growing in recent years too. Wrote a bit on them this semester, such a great group

 

This is a really dumb argument because the precedents have already been set and the main case that established the deference the executive branch is given in executing the law was decided more than 30 years ago and the Supreme Court even, again already, gives a greater deference in the immigration context. The fact of the matter is that Obama is already using selective enforcement and "not following the law" (although I'd disagree with that characterization) in certain aspects so that is no defense for him deporting more immigrants than any president in history. Moreover, even if we accepted your inaccurate portrayal of the precedent, acting like Obama is choosing not to do something fully within his legal bounds to help immigrants, or at the very least taking advantage of it to not hurt immigrants more than any president in history, for fear that some future Republican president could do worse is just absolutely absurd. Illegal immigration hasn't gone up since President Bush left office, yet deportations have risen immensely. So what precedent is Obama really setting?

 

The precedent isn't just set on the immigration issue, but on everything else too. Bush and Obama both especially started pushing the boundries on executive power and you're getting presidents now telling the DOJ to ignore specific federal laws, changing/delaying/stopping certain aspects of new laws (see: ACA), etc. The next President may try to dismantle, say, federal funding for Medicaid expansion because hey, if the Obama Administration can decide to arbitrarily change the law, why can't I? These things build and build until checked by one of the other branches, but one of them s basically defunct and the other is increasingly voting along party lines...which again gets to the importance of literally any Democrat in office right now over Trump, because of how important the SCOTUS has become. It's not "fear mongering" when it's factual to point out that the difference between a Hillary or a Trump right now may be the difference between keeping Roe V. Wade, the difference between the rest of the Voting Rights Act, the difference between possible gun laws, union laws, etc. That's not fear mongering, that's fact. In the past it might not have been as big a deal because Congress could act to pass a new law that is written constitutionally. But that's not happening anymore because of the shitshow the GOP has turned Congress into.

And yes, the 'defense', if that's what you want to call it, is that he as President is already is skirting the law in places by giving certain groups a reprieve from deportation. Are you suggesting "might as well go all the way and ignore immigration law altogether"? Do you not realize what kind of backlash that would get, not just politically but in terms of social unrest?

But if you wanted to keep it specifically to immigration in terms of precedent, you really don't think a future GOP president could do worse on immigration than what Obama has done? Really? Imagine a President Trump ignoring a DREAM Act had it passed, or a President Trump unilaterally banning certain groups of people from entering the country (while simultaneously demonizing the ones already here). Yes, these things are worse. it can ALWAYS get worse.