Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 10:21am PT
|
Gary is a very smart man as evidenced from his posting history.
You've always been one of the more astute posters on this site! :-)
But, just to extend his obvious troll....
Bush did absolutely nothing about healthcare in America
And Obama made sure that the worst aspect of our healthcare, private for-profit insurance, was mandatory.
The Obama Administration gave healthcare to 25 million Americans
Better than nothing, I suppose.
The Obama Administration passed the Lilly Fair Act, guaranteeing women the same pay as men for the same work
Great, women that work are now no more exploited than men. How about doing something to ensure that people that work in America get to retain the fair share of wealth that they produce, rather than see it siphoned off to the 0.1%? No difference between Dems and Repubs there.
The Obama Administration did not stupidly invade two middle east countries as Bush did
Libya is not a country? Syria is not a country?
There were virtually no foreign attacks on the US during the Obama Administration
versus 3000 dead Americans under Bush when his administration was warned Bin Laden about to attack and did so on 911
Score one for Obama. However over 2500 Americans soldiers and sailors have died overseas under Obama.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/some-2-500-americans-have-died-in-afghanistan-and-iraq-under-obama-20160530
The US went into the worst recessions since the Great Depression under Bush
Under Obama the US economy recovered, millions of jobs were created and the stock market more than doubled
Yes, the Democrats always do better with the economy than the GOP, but that's not saying much is it? There are still too many Americans without work, proper housing, proper nutrition, proper healthcare and proper education.
I could keep going on but if the point is not clear by now it would not matter
The fact of the matter is that the two most effective Republican presidents since Eisenhower are Clinton and Obama. At least the real Republicans make it clear that they are out to f*#k you over, the Democrats say they "feel your pain" and campaign on "hope and change."
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 11:04am PT
|
We invaded Syria and Libya like Iraq and Afghanistan?
We must have had hundreds of thousands of troops in them, right?
And their governments must have been relatively stable.
Scratch that, they were both in deep civil war when we got involved.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 11:20am PT
|
...and just because Obama didn't stop people from making money off the backs of others, it somehow would have been better if the money-making person was able to make a bigger profit off the backs of the women?
Gee....I wonder what the gender wage disparity is within the penal system. If a "free man" gets $21.50/hour, and an incarcerated man gets $0.50/hour, and if a "free woman" receives $17.65/hour, does the incarcerated woman make $0.42/hour?
For those who would argue that incarcerated people receive room and board, do they believe an employer of unincarcerated people ought to pay the men or women who live with their parents less than the ones who are in their own home or apartments? What about the ones living out of a van? Should they receive less than the one with the bigger rent/mortgage payment?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 11:22am PT
|
ah, so another Bernie voter tries to duck his own responsibility by making assumptions
by the way, the election was nine months ago, not a year
as there was no exit polling then assumptions are irrelevant
BERNIE SANDERS VOTERS HELPED TRUMP WIN AND HERE'S PROOF
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 11:52am PT
|
Hillary would have also got a fair number of them back, if Sanders was VP.
Considering the razor thin margins in the rust belt, that would have been enough.
Yay for Timmy Kaine!
Next time, pay attention to 45% of your primary voters.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 12:05pm PT
|
Hey, I liked Bernie
he is a cute old curmudgeon, what is not to like?
free college, Medicare for everyone, broken record
but he "spoke truth to power"! so what
the right never bothered to spend a dime to vet Bernie, they knew he would not be the nominee
just a quick look at his wiki page will show you why, quasi communist and socialist joiner
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2017 - 12:08pm PT
|
Gary, I think your perceptions might be explained and expanded upon as this:
 dems and repubs are allowed to have different policies as long as they tow the line on the issues that matter most to the richest folks
this status quo is enforced because there are strings attached to indirect campaign financing via super-PACs and the tail-end perks after the stint in public office is over (speaking fees, law firm partnerships and other sinecures, book deals, charitable foundations, etc.) which are funded by the richest folks. It's a system of bribery designed to be separated in space and time to make it harder to detect or hold the violators on either side accountable. Our Supreme Court (all of whom were nominated by Presidents who achieved their office because of this system) voted 5-4 to enshrine this system as part of the Citizens United decision.
In short, we cannot expect a solution to this problem to come from the system itself, and that is why the voting public is always enamored by candidates who represent change or an outsider view.
In order to elect a leader who can champion real reforms that support the masses while taking away some of the benefits that the richest folks reap... such a leader must:
1. Get elected without dependencies on the large donors
2. Have the integrity to not prioritize their personal financial gain after leaving office ahead of their actions that would favor the masses over the large donors
3. Fundamentally have a desire to do good deeds for the masses, even if it comes at a great personal cost
A candidate who meets both #1 and #2 causes the large donors to lose their financial power to exploit the weaknesses of pride- and greed- in politicians. However, this does not at all guarantee that the status quo (of mass oppression to benefit the rich and powerful) will change!
Rather, it means the rich and powerful will switch to whatever tools are necessary to maintain the status quo.
First option: remove the candidate threat. It starts simply with disparaging their name (a sex scandal? corruption charge? any dirt to dig up? If nothing real is found, something can be exaggerated or wholly invented with a back-story of people willing to testify. There is no need to go out and murder people any more. You can murder their effectiveness without needing to raise the attention of the masses by actually murdering their body. But murder is always there as a last resort, couched in a suicide, an accident, falling out a window, etc.
Second option: create a distraction that drowns out the message of the candidate: weapons of mass destruction, war on terror, immigrants stealing jobs, terrible trade deals, environmental catastrophes, global warming, despotic rulers overseas that need to be stopped, nuclear war, KKK marches, clown showboating media whore president, etc. The focus on these issues doesn't have a real bearing on how much truth there is or how much we should really be concerned about the given issues. The point is, dominate the news cycles with short-attention span messages triggering fear or hate or outrage, and stop people from making deeper inquiries into our societal problems, and stop people from pondering how we remain pitted against each other in specific wedge issues and cultivated identities, while studiously avoiding certain issues that can actually make the biggest difference in all of our lives: election mechanisms and campaign financing; who reaps the wealth generated by the work and resources in our society....
I do acknowledge a big difference between the platforms and viewpoints and strategies of Dems and Repubs, and it DOES make a difference which we vote for. At the same time, we have to solve the bigger problem that neither Dem nor Repub can get us out of, i.e. the status quo rich getting richer while poor get poorer. The institutions are pervasively infected by the richest folks.
That is why I was such a fan of Bernie, and why I felt inspired to support him. He cracked the code on how to get campaign funding without the large donors. He has the integrity to not prioritize the back-end perks above his duties of office. He has the desire to do good and help the masses. He's not a god, he's not an iconic superstar to worship. But he was the best catalyst for societal change in a long time, tapping into widespread societal values and beliefs and educating people about what needed to happen to make all of our lives better. He had a choice:
1. Go independent and lose all the staunch Democrat votes, won't get elected. Long history of this in America.
2. Gamble with the Democrat party, winner take all primary fight.
He came damn close in the primary fight. But in the end, when he couldn't be compromised directly by money, the rich folks used it to exploit the financial vulnerability of the rest of the Democratic Party apparatus. That money bought the mainstream Democratic candidate more experienced folks for organizing, more advertisements, more media spinning, etc. Maybe it's more accurate to consider the mainstream party politicians enmeshed in the bribery system as co-conspirators rather than vulnerable victims. It's a fair trade and ongoing negotiation between the richest folks and the type of politician that will sell ideals for personal gain... I digress.
So Bernie made his choice, knowing the risks and consequences of either path, and he fought to the bitter end, until there was no path forward for his candidacy. Then he chose the next best thing, leveraging his power by withholding the Hillary endorsement until she publicly committed to important campaign positions that favored the masses. She would never be able to turn directly against her corporate sponsors, but the $15 minimum wage was a compromise position that was acceptable because it didn't hurt her financial backers as much. It might be more likely to hurt small businesses, or mixed results for large retail and manufacturing industries, but these are often more Republican than Democrat supporters anyways. So. The pragmatist part of Bernie could call a little win in the life-long battle against an unfair status quo-
increasing the wages for the lowest in our society. Almost. Chalk that up as a minor battle victory in a war that doesn't see many victories for the masses.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the main election for the reasons cited above. I would hope that the staunch Democrats among us can read my wall of text and consider more nuanced positions going forward. Support Democrats when it comes down to a choice of Dem vs Repub if you believe in the points on which they differ. But be realistic about which important things in our society that are unlikely to be changed by either party unless the party is coopted by a charismatic candidate who meets all of the #1 #2 and #3 requirements I outlined above. Even then it it will be a longshot to make real change, because most people just don't think about these things or care enough.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 12:12pm PT
|
More like definitive proof that politics is like religion; mostly faith and little logic. It's great when someone does an analysis that comes directly to the conclusion you like. It must be good then! I think Nut gives a decent summary of how this went, and I voted the same he did primary and general. People want real change.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 12:36pm PT
|
We invaded Syria and Libya like Iraq and Afghanistan?
When you go to another country to kill people and exert your will on that nation, I count that as an invasion. YMMV
dems and repubs are allowed to have different policies as long as they tow the line on the issues that matter most to the richest folks
Yes.
Rather, it means the rich and powerful will switch to whatever tools are necessary to maintain the status quo.
Such as the plot to overthrow FDR.
I do acknowledge a big difference between the platforms and viewpoints and strategies of Dems and Repubs, and it DOES make a difference which we vote for. At the same time, we have to solve the bigger problem that neither Dem nor Repub can get us out of the status quo rich getting richer while poor get poorer. The institutions are pervasively infected by the richest folks.
Nice summary, NutAgain.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 12:36pm PT
|
Rather, it means the rich and powerful will switch to whatever tools are necessary to maintain the status quo.
Pretty sure that's the way it's always worked since a certain likeness of us crawled out of the Rift Valley.
Arguing over which puppet skin is draped over the current puppet in chief is pointless as it doesn't matter. The position itself IS the lipstick on the pig. GWB couldn't even read the teleprompter.
Yeah, people are waking up but watch how easily they're turned against each other rather than the root of evil.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 02:32pm PT
|
Well, when it came down to just Trump and Clinton at the end
a Mount Everest of negatives versus "used a private email server"
then Dingus is right in that... yes it follows that ....the Dems should not call anyone stupid anymore
Instead of calling them stupid for costing my team the election.
stupid is as stupid votes...the country got what they wanted and voted for
except for that pesky Electoral College thing negating Clinton's 3 million more votes of course
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 02:46pm PT
|
Dood
Hillary was a not a good candidate for these times. It was her job to sell herself and she did a crappy job of it. To be honest, Obama was a huge disappointment, even considering the fact that he was treated appalling by the Republicans. The whole birth certificate thing was just idiotic. However, Obama's failures actually contributed to Clinton's loss in my opinion, because Obama ended up being the bastion of little hope and no real change. The Democratic party really is a joke now, and it better get it's act together soon. Too bad it shows no real sign of doing so.
The email thingy was the least of my problems with her. But Trump is a total, bullshitting, cluster so I voted her. Either way I figured I'd be spending a fair amount of time voicing my disapproval of what either were doing. Just figured I'd be doing a whole lot more of it with Trump in office. And I am.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 04:18pm PT
|
Ergo, nominating Hillary was a mistake. YOU handed the presidency to that orange puke.
Moose
So, you are opposed to democracy?
And you think that all the people who were motivated to elect a woman for the first time would have voted for Bernie?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 04:23pm PT
|
When you go to another country to kill people and exert your will on that nation, I count that as an invasion. YMMV
So, by your definition, Al-Queda invaded the US?
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
If I were a democrat I'd be thinking how to opt-in all those stupid people who did not elect my last nominee.
Instead of calling them stupid for costing my team the election.
Who planned that sh#t anyway?
DMT, pardon me if I am wrong, but that is EXACTLY the strategy that Clinton undertook after she won the primary. She could hardly have done more to opt in his supporters.
Another failed strategy.....
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 05:17pm PT
|
So, by your definition, Al-Queda invaded the US?
Ken, yes, that's what I'm saying. YMMV
Al-Qaeda is not a nation, which puts wrinkles in things, I suppose.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 05:40pm PT
|
Gary! Re your response to Ken:
So, by your definition, Al-Queda invaded the US?
Ken, yes, that's what I'm saying. YMMV
Al-Qaeda is not a nation, which puts wrinkles in things, I suppose.
I was leaning your way, but all the definitions of military invasions involve large bodies of troops planning on occupying the invaded country.
Invasion in Military topic:
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
in‧va‧sion /ɪnˈveɪʒən/ ●●○ noun
1 when the army of one country enters another country by force, in order to take control of it
And Wikipedia:
An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.
Of course, by those definitions, Obama's actions in Syria & Libya are not military invasions, but Bush's invasions of Iraq & Afganistan were.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 05:45pm PT
|
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 06:10pm PT
|
1 when the army of one country enters another country by force, in order to take control of it
Do air forces count? Naval blockade?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2017 - 06:16pm PT
|
The US is in Syria illegally and has been for years supporting the overthrowing of a democratically elected govt. and ruining their country causing untold civilian humanitarian crisis and deaths.
You people should be ashamed.
But you are not.
You just babble endlessly about two stoopid fools Trump and Hillary.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!