US Politics

[Wideleft]

46 minutes ago, the watcher said:

Are the Republicans more corrupt and disgusting than the Democrats ? Absolutely ! Are the Republicans less Democratic? Absolutely !   But to suggest the current Democratic party is anywhere close to progressive is wrong. As I said a short while ago look what happened when a progressive candidate challenged for the leadership of the party backed by a massive ground swell of young, grassroot support. He was squashed by a rush of corporate dollars to Hillary's campaign. I will give you that the world is far safer without a bunch of neo-nazis fascists in power and therefore I'd always rather see the Dems in power. But progressive ? No way.

I am a big supporter of Bernie's ideas, but he was never the front-runner against Clinton. 

Progressivism is not an absolute and it's not an either/or.  Progress is and can be slower than some of us prefer.  That does not mean that their aren't progressive elements, people or laws instated in and from the party at the National, State or county level in the Democratic Party.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Wideleft said:

I am a big supporter of Bernie's ideas, but he was never the front-runner against Clinton. 

Progressivism is not an absolute and it's not an either/or.  Progress is and can be slower than some of us prefer.  That does not mean that their aren't progressive elements, people or laws instated in and from the party at the National, State or county level in the Democratic Party.

There are elements of progression in the Democratic party, just are as are elements of conservatism in the GOP but those that rule the party love their gravy train and will not allow progressiveness to interfere with the money and power they get working on behalf of corporations and the rich. 

[Wideleft]

Just now, JCon said:

There are elements of progression in the Democratic party, just are as are elements of conservatism in the GOP but those that rule the party love their gravy train and will not allow progressiveness to interfere with the money and power they get working on behalf of corporations and the rich. 

There are also Republican controlled State and Federal Senates and Congresses who have done nothing but interfere with the implementation of Democratic legislation.  How many times was the Obama government sued by states over the Health Care Act or Environmental Protection Law.

Add Republican controlled SCOTUS through history and it makes it very hard to govern progressively.  It's not always about riding the gravy train.

Manchin and Sinema, excepted of course - but that in itself shows that their are very few non-progressives in the Democratic side of the Senate right now.

[the watcher]

9 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I am a big supporter of Bernie's ideas, but he was never the front-runner against Clinton. 

Progressivism is not an absolute and it's not an either/or.  Progress is and can be slower than some of us prefer.  That does not mean that their aren't progressive elements, people or laws instated in and from the party at the National, State or county level in the Democratic Party.

Never the front runner but he was  a serious threat that was gaining alot of momentum. My son in-law is a young American who was inspired and excited by Bernie as were many many young Americans. He made the effort to vote despite living here in rural MB. He doesn't really even like  to talk American politics much now as I think he saw their chance for a more humane country come and go.

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, the watcher said:

Never the front runner but he was  a serious threat that was gaining alot of momentum. My son in-law is a young American who was inspired and excited by Bernie as were many many young Americans. He made the effort to vote despite living here in rural MB. He doesn't really even like  to talk American politics much now as I think he saw their chance for a more humane country come and go.

I totally get that (and agree with him), but to imply his loss was due to Democratic corruption is a bridge too far for me.  It ignores polling, the nature of Primaries as well as reinforces the Republican/Russian propaganda about the Democratic race.

Bernie lost primarily because he cannot attract the all-important black vote in America.

[the watcher]

10 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I totally get that (and agree with him), but to imply his loss was due to Democratic corruption is a bridge too far for me.  It ignores polling, the nature of Primaries as well as reinforces the Republican/Russian propaganda about the Democratic race.

Bernie lost primarily because he cannot attract the all-important black vote in America.

Millions of corporate dollars were dumped into Hillary' campaign at the last when it appeared Bernie had a chance. The Democrats are corrupt .Not as much or as blatantly as the Republicans . To say that doesn't support the Republican BS. It's just the truth. And unless that truth is faced and dealt with true change will never happen.

Edit : I agree that the structure of their system makes change exceedingly difficult. 

Edited April 7, 2022 by the watcher

[MOBomberFan]

31 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

I totally get that (and agree with him), but to imply his loss was due to Democratic corruption is a bridge too far for me.  It ignores polling, the nature of Primaries as well as reinforces the Republican/Russian propaganda about the Democratic race.

Bernie lost primarily because he cannot attract the all-important black vote in America.

Which is bonkers because he has been fighting alongside the black community (among other marginalized communities) since his youth. Here he is at 21 getting arrested for his participation in a civil rights protest in Chicago. They were protesting 'Willis-Wagons', essentially cheap unadorned aluminum trailers that were dumped into vacant lots and parks throughout black communities as a solution for their housing crisis. Certainly no one politician is perfect but Bernie is a friggin' paragon of virtue compared to most of his colleagues and counterparts

[Wideleft]

8 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

Which is bonkers because he has been fighting alongside the black community (among other marginalized communities) since his youth. Here he is at 21 getting arrested for his participation in a civil rights protest in Chicago. They were protesting 'Willis-Wagons', essentially cheap unadorned aluminum trailers that were dumped into vacant lots and parks throughout black communities as a solution for their housing crisis. Certainly no one politician is perfect but Bernie is a friggin' paragon of virtue compared to most of his colleagues and counterparts

 

Bernie had a lot of things working against him and timing is the main one.  The majority of people weren't/aren't ready for "radical" change to the left because progressives suck at selling their good ideas.

Everyone has been convinced since the 70's that taxes are bad and the government is bad.  Again, the messaging needs to explain the long-term savings gained by progressive measures.  For instance, it's cheaper to educate than incarcerate.  It's cheaper to implement environmental controls than clean up the messes left behind.

I also think his supporters rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by attacking fellow Democrats with more ferocity than the Republican Party.  

He calls himself (accurately) a Socialist/Social Democrat when a lot of people are scared by "that" word.  

The Republicans seem to have a monopoly on anger.  It's admirable for Trump/Cruz/Gaetz to be angry, but it's something that makes Sanders "radical".

This will all get better with time (if SCOTUS is corrected), but it's getting there.  A politician could not even refer to themselves as a "liberal" during Obama's 1st term and yet it is now acceptable.

[JCon]

I agree with you, @Wideleft, that the progressives have a difficult time selling their ideas. "It just seems so obvious, why don't people vote for it?"

However, the media and corporations spend a lot of time and resources communicating the status quo and always fight progress. 

Look here in Canada. How much air time does the Canadian Taxpayers Federation get? Wayyy too much. They don't represent "tax payers", they are a shill for big money. But, whenever CBC, CTV, Global, "need" some sort of soundbite, they give them free-rein to babble unsupported nonsense. It's ten times worse in the US media. 

Mulvaney got hired by CBS!!! 

[MOBomberFan]

34 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

progressives suck at selling their good ideas.

21 minutes ago, JCon said:

progressives have a difficult time selling their ideas. "It just seems so obvious, why don't people vote for it?"

 

So much of the above. For years it's been the position of popular 'liberal' pundits like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher (very liberal for an American but the first to criticize his own sides' shortcomings) and John Oliver that the Democrats are brutal at promoting their own ideas or celebrating/highlighting their own accomplishments.

[Wideleft]

6 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

So much of the above. For years it's been the position of popular 'liberal' pundits like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher (very liberal for an American but the first to criticize his own sides' shortcomings) and John Oliver that the Democrats are brutal at promoting their own ideas or celebrating/highlighting their own accomplishments.

Also consider that Progressive platforms mostly come with short-term costs with long-term savings and Regressive platforms offer short-term savings with long-term costs.

Because of this, it's a lot easier to campaign from the conservative side.

[the watcher]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

Bernie had a lot of things working against him and timing is the main one.  The majority of people weren't/aren't ready for "radical" change to the left because progressives suck at selling their good ideas.

Everyone has been convinced since the 70's that taxes are bad and the government is bad.  Again, the messaging needs to explain the long-term savings gained by progressive measures.  For instance, it's cheaper to educate than incarcerate.  It's cheaper to implement environmental controls than clean up the messes left behind.

I also think his supporters rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by attacking fellow Democrats with more ferocity than the Republican Party.  

He calls himself (accurately) a Socialist/Social Democrat when a lot of people are scared by "that" word.  

The Republicans seem to have a monopoly on anger.  It's admirable for Trump/Cruz/Gaetz to be angry, but it's something that makes Sanders "radical".

This will all get better with time (if SCOTUS is corrected), but it's getting there.  A politician could not even refer to themselves as a "liberal" during Obama's 1st term and yet it is now acceptable.

Perhaps.I just don't see it changing in the US until a 3rd party emerges that represents a true progressive movement. I have absolutely no faith that there will be significant change under the Democrats. Unfortunately there will be significant changes if the Republicans gain more control of the various levels of government and it won't be good change.

[JCon]

Unless they can get corporate money out of politics, nothing will change. And, the people that make the rules want to get rich at the expense of the country, so it won't happen. 

[Wideleft]

 

 

[HardCoreBlue]

6 minutes ago, JCon said:

Unless they can get corporate money out of politics, nothing will change. And, the people that make the rules want to get rich at the expense of the country, so it won't happen. 

A complete overhaul of the Justice system resulting in Justice truly being blind and expedient for all would be nice as well.

These crooks at all levels within many legal disciplines who hide behind their legal garbs and their 'legal interpretations' need to be cast away.

[17to85]

Something to keep in mind regarding Bernie vs. Clinton is that Bernie isn't really a Democrat and Hillary was the party's preferred candidate. Why would they back an outside vs. The chosen one? 

[Wideleft]

1 minute ago, 17to85 said:

Something to keep in mind regarding Bernie vs. Clinton is that Bernie isn't really a Democrat and Hillary was the party's preferred candidate. Why would they back an outside vs. The chosen one? 

That's a huge one I missed.  He's an Independent.

[17to85]

3 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

That's a huge one I missed.  He's an Independent.

Which is a huge issue with the states. It's either A or B. You have left wingers siding with Bernie voting Democrat because it's better than republican and you have moderates voting republican because of fear of democrats like the progressive wing. You have a proper progressive party down there you might actually see the democrats actually be moderate because they'd have to work for votes and you would see less republican support. Would probably mimic Canada to some extent where the NDP serves to keep things from getting dragged so far right.

[Tracker]

8 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

Which is a huge issue with the states. It's either A or B. You have left wingers siding with Bernie voting Democrat because it's better than republican and you have moderates voting republican because of fear of democrats like the progressive wing. You have a proper progressive party down there you might actually see the democrats actually be moderate because they'd have to work for votes and you would see less republican support. Would probably mimic Canada to some extent where the NDP serves to keep things from getting dragged so far right.

One of the biggest WFTs in US politics is the Supreme Court ruling that "corporations are people" and thus can funnel money, openly and secretively to candidates and parties in huge amounts to distort democracy and subvert the votes,

[JCon]

Since we're solving all the US' problems, their primary system for President is a complete scam. Fix that too. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

47 minutes ago, the watcher said:

Perhaps.I just don't see it changing in the US until a 3rd party emerges that represents a true progressive movement. I have absolutely no faith that there will be significant change under the Democrats. Unfortunately there will be significant changes if the Republicans gain more control of the various levels of government and it won't be good change.

If a true progressive party were to emerge in the USA, they would just siphon off votes from the Democrats and the GQP will always be in power. 

What the USA needs to become more progressive is for an ÜBER right-wing party to form from a fractured GQP... then the Dems would probably slide more left.

Edited April 7, 2022 by wanna-b-fanboy

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, Tracker said:

One of the biggest WFTs in US politics is the Supreme Court ruling that "corporations are people" and thus can funnel money, openly and secretively to candidates and parties in huge amounts to distort democracy and subvert the votes,

There was a documentary, The Corporation, that went on to say that if corporations are people, they broke down their behaviour, and came to the conclusion they were psychopaths. 

[HardCoreBlue]

11 minutes ago, Tracker said:

One of the biggest WFTs in US politics is the Supreme Court ruling that "corporations are people" and thus can funnel money, openly and secretively to candidates and parties in huge amounts to distort democracy and subvert the votes,

All while using 'judicial independence' as cover.

 

[Tracker]

Rep. Paul Gosar Was Scheduled To Attend Far-Right Event On Hitler's Birthday: Report

Rep. Paul Gosar was reportedly scheduled to attend a far-right conference with ties to white nationalists the day of Adolf Hitler’s birthday before his campaign appeared to back out.

The Arizona Republican was set to be a “featured guest” at an event hosted by the American Populist Union, a far-right group aligned with the white nationalist “groypers,” who are largely followers of Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, the Arizona Mirror first reported Wednesday. The event was scheduled for April 20, a date that is celebrated among neo-Nazis and white supremacists as Hitler’s birthday.

Hours after publishing its report, a representative for Gosar’s campaign told the Arizona Mirror that the congressman had a “farm tour” scheduled the day of the event, and that the American Populist Union never contacted Gosar or his campaign about being a featured guest at the event.

However, Gosar himself promoted the event on his Instagram story, according to a screenshot captured by AZ Right Wing Watch.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/paul-gosar-scheduled-to-attend-far-right-event-hitler-birthday_n_624ef940e4b0d8266ab6a58d

[HardCoreBlue]

3 minutes ago, Tracker said:

Rep. Paul Gosar Was Scheduled To Attend Far-Right Event On Hitler's Birthday: Report

Rep. Paul Gosar was reportedly scheduled to attend a far-right conference with ties to white nationalists the day of Adolf Hitler’s birthday before his campaign appeared to back out.

The Arizona Republican was set to be a “featured guest” at an event hosted by the American Populist Union, a far-right group aligned with the white nationalist “groypers,” who are largely followers of Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes, the Arizona Mirror first reported Wednesday. The event was scheduled for April 20, a date that is celebrated among neo-Nazis and white supremacists as Hitler’s birthday.

Hours after publishing its report, a representative for Gosar’s campaign told the Arizona Mirror that the congressman had a “farm tour” scheduled the day of the event, and that the American Populist Union never contacted Gosar or his campaign about being a featured guest at the event.

However, Gosar himself promoted the event on his Instagram story, according to a screenshot captured by AZ Right Wing Watch.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/paul-gosar-scheduled-to-attend-far-right-event-hitler-birthday_n_624ef940e4b0d8266ab6a58d

I’ll state the obvious. As supported by his own family who are probably in the best position to know, Paul Gosar is a very unwell man who requires pretty intense healthcare services from a variety of different disciplines.