2373: Politics as Usual

[starscream]

Originally Posted by Eric M

That's true. It's a lot more rational to have a fear of demagoguery though if you payed attention in history class.

You give him a whole lot of credit he will never earn. But will borrow off of.

[Eric M]

Originally Posted by starscream

You give him a whole lot of credit he will never earn. But will borrow off of.

I'd rather give him a little credit for his ability to destruct now then have to actually find out how bad it would be later.

[Eric M]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

That guy may look moderate standing next to Trump and Cruz but he'd be every bit as destructive as W

[starscream]

Originally Posted by Eric M

I'd rather give him a little credit for his ability to destruct now then have to actually find out how bad it would be later.

At least you know you're being as irrational as the other side.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by MichaelApproved

Everything you said is true and why she'd make a better President than Trump or any other Republican in the field.

The reason I'm holding my nose for Hillary is because she is also a war-monger who will say anything to get elected. She'll throw both her husband and Obama under the bus, if it gets her elected. Because I can contrast her "politics as usual" style with Bernie's style. Having an honest politician is no longer a "pie in the sky" dream.

So, yes Hillary is to the left of the Republicans but also a terrible politician (just like nearly all the other politicians are). That is why I must hold my nose when casting a vote.

It looks like "politics as usual" can come to an end within the next few election cycles thanks to internet money and internet dissemination of information.

I think you're valuing style over substance here. If responding to popular opinion means "saying anything to get elected" then how do you expect politicians to change to reflect popular sentiment?

The two most successful progressive presidents of the last century were a blue-blood from New York who hated poor people on a personal level and a lunatic Texan who recorded calls about his pants cutting into his nutsack. Those are the folks who brought you Social Security and the Civil Rights Act. Both shady dealers and machine politicians. They've got legislation to their names, Bernie's got a "movement" that got hammered by a woman who most people find unlikable.

This seems to be a fundamental disagreement we have, but I think you're hanging too much weight on candidates and specifically personality. Personality doesn't equal legislation. Movements like BLM and Fight for $15 have successfully forced "shady" politicians to change their tunes or at very least adjust their focus, because that's how politics works. In that snse, I think Bernie Sanders' candidacy is more totemic than anything else, designed to signify the left-wing priorities of a certain contingent of the Democratic voter base, not to effect real policy change (Sanders' policy outlook was always ever shaggy at best).

I'm also far less sanguine about the value of "internet money" or "internet dissemination of information." First, Bernie lost, so it's not as though "internet money" won the day here. Second, Democrats lost the presidency in the McCain-Feingold era yet won the presidency in a post-Citizens United era. If anything, there's an inverse correlation between big money in presidential races and Democratic success. And "internet dissemination of information" is a shibboleth. In fact, it's far easier to spread misinformation on the internet and gain ground.

The increasingly fractured political coalitions we're seeing coalescing around frankly pie-in-the-sky ideas on both sides of the aisle can be attributed in part to this trend of Facebook-feed politics. "Press like if you think college should be free, ignore if you don't" or those memes Keith's high school cohort share aren't really information. They're vague platitudes designed to get people fired up in support of a team.

This leads to the kind of factionalism in which a presidential candidate who favors gay marriage, paid family leave, reproductive healthcare access, and a $12 federal minimum wage can be called a Republican. That's sheer lunacy.

Republicans HATE Hillary Clinton. HATE her. If you've ever talked to an honest to goodness GOP voter for more than 30 seconds about her, they'll tell you she's the devil incarnate. We're really gonna say she's a Republican? She's a center-left Democrat just like Obama was.

[Eric M]

Originally Posted by starscream

At least you know you're being as irrational as the other side.

No.. That's the opposite of what I said.

[OnmyojiOmn]

To Chemda's point:

[g001dfinger]

One: Congress makes laws, not the president. the president can only draw attention to issues, not enact laws. Voting for house and senate is more important.

Two: we've had a "conservative" SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) the entire time Barack has been in office and we've had some pretty "liberal" rulings. This is because SCOTUS is not designed to create laws, that's called "legislating from the bench" and most of the Supreme Court Justices are opposed. Micheal keeps bringing up Rowe v Wade, but the more recent and relevant ruling was Planned Parenthood v Casey in which the Republican appointed SCJ (O'Conner, Kennedy, Souter) upheld Roe v Wade and added a clause that denied an "undue burden" being placed on abortion laws. Not to mention the same SCOTUS upholding "Obamacare". So stop freaking out about what judge will be appointed. Laws dictate judge rulings. Judge rulings only have some sway when poorly written due to having to make bipartisan concessions. Again, Congress being the most important. Meaning, a liberal SCOTUS could rule against liberal laws the same way a conservative SCOTUS has ruled in favor of liberal laws. Because it's about constitutional law, not politics in SCOTUS.

[iheartnihilism]

Also, maybe trump is so goofy that he doesn't get anything done. So what's the best case scenario? That we remain stagnant for 4 years?

And I wasn't being goofy. You don't think other politicians have paid people to do what Hillary did? Her fuck up was getting caught.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by g001dfinger

Because it's about constitutional law, not politics in SCOTUS.

Yeah, you're wrong on this. If SCOTUS was all about constitutional law, why would Republicans seek to block a Democratic president from placing a nominee on the court?

The Supreme Court has its nuances and unknowns, but the notion that it's apolitical is facile.