Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
Yes, actually I do.... The main reason we closed down relations is no longer present, there is no real, and imminent "danger" from that particular sector these days, and frankly I think that exposure to ideas are but a short stepping stone to toppling the regime in place.
whembly wrote: The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
Sure, hardly anyone just blindly accepts everything in their party's platform. But my point is just mentioning that isn't enough to just step away from everything the party you vote for does - you have to be honest about what they party is in the real world, whether you agree individual parts or not they're still there.
It would be 93 kinds of bs for a person to say they hate unions, and then when you point out they vote Democrat and those guys are tied at the hip to unions, they say they only vote for them because of their progressive policies, so the unions aren't related. That hypothetical Democrat doesn't have to like everything about their side, but they don't get to pretend it isn't part and parcel of their voting choice.
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
I didn't know him, but from what you posted he seems like a fairly standard Republican true believer. Those guys always run on an outside ticket, even when the establishment likes them or (more often) doesn't give give a gak one way or the other, they always complain about how the party establishment is against them. It's part of their appeal. Am I the only one who remembers GW Bush, son of a former president and former Texas governor running as an outsider?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Admitting to being wrong is difficult. It is far easier blame other people.
Admitting things are complex and difficult and have no good solution is even harder. So we fall for easy solutions that blame other groups.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/02 01:48:05
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
Sure, hardly anyone just blindly accepts everything in their party's platform. But my point is just mentioning that isn't enough to just step away from everything the party you vote for does - you have to be honest about what they party is in the real world, whether you agree individual parts or not they're still there.
It would be 93 kinds of bs for a person to say they hate unions, and then when you point out they vote Democrat and those guys are tied at the hip to unions, they say they only vote for them because of their progressive policies, so the unions aren't related. That hypothetical Democrat doesn't have to like everything about their side, but they don't get to pretend it isn't part and parcel of their voting choice.
It's one thing to acknowledge the stupid gak your party does... I think, in our own way, we know it'll never be perfect.
I'll boil down the problem. Todd Atkin.
Compare that to Robert C. Byrd. Need I say more?
One guy, put is foot in his mouth in a real bad way and not only lost the election... his whole party were made to answer to his mistake.
The other guy? Was a fething Keagle of the KKK. *crickets*
In the end, it doesn't fething matter. The best we can do, is hopefully vote in an informed manner to keep the extremist marginalized.
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
I didn't know him, but from what you posted he seems like a fairly standard Republican true believer. Those guys always run on an outside ticket, even when the establishment likes them or (more often) doesn't give give a gak one way or the other, they always complain about how the party establishment is against them. It's part of their appeal.
Indeed. I want the fething establishments to be put on notice.
Am I the only one who remembers GW Bush, son of a former president and former Texas governor running as an outsider?
Eh... it wasn't so much that he was an outsider. I mean, c'mon, he's a Texan Governor whose Dad was President.
He ran on big government "conservative" policies.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 03:05:20
whembly wrote: It's one thing to acknowledge the stupid gak your party does... I think, in our own way, we know it'll never be perfect.
Yeah, and then the next part is thinking long and hard about how much of the stupid gak your party does is just random accidents, and how much actually an inherent part of the party ideology. To go back to my earlier example – for decades communists kept claiming that real and true communism had nothing to do with the brutal regimes in Russia, China, Cuba etc Some honest thinking would have led to a recognition that ideas at the core of communism really did lead to totalitarian hellholes, and from there you’d see people move away from communism, or find new solutions that weren’t going to produce death camps.
While mainstream politics in your country and mine is obviously a lot less dramatic
I'll boil down the problem. Todd Atkin.
Compare that to Robert C. Byrd. Need I say more?
It’s a weird quirk of politics that the left wing can actually get away with racism and things like that easier than the right. See how much gak Bush copped on civil and human rights compared to Bush, despite their policies being practically identical.
The flip side is that conservatives get away with heaps on stuff like deficits. Bush’s tax cuts were a fiscal disaster – had a Democrat plunged national finances like that we’d never hear the end of it. And while the issue wasn’t ignored, it got nothing like the press it deserved, and a fraction of the attention it would have got if it had happened under a Democrat. Compare to the extraordinary freakout over the deficit when Obama was in charge, despite the deficit being driven by the GFC.
That’s the difference between Akin and Byrd, I think. Akin’s comments were electoral gold for Democrats looking to mobilise their base. Whereas Byrd… well who does that play to? Democrats might be angry about his racist past, but they not there’s little gained by attacking their own. And Republicans simply aren’t going to raise race as an issue, because they know it’s a loser for them.
Indeed. I want the fething establishments to be put on notice.
Yeah, but this has been such a standard part of rhetoric for so long. The establishment position is to claim you’re anti-establishment
Eh... it wasn't so much that he was an outsider. I mean, c'mon, he's a Texan Governor whose Dad was President.
He ran on big government "conservative" policies.
No, he literally ran on ‘I’m an outsider I’m going to shake up Washington’. It was hilarious.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) drew 10,000 supporters, the largest crowd of his campaign thus far, according to reports.
"Tonight, we have more people at any meeting for a candidate of president of the United States than any other candidate,” Sanders told his fans at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Madison, Wis., according to The Associated Press.
Sanders used the occasion to slam Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely Republican White House hopeful, for Walker’s battles against state labor unions.
"When you deny the right of workers to come together in collective bargaining, that's extremism," Sanders said. "When you tell a woman that she cannot control her own body, that's extremism."
Sanders continued beating his populist drum, to the delight of his supporters.
"The big money interests — Wall Street, corporate America, all of these guys — have so much power that no president can defeat them unless there is an organized grassroots movement making them an offer they can't refuse," he said.
Some in attendance took to social media to share images from the event:
Fittingly, the only empty seats at this #BernieSanders rally are the luxury boxes. #Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/e0QJhIbLHN
— Wisconsin Defender (@wi_defender) July 2, 2015
With Bernie Sanders about to come on in Madison, the arena is more or less full. pic.twitter.com/TXMV7Agtfz
— Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) July 2, 2015
The coliseum is packed and people still trying to get in. Who's an underdog again? #FeelTheBern #HillaryWho pic.twitter.com/7kdUYyk0a7
— Elizabeth Wilke (@justlikeliz) July 2, 2015
HUGE crowd waiting for #BernieSanders in #Madison @erictheteamster @JahNahNah @danmericaCNN #Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/4AZ0r0L9c2
Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
American history is littered with third parties, but nobody voted for them (well at least not in significant numbers)
You, and I don't mean you personally, only have yourselves to blame
But then again, the third party in the UK, is hopeless, so maybe you're better off without them
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
American history is littered with third parties, but nobody voted for them (well at least not in significant numbers)
You, and I don't mean you personally, only have yourselves to blame
But then again, the third party in the UK, is hopeless, so maybe you're better off without them
The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
American history is littered with third parties, but nobody voted for them (well at least not in significant numbers)
You, and I don't mean you personally, only have yourselves to blame
But then again, the third party in the UK, is hopeless, so maybe you're better off without them
The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
Nine times out of ten, that's true, but in the UK, the third party (I won't mention their name because I utterly despise the ) won enough seats in 2010 to become part of a coalition government in the UK. I can't see the US ever having a coalition government
Happily for me, the third party got their just rewards in the 2015 election, and were nearly wiped out.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Nevada Independence Party of Progressive Left-wing Enterprise, or NIPPLE as I call them, is not a viable party in American politics
PS
Took me ten minutes to figure out that acronym.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/02 17:53:48
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.
A coalition system would encourage co-operation on common ground, but the USA would never go in for it. Frankly, the current system is the only one that could work in the USA.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/07/03 14:57:15
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've just been reading articles about the Clintons' money, and by God, I never thought I'd say this...but...Whembley...was right about the Clintons
So I don't really follow American politics, but I am curious about one thing, which I was hoping you could fill me in on. Why are there so many Republican candidates? My vaguely understanding was that the parties each normally decide between two or three, each of whom represents a given segment of the base; the victory in the primaries represents whichever segment won out over the others. But apparently this time everyone in the Republican party fancies their chances. Why is this? Do they think that the Democrats are likely to lose, so everyone wants to be the one to claim the top job? Or is the Republican party just exploding with different ideologies right now?
Charles Rampant wrote: So I don't really follow American politics, but I am curious about one thing, which I was hoping you could fill me in on. Why are there so many Republican candidates? My vaguely understanding was that the parties each normally decide between two or three, each of whom represents a given segment of the base; the victory in the primaries represents whichever segment won out over the others. But apparently this time everyone in the Republican party fancies their chances. Why is this?
There are a lot of candidates, but not very many who believe they will be President, nor is that their goal. Running for president is a good way to get on the news a lot, and maybe even on stage for a debate. That's a great way to sell a lot of books, or strengthen your bargaining power for the inevitable Fox News contract.
So, there actually only are about 3 Republican candidates, per se; and the rest are just positioning themselves for fleecing the rubes. Everyone on both sides of the ideological aisle is disgusted by the self aggrandizing manner someone like Donald Trump promotes himself - someone who will never submit the financial disclosure paperwork required and so will drop out right before that - but fundamentally, there's no real difference between Donald Trump and say, Mike Huckabee, or Rick Perry, or Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum, or Bobby Jindal, or the rest of junior varsity lineup of has-beens/never was/is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/07 13:09:41
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
As said, most of them are just there for the attention, and the free ride on the fundraisers' money.
Another possibility is that the Rs believe Hillary will win anyway, so they're doing this to get future support for their own re-election, or even planning ahead for 2020.
It's also possible that this really is the best the Republican party has to offer in terms of candidates at this time, and none of them truly stand out. Hell, I recently read an article where Cruz is bragging that he's the better candidate because he's raised more money than others.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Doesn't running for president cost absolutely loads of money though? Or are they planning to slip back beneath the waves once they have gained the best exposure for their money spent?
Charles Rampant wrote: Doesn't running for president cost absolutely loads of money though? Or are they planning to slip back beneath the waves once they have gained the best exposure for their money spent?
Generally speaking Presidential candidates don't put a lot of their own money into their campaign. They usually stick within the individual limit for direct donations, which is 2,600 USD; nothing for most Presidential candidates.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
No one asked Bernie Sanders what he thought about the Greek referendum on Sunday, but he shared his thoughts anyway.
“I applaud the people of Greece for saying ‘no’ to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly,” Sanders said in welcoming Sunday’s vote, even as it rattled world markets and provoked predictions of economic doom. The statement didn’t just align Sanders with left-wing Europeans; it aligned him with lefter-wing Greek socialists who are too radical for some of those left-wing Europeans.
Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders’ comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party’s leftward drift.
Never mind whether Sanders can crack 40 percent in any primary against Hillary Clinton — he has already established himself as her de facto challenger and a standard-bearer of a party that was, until this year, too far to the right for his liking.
“When I hear Bernie talk I’m almost inclined to accuse him of plagiarizing me,” said Ralph Nader, the left-wing gadfly whose third-party bid many Democrats still blame for swinging the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
Nader’s kinship with Sanders is yet another sign that the Democratic Party’s goal posts have moved left. The percentage of Democrats who identify as socially and economically liberal has increased 17 points since 2001, according to a recent Gallup poll. And the party’s restive liberal base — led in recent years by progressive icon Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — has pushed the party establishment on social issues like same-sex marriage and populist economic ones like equal pay and paid sick leave.
Republicans, at least, are betting that broad swaths of the electorate have been left behind.
“Look, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats in D.C., they’re for socialism. They just — they’re not as honest as Bernie is,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week. “Did you honestly believe we would live to see the day when a guy, an honest-to-goodness socialist, is running for president and doing — he got 10,000 people in Wisconsin to come hear him speak, he’s gaining on Hillary in the polls? This shows you how radical the Democratic Party is.”
In Wisconsin, where Sanders appeared last week before a progressive throng in Madison, the state Republican Party put up billboards featuring Sanders and Clinton riding together on a moped with the words “Left and Lefter” and “extreme policies.” Shortly before Sanders’ speech, Gov. Scott Walker took the unusual step of criticizing the long-shot Sanders, saying his approach is in “stark opposition to most Americans.”
It’s usually Democrats who play this game — as they did with Republican challengers to Mitt Romney in 2012, or with fringe characters like Todd Aiken. Now, it’s Republicans seeking to use the Sanders surge to portray Democrats as radical and out of touch.
And that’s making many Democrats nervous, said Joe Trippi, who ran Vermonter Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
“We can’t lose the presidency. We can’t take a risk by nominating somebody outside the comfort zone. That’s what’s driving the inevitable-ness” of Clinton, said Trippi, speaking about the party establishment’s thinking.
Sanders is unlikely to tone it down for the long-term good of his newly adopted party.
“Bernie is saying what he believes. He’s unlikely to run for president again, and this is his shot … This is as unfiltered and as clear as it comes,” said liberal labor economist Robert Reich, who compared Sanders to past Democratic candidates like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
But Sanders comes from an even more radical milieu than those left-wing insurgents of the 1960s and 70s.
As mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s, Sanders visited Nicaragua in solidarity with its socialist Sandinista regime and later honeymooned in the Soviet Union, where he established a sister-city relationship with the community of Yaroslavl. In the mid-1960s, when Clinton was calling herself a “Goldwater girl,” Sanders spent time on a kibbutz in Israel.
“I think he’s the most leftist, and I think he is the greatest megaphone for leftist dissent” since Henry Wallace in 1948, said Doug Wilson, who served as deputy campaign manager for Gary Hart in 1984, who challenged establishment front-runner Walter Mondale. (Wilson and Hart are backing former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley in the Democratic primary.)
And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.
While statements like these might be a skeleton in another candidate’s closet, Sanders has never renounced socialism, even if his brand of it has become more moderate. “Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word,” Sanders said of the term “socialist” in an interview with The Nation on Monday.
Sanders — pointing to high approval numbers for a higher minimum wage, pay equity for women and other issues — often argues his agenda is mainstream. “It is not a radical agenda,” he said at a breakfast for reporters last month. “In virtually every instance, what I’m saying is supported by a significant majority of the American people.”
Still, many of his most important positions today fall well outside the traditional parameters that have bounded American political discourse in recent decades. He wants to raise the marginal tax rate for top earners to more than 50 percent — which would be the highest rate in 30 years and is more than 10 points higher than Barack Obama proposed as a candidate in 2007. He says he would replace the Affordable Care Act — perhaps Obama’s signature accomplishment in office and a prized victory for Democrats — with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system, a position that was too liberal for Dean when he was governor of Vermont. (Sanders’ standard Obamacare line is to quickly laud its “modest gains” but quickly say it isn’t enough.)
He has called for free tuition at four-year public colleges and universities and introduced legislation that would break up banks like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. He said this weekend that he’d consider left-wing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for his Cabinet.
But if all of that goes too far for the general American public, much of the Democratic Party is right there with him. “He’s not in the mainstream of the Democratic apparatchiks and the paymasters,” said Nader, “but look at where he polls on breaking up the big banks, on opposing trade dictatorships.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/07 18:05:49
) won enough seats in 2010 to become part of a coalition government in the 
