Trump playing the Bernie sympathy card hoping his voters will jump on his wagon "The Democratic party has treated Bernie so so so unfairly---and I was too so we have that in common"
You can't bring about change if you don't frame what things could or should look like for people who have been fed the opposing propaganda for 50 years. The first step is bringing a Progressive message to the national stage, The second step is organizing a national support system to promote Progressive candidates (and it is very difficult to organize the 'less money' in politics' position competing against the unlimited money politics where only principles prevent subversion) The third step is enacting Progressive legislation. Why would the lack of legislative power 'right now' be a deciding factor for you? We are facing decades of an obstructed Congress no matter who wins The Executive. Thinking we are electing real legislative power, no matter who wins is just folly.
Dubious, don't waste your time trying to reason with these Bernie folks. They will contort all logic towards the supreme purpose of anointing their dear leader. All this talk of "organizing" and "building coalitions" and "down ballot races" is irrelevant to them. Case in point: see the Nebraska primaries yesterday. Dozens of down ballot races for state and local elected officials and municipal initiatives. Hillary wins handily in the non-binding presidential primary, but the Bernie bots' excuse is that they already caucused for the Dear Leader, so this election was irrelevant. Again, carry on...
Except Sanders has been in Congress for 30 years. He's had plenty of chances to work on organizing a progressive support system. Further this idea that only Bernie Sanders is the one who can bring a progressive message to the national stage is almost insulting to people like Feingold, Franken, Boxer, Kucinich and others who have been working on those things for as long as Sanders has. I will concede that Clinton isn't the progressive that Sanders is but Obama ran on progressive messages and has been making progress on increasing access to health care, protecting the environment and a variety of issues yet the common refrain we hear from Sanders supporters is that he's sold them out. And as noted there are many who have been doing that. Sanders hasn't been a Democrat and has eschewed much of the party building. Clinton has done more to actually get progressive candidates like Franken elected than Sanders has through party building. Yet Sanders just expects them to back him because he's heading a revolution. Because as Obama has shown stuff actually can get done. The problem is if you just expect a revolution to suddenly happen it's not. It's a slog that requires all the messy stuff that Sanders eschews. This narrative that Sanders' supporters put out that no progress is being made or things are going backwards ignores what things have actually been done. Compared to where things were 8 years ago. It's frankly the argument of the perfect over the good.
This is yet again another example of the changing narrative of the Sanders' campaign regarding the rules. They complain about undemocratic rules and insider politics except when it supports them.
I hate to break this to you but this is an election and winning the election does matter. If all Sanders campaign is is just to push issues I will and have given him credit for that. Although as noted in the other thread the buying into Medicare is actually a Bill Clinton plan. The issue though now is to what extent does he keep on carrying it on where he is draining resources that might be used otherwise.
Breaking news for you: building a narrative other than the military/corporate message matters. People need to hear an alternative enough not to reject it as scary COMMIES and actually consider the American-ness of shared effort and fairness.
i don't see you calling out anybody else for their flip flopping to suite their needs at the moment but they all do it including your beloved hilary. why are you so staunchly against and pro-active in publicly condemning when bernie and his supporters do it?
Ok, the establishment is a thing. there are a set of elite supported by big money that over-represent them as a constituency. Italicizing it doesn't make it not true. When we talk of revolution, understand what that means. It means an increase in voter participation rate of about 10-15% nationally coupled with huge grassroots political involvement in local governments. Bernie did an awesome job of increasing political involvement in Vermont, for what it's worth. The difference between you and glynch/me is that though we both see a similar set of crises, we disagree on the scale of these crises, the scale of the solutions necessary to solve them, and the means by which to solve them. I don't think you are in touch with how catastrophic climate change is already becoming, how drastic the measures need to be. You don't see how badly the middle class is getting squeezed in some parts of this country, how badly that's contributing to racial tensions, xenophobia, and generational poverty. Sure you and Clinton might pay lip service to it, propose a fairly bold plan to tackle these problems, and at the end of the day, get a bill passed through the current system....sounds ok right? BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM. Clinton's over-eagerness to "step across the aisle" and "compromise" with an extreme uncompromising right-wing party inevitably results in inadequate policies that often end up being center-right. Clinton LOVES to show that she did something, that she got something accomplished, anything she can brag about she will. In the end though, where does this land you? The middle class keeps getting squeezed, albeit slower, the environment goes to complete sh**, and by 2020, I'll bet you'll have an even more unsettled, volatile electorate that could REALLY do some damage. Me and glynch don't like the cards we've been dealt. So we throw em out, and a get fresh hand. A more progressive congress, a more progressive system that responds to the will of the people. You make people in this country start believing that they have some power, get them more involved, the easier things start to be. If you want to elect someone that I admit, is well-adapted for the current state of affairs, go ahead. But look, I know for a fact that any progressive proposals she has now will be extremely watered down by the time they get through congress. And she'll pass it. And every newspaper will brag about it, just like they bragged about that joke of climate summit. And she will happily take credit for it and put the issue behind her. With Bernie, I have faith that he'll get something real. He's gotten numerous amendments passed and got that VA healthcare reform bill passed. This whole narrative of him being some crabby purist in Congress that never got anything passed is factually not true. And ya, building a coalition with this congress to get something passed? Never gonna happen, Bernie knows the hand that's dealt is impossible to work with, the better solution is to draw a new hand. At the very least, he can compromise, or he can effectively use the bully-pulpit. Clinton can't for the same reason Obama didn't, special interests and believing the system can still work. This guy will have real ammo if in office. Again, you don't feel the crises are as severe as me and glynch do, so you think Clinton is good enough. The problems are a lot worse (taking facts into account) and from our view, the whole system needs a revamp. If you can't wrap your head around a that idea, then don't worry about it. None of us think it's going to magically happen, it's gonna take a ton of people, energy, and resources to make it happen, but it can be done. You're a little bit of a defeatist here along with the establishment (oops, did i use that word?) and assume it can never be done. Fair enough, we disagree. Lastly, there was a concrete quid pro quo on the bankruptcy bill as laid out by Elizabeth Warren. look it up on youtube. And one more thing, when glynch says you spew mainstream media arguments, he's right. The major washington/NY based outlets post similar things and your arguments are consistently unsurprising and more often than not, i feel like i'm rereading an article. Get more sources.
I respect the spirit of your post. On this quote though, Bernie looks to have terrible leadership skills.
You stupid idealist you just don't get it that the only thing important is winning each individual election, no matter how much you compromise. Message? Don't be foolish. ?
It has less to do with which sources and more to do with the quantity and range of perspectives. I mainly follow a lot of progressive outlets: Young Turks, David Pakman, Democracy Now, Secular Talk, Majority Report, Thom Hartmann. I also read a lot of the mainstream or establishment news outlets : NYT (what i can get access to online anywas), WSJ, WashPost, The Hill, Vox, HuffPost etc. ; Mainly to contrast what they say vs what others say There are also a fair set of publications online that I find pretty good: The Observer, The Intercept, Alternet I also listen and dabble with libertarian and conservative perspectives every now and then to see if I'm understanding each side of an issue, or just for the giggles. At the end of the day, most people have an ideology that they tend to overfeed, and I'm no exception. Having "good sources" does not guarantee you'll get an accurate perspective of events, and how you interpret things is often predisposed by what you're looking for, rather than what you should be seeing. It's all about getting a decent range (obviously everyone will focus more on sources that they tend to agree with, I'm no different) and cross-referencing information to filter the BS.
It's hard to say. His Healthcare plan has been one of the more confusing things for me. On one hand, you have the establishment Tax Policy Center evaluating it without taking into account benefits (which they admitted to) and simply saying his plan would raise $15 trillion in taxes during the middle of the primary fight. Now, once the nomination seems wrapped up, they go back and say, "Oh ya, Bernie was right, everyone (middle-class) will likely see net benefits". But quite a few mainstream outlets keep reporting about the budget shortfalls that could be catastrophic in terms of Debt. On the other hand, Bill Clinton's own Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (who is a Sanders supporter) says there's no issue with the health care plan. On top of that, the Green Party supports that same health care bill and 2,000 doctors just recently came together in favor of single pyer In terms of the "outlandish" claims made by the campaign, you have to remember it was one economist that made those claims. And the democratic chairs that criticized it didn't even give any specifics, so there was no debate that was able to be taken place. Again, what are we supposed to think? And then you have Paul Krugman (i respect the guy), who wrote an article criticizng Bernie's desire to break up the banks, and saying in that article that the banks were not the cause of the 2008 crisis. WTF? A complete flip-flop on his position a few years ago and an opinion that is inconsistent with most experts. Is he angling for a job in the Clinton administration? I'm not an expert economist or policy wonk so unfortunately I have to rely on all of these "expert opinions". It's messy, and I hope a good, credible source really sits down and evaluates his bills. Now, in terms of leadership and building an administration, Elizabeth Warren wrote this great op-ed on how a president can do a lot just by enforcing existing laws and hiring the right people : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/o...one-way-to-rebuild-our-institutions.html?_r=0 I trust Bernie's principles and so I have little doubt he would pick the right people for heading the SEC, EPA, FDA, etc. In terms of how his campaign has been run, I am skeptical of the way the money has been spent (I mean they got sh** ton of money). They were facing down Hillary Clinton and the greatest political machine every assembled but still, that's a sh** ton of money. I am doubtful if that money was used as efficiently and effectively as possible (though that didn't stop me from donating) This post is a bit all over the place, but that article did little to address anything significant regarding "leadership" and had more to do with "management". It lacked any real substance, so I gave a variety of answers depending on what you were looking for.
Here is what is available on Sander's website. What would reversing NAFTA and all these policies do? No wonder "half the valley" is in love with Sanders - his plan will involve the dissolution of many types of visas - including TN visas. You know what? Maybe Sanders isn't so bad. Here is Trump's position: Doesn't "the valley" have a diversity issue? No wonder "half the valley" loves Sanders.
ummmmmm https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lops-then-flips-and-flops-more-on-h-1b-visas/ The problem is that H1B visas are for getting the best talent in the world at a better price than mediocre talent at a higher price. We'd be hurting our own innovation and tech industry if we don't increase H1B visas. If we want to change that, maybe we should emphasize being smart instead of treating it like it's an anti-cool disease for jocks to avoid when kids are growing up.
That's poor reporting on the part of the Washington Post, who I do read. The subject of Trump's attack on his website is NOT Zuckerberg - it is Zuckerberg's personal senator Marco Rubio (who is about to be out of a job anyway). I understand the extortion argument for H1B's very well, but it makes it very convenient to ignore any shortcomings in the US education system. Bernie Sanders certainly thinks there are a few shortcomings. Like you said: why put up with "mediocre" talent when you can just import someone from India. No need to address any shortcomings in US education.
Any precedent for this to make that assumption? I mean, some extra reading revealed to me that Obamacare is more what Hillary promised than what Barack campaigned for. Of course, in the heat of things, it's easier to knock down and distance from proposals that don't yet exist... 5.3% is a bit unheard of in this day and age. In a different thread there was a question of what causes growth in advanced economies. The orthodox answer is either revolutionary game changing innovation and/or inflation. We have the Fed to influence inflation. The other, uh..... I mean it's possible, but for wonks who like plans and models, this is going off in uncharted territory. I really want to know what it'd be like to free up all that dirty or hidden money in offshore banks. Probably not. He seems like a guy who always want to be right in order to influence progressive opinion and his Times gig is the best way to do it. Public office at that level deals with decisions over either eating one piece of **** or a rotten piece of fly infested meat. Big banks were a problem, but for different reasons. If it helps, he referenced an article from a different op/ed about the shadow banking system. I know a little about it from reading up on the financial crisis. The repo market in particular, is a system where banks need quick cash at a particular point in time (such as interest payments or borrowing for a bond/currency/stock investment) but are able to return that money in periods of days or weeks. Say I'm Prosperity Bank and I need 20 million short term as wiggle room to pay off certain obligations. I might be worth in the billions, but the cash or liquid part is tied up in other things. So I put out an offer for a short term loan (7 days) and pay a cent on the dollar or some agreed upon interest rate. I also offer up something in the ballpark of 20 million as collateral. Maybe a megabank like Chase picks up on the offer and makes 200k out of it. Some agreements can last hours and others can last months. And once that particular agreement finished, you'd bet your ass that that money would find another suitor to lather, rinse and repeat. Apparently this type of wheeling and dealing happens in the volume of hundreds of billions every day. When subprime mortgages started souring as the housing bubble fizzled, it was harder to gauge what a bank would put up for collateral as debt was debt. So even as subprime mortgages were only a relatively small percentage of total value out there, bad debt meant bad credit. Bad credit meant less parties willing to give money out. People would still lend, but if you're a bank with a lot of risky assets, other lenders would raise the originally low rate or demand more collateral. That repo market started losing trillions when Lehman imploded. Financial institutions relied on the repo market to pay off contracts as well as make them. When Lehman left a temporary gaping hole in the system, it caused some fire sales and a total lack of trust in anything. The result become more like a textbook banking panic. We've solved traditional banking runs by having the FDIC insure people's money up to a certain amount. So the Fed stepped in and flooded banks with TARP. This shadow banking system supposedly values in the upwards of 50-80 trillion dollars which are transactions of money upon itself over several iterations. No other central bank even comes close to being that lender of last resort. Nor does assurance by the Fed mean we've solved future banking runs on the repo market as TARP was not a permanent or sustainable solution. Breaking up big banks in this case will only mean there'd be two mini Chases lending to Prosperity Bank. That link describes in more detail of both candidate's approach to this problem. The original question of conflicts of interest and over leveraging in big banks is still a big issue. I don't know what the answer could be because I'm not a banker or economist by trade... I'm curious on how you have a trusting faith in Sanders finding the right bureaucrat for those departments. They might have the similar ideals and the right mindset, but it's not an easy job stopping a train on a dime then telling it to move off the tracks the way you want it. Maybe it's my own personality to think it's really hard for any President to hit home runs in all the departments. I appreciate Obama for using his executive powers to revitalize departments Shrub used as toilets, but I'd have a similar expectation with Hillary. I'd think she'd do it better if it really meant something to her. I'll likely still be down on her for ****ing up 5 departments out of 50, but what's Bernie's success rate in terms of expectations through vague promises? 20 out of 50? I'd vote for Warren, btw. A lot of it is gut feel as his promises can sometimes be vague on the details. Ezra's driving point is: how can he select and manage his cabinet members? I don't know. What makes him cool and authentic are some of the same traits that are cringe worthy for making critical decisions in each of those departments. Would he get angry or flustered when confronted with an executive decision he has little to no interest in? Beats me.
