2020 US Presidential Election

[Zugzug]

Libertarians are right about some leftist having cult-like mindsets with naive trust in authority.

The moral of the story is to consider all positions and not join a cult. I have found plenty of libertarians who have no business lecturing people about naive trust in authority. Ben Shapiro is a well-known libertarian, and his whole deal is fear-mongering, strawman-ing, believing in absolute allegiance to the Israeli government, not questioning his religion at all. He's anti-LGBT to the point where he says he couldn't attend a gay friend's wedding. To be fair, he claims that he believes the government should stay out of marriage altogether, but his rhetoric -- which is to call homosexuality a sin -- suggests he wants to indirectly take away rights of others with a different sexual preference.

Sadly, I have found many libertarians to be hypocrites. They want the government out of the way, but when they need help, now all of a sudden that's the government's "small" role. There are good libertarians too.

 

[FGG]

The moral of the story is to consider all positions and not join a cult. I have found plenty of libertarians who have no business lecturing people about naive trust in authority. Ben Shapiro is a well-known libertarian, and his whole deal is fear-mongering, strawman-ing, believing in absolute allegiance to the Israeli government, not questioning his religion at all. He's anti-LGBT to the point where he says he couldn't attend a gay friend's wedding. To be fair, he claims that he believes the government should stay out of marriage altogether, but his rhetoric -- which is to call homosexuality a sin -- suggests he wants to indirectly take away rights of others with a different sexual preference.

Sadly, I have found many libertarians to be hypocrites. They want the government out of the way, but when they need help, now all of a sudden that's the government's "small" role. There are good libertarians too.

For whatever reason, "libertarian" is also typically associated with the right in the US with all of the socially right wing policies (which actually seem more authoritarian than libertarian).

Really it should be a spectrum, like on this chart:

 

[Zugzug]

For whatever reason, "libertarian" is also typically associated with the right in the US with all of the socially right wing policies (which actually seem more authoritarian than libertarian).

Really it should be a spectrum, like on this chart:

View attachment 39917

I think the justification is that authoritarianism is necessary for law and order, which in turn, allows for libertarianism? I think at it's theoretical core, libertarianism isn't about no government, but for the role of government to be essentially protection only.

This exposes a lot of hypocrisy because "protection" then bleeds into a whole slew of aspects such as economic protection, healthcare (pre-existing conditions) protection, discrimination protection (protected classes), etc.

I don't think libertarianism works, especially for larger countries. I think that the right wing in America has the following cycle.

Elect crappy politicians who don't fight for the people ----> say government sucks.

I disagree with libertarians in that I don't think government is inherently bad. It can become bad if the citizens enable it though.

 

[Christiaan]

I think the justification is that authoritarianism is necessary for law and order, which in turn, allows for libertarianism? I think at it's theoretical core, libertarianism isn't about no government, but for the role of government to be essentially protection only.

This exposes a lot of hypocrisy because "protection" then bleeds into a whole slew of aspects such as economic protection, healthcare (pre-existing conditions) protection, discrimination protection (protected classes), etc.

I don't think libertarianism works, especially for larger countries. I think that the right wing in America has the following cycle.

Elect crappy politicians who don't fight for the people ----> say government sucks.

I disagree with libertarians in that I don't think government is inherently bad. It can become bad if the citizens enable it though.

I do not think that Libertarianism is an unambiguous theory. This ideology consists basically of two strides: the night watcher state principle and the anarcho-capitalism principle.

As I wrote earlier, there are libertarians who support the night watcher state principle that the government should only focus on its primary task to protect civilians (from one another) by policing and creating a national defence, which can only be provided by imposing taxes. The reason behind this: you need an impartial entity as arbiter (state) that can judge and protect people. The rest (education, healthcare, etc.) can be commercialised. This idea of commercialising public services and commodities is based on Adam Smith's (political philosopher) idea of the invincible hand, a self-regulated market of open competition between enterprises & entities that act out of self interest, which will eventual lead to the best equilibrium in price vs. quality of services and products.

Anarcho-capitalism is another stride of libertarianism. Proponents of this stride firmly belief in abolishing the government all together in favour of free market enterprise, private property and self-ownership. Basically everything you can think of, is up for grabs. The concept of a government does not even exist in such a reality. This idea has never been realised in the real world, but I have heard that Peter Thiel wants to create a free for all libertarian utopia in the middle of the ocean somewhere.

I do not know everything about libertarianism, but this is what I was taught by my political economy professor at uni (who was also a libertarian BTW).

Update: but I totally agree with you about the hypocrisy of libertarian pundits like Ben Shapiro. They seem to be confused between right wing conservatism (with moral roots in jewish-christian theology and classical liberal political theory) and libertarianism

 

[FGG]

Libertarianism can get pretty extreme, such as those who think driver's licenses are too much government intervention. It also tends to trust that the people have all the information when it comes to making choices about products, which is completely idealistic and not realistic to me.

It also assumes people will "vote with their wallet" for more environmentally sound company policies, etc. Which the majority of people are not doing now (which they are free to) so why would they do that under a libertarian government?

My political irk of the week, though, is the 2A people not crying foul about unmarked unnamed forces kidnapping peaceful protestors in Portland. What is this if not the government tyranny we were warned about? They tear gassed a group of completely peaceful moms holding hands. And some people are totally ok with that.

As a 2A supporter who normally skews pretty liberal on most issues, i am all over pointing out that this sort of government tyranny is a rare but now shown to be plausible situation.

When black protestors at Stone Mountain in Georgia showed up to protest peacefully, they were left alone. The NRA should be all over that but they aren't.

 

[Christiaan]

The moral of the story is to consider all positions and not join a cult

That, to me, pretty much sums up centrism. I do not mean anything bad about it, but why did you come to the conclusion to support this political ideology?

 

[Zugzug]

That, to me, pretty much sums up centrism. I do not mean anything bad about it, but why did you come to the conclusion to support this political ideology?

I want the progressive movement to grow. I would love to see it develop massive amounts of humility. I'm not sure if you follow David Pakman. He is, by miles and miles, the political pundit I align with the closest in the media. Thoughtful, not married to an ideology, progressive, able to dispassionately dismantle bad ideas. The echo chambers kill the left for me.

The neolibs have echo chambers as well. But the difference is that if you turn on say The Young Turks, all you hear is sensationalism and everything is about the media. Every time Cenk Uygur makes a point, his next breath is "and you won't see this on the media!" Please shut up. I'm not so stupid that I can't turn on CNN and see which one I like better.

I don't think neolibs tell me what to think as much. They mostly just don't talk about progressives enough, but they don't end every other sentence by saying "and you won't hear progressive media saying this."

Progressives have no leg to stand on in terms of being appalled by voter shaming. I have seen infinitely more voter shaming from progressives than people on the center left. I mean, dear God, the Bernie movement couldn't handle not shaming Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders is the king of hanging around in elections when the odds are stacked against him. When Bernie had a heart attack (which by the way, greatly reduced his chances of winning), where were the progressives shaming him to get out of the race so Warren could win? But instead of winning more votes with humility and not shaming people, they decided that Warren was why they lost. Really bad look.

You may say that this opinion is substance and policy free -- just emotional. But this line of thinking bleeds into a lack of flexibility on policy as well. The Green New Deal should be a framework. Medicare for all should be a framework, with careful steps to get there. Instead, everything is rigid and screaming at people who don't fully agree.

In conclusion, I'm a centrist who wants to be a progressive . I feel like AOC could be someone, in the future, that either makes me proud or lets me down.

 

[WillBeNimble]

Progressives have no leg to stand on in terms of being appalled by voter shaming. I have seen infinitely more voter shaming from progressives than people on the center left. I mean, dear God, the Bernie movement couldn't handle not shaming Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders is the king of hanging around in elections when the odds are stacked against him. When Bernie had a heart attack (which by the way, greatly reduced his chances of winning), where were the progressives shaming him to get out of the race so Warren could win? But instead of winning more votes with humility and not shaming people, they decided that Warren was why they lost. Really bad look.

The Bernie movement was upset that Warren first spread the rumor that Bernie said a woman can't be president, a thing he was shown since 1988 to believe was possible. She had no real proof, and Gabbard, who also talked to Bernie on a similar topic vouched for Bernie. Warren then proceeded to instead of burying the hatchet, say on live television during a known hot mic, accuse him of calling her a liar on national tv, further setting bad blood.

That, with a lot of walking it back on the more progressive policies is why many progressives didn't want to get behind her. Even though the heart attack may have hurt his chances, when the actual voting started, Bernie was doing better than Liz.It makes sense that during that point, there would have been calls for her to endorse and drop, just as it made sense that some liberals encouraged Bernie to drop and endorse Liz when she was in the lead briefly.

As for them deciding Warren is why they lost, well, we all look for reason. After the 2016 election, dems were quick to say that it's because Bernie didn't back Hillary enough, even though he appeared at 39 rallies for her after he conceded to get people to vote for her, even though when she lost to Barack in 2008 she only stopped at 8. Do they have a point? Eh, it's conceivable if the bad blood over the supposed "A woman can't be president" comment, they might have been able to unify, which might have given Bernie an edge. However, after that was done, it kneecapped all hopes of cooperation. A shame too. A Bernie/Warren Ticket would have been good, and secured a bid by Liz afterwords.

 

[Zugzug]

I respect your opinions, but I think I disagree. I am open to having my mind changed.

The Bernie movement was upset that Warren first spread the rumor that Bernie said a woman can't be president, a thing he was shown since 1988 to believe was possible. She had no real proof, and Gabbard, who also talked to Bernie on a similar topic vouched for Bernie. Warren then proceeded to instead of burying the hatchet, say on live television during a known hot mic, accuse him of calling her a liar on national tv, further setting bad blood.

I won't take a side, as I wasn't there and I don't know either of them personally. I will say this. I think the real issue here is that Sanders' supporters struggle to admit the obvious -- which is that everything else equal, Clinton would have destroyed Trump if she was a man. If I had to guess, I don't think Bernie is a sexist, and I certainly don't think he thinks a woman can't do just as good of job as a man at being president (why else would he partner with AOC as the heir apparent?). But the elephant in the room is that a lot of swing voters blow up female flaws (I've seen it personally). Bernie probably meant it in the sense of... Trump is dangerous and unfortunately, a lot of voters don't trust women. This logic is how we ended up with Biden. I think everyone is scared that a female wouldn't pull over enough swing voters, but not because they themselves are sexist, but because they know how sexist the electorate is. I'm a Warren supporter, and even I've thought about whether my neighbor is going to vote for her in November. It's a sad world that we live in.

Anyways, I don't think Warren leaked it with intentions of bringing Bernie down. I think her staffer leaked it, a journalist ran with it, and eventually a moderator asked an awkward question at the debate. What I think Warren was upset about (i.e. hot mic thing) is that Bernie made it seem like the entire conversation was a lie and a hit piece. I don't think this was the case.

Even though the heart attack may have hurt his chances, when the actual voting started, Bernie was doing better than Liz.It makes sense that during that point, there would have been calls for her to endorse and drop, just as it made sense that some liberals encouraged Bernie to drop and endorse Liz when she was in the lead briefly.

I think this sort of exposes Bernie hypocrisy of being disgusted by the media for talking about momentum. As I've said before, Bernie had only won a small percentage of the vote. To say it was "over" before South Carolina (and a more diverse electorate could vote) even came out is just ludicrous. Does anyone think Pete got robbed? No, because he didn't. Also, half of Warren supporters would vote for Biden/Pete before they would vote for Bernie. Warren became the ultimate scapegoat. Bernie lost because his movement is too much of a cult of personality.

As for them deciding Warren is why they lost, well, we all look for reason. After the 2016 election, dems were quick to say that it's because Bernie didn't back Hillary enough, even though he appeared at 39 rallies for her after he conceded to get people to vote for her, even though when she lost to Barack in 2008 she only stopped at 8.

This is probably where I disagree the most. I remember when Bernie endorsed Hillary. It was slow, late, and not really an endorsement. He did the 39 rallies because he saw the writing on the wall and how much his supporters were struggling to get behind the nominee.

In general, comparing 2008 and 2016 makes me uncomfortable because Trump was on the other side in 2016. In fact, the very reason I'm even here typing this is because Trump is president. The bar should be higher for voting to stop Trump versus voting to stop McCain.

Well then one might say that the dangers of Trump are over hyped. If we go in this direction, it further exposes hypocrisy from the Bernie movement, since one of their talking points is about how weak Dems are at holding Trump accountable -- how Trump is a threat to democracy and the Dems are too weak to stop it. They should pick one. Either just admit that you don't think Trump is that dangerous or he is and Bernie screwed up by endorsing so late.

 

[WillBeNimble]

I will say this. I think the real issue here is that Sanders' supporters struggle to admit the obvious -- which is that everything else equal, Clinton would have destroyed Trump if she was a man. If I had to guess, I don't think Bernie is a sexist, and I certainly don't think he thinks a woman can't do just as good of job as a man at being president (why else would he partner with AOC as the heir apparent?). But the elephant in the room is that a lot of swing voters blow up female flaws (I've seen it personally). Bernie probably meant it in the sense of... Trump is dangerous and unfortunately, a lot of voters don't trust women. This logic is how we ended up with Biden. I think everyone is scared that a female wouldn't pull over enough swing voters, but not because they themselves are sexist, but because they know how sexist the electorate is. I'm a Warren supporter, and even I've thought about whether my neighbor is going to vote for her in November. It's a sad world that we live in.

I don't think there's any sane Bernie supporter who would say Hillary wouldn't have won if she was a man. It's very obvious she would have. I suspect the comment was very similar to the one you came up with, that the electorate is sexist, and it would be hard for a woman to beat Trump on particular because of it, which I agree with. Why did the story change though to "Bernie says a woman can't be president."? Cause it would get in the news, and be a smear that would rile up the female base who already disliked Bernie from 2016. Regardless of who leaked it, Liz could have walked it back, and clarified it at the debate, as I would expect any of my friends to do if we found ourselves in a similar situation. She didn't though, she kept the narrative going, and poured gas on it. This is what hurt Bernie supporters the most.

I think this sort of exposes Bernie hypocrisy of being disgusted by the media for talking about momentum. As I've said before, Bernie had only won a small percentage of the vote. To say it was "over" before South Carolina (and a more diverse electorate could vote) even came out is just ludicrous.

The media certainly did pick an interesting way to frame the previous states results, though. Further, to say Biden has a more diverse coalition than Sanders is debatable. Biden does better with older black voters, true. But overall, Bernie's coalition was more diverse. Also, the framing of Bernie by the media to older black voters was disingenuous, as it normally is. The constant talk of how he's supposedly sexist, how he's never been there for the black community, how he's just another rich old white dude, is laughably false. The man marched for civil rights with Dr. King, the man is on tape saying a woman can and should be president in 1988, the man might be rich now, but he lives very modestly and grew up poor, so he knows the struggle. Also, he has been a staunch ally of the lgbtq movement, as well as the working American. The way the media and everyone can villify him is astounding to me.

This is probably where I disagree the most. I remember when Bernie endorsed Hillary. It was slow, late, and not really an endorsement. He did the 39 rallies because he saw the writing on the wall and how much his supporters were struggling to get behind the nominee.

He endorsed her on June 15th after she clinched the nomination and pledged to help take down Trump. He then endorsed her at a unity rally on July 16th. As for his followers struggling to get behind her, that's more on her than him. The media certainly didn't help by forecasting her win so much. They actually decreased democratic turnout.

Well then one might say that the dangers of Trump are over hyped. If we go in this direction, it further exposes hypocrisy from the Bernie movement, since one of their talking points is about how weak Dems are at holding Trump accountable -- how Trump is a threat to democracy and the Dems are too weak to stop it. They should pick one. Either just admit that you don't think Trump is that dangerous or he is and Bernie screwed up by endorsing so late.

The dangers of Trump aren't overhyped, and any progressive spouting such nonsense is an idiot. He is a fundamental danger to our republic, a narcissistic strongman who can sell the public the lie that he cares for them.

The Dems are weak against him, because they don't bring up the emoluments clause, which he's been breaking since day 1. They constantly try to hit him with Putin and Russia, which is just not going to work. The Trump base likes strongmen, and Putin is one. Hell, better relations with Russia would be in America's interest. The problem is getting that without compromising our values.

As for blaming Trump on Bernie for "Not endorsing early enough", again, he endorsed on June 16th, 8 days after Clinton endorsed Barack. That 8 days isn't what lost the election. What lost it was that the candidate did not appeal to the base, and the base was dampened due to the media projections that she was a sure win. Bernie is not some monolith that everyone just follows, most of his supporters care about the actual policy, which Clinton didn't pivot to appeal to, because neo-libs try to appeal to the center right more than the left. Doing 39 rallies is way more than he needed to or was obligated to, but it's never enough. The man could have died of a heart attack on stage singing Clinton's praises and if they lost, Clinton supporters would still blame him instead of looking at what Clinton could have done differently to win.

 

[FGG]

Bernie supporters can and did admit that Hillary Clinton does have a disadvantage being a woman.

But the fact remains that Bernie supporters are less enthusiastic about any candidate who doesn't share their values and Clinton didn't as a neolib. Look at the enthusiasm gap between her and people like AOC and I think you will have your answer on whether sexism played a huge role in so called "Bernie Bros", @Zugzug lack of enthusiasm for HC. In fact, I think the idea of labelling such a diverse group of supporters "Bernie Bros" was a hit piece to begin with.

Clinton lost for a few reasons and a glaring one was because she didn't play the electoral college right. She didn't even really bother to campaign in places like Wisconsin because she thought Trump was a joke and she would *of course* win. He is a joke... to liberals and a lot of centrists conservatives but he is not a joke to his base.

 

[Zugzug]

I don't think there's any sane Bernie supporter who would say Hillary wouldn't have won if she was a man. It's very obvious she would have. I suspect the comment was very similar to the one you came up with, that the electorate is sexist, and it would be hard for a woman to beat Trump on particular because of it, which I agree with. Why did the story change though to "Bernie says a woman can't be president."? Cause it would get in the news, and be a smear that would rile up the female base who already disliked Bernie from 2016. Regardless of who leaked it, Liz could have walked it back, and clarified it at the debate, as I would expect any of my friends to do if we found ourselves in a similar situation. She didn't though, she kept the narrative going, and poured gas on it. This is what hurt Bernie supporters the most.


The media certainly did pick an interesting way to frame the previous states results, though. Further, to say Biden has a more diverse coalition than Sanders is debatable. Biden does better with older black voters, true. But overall, Bernie's coalition was more diverse. Also, the framing of Bernie by the media to older black voters was disingenuous, as it normally is. The constant talk of how he's supposedly sexist, how he's never been there for the black community, how he's just another rich old white dude, is laughably false. The man marched for civil rights with Dr. King, the man is on tape saying a woman can and should be president in 1988, the man might be rich now, but he lives very modestly and grew up poor, so he knows the struggle. Also, he has been a staunch ally of the lgbtq movement, as well as the working American. The way the media and everyone can villify him is astounding to me.


He endorsed her on June 15th after she clinched the nomination and pledged to help take down Trump. He then endorsed her at a unity rally on July 16th. As for his followers struggling to get behind her, that's more on her than him. The media certainly didn't help by forecasting her win so much. They actually decreased democratic turnout.



The dangers of Trump aren't overhyped, and any progressive spouting such nonsense is an idiot. He is a fundamental danger to our republic, a narcissistic strongman who can sell the public the lie that he cares for them.

The Dems are weak against him, because they don't bring up the emoluments clause, which he's been breaking since day 1. They constantly try to hit him with Putin and Russia, which is just not going to work. The Trump base likes strongmen, and Putin is one. Hell, better relations with Russia would be in America's interest. The problem is getting that without compromising our values.

As for blaming Trump on Bernie for "Not endorsing early enough", again, he endorsed on June 16th, 8 days after Clinton endorsed Barack. That 8 days isn't what lost the election. What lost it was that the candidate did not appeal to the base, and the base was dampened due to the media projections that she was a sure win. Bernie is not some monolith that everyone just follows, most of his supporters care about the actual policy, which Clinton didn't pivot to appeal to, because neo-libs try to appeal to the center right more than the left. Doing 39 rallies is way more than he needed to or was obligated to, but it's never enough. The man could have died of a heart attack on stage singing Clinton's praises and if they lost, Clinton supporters would still blame him instead of looking at what Clinton could have done differently to win.

I can't say there's anything you said that is unreasonable. I'm going to be honest. I think the progressive media has a lot of work to do. Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, Sam Sedar (less so Michael Brooks, RIP) and Kyle Kulinski have pulled me away from the progressive movement. One reason why it's hard for me to just say the crazy Bernie supporters are this very very tiny minority is because I hear the rhetoric coming from his big backers in the media. It's often childish and trolly.

And you're right. The mainstream media has a lot of work to do as well. Honestly, I wish the progressive media would just show me why progressives are so great and stop trying to insecurely compare to the mainstream so much. Voter shaming comes in different forms. One form is to say "you better vote for candidate X!" The other is to insinuate that one is a brainwashed sheep and are jealous of the fact that their movement wasn't able be the ones to successfully do the brainwashing.

Anyways, I can say that Bernie is a moral dude. I think he's too rigid, but I think he really wants to help people.

 

[Zugzug]

But the fact remains that Bernie supporters are less enthusiastic about any candidate who doesn't share their values and Clinton didn't as a neolib. Look at the enthusiasm gap between her and people like AOC and I think you will have your answer on whether sexism played a huge role in so called "Bernie Bros", @Zugzug lack of enthusiasm for HC. In fact, I think the idea of labelling such a diverse group of supporters "Bernie Bros" was a hit piece to begin with.

Here's what I think is possible. Bernie's movement grew at the same time that Hillary was the star of the party. Some of the rhetoric from Bernie supporters had parallels to the rhetoric used towards women in politics. It's possible that a large part of this is a coincidence in the sense that if you switch Clinton and Biden in 2016, the rhetoric would be the same. In fact, I saw bitter rhetoric used towards Biden and Pete. I could be overplaying the overt sexism and underplaying the sheer amount of assertiveness to get what they want.

 

[Christiaan]

I want the progressive movement to grow. I would love to see it develop massive amounts of humility. I'm not sure if you follow David Pakman. He is, by miles and miles, the political pundit I align with the closest in the media. Thoughtful, not married to an ideology, progressive, able to dispassionately dismantle bad ideas. The echo chambers kill the left for me.

The neolibs have echo chambers as well. But the difference is that if you turn on say The Young Turks, all you hear is sensationalism and everything is about the media. Every time Cenk Uygur makes a point, his next breath is "and you won't see this on the media!" Please shut up. I'm not so stupid that I can't turn on CNN and see which one I like better.

I don't think neolibs tell me what to think as much. They mostly just don't talk about progressives enough, but they don't end every other sentence by saying "and you won't hear progressive media saying this."

Progressives have no leg to stand on in terms of being appalled by voter shaming. I have seen infinitely more voter shaming from progressives than people on the center left. I mean, dear God, the Bernie movement couldn't handle not shaming Elizabeth Warren. Bernie Sanders is the king of hanging around in elections when the odds are stacked against him. When Bernie had a heart attack (which by the way, greatly reduced his chances of winning), where were the progressives shaming him to get out of the race so Warren could win? But instead of winning more votes with humility and not shaming people, they decided that Warren was why they lost. Really bad look.

You may say that this opinion is substance and policy free -- just emotional. But this line of thinking bleeds into a lack of flexibility on policy as well. The Green New Deal should be a framework. Medicare for all should be a framework, with careful steps to get there. Instead, everything is rigid and screaming at people who don't fully agree.

In conclusion, I'm a centrist who wants to be a progressive . I feel like AOC could be someone, in the future, that either makes me proud or lets me down.

Thanks for your insights @Zugzug .

No, I wasn't. It was only when you mentioned David Pakman in an earlier post, that I started watching some of his clips on YouTube to have a picture of him and his ideas. And like you I generally avoid sensationalist media like TYT (though their voice is important to be heard), and prefer to just read articles from serious magazines or books (which I find hard to do with loud, intrusive & multi tonal T) & then form opinions about issues.

You're raising some good points about centrism and its role in the political arena, like that some plans are better to be implemented incrementally, you need to be intellectually honest to say if some ideas are politically realisable (support in Congress for majority) and you sometimes need to be flexible in policy making to get some things done. I think that centrists and progressives can be good allies in that they can critically look at the realisations of ambitious ideas and how to make America great again the Dems way

Across the other side of the pond, I have seen a lot of info about the Bernie Bro phenomenon and I am quite amazed to read that it has played some role in why certain people have a negative view of Bernie Sanders &. the progressive movement in general. I agree that some people need to get a grip and respect one another, but I have also seen stories from other factions (like the centrist New Democrats & pundits like Neera Tanden) within the Democratic Party who said that progressives need to fall in line in support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential primaries, to name an example. This may have aggravated some left wing people and contributed to more group think vs. other people who have a different political view. This infighting played a huge part in the Dems loss in 2016. But in my opinion, the democrats cannot just take their vote for granted, even if they incorporate few progressive ideas for the next elections. Unfortunately, the old blame game of 2016 still plays a part in current politics.

However, Joe Biden, even though he is more to the right than Hillary Clinton, has done a better job in taking progressives seriously by setting up mutual task forces and creating a platform that embodies the best that Democrats have to offer. This will certainly play a crucial part in the presidential elections.

 

[Zugzug]

I think I'm going to bow out from this thread a bit. Between the medication I'm on and the sheer amount of depression, I just can't think straight on important topics. That's not to say my opinions were radically different before this, but I won't effectively add to the conversation.

 

[FGG]

I think I'm going to bow out from this thread a bit. Between the medication I'm on and the sheer amount of depression, I just can't think straight on important topics. That's not to say my opinions were radically different before this, but I won't effectively add to the conversation.

FWIW, your replies always seemed really well thought out to me and i think you added a lot to the conversation.

I hope it gets better for you soon.

 

[Christiaan]

I think I'm going to bow out from this thread a bit. Between the medication I'm on and the sheer amount of depression, I just can't think straight on important topics. That's not to say my opinions were radically different before this, but I won't effectively add to the conversation.

Damn, I am very sad to hear this . I love to read your contributions on this thread and your keen insights & brutal, rational honesty really adds to the conversation in so many ways. I hope you will have better days soon. Best wishes from across the pond, or as we say over here: ik wens je het allerbeste @Zugzug

 

[WillBeNimble]

I think I'm going to bow out from this thread a bit. Between the medication I'm on and the sheer amount of depression, I just can't think straight on important topics. That's not to say my opinions were radically different before this, but I won't effectively add to the conversation.

Your opinions were insightful and I enjoyed talking with you. I hope it gets better soon.

 

[Christiaan]

News of the week: Joe Biden tells his Wall Street donors that he is not proposing any legislation to change corporate behaviour.

Has he seriously learned nothing of the financial crash of '08? Self-regulation in the economy? Glad I won't have the dilemma to vote for this corporate stooge or that orange coloured fascist in the White House.

Here's the quote:
''Corporate America has to change its ways. It's not going to require legislation. I'm not proposing any''.

Link:
https://sirota.substack.com/p/biden-just-made-a-big-promise-to

Transcript of the virtual meeting

 

[FGG]

News of the week: Joe Biden tells his Wall Street donors that he is not proposing any legislation to change corporate behaviour.

Has he seriously learned nothing of the financial crash of '08? Self-regulation in the economy? Glad I won't have the dilemma to vote for this corporate stooge or that orange coloured fascist in the White House.

Here's the quote:
''Corporate America has to change its ways. It's not going to require legislation. I'm not proposing any''.

Link:
https://sirota.substack.com/p/biden-just-made-a-big-promise-to

Transcript of the virtual meeting

This is one of the many reasons the more progressive branch (e.g. "Bernie Bros") of the democratic party don't gel well with neoliberalism. Most neolibs have relatively progressive social policies but aren't as concerned with the economic policies that progressives feel will benefit poor and middle class Americans. If Biden accomplishes Medicare for All, I will be happy to be wrong and consider that a stunning victory on at least one important issue but a vote for Biden is more or less a vote for Obama era policies which were better for Wall Street than the common citizen. But maybe with a better thought for environmental implications at least

Trump is unpalatable enough where he will still garner a lot of enthusiasm to vote against him but I hope the DNC understands that the GOP didn't get ahead in the last election by running towards the center.

 

[WillBeNimble]

News of the week: Joe Biden tells his Wall Street donors that he is not proposing any legislation to change corporate behaviour.

Has he seriously learned nothing of the financial crash of '08? Self-regulation in the economy? Glad I won't have the dilemma to vote for this corporate stooge or that orange coloured fascist in the White House.

Here's the quote:
''Corporate America has to change its ways. It's not going to require legislation. I'm not proposing any''.

Link:
https://sirota.substack.com/p/biden-just-made-a-big-promise-to

Transcript of the virtual meeting

No, the corporate Dems have learned nothing.

 

[WillBeNimble]

Trump is unpalatable enough where he will still garner a lot of enthusiasm to vote against him but I hope the DNC understands that the GOP didn't get ahead in the last election by running towards the center.

Unfortunately they didn't. It's why we couldn't get anyone but Bernie to support Medicare for All. I can't really blame the democrats either when they're up against this level of misinformation.

 

[FGG]

Unfortunately they didn't. It's why we couldn't get anyone but Bernie to support Medicare for All. I can't really blame the democrats either when they're up against this level of misinformation.

To be fair to Elizabeth Warren, she was also for MFA but she was the only other one.

 

[WillBeNimble]

To be fair to Elizabeth Warren, she was also got MFA but she was the only other one.

Kinda. She waffled on it a lot with a bad plan to try and bring it out on her second term, not first.

 

[Christiaan]

Kinda. She waffled on it a lot with a bad plan to try and bring it out on her second term, not first.

It sounds a bit like what Barney Frank proposed in 2009. It's a bit of the centrist approach to implement things bit by bit: first you need a public plan before you can move on to a single payer system. However, the public option would still not be affordable for a lot of people if some are keeping their insurance via companies. It only works (affordable) if EVERYONE pays a small amount via taxes.

Some say that progressives are too ideological. But the same can be said about New Democrats and their centrist approach to do things little by little. Universal and free healthcare are not a pie in the sky (Hillary's words), but a reality in a lot of European countries. There was no big discussion after WW2 in Western Europe to not go full throttle on M4all, just because we would need to seek compromise with other political parties or curry favours with the corporate world in order to do so. It's just a human right.

 

[WillBeNimble]

It sounds a bit like what Barney Frank proposed in 2009. It's a bit of the centrist approach to implement things bit by bit: first you need a public plan before you can move on to a single payer system. However, the public option would still not be affordable for a lot of people if some are keeping their insurance via companies. It only works (affordable) if EVERYONE pays a small amount via taxes.

Some say that progressives are too ideological. But the same can be said about New Democrats and their centrist approach to do things little by little. Universal and free healthcare are not a pie in the sky (Hillary's words), but a reality in a lot of European countries. There was no big discussion after WW2 in Western Europe to not go full throttle on M4all, just because we would need to seek compromise with other political parties or curry favours with the corporate world in order to do so. It's just a human right.

Exactly. You have to get everyone on it, otherwise it won't actually work. I'm not against some supplemental plans, but you need to get everyone.

 

[FGG]

@Christiaan, I'm really impressed how much you keep up with US politics considering you are Dutch.

 

[Contrast]

For whatever reason, "libertarian" is also typically associated with the right in the US with all of the socially right wing policies (which actually seem more authoritarian than libertarian).

Really it should be a spectrum, like on this chart:

View attachment 39917

I'm green. Bill Bauer would be purple. Most European countries would be red and the south in America would be blue.

 

[Contrast]

Controversial idea.


If alternative medicine practioners were given full legal powers in the US like M.D's, would that force M.D's to become more competitive and provide better services?

 

[FGG]

I'm green. Bill Bauer would be purple. Most European countries would be red and the south in America would be blue.

I'm (mostly) green also.