No, for the love of God, No!

[lizkat]

I say it here, if either Mrs Clinton or Mr Trump are nominated by the respective parties, I will try to find the most isolated spot in America and just go live there as an ascetic.

Now that I think of how the world is going, at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump and Clinton would just join forces and run in the same ticket just in order to be resurrected somehow. What a nightmare scenario.

A nightmare scenario? I'd pay good money to see that come to pass, for the reactions alone.

Go wash your respective mouths out with soap for even thinking about it, the both of you!

But for the record, I'm with yax on this one, except I'd be trying to find an isolated spot where I could mark my ballot for "the other guy" whoever that might be, yeah, guy or gal, and mail it in and have it be counted with all due respect fo my right to decide that a Clinton-Trump ticket is a nonstarter.

Enough already. I want to read my books and finish the bindings on my wallhangings while I can still see. Call me when the nominees are both under the age of 70, so I can vote for one of them and then once again whine about the young whippersnappers running the country.

 

[Herdfan]

You keep saying shit like this. The actual Left does not like Ms. Clinton and never did, which is probably one reason she lost in '16. She is an arrogant elitist corporatist, and I voted for her only because the alternative was unimaginably bad. The Left does not like Joe the President much either, for many of 5he same reasons, but at least he lacks her shrill.

Imagine her saying "just grab 'em by the cock". Yeah man, just like Trump!

The reference was that like Trump, she was into some sketchy stuff that she never will be held accountable for.

 

[Huntn]

To name a few

https://www.aclu.org/blog/smart-jus...1994-crime-bill-fed-mass-incarceration-crisis

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/20/11789988/clintons-welfare-reform

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/wall-street-deregulation-clinton-advisers-obama

Sounds like a Republican to me.

I’ve never said that Democrats were anything close to perfect, but I am pragmatic based on relative good. Who would you choose today to lead? Are there any Republicans who don’t make you puke? From your perspective the choices are bad, not so bad, or no choice at all, wishing for something that might not exist from an electable standpoint. So what do you do in the meantime? Look for shades of gray until you find someone who can be elected who meets with your 90% approval, who might not exist.

From your link 1 an opinion was expressed:
The federal crime bill did not trigger mass incarceration, but it certainly encouraged mass incarceration to grow even further.

Regarding link 2: Democrats spent fortunes in the 60s to get rid of poverty and all of these efforts failed. It can be argued that under a Capitalist society eradication of poverty is an impossibility.

Regarding link 3: Deregulating Wall street sucked

And then there is NAFTA which really sucked. It can be argued that Globalization was inevitable, but I know I constantly rag on capitalists who have exported 10 if not 100s of millions of jobs offshore. But if they had not, does not mean that domestic manufacturing would not have been threatened by cheap prices from overseas manufactured goods.

 

[Huntn]

Also....

Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?: Frank, Thomas: 9781250118134: Amazon.com: Books

Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? [Frank, Thomas] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?

www.amazon.com

Great eye opening read, and written by a liberal.

"Hailed as “the most prescient book” of the year, Listen, Liberal accurately described what ailed the Democratic Party even before the election of 2016 made their weaknesses obvious. It is the story of how the “Party of the People” detached itself from its historic constituency among average Americans and chose instead to line up with the winners of our new economic order.

Now with a new afterword, Thomas Frank’s powerful analysis offers the best diagnosis to date of the liberal malady. Drawing on years of research and firsthand reporting, Frank points out that the Democrats have over the last decades increasingly abandoned their traditional goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal. With sardonic wit and lacerating logic, he uncovers the corporate and cultural elitism that have largely eclipsed the party’s old working- and middle-class commitment. And he warns that the Democrats’ only chance of regaining their health and averting a future of ever-increasing inequality is a return to their historic faith."

My impression is the Democratic Party moved right to remain electable. Today the real question is if they moved left, would they be electable at all? Of note they are definetly left of the GOP no contest, for what little good it does them.

It can easily be argued that there are not enough citizens available to support the liberal agenda. With a side by side comparison, Demicrats are the only mainstream party elected who support workers rights, but what about all those workers who are motivated to go with the Republicans, apparantly millions of them?

It has really made me wonder how much of a factor, racism, white supremacy, perceived self advantage, and half-assed Christianity for suckers plays into the situation we find ourselves in today? Just short of half the country who bothered to vote in 2020, voted for a HUMONGOUS POS why? It must be asked, what is going on here??

Is the Federal Govt so bad half of us want to tear it down by way of a corrup, immoral, sociopath?

Or are a significant portion of us so selfish, we are blinded by the corrupt truth of a Trump and GOP who would gleefully destroy Democracy in the US, as long as they calculate the dummies back home will continue to support such efforts, and the dummies back home perceive/imagine there is some advantage to tearing down Federal authority to be ruled over by smooth talking liars and cheats, wannabe fascists in the making?

Intelligence of average citizens or lack of, has to be involved in these calculations on some level, for any of this to make sense.

 

[Huntn]

No, I didn't like her back when Bill was running and this was even before FoxNews existed.

Other than her being unlikable, I think she is the left's version of Trump. You know they did some sketchy stuff, but have always gotten away with it for whatever reason.

Congrats for being the victim of a 20+ year character assassination plot against Hillary Clinton. To compare her with Donald Trump would be laughable except for those on the right who said it enough to convince people like you, oh she is so evil! Here, pick a white knight, a true man of the people, (who cares if he is a corrupt, immoral, anti-Democratic, sociopath, wannabe- dictator), at least he is not a Democrat.

 

[NT1440]

My impression is the Democratic Party moved right to remain electable. Today the real question is if they moved left, would they be electable at all? Of note they are definetly left of the GOP no contest, for what little good it does them.

It can easily be argued that there are not enough citizens available to support the liberal agenda. With a side by side comparison, Demicrats are the only mainstream party elected who support workers rights, but what about all those workers who are motivated to go with the Republicans, apparantly millions of them? It has really made me wonder how much of a factor, racism, white supremacy, perceived self advantage, and half-assed Christianity for suckers plays into the situation, we find ourselves in today? Just short of half the country who bothered to vote in 2020, voted for a HUMONGOUS POS why? It must be asked, what is going on here??

Is the Federal Govt so bad half of us want to tear it down by way of a corrup, immoral, sociopath?

Or are a significant portion of us so selfish, we are blinded by the corrupt truth of a Trump and GOP who would gleefully destroy Democracy in the US, as long as they calculate the dummies back home will continue to support such efforts, and the dummies back hone perceive/imagine there is some advantage to tearing down Federal authority to be ruled over smooth talking liars and cheats, wannabe fascists in the making?

Intelligence of average citizens or lack of, has to be involved in these calculations on some level, for any of this to make sense.

I’d recommend dropping the Liberal name as equivalent to “left”. Liberal ideology supports capitalism and corporate economics, leftist political thought does not. That’s why Democrats are merely the “nicer to to minorities” wing of the uniparty that controls the US.

Not making that distinction leaves people with the impression that you don’t know what you’re talking about, when in all the years we’ve talked I know you do (however much I may disagree with you on certain points).

 

[Huntn]

I’d recommend dropping the Liberal name as equivalent to “left”. Liberal ideology supports capitalism and corporate economics, leftist political thought does not. That’s why Democrats are merely the “nicer to to minorities” wing of the uniparty that controls the US.

Not making that distinction leaves people with the impression that you don’t know what you’re talking about, when in all the years we’ve talked I know you do (however much I may disagree with you on certain points).

You are analyzing and objecting to labels based on your definition. Liberals are left, left is more liberal than right. I can’t tell you at what point, how far left you have to be where Capitalism is rejected, likely the farthest reaches.

For my own standards I’ve always said that Capitalism only can work if it is heavily regulated and have offered a lot of conjecture over the years about how It’s likely due to a combination of technology and abundant greed that Capitalism will be replaced by Socialism. Yet that greed and a sense of independence resists socialism. I like the idea of a Socialist Utopia. I’ve seen the harm of unfettered Capitalism, yet wonder just how suited humans are to socialism, as my impression as a species, we’re far too selfish and not team players.

 

[NT1440]

You are analyzing and objecting to labels based on your definition. Liberals are left, left is more liberal than right. I can’t tell you at what point, how far left you have to be where Capitalism is rejected, likely the farthest reaches.

For my own standards I’ve always said that Capitalism only can work if it is heavily regulated and have offered a lot of conjecture over the years about how It’s likely due to a combination of technology and abundant greed that Capitalism will be replaced by Socialism. Yet that greed and a sense of independence resists socialism. I like the idea of a Socialist Utopia. I’ve seen the harm of unfettered Capitalism, yet wonder just how suited humans are to socialism, as my impression as a species, we’re are far too selfish and not team players.

All I’m getting at is it’s a very American perspective to consider Liberals (as they define themselves here) to be on the left. Didn’t want to pick a fight over the language. I’ve known you for years at the other place and you’re far more versed than most when it comes to political discourse.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Imagine her saying "just grab 'em by the cock". Yeah man, just like Trump!

Very well said.

And @Huntn, thank you for crafting a number of thoughtful, nuanced, and well argued posts on this thread.

 

[Huntn]

All I’m getting at is it’s a very American perspective to consider Liberals (as they define themselves here) to be on the left. Didn’t want to pick a fight over the language. I’ve known you for years at the other place and you’re far more versed than most when it comes to political discourse.

I understand what you are saying. What passes as liberal here is at best moderate. We have a boatload of Right Wing idiots that think liberal is anything left of themselves, yet from their perspective their targets are liberal and left, yet by standards 60 years ago this territory was moderate, even conservative. It just goes to show how far off the beaten path the Right Wing has veered.

 

[Roller]

I believe the U.S.A. would be in a far better position now had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, which she would have had we not been saddled with an anti-democratic institution called the Electoral College. However, I have no desire to see her run in 2024. TBH, I hope Biden doesn't run either — I'd prefer someone younger who can weather eight years in the White House. However, whoever gets the 2024 Democratic Party nomination, their chance of success will be low unless a good part of Biden's agenda, including voting rights legislation, passes soon, and Senators Manchin and Sinema seem to be doing all they can to prevent that.

 

[Huntn]

The reference was that like Trump, she was into some sketchy stuff that she never will be held accountable for.

You mean like Bengazi that the GOP ran into the ground with hundreds of hours of hearings, like that? On the other hand we have Trump flaunting his corruptness to cheers from the very same people who want to be like Donny?

 

[Yoused]

So meanwhile my generation can't figure out whether to get out on the barricades again or give up and buy a gun and start reading survivalist websites. But we're mostly just kibitzers now. Don't elect any more of us!

We tried electing younger people. We ended up with critters like Scott Walker, Marjorie Wharrgarbl, Tribblehead and Rafael. Younger people can be reckless idiots too, especially on the RW, because they have suckled at the nipple of laissez faire and martial politics. We may be old enough to be losing a step or six, but when you get into gen-x, there is some genuine ugly, and those on the other side are not yet experienced enough to fend off attack politics effectively.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

My impression is the Democratic Party moved right to remain electable. Today the real question is if they moved left, would they be electable at all? Of note they are definetly left of the GOP no contest, for what little good it does them.

I highly recommend you read that book. On social issues, sure, but on economic issues and foreign policy they are pretty much in lock step with the GOP. Things may seem different now because of the Progressive contingent, but they sure as fuck wouldn't have considered changing anything if it wasn't for them and for the Progressives' part they've mostly proven to be toothless beyond Twitter likes.

Poll after poll shows the average citizen favors the left (I won't even call it the Democrat) agenda but the reason it rarely passes is because the Democrats are just as big corporate sellouts as the Republicans. Period.

 

[Huntn]

I highly recommend you read that book. On social issues, sure, but on economic issues and foreign policy they are pretty much in lock step with the GOP. Things may seem different now because of the Progressive contingent, but they sure as fuck wouldn't have considered changing anything if it wasn't for them and for the Progressives' part they've mostly proven to be toothless beyond Twitter likes.

Poll after poll shows the average citizen favors the left (I won't even call it the Democrat) agenda but the reason it rarely passes is because the Democrats are just as big corporate sellouts as the Republicans. Period.

Well, it’s up to the younger generations to seize control or suffer at the hands of leaders whose leadership you don’t respect, who are leading this Nation down the primrose path. Right now, imo Dems are the ones close to power able to instigate change in the right direction, if they can hold their seats. The alternative, the GOP is poison from start to finish there is no redemption with them at the helm. Sure, push the Dems aside once we have a secure future ahead of us, elect someone who is really left, fix us.

 

[Deleted member 215]

Maybe Joe Manchin should run for president since he is the one who is actually running the country now.

 

[sgtaylor5]

Maybe Joe Manchin should run for president since he is the one who is actually running the country now.

That very real fact just stumps me; why should it be permitted in practice for one Senator to effectively stop the government? I'm thinking of Mitch McConnell, too, in this context.

 

[SuperMatt]

That very real fact just stumps me; why should it be permitted in practice for one Senator to effectively stop the government? I'm thinking of Mitch McConnell, too, in this context.

Our bicameral legislature is based on the British system with its House of Lords... which the Senate is supposed to approximate.

The founders saw the Senate as being wealthier and wiser, and Senators were to be chosen by the state legislature, not the people. They wanted to create a class of nobles basically. (PS - if you are in Florida don’t teach this to a kid or you might get sued.) Due to massive corruption early on, they changed the Senate to allow people to vote for them within the States.

At this point, why do we even need a Senate? The members invariably become wealthy, but very few of them demonstrate anything resembling wisdom. They also do not represent the majority of Americans, with each state getting equal representation regardless of population. This will become more pronounced as the population becomes more urban. It’s not going to be a democracy anymore when the Senate gets a “majority” voted in by 25% of the people.

Bicameral Relations And Interchamber Cooperation -- The Constitutional Background

 

[Renzatic]

They wanted to create a class of nobles basically.

Not quite. The Senate was designed so that it's members represented the interests of their respective states before the federal government, somewhat divorced from the more populist political issues that the House dealt with.

Of course, things didn't quite work out that way, but that was the intent.

 

[SuperMatt]

Not quite. The Senate was designed so that it's members represented the interests of their respective states before the federal government, somewhat divorced from the more populist political issues that the House dealt with.

Of course, things didn't quite work out that way, but that was the intent.

They didn’t actually create nobles. But if you read the words of the founders, many of them saw themselves as superior to "the people" and wanted to make sure they had elites in place to keep the people in check. It’s just nobility under another name. There are many examples of the founders expressing the idea that people were incapable of governing themselves, and the Senate was created for that reason. America only allowed people to vote for their own Senators starting in 1913.