Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[ipecac]

Sanders has the advantage of being "the real deal" and of having name recognition everywhere.

Sanders is a classic example of a champagne socialist.

I don't know if the issue of former presidents being VP has been raised before, but a Biden/Obama ticket would probably win in a landslide.

Biden/Obama might lose all the states to Trump, it would be such a disaster.

[AdrienIer]

Marx and Engels were from the higher strata of society, and it didn't stop them from being "the real deal" on the issue of helping the working class.

I don't know if you're joking about a hypothetical Biden/Obama ticket or if you're just delusional. Obama ended his presidency at 59% popularity, when Trump is currently in the low 40s. Trump's popularity in the rust belt has dropped so much that any democrat would have a good shot at retaking the rust belt in 2020, and Biden/Obama even more considering how well they did there in 2008 and 2012.

[ipecac]

Marx and Engels were from the higher strata of society, and it didn't stop them from being "the real deal" on the issue of helping the working class.

Sanders is no Marx or Engels.

I don't know if you're joking about a hypothetical Biden/Obama ticket or if you're just delusional. Obama ended his presidency at 59% popularity, when Trump is currently in the low 40s. Trump's popularity in the rust belt has dropped so much that any democrat would have a good shot at retaking the rust belt in 2020, and Biden/Obama even more considering how well they did there in 2008 and 2012.

'2016 proved that 'electability' doesn't really mean anything in the US'

one day later

'Are you joking ipecac? Obama is way more electable than Trump!'

You know very well that your understanding of what's going on in US politics is wrong and just doesn't work, but that doesn't stop you from making such confident assertions when it suits you.

[AdrienIer]

Sanders is no Marx or Engels.

Of course, but what matters is not his lifestyle but what he wants for his country. What you should take away from this is that you don't have to be dirt poor to care about the working people.

'2016 proved that 'electability' doesn't really mean anything in the US'

one day later

'Are you joking ipecac? Obama is way more electable than Trump!'

I never used the term electable about Obama. One reason for that is that he was elected twice, so there's nothing to prove about his ability to win elections.

Unlike Obama, Clinton had favorability ratings approaching Trump's. But that's not what I meant with electability. I meant electability as in policy positions and style. At least in what is considered the norm in US politics. Clinton aimed for the US centrist voters and tried to be as mild as she could and lost to someone who at numerous moments said or did things that should have destroyed his popular support according to past cases (exhibit A : Herman Cain).

[Nicolae Carpathia]

FDR was a fucking Roosevelt, and even he read the writing on the wall and implemented the New Deal, over the objections of the rest of his class.

And that class has never forgiven, never forgotten, and is now dedicated to pumping out idiot propaganda that spouts from the drooling mouths of Ipecac.

[ipecac]

Of course, but what matters is not his lifestyle but what he wants for his country. What you should take away from this is that you don't have to be dirt poor to care about the working people.

He's a rich person who doesn't walk the talk about redistribution.

I never used the term electable about Obama. One reason for that is that he was elected twice, so there's nothing to prove about his ability to win elections.

He was elected on some fantasy that he would bring 'hope and change', 2 terms later he's been a massive disappointment that should know better than to run again.

Unlike Obama, Clinton had favorability ratings approaching Trump's. But that's not what I meant with electability. I meant electability as in policy positions and style. At least in what is considered the norm in US politics. Clinton aimed for the US centrist voters and tried to be as mild as she could and lost to someone who at numerous moments said or did things that should have destroyed his popular support according to past cases (exhibit A : Herman Cain).

Hillary greatly erred with 'basket of deplorables' and then doubling down on it, not that anyone was really surprised at her contempt.

[AdrienIer]

He's a rich person who doesn't walk the talk about redistribution.

Do you think he'd have more support if he talked about redistribution ? Would you respect him more if he did ?

Edit : I missed the "walk the talk" part in your sentence. What would you have him do exactly ?

He was elected on some fantasy that he would bring 'hope and change', 2 terms later he's been a massive disappointment that should know better than to run again.

The majority of americans seems to disagree with you on "massive disappointment". As his popularity proves.

Hillary greatly erred with 'basket of deplorables' and then doubling down on it, not that anyone was really surprised at her contempt.

Yeah, she stopped being PC for one second and lost the election for it. I suspect that it has to do with her being a woman, and many people just looking for an excuse to not vote for her.
And she's right. Trump's core base (like 10-15% of the US population) is a basket of deplorables. Thankfully there are still many people in the republican party that are not completely brainwashed, but they won't be able to undo the damage done to their party.

[ipecac]

Citation very much needed, the "football" protests are international news. Media attention is a powerful thing, it elected a buffoon to the US presidency after all, journalism is the Fourth Estate for a reason. Also if it had no chance of being effective why are conservatives collectively loosing their fucking shit over it?

As you say, media attention is a powerful thing and it tends to focuses on the sensational, making that appear to be the norm. Conservatives aren't collectively losing their shit over the kneeling just as leftists aren't all raving lunatics like Nicolae.

[ipecac]

Do you think he'd have more support if he talked about redistribution ? Would you respect him more if he did ?

Edit : I missed the "walk the talk" part in your sentence. What would you have him do exactly ?

See the link I posted earlier. 'How many houses does Bernie need?'

The majority of americans seems to disagree with you on "massive disappointment". As his popularity proves.

Some people have this charming view of 'well he tried his best but failed big time, but it really wasn't his fault, I still like him anyway'.

Hillary greatly erred with 'basket of deplorables' and then doubling down on it, not that anyone was really surprised at her contempt.

Yeah, she stopped being PC for one second and lost the election for it.

Wrong, she could have walked it back but persistently refused to do so.

I suspect that it has to do with her being a woman, and many people just looking for an excuse to not vote for her.

Why are you making excuses for her? She was such a terrible candidate.

And she's right. Trump's core base (like 10-15% of the US population) is a basket of deplorables.

Well, you've chosen the painful path.

[AdrienIer]

See the link I posted earlier. 'How many houses does Bernie need?'

If you have the money for it, I think buying a house to spend your holidays/weekends in is a fine way of spending it. Much better than buying Exxon shares or something.

Some people have this charming view of 'well he tried his best but failed big time, but it really wasn't his fault, I still like him anyway'.

He had 2 years in power, in which he had to deal with the biggest economic crash in our lifetime. After that the republicans gained control of congress and he had his hands tied. While I think he could have done more he didn't "fail big time". He just had a limited ability to bring the change he promised.

Yeah, she stopped being PC for one second and lost the election for it.

Wrong, she could have walked it back but persistently refused to do so.

Yeah she didn't walk it back, probably thinking that if Trump got away with not walking back on his horrific comments she could as well. But some people have a very selective indignation, and don't care when someone "grabs them by the ... " but do care when the supporters of such a person are called deplorables.

I suspect that it has to do with her being a woman, and many people just looking for an excuse to not vote for her.

Why are you making excuses for her? She was such a terrible candidate.

Terrible as in non charismatic. She was certainly not left wing enough for my taste, but by US standard she was somewhere between mediocre and ok

Well, you've chosen the painful path.

Calling the most racist, fascist, neo-nazi etc 10% of the US population deplorable seems pretty reasonable, I don't know why you disagree with me on that.