The Liberal Tears When Hillary Starts Implementing Her Policies :banderas:

[wire28]

Bernie Sanders was a unique candidate in a presidential race. State house and senate races or even federal congressional races will not garner that level of attention or enthusiasm. Someone from Boston is not likely to donate 50 dollars to help the liberal state senate candidate from Kansas win. Sanders had the entire nation sending him money like Voltron with much of it coming from places like Seattle. It's like you guys understand people or millennials based on what the media tells you instead of actually talking with them or understanding those dynamics. Less than 25% of people in the US state that they talk about politics online. Moreover, people being connected by social media is true but activating that social media energy into active political energy is another thing. People don't even research the shyt celebrities give them, and they're obsessed with celebs. Imagine politicians.

In re to progressive movement: Embracing something and embracing it earnestly are two different things.

but the guy from kansas shouldnt need money from boston if he is handling business in his state. if he loses its either because there arent enough progressives in kansas in the first place so the point is moot anyway, or they stayed at home. a youthful bernie candidate would lay waste to his opponent, if the people that support him actually vote. you all keep talking about how angry progressives are, they shouldnt need to do much research right yall keep giving outs and excuses. we will see again when midterms come around. the new generation to yall is educated and mad, that should be all the incentive they need to see who is the right option and vote accordingly. i think the new generation is too busy on the snap and the host of other things to really get up and vote, we will see next midterms




in re to your re, oh ok

 

[wire28]

No.

This is completely not true and neo-liberal juju.

The LGBT got a ton of new rights because democrats, who voted for DOMA in the 90s, voted against it this century due to electorate majorities in key state legislatures and within key battleground states. The fight was won when DEMOCRATS decided to no longer play politics with the rights of the LGBT community.

DOMA was repealed by the Supreme court 5-4. Kagan and Sotomayor's appoitments were the only reasons conservatives had to fall back on this issue. And Kagan and Sotomayor are only on the bench because 1) Obama won the presidency in 2008 (by 10million people); 2) The democrats had a senate majority.

It had nothing to do with the conservative nature dying because the democrats lost the senate two months after Kagan's appointment.

Case opinions
Majority Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Dissent Roberts
Dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas; Roberts (part I)
Dissent Alito, joined by Thomas (parts II, III)

How you think 5-4 is the harbinger of death is beyond me.

Obama only beat Romney by 5 million votes. He crushed him through the electoral college, but there were only 5 million more liberal voters than conservatives.

Conservatism is going nowhere.

This is why you, Hillary, and the rest of the Democratic establishment didn't see a Trump victory coming. You're stuck in 2008.

yall gonna run neoliberal into the ground im surprised yall didnt call bernie a neoliberal after he endorsed hillary

a black guy won twice and a woman is about to win and appoint a couple (im sure you'll call them all neoliberals ) onto the SC.

and we already talked about the house and senate, they lose because nobody votes. that doesnt have anything to do with the fact that the average american is more liberal than they were 50 years ago and will continue to trend that way

and nobody saw a trump victory coming some people saw a bernie victory coming though

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Don't blame me, I voted for Chafee

this dude wasn't even in the race when it was time for most of the country to vote

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

No. It is still shown that money is a stronger predictor of who will win. What you're saying is just conjecture. There's also no reason to believe that they will embrace the left this time around when all the leaked emails show they hate them and when Clinton's entire transition team is filled with centrists.

 

[No1]

but the guy from kansas shouldnt need money from boston if he is handling business in his state. if he loses its either because there arent enough progressives in kansas in the first place so the point is moot anyway, or they stayed at home. a youthful bernie candidate would lay waste to his opponent, if the people that support him actually vote. you all keep talking about how angry progressives are, they shouldnt need to do much research right yall keep giving outs and excuses. we will see again when midterms come around. the new generation to yall is educated and mad, that should be all the incentive they need to see who is the right option and vote accordingly. i think the new generation is too busy on the snap and the host of other things to really get up and vote, we will see next midterms




in re to your re, oh ok

What's hilarious is I spent years arguing with liberals on here, but you were nowhere to be found and what has unified us is that we all have the common enemy of trying to combat the absurdity put forth by the rest of y'all. You don't seriously think I am going to entertain your strawmen do you? Literally no respected HL poster says any of the shyt you put forth but you be acting like you cracked the code or like you and Napoleon have a gentleman's agreement to argue shyt that no one asserted. Keep it up though, eventually you'll slip up and I put it on Harbaugh that you'll up on that Higher Learning Screen

 

[wire28]

What's hilarious is I spent years arguing with liberals on here, but you were nowhere to be found and what has unified us is that we all have the common enemy of trying to combat the absurdity put forth by the rest of y'all. You don't seriously think I am going to entertain your strawmen do you? Literally no respected HL poster says any of the shyt you put forth but you be acting like you cracked the code or like you and Napoleon have a gentleman's agreement to argue shyt that no one asserted. Keep it up though, eventually you'll slip up and I put it on Harbaugh that you'll up on that Higher Learning Screen

so you have to have been posting in HL since 2012? (which makes me think it would be a nice feature to get a little pie chart to see where the majority of each poster's posts are, but iono how feasible that is @cook @Brooklynzson )

your definition of the "liberals" you were arguing with were probably just progressives then because there are plenty of "liberals" on here, yall just like to call them neoliberals or neocons or whatever to keep yall little band together, its cute



i mean it aint a strawman you brought it up. if a liberal dude in kansas loses its cause there werent enough liberals there in the first place or people didnt get up to vote for him. Im just goin off the facts yall giving me. progressives mad + democrats trash = progressives do well next midterms, we'll see







and keep waiting on me to slip, im lookin like stevie Y on skates out here homie

 

[newworldafro]

I'm for the TPP. My tears will be those of joy.

Why you for it? . You work gor a corporation that benefits or you have stocks and mutual funds in businesses that benefit?

 

[levitate]

Why you for it? . You work gor a corporation that benefits or you have stocks and mutual funds in businesses that benefit?

Yep.

That...and I enjoy the benefits of tapping a worldwide market in search of competitive advantages that lead to me and my family purchasing inexpensive goods at Target.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Yep.

That...and I enjoy the benefits of tapping a worldwide market in search of competitive advantages that lead to me and my family purchasing inexpensive goods at Target.

...Small corporations and Mid size regonal ones will be decimated by TPP...its gonna negate the only exclusive advantage they have ....proximity to the customer...

The multinational blue chip companies are the ones who will eat off TPP because they will move their production to vietnam or wherever they pay 50 cents a day..container ship that shyt free of tariffs and duties and undercut all the local and regional competitors..and its not just dry goods....Agricultural products as well.
Inexpensive goods dont mean much if you dont have the cash to buy them

Its not "free trade" Its a weak attempt to throttle China but it wont work because China still has Huge markets in Europe and an emerging Africa

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

...Small corporations and Mid size regonal ones will be decimated by TPP...its gonna negate the only exclusive advantage they have ....proximity to the customer...

The multinational blue chip companies are the ones who will eat off TPP because they will move their production to vietnam or wherever they pay 50 cents a day..container ship that shyt free of tariffs and duties and undercut all the local and regional competitors..and its not just dry goods....Agricultural products as well.
Inexpensive goods dont mean much if you dont have the cash to buy them

Its not "free trade" Its a weak attempt to throttle China but it wont work because China still has Huge markets in Europe and an emerging Africa

While i agree with some of what youre saying, we have little to no trade barriers with any of these countries in TPP. This makes a lot of your point about exposing American workers to cheap labor moot.

"Trade deals" are handouts for corporations. I agree.

At the same time globalism saves us a bunch of money by not producing cheap goods (like clothes) here. We're much more a service economy.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

It doesn't matter if it's feasible or not, what matters is the narrative being pushed.

What are you talking about? Progressives need an expanded domestic budget. Trump's plans DO NOT COVER PROGRESSIVE DOMESTIC POLICY. For example, Trump is running on repealing the ACA correct? The ACA is a domestic program correct? The ACA covers medicare and medicaid expansions correct? So why would a progressive look the other way because Trump falsely claims to be anti-establishment - a narrative that no one but Trump supporters believes.

The "unrealistic" argument you just used against Trump is the same one used against a certain candidate during the primaries...who was that again...oh right, Bernie Sanders. Both campaigns attempted to expand the realm of what was conceived of as politically realistic.

Trump has never backed away from his position of increasing infrastructure spending. In fact, he says he wants to double Hillary's infrastructure numbers. Trump's position on this, and many domestic issues, has been antithetical to Republican orthodoxy, so attempting to jam them together is an act of historical revisionism.
Donald Trump’s Social Security heresy: Taking on Paul Ryan and the privatization push
On Social Security, Trump and Pence couldn't be more different
Donald Trump Shuns Social Security Reform, Takes Target off GOP’s Back
Donald Trump Rails Against Cutting Social Security, Medicare During GOP Summit
Four Truths about the Party of Trump

What are you talking about? You can't reduce taxes and increase infrastructure spending WITHOUT CUTTING PROGRAMS. It's not historical revision. It's math.

Just because Trump does not want to privatize Social Security does not mean I would support him. Do you even realize how social security is paid out? Do you realize it's relationship with general tax revenues? If you did, you would understand why that would be the last program you would want to link in a thread about Trump.

Just as much as, if not more than, Sanders, Trump has made political bribery a core issue in his campaign. From the first Republican Primary debate when he called out every other Republican candidate as being bought off to the last Presidential debate we just saw when he called out Hillary for being beholden to the donor class, he's been consistent in his critique of money in politics.

That's because Sanders campaign isn't about bribery. It's about the top 1% not paying their fair share of taxes and undercutting the economic progress of the middle class. Say that again. Now repeat "the top 1% do not pay their fair share of taxes".

The point isn't that Trump is secretly a progressive Democrat, it's that due to certain historical and socio-economic factors, the traditional Republican-Democrat paradigm is becoming increasingly irrelevant. So whereas someone looking through that outdated lens would see Trump on the far right, Clinton in the middle, and Sanders on the far left, a more up-to-date analysis would show that Trump and Sanders are actually tapping into similar underlying factors to paint their political picture. If you were to do a word-match from all of the candidates rallies and speeches, you'd find a closer correlation between Trump and Sanders than Clinton and Sanders. Words like "rigged", "corrupt", "special interests", "donors", "NAFTA", "TPP" show up frequently in both Trump and Sanders' wheelhouse. And those are the words both of their supporters most latch on to. Don't get it twisted, Sanders campaign wasn't some big corporate diversity pitch. That was Clinton's, which is why she can so easily paint an oppositional narrative to Trump. The protests Sanders' supporters launched on the floor of the DNC wasn't about getting more women's representation in media or using politically correct terminology about immigration and islam, it was criticizing damaging trade deals and the war machine. On which side of those issues is Trump on? That's right. Ultimately, Sanders was talking about material changes to the underlying structure of American society, which is what Trump is talking about, which is why he's been namechecking Bernie every time he opens his mouth over the past few months.

It's impossible (and irresponsible) to ignore the obvious racial dynamics fuelling elements of Trump's campaign, which is the gulf that would need to be traversed by this potential unifier, but to try and paint the Trump campaign with one big "bigot!" brush as the media and HRC's campaign are attempting to do, is intentionally squashing any sort of revolutionary potential to come out of this election. And the fact that Trump didn't lose any of his core support when he went into that church in Detroit and sang the praises of the black community, or when he promoted the equality of the LGBT community during his RNC speech signals to me that these "deplorables" are willing to forgo their bigotry if someone can speak to their material condition. I believe their anti-elitism may be stronger than their racism.

This is why you're 15 and not American.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

While i agree with some of what youre saying, we have little to no trade barriers with any of these countries in TPP. This makes a lot of your point about exposing American workers to cheap labor moot.

"Trade deals" are handouts for corporations. I agree.

At the same time globalism saves us a bunch of money by not producing cheap goods (like clothes) here. We're much more a service economy.

You have a point as far as tariffs and duties perhaps but you forget there are other barriers that protect local producers..one ubiquitous example is food labeling regulations where all food items sold in the US must show nutrition,ingredients and so on...TPP will standardize or do away with those completely
There are other protections at stake like subsidies ,safety certification and so on.
The other danger is it takes control away from states and the fed and gives it to supranational bodies so individual regions cannot ban,reduce or regulate as needed
and its not just finished goods
Theres no way for example Louisiana shrimp fishermen are gonna compete with Vietnamese shrimp farmers and win with TPP bruh..the production labor cost difference doesnt allow it.

As a free market supporter im all for free trade but this isnt free trade..its an attenuation of tarrifs and a standardization of the regulatory barriers which favors only the companies large enough to cross borders

in the words of murray rothbard "genuine free trade doesn't require a treaty"

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This is what most of this board voted for, and will keep voting for.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

You have a point as far as tariffs and duties perhaps but you forget there are other barriers that protect local producers..one ubiquitous example is food labeling regulations where all food items sold in the US must show nutrition,ingredients and so on...TPP will standardize or do away with those completely
There are other protections at stake like subsidies ,safety certification and so on.
The other danger is it takes control away from states and the fed and gives it to supranational bodies so individual regions cannot ban,reduce or regulate as needed
and its not just finished goods
Theres no way for example Louisiana shrimp fishermen are gonna compete with Vietnamese shrimp farmers and win with TPP bruh..the production labor cost difference doesnt allow it.

As a free market supporter im all for free trade but this isnt free trade..its an attenuation of tarrifs and a standardization of the regulatory barriers which favors only the companies large enough to cross borders

in the words of murray rothbard "genuine free trade doesn't require a treaty"

I largely agree and I see rhe faults in it....and I'm not a supporter of TPP.

At the end of the day, the internationally agreed upon courts have said these trade agreements dont trump a country's sovereign laws.

 

[Sukairain]

Sri Srinivasan - Wikipedia

He's on Hillary's list of nominations for the supreme court. Thats where my comment about "defending Exxon and Enron executives" comes from in the op.

What an awesome wiki page.

"Srinivasan was born Padmanabhan Srikanth Srinivasan[4] in Chandigarh, India. His father hailed from Mela Thiruvenkatanathapuram"