:dubious: Nothing of the kind. It’s done solely to advance a political agenda which is literally the most important and valuable thing out there in American politics right now. I don’t give a rat’s ass what Sanders says about nuclear power or GMOs so long as he rouses the people against the hegemony of the 1%. Sanders has already had laudable success in forcing Clinton to run to the left – now he’s just trying to consolidate those gains to have some little effect post-election. And “destructive” of what? Nothing Sanders does is going to fracture the Democratic Party the way Trump is fracturing the GOP. And Clinton almost certainly can win without his endorsement and she knows it, it would just make it easier.
Maybe.
But Predictwise is showing a decline in Trump’s chances of getting the nomination from 80 percent to 70 percent in the last week or so.
No one knows, but the more I see polling like this, the more I’m thinking the GOP delegates will ignore a strong Trump primary season plurality, and throw the thing to someone who polls ahead of Hillary. If I was a betting man, at current odds, I’d like Ryan.
Just to acknowledge, I’ve posted almost the opposite before.
I can’t see him throwing his hat in, nor getting drafted.
This makes a lot of sense to me, which given my accuracy this election cycle is doom for your prediction. 
She was instrumental in getting the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) passed through a Republican Congress. All four of my children, starting with my oldest over sixteen years ago, have had their medical care fully covered by that program, with no deductible or co-pays, since they were born. I can’t imagine where we’d be without that.
Here we go. The “black people don’t know any better, they’ve been conned by Hillary” routine. Do you know how insulting that is?
Cenk is an asshat.
So it’s “betrayal” for them to support the candidate who got the majority of votes from, you know, actual voters?!? Seriously?
Oh, there are all kinds of possibilities to keep Drumpf from the nomination. Even if he comes in with 1237 or whatever it is, there are sneaky tricks being contemplated in rewriting the rules to make some of those pledged delegates not so bound after all, even on the first ballot.
But he already indicated last night that if that were to happen, he’s going third party, baby. (Not that this should be a surprise to anyone–it’s just surprising that he didn’t wait until he got the nom taken away before admitting it.) So even if they slotted in Kasich (which seems unlikely as he is broadly disliked by the base), Drumpf would divide the non-Hillary vote in the fall, and she could easily win with numbers like her husband’s in 1992 (43%).
I can absolutely see people *wanting *to draft him, just as they did for Speaker. But he sounded very close to Shermanesque just two weeks ago.
Sounds like the name of a Discworld dwarf.
“Instrumental” is a resume padding word. You need to thank Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch for the main part. She was given some credit for influencing her husband (after he personally killed their original bill), and really, it was the least she could do after fucking up the health care reform she was tasked with.
First of all, plenty of people of all races vote against their best interests, for a number of reasons. You for example, are a white male, who (based on your post) can barely afford to care for your four children, and yet you are against universal health care and free public college. So there you go.
Maybe “free” goodies for all isn’t in his perceived best interests?
I’m not against universal health care, and I’m not against programs to make sure low income kids do not incur student loan debt.
I would also say that what I and African-American voters share is a pragmatic-progressive approach to politics, seeking incremental progress while safeguarding past gains, rather than shooting for pie in the sky and risking huge setbacks.
Missed the edit window.
I don’t really care to snipe back at camille specifically, but it does occur to me to wonder if other Bernie backers endorse that kind of slightly oblique but pretty transparent shaming of the poor (although we are actually at nearly double the poverty line, we feel reasonably poor a lot of the time). I’ve heard that kind of snideness many times from conservatives, but it’s not a good look from an ostensible progressive.
Your posts led me to believe you were shameless. I can’t say this last one has changed my opinion.
In any case, I read an article that reminded me of your politics. Here is an excerpt to chew on:
Forgot the punchline:
That’s me: a ruthless shark prowling the seas of global finance capitalism. Nailed it. I can definitely see why that article reminded you so much of me. :dubious:
Tactics and horse race politics are what you are about.
And you are a military interventionist, which for me is definitely not a good look for a progressive. Trump is the big scare tactic, but I’m not sure bombing Muslims in the MENA and backing military coups (Honduras) is less scary than banning Muslims and immigrants over here.
Well, disregarding the arm-waving over the not especially militaristic Trump, however weird he may be, the threat of the ‘normal’ Republicans stands, the Cruzes, the Rubios, the Ryans etc., whichever shameless sap is pulled in to avert the Donald; and yet what’s the very worst they would do ? Bomb small a small African country for the lulz ? Slash Welfare like a Clinton ?
Complains camille…on the Elections board. :smack:
Do you also hang out on the IMDb boards and tut-tut at people there for wasting their time watching and discussing movies?
Hmm I think that exchange says more about Camille than it does SlackerInc.
First, let me say that I have a kneejerk dislike for the term ‘neoliberal’ because of its parallels to ‘neocons.’ In fact, that passage pretty much lumps them together anyway. But on to the meat of it.
Basically (and I’m assuming that you agree with this philosophy, since you’re using it), what those quotes are saying is that anyone not advocating radical revolution is a ‘neoliberal,’ intent on maintaining the status quo. And be in no doubt, a lot of what Bernie advocates is radical in the real Washington.
There is only one way to cause the change you want now, and that’s violent overthrow. It will not happen any other way in the actual federal political system. Maybe back in the pre-Civil War days, that would work…or even up until the beginning of the 20th century. But the reality is that it won’t and can’t happen that way now.
The ONLY way change will happen is incrementally. But no one, not Bernie, not Hillary, and definitely not the Donald, is going to snap their fingers and all of a sudden there’s single payer and universal college education and a shackled Wall Street. You can call that an excuse if you want, but it does happen to be the way things are.
You can work for it, within the system, or vote for people who will promote your policy issues, which is a good thing. But for a majority of the things Bernie wants, you’ll need a completely different generation of politicians to actually get them to happen. They’ll have to change a system which inherently corrupts all but the most ethical of politicians. And one way or another you’ll have to replace or reeducate a healthy chunk of an entire party that sits down, takes away its ball, and bawls whenever it doesn’t get what it wants.
That has nothing to do with my political beliefs, thoughts on particular issues, or what I would like to see happen, it is the reality. That I see and understand that fact does not make me a ‘neoliberal.’
You are pragmatic. As am I.
Universal college education would be great. But we have a root problem to solve first - we only graduate about 80% of students from high school. Disproportionately, black and poor kids don’t graduate. That contributes to the racism problem we have as well as the issues we have with poverty. Its more important that we get kids through high school than we pay to have upper middle class kids graduate from State College because their parents were too busy buying German performance cars, vacationing in Hawaii and paying for traveling soccer to save for college.
I really want Universal Health Care - its embarrassing that we don’t have it - but I don’t want the huge job loss that would come with a big bang solution - that would be economically disastrous. So I think we need more health insurance standardization and overhaul first - cut some of those jobs through expansion of government programs, process improvement and regulation - let those people enter the job market as a stream, not a sudden breaking of a dam. The new coding system implemented last year made things worse, not better.
This thread has gotten too dizzying for me …
It is apparently, to some here, unreasonable to interpret answering a question about what you, personally, would ask for, if not in terms of a position then in term of policy, with your complete list of all you want, and finishing it with “those are some of the demands we would make” as being demands his team would make.
Asking a politician on a political television show about a statement they have made and giving the politician a chance to either verify that they meant it, to walk it back, or to clarify any misinterpretation, is stupid horse race politics. Not answering those questions and instead returning to your talking points, be it “I will make America great again!” or “Campaign Finance!” is the apparently the appropriate response.
Who am I describing in the following:
A candidate enters a party’s presidential nomination race not clearly ever having identified with the party or having strongly supported it in the past, is viewed with suspicion by others within its mainstream operation, gets little support from others elected under that party’s banner, does very well based on the anger and frustration of a particular large but still minority segment of voters, especially independents, either states explicitly or implies that the competition is dishonest, an establishment tool, and that the whole establishment needs to blown up, states he would do things that he in fact would not have the power to do but is red meat to his core supporters, explicitly refuses to commit to supporting the nominee of the party if it is not him, answers questions about things he’s said with “there’s [this issue going on in the world - fill it in] and you are asking about that?” and has some not insignificant number of supporters explicitly stating that they might not vote if their candidate is not the nominee?
a. Trump
b. Sanders
c. Both of the above.
d. Have some chocolate chip cookies. Hillary will stay home and bake them.
As to one issue - tax payer funded public college for all?
Germany is brought up as an example.
-
Germany itself has recognized that their system fails to produce the best colleges and have few graduate programs. Those are more often located in the U.S. and the U.K. They are indeed doing something about it, funding for particular “centers of excellence” with some modest improvements.
-
More graduate from college in the United States than in Germany. In 2012 39% of young Americans graduate college while in Germany it was 31%.
-
What Germany has instead is a strong vocational training path. Teens in Germany are placed in a High School program that puts them either on a the vocational or a college path. If you are put into the vocational path (the majority) then you finish High School at 15 and go into a vocational training program. Only those entered into the higher education path High Schools (the smaller number) are qualified to apply for college. Most of the others get a dual education spending some time in classes learning the vocational skills and some time working as trainees for companies. These corporations view this as a solid means of producing well trained loyal workers and invest in the system.
-
University professors in Germany are paid much less than American professors are, typically teach much larger classes, and also must take on administrative duties. Most university students live at home and go to school locally.
The model works for them, but not sure is it translates to America so well. And it certainly is not what Sanders is proposing.