That’s fucking bullshit. It is absolutely Obama’s fault that his promise to shut down Gitmo was merely a plan to transplant it to the continental United States, that his promise for greater government transparency turned into an administration that threw the 1917 Espionage Act at more whistleblowers than every previous Presidency put together, and that his administration murdered a 16 year old US citizen who was accused of no crime, living in a country we were not at war with, two weeks after killing his father by the same method.
On the other hand, France and Germany seem to do ok with their multiparty coalitions. Canada in many ways is functionally 2 party, power generally flipping back and forth between the 2 fairly centrist parties, but has always had various and sometimes substantial third party representation. I would think any of those three would be a more useful comparison than Israel.
As would Italy’s dysfunctionality. Not so sure I judge France to be a great model either.
In any case Germany as an example is informative because their system is much more than just poof multi party system.
Fun enough here is a good contrast between Germany’s system and ours!
FWIW but you sure you want that?
Grumman not a fan of Obama. Got it.
Yeah, the Republican Party got thoroughly fucked because they ignored the interests of a large portion of their base. And with the Dem base polling WELL to the left of the Dem leadership, gee … nice little Party you got there, be a SHAME if anything should happen to it.
The US is like any other country, its values change over time. Right now the base is polling well to the left of the leadership, which is beholden to the oligarchs because of all that $$$$$$ they give them to finance their campaigns and retain their hold on power. Gonna be a rocky ride ahead, my friend.
We won’t get there if we wait for Bernie to make it all happen, but I don’t think that’s what’s gonna happen. A LOT of people have seen, because of Bernie’s candidacy, that you can primary from the left. Not everybody is gonna have the machine that Hillary does to counter all the grass-roots activisim out there. It’s going to be money versus people … I’m hoping people will win. You side with money against people. Think about that.
Don’t you? You have struck me as someone who would appreciate less polarization/greater accommodation and you just finished saying you liked Obama’s incremental change movement. What’s your objection?
what exactly do you think the Hillary machine is doing to “counter all the grass-roots activism?” She’s running a campaign, as in Sanders. They’re both doing the same thing. She has more “establishment” support, because more “establishment” figures support her. They’re people too.
Remember, her “machine” was all set up in 2008 and it didn’t get her quite as far. Despite what Sanders says, the system really isn’t “rigged,” everyone knows the rules and how the game is played. Obama beat Hillary, Hillary beat Sanders, and next time someone else will beat someone else. What’s the problem?
I was seriously asking if you did, given that the German approach allegedly reinforces centrism and incrementalism.
Me? I see cautionary tales in Israel and elsewhere, see the American system as having been a stable representative democracy for a good long time now, and see no particular need to trash our Constitution to adopt Germany’s relatively still newish (just since after WW2) one.
I’m okay working within our basic structure, even if it is imperfect.
First, let’s differentiate between the official Dem establishment responses vs. those of Clinton’s passionate supporters. One is the controllable official party line, the other is not controllable
The blunder goes both ways. Yes, the Dem establishment should have hurled less vitriol at Sanders’ supporters, especially when it looked like he may win. They should have framed it as a healthy competition between two similar and liberal views that Americans share, and encouraged that passion. But Sanders supporters forget the lesson of the obstructionist Tea Party, who have many times cut off their noses to spite their faces, and continue to eat their own.
Incremental progress is ALWAYS preferable to the gamble of no change, or going backwards. In that sense, I have absolutely no problems with Obama. He’s moved many many liberal ideas forward and a slight few backwards. I’ll take that result 100 times out of 100. Those who demonize Clinton or Obama for not being the perfect liberal fail to offer a realistic path for change if Trump or Cruz becomes president. In their mind, they see that as an impossibility, and refuse to consider that their own actions may result in the worst possible outcome.
My hope is that after the primaries are over, we can go back to illustrating the heavy distinction between Clinton and Trump, and that Sanders supporters who have claimed they won’t vote for Clinton see the reality that their lives would be much much worse under a Trump presidency than anything they can imagine Clinton to be.
And if the knock on Clinton is that she’ll listen to focus groups and change her mind, then BE THAT FOCUS GROUP!
No, we side with truth against bullshit. The only thing Bernie’s candidacy has proven is that there are almost as many suckers on the far left as there are on the far right, that somehow you think this is a positive is utterly ridiculous.
I do reserve the privilege to not considering the weight of the planet to be on my shoulders. I’m not that full of myself.
-
My skin color is white but it’s not so simple. I am a minority but no one identifies me that way so I do have the societal benefit of a light skin color. regard.
-
No, I am not Muslim so yes, I can avoid these effects.
-
Yes I am male and I have no children to think about.
-
No, I am not. I’ve been at times and not been at times. It’s really never been a deal for me. I’m simply not a materialistic dude. I relate to the Hanged Man from the tarot deck. I’m in an unpleasant situation but I’m content. I am really adaptive like that and just clever enough to always find a way to eat.
-
To make matters worse, the people in my life are republicans so the people I care about who might personally be affected are voting republican and aren’t exactly happy that I am voting with the democrats “to help them.”
So yeah, like I have said before, I don’t vote for me. I’m not affected that much by who wins the election. I vote for what I think will help others many of whom already support the side I’m voting against. It’s hard enough getting motivated to help those who don’t even want it but to get hit by the people who claim to want the same thing as me is frustrating.
If all of the women, muslims, not white, poor people who are the vast majority of the country can’t be bothered enough themselves to save themselves then I don’t feel really bad to one time in my life use my voting privilege for me. If they want it they can take it anytime they want but they don’t. Why not blame them instead of me?
Why am I responsible ( as opposed to concerned ) about their future when they can’t be bothered to do it for themselves? They obviously don’t care enough or don’t believe that what I am supporting is the solution for them.
Fair enough, Apparently my emotional state is that fragile. It’s something I will have to work on I suppose. I’ve been told in this thread that there is no chance whatsoever that my countrymen will accept my ideas so while my emotional state is fragile, my sanity is not so fragile that I want to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Because I will get asked who I was referring to:
That really sounds like the truth honestly.
So, your wish would be the power to employ violence against those you disagree with? I’m not that radical. I will just withhold my support instead.
Another thing to consider, cancer is a horrible disease that kills lots of people. If someone doesn’t donate to the anti cancer groups does that mean that they should check their privilege at the door as well? How about any other charity. Is someone somehow flawed if they don’t give support to all of them? Is there a limit to how much a person must do to not be considered priviged and/or emotionally fragile?
Why or why not? I would think it’d be far worse for me to get cancer than for Trump to make life miserable for others.
@DSeid:
Well Germany’s seems like a well thought out system to me. Don’t think you’d have to trash the Constitution to move a little towards more multiparty participation. Some ballot access changes. Some Congressional rules changes.
Oh, come on, all those votes counted in Hillary’s favor that had to be handed over to Bernie on the recount? And it ALWAYS worked that way, there were never “mistakes” made in Bernie’s favor. All those polling stations in Rhode Island that were closed to suppress the Bernie vote? (Bet you never thought you’d seen Dems suppressing the vote.) DWS’s games with the timing of the debates? That’s “riggiing” my friend, and it’s not a good thing.
Any recount stuff, if it occurred, hasn’t made more than a miniscule difference in the very large difference in vote and pledged-delegate count between the two candidates. And while I think it’s entirely possible that the intention of the DNC in their primary scheduling was to help Hillary, I see no reason to believe that it actually did so – she did great in every debate (as did Bernie, for the most part), and I don’t think more or more widely seen debates would have made much of a difference at all.
Basically, Hillary is winning big because, in general, rank and file Democrats actually like Hillary quite a bit, and rank and file Democrats mostly decide who wins the Democratic nomination.
You really really want to be the lefts Tea Party don’t you? let me guess, you also think the media was against Bernie?
I wouldn’t take anything said on this board too deeply. The Straight Dope is Hillary country – old, white and cranky for the most part. They’re topnotch debaters but their views are often rather fixed.
The mainstream media was DEFINITELY against Bernie. Why in the world would you think otherwise.
And I think the Dems need their progressive element to be more active and more in control, but that doesn’t necessarily constitute being a Tea Party. The progressive base isn’t filled with blind, stupid hatred like the Tea Party base, just for starters. They want to oust the Dem centrists from power … I’m ALL for that.
Honestly I wouldn’t want to debate with any other group than my fellow dopers.