Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

One of the things I'm really looking forward to in the coming days is seeing who gets to attack Trump for his mob ties. I'm betting Blasio and Cuomo get in a pissing match over who gets to be the attack dog on this point.

Cuomo has dirt in his past.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., it's time for me to come clean about a few things. I am one of those that Sebastian refers to who comes up with his "opinions" and "beliefs" based on not wanting to get criticized by you. I'm scared of you. Truth is, I don't even like rap. I think it's stupid. But I can't say that on this board. Look what you did to ferrets. You run this board with a Trumpian iron fist. WHICH IS TOTALLY IRONIC.

Well played, sir. But the Eye of Thurgraun has now turned your way.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There is no proof at all for this.

The proof is that someone who (1) is not a small government lib (i.e., has advocated for government programs abhorrent to them), (2) does not appear to be particularly anti-tax (see, same), and (3) is not a Christian conservative (see, e.g., his personal life), is about to win the nomination.

Which shows you don't need those groups to win the nomination if you're a big enough asshole.

If Hillary were to offer a serious, detailed policy of criminal justice reform, I'd switch from undecided to her. But she won't. She loves the law and order, put-all-the-super-predators-away voters.

She sure isn't going to campaign on letting all the criminals out of prison in this environment. But she sure as shit is going to do more on criminal justice reform than Trump, in part because there's a real constituency for it in her party.

If elected, he'll likely be Nixon's third term.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Proving my point that Ds aren't much different than Rs on corp welfare. Because if you want war, Hillary's your candidate.

Thank, Bernie Bro, but that's bullshit and you know it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

What Trump has realized is that these people don't really matter. Nor do the Christian social conservatives or small government libertarians.

Agree and disagree. They don't matter to the base, which has always been small-minded bigots who want to stop progress on social issues. The problem is, the base has awoken and realized they have all the power when it comes to the red territories. So, yeah. None of the people you mention matter when it comes to the nomination or even in the local elections. But they sure as hell matter if you want to win a national election.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Agree and disagree. They don't matter to the base, which has always been small-minded bigots who want to stop progress on social issues. The problem is, the base has awoken and realized they have all the power when it comes to the red territories. So, yeah. None of the people you mention matter when it comes to the nomination or even in the local elections. But they sure as hell matter if you want to win a national election.

TM

Right. They don't matter in the party.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Which candidate is offering either of those options? You think Hillary's going to aggressively redistribute, or regulate? You do recall who sold the liberal wing of the Democratic Party down the river in the 90s, right?

It doesn't matter what I think, or you think, or how we vote. This country is already starting to look like Brazil. And neither candidate is going to radically alter it because the conventional wisdom is that such a societal split is the natural consequence of a shift toward a more globalized economy. And the moneyed interests driving politics don't want anything to change. Until the cost of foreign labor meets ours, we'll bleed. The only potential reset is a massive war, and I'm not even sure if that'd change much. (Oh, and tech's also eliminating jobs.)*

No candidate is offering a serious policy platform for saving the middle class except Sanders. And he's been marginalized as a kook.
___________
* What's ultimately needed is a full on global reconsideration of all of our economic systems to address a world in which fewer and fewer people are going to need to or be able to find work. But that's a Big Complex Conversation not even the smartest wonks would know how to initiate. And the developing world, for good reason, doesn't want to hear it (though China's reckoning with it right now, like it or not). They want to have their ascendance to a decadent Western culture before having to take their medicine.

Strangely enough, I don't disagree with much of anything in this post.

The problem is, if the right were in charge, we would get huge tax cuts for the wealthy, absolutely zero regulation to address the rich raiding this country, defunding of regulatory agencies that are already way too overwhelmed to police the shitty laws we have in place, more war for no fucking reason, gutting of social programs, and, at best a freeze on any social progress (or, at worst, the unraveling, through small-minded legislation, of the progress we've made for a number of different groups over the last 50 years).

The issue with the way you look at things is that you think the Republicans and Democrats are both in favor of the status quo (or both don't want to address the issues you've outlined in your post in a meaningful way). But that's absolutely not true. I'll take your point (to a certain extent) when it comes to a Democratic party lead by Hillary. But that's where it ends. The Republicans want to turn us into India right now per what I just said.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. They don't matter in the party.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/up...pgtype=article

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Strangely enough, I don't disagree with much of anything in this post.

The problem is, if the right were in charge, we would get huge tax cuts for the wealthy, absolutely zero regulation to address the rich raiding this country, defunding of regulatory agencies that are already way too overwhelmed to police the shitty laws we have in place, more war for no fucking reason, gutting of social programs, and, at best a freeze on any social progress (or, at worst, the unraveling, through small-minded legislation of the progress we've made for a number of different groups over the last 50 years).

The issue with the way you look at things is that you think the Republicans and Democrats are both in favor of the status quo (or both don't want to address the issues you've outlined in your post in a meaningful way). But that's absolutely not true. The Republicans want to turn us into India right now per what I just said.

TM

Strangely, I don't disagree with much of this. Except I think the GOP (or at least Trump) and Hillary are reversed on war. He's more isolationist. She's a hawk. I also don't think the social gains in LGBT rights, civil rights, women's rights, Roe, etc. will be rolled back under the GOP or Trump. Tolerance and progressive policies in those arenas are irreversible at this point.

But that aside, yes, the GOP happily wants to let us fiscally slide back to a pre-New Deal world (or as close as they can get to it). And the Democrats do want to arrest the slide. But not too aggressively to anger their moneyed benefactors.

I see the logic in postponement. It may be my only choice. And that really sucks.

(And if I could "jump off" for a moment, what sucks more is to hear sages tear Sanders a new ass on these boards. Yeah, he's unrealistic. And I'd never vote for him. But in suggesting we need a reset, he's starting the conversation we need to have. It's not wise or mature to bag the guy or his followers for a bit of naivete. It's cynical and cheap. Trust me on this. I know cynicism.

This last bit is not directed at you. I have not heard you attack Sanders in this manner.)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm sure somebody will tell me where I'm wrong. But don't harbor the belief there aren't people who agree with a good bit of what I said. Understand, they know what'll come their way - most often from you - if they do. So they don't.

If you mean me, it is not the case. I gave up disagreeing with anything Dem here, but not because of
Thurgreed. It was just the piling on of everyone who remains here. I used to post pleas for someone, anyone, to break rank and agree with me that some small point someone posted was stupid- that was all I wanted, affirmation that I was not crazy- eventually I gave up. Maybe we need the internet equivalent of court ordered busing to drag some Rs here?

Still, I wouldn't fail to support you if I do agree with some of what you write, but you post long things that go in several directions, so it is hard to "agree."

I will however agree with one thing you wrote- In our primary Hillary promised to "bring manufacturing jobs home!" I remember the Dems promising the same 8 years ago. Of course they won't be able to. So they do lie and anyone who believes it is not thinking too hard.

But that is not equivalent to promising to kick all latinos out and seal a wall behind them AND stop any muslims from immigrating. My DIL is a Haitian immigrant. Looking at her and my son all I can think is "what if he had fallen in love with a Saudi girl?" Watching Trump through her eyes, I'll tell you, it does not make me proud to be American.

The people who support Trump are stupid plus evil.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The problem is, if the right were in charge, we would get huge tax cuts for the wealthy, absolutely zero regulation to address the rich raiding this country, defunding of regulatory agencies that are already way too overwhelmed to police the shitty laws we have in place, more war for no fucking reason, gutting of social programs, and, at best a freeze on any social progress (or, at worst, the unraveling, through small-minded legislation, of the progress we've made for a number of different groups over the last 50 years).

You left out the justice(s) who would be put in place to, at minimum, roll back reproductive rights, and also likely do significant further damage to an array of other civil rights and liberties.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Strangely, I don't disagree with much of this. Except I think the GOP (or at least Trump) and Hillary are reversed on war. He's more isolationist. She's a hawk. I also don't think the social gains in LGBT rights, civil rights, women's rights, Roe, etc. will be rolled back under the GOP or Trump. Tolerance and progressive policies in those arenas are irreversible at this point.

I'm not sure how you reach this conclusion. The Voting Rights Act has been outright repealed (at least the part with any teeth), which has resulted in numerous jurisdictions instituting ID requirements solely aimed at suppressing votes. Roe has been chipped away so significantly that it's all but been overturned in a number of states already. The same is being done with LGBT rights in the guise of supporting religious freedom. All this bullshit is coming from the right, not he left.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see the logic in postponement. It may be my only choice. And that really sucks.

Agree. But we're going to have deal with it sooner or later. The more the money flows to the top, the more a guy like Bernie will resonate with more people.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(And if I could "jump off" for a moment, what sucks more is to hear sages tear Sanders a new ass on these boards. Yeah, he's unrealistic. And I'd never vote for him. But in suggesting we need a reset, he's starting the conversation we need to have. It's not wise or mature to bag the guy or his followers for a bit of naivete. It's cynical and cheap. Trust me on this. I know cynicism.

This last bit is not directed at you. I have not heard you attack Sanders in this manner.)

I haven't attacked Sanders because I like him. I do think that he jumped into the race with no real plan, hoping to push Hillary to the left of the issues he thinks are important, and was surprised by his success. But you can't just ride that wave on superficial proclamations. It's not fair to the people who are supporting you and it's not fair to the candidate you will eventually lose to. Develop a plan on 3 items. Talk about how you plan on bringing in the independents and first-time Democratic voters to the political process so you can build the support necessary to develop your ideas. If he outlined a process that would take years to implement and required the participation of all his fervent supporters in the local and non-Presidential elections, I would be inclined to give him more of a chance.

But "We need to break up the banks and stop being beholden to the millionaire and billionaire class" cannot be the answer to every single actual policy question.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

You left out the justice(s) who would be put in place to, at minimum, roll back reproductive rights, and also likely do significant further damage to an array of other civil rights and liberties.

Yeah. The most important part.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I will however agree with one thing you wrote- In our primary Hillary promised to "bring manufacturing jobs home!" I remember the Dems promising the same 8 years ago. Of course they won't be able to. So they do lie and anyone who believes it is not thinking too hard.

I agree with this. Those jobs are gone. But whenever anyone on the left tries to say something like, "Let's be the world leader in alternative energy by investing in big projects," it's nothing but crickets.

If you ask me, one of the biggest threats to the middle class is the Amazon-ing/Walmart-ization of our entire country. In NYC, it's not as much of a problem and small businesses are able to survive based on pure need (and the expense of opening huge box stores makes it impractical here, even though we have a few). These places destroy small businesses and then, in the case of the big box stores, hire the people who used to have their own businesses at meager wages. Everyone has to shop there because they have no money (I bet their employees are their best customers). And we all subsidize this bullshit by paying for their healthcare, food stamps, etc. But if you talk about doing away (or limiting) these places somehow, you're a communist who hates success!

TM

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I thought I would enjoy the implosion of the Republican Party more. Watching these two assholes go at each other hasn't been as much fun as I thought it would be.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ts-loose-trump

TM

Not my circus, not my monkeys.