Hillary's Book: What Happened? - Page 3 - SLUniverse Forums
Navigation » SLUniverse Forums > Off Topic Discussion > Politics, Religion & Society » Hillary's Book: What Happened?


Politics, Religion & Society Topics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

 
Sponsor:
LIONHEART - We Have Your Land
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-10-2017, 07:24 PM   #51 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 757
My Mood:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
Another suggestion might be the kind of labor movement that completely brought the country to its feet during the golden age of labor movements. Want corporate influence out of politics? Yes please and perhaps the best way to do that is to build realistic, alter-globalization efforts that can compete power wise to force legislative change...



Unions and Worker Co-ops, Old Allies, Are Joining Forces Again | Labor Notes
lol good luck with that. The republicans have done a GREAT job in convincing all workers from blue collar to white that unions are inherently evil.
Jorus Xi is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
1 User Disagreed:
Old 09-10-2017, 08:50 PM   #52 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 5,157
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorus Xi View Post
lol good luck with that. The republicans have done a GREAT job in convincing all workers from blue collar to white that unions are inherently evil.
Honestly I'm not sure unions aren't inherently good either. I wasn't a part of a union until my current job but all I see are a lot of negative aspects. Sure it's supposedly job security. But I also see things like, some call center gets closed and now some call center rep can bump be out of my job entirely because they have more years.

I see that I have equipment that I am not allowed to touch because it's "someone else's job" even though that person and their group doesn't care or do their job to any quality degree, sometimes because of department policy differences, but sometimes, I feel like I would rather just be able to do it better myself.

I also get like zero say in anything and because I'm part of the union with all of it's stupid rules, I get to feel like a second class citizen int he company when it comes to training opportunities etc.

Basically what it sums up to, is the union encourages lazy attitudes and fitting in as a cog in the machine, instead of working to better your position based on skill and merit and effort. It often feels like protectionism for people who really can't properly do their jobs.
__________________
--
Ramen Jedburgh

http://allaroundthegrid.blogspot.com/
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 09-10-2017, 09:48 PM   #53 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorus Xi View Post
lol good luck with that. The republicans have done a GREAT job in convincing all workers from blue collar to white that unions are inherently evil.
I certainly don't think its going to be easy. But, good news is that labor union approval, while not great is up from its lowest point at 2004 with 58% of Americans approving.

Long road and all that but I have a feeling that the next round of unions aren't going to be the current often useless form of unions but rather more of a cooperative, localized effort.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Like This:
Old 09-10-2017, 09:52 PM   #54 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
Honestly I'm not sure unions aren't inherently good either. I wasn't a part of a union until my current job but all I see are a lot of negative aspects. Sure it's supposedly job security. But I also see things like, some call center gets closed and now some call center rep can bump be out of my job entirely because they have more years.

I see that I have equipment that I am not allowed to touch because it's "someone else's job" even though that person and their group doesn't care or do their job to any quality degree, sometimes because of department policy differences, but sometimes, I feel like I would rather just be able to do it better myself.

I also get like zero say in anything and because I'm part of the union with all of it's stupid rules, I get to feel like a second class citizen int he company when it comes to training opportunities etc.

Basically what it sums up to, is the union encourages lazy attitudes and fitting in as a cog in the machine, instead of working to better your position based on skill and merit and effort. It often feels like protectionism for people who really can't properly do their jobs.
Yep, absolutely. And the bureaucratization of unions is just another issue in a lack of strong labor power as those organizations, like many large organizations, became more interested in protecting themselves than doing their jobs. I've mentioned worker self-directed enterprises on here before but its an interesting topic and more in line with the localized effort.

https://thenextsystem.org/start-with...ed-enterprises
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Said Thanks :
Old 09-11-2017, 12:51 AM   #55 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bcBrian's Avatar
Scanned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Daytona Beach, Fl.
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
Except they did abandon the working class the most obvious expression of this is NAFTA for Clinton, W, [...]
and Clinton's "For TPP but now I'm against it" stance that never came about.
You basically have one issue (Free Trade Agreements) that you equate to abandoning the working class. It doesn't matter that Clinton's main contribution to NAFTA were the limiting environmental exclusions. I know he was for it, as were most economists of the day (and maybe today also).
It also doesn't seem to matter in your argument that other than the President, Congressional agreement was divided along party lines with most Democrats against it and Republican for it. Your using it against the Democratic Party as a whole is a sham because of that alone.

It also doesn't seem to matter that there is wide disagreement about its overall effects of better or worse.
Every labor atrocity you blame on NAFTA has been happening long before it. If anything, we've been in a position to bring about changes in other countries that we didn't have before. Every single detriment to local workers you blame on NAFTA has been aggressively targeted and fought against individually by Democrats.
Most politicians don't even know details of proposed TPP agreements, much less you or me.

Quote:
the abject failure to prosecute Wall Street for crimes that invariably left the working class in tatters and ended up rewarding the very people who caused the issue under Obama,
As bad as it was, you have to actually have provable criminal offenses to prosecute. That's easier to do in other countries with different laws, but ours kind of paved the way for 2007 to happen. The financial regulations that Republicans had thrown out and those they wish to throw out again are the single largest contributors.
I would have liked to have seen the poor getting more of the protections that followed, but details for what should or could have happened are way beyond what could be debated here.

Quote:
Combine that with the effects of pushing more and more wealth to the top.
An effect that all Democrats, although the main gist of Bernie's campaign, have been highlighting as problematic and legislating against for years is not a specific act committed by Democrats. It looks good to use in this tirade, but it's no more correct to blame it all personally on you.

Quote:
Trade union participation between Clinton - Obama fell from 22% participation to 12% with no reversals, whatsoever, from Bush era policies which by ideology are going to be anti-union/anti-worker.
I paid enough attention to politics in the 80s to remember the union busting politics of Reagan Republicans vs. just about every Democratic politician alive. It is now mostly as Ramen mentioned above - something you have the workers themselves rebelling against more than politicians. I have family myself that vote against their own interests as if they get no better satisfaction than smiting the unions they are members of themselves.
Blame Republicans, union members, or the union bigwigs themselves, but blaming Democrats for that is nothing but unwarranted blame Democrats for everything mentality.

Quote:
Of course considering that the wealth of their contributions came from Wall Street, it becomes even harder to argue with the perception of the Captive Democrat.
Considering Wall Street contributions to Democrats vs. Republicans is missing from this statement, along with the reality of needing them and accomplishment for getting what little they do get, the Captive Democrat perception is not hard to argue against at all. But it's another popular chant so I'm sure you'll continue.

Quote:
Then you also can't ignore the DNC and the Democratic Leadership council larger embrace of a "post-industrial, global economy" mere moments after the abandonment of Glass Steagall, or the Obama era paean to corporate America also known as the Affordable Care Act. Sure, there are many "good intentions" but the overall beneficiaries of Democratic action in the past twenty years has fallen firmly on corporate America, not on the workers of America.
Perhaps all economic policy should revolve around people picking crops in the field and nothing else. Or not.
Nobody claimed the Affordable Care Act was perfect but healthcare benefits for all when most had nothing before does not make Corporate America the overall beneficiary. The same goes for all worker protections and benefits that have had to be fought for tooth and nail for the past twenty years.

Quote:
So sitting on your laurels and kvetching sounds like a wonderful way to handle things.
Accepting reality and refusing to live in a fantasy land is not sitting on laurels and kvetching.

Quote:
Public ridicule has nothing to do with it. Its the sad need to assert their own self-importance as the crowned family of the Democrats, their toxicity when it comes to many, many voters, and the half-assed lip service to progressive ideals.
Oh please. Public ridicule is the one thing HRC in particular has had to endure more than most any other politician for almost 3 decades. This is the sole cause of a perceived toxicity. And she still won the popular vote. This statement of yours is an example the same ridicule. So running for political office, (or only the highest one?), earns an egotistical, snobbish personality smear if you had one other member of the family in that position? Or only if you're a woman? Did she have nothing to do with politics herself beyond having a name?
Those getting hit with stones because others see it as a popular thing to do aren't the ones that look bad to me.
bcBrian is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
1 User Agreed:
Old 09-11-2017, 06:46 AM   #56 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 20,943
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorus Xi View Post
lol good luck with that. The republicans have done a GREAT job in convincing all workers from blue collar to white that unions are inherently evil.
The unions are helping. Some of them are pretty bad (yes, looking at you ATU 689) and people who are not used to unions think they are all like that. At which point those of us who know better have to explain that they are like people: there are good ones and bad ones.
__________________
"The debug setting for Gender in SL (AvatarSex) is an unsigned 32bit integer value. Not a boolean. I'm still waiting to see what our other options will be. =^-^=" Imnotgoing Sideways

"Ok, I have to ask, WTF is this thread even about and why is it hundreds of posts? I am out of vodka so I don't feel like reading it to find out." Cristiano

"Why? Don't like me ban me" Cathiee
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 09-11-2017, 07:37 AM   #57 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
You basically have one issue (Free Trade Agreements) that you equate to abandoning the working class. It doesn't matter that Clinton's main contribution to NAFTA were the limiting environmental exclusions. I know he was for it, as were most economists of the day (and maybe today also).
It also doesn't seem to matter in your argument that other than the President, Congressional agreement was divided along party lines with most Democrats against it and Republican for it. Your using it against the Democratic Party as a whole is a sham because of that alone.
Oh no, there's more. How about Clinton's rejection of the $15 minimum wage saying that it was "pie in the sky?" Her close ties (she served on the board) of one of the biggest anti-labor organizations in America at Wal-mart? Or if we are going historic, Bill Clinton's anti-labor education bill in Arkansas? The Clinton crime bill is another fun one to point out as an issue where progressiveness was abandoned in favor of "looking strong" with the fatal results being the broad scale incarceration of young black men often by demographic more firmly entrenched in the working class. And don't forget the welfare bill. The three billion in financial considerations to the Clinton foundation from large business executives doesn't exactly read as principled support of labor. I mean for goodness sake, Clinton even mentioned in her book that she views Sam Walton as a standard to be held up for corporate success and served on the board during Wal-mart's strongest anti-union pushes under John Tate.

But its not as if the Free Trade issue which often characterized as "unfair" quickly changed her tune to one of support whether that was Chile, Oman, Peru, Jordan, Mexico, or South Korea, often working in complete secrecy on these deals. Again, hardly the false picture you are crafting of support and progressiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
It also doesn't seem to matter that there is wide disagreement about its overall effects of better or worse.
Every labor atrocity you blame on NAFTA has been happening long before it. If anything, we've been in a position to bring about changes in other countries that we didn't have before. Every single detriment to local workers you blame on NAFTA has been aggressively targeted and fought against individually by Democrats.
Most politicians don't even know details of proposed TPP agreements, much less you or me.
See above, I'm not merely arguing about NAFTA. The Democrats embrace of neoliberalism expands far and away from NAFTA. Furthermore, the free trade problem isn't the only thing on the neoliberalism menu and its effects can be no more easily demonstrated by the inevitable use austerity when those FTAs fail to produce promised results.

Explosive UN Report Says Free Trade and Austerity are Thwarting Global Growth

So essentially the Democrats would have us believe that we pay the 1% more when things are going well and pay for their largesse with austerity when things are going badly. Perhaps its unfair to not point out that this is exactly what the Republicans are doing as well except they rarely hide these things behind a thing facade of progressiveness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
As bad as it was, you have to actually have provable criminal offenses to prosecute. That's easier to do in other countries with different laws, but ours kind of paved the way for 2007 to happen. The financial regulations that Republicans had thrown out and those they wish to throw out again are the single largest contributors.
I would have liked to have seen the poor getting more of the protections that followed, but details for what should or could have happened are way beyond what could be debated here.
Thrown out under Republicans? The rules for Glass-Steagal and the opening of Fannie Mae to push borrowers on the open market, two of the biggest contributors of the financial crash both occurred under Bill Clinton. And let's also not forget that Senator Levin, who actually referred criminal cases to the Obama Justice Department was ignored. Or Eric Holder telling prosecutors not to go after HSBC for money laundering? Do you not remember Elizabeth Warren grilling Tim Geithner about why Treasury was helping aid ten million foreclosures? And what about Wells Fargos fraud accounts? Prosecutoriall discretion is certainly legal but just because nothing was prosecuted, doesn't mean there wasn't legal justification for doing so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
An effect that all Democrats, although the main gist of Bernie's campaign, have been highlighting as problematic and legislating against for years is not a specific act committed by Democrats. It looks good to use in this tirade, but it's no more correct to blame it all personally on you.
And yet again, see above, their policies don't really align to often with their statements. Thus the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
I paid enough attention to politics in the 80s to remember the union busting politics of Reagan Republicans vs. just about every Democratic politician alive. It is now mostly as Ramen mentioned above - something you have the workers themselves rebelling against more than politicians. I have family myself that vote against their own interests as if they get no better satisfaction than smiting the unions they are members of themselves.
Blame Republicans, union members, or the union bigwigs themselves, but blaming Democrats for that is nothing but unwarranted blame Democrats for everything mentality.
No, I'm not forgetting to blame the Republicans in the least but again, I expect these kind of actions from a Republican, from a Libertarian. I don't expect these kind of legislative and executive policies from someone who indicates a populist progressive mindset and yet hypocritically does exactly the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Considering Wall Street contributions to Democrats vs. Republicans is missing from this statement, along with the reality of needing them and accomplishment for getting what little they do get, the Captive Democrat perception is not hard to argue against at all. But it's another popular chant so I'm sure you'll continue.
Its missing because noting that Republicans receive a huge benefit from big business is axiomatic. However, what isn't being noted is that way back during the McGovern commission, the Democratic party restructured, purposely, to exclude labor and trade unions from the councils. The refocus didn't just occur under Clinton I, though there was plenty of effort in that category, meaning that this isn't merely an issue of "too much money" in politics, but an outright drive to court big business. Though don't get me wrong, its not just Clinton, Clinton, and Obama, there was the failure of the Democrats when it came to EFCA as well in Congress (and the ACA's lack of a public option).


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Perhaps all economic policy should revolve around people picking crops in the field and nothing else. Or not.
Nobody claimed the Affordable Care Act was perfect but healthcare benefits for all when most had nothing before does not make Corporate America the overall beneficiary. The same goes for all worker protections and benefits that have had to be fought for tooth and nail for the past twenty years.
There's nothing wrong with healthcare benefits to all but allowing the insurance lobby to essentially help draft what became a huge drop in their coffers with no public option, with millions still left uninsured, with State opt-ins making for a doomed spread cost scenario that might have only just supported it during a Democratically controlled Congress sounds like a capitulation for all but the insurance industry. How would you characterize it?


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Accepting reality and refusing to live in a fantasy land is not sitting on laurels and kvetching.
Man, all these wars really suck, let's elect one of the biggest non-Republican war hawks we can find on the back of a huge expansion of the drone programs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Oh please. Public ridicule is the one thing HRC in particular has had to endure more than most any other politician for almost 3 decades. This is the sole cause of a perceived toxicity. And she still won the popular vote. This statement of yours is an example the same ridicule. So running for political office, (or only the highest one?), earns an egotistical, snobbish personality smear if you had one other member of the family in that position? Or only if you're a woman? Did she have nothing to do with politics herself beyond having a name?
Those getting hit with stones because others see it as a popular thing to do aren't the ones that look bad to me.
What's your obsession here with her sex? Clinton's toxicity from a progressive standpoint has little to do with whether or not she's a woman but has everything to do with her statements and actions. The same goes for President Clinton and President Obama as well. From her standpoint as woman, she's easily one of the most successful women in America and whether I like her or not has little do with her sex but her skill as a political operative.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
4 Users Said Thanks :
3 Users Agreed:
Old 09-11-2017, 10:03 AM   #58 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
On a more positive note, a la' things to do, the notion of Municipal Syndicalism (starting in some of the oddest places in the US, Mississppi!)...

Quote:
Developments in the United States and Spain are showing that municipalist participatory platforms can win. Examples include the mayoral election of Chokwe Lumumba Jr. in Jackson, Mississippi on a three-pronged platform of building peoples’ assemblies, a solidarity economy and a network of progressive political candidates. A number of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates are running on platforms of expanding participatory democracy and the workers’ cooperative sector. Municipalist movements are proliferating as a means of resisting Donald Trump and a rising far-right.
https://roarmag.org/essays/municipal...-kolokotronis/
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Like This:
Old 09-11-2017, 04:58 PM   #59 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Isabeau Imako's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Montréal
Posts: 15,613

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Winner 
''People Don't Really Know What We Stand For'' - POLITICO Magazine

Quote:
e Democrats today really anything other than the Party of Not Donald Trump? Will they ever stop feuding over Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and the divisive 2016 primary that helped lead to Trump’s November upset?

As Washington wonders whether President Trump’s surprise deal with congressional Democrats to extend the debt ceiling heralds a new political reality—or just a spat among ruling Republicans—the complicated new politics of the Democratic Party are often left out of the mix.
...
There's audio or transcript...
Isabeau Imako is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Likes This:
Old 09-11-2017, 06:28 PM   #60 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bcBrian's Avatar
Scanned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Daytona Beach, Fl.
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
How about Clinton's rejection of the $15 minimum wage saying that it was "pie in the sky?"
Believing it was aiming too high from where we are to get through Congress, right or wrong, is not a rejection. It was considered a campaign promise that couldn't be delivered on. Ten to twelve sounded like a realistic raise to deliver.
Calling that an abandonment of the working class is not honest.
Quote:
Her close ties (she served on the board) of one of the biggest anti-labor organizations in America at Wal-mart?
Seriously, so what? Hillary served on their board and consequently knows people there, so Democrats abandoned the working class. What do we even know about her work there?
Quote:
Fellow board members and company executives, who have not spoken publicly about her role at Wal-Mart, say Mrs. Clinton used her position to champion personal causes, like the need for more women in management and a comprehensive environmental program, despite being Wal-Mart’s only female director, the youngest and arguably the least experienced in business. On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said.
Quote:
Or if we are going historic, Bill Clinton's anti-labor education bill in Arkansas?
Oh hey, let's reach blindly for anything within reach to throw, no matter how ineffective. I'll settle for a summary -
Quote:
In his first term, Clinton stated that education was his top legislative priority, and his agenda promoted new teacher competency examinations, standardized student achievement testing, widespread consolidation, and a “fair dismissal” law to protect teacher tenure. Clinton was unsuccessful, however, in getting legislative support to raise taxes to support these reforms.
In 1983, the state Supreme Court ruled in Dupree v. Alma School District that the state’s funding formula was unconstitutional. This ruling and the federal A Nation at Risk report gave momentum to Clinton’s education agenda during his second term. The Education Standards Committee, which was headed by state first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, concentrated on bringing higher teacher quality, a more rigorous curriculum, a longer school year, and smaller class sizes to the state. Governor Clinton connected school consolidation to these new standards, and this time, he was able to raise the state sales tax by one percent to fund his reforms. The AEA stridently opposed his teacher testing initiative but ultimately benefited during this period by gaining large increases to teacher salaries.
I can add more in another post later, because time and wall of text.
bcBrian is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
1 User Likes This:
Old 09-11-2017, 08:21 PM   #61 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 5,157
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isabeau Imako View Post
''People Don't Really Know What We Stand For'' - POLITICO Magazine

e Democrats today really anything other than the Party of Not Donald Trump? Will they ever stop feuding over Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and the divisive 2016 primary that helped lead to Trump’s November upset?

As Washington wonders whether President Trump’s surprise deal with congressional Democrats to extend the debt ceiling heralds a new political reality—or just a spat among ruling Republicans—the complicated new politics of the Democratic Party are often left out of the mix.
...
I think the problem is that the Democratic party is also the "Liberal" party, in that it's the party that is "more left". Note that it is not actually left, it's just the "more left" of the two.

So actual left leaning liberals see it no better than they see the Republicans. Just more dumbass asshole politicians who don't give a shit about anything except reelection and money grabbing.

Clinton included. Sure there are exceptions, but the vast majority are pretty much just more of the same. And the whole idea would be to vote better people in, except when you can barely swing an entrenched candidate of the opposite party in any given district, it's pretty much impossible to upset a same party candidate with a different one.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 09-11-2017, 09:34 PM   #62 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 20,943
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
I think the problem is that the Democratic party is also the "Liberal" party, in that it's the party that is "more left". Note that it is not actually left, it's just the "more left" of the two.

So actual left leaning liberals see it no better than they see the Republicans. Just more dumbass asshole politicians who don't give a shit about anything except reelection and money grabbing.

Clinton included. Sure there are exceptions, but the vast majority are pretty much just more of the same. And the whole idea would be to vote better people in, except when you can barely swing an entrenched candidate of the opposite party in any given district, it's pretty much impossible to upset a same party candidate with a different one.
Exactly, they are left in the same way that my right thumb is. Palms down it is more to the left than my right pinkie finger.

We do not have a left (or even left leaving) party in this country. We have two centrist party and one is a little more to the right than the other one.

For that matter we do not have a typical fiscally conservative party either. The Rs have conflated fiscal conservatism with social conservatism .... with a healthy dash of just plain crazy.
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Agreed:
Old 09-11-2017, 09:55 PM   #63 (permalink)
Just call me Beth
 
Aribeth Zelin's Avatar
Singing along with old music
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Out in the mists
Posts: 8,770
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009
Business: Moondrops ; Tempus Fugit; Faerycat Designs; sPunk
Client: Firestorm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kara Spengler View Post
Exactly, they are left in the same way that my right thumb is. Palms down it is more to the left than my right pinkie finger.

We do not have a left (or even left leaving) party in this country. We have two centrist party and one is a little more to the right than the other one.

For that matter we do not have a typical fiscally conservative party either. The Rs have conflated fiscal conservatism with social conservatism .... with a healthy dash of just plain crazy.
I kind of have to disagree - there is not much centrist about the GOP. They might have a few moderates left, but most of their so-called moderates would be considered hard right 30 years ago.

But yeah, otherwise? Totally with you.
__________________

Aribeth Zelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2017, 10:43 PM   #64 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Believing it was aiming too high from where we are to get through Congress, right or wrong, is not a rejection. It was considered a campaign promise that couldn't be delivered on. Ten to twelve sounded like a realistic raise to deliver.
Calling that an abandonment of the working class is not honest.
And yet municipalities like Seattle prove it can be done and successfully.

Quote:
Clinton’s representatives argued the platform already expresses support for a $15 minimum wage, although the language is weak and offers no mechanism for getting there. Sanders’ supporters called for the explicit demand of an indexed $15 federal minimum wage.

Rep. Keith Ellison, who was appointed to the committee by Sanders, proposed an amendment to the DNC’s platform that would make support for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage absolutely unambiguous.

The platform originally simply stated that the Democratic Party hopes to “raise and index the minimum wage,” with an earlier implication that this could be $15. Ellison proposed that the language be made clearer and stronger, changed from mere support to a demand to “raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it.”

The audience attending the public hearing applauded in response to Rep. Ellison’s amendment.

“It’s important to recognize that $15 an hour really is actually not even what the minimum wage would be if we indexed it from 1968. It would probably be upwards of $22,” Ellison stressed.

“We are going through one of the worst periods of wage stagnation in our nation’s history,” he continued. Americans who are working on the federal minimum wage now, which is $7.25 per hour, are eligible for food stamps, section 8 housing and Medicaid, Ellison pointed out.
Frankly Ellison realizes and acknowledges the issue that stagnate wages have created in suppressing labor power and purchasing power overall and yet, when asked to even supply stronger language and mechanism it was rejected nor does it seem that the more "realistic" $10 - 12 dollar minimum was addressed. Clinton surrogates couldn't even bring themselves to a strongly worded letter to the editor. Despite Clinton's campaign attempts at populism and talk about the rich elites, there was clearly no room at the inn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Seriously, so what? Hillary served on their board and consequently knows people there, so Democrats abandoned the working class. What do we even know about her work there?
And you don't take issue with this? No matter how much championing Hilary did for her personal causes, having more women in management when those managers are in turn being deprived of any efforts they might make for a democratic workplace, or affording her the protections of association, or of seeking collective bargaining, really amounts to very little except tokenism which is again, one of the issues I noted with the typical defense of modern Democratic luminaries. We got more women in! But they will never have a chance to equal pay because they get to be wage slaves! Hurrah!

The same thing applies to the environmental aspects as well. The environmental responsibility starts and ends at the corporate level and without commiserate worker protection and the ability to shelter under the protection of labor power, what happens to whistle blowers? Unemployment line though its not as if Wal-mart isn't perfectly versed in encouraging its workers to seek out the dole. Imagine what a progressive voice on those councils might have said.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Oh hey, let's reach blindly for anything within reach to throw, no matter how ineffective. I'll settle for a summary -
I can add more in another post later, because time and wall of text.
Shall we then?

Quote:
But once in office, Clinton and his allies turned their backs on the labor movement that had made their careers possible, largely in hopes of discouraging anti-union companies from funding potential rivals or to undermine potential rivals on the left. Although political commentators date the birth of Clintonian triangulation—i.e. adopting some of your opponent’s policies to distance yourself from your base, move to the center, and broaden your electoral appeal—to the aftermath of the 1994 elections, Bill Clinton along with Pryor and Bumpers began employing it in the 1970s and the Arkansas labor movement was the target.

There is no better example of this triangulation than the Labor Reform Bill of 1978. As anti-union enterprises found new ways to circumvent the National Labor Relations Board procedures—dragging out certification processes, illegally firing union activists and taking years to litigate challenges to these dismissals, and purposely violating laws knowing that the minimal fines would be a small price to pay to keep unions at bay—unions sought relief in the form of a new law to eliminate these practices. But Bill Clinton, Pryor, and Bumpers worked enthusiastically against the bill. Pryor made opposition the cornerstone of his 1978 senate bid. Bill Clinton, with the help of political consultant Dick Morris, wrote a series of ads for Pryor’s campaign warning that unions were “disastrous for the economy of Arkansas.” Bumpers joined the Senate filibuster that killed the bill.
https://www.lawcha.org/2016/11/23/bi...-class-whites/

Its not as if Bill's anti-progressive stance was merely limited to only one issue. As I said, there is more than enough to go around.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
Old 09-12-2017, 01:06 AM   #65 (permalink)
Miss Congeniality
 
Soda Sullivan's Avatar
Dressed up like a car crash
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,134
My Mood:
Client: Black Dragon, FS, SL Viewer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
I think the problem is that the Democratic party is also the "Liberal" party, in that it's the party that is "more left". Note that it is not actually left, it's just the "more left" of the two.

So actual left-leaning liberals see it no better than they see the Republicans. Just more dumbass asshole politicians who don't give a shit about anything except reelection and money grabbing.

Clinton included. Sure there are exceptions, but the vast majority are pretty much just more of the same. And the whole idea would be to vote better people in, except when you can barely swing an entrenched candidate of the opposite party in any given district, it's pretty much impossible to upset the same party candidate with a different one.
Anyone on the far left, or liberal wing of the party that thinks the Democrat party is no different than the Republican party is either stupid or just dumb. Especially in this decade, there could not be more striking differences across the platforms. What the Democratic party is not, is a far left party, and it never will be as long unlesss the mainstream, voting public, decides that is what they want.

I am also tending to withdraw some of my criticism of Clinton's book. As more leaks out, it is clear that she is taking a lot more blame for a failed campaign that initially reported. I still think some of her swipes at Sanders and Obama fall flat when compared against the facts.
Soda Sullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
2 Users Disagreed:
Old 09-12-2017, 07:44 AM   #66 (permalink)
OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
 
Kara Spengler's Avatar
Hail Woz, the great and powerful!
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SL: November RL: DC
Posts: 20,943
SL Join Date: March, 2006
Client: Phoenix & Firestorm
Send a message via Skype™ to Kara Spengler
From the far left both major parties are pretty close when it comes to policy. The fact that one is more sane than the other outweighs differences in their platforms, since they both serve whoever pays them the most we get two centrist parties. Pretty much by definition one will be slightly more to the left than the other but that does not automatically make them attractive to the left wing of the country at all.

edit: As I have pointed out, even Obama was protested for some decisions by the left.
Kara Spengler is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Agreed:
Old 09-12-2017, 09:41 AM   #67 (permalink)
Just call me Beth
 
Aribeth Zelin's Avatar
Singing along with old music
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Out in the mists
Posts: 8,770
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009
Business: Moondrops ; Tempus Fugit; Faerycat Designs; sPunk
Client: Firestorm
Oh, sure, as a progressive, I can see that the corporate overlord party A [Dems] is going to lean more towards equality; but then they'll bend us over just the same - the difference is, there is lube and they aren't as rough.

Given my choices, I'll choose those over the GOP, but it doesn't mean I agree with their policies.
Aribeth Zelin is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Laughed:
Old 09-12-2017, 10:55 AM   #68 (permalink)
Ginger Supremacist
 
Ramen Jedburgh's Avatar
Heya ^_^
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 5,157
My Mood:
SL Join Date: 3/9/2006
Client: Firestorm
The Dems are definitely the lesser of two evils by a far margin, but it's increasingly feeling like not really voting for my own interests because they refuse to move on up and forward.
Ramen Jedburgh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 06:02 PM   #69 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DanielRavenNest's Avatar
Building Better Worlds since 1979
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: In UR Internetz
Posts: 8,316
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Jun 27, 2006
Client: 7 of them (I like testing)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramen Jedburgh View Post
The Dems are definitely the lesser of two evils by a far margin, but it's increasingly feeling like not really voting for my own interests because they refuse to move on up and forward.
For a while now I have referred to the US as having a one party system - the Money Party. It has left and right wings, but they both work for their real constituents - the people who fund their campaigns.
DanielRavenNest is offline   Reply With Quote
1 User Said Thanks:
Old 09-12-2017, 06:23 PM   #70 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bcBrian's Avatar
Scanned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Daytona Beach, Fl.
Posts: 1,651
Returning to the Democrats abandoned the working class because I can shovel out the Clinton-bashing better than anyone show -

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrong Weatherwax View Post
The Clinton crime bill is another fun one to point out as an issue where progressiveness was abandoned in favor of "looking strong" with the fatal results being the broad scale incarceration of young black men often by demographic more firmly entrenched in the working class.
You're having fun turning any issue into a case against working class. This is mostly a racial issue, but in the 90s, there were massive callings for anti-crime legislation from all sides, including the working class and people of color.
Even Clinton has called this an error in hindsight. Where was the opposition cry back then? The single most noteworthy point of that legislation was known as the three-strikes rule which appeared to almost everyone to be going after habitual, unable to be rehabilitated, violent offenders.
Violent crimes related to recreational drug dealing and usage were making headlines everywhere. Disproportionately sensationalized, right or wrong, lack of addressing it meant you weren't going to be elected or reelected.
The working class was equally loud about these issues.

Quote:
And don't forget the welfare bill.
And 'Welfare Reform' WAS going to happen then, with or without the President's help. His notable contributions were mostly the limiting factors. We've been down this road in this forum before, although you may not have been a part of it. This was the Contract With America uprising era.
After previous vetoes of the Republican bills, the writing was on the wall that another one would not hold. The choices were contribute to a bill or have one enacted without your input.

Quote:
The three billion in financial considerations to the Clinton foundation from large business executives doesn't exactly read as principled support of labor.
It doesn't even hint at the opposite either. It is a charitable foundation. The purpose is to get people to donate money. This is what we want to see large business executives to do with a lot of money. This is great news.

Quote:
I mean for goodness sake, Clinton even mentioned in her book that she views Sam Walton as a standard to be held up for corporate success and served on the board during Wal-mart's strongest anti-union pushes under John Tate.
Let's repeat the she was in the area so she committed a crime fallacy because we're on a roll, right?

Quote:
But its not as if the Free Trade issue which often characterized as "unfair" quickly changed her tune to one of support whether that was Chile, Oman, Peru, Jordan, Mexico, or South Korea, often working in complete secrecy on these deals. Again, hardly the false picture you are crafting of support and progressiveness.
I still haven't made up my mind on most trade issues either.
Because they are complicated. And yeah, I think almost always done in secret. I can believe a combination of some secrecy and openness might not align with necessity though.

Quote:
See above, I'm not merely arguing about NAFTA.
No, you're not. You take breaks to cherry-pick from the wealth of Clinton history data to throw stones their way.

And some hot air . . .
Quote:
The Democrats embrace of neoliberalism expands far and away from NAFTA. Furthermore, the free trade problem isn't the only thing on the neoliberalism menu and its effects can be no more easily demonstrated by the inevitable use austerity when those FTAs fail to produce promised results.
Well you almost got away from trade agreements but somehow made them responsible for other countries' financial failures. Surely not NAFTA or TPP, but anyway . . .

Let me explain why the term neoliberalism is now as becoming as useless as Social Justice Warrior. Its meaning has been changing historically and is presently being used differently:
Quote:
There are several distinct usages of the term that can be identified:
Sociologists Block and Somers claim there is a dispute over what to call the influence of free market ideas which have been used to justify the retrenchment of New Deal programs and policies over the last thirty years: neoliberalism, laissez-faire or "free market ideology."[40] Others, such as Braedley and Luxton, assert that neoliberalism is a political philosophy which seeks to "liberate" the processes of capital accumulation.[41] In contrast, Piven sees neoliberalism as essentially hyper-capitalism.[42] However, Robert W. McChesney, while defining it as "capitalism with the gloves off," goes on to assert that the term is largely unknown by the general public, particularly in the United States.[43]:7–8 Lester Spence uses the term to critique trends in Black politics, defining neoliberalism as "the general idea that society works best when the people and the institutions within it work or are shaped to work according to market principles."[44]
Your usage:
Quote:
Historian Daniel Stedman Jones says the term "is too often used as a catch-all shorthand for the horrors associated with globalization and recurring financial crises"[39]:2
Quote:
So essentially the Democrats would have us believe that we pay the 1% more when things are going well and pay for their largesse with austerity when things are going badly. Perhaps its unfair to not point out that this is exactly what the Republicans are doing as well except they rarely hide these things behind a thing facade of progressiveness.
So essentially most of the world is divided in the pros and cons of economic issues and reactions, including Democrats and Republicans, but they're not Socialists, so they're the same thing.

Quote:
The rules for Glass-Steagal and the opening of Fannie Mae to push borrowers on the open market, two of the biggest contributors of the financial crash both occurred under Bill Clinton.
You say this as if it were gospel?
Quote:
In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, also defended his bill:
[I]f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB did not deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.[33]
Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[34][35] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[36] An article in the conservative publication National Review has made the same argument, calling liberal allegations about the Act "folk economics."[37] A New York Times financial columnist and occasional critic of GLBA stated that he believes GLBA had little to do with the failed institutions.[38]
Quote:
And let's also not forget that Senator Levin, who actually referred criminal cases to the Obama Justice Department was ignored. Or Eric Holder telling prosecutors not to go after HSBC for money laundering? Do you not remember Elizabeth Warren grilling Tim Geithner about why Treasury was helping aid ten million foreclosures? And what about Wells Fargos fraud accounts? Prosecutoriall discretion is certainly legal but just because nothing was prosecuted, doesn't mean there wasn't legal justification for doing so.


And yet again, see above, their policies don't really align to often with their statements. Thus the issue.
You aren't satisfied with how the Financial Crisis was handled in its aftermath. I think most people aren't. It is still completely irrelevant.
Holder has always served in roles involving Justice, mostly by appointment. Out of his six years as Attorney General, you can make long lists of his actions that are positive and a short one that's negative. Better than the other way around, but somehow your spin is Democratic policies don't often align with their words. Actually, that would be finding one case out of a hundred and deciding that one case defines them all. He never ran for an elected office. He's not an example of Democratic politicians but his overall record is not bad anyway.

Quote:
No, I'm not forgetting to blame the Republicans in the least but again, I expect these kind of actions from a Republican, from a Libertarian. I don't expect these kind of legislative and executive policies from someone who indicates a populist progressive mindset and yet hypocritically does exactly the opposite.
Negotiating bad policy down to limit harmful effects, when that policy will be enacted without your limits otherwise, is not hypocritical. It really is how government works when you have heavy opposition.
That Glass-Steagall final piece of legislation passed the House 362 - 57 and the Senate 90 - 8. While Clinton still defends it, had he and other Democrats had no input at all, (along with Welfare Reform), they could have been both far worse and veto-proof as well.

Quote:
Its missing because noting that Republicans receive a huge benefit from big business is axiomatic. However, what isn't being noted is that way back during the McGovern commission,
I'm not going to note it, either. You're a regular here, but doing the same thing a lot of trolls do. Throw so much shit out left and right, mostly completely irrelevant or at least highly flawed analogies knowing full well there cannot be a discussion. It could take days or weeks to research and verify or confirm what is being thrown into one post, and it isn't even necessary.
Because it is still cherry-picking from throughout history. You always will be able to do that. No matter what political party it is in any nation. I'm even sensing bs with this claim that likely is easy to rebut, but of course it will take a little research. For an accusation from 50 years ago. It's a diversion.

I still think HRC should have invested more time addressing the mud-slung appearance, but I can see why she didn't. There is no organized delivery. It is simply collecting everything you can gather throughout history in one basket and start flinging, non-stop, as if these are the only issues that have existed, ever. Any addressing them could only be a few comments when they could each make a book of their own, opening the door for repeats of the same accusations.

Quote:
What's your obsession here with her sex? Clinton's toxicity from a progressive standpoint has little to do with whether or not she's a woman but has everything to do with her statements and actions. The same goes for President Clinton and President Obama as well. From her standpoint as woman, she's easily one of the most successful women in America and whether I like her or not has little do with her sex but her skill as a political operative.
I asked three questions when I ended that. Only one of them asked about gender. That's not an obsession. You used the wording of crowning the royal family toward her running, claiming she seemed entitled.
When the 2nd Bush was running for President, he did not have this image thrown at him. She was only the 2nd as well, and an established politician in her own right.
It was a valid question.
bcBrian is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
1 User Agreed:
2 Users Like This:
Old 09-12-2017, 07:09 PM   #71 (permalink)
Society's Lost Bird
 
WolfEyes's Avatar
DILLIGAFF
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: See that big valley? Not there.
Posts: 11,695
SL Join Date: April 2004
__________________
This is the truth.
Mitakuye oyasin.
To all my relations, keep dancing.
Believe or you will not see.
WolfEyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 10:15 PM   #72 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcBrian View Post
Returning to the Democrats abandoned the working class because I can shovel out the Clinton-bashing better than anyone show -


You're having fun turning any issue into a case against working class. This is mostly a racial issue, but in the 90s, there were massive callings for anti-crime legislation from all sides, including the working class and people of color.
Even Clinton has called this an error in hindsight. Where was the opposition cry back then? The single most noteworthy point of that legislation was known as the three-strikes rule which appeared to almost everyone to be going after habitual, unable to be rehabilitated, violent offenders.
Violent crimes related to recreational drug dealing and usage were making headlines everywhere. Disproportionately sensationalized, right or wrong, lack of addressing it meant you weren't going to be elected or reelected.
The working class was equally loud about these issues.

And 'Welfare Reform' WAS going to happen then, with or without the President's help. His notable contributions were mostly the limiting factors. We've been down this road in this forum before, although you may not have been a part of it. This was the Contract With America uprising era.
After previous vetoes of the Republican bills, the writing was on the wall that another one would not hold. The choices were contribute to a bill or have one enacted without your input.

It doesn't even hint at the opposite either. It is a charitable foundation. The purpose is to get people to donate money. This is what we want to see large business executives to do with a lot of money. This is great news.

Let's repeat the she was in the area so she committed a crime fallacy because we're on a roll, right?

I still haven't made up my mind on most trade issues either.
Because they are complicated. And yeah, I think almost always done in secret. I can believe a combination of some secrecy and openness might not align with necessity though.

No, you're not. You take breaks to cherry-pick from the wealth of Clinton history data to throw stones their way.

And some hot air . . .
Well you almost got away from trade agreements but somehow made them responsible for other countries' financial failures. Surely not NAFTA or TPP, but anyway . . .

Let me explain why the term neoliberalism is now as becoming as useless as Social Justice Warrior. Its meaning has been changing historically and is presently being used differently:
Your usage:So essentially most of the world is divided in the pros and cons of economic issues and reactions, including Democrats and Republicans, but they're not Socialists, so they're the same thing.

You say this as if it were gospel?
You aren't satisfied with how the Financial Crisis was handled in its aftermath. I think most people aren't. It is still completely irrelevant.
Holder has always served in roles involving Justice, mostly by appointment. Out of his six years as Attorney General, you can make long lists of his actions that are positive and a short one that's negative. Better than the other way around, but somehow your spin is Democratic policies don't often align with their words. Actually, that would be finding one case out of a hundred and deciding that one case defines them all. He never ran for an elected office. He's not an example of Democratic politicians but his overall record is not bad anyway.

Negotiating bad policy down to limit harmful effects, when that policy will be enacted without your limits otherwise, is not hypocritical. It really is how government works when you have heavy opposition.
That Glass-Steagall final piece of legislation passed the House 362 - 57 and the Senate 90 - 8. While Clinton still defends it, had he and other Democrats had no input at all, (along with Welfare Reform), they could have been both far worse and veto-proof as well.

I'm not going to note it, either. You're a regular here, but doing the same thing a lot of trolls do. Throw so much shit out left and right, mostly completely irrelevant or at least highly flawed analogies knowing full well there cannot be a discussion. It could take days or weeks to research and verify or confirm what is being thrown into one post, and it isn't even necessary.
Because it is still cherry-picking from throughout history. You always will be able to do that. No matter what political party it is in any nation. I'm even sensing bs with this claim that likely is easy to rebut, but of course it will take a little research. For an accusation from 50 years ago. It's a diversion.

I still think HRC should have invested more time addressing the mud-slung appearance, but I can see why she didn't. There is no organized delivery. It is simply collecting everything you can gather throughout history in one basket and start flinging, non-stop, as if these are the only issues that have existed, ever. Any addressing them could only be a few comments when they could each make a book of their own, opening the door for repeats of the same accusations.

I asked three questions when I ended that. Only one of them asked about gender. That's not an obsession. You used the wording of crowning the royal family toward her running, claiming she seemed entitled.
When the 2nd Bush was running for President, he did not have this image thrown at him. She was only the 2nd as well, and an established politician in her own right.
It was a valid question.
Fine, if you claim is a concern about a Gish Gallop, then let's consolidate the issue into one particular point, away from the subjectivity of the term progressive, and focus on one issue. What has Hilary Clinton done post-candidacy to lead America away from their current predicament?
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2017, 10:24 PM   #73 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Wrong Weatherwax's Avatar
Getting Back There
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,655
My Mood:
Client: Exodus

Awards: 1
SLU Creepy Avatar Competition 2014 Participant 
And speaking of leadership.

Quote:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will introduce legislation on Wednesday that would expand Medicare into a universal health insurance program with the backing of at least 15 Democratic senators — a record level of support for an idea that had been relegated to the fringes during the last Democratic presidency.

“This is where the country has got to go,” Sanders said in an interview at his Senate office. “Right now, if we want to move away from a dysfunctional, wasteful, bureaucratic system into a rational health-care system that guarantees coverage to everyone in a cost-effective way, the only way to do it is Medicare for All.”

Sanders’s bill, the Medicare for All Act of 2017, has no chance of passage in a Republican-run Congress. But after months of behind-the-scenes meetings and a public pressure campaign, the bill is already backed by most of the senators seen as likely 2020 Democratic candidates — if not by most senators facing tough reelection battles in 2018.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.501537bbbca6

Doesn't stand a water balloon's chance in hell of course, but the notable information is who is on board, namely many of the likely 2020 contenders from the Democratic Party. That's a positive sea change.
Wrong Weatherwax is offline   Reply With Quote
3 Users Said Thanks :
2 Users Agreed:
2 Users Like This:
Old 09-12-2017, 10:34 PM   #74 (permalink)
Just call me Beth
 
Aribeth Zelin's Avatar
Singing along with old music
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Out in the mists
Posts: 8,770
My Mood:
SL Join Date: Oct 4 2009
Business: Moondrops ; Tempus Fugit; Faerycat Designs; sPunk
Client: Firestorm
Also, when it comes to it, Sanders has put out a book to help young people become activists, and not a memoir that cost people several thousands to get it signed.
Aribeth Zelin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:22 AM   #75 (permalink)
Miss Congeniality
 
Soda Sullivan's Avatar
Dressed up like a car crash
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,134
My Mood:
Client: Black Dragon, FS, SL Viewer
How Hillary Clinton Embodies the Democrats’ Unfair but Very Real Problem

Quote:
So, we have what may be the central paradox the Democrats face today: They’re the party that supports the ideas and policies that would actually improve struggling people’s lives, but because of the way the right plays cultural politics, and because the press eats that mess up, they’re the party that is continually painted—by Republicans, and by huge chunks of the mainstream press—as being remote from those people.
Soda Sullivan is offline   Reply With Quote
2 Users Said Thanks :
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




SEO by vBSEO