Furthermore, Sanders is a major factor in that move left.
These two statements appear contradictory to me.
I dont think so when you compare where the party was in the 90s and 00s, where it is now, and how far it still is from actual democratic socialism.
You say the claim is seriously overrated (aka don't believe) that "the field" has adopted Sanders' policies. But also that the only reason the field is as far left as it is ... is Sanders.
How is that not contradictory?
I just explained it? The Democrats have moved from a conservative party to one with some reasonable claims to being progressive and thats in part because of Sanders but theyre still far short of democratic socialism in terms of party median.
I dont understand the confusion.
To put it simply Tox, Styrofoam is saying that the party has moved left, in major part due to Sanders, but it's nowhere near where he wants it to be.
Imagine Liberal/Left politics like a 0-10 scale.
0 is where the party was before Obama-during the Clinton years.
The party is now at 1, maybe 2. Warren if she gets the nod will probably drag it to 3.
Sanders is at 5 maybe 7.
Styrofoam is somewhere at 30.
I'm at 4 myself.
No what he said (or at least my read thereof) is 'I don't think the party is taking Sanders seriously' and also 'the party moved left because of Sanders' which, at least to me, at least sound like mutually exclusive statements. How can he pull the party in any given direction if they're not taking him seriously?
I don't really agree with the concept but roughly it looks like Sanders is pulling Warren who is pulling the party away from Biden, cuz she's got that one foot in, one foot out thing going on. So I guess you could technically say he's indirectly influencing the party.
He has definitely pulled her to the left on some issues, especially MFA. But too be honest, part of the reason I was annoyed about his following in the year that shall not be named was because she was the primary one pushing it before then. But then he runs and she doesn't, and then all of a sudden, he gets all the plaudits for being the only one that can actually stand up to corporations, and is the only one pulling the party left or whatever else. Minimizing all the groundwork that Warren had done in the obama years, like the CFPB.
Even if he's consistently been having this message in the senate for decades, I've always viewed him as a bit of a johnny come lately who stole the work Warren did in elevating it to the national stage, when she declined to run and he did
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Could you expand on this or provide a link that does? I haven't heard anything about Bernie's campaign staff and would be interested to learn more.
Has foreign policy come up yet in the debates? If so, it was a missed opportunity for someone to try to drive a wedge between the two. If not, well, it will come up eventually.
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited October 2019
I haven't seen any movement away from Biden so far despite all the Ukraine palaver, either in H2H polls versus Trump or in primary polling. I'm not sure if that is good or not, because I am extremely wary of another safe, electable choice that has something hanging over them that can be used for swiftboating.
I will admit that I don't know much definitive about Warren's foreign policy, but I don't really consider that a bad thing this ridiculously early. The only reason we know anything about Sanders' is because of his previous campaigns.
I will admit that I don't know much definitive about Warren's foreign policy, but I don't really consider that a bad thing this ridiculously early. The only reason we know anything about Sanders' is because of his previous campaigns.
I would like to see the Warren Doctrine too, but I appreciate that she is positioning herself so heavily as a domestic policy president.
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
The corollary is that you effectively get 1/100,000,000 of a say.
Apologies for the interjection, but this is my own hill to die on here. People in the impeachment thread are repeatedly bringing up the difference between a 'transcript' and a 'memo', so I can't let this misinformation stand.
The US is demonstrably, provably NOT a 1 person, 1 vote system where you have "an equal say with everyone else". As a voter in California, my vote is worth a quarter of a vote in Wisconsin. It is exactly this inequity that has repeatedly allowed the GOP to win the presidency with a minority of the vote, and everyone here should be aware of it. Repeating the lie that all our votes are equal just makes it harder to try to change this in the long run.
Given that the system is already stacked against us, "voting in line with how you think others will vote" is literally the best strategy. I need to vote together with three of my friends just to break even in this bullshit system. And anytime people need to vote together, there are going to need to be compromises full stop.
Compromises absolutely do not "relinquish any power your vote has," in fact it is the only way your vote will have any power at all.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Could you expand on this or provide a link that does? I haven't heard anything about Bernie's campaign staff and would be interested to learn more.
Couple examples: David Sirota is doing speechwriting for him and I personally have found him to be a dishonest hack at the best time. An example of this was him writing syndicated columns trashing other Democratic candidates this cycle without disclosing he was informally working with the Bernie campaign at the time.
Another example is Briahna Joy Gray, Bernie's press secretary this cycle, who has twice just flat out doxxed Bernie critics (who were being assholes, but not a justification) on Twitter.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Could you expand on this or provide a link that does? I haven't heard anything about Bernie's campaign staff and would be interested to learn more.
Couple examples: David Sirota is doing speechwriting for him and I personally have found him to be a dishonest hack at the best time. An example of this was him writing syndicated columns trashing other Democratic candidates this cycle without disclosing he was informally working with the Bernie campaign at the time.
Another example is Briahna Joy Gray, Bernie's press secretary this cycle, who has twice just flat out doxxed Bernie critics (who were being assholes, but not a justification) on Twitter.
Im not aware of any times Joy doxxed anyone.
Here's an interview with Warren covering some foreign policy points. Her answers are mostly super generic but theyre basically in line with Obama doctrine, and I find thats unacceptable.
If he picks a shitty VP I might reevaluate but there are clear proceedures for what happens if he dies in office and while it would obviously be a blow it doesnt weigh much against, say, winding down American imperialism to any degreee.
By the time he's picking a VP it's too late to reevaluate.
Happily we can look at the people he's hired to run his campaign and conclude he'd staff the executive branch poorly.
Could you expand on this or provide a link that does? I haven't heard anything about Bernie's campaign staff and would be interested to learn more.
Couple examples: David Sirota is doing speechwriting for him and I personally have found him to be a dishonest hack at the best time. An example of this was him writing syndicated columns trashing other Democratic candidates this cycle without disclosing he was informally working with the Bernie campaign at the time.
Another example is Briahna Joy Gray, Bernie's press secretary this cycle, who has twice just flat out doxxed Bernie critics (who were being assholes, but not a justification) on Twitter.
Im not aware of any times Joy doxxed anyone.
Here's an interview with Warren covering some foreign policy points. Her answers are mostly super generic but theyre basically in line with Obama doctrine, and I find thats unacceptable.
To me that is a bonus. I have been listening to Bernie for years on Thom Hartman and his general view on foreign policy is a bit to isolationist. I find a lot of his general ideas feel too close to Trump, minus the extortion and trying to hug dictators and performing Russia's business of breaking up Europe/NATO.
But a lot of that is because the nature of foreign policy abhors a vacuum. The US has to be very very heavily involved or others will fill that space. And the mostly likely candidates aren't say Germany and France for many things but more likely China and India. And we have seen especially with China the strings attached tend to push for more aggressive allowances for authoritarian and restrictive government.
We have seen a lot of what happens as America pulls back from a lot of the world stage. And yes this is exceptionalism mostly because we have the military (should be last resort) and economic power to push a lot of more human rights ideas on the world.
I was actually rather pleased with a lot of Obama's foreign policy. He rebuilt the US to a much better place and helped push for a stable world built on rules and norms. And that should be our goal. Also Warren is more focused on bringing in groups like unions for building those rules and norms. And that is building on Obama.
Though at minimum I would be happy to just not have the president insulting our allies and kissing the feet of dictators like MBS, Putin, and Kim.
More specifically, I don't see anything in there indicating Warren really intends to undo the system of murder-ready force at the push of a button nor the techpanopticon that Obama built. I think people generally confuse a draw down of imperial force with isolationism, which is understandable given that foreign policy in the last 40 years in the US has only varied from administration to administration by degree.
+2
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Either someone has to be the Hegemon, in which case I'd prefer it be us from a purely selfish standpoint. Or we revert back to Great Power competition, this time with nukes and I'd really rather not see what the eventual outcome of that is
More specifically, I don't see anything in there indicating Warren really intends to undo the system of murder-ready force at the push of a button nor the techpanopticon that Obama built. I think people generally confuse a draw down of imperial force with isolationism, which is understandable given that foreign policy in the last 40 years in the US has only varied from administration to administration by degree.
I should point out that I am absolutely for the techpanopticon and want it to be enhanced.
There are few historical figures who draw my unflinching ire. Stimson is one of them.
More specifically, I don't see anything in there indicating Warren really intends to undo the system of murder-ready force at the push of a button nor the techpanopticon that Obama built. I think people generally confuse a draw down of imperial force with isolationism, which is understandable given that foreign policy in the last 40 years in the US has only varied from administration to administration by degree.
I should point out that I am absolutely for the techpanopticon and want it to be enhanced.
There are few historical figures who draw my unflinching ire. Stimson is one of them.
Yeah, to be honest, stepping away from the technopanopticon strikes me as just being unilateral disarmament. Cutting off our own eyes and ears isn't going to stop other countries from expanding their own programs
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
The corollary is that you effectively get 1/100,000,000 of a say.
Apologies for the interjection, but this is my own hill to die on here. People in the impeachment thread are repeatedly bringing up the difference between a 'transcript' and a 'memo', so I can't let this misinformation stand.
The US is demonstrably, provably NOT a 1 person, 1 vote system where you have "an equal say with everyone else". As a voter in California, my vote is worth a quarter of a vote in Wisconsin. It is exactly this inequity that has repeatedly allowed the GOP to win the presidency with a minority of the vote, and everyone here should be aware of it. Repeating the lie that all our votes are equal just makes it harder to try to change this in the long run.
Given that the system is already stacked against us, "voting in line with how you think others will vote" is literally the best strategy. I need to vote together with three of my friends just to break even in this bullshit system. And anytime people need to vote together, there are going to need to be compromises full stop.
Compromises absolutely do not "relinquish any power your vote has," in fact it is the only way your vote will have any power at all.
I dunno your preference so I apologize if I get it wrong, but if your three friends thought Biden was the candidate to win, would you vote for Biden as well? If they wanted Sanders, Warren, or whoever, would your vote strategy be to go along with whatever they chose? Or would you use the privilege of being able to talk to your voting bloc to make sure your preference was the majority? You don't have that privilege with the Wisconsinite. Trying to predict their vote is like doing day trading versus senior analysts and firms who also get it wrong, and it makes the job of pollsters, analysts, and the candidate - who is actually the one that needs to make those compromise decisions - that much harder now that you are speaking with someone else's voice. It's like a voting synthetic CDO - you're making a bet with your vote based on how another person thinks some black box voting block is going to result. It's destabilizing and gives primary candidates a false impression of what they need to do to win the general election.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said you have an equal say with everyone else. But that means the opposite of what you are implying - if your vote counts less, you have to speak louder and impeccably reliably to avoid getting washed out of the process. Make your opinions known so that others may copy off you instead. 40% of people out there are independents, and a substantial subset of them give 1% of thought to their preference when voting. They're the type that would happily relinquish their voting power to others that seem like they know what's going on. Are you going to join them or lead them?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+2
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I was mostly a fan of Obama's foreign policy, so I'm pleased if Warren's is similar.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Foreign policy is one of the areas I find any of the frontrunners acceptable on. Obviously I have preferences but as long as they aren’t being embarrassingly incompetent like our current president they’re fine. Domestic policy is the meat for me this time around and I would be happy with Sanders’ or Warren’s proclivities in those areas.
More specifically, I don't see anything in there indicating Warren really intends to undo the system of murder-ready force at the push of a button nor the techpanopticon that Obama built. I think people generally confuse a draw down of imperial force with isolationism, which is understandable given that foreign policy in the last 40 years in the US has only varied from administration to administration by degree.
I should also point out that I am not crazy about a draw down in imperial force
Because we are so close. We're developing CRISPR and Darpa is working on powered exoskeletons to carry more equipment per individual soldier.
So close
Rchanen on
+5
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
I get sanders supporters are personally ok with him still running and would be willing to vote for him still.
But if you think this didn’t sink any chance of him being president you are fooling yourself.
He has zero chance now. So support him if you want but if he wins the primary we have 4 more years of Trump. Like it or not this heart attack makes him unelectable
Voting in line with how you think others will vote relinquishes any power your vote has.
It demonstrably does not
Electability is determined by every person that votes. As a voter, you have an equal say with everyone else.
The corollary is that you effectively get 1/100,000,000 of a say.
Apologies for the interjection, but this is my own hill to die on here. People in the impeachment thread are repeatedly bringing up the difference between a 'transcript' and a 'memo', so I can't let this misinformation stand.
The US is demonstrably, provably NOT a 1 person, 1 vote system where you have "an equal say with everyone else". As a voter in California, my vote is worth a quarter of a vote in Wisconsin. It is exactly this inequity that has repeatedly allowed the GOP to win the presidency with a minority of the vote, and everyone here should be aware of it. Repeating the lie that all our votes are equal just makes it harder to try to change this in the long run.
Given that the system is already stacked against us, "voting in line with how you think others will vote" is literally the best strategy. I need to vote together with three of my friends just to break even in this bullshit system. And anytime people need to vote together, there are going to need to be compromises full stop.
Compromises absolutely do not "relinquish any power your vote has," in fact it is the only way your vote will have any power at all.
I mean hell, the entire point of having political parties with official nominees is so we can all agree on how we'll be voting together, because that's the only way to have a chance against the other guys who have all agreed on how they'll be voting together.
+4
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Honestly, I think so much of the next four years will just be trying to undo the damage of the last four years that all the dem nominees are going to be pretty similar. When your house is on fire, there are only so many ways to put it out.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Honestly, I think so much of the next four years will just be trying to undo the damage of the last four years that all the dem nominees are going to be pretty similar. When your house is on fire, there are only so many ways to put it out.
Climate change is going to bite harder and harder. The West's main challenge, as a whole, is to stabilize itself before the real crisis starts.
Honestly, I think so much of the next four years will just be trying to undo the damage of the last four years that all the dem nominees are going to be pretty similar. When your house is on fire, there are only so many ways to put it out.
It will take generations. People who have witnessed this will all need to die off, at minumum.
More specifically, I don't see anything in there indicating Warren really intends to undo the system of murder-ready force at the push of a button nor the techpanopticon that Obama built. I think people generally confuse a draw down of imperial force with isolationism, which is understandable given that foreign policy in the last 40 years in the US has only varied from administration to administration by degree.
I should also point out that I am not crazy about a draw down in imperial force
Because we are so close. We're developing CRISPR and Darpa is working on powered exoskeletons to carry more equipment per individual soldier.
So close
you know I know this is a joke
but like
should we really joke "Man it would be so awesome to have the fascist storm troopers of a species-supremacist cosmos-spanning empire"?
Just... maybe not the best thing to go "so cool" over in light of... well, [sweeps hands generally in the direction of the rising tide of ethnofascism current in the US]
EDIT: Also that said I'm not particularly thrilled to go back to Obama style foreign policy, given that a large chunk of that foreign policy was "use drones to bomb the hell out of the middle east, often indiscriminately, thus formenting more and more destabilizing horrors."
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
I'm kind of questioning anything that calls out Obama specifically for the whole expansion of presidential power here (there's a lot of options).
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
I'm kind of questioning anything that calls out Obama specifically for the whole expansion of presidential power here (there's a lot of options).
Well, I agree that there's a lot of options. Perhaps the thinking was that a left-leaning audience needs to be reminded of what Obama did wrong more than what Republican presidents have done wrong
Sadly, yeah, the democratic nominee is probably going to get stuck spending most of their first term un-fucking everything. Probably part of the second term as well. Just got to hope that maybe this time, people will realize that when you let trash, like the modern GOP into the WH, the next reasonable president isn't going to get a ton done, since they have to spend some much time fixing shit that was broken by the trash republican president.
Sadly, yeah, the democratic nominee is probably going to get stuck spending most of their first term un-fucking everything. Probably part of the second term as well. Just got to hope that maybe this time, people will realize that when you let trash, like the modern GOP into the WH, the next reasonable president isn't going to get a ton done, since they have to spend some much time fixing shit that was broken by the trash republican president.
Assuming they ever even have 50+1 in the Senate and somehow abolish the filibuster. Otherwise they're going to be a lame duck out of the gate, while McConnell fiddles while the world burns
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
the realm of foreign policy is where presidents have the most power to act without Congress (thanks in part to Obama’s unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war). ... While she’s voted for military de-escalation on some issues, including ending the Yemen War, she’s gone along with some of the most belligerent acts that have occurred under her watch, cheerleading Israel’s devastating 2014 war on Gaza and vocalizing her support for sanctions against Venezuela. Even judged according to the spectrum of today’s Democratic Party, which is skewed so far to the right on war and militarism it does not take much to distinguish oneself, Warren gets an unsatisfactory grade: not the last in her class, but far from first.
Ugggh, I hate that rightwing rag.
Jacobin is socialist.
I only pay attention to anything put out by the Cordeliers Club.
I would just like to thank both you and Wandering for making the above joke possible.
Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
Honestly I'm just confused how anyone reads that and thinks they're putting all the blame on Obama.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
The blame primarily lies with a Congress that by and large does not want to get involved with war making powers at all. I haven't read the article. Has anybody read the full thing? Do they cover that?
Posts
He has definitely pulled her to the left on some issues, especially MFA. But too be honest, part of the reason I was annoyed about his following in the year that shall not be named was because she was the primary one pushing it before then. But then he runs and she doesn't, and then all of a sudden, he gets all the plaudits for being the only one that can actually stand up to corporations, and is the only one pulling the party left or whatever else. Minimizing all the groundwork that Warren had done in the obama years, like the CFPB.
Even if he's consistently been having this message in the senate for decades, I've always viewed him as a bit of a johnny come lately who stole the work Warren did in elevating it to the national stage, when she declined to run and he did
Could you expand on this or provide a link that does? I haven't heard anything about Bernie's campaign staff and would be interested to learn more.
I would like to see the Warren Doctrine too, but I appreciate that she is positioning herself so heavily as a domestic policy president.
Apologies for the interjection, but this is my own hill to die on here. People in the impeachment thread are repeatedly bringing up the difference between a 'transcript' and a 'memo', so I can't let this misinformation stand.
The US is demonstrably, provably NOT a 1 person, 1 vote system where you have "an equal say with everyone else". As a voter in California, my vote is worth a quarter of a vote in Wisconsin. It is exactly this inequity that has repeatedly allowed the GOP to win the presidency with a minority of the vote, and everyone here should be aware of it. Repeating the lie that all our votes are equal just makes it harder to try to change this in the long run.
Given that the system is already stacked against us, "voting in line with how you think others will vote" is literally the best strategy. I need to vote together with three of my friends just to break even in this bullshit system. And anytime people need to vote together, there are going to need to be compromises full stop.
Compromises absolutely do not "relinquish any power your vote has," in fact it is the only way your vote will have any power at all.
Couple examples: David Sirota is doing speechwriting for him and I personally have found him to be a dishonest hack at the best time. An example of this was him writing syndicated columns trashing other Democratic candidates this cycle without disclosing he was informally working with the Bernie campaign at the time.
Another example is Briahna Joy Gray, Bernie's press secretary this cycle, who has twice just flat out doxxed Bernie critics (who were being assholes, but not a justification) on Twitter.
Im not aware of any times Joy doxxed anyone.
Here's an interview with Warren covering some foreign policy points. Her answers are mostly super generic but theyre basically in line with Obama doctrine, and I find thats unacceptable.
https://www.cfr.org/article/elizabeth-warren
To me that is a bonus. I have been listening to Bernie for years on Thom Hartman and his general view on foreign policy is a bit to isolationist. I find a lot of his general ideas feel too close to Trump, minus the extortion and trying to hug dictators and performing Russia's business of breaking up Europe/NATO.
But a lot of that is because the nature of foreign policy abhors a vacuum. The US has to be very very heavily involved or others will fill that space. And the mostly likely candidates aren't say Germany and France for many things but more likely China and India. And we have seen especially with China the strings attached tend to push for more aggressive allowances for authoritarian and restrictive government.
We have seen a lot of what happens as America pulls back from a lot of the world stage. And yes this is exceptionalism mostly because we have the military (should be last resort) and economic power to push a lot of more human rights ideas on the world.
I was actually rather pleased with a lot of Obama's foreign policy. He rebuilt the US to a much better place and helped push for a stable world built on rules and norms. And that should be our goal. Also Warren is more focused on bringing in groups like unions for building those rules and norms. And that is building on Obama.
Though at minimum I would be happy to just not have the president insulting our allies and kissing the feet of dictators like MBS, Putin, and Kim.
I should point out that I am absolutely for the techpanopticon and want it to be enhanced.
There are few historical figures who draw my unflinching ire. Stimson is one of them.
Yeah, to be honest, stepping away from the technopanopticon strikes me as just being unilateral disarmament. Cutting off our own eyes and ears isn't going to stop other countries from expanding their own programs
I dunno your preference so I apologize if I get it wrong, but if your three friends thought Biden was the candidate to win, would you vote for Biden as well? If they wanted Sanders, Warren, or whoever, would your vote strategy be to go along with whatever they chose? Or would you use the privilege of being able to talk to your voting bloc to make sure your preference was the majority? You don't have that privilege with the Wisconsinite. Trying to predict their vote is like doing day trading versus senior analysts and firms who also get it wrong, and it makes the job of pollsters, analysts, and the candidate - who is actually the one that needs to make those compromise decisions - that much harder now that you are speaking with someone else's voice. It's like a voting synthetic CDO - you're making a bet with your vote based on how another person thinks some black box voting block is going to result. It's destabilizing and gives primary candidates a false impression of what they need to do to win the general election.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said you have an equal say with everyone else. But that means the opposite of what you are implying - if your vote counts less, you have to speak louder and impeccably reliably to avoid getting washed out of the process. Make your opinions known so that others may copy off you instead. 40% of people out there are independents, and a substantial subset of them give 1% of thought to their preference when voting. They're the type that would happily relinquish their voting power to others that seem like they know what's going on. Are you going to join them or lead them?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I should also point out that I am not crazy about a draw down in imperial force
Because we are so close. We're developing CRISPR and Darpa is working on powered exoskeletons to carry more equipment per individual soldier.
So close
I mean hell, the entire point of having political parties with official nominees is so we can all agree on how we'll be voting together, because that's the only way to have a chance against the other guys who have all agreed on how they'll be voting together.
Climate change is going to bite harder and harder. The West's main challenge, as a whole, is to stabilize itself before the real crisis starts.
It will take generations. People who have witnessed this will all need to die off, at minumum.
you know I know this is a joke
but like
should we really joke "Man it would be so awesome to have the fascist storm troopers of a species-supremacist cosmos-spanning empire"?
Just... maybe not the best thing to go "so cool" over in light of... well, [sweeps hands generally in the direction of the rising tide of ethnofascism current in the US]
EDIT: Also that said I'm not particularly thrilled to go back to Obama style foreign policy, given that a large chunk of that foreign policy was "use drones to bomb the hell out of the middle east, often indiscriminately, thus formenting more and more destabilizing horrors."
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/05/elizabeth-warren-foreign-policy
I'm kind of questioning anything that calls out Obama specifically for the whole expansion of presidential power here (there's a lot of options).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
huh?
That "in part" is not modifying who is responsible for the "unfortunate expansion of presidential powers to make war"
I don’t, I think it strangely singles Obama out for criticism though.
Assuming they ever even have 50+1 in the Senate and somehow abolish the filibuster. Otherwise they're going to be a lame duck out of the gate, while McConnell fiddles while the world burns
Ugggh, I hate that rightwing rag.
Jacobin is socialist.
I only pay attention to anything put out by the Cordeliers Club.
I would just like to thank both you and Wandering for making the above joke possible.
Because that's what the sentence says. It says the expansion of presidential powers to make war is Obama's. It's pretty silly given the long term trend at work.
The blame primarily lies with a Congress that by and large does not want to get involved with war making powers at all. I haven't read the article. Has anybody read the full thing? Do they cover that?