Speaking of DWS, here she is when asked by Jake Tapper to summarize the purpose of superdelegates for uninformed voters who might feel like they rig the process (which in actuality, they do not, but they certainly give the appearance of a rigged system to someone who does not understand them):
Unpledged delegates exist, really, to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.
This type of shit is why I wanted Bernie to know how to counter before getting into the primary, because if he can't overcome the DNC and DWS he never stood a chance at being the nominee.
I'm not sure I understand. How do unpledged delegates defuse competition between grassroots activists and the party establishment?
Yeah, the existence of superPACs is shitty and CU is an abomination. But the Democratic Party, as a whole, would be at a huge disadvantage if they didn't use them too while it was the law.
Washington Post is reporting that the DNC has rescinded the Obama Rule against taking lobbyist and PAC money.
I'm not sure I recognize this party anymore.
What, they thought that Sanders needed a little something extra to help flesh out his complaints about the establishment?
This is a good point I saw made somewhere else:
When the Koch Brothers have promised to kick in a billion dollars all by themselves to elect Republicans in 2016, the Democrats are getting a bit concerned with keeping up.
And this is why I don't like Sanders' stance on PACs - because I don't fucking believe in unilateral disarmament.
So you're saying Obama's Rule was a bad thing, then?
(looks at the shitfest that are local and state governments, enabled by floods of conservative cash)
Yeah, the jury's out on that one. Everyone likes to talk about how we need to have a 50 state strategy, and how we need to have candidates in every race. Two big problems with that:
* Democratic candidates don't have good financial support from the party or the left; and
* Republican candidates easily get their war chests from right wing billionaires.
The result is that you get a lack of candidates, because to walk into that buzzsaw takes a good deal of courage.
The rule made sense in the 2008 election. It no longer makes sense in 2016, and you can thank Citizens fucking United for that.
Washington Post is reporting that the DNC has rescinded the Obama Rule against taking lobbyist and PAC money.
I'm not sure I recognize this party anymore.
What, they thought that Sanders needed a little something extra to help flesh out his complaints about the establishment?
This is a good point I saw made somewhere else:
When the Koch Brothers have promised to kick in a billion dollars all by themselves to elect Republicans in 2016, the Democrats are getting a bit concerned with keeping up.
And this is why I don't like Sanders' stance on PACs - because I don't fucking believe in unilateral disarmament.
So you're saying Obama's Rule was a bad thing, then?
Yes.
Politics is a bloodsport. If you are intentionally hamstringing yourself you are hurting your cause.
There can be reasons not to participate - for example, Trump doesn't want to feel like he owes anyone anything, Sanders has to maintain the grassroots image. Those are decent (by some standards) reasons where the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages.
Citizens United is a pox on this nation, but it's also the law. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to get it overturned.
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
When it makes sense. In this case, people are pointing out that a rule that worked in 2008, when there were laws restricting soft money is tantamount to unilateral disarmament in 2016,where the Kochtopus is preparing to dump a billion dollars into political races at all levels.
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
I don't know whether it's panic mode or just straight tone deafness. But it's infuriating, and in this environment it's going to cost seats.
I imagine like the debate thing before it, it's DWS doing a bunch of stupid shit to try and help Clinton even though I doubt Clinton ever asked her to.
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
just....what
Because you haven't shown that those people are the reason for the policies and strategies you are complaining about?
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
No - I think you would be better to ask Obama to clarify his stance on the issue nowadays, in light of changes to the financial landscape of campaigns.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that Obama was right about something years ago, and that the decision he made then would be a bad one today. Things change.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+2
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
just....what
Because you haven't shown that those people are the reason for the policies and strategies you are complaining about?
I don't even need to because the political feasibility of regulating wall street through executive action is eminent, doubly so right after goldman-sachs flushed the economy down the shitter while positioning themselves to profit from it
BUT just for shitskis, I'll point out that
1) tim geithner convinced Obama that even investigating a plan for breaking up big investment banks was a waste of time
2) the policy of soft, slap-on-the-wrist punishment for bankers as practiced by the Obama administration originated with Eric Holder in the 90's
3) larry summers was one of Obama's top economic advisers. the year before this, he was paid literally millions of dollars by Wall Street in speaking and advisory fees. I'm certain this had nothing at all to do with him torpedoing caps on executive pay at firms that received bailouts.
the desire was simply not there to regulate wall street in a substantial way. it is bananas that this is a point of contention.
I'm of the position that the best way to get something like this changed is to abuse the fuck out of it until your opponents are happy to shut it down. The second the democrats manage to get in a position to gerrymander the fuck out of the republicans will be the second the republicans suddenly don't like gerrymandering and the second the democrats wield a nation-wide money-as-speech club to eviscerate the republicans will be the second they suddenly don't like CU.
I'm of the position that the best way to get something like this changed is to abuse the fuck out of it until your opponents are happy to shut it down. The second the democrats manage to get in a position to gerrymander the fuck out of the republicans is the second the republicans suddenly don't like gerrymandering and the second the democrats wield a nation-wide money-as-speech club to eviscerate the republicans will be the second they suddenly don't like CU.
Look at North Carolina. The Democrats used gerrymandering to maintain power for more than a century.
The Republicans won in 2008 and 2010 and got the power to redraw the maps. They intensified the gerrymandering to such an extent that the Democrats cast more votes for state legislators, but the Republicans managed a complete lock on both houses. That's going to the Supreme Court this month.
So do you have any actual evidence that Sanders won't take incremental change if that's all he can get?
I seem to recall him compromising on his prized veterans legislation to get it through congress
It costs nothing to talk about the changes you want. There's no reason whatsoever to compromise before you even begin the battle, and frankly I'm sick of politicians I support doing so.
Incremental change if that's all he can get isn't what Sanders has based his entire campaign on.
Realistically, no shit he fight for what he wants and take what he can get. I don't think anyone's really doubting that, but I definitely think he's more likely to make perfect the enemy of good than Hillary is.
And hey, when Hillary takes the incremental change she can get, everyone who doesn't like her can point to it as an example of how she's a triangulating centrist who doesn't really care about the issue. We all win!
Obama had a supermajority when he took office in a climate when the country would have accepted him crucifying the entire financial sector
he wasn't interested
As to the second bolded, YES there are numerous people in this thread who are doubting that Sanders will take incremental change
technically he had a Supermajority for a very short window in the summer because of the fuckery with seating Al Franken and then Ted Kennedy dying and getting replaced with Scott Brown.
Outside of that very small span of time, there was no Supermajority
If we're going back to Hillary being a steely eyed realist I'd wonder what anyone puts the odds of her being able to expand Obamacare at with a Republican house
Listening to this, or reading health-care policy expert Jonathan Cohn write in the Huffington Post that "Clinton wants to build on the existing system" to achieve "universal health care," one might presume that Clinton has proposed some sort of non-single-payer plan for expanding coverage, for getting that "remaining 10 percent." I myself assumed that, given Clinton's vaunted command of practical detail and real-world strategy, she must have released some detailed policy plan on the subject—a practical road map. It frustrated me that she never talked about what that plan was, but I was sure it existed.
It does not. On Clinton's campsign website, for instance, there is a discussion of the need to "expand affordable coverage" and "make progress toward universal coverage" in general terms, but no proposal on the means for doing so. There is no plan. There is no practical road map. I asked the Clinton campaign about this, and they directed to me to several progressive proposals she's made that are in fact quite specific about how she would reduce costs for people who already have insurance. But if you can tell me how President Clinton would provide coverage to the 11 percent of Americans who don't have it right now, I'll send you one American dollar (and update this article).
There are logical political reasons why this might be the case. Clinton has already apparently convinced most people that she's the practical candidate, so why expose herself to criticism that her own plan is unrealistic? Listing specific promises or goals related to universal coverage, as Slate's Jamelle Bouie noted this morning in regards to the "public option," would just create ammunition that could be used against her when/if she's elected and the Republican Congress refuses to pass anything that expands the ACA. (Think about Obama's promise to close Guantánamo, which he's still taking heat for even though the issue is largely out of his control.)
The Republican Congress won't, of course, pass a universal coverage bill under either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders without some sort of major paradigm shift in United States politics. Still. If you're the practical and realistic candidate, and the practical and realistic truth is that universal health coverage will not be achieved in the next four years, how is it any less of a fantasy to say, in vague terms, that you will make progress toward it incrementally? "It is difficult to, in any way, argue with the goal that we both share," Clinton said last night about universal coverage. Then she challenged Sanders to defend his single payer dream. "I think the American people deserve to know specifically how this would work," she said. Amen!
+4
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
I think CU is an abomination, but we can't get CU off the books without more SCOTUS seats and we need the presidency for that so....
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
just....what
Because you haven't shown that those people are the reason for the policies and strategies you are complaining about?
Geithner was Secretary of the Treasury and had control of the TARP funds
It's not about dragging the compromise point further left in the immediate term, it's about increasing the power of progressives within the government
if we're going under the assumption that the Republicans are always going to have a majority then the 18 year olds are right and there's no point in voting
Am I taking crazy pills? Is EVERYONE here of the opinion that Obama only didn't go after Wall Street because he didn't have political capital? Did I imagine Lanny Breuer never investigating for criminal malfeasance or Holder saying we didn't go after them because we were worried about effects on the economy, and it having nothing to do with the administration being unable to do so?
D&D's opinion of the general Democratic Party and Obama in particular sure has improved a lot since Sanders started running - the guy doesn't even have faults anymore
it really is incredible
I don't know how you can look at Obama's staff, with people like Bernanke and Larry Summers and Tim Geithner and say "yeah the only reason they didn't go after Wall Street is because it wasn't politically feasible"
just....what
Because you haven't shown that those people are the reason for the policies and strategies you are complaining about?
I don't even need to because the political feasibility of regulating wall street through executive action is eminent, doubly so right after goldman-sachs flushed the economy down the shitter while positioning themselves to profit from it
BUT just for shitskis, I'll point out that
1) tim geithner convinced Obama that even investigating a plan for breaking up big investment banks was a waste of time
2) the policy of soft, slap-on-the-wrist punishment for bankers as practiced by the Obama administration originated with Eric Holder in the 90's
3) larry summers was one of Obama's top economic advisers. the year before this, he was paid literally millions of dollars by Wall Street in speaking and advisory fees. I'm certain this had nothing at all to do with him torpedoing caps on executive pay at firms that received bailouts.
the desire was simply not there to regulate wall street in a substantial way. it is bananas that this is a point of contention.
Geithner also had control of $300B in TARP funds that he could have used as a club. Oh, you want to off load your crap MBS paper on me? How's about you make the following changes...
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
Captain Ultralow resolution pictures of birdsRegistered Userregular
I've seen this a couple times in this thread. Just in case I missed something, Sen. Sanders hasn't joined the Democratic Party, officially, right?
If we're going back to Hillary being a steely eyed realist I'd wonder what anyone puts the odds of her being able to expand Obamacare at with a Republican house
Listening to this, or reading health-care policy expert Jonathan Cohn write in the Huffington Post that "Clinton wants to build on the existing system" to achieve "universal health care," one might presume that Clinton has proposed some sort of non-single-payer plan for expanding coverage, for getting that "remaining 10 percent." I myself assumed that, given Clinton's vaunted command of practical detail and real-world strategy, she must have released some detailed policy plan on the subject—a practical road map. It frustrated me that she never talked about what that plan was, but I was sure it existed.
It does not. On Clinton's campsign website, for instance, there is a discussion of the need to "expand affordable coverage" and "make progress toward universal coverage" in general terms, but no proposal on the means for doing so. There is no plan. There is no practical road map. I asked the Clinton campaign about this, and they directed to me to several progressive proposals she's made that are in fact quite specific about how she would reduce costs for people who already have insurance. But if you can tell me how President Clinton would provide coverage to the 11 percent of Americans who don't have it right now, I'll send you one American dollar (and update this article).
There are logical political reasons why this might be the case. Clinton has already apparently convinced most people that she's the practical candidate, so why expose herself to criticism that her own plan is unrealistic? Listing specific promises or goals related to universal coverage, as Slate's Jamelle Bouie noted this morning in regards to the "public option," would just create ammunition that could be used against her when/if she's elected and the Republican Congress refuses to pass anything that expands the ACA. (Think about Obama's promise to close Guantánamo, which he's still taking heat for even though the issue is largely out of his control.)
The Republican Congress won't, of course, pass a universal coverage bill under either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders without some sort of major paradigm shift in United States politics. Still. If you're the practical and realistic candidate, and the practical and realistic truth is that universal health coverage will not be achieved in the next four years, how is it any less of a fantasy to say, in vague terms, that you will make progress toward it incrementally? "It is difficult to, in any way, argue with the goal that we both share," Clinton said last night about universal coverage. Then she challenged Sanders to defend his single payer dream. "I think the American people deserve to know specifically how this would work," she said. Amen!
Okay then, since the narrative being presented on this board is almost universally that Hillary's plans are more realistic, I'd really like someone to post exactly what her plan is for expanding obamacare and how she plans to get a piece of legislation that was voted for repeal almost 50 times past a congressional majority who have dedicated more time to destroying her personally than they have to investigating 9/11
It's flat out nonsense that hillary's plans can be accomplished by executive action, some of them can, but hey a lot of what Sanders wants can be too, probably almost exactly the same percentage!
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
Or perhaps I am looking to nail down exactly when people think it is okay to criticize Obama's stances or get rid of something he put in place.
When Sanders proposes we can do better than the ACA, he is slammed for several things, but among them is how it looks to be running from a signature piece of legislation put in place by a popular Democratic President. Is it only poor optics when you oppose Obama's actions as they relate to the ACA or his perceived lack of progressivism? Because as far as I can tell, his rule governing donations was actually fairly progressive. To my mind, this appears to be a one-way street: it is okay to oppose Obama's actions when they are progressive, idealistic, and improving the party image via controls on campaign finance; conversely, it is not acceptable to oppose Obama when he approaches situations with pragmatism and moves to the center, even if he undercuts progressivism in the process.
This set of rules seems (particularly to the disaffected electorate that is flocking to Bernie) designed for a singular purpose, which is to allow Hillary and the DNC to benefit from opposing Obama when it is convenient and beneficial for her, and to use them as a cudgel with which to attack Sanders when he levies criticism from a different point of view. Consider that the only reason many people here are okay with an attack on Obama's legacy in this instance is because they happen to personally believe it is in the best interests of the country -- exactly the same reason as those who are fine with Bernie leveling criticisms of Obama for not being progressive enough.
If your argument is that the comparison between Hillary/the DNCs abandonment of Obama's positions and Bernie's criticism of Obama's lack of progressivism is unfair, I would put it to you that Bernie is not the one putting himself in the position of "Obama's true successor", and therefore it follows that he may necessarily be critical of him in certain ways while still acknowledging that Obama was a good President. On the other hand, Hillary remains silent on the change in course away from Obama's legacy. I am open to any comment from her decrying such an action, but I would have to be pleasantly surprised by it, because I do not expect it.
It could be argued that Hillary is not identical to Obama, and will not necessarily do exactly what Obama would in any given situation. That's fair enough. However, she must realize that a sizable portion of the base she is relying upon to win the Presidency in the general election is concerned about the appearance of impropriety and corruption vis a vis campaign finance. To remain silent on this solidifies that base's impression of her as someone who praises Obama when it is convenient and opportunistically abandons his positions when she stands to personally benefit from doing so.
So it's okay to run from Obama on some things, then, is what I'm getting out of this conversation.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
Or perhaps I am looking to nail down exactly when people think it is okay to criticize Obama's stances or get rid of something he put in place.
That is going to change wildly with the stance, context, and each individual's own stance.
So, you know, whenever someone decides to. Trying to find a specific point that should apply to everyone and be accepted by everyone else is pointless.
I've seen this a couple times in this thread. Just in case I missed something, Sen. Sanders hasn't joined the Democratic Party, officially, right?
He has.
But only on paper.
Well he's ideologically identical, basically, to the CPC - which is larger than the tea party in congress (75 democratic congresscritters)
he's not so different from other democrats, he is exceptionally progressive among senators though
And yet despite being a founding member of the CPC he only has the endorsement of two members.
And he hasn't actually joined the party. This is from his Senate office today.
Thursday, February 11, 2016
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) today sent a joint letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson expressing concerns that the Department of Homeland Security has continued the failed immigration enforcement initiative – Secure Communities – “albeit with a new name.”
When Arlen Specter changed he immediately became (D-PA). Sanders still touts his independence and calls himself an independent in the Senate. His 2018 Senate campaign FEC filings still say Independent.
Bruenig with the classic "let's pretend that fluid concepts have only two possible rigid definitions" argument.
The premise that Clinton's proposals can't be passed is its unlike the Democrats gain control of the House and the presumption that the Ryan led Republicans will be as obstinate as the Boehner led Republicans.
The premise that Sanders's proposals can't be passed is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support his policies in any large numbers and there isn't a large scale movement a la the Tea Party to change the makeup of either House to change that.
Pretending there's no difference there is willful denial of reality
Bruenig with the classic "let's pretend that fluid concepts have only two possible rigid definitions" argument.
The premise that Clinton's proposals can't be passed is its unlike the Democrats gain control of the House and the presumption that the Ryan led Republicans will be as obstinate as the Boehner led Republicans.
The premise that Sanders's proposals can't be passed is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support his policies in any large numbers and there isn't a large scale movement a la the Tea Party to change the makeup of either House to change that.
Pretending there's no difference there is willful denial of reality
Or that the scope of his proposal transcends the Presidency and the federal government, like with the mass incarceration issue.
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
Bruenig with the classic "let's pretend that fluid concepts have only two possible rigid definitions" argument.
The premise that Clinton's proposals can't be passed is its unlike the Democrats gain control of the House and the presumption that the Ryan led Republicans will be as obstinate as the Boehner led Republicans.
The premise that Sanders's proposals can't be passed is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support his policies in any large numbers and there isn't a large scale movement a la the Tea Party to change the makeup of either House to change that.
Pretending there's no difference there is willful denial of reality
So Clinton's proposals need a flying pony, while Sanders' needs a flying unicorn. The difference being that at least regular ponies actually exist.
It's the House Republicans. They're not going to pass anything because 'government doing nothing' is actually a goal of theirs.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
The scope of the tragedy in Flint Michigan transcends the power of the presidency to act directly as well.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
So why does Clinton pivoting to something the president doesn't have control over get rationalized as "bully pitting" while Sanders is the wild eyed unicorn man of Burlington?
I've seen this a couple times in this thread. Just in case I missed something, Sen. Sanders hasn't joined the Democratic Party, officially, right?
He has.
But only on paper.
What, he didn't get the tattoo? He unbellyfeels the principals of the Democratic party? He keeps fucking up the secret handshake?
He's joined the party, and he's a hell of a lot more supportive of it than some tool like Joe Manchin.
He is as much a democrat now, as he was before he actually joined the party.
Whether you think it means that he was not a true independent then, or he is not a real democrat now, depends on you.
Posts
(looks at the shitfest that are local and state governments, enabled by floods of conservative cash)
Yeah, the jury's out on that one. Everyone likes to talk about how we need to have a 50 state strategy, and how we need to have candidates in every race. Two big problems with that:
* Democratic candidates don't have good financial support from the party or the left; and
* Republican candidates easily get their war chests from right wing billionaires.
The result is that you get a lack of candidates, because to walk into that buzzsaw takes a good deal of courage.
The rule made sense in the 2008 election. It no longer makes sense in 2016, and you can thank Citizens fucking United for that.
Yes.
Politics is a bloodsport. If you are intentionally hamstringing yourself you are hurting your cause.
There can be reasons not to participate - for example, Trump doesn't want to feel like he owes anyone anything, Sanders has to maintain the grassroots image. Those are decent (by some standards) reasons where the benefits may outweigh the disadvantages.
Citizens United is a pox on this nation, but it's also the law. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to get it overturned.
When it makes sense. In this case, people are pointing out that a rule that worked in 2008, when there were laws restricting soft money is tantamount to unilateral disarmament in 2016,where the Kochtopus is preparing to dump a billion dollars into political races at all levels.
Yes, I would assume that would be what you got out of the above conversation if all you were looking for was an attempt to make a pithy statement against a previous completely unrelated argument.
Only when it's the practical thing to do.
I imagine like the debate thing before it, it's DWS doing a bunch of stupid shit to try and help Clinton even though I doubt Clinton ever asked her to.
Because you haven't shown that those people are the reason for the policies and strategies you are complaining about?
No - I think you would be better to ask Obama to clarify his stance on the issue nowadays, in light of changes to the financial landscape of campaigns.
It is perfectly reasonable to think that Obama was right about something years ago, and that the decision he made then would be a bad one today. Things change.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I don't even need to because the political feasibility of regulating wall street through executive action is eminent, doubly so right after goldman-sachs flushed the economy down the shitter while positioning themselves to profit from it
BUT just for shitskis, I'll point out that
1) tim geithner convinced Obama that even investigating a plan for breaking up big investment banks was a waste of time
2) the policy of soft, slap-on-the-wrist punishment for bankers as practiced by the Obama administration originated with Eric Holder in the 90's
3) larry summers was one of Obama's top economic advisers. the year before this, he was paid literally millions of dollars by Wall Street in speaking and advisory fees. I'm certain this had nothing at all to do with him torpedoing caps on executive pay at firms that received bailouts.
the desire was simply not there to regulate wall street in a substantial way. it is bananas that this is a point of contention.
Look at North Carolina. The Democrats used gerrymandering to maintain power for more than a century.
The Republicans won in 2008 and 2010 and got the power to redraw the maps. They intensified the gerrymandering to such an extent that the Democrats cast more votes for state legislators, but the Republicans managed a complete lock on both houses. That's going to the Supreme Court this month.
technically he had a Supermajority for a very short window in the summer because of the fuckery with seating Al Franken and then Ted Kennedy dying and getting replaced with Scott Brown.
Outside of that very small span of time, there was no Supermajority
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/12/hillary_clinton_doesn_t_have_a_practical_plan_or_any_plan_at_all_for_achieving.html
Geithner was Secretary of the Treasury and had control of the TARP funds
Geithner also had control of $300B in TARP funds that he could have used as a club. Oh, you want to off load your crap MBS paper on me? How's about you make the following changes...
oops
Okay then, since the narrative being presented on this board is almost universally that Hillary's plans are more realistic, I'd really like someone to post exactly what her plan is for expanding obamacare and how she plans to get a piece of legislation that was voted for repeal almost 50 times past a congressional majority who have dedicated more time to destroying her personally than they have to investigating 9/11
It's flat out nonsense that hillary's plans can be accomplished by executive action, some of them can, but hey a lot of what Sanders wants can be too, probably almost exactly the same percentage!
But only on paper.
Well he's ideologically identical, basically, to the CPC - which is larger than the tea party in congress (75 democratic congresscritters)
he's not so different from other democrats, he is exceptionally progressive among senators though
Or perhaps I am looking to nail down exactly when people think it is okay to criticize Obama's stances or get rid of something he put in place.
When Sanders proposes we can do better than the ACA, he is slammed for several things, but among them is how it looks to be running from a signature piece of legislation put in place by a popular Democratic President. Is it only poor optics when you oppose Obama's actions as they relate to the ACA or his perceived lack of progressivism? Because as far as I can tell, his rule governing donations was actually fairly progressive. To my mind, this appears to be a one-way street: it is okay to oppose Obama's actions when they are progressive, idealistic, and improving the party image via controls on campaign finance; conversely, it is not acceptable to oppose Obama when he approaches situations with pragmatism and moves to the center, even if he undercuts progressivism in the process.
This set of rules seems (particularly to the disaffected electorate that is flocking to Bernie) designed for a singular purpose, which is to allow Hillary and the DNC to benefit from opposing Obama when it is convenient and beneficial for her, and to use them as a cudgel with which to attack Sanders when he levies criticism from a different point of view. Consider that the only reason many people here are okay with an attack on Obama's legacy in this instance is because they happen to personally believe it is in the best interests of the country -- exactly the same reason as those who are fine with Bernie leveling criticisms of Obama for not being progressive enough.
If your argument is that the comparison between Hillary/the DNCs abandonment of Obama's positions and Bernie's criticism of Obama's lack of progressivism is unfair, I would put it to you that Bernie is not the one putting himself in the position of "Obama's true successor", and therefore it follows that he may necessarily be critical of him in certain ways while still acknowledging that Obama was a good President. On the other hand, Hillary remains silent on the change in course away from Obama's legacy. I am open to any comment from her decrying such an action, but I would have to be pleasantly surprised by it, because I do not expect it.
It could be argued that Hillary is not identical to Obama, and will not necessarily do exactly what Obama would in any given situation. That's fair enough. However, she must realize that a sizable portion of the base she is relying upon to win the Presidency in the general election is concerned about the appearance of impropriety and corruption vis a vis campaign finance. To remain silent on this solidifies that base's impression of her as someone who praises Obama when it is convenient and opportunistically abandons his positions when she stands to personally benefit from doing so.
That is going to change wildly with the stance, context, and each individual's own stance.
So, you know, whenever someone decides to. Trying to find a specific point that should apply to everyone and be accepted by everyone else is pointless.
And yet despite being a founding member of the CPC he only has the endorsement of two members.
And he hasn't actually joined the party. This is from his Senate office today. When Arlen Specter changed he immediately became (D-PA). Sanders still touts his independence and calls himself an independent in the Senate. His 2018 Senate campaign FEC filings still say Independent.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
What, he didn't get the tattoo? He unbellyfeels the principals of the Democratic party? He keeps fucking up the secret handshake?
He's joined the party, and he's a hell of a lot more supportive of it than some tool like Joe Manchin.
He's still an independent senator for whatever that's worth, though I agree the I is mostly branding.
The premise that Sanders's proposals can't be passed is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans support his policies in any large numbers and there isn't a large scale movement a la the Tea Party to change the makeup of either House to change that.
Pretending there's no difference there is willful denial of reality
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Or that the scope of his proposal transcends the Presidency and the federal government, like with the mass incarceration issue.
Didn't stop Clinton from making it an issue.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
1. False equivalence
2. She's bully pulpitting. Which is good. I'm kinda tired of people implying that Clinton's involvement in broadcasting the impact and severity of the poisoning of an entire fucking city is a "bad thing"
Oh did Hillary promise to replace every pipe in Flint MI or something?
So Clinton's proposals need a flying pony, while Sanders' needs a flying unicorn. The difference being that at least regular ponies actually exist.
It's the House Republicans. They're not going to pass anything because 'government doing nothing' is actually a goal of theirs.
So why does Clinton pivoting to something the president doesn't have control over get rationalized as "bully pitting" while Sanders is the wild eyed unicorn man of Burlington?
Whether you think it means that he was not a true independent then, or he is not a real democrat now, depends on you.