What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

timschochet’s Political Thread: Are terms like “socialist” and “capitalist” still relevant in the 21st Century? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
So a bit of introduction: just before I took some time off, I linked a long article in the reparations thread by Ta-Nehisi Coates from a few years back.  @Joe Bryant asked me to summarize it, and I refused: it was very nuanced and I didn’t feel I could give it proper justice. Later on Joe made the point that if the public does not accept ideas and arguments, it’s the fault of those who are unable to present those ideas and arguments in a way the public can understand, and he offered the example of how Trump effectively used “Make America Great Again” in his campaign. He could have also offered the “New Green Deal”, a phrase which is very suddenly on everyone’s lips, as yet another example. 

Joe’s argument was absolutely correct. But I don’t have to like it, and I don’t. The problems we face as a society are complex, nuanced, long in coming, and they require solutions which are just as complex, nuanced, and long to explain. I wish we lived in a world more accepting of discussion of such solutions, and this thread is devoted to trying to get there. 

This thread is about long, wonky, complicated arguments and ideas. It’s about unpacking every detail, exploring every pertinent fact, and trying to reach either consensus or clarity of disagreement. It will also be filled with random thoughts of mine about any political issue that interests me, but NOT about events of the day. That should be reserved for other threads. 

There will also be, for my part, very little Trump bashing here. It’s impossible to avoid discussing him in a political thread, but I’m not interested in his character, or what offensive thing he said yesterday, or who was rude to him. I’m interested in his ideas and policies and proposals. I am NOT interested in discussing Russia or corruption or conspiracy in this thread, leave that for the other threads. 

I also don’t want to deal with double standards and hypocrisy. People are hypocrites; they don’t apply the same rules to their own side that they do to the other side. That’s a fact of life. It’s boring. We don’t need to discuss it. And please let’s avoid personal attacks. I’m guilty too; let’s all try again to be civil. 

Other than the above caveats anything goes here. Like my original “timschochet’s thread” I hope to get into some historical discussion as well. And I hope to learn stuff and change my mind about stuff. I’m coming to realize that, in the 21st Century, many of my preconceptions are simply wrong or no longer applicable. I want to be open to new ideas. 

All are welcome! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So let me begin with a theory about the upcoming election which I’ve been formulating, loosely, in my mind for about a decade now: 80% of what the candidates say and promise prior to the election is irrelevant. I began years ago with the theory that it was 50%, and then I kept moving it upwards. I’m now at 80%; it could be higher. 

To explain this theory, let me offer 3 questions which I believe should be put to every Presidential candidate, but almost never  are:

1. Given a divided Congress, what specific domestic proposals do you plan to offer within the first 100 days of your Presidency that you believe will have a reasonable chance of getting passed? 

2. During the first year of your Presidency, what specific changes to foreign policy will you make that conflict with President Trump? 

2. During the first year of your Presidency, what specific economic, trade, and executive decisions do you plan to make that will conflict with President Trump? 

These 3 questions are based on the President’s power to get certain things done, which is enormous, but they deliberately disregard discussion of proposals which have no chance of getting done. For instance, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris could have an interesting debate on how much to tax the very rich, or how best to limit campaign contributions from corporations. But these issues don’t have any relevance to 2020 because neither one is going to happen. So we really don’t need to pay attention to how much they differ or agree. It’s the same with the New Green Deal, free college tuition, and most likely Medicare for All as well. None of these are going to get passed between 2021-2024. 

So where  does that leave us? Bernie is nowhere near the extreme socialist candidate that some assume him to be. Like all of the other candidates running, he is a centrist because if he is elected that’s how he will have to govern. The only question will be, and this goes for all of them: will he be an effective centrist, or an ineffective centrist? 

By the way, the same rule absolutely has to apply to the other side: despite Trump’s terrible rhetoric, he has governed as a centrist, because he is not able to govern as he would like to. Trump is a very ineffective centrist IMO. 

Now this rule mainly applies to domestic policy of the sort that Congress can control (Meaning most of it.) When it comes to foreign policy, trade, and executive orders, the President can pretty much govern as he likes and ignore centrism. Hence my 2nd and 3rd questions above. 

Thoughts? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
This thread is about long, wonky, complicated arguments and ideas
Click to expand...
I like it.

However, entertain me for a brief moment. Would you agree that one thing that the Republican Party is very effective at is sloganeering and populism? That's my take. Folks are really busy with their own lives and not particularly engaged when it comes to politics. Simple is effective and it works. Conversely, I think certain Democrat pols are ineffective precisely because they are nuanced and a bit wonky.

Interestingly, I have noted that you often employ reductive reasoning when you enter into political discourse. You specifically want to distiall issues (and people) down to their simplest form, and then from there have a discussion. Now I know you to avow to being well read and you do seem reasonably well informed, but rarely have I seen you do what you are proposing in your OP.

Secondly, I think it's going to be very difficult to discuss Trump ideas, Trump policies or Trump proposals. I have detected very few ideas, policies, or proposals in the last 25 months; did I miss something? This administration is often just winging it with little forethought or planning, and are incredibly unprepared whenever they do try to implement new policy. They are understaffed, appointments and vacancies abound, and as far as I can tell the only clearcut agenda they have is to make government ineffective by inaction or by dismantling / minimizing the institutions they have been appointed to run. Am I offbase in my view of what has been accomplished in the last 2+ years?

Anyway, good luck with the thread. I'll try to stay engaged and not resort to drive by quips. I could do better at taking a deeper dive in discussions in this forum.

 
timschochet said:
There will also be, for my part, very little Trump bashing here.

I also don’t want to deal with double standards and hypocrisy...We don’t need to discuss it. And please let’s avoid personal attacks. I’m guilty too; let’s all try again to be civil. 
Click to expand...
This thread will be no fun at all.  :kicksrock:

 
BobbyLayne said:
I like it.

However, entertain me for a brief moment. Would you agree that one thing that the Republican Party is very effective at is sloganeering and populism? That's my take. Folks are really busy with their own lives and not particularly engaged when it comes to politics. Simple is effective and it works. Conversely, I think certain Democrat pols are ineffective precisely because they are nuanced and a bit wonky.

Interestingly, I have noted that you often employ reductive reasoning when you enter into political discourse. You specifically want to distiall issues (and people) down to their simplest form, and then from there have a discussion. Now I know you to avow to being well read and you do seem reasonably well informed, but rarely have I seen you do what you are proposing in your OP.

Secondly, I think it's going to be very difficult to discuss Trump ideas, Trump policies or Trump proposals. I have detected very few ideas, policies, or proposals in the last 25 months; did I miss something? This administration is often just winging it with little forethought or planning, and are incredibly unprepared whenever they do try to implement new policy. They are understaffed, appointments and vacancies abound, and as far as I can tell the only clearcut agenda they have is to make government ineffective by inaction or by dismantling / minimizing the institutions they have been appointed to run. Am I offbase in my view of what has been accomplished in the last 2+ years?

Anyway, good luck with the thread. I'll try to stay engaged and not resort to drive by quips. I could do better at taking a deeper dive in discussions in this forum.
Click to expand...
Good points and questions: 

1. Yes I agree about the Republican Party. Certainly they’re not the originators of populist ideas or catchy phrases. But they’re using them now to greater effect than Democrats are. If you’ve read my thinking on this you know that I regard populism as mostly negative, though this is not always fair- it’s been pointed out to me that neither the abolitionist movement nor the Civil Rights movement would have been possible without a populist element, and that’s a reasonable point. I want to discuss this issue more in detail. 

2. Yes I have been guilty of distilling ideas down to simple levels. Mea culpa. It’s hard to avoid the urge. Also I’m no lawyer, or scientist, and I can be awfully dumb about certain things and that comes true at times. I’m going to try to resist doing that in this thread but we’ll see. 

3. The main reason that the Trump administration seems so disorganized and understaffed is that they began with a long held philosophy that too much government is unnecessary, and while that’s been a conservative meme for decades, Trump is the first one in decades to take it seriously. But I would not argue that they are bereft of ideas: Trump has brought economic populism, nationalism, and isolationism to the forefront of the Republican Party, and these changes are extremely significant. The most important question, which nobody knows the answer to, is how many of these ideas will survive Trump’s Presidency or if the GOP will revert to Reaganesque conservatism.  

 
timschochet said:
So where  does that leave us? Bernie is nowhere near the extreme socialist candidate that some assume him to be. Like all of the other candidates running, he is a centrist because if he is elected that’s how he will have to govern.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t mean he’s a centrist ideologically. I respect Sanders supporters, and I appreciate his emphasis on reform and good government, but I think the sledding is going to be much rougher for him this time.

 
timschochet said:
The main reason that the Trump administration seems so disorganized and understaffed is that they began with a long held philosophy that too much government is unnecessary, and while that’s been a conservative meme for decades, Trump is the first one in decades to take it seriously
Click to expand...
I disagree with this. The Trump administration is disorganized, schizophrenic and feckless because that’s how they operate. There are a few reasons for this - the nature of the man at top, the insistence on centralized decision making, the complete lack of experience in key management positions, an insistent resistance to facts - but they are first and foremost misfeasant in addition to being malfeasant. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That doesn’t mean he’s a centrist ideologically. I respect Sanders supporters, and I appreciate his emphasis on reform and good government, but I think the sledding is going to be much rougher for him this time.
Click to expand...
My point is that most of Bernie’s ideology is irrelevant. 

I happen to believe that Barack Obama was significantly more liberal than he governed. Suppose, when Obama had been elected, he had a Congress willing to agree with him on nearly everything he wanted, like FDR did in 1933? We wouldn’t have Obamacare, we’d have Medicare for All right now. I’m guessing we might also have had many of Bernie’s other proposals in place as well, don’t you agree? 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I disagree with this. The Trump administration is disorganized, schizophrenic and feckless because that’s how they operate. There are a few reasons for this - the nature of the man at top, the insistence on centralized decision making, the complete lack of experience in key management positions, an insistent resistance to facts - but they are first and foremost misfeasant in addition to being malfeasant. 
Click to expand...
I don’t think your argument here necessarily contradicts with mine. 

 
timschochet said:
I don’t think your argument here necessarily contradicts with mine. 
Click to expand...
Eh I took it that you ere saying the reason for the Trump inability to govern had to do with their conservative disdain for government itself. I really don’t agree with that. I see your point, but I don’t think that’s the primary problem with their incompetence.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Good points and questions: 

1. Yes I agree about the Republican Party. Certainly they’re not the originators of populist ideas or catchy phrases. But they’re using them now to greater effect than Democrats are. If you’ve read my thinking on this you know that I regard populism as mostly negative, though this is not always fair- it’s been pointed out to me that neither the abolitionist movement nor the Civil Rights movement would have been possible without a populist element, and that’s a reasonable point. I want to discuss this issue more in detail. 

2. Yes I have been guilty of distilling ideas down to simple levels. Mea culpa. It’s hard to avoid the urge. Also I’m no lawyer, or scientist, and I can be awfully dumb about certain things and that comes true at times. I’m going to try to resist doing that in this thread but we’ll see. 

3. The main reason that the Trump administration seems so disorganized and understaffed is that they began with a long held philosophy that too much government is unnecessary, and while that’s been a conservative meme for decades, Trump is the first one in decades to take it seriously. But I would not argue that they are bereft of ideas: Trump has brought economic populism, nationalism, and isolationism to the forefront of the Republican Party, and these changes are extremely significant. The most important question, which nobody knows the answer to, is how many of these ideas will survive Trump’s Presidency or if the GOP will revert to Reaganesque conservatism.  
Click to expand...
We don't have to solve all the world's problems - we are first concerned about what is happening within our own borders - but the bolded is a currently a worldwide phenomenon independent of the USA or Trumpism. 

I don't understand it and I don't know have clue one on how to reverse it. But it concerns me greatly that so many countries are electing authoritarian figures.

 
timschochet said:
My point is that most of Bernie’s ideology is irrelevant. 

I happen to believe that Barack Obama was significantly more liberal than he governed. Suppose, when Obama had been elected, he had a Congress willing to agree with him on nearly everything he wanted, like FDR did in 1933? We wouldn’t have Obamacare, we’d have Medicare for All right now. I’m guessing we might also have had many of Bernie’s other proposals in place as well, don’t you agree? 
Click to expand...
I agree, and I see your point. I think you just put it better there. I’d still say Obama *was liberal even if he *governed as a centrist.

A primary challenge for Dems on this point is something Obama encountered in 2009-11 and that is that pushing hard on liberal and progressive issues risks losing swing districts.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Eh I took it that you ere saying the reason for the Trump inability to govern had to do with their conservative disdain for government itself. I really don’t agree with that. I see your point, but I don’t think that’s the primary problem with their incompetence.
Click to expand...
That's been my take. They are lousy at governance primarily because they are anti-intellectual in nature and eschew anyone with expertise. Even if it's one of their own (Christie and the transition team.) They lack any sort of will to strive for excellence. Best practices and experience are discounted. Everything is shoot from the hip/lip, trash data and go with your gut. It is absurd how the government is operating under this administration. 

They are not good at their job.

 
And actually I wonder about FDR sometimes because I think that might be an instance of a president who governed more to the left than he was ideologically.

FDR as a VP candidate was a different guy altogether but I’m of the mind that politicians really don’t change philosophically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So much for the nuanced discussion.  This conversation could slide right in to a half a dozen other threads around here without missing a beat.

 
I for one am really looking forward to posters that are already predisposed to prolific post counts and lengthy diatribes having an excuse to increase quantity and volume of said posts.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That doesn’t mean he’s a centrist ideologically. I respect Sanders supporters, and I appreciate his emphasis on reform and good government, but I think the sledding is going to be much rougher for him this time.
Click to expand...
Will it be?  I’m in Iowa and I think Bernie just coasts to victory here (he lost by whisker last time).  Every Democrat I know will likely be going for him.  He could have a huge head of steam rolling into New Hampshire.

 
Widbil83 said:
Will it be?  I’m in Iowa and I think Bernie just coasts to victory here (he lost by whisker last time).  Every Democrat I know will likely be going for him.  He could have a huge head of steam rolling into New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
Really? That surprises me a bit. Thought Klobuchar would have a pretty decent chance in Iowa, being a midwesterner and all.

As someone who has every intention of voting straight Dem ticket in 2020 (makes me soooo mad the Republican party has pushed me to this point) I am leery of Sanders for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the "old retread" angle that will be easy for the Republicans to attack.

"Bernie Sanders?  Are you #######s serious? He couldn't even beat the worst candidate EVER in a primary!"

 
Herb said:
Really? That surprises me a bit. Thought Klobuchar would have a pretty decent chance in Iowa, being a midwesterner and all.

As someone who has every intention of voting straight Dem ticket in 2020 (makes me soooo mad the Republican party has pushed me to this point) I am leery of Sanders for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the "old retread" angle that will be easy for the Republicans to attack.

"Bernie Sanders?  Are you #######s serious? He couldn't even beat the worst candidate EVER in a primary!"
Click to expand...
Aw man! I can't even use l I b t a r d in jest anymore?

:kicksrock:

 
Widbil83 said:
Will it be?  I’m in Iowa and I think Bernie just coasts to victory here (he lost by whisker last time).  Every Democrat I know will likely be going for him.  He could have a huge head of steam rolling into New Hampshire.
Click to expand...
Well you’re on the ground there so I believe you. I just view him platform wise overlapping with several candidates and I think he profited from being a foil and the only serious option to Hillary last time. 

 
jonessed said:
So much for the nuanced discussion.  This conversation could slide right in to a half a dozen other threads around here without missing a beat.
Click to expand...
Be the change you wish to see sir. There’s always going to be people looking to bash their political opponents. But you won’t get it from me (at least not in this thread hopefully.) 

 
BobbyLayne said:
We don't have to solve all the world's problems - we are first concerned about what is happening within our own borders - but the bolded is a currently a worldwide phenomenon independent of the USA or Trumpism. 

I don't understand it and I don't know have clue one on how to reverse it. But it concerns me greatly that so many countries are electing authoritarian figures.
Click to expand...
This is a very interesting point and really worthy of discussion. What is the cause of the rise of economic populism and nativism? 

Insecurity caused by technological change? 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I disagree with this. The Trump administration is disorganized, schizophrenic and feckless because that’s how they operate. There are a few reasons for this - the nature of the man at top, the insistence on centralized decision making, the complete lack of experience in key management positions, an insistent resistance to facts - but they are first and foremost misfeasant in addition to being malfeasant. 
Click to expand...
He has surrounded himself yes-men his whole life because he can’t handle criticism. His administration is no different. 

 
timschochet said:
I’d like this to be more of an idea thread. But it’s a free country. 
Click to expand...
But not a free forum.

Yes I'm a little bitter about my recent time out which was undeserved IMO. Whatever. I'll get over it. 

Sorry for polluting your thread with what clearly doesn't belong here. I appreciate your effort to get beyond the politics to the core of issues and ideas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
My point is that most of Bernie’s ideology is irrelevant. 

I happen to believe that Barack Obama was significantly more liberal than he governed. Suppose, when Obama had been elected, he had a Congress willing to agree with him on nearly everything he wanted, like FDR did in 1933? We wouldn’t have Obamacare, we’d have Medicare for All right now. I’m guessing we might also have had many of Bernie’s other proposals in place as well, don’t you agree? 
Click to expand...
I disagree that Bernie’s (or anyone else’s) ideology is irrelevant, and your post explains why. If Obama had a Congress that aligned more closely with his ideology then his accomplishments would look much different. Ideologies shift over time.

If Bernie were elected instead of Trump I don’t think the GOP-controlled Congress would have given an inch on his agenda, which I would have been okay with as long as Bernie and his administration were putting well thought-out ideas and pieces of legislation forward. If they got rejected they still have the ability to shift peoples’ prevailing ideologies. 

My biggest gripe with Trump is he doesn’t appear to really have any ideology other than I suppose populism (which he can only convey through scapegoating and fear-mothering). Everything with him is all about narcissism. There are no real policy ideas and even with full support of Congress there has been virtually no legislation passed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Herb said:
Rise in populism
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this. This part really made sense to me..

Fourthly, widespread corruption plays straight into populist hands. If it turns out that political parties are highly corrupt, the populist claim that people are exploited by an inward-looking, condescending elite will find wide public support. 
Click to expand...
I think most people believe our politicians to be corrupt in some way, shape, or form. 

 
Dickies said:
I disagree that Bernie’s (or anyone else’s) ideology is irrelevant, and your post explains why. If Obamacare had a Congress that aligned more closely with his ideology then his accomplishments would look much different. Ideologies shift over time.

If Bernie were elected instead of Trump I don’t think the GOP-controlled Congress would have given an inch on his agenda, which I would have been okay with as long as Bernie and his administration were putting well thought-out ideas and pieces of legislation forward. If they got rejected they still have the ability to shift peoples’ prevailing ideologies. 

My biggest gripe with Trump is he doesn’t appear to really have any ideology other than I suppose populism (which he can only convey through scapegoating and fear-mothering). Everything with him is all about narcissism. There are no real policy ideas and even with full support of Congress there has been virtually no legislation passed. 
Click to expand...
When I wrote that Bernie’s ideology was irrelevant, I meant in terms of comparing him to the other Democratic candidates, not to Trump. And it’s only in terms of what can be accomplished during a 4 year Presidency. 

But even compared to Trump Bernie is far more similar than different, due to the constraints of our political system. Assume for a moment that all of the worst caricatures about both men were 100% true: Bernie is a extreme socialist out to have the government own everything. Trump is a fascist out to form a dictatorship. It still wouldn’t matter because our system would force both men to govern like moderate centrists. 

An even more absurd example: suppose Adolf Hitler, with all the same ideas, had been born in the USA and ran for President in 1932 and been elected instead of FDR? My theory is that he runs into Congress and the Supreme Court and is basically stymied. If he tried to burn down Congress (ala the Reichstag) he gets found out, impeached, removed, and imprisoned. Now not everybody agrees with this- some think that given a economic or social crisis our countries’ political institutions are just as ripe for an authoritarian to take over as Germany was in 1933. But I don’t believe that. I think our system is too strong. 

 
I find it interesting that "boff sidez" rail against the "elite." But that they seem to differ ideologically on what "elite" means.

IMO conservatives are concerned with the "academic elite" that are a bunch of overeducated liberals that think they're smarter and better than everyone else and want to trample on the good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, common sense, middle American ideals.

The liberals consider the "elite" to be the billionaire donor class that dont give half a #### about anyone or anything other than advancing their own agenda, which is always accumulating wealth and power for themselves and their cohorts by any means necessary, consequences be damned.

When we as a populace understand that both of those definitions are apropos and are working against the advancement of the American ideal, then we can make some progress.

That may be simplistic,  but that's how I feel.

 
parasaurolophus said:
Thanks for posting this. This part really made sense to me..

I think most people believe our politicians to be corrupt in some way, shape, or form. 
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this is true, and it’s almost impossible to change that opinion. You could have 99 honest politicians and 1 corrupt one, and the corrupt one seems to taint the whole bunch. 

 
Herb said:
I find it interesting that "boff sidez" rail against the "elite." But that they seem to differ ideologically on what "elite" means.

IMO conservatives are concerned with the "academic elite" that are a bunch of overeducated liberals that think they're smarter and better than everyone else and want to trample on the good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, common sense, middle American ideals.

The liberals consider the "elite" to be the billionaire donor class that dont give half a #### about anyone or anything other than advancing their own agenda, which is always accumulating wealth and power for themselves and their cohorts by any means necessary, consequences be damned.

When we as a populace understand that both of those definitions are apropos and are working against the advancement of the American ideal, then we can make some progress.

That may be simplistic,  but that's how I feel.
Click to expand...
It’s not simplistic and I think it’s an excellent excellent point. One of the key elements of populism is the demonization of a small group who is thought to control society. We see this again and again throughout history. 

 
Dickies said:
Agreed. This is why I’m having such a hard time understanding the backlash AOC is getting for being naive. 
Click to expand...
The key to winning modern American politics is to portray the other side as too far out there. Just like in chess, the fundamental move is to grab control of the middle if you can. Or in football, control the line of scrimmage. 

AOC is a useful tool in that regard BECAUSE she has been naive at times. If the Republicans can paint her as extremist, then they can paint the Democratic Party as extremist, taking attention away from Trump’s rhetoric and allowing the GOP to regain the middle again. It probably won’t work but you can see why they’re eager to try it. 

 
Herb said:
.

When we as a populace understand that both of those definitions are apropos and are working against the advancement of the American ideal, then we can make some progress.
Click to expand...
BTW, though I found your analysis to be superb, I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion here. I would argue that both “elites” as you describe them are an overall positive for our nation and the world. 

 
This faith in government institutions in keeping a POTUS from going too far seems to be under attack and in some dispute given the red team vs blue team cover the GOP continues to give Trump at every ridiculous turn. I wish country over party was the norm but it really isn't anymore. It's frustrating and disturbing.

 
timschochet said:
When I wrote that Bernie’s ideology was irrelevant, I meant in terms of comparing him to the other Democratic candidates, not to Trump. And it’s only in terms of what can be accomplished during a 4 year Presidency. 
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification, but I think these conditions constrain reality too much. I don’t view the world in 4-year segments. 

 
Dickies said:
Thanks for the clarification, but I think these conditions constrain reality too much. I don’t view the world in 4-year segments. 
Click to expand...
It’s tighter than that actually. In terms of domestic achievements (assuming that’s what you’re interested in) you’ve basically got the first year of your Presidency, maybe half of the 2nd. 18 months tops. And that’s ONLY assuming you also have at least nominal control of one branch of Congress. If you’re opposed by both House and Senate forget it. 

And even then, even if, like Obama and Trump, you have initial control of both House and Senate, how much can you really accomplish in that 18 months? Right now both parties have very diverse competing interests and as we all know there are also big companies behind the scenes determined to pay whatever it costs to stop any change they dislike. So you’ll probably end up with one very watered down piece of legislation- for Obama, ACA, for Trump, tax cuts, and that’s it. That’s the whole of your domestic achievement for the entire first term of your Presidency. 

Its a pathetic state of affairs but I have no idea how to change it. 

 
If the roles were reversed here this would probably be a 20 page thread.  Democrats can’t even call people on the other team good guys anymore without there base going nuts?    If McCain were alive he would slap Biden silly for this.  

Former Vice President Joe Biden quickly retracted his description of Vice President Mike Pence as a “decent guy” after Cynthia Nixon criticized him on Twitter for speaking positively of the Republican politician, who has pushed various anti-LGBTQ policies.

Biden, 76, complimented Pence, 59, while discussing how the current VP was received after giving a speech to an international gathering at the Munich Security Conference last month.

“The fact of the matter is it was followed on by a guy who’s a decent guy, our vice president, who stood before this group of allies and leaders and said, ‘I’m here on behalf of President Trump,’ and there was dead silence. Dead silence,” Biden said at the University of Nebraska at Omaha on Thursday, according to CNN.
Click to expand...
https://people.com/politics/joe-biden-criticized-complimenting-mike-pence/

 
Herb said:
I find it interesting that "boff sidez" rail against the "elite." But that they seem to differ ideologically on what "elite" means.

IMO conservatives are concerned with the "academic elite" that are a bunch of overeducated liberals that think they're smarter and better than everyone else and want to trample on the good, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, common sense, middle American ideals.

The liberals consider the "elite" to be the billionaire donor class that dont give half a #### about anyone or anything other than advancing their own agenda, which is always accumulating wealth and power for themselves and their cohorts by any means necessary, consequences be damned.

When we as a populace understand that both of those definitions are apropos and are working against the advancement of the American ideal, then we can make some progress.

That may be simplistic,  but that's how I feel.
Click to expand...
Great post. 

 
No offense Widbill but that’s exactly the kind of post I don’t want in this thread. I don’t care about the news of the day or who said what. There are plenty of places to discuss that. 

 
Widbil83 said:
“The fact of the matter is it was followed on by a guy who’s a decent guy, our vice president, who stood before this group of allies and leaders and said, ‘I’m here on behalf of President Trump,’ and there was dead silence. Dead silence,” Biden said at the University of Nebraska at Omaha on Thursday, according to CNN.
Click to expand...
VPs and Presidents should show deference to their predecessors and successors, but this is a very fair criticism of policy.

- edited - You’re right he did retract, but he didn’t do or say anything wrong. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
But these issues don’t have any relevance to 2020 because neither one is going to happen. So we really don’t need to pay attention to how much they differ or agree. It’s the same with the New Green Deal, free college tuition, and most likely Medicare for All as well. None of these are going to get passed between 2021-2024. 
Click to expand...
This paragraph kinda contradicts your hopeful premise.  There a myriad of reasons why politics "is what it is," and why people react to catchphrase buzzwords on TV screen instead of watching CSPAN for hours on a hearing about something in a subcommittee full of boring people.

One of the main reasons is the argument you made. It's an argument that says everything in an election cycle is a finite thing that ends and the next election cycle starts. And because of that, truly hard to write long winded legislation that requires a depth of debate you say you want, but you clearly dont, doesn't get the focus it deserves.

If you only look at political results in 2, 4 and 6 year terms you grossly misunderstand the underlying nature of self governance.   And as a result you become that which you politically despise.  If the Green New Deal doesnt get passed in some form until 2035 that doesn't mean that we wasted our time arguing about it and dissecting potential nuances about it now. In fact, we have to do that. Our system requires it.

And to start a thread like this where you long for nuanced debate with the caveat that nuanced debate doesn't matter, you end up chasing your tail.

Policy discussion today shapes policy tomorrow. If you want a good debate you have to realize and accept that your timeline is what doesnt matter. The discussion very much does.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
This paragraph kinda contradicts your hopeful premise.  There a myriad of reasons why politics "is what it is," and why people react to catchphrase buzzwords on TV screen instead of watching CSPAN for hours on a hearing about something in a subcommittee full of boring people.

One of the main reasons is the argument you made. It's an argument that says everything in an election cycle is a finite thing that ends and the next election cycle starts. And because of that, truly hard to write long winded legislation that requires a depth of debate you say you want, but you clearly dont, doesn't get the focus it deserves.

If you only look at political results in 2, 4 and 6 year terms you grossly misunderstand the underlying nature of self governance.   And as a result you become that which you politically despise.  If the Green New Deal doesnt get passed in some form until 2035 that doesn't mean that we wasted our time arguing about it and dissecting potential nuances about it now. In fact, we have to do that. Our system requires it.

And to start a thread like this where you long for nuanced debate with the caveat that nuanced debate doesn't matter, you end up chasing your tail.

Policy discussion today shapes policy tomorrow. If you want a good debate you have to realize and accept that your timeline is what doesnt matter. The discussion very much does.
Click to expand...
Do you think this intense focus on the election cycle has gotten worse throughout time?  Also the above seems to argue against term limits in Congress too, as large legislation often takes a long time to come into being.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
This paragraph kinda contradicts your hopeful premise.  There a myriad of reasons why politics "is what it is," and why people react to catchphrase buzzwords on TV screen instead of watching CSPAN for hours on a hearing about something in a subcommittee full of boring people.

One of the main reasons is the argument you made. It's an argument that says everything in an election cycle is a finite thing that ends and the next election cycle starts. And because of that, truly hard to write long winded legislation that requires a depth of debate you say you want, but you clearly dont, doesn't get the focus it deserves.

If you only look at political results in 2, 4 and 6 year terms you grossly misunderstand the underlying nature of self governance.   And as a result you become that which you politically despise.  If the Green New Deal doesnt get passed in some form until 2035 that doesn't mean that we wasted our time arguing about it and dissecting potential nuances about it now. In fact, we have to do that. Our system requires it.

And to start a thread like this where you long for nuanced debate with the caveat that nuanced debate doesn't matter, you end up chasing your tail.

Policy discussion today shapes policy tomorrow. If you want a good debate you have to realize and accept that your timeline is what doesnt matter. The discussion very much does.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it doesn’t matter. I WANT to discuss all of those issues here amd I plan on doing so in great detail if I can and if other smart people like yourself will contribute. 

But- in terms of me trying to decide which candidate to support for 2020, it doesn’t matter. I may decide Bernie is 100% correct about school tuition and Klobuchar is 100% wrong and that shouldn’t affect my choice between them whatsoever. 

 
timschochet said:
It’s tighter than that actually. In terms of domestic achievements (assuming that’s what you’re interested in) you’ve basically got the first year of your Presidency, maybe half of the 2nd. 18 months tops. And that’s ONLY assuming you also have at least nominal control of one branch of Congress. If you’re opposed by both House and Senate forget it. 

And even then, even if, like Obama and Trump, you have initial control of both House and Senate, how much can you really accomplish in that 18 months? Right now both parties have very diverse competing interests and as we all know there are also big companies behind the scenes determined to pay whatever it costs to stop any change they dislike. So you’ll probably end up with one very watered down piece of legislation- for Obama, ACA, for Trump, tax cuts, and that’s it. That’s the whole of your domestic achievement for the entire first term of your Presidency. 

Its a pathetic state of affairs but I have no idea how to change it. 
Click to expand...
I am interested in achievements but don’t think they need to be completed in 4 years. Obama shook up the healthcare system even if the ACA was a watered down centrist shell of what he envisioned. I don’t think the conversation and public opinion would be where it’s at today if it weren’t for that first step. I’m saying this as someone who was at the time disgusted with Obama settling for what he did, but in hindsight can appreciate that there was an attempt. 

I was honestly looking forward to the GOP proposal so that maybe we could take a few things from it to improve our system. They ran on replacing ACA as a core issue and the public saw that they have zero ideas despite the claims that Obama “rammed ACA down their throats” without considering their input. Would Bernie get M4A passed if he is elected in 2 years?  I doubt it, but I’m confident he would put proposals out there and move the conversation further along

Damn autocorrect kept capitalizing He after each time I wrote Obama. TIL Siri is a born again Christian. 

 
timschochet said:
But- in terms of me trying to decide which candidate to support for 2020, it doesn’t matter. I may decide Bernie is 100% correct about school tuition and Klobuchar is 100% wrong and that shouldn’t affect my choice between them whatsoever. 
Click to expand...
I can’t figure out if this is devoid of all nuance or if there is so much nuance that it renders everything meaningless. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I supported Bernie - financially and as a phone bank volunteer - in 2016. Primarily because his policies were most closely related to mine in the area I deemed the most important, the environment. I won't support Bernie in this quadrennial because he's old af.

(nuance is cool and all but SRSLY dude is gonna be a decade older than Reagan was the first time he was elected)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
The Joe Biden Thread- things are looking up
16 17 18
Replies
880
Views
16K
DocHolliday
DocHolliday
glvsav37
Hulu and the Political Ads Issue
2
Replies
67
Views
2K
Desert_Power
Desert_Power
AAABatteries
When did the definition of terms stop mattering?
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
jon_mx
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top