SlowwHand Unplugged, About "The Election"

[GePap]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


But Clinton had a Republican Congress that shut him down. Obama will have a Democratic Congress. His version of Univeral Heathcare [which I don't like] or something close to it will be passed in the first year.

Clinton came in with a Democratic Congress, and it was that Congress that was unable to pass his Health Care plan. The Republicans landslide came in on Clinton's first midterm elections.

[tinyp3nis]

Bump the thread.

Originally posted by Ramo
Posting from my phone, so no.

I agree that lots of Dems are useless, but that doesn't change the fact that in a situation where extremely wealthy vested interests have a ton to lose, on an issue that's easy to demogogue on, radical change is next to impossible in the American political system. Incremental change is the most reasonable strategy.

As for fostering a climate where radical change is possible, that begins in getting left wingers elected to Congress (IIRC half of House Dems have cosponsored the Conyers legislation). Protest votes at the Presidential level are worse than useless.

The wealthy vested interests have bought both parties. Too much corporate power is the biggest issue of our times, especially in your country, but I wonder if this is an issue to you at all, getting that feeling.

I hope by now you have taken look at the other side of things, by that I mean the real critics of Dems not some weak assed Republican smears that have no basis in reality but real critique. Only place where you hear that is people who don't like either party, not from people who say at the end of the "critical" sentence that you still have to vote for either of the two. Watching the clips could be a start, unless you are still kidnapped and in somebodys trunk right now you might be able, not gonna rock your world, but wouldn't hurt. I probably see Dems very differently compared to you, to me they are the "no we can't" party (but they say it's the Republicans fault really!).

What comes to Nader a spoiler argument, I really didn't expect it from you, seriously. Have you heard his side of that argument or his arguments for running? Do you know about his character as much you know about Obamas? Tell me, how much thought have you given to how a progressive movement starts outside of Dem party? How do you get visibility? Why not run for president? When can you build it up if not then? Where is Obamas mandate when he can take your votes for granted?
Dems have the habit of silencing and playing down guys like Larry Agran, Gravel and even Kucinich who they somehow let open his mouth at the DNC.

What the guys above are talking about is when Bill got told theres no money, and he said okay lol His campaign was for change. Obama will be the second fake black president of the US btw

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by GePap
Clinton came in with a Democratic Congress, and it was that Congress that was unable to pass his Health Care plan. The Republicans landslide came in on Clinton's first midterm elections.

Exactly... and the 1994 Republican Revolution was a direct result of Clinton's bumbling during his first two years as President.

[chequita guevara]

And what makes us think the Dems will be any different this time? They are the same corporate whores the Republicans are.

[Lancer]

I agree with Che.

[Arrian]

Goddamned Commie.

-Arrian

[Ramo]

Too much corporate power is the biggest issue of our times, especially in your country, but I wonder if this is an issue to you at all, getting that feeling.

Of course it is. I explicitly said as much. And yes, the Dems do represent the interests of the rich. But the Republicans represent the interests of the obscenely rich. There's a pretty clear distinction if you pay any attention to the legislation that they're pushing.

I hope by now you have taken look at the other side of things

I was sympathetic to Nader in 2000 (and probably would've voted for him if I were old enough). In my first election in 2002, I voted 100% Green, Libertarian, and Socialist.

I didn't automatically become a partisan Democrat without considering other options. The fact is, again, third parties at the Presidential level are totally ineffectual. It's a circus, and not worth my vote.

Tell me, how much thought have you given to how a progressive movement starts outside of Dem party? How do you get visibility? Why not run for president? When can you build it up if not then?

What do you think Nader was doing before his run for the Presidency? Do you really believe he more successfully helped the progressive causes by his run and the events afterwards than his career before it? As for elected office, look at someone like Bernie Sanders. He became Mayor of Burlington, then the Representative At-Large, then Senator of Vermont. All without the help of the Democratic Party. And in Congress, he got some significant significant legislation through (i.e. amending the Patriot Act to stop spying on library and bookstore records). Do you really think that over the past 8 years, he was less effectual than Nader?

As for building the progressive movement, very little is more important towards that end than electing Obama and getting reasonably close to 60 Dem Senators. The simple reason why is universal health care. If his plan, or something resembling it, can be enacted, that's one gigantic new constituency for the progressive agenda. American conservatism, as we know it, would become electorally unviable.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Lancer
I agree with Che.

However I've allowed myself to put my hope in politicos again, one last time.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
He wouldn't do it at all, either. Clinton didn't do it. He just happened to be in office when the effects Reagan put in motion finally hit.

It was Clinton's support of the middle-class, which grew the tax base, coupled with his willingness to give the Repugs the spending cuts they wanted. Clinton, and the Dems and Repugs in Congress deserve credit for balance the budget.

Reagan doesn't. He ran up gigantic deficits.

[Theben]

And what exactly are you hoping for?

In my case, more progressive taxation; fixing our image abroad; ending of ideological appointments (although I'd certainly allow for some appointments made based on liberal ideology 1st and merit 2nd, until a balance is again reached), espec the SCOTUS; a return to basic sanity in other areas (white house vs. Pentagon, the DOJ, redefining "torture", and re-democratization of various institutions). Bonus points for actually putting forth a sane energy plan that moves toward "green" power sources and some progress made wrt universal healthcare, and budget balancing.

[Blaupanzer]

Reagan never submitted a budget vaguely close to balanced. He ran up a big debt, but a smart Dem fixed that problem to leave a surplus. Of course, the dumbest president in 80 years ruined that, and put us back in debt, way deeper. Now McCain wants to start another war and make the debt even worse. We'll get a "Sorry about that" from the old pilot when we try to get Social Security. What does he care, he has more houses than he can count.

[tinyp3nis]

Ramo you still didn't watch and you don't seem to care that you didn't.

Of course it is. I explicitly said as much. And yes, the Dems do represent the interests of the rich. But the Republicans represent the interests of the obscenely rich. There's a pretty clear distinction if you pay any attention to the legislation that they're pushing.

You said when "three big dems agreed" on healthcare it meant something good for the people. I would think it means something good for the corporations.

I was sympathetic to Nader in 2000 (and probably would've voted for him if I were old enough). In my first election in 2002, I voted 100% Green, Libertarian, and Socialist.

I didn't automatically become a partisan Democrat without considering other options. The fact is, again, third parties at the Presidential level are totally ineffectual. It's a circus, and not worth my vote.

Third parties a circus, duopoly not... okay.
Did you know what he was about then? Are you saying you disagree of his running back then now?

What do you think Nader was doing before his run for the Presidency? Do you really believe he more successfully helped the progressive causes by his run and the events afterwards than his career before it? As for elected office, look at someone like Bernie Sanders. He became Mayor of Burlington, then the Representative At-Large, then Senator of Vermont. All without the help of the Democratic Party. And in Congress, he got some significant significant legislation through (i.e. amending the Patriot Act to stop spying on library and bookstore records). Do you really think that over the past 8 years, he was less effectual than Nader?

You didn't really address my questions or the general spirit of my post at all. Second, you don't know what I am on about, the videos would have given clues. Third, taking Sanders and putting some value on him and then saying see this value is more effective than Nader without defining Nader at all when I clearly ask so just makes me think you really don't know. I actually haven't made a point about his effectiveness at all yet.

Maybe I'm wrong about you, and since you seem to be confident of your knowledge what he has been doing the recent times I am actually interested. This is something I have seen many times and always assumed a smear because they have never actually said anything but the remark "where has he been x years", "he only pops out at elections". I doubt you are a astroturfer you being a regular here, maybe I finally get an answer to it.

As for building the progressive movement, very little is more important towards that end than electing Obama and getting reasonably close to 60 Dem Senators. The simple reason why is universal health care. If his plan, or something resembling it, can be enacted, that's one gigantic new constituency for the progressive agenda. American conservatism, as we know it, would become electorally unviable.

1992 never forget.
I ask outside dems and you tell me a whole lot more about dems, you must know a lot about them.
I am not expecting you to answer every question I asked obviously, because some of the rhetrorical ones are, well rethorical and also hard and I don't even know the best answers, what I was asserting is that you only have looked at this from one perspective, and I am more sure of that than I was a post ago.

[Ramo]

I saw the second video. No information I didn't already know. Just saw the first one. Again, nothing I haven't heard before. Your videos really are not blindingly original.

And I made the same sorts of arguments 8 years ago and 6 years ago and 4 years ago. That's bull****. The pursuit of "purity" isn't worth perpetuating the grand larceny that's called the American health care system (and there's no doubt that viable plans such as those proposed by Edwards or Wyden would be a dramatic improvement). It isn't worth doing little to nothing about carbon emissions and mass transit until it's too late and too expensive. It isn't worth wasting hundreds of billions in Iraq every year, and starting a potential war with Iran. And it isn't worth the continued denial of habeas corpus. **** that.

It's telling that in the first video, the speaker didn't bother to address the simple problem that you need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. What's the plan to pass Medicare for All? I'll give you a hint: there isn't one. Congress wasn't even able to pass a veto override in favor of an SCHIP expansion. This is a relatively limited expansion of a program that polls somewhere around 80% support. But a large majority of Republicans were able to beat it. Because that's how American politics worked. Gonzales made a valid point about ending the war; and I conceded as much earlier (though it's worth pointing out that Obama did vote to filibuster funding). But to pass new programs, like the Conyers bill, that obviously isn't enough.

And they're suggesting that we not only ignore the 60 vote threshold, but potentially help elect McCain and make that 67? Ludicrous.

I actually haven't made a point about his effectiveness at all yet.

You were talking about building a progressive movement. You were saying how voting Nader would somehow be conducive to that end.

Nader without defining Nader at all when I clearly ask so just makes me think you really don't know.

You seriously wanted me to regurgitate his platform? No, I'm not going to do that. That's a ridiculous demand.

And you seem to assume that I disagree with most of his platform. That's a poor assumption. But I have crazy ideas about policy that would never get someone like myself elected to anything past maybe School Board.

1992 never forget.

The Democratic Caucus in 1992 was to a great extent controlled by Southern conservatives who were sprinting away from the national party as fast as they could in a futile attempt to save their asses. Two years later was the climax of a 30 year Republican realignment that finally purged the South of Democrats. The Party today is a significantly more liberal, much more coherent animal.

There was also some bad strategory in 1992. Clinton went for NAFTA, burning some of his vital allies, before he universal health care. So he didn't have those allies to back him when he needed help. Rest assured, they're not going to make that mistake again. Organizations like the SEIU are committed large amounts of money to advocating universal health care.

[SlowwHand]

You are so full of crap. Texas may be classified as republican, but there are a lot of democrats, too. Ditto the South, in general.
Purged. What a meathead.

Quick question. Who may have been the most popular governor? Ann Richardson may have been. Democrat.
Just as a for instance.

[Ramo]

Every single statewide office holder in Texas is Republican.

And of course I didn't mean that literally every Dem officeholder was gone. That'd be impossible. But I suppose I should've used less dramatic language for the mentally challenged...