Imagine the USA with proper scandinavian socialism. A welfare system which evens out the class differences and provides affordable education. Free healthcare so that everyone gets treatment no matter what.
I doubt it'll happen any time soon, but this guy would probably be a step in the right direction.
The people who disagree could elaborate instead of rating me dumb?
[QUOTE=godfatherk;47624385]And how is the president gonna do that? I don't think it's for the president to act on those ideas and put them in practice, but for the parliament. I mean, who makes laws in the US, and who controls spending of the budget?[/QUOTE]We don't have a parliament. And its sorta both, to an extent. Also, this is a crazy simple explanation of how the process of making a law works, like School House Rock is about as complex as this. Bills are proposed to one of the two chambers of Congress based on the nature of the bill, as each chamber has some different powers. If both pass the bill, then it goes to the president for the president to sign off on or to veto. If he vetoes the bill, then Congress needs a two-thirds super majority to override his veto. So at the very least he pretty absolutely has the power to stop a law from being made. To make one though, he'd need to get congress to agree to one he proposed. Basically. There are of course executive orders that are ethically and legally questionable, but roughly function like one so long as they aren't challenged. Also, the supreme court can sorta be a law maker in how they rule on a matter brought before them. Its the concept of judicial activism. Not liked by some politicians, such as those who like "separate but equal" races or marriage inequality, but pretty hard to challenge. There are also the various regulatory bodies which can pass new regulations which can work as laws in regards to whatever that body is supposed to oversee.
As for the budget, well, its laid out in bills proposed to congress on various matters, such as the defense budget. When it comes to spending within that well, it depends on the language of the budget bill itself. Some may as well be blank checks, others can have specific provisions for things that certain amounts of money are reserved for and/or must be spent on. And for who controls it, well, that is a lot of people. Many, many people.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;47622058]I never understood people who say "He won't win so I wont vote for him." Of course he wont win with that attitude. No one I've ever voted for has taken office, it doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for them.
Vote for who you want to win, not who you think will win.[/QUOTE]
They're even worse than the "If you didn't vote then you can't complain" people. If you didn't vote, then clearly you didn't like ANY of the choices.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;47622058]I never understood people who say "He won't win so I wont vote for him." Of course he wont win with that attitude. No one I've ever voted for has taken office, it doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for them.
Vote for who you want to win, not who you think will win.[/QUOTE]
voting is a tactical decision.
if my only options in the primary were (1) a moderately middle of the road left leaning politician and (2) a far, far far left leaning one - despite the fact that I would [I]prefer[/I] to have the further left in there, I understand that politics is about making difficult decisions and concessions. that far, far far left leaning politician is going to have an extremely difficult time gathering swing voters if their positions are too extreme. challenging the status quo too severely before adequate precedent is set up is likely to alienate voters very intensely, and as such is an incredibly [B]risky[/B] political decision. note that I said [B]risky[/B]. that is a very particular choice of word.
in the end, if I view (1) as being just a bit more vanilla but likely to represent my interest and to be more "electable" to the public which does not always share my views, I would be more likely to vote (1) than (2) who despite matching my views more cleanly, has a smaller chance of succeeding in the election, resulting in the office being controlled by the [B]exact opposite[/B] of what I want.
i'm not saying don't vote for bernie, do it up. but understand what people are saying when they say stuff like that. it's an incredibly important concept to think about.
it's basically an "all or nothing" mentality that actually [I]is[/I] the problem in politics, not people saying that they'll vote for the one that wins. If you're not willing to compromise that's a serious problem, and that is something that echoes upwards to our politicians and sets the tone for the general lack of bipartisan cooperation of the past few years. someone who is more middle of the road is more likely to be able to make concessions and more marketable to the middle 20% that basically decide the outcome of every election.
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47622612]minus the fact that running as a third party could potentially jeopardize a liberally controlled white house in 2016. ralph nader is the reason that bush won in 2000.
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
i'm pleased that sanders made the obvious correct decision in running as a democrat. it could've been disastrous otherwise given his recent increase in popularity.[/QUOTE]
octavius the fact that you just dumbed this post shoes an incredibly woeful misunderstanding of how election processes work in the united states
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47624632]octavius the fact that you just dumbed this post shoes an incredibly woeful misunderstanding of how election processes work in the united states[/QUOTE]
It's not a 'woeful misunderstanding' of the election process in the US, but rather my opposition to his sentiment that made me dumb it. I think it's dumb to say "Oh well he would spoil and we can't have that!", since I'm all for spoiling if it means achieving what I more broadly support, which is building an alternative to the Democrats and Republics (Progress won't spring out of nowhere so long as political ideas are restrained within these parties). Since I think that acting as if spoiling is necessarily bad or invaluable is dumb, I rated him that. Disagree may have been a better choice, but I still feel like you'd have the same response.
[QUOTE=godfatherk;47624385]And how is the president gonna do that? I don't think it's for the president to act on those ideas and put them in practice, but for the parliament. I mean, who makes laws in the US, and who controls spending of the budget?[/QUOTE]
I dont have an answer other than everything that comes out of congress has to make it past the presidents desk.
[QUOTE=Octavius;47625245]It's not a 'woeful misunderstanding' of the election process in the US, but rather my opposition to his sentiment that made me dumb him. I think it's dumb to say "Oh well he would spoil and we can't have that!", since I'm all for spoiling if it means achieving what I more broadly support, which is building an alternative to the Democrats and Republics (Progress won't spring out of nowhere so long as political ideas are restrained within these parties). Since I think that acting as if spoiling is necessarily bad or invaluable is dumb, I rated him that. Disagree may have been a better choice, but I still feel like you'd have the same response.[/QUOTE]
you were responding to me, lol.
except the thing is that it wouldn't build an alternative to the democrats and republicans, because we've had third parties on the ballots for decades, and once again, Ralph Nader created a (small) split within liberal leaning voters which caused Gore to lose the 2000 election. Nader's decision to run as an independent (as he's been doing forever) is fine, but it's brought the USA no closer to incorporating a system that provides better representation to third parties. It didn't even shift discourse in that direction, discourse remained on Florida's shitty archaic voting systems.
any sort of incorporation of third parties has the major hurdle of the electoral college to overturn first. Independents have no chance for the presidency until that's eliminated. And guess who's in favor of eliminating the electoral college? Hillary! Bernie! Who are both running as Democrats! Change is incremental in the united states - like it or not, it's a simple fact of how our government was set up and organized. If you want Independents to have a better chance in the future, it's tactically a better decision to support mainstream politicians who are in favor of changing the rules of the game to make it easier for the third parties. Without that they don't have a chance because they simply don't have the public support that the big two have. Realistically they'd never gain serious traction. you can make all of the moral judgment calls on it you want (and so could I!), but at the end of the day it doesn't change that simple fact.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;47625324]you were responding to me, lol.
except the thing is that it wouldn't build an alternative to the democrats and republicans, because we've had third parties on the ballots for decades, and once again, Ralph Nader created a (small) split within liberal leaning voters which caused Gore to lose the 2000 election. Nader's decision to run as an independent (as he's been doing forever) is fine, but it's brought the USA no closer to incorporating a system that provides better representation to third parties. It didn't even shift discourse in that direction, discourse remained on Florida's shitty archaic voting systems.
any sort of incorporation of third parties has the major hurdle of the electoral college to overturn first. Independents have no chance for the presidency until that's eliminated. And guess who's in favor of eliminating the electoral college? Hillary! Bernie! Who are both running as Democrats! Change is incremental in the united states - like it or not, it's a simple fact of how our government was set up and organized. If you want Independents to have a better chance in the future, it's tactically a better decision to support mainstream politicians who are in favor of changing the rules of the game to make it easier for the third parties. Without that they don't have a chance because they simply don't have the public support that the big two have. Realistically they'd never gain serious traction. you can make all of the moral judgment calls on it you want (and so could I!), but at the end of the day it doesn't change that simple fact.[/QUOTE]
Yea, saw it was you and made that change just after I posted.
Now, on the subject of building an alternative though, I'm not looking to support some Nader who offers a small liberal policy change with a green focus, along with a failure to construct a movement with him. Rather than this, I'd look more for a serious change in political discourse, which is certainly possible in our situation and I feel could be built around Sanders, which still may be possible. And you don't think I know change in the US political system comes in steps? If I didn't know this I wouldn't be here supporting Sanders in the first place and would instead be yelling for the election of some real radical socialist not a social democrat. Only part I'm not with you on is that I maintain there are better tools to make these small changes than throwing my support behind a democrat, but if it must be so, then it is so and an alternative will be built elsewhere.
I'd vote for Waka Flocka Flame instead
[video=youtube;yyd_eIgrnfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyd_eIgrnfk[/video]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47622824]uhhh Its hard to shorten it. This is a crude TLDR/W.
- Citizens united needs to go
- Campaigns need to be publicly funded
- The middle class is disappearing
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership blows dick and screws us
- Wages are falling
- The rich are exceptionally richer
- The US has the biggest gap in wealth inequality
- Education costs are too damn high
- Healthcare is fucked; he wants a single-payer system
- 0.10% of the top 1% has more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US combined
- "Official" unemployment is truly 1/2 of the real unemployment
- Republicans are protecting those with the wealth
- 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%
- Our infrastructure is in dire straits
- Pro Union
- The minimum wage needs to raised to something around $15 over time
- We need to get off fossil fuels
- Climate change is real.. and we caused it
- A vast majority of elected republicans deny climate change and that humans are the cause of it
Other tid bits
- Hes pro legalization
- hes pro choice
- Hes against the war on drugs
- Pro marriage equality
You can see more at [url]www.sanders.senate.gov/about[/url] .. or this nice [URL="https://i.imgur.com/0HiyYjX.png"]infographic [/URL][/QUOTE]
Congress would spend 4-8 years fighting over 2-3 of those things as Sanders legacy bill and none if it will come to fruition. Sanders killed any chance at being president when he called himself a Socialist. Look at the uproar they gave Obama and he wasn't even a socialist. If Sanders somehow wins, it will wake up a monster in the conservative base, and our national unity and productivity will be at an all time low. Our government is so polarized right now that it's like a political Meiosis. We've pulled our government body apart into to halves. I know that everyone here hates republicans but we need a president that's going to bring both parties back together.
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
I'm increadibly apathetic toward campaign promises and running points because they almost never matter or get done. They're sales points to sell you a figurehead. You should focus more on their history, leadership ability, and propensity for honesty.
[QUOTE=OvB;47625580]Congress would spend 4-8 years fighting over 2-3 of those things as Sanders legacy bill and none if it will come to fruition. Sanders killed any chance at being president when he called himself a Socialist. Look at the uproar they gave Obama and he wasn't even a socialist. If Sanders somehow wins, it will wake up a monster in the conservative base, and our national unity and productivity will be at an all time low. Our government is so polarized right now that it's like a political Meiosis. We've pulled our government body apart into to halves. I know that everyone here hates republicans but we need a president that's going to bring both parties back together.
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
I'm increadibly apathetic toward campaign promises and running points because they almost never matter or get done. They're sales points to sell you a figurehead. You should focus more on their history, leadership ability, and propensity for honesty.[/QUOTE]
the US has never really been "together". Sure we are united, but united under fundamental values that america was based on.
But it's inherent in the united states for us to be polarized. We all lie on a double edged sword, and we are taking the brunt of it now.
[QUOTE=OvB;47625580]Congress would spend 4-8 years fighting over 2-3 of those things as Sanders legacy bill and none if it will come to fruition. Sanders killed any chance at being president when he called himself a Socialist. Look at the uproar they gave Obama and he wasn't even a socialist. If Sanders somehow wins, it will wake up a monster in the conservative base, and our national unity and productivity will be at an all time low. Our government is so polarized right now that it's like a political Meiosis. We've pulled our government body apart into to halves. I know that everyone here hates republicans but we need a president that's going to bring both parties back together.
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
I'm increadibly apathetic toward campaign promises and running points because they almost never matter or get done. They're sales points to sell you a figurehead. You should focus more on their history, leadership ability, and propensity for honesty.[/QUOTE]
If you look at Sander's voting history, then you'll see he is the most honest, and serious, of all the candidates.
[QUOTE=OvB;47625580]Congress would spend 4-8 years fighting over 2-3 of those things as Sanders legacy bill and none if it will come to fruition. Sanders killed any chance at being president when he called himself a Socialist. Look at the uproar they gave Obama and he wasn't even a socialist. If Sanders somehow wins, it will wake up a monster in the conservative base, and our national unity and productivity will be at an all time low. [B]Our government is so polarized right now that it's like a political Meiosis. We've pulled our government body apart into to halves. I know that everyone here hates republicans but we need a president that's going to bring both parties back together.
[/B]
[editline]29th April 2015[/editline]
I'm increadibly apathetic toward campaign promises and running points because they almost never matter or get done. They're sales points to sell you a figurehead. You should focus more on their history, leadership ability, and propensity for honesty.[/QUOTE]
this right here is why chris christie is the biggest danger to the democrats in 2016
his cooperation with obama during sandy makes him amicable to many in the middle that lean left, and if he plays his campaign right there is a very high chance that he'll win the caucus and the general election
Sanders has confirmed that he will be running for president just a few moments ago
Being far left [for American standards] will mean he'll have to fight even right-leaning Democrats in Congress if elected president, let alone the Republicans.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47628457]Being far left [for American standards] will mean he'll have to fight even right-leaning Democrats in Congress if elected president, let alone the Republicans.[/QUOTE]
Blue-Dog Democrats, (Right wing ones), Only take up like 20 seats in the whole of congress.
[QUOTE=Banandana;47625507]I'd vote for Waka Flocka Flame instead
[video=youtube;yyd_eIgrnfk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyd_eIgrnfk[/video][/QUOTE]
One Nation, under SQUAD
Take this with a grain of salt, just early morning "what if" thoughts:
Some times when I look at US politics I wonder why the United States doesn't split up into two separate federal states instead of one large one.
The opinions of the conservative right seem so utterly incompatible with the modern societies of the larger cities, that the conservative states might as well just break off and create their own nation, with their own conservative laws.
The modern cities on the west and east coast could also break off and found more progressive nations instead of being held back by the conservatives of the midwest and south.
I know that the last time this was tried, it resulted in a bloody civil war that lead to a unified USA, and such an attempt probably would again if attempted, at least right now.
I mean Scandinavia has been under control of different nations at different points. The nations gained their independence, but still work closely together, without going through the pains of having one massive government trying to rule it all.
Eh, I'm rambling. It would probably never happen. Small country point of view.
[QUOTE=OvB;47625580]Congress would spend 4-8 years fighting over 2-3 of those things as Sanders legacy bill and none if it will come to fruition. Sanders killed any chance at being president when he called himself a Socialist. Look at the uproar they gave Obama and he wasn't even a socialist. If Sanders somehow wins, it will wake up a monster in the conservative base, and our national unity and productivity will be at an all time low. Our government is so polarized right now that it's like a political Meiosis. We've pulled our government body apart into to halves. I know that everyone here hates republicans but we need a president that's going to bring both parties back together.[/QUOTE]
I would argue compromise and unity was tried and the result was the current state of the ACA, which in turn was only used by the conservatives as ammo.
The Republicans have given every indication they have no interest in unity, in compromise, in anything but doing everything they can to oppose the Democrats.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47630773]I would argue compromise and unity was tried and the result was the current state of the ACA, which in turn was only used by the conservatives as ammo.
The Republicans have given every indication they have no interest in unity, in compromise, in anything but doing everything they can to oppose the Democrats.[/QUOTE]
The ACA didn't need a single Republican vote to pass. The Democrats even had a supermajority in the Senate.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;47630792]The ACA didn't need a single Republican vote to pass. The Democrats even had a supermajority in the Senate.[/QUOTE]
Democrats are poised to recapture the Senate in 2016. The Republicans have about 24 seats that can be battled over. The Democrats only have 1. For the House, however, I am not too sure.
[QUOTE=Bonde;47630379]Take this with a grain of salt, just early morning "what if" thoughts:
Some times when I look at US politics I wonder why the United States doesn't split up into two separate federal states instead of one large one.
The opinions of the conservative right seem so utterly incompatible with the modern societies of the larger cities, that the conservative states might as well just break off and create their own nation, with their own conservative laws.
The modern cities on the west and east coast could also break off and found more progressive nations instead of being held back by the conservatives of the midwest and south.
I know that the last time this was tried, it resulted in a bloody civil war that lead to a unified USA, and such an attempt probably would again if attempted, at least right now.
I mean Scandinavia has been under control of different nations at different points. The nations gained their independence, but still work closely together, without going through the pains of having one massive government trying to rule it all.
Eh, I'm rambling. It would probably never happen. Small country point of view.[/QUOTE]
oh god don't abandon me here in texas.
[QUOTE=Bonde;47630379]Take this with a grain of salt, just early morning "what if" thoughts:
Some times when I look at US politics I wonder why the United States doesn't split up into two separate federal states instead of one large one.
The opinions of the conservative right seem so utterly incompatible with the modern societies of the larger cities, that the conservative states might as well just break off and create their own nation, with their own conservative laws.
The modern cities on the west and east coast could also break off and found more progressive nations instead of being held back by the conservatives of the midwest and south.
I know that the last time this was tried, it resulted in a bloody civil war that lead to a unified USA, and such an attempt probably would again if attempted, at least right now.
I mean Scandinavia has been under control of different nations at different points. The nations gained their independence, but still work closely together, without going through the pains of having one massive government trying to rule it all.
Eh, I'm rambling. It would probably never happen. Small country point of view.[/QUOTE]
"Larger cities", "modern cities." As if the south didn't have civilization.
[QUOTE=OvB;47631286]"Larger cities", "modern cities." As if the south didn't have civilization.[/QUOTE]
I know that southern cities (Austin, Texas for example) are very modern and forward thinking too.
I see your point. Surrounding rural areas always seem to be more conservative than the cities such areas surround. It's the exact same way in the entirety of the rest of the word.
Like I said, my argument had no real point and wasn't well formulated to begin with.
Or we could just go back to city states like in ancient times!
-snip-
Just registered to vote in California! Let's do it Bernie Sanders 2016!
What is Bernie running from?
-snip-
[video=youtube;AMfKW5JeOQA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfKW5JeOQA&hd=1[/video]
[editline]30th April 2015[/editline]
[url]https://berniesanders.com/[/url]
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;47628463]Blue-Dog Democrats, (Right wing ones), Only take up like 20 seats in the whole of congress.[/QUOTE]
uhh
that's 20 out of 188 democratic seats
that's over 10 percent
alienating one tenth of your party isn't exactly a strategy that wins legislative victories when it literally comes down to singular votes
moderate democrats are the reason that we don't have single-payer healthcare right now - it had to be removed from the ACA to pass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
