Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by ASU2003, Mar 1, 2015.
That would be someone other than Hillary.
I'm not saying that Gore would have a good chance at winning, I'm saying that to bring up environmental problems, the people who are benefiting from causing the pollution, and that the solutions will work, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get the media attention and crowds that will talk to a Presidential candidate.
Now, Gore is not perfect, and he has some credibility issues with the wasteful lifestyle he has, so it wouldn't be all that great. But, this is the debate that the Democrats need to have. On who is going to donate to campaigns, and what their plans would be. Along with showing that things they have done in the past actually work.
I thought that Gore's Inconvenient Truth book was very worthwhile, be he'll still have to live down his "inventing the internet" gaffe and his plutocratic lifestyle.
There is a lot of "Do as I say, not as I do." in Al Gore, and people recognize that.
I wonder what his personal "carbon footprint" is?
Gore is not a great candidate, but the Internet thing wasn't a gaffe. It was somebody else's joke about him, like half the dumb things Dan Quayle is supposed to have said.
Nor is his lifestyle "plutocratic" compared to other politicians and business leaders at his level. Rather, because he advocated changes that might be painful to the oil and coal industries, they take any opportunity to slam him for not living like a monk.
I say this, not to defend Gore, who for other reasons wouldn't be a good candidate or president, but because this kind of misleading bullshit will be thrown at anyone who runs.
Inventing the Internet. Did Al Gore Invent the Internet?
I'm pretty sure Gore buys carbon offset credits, which many rich people could afford, yet don't buy. But, he does have a problem with image and showing people how to live good while being sustainable.
Well, this is not to say that Hillary wouldn't be a decent president, she likely would.
Just like she was a good Senator and Secretary of State.
However, we're not electing those or a bureaucrat...we're gunning for POTUS
And in the US, we Americans have the "need" for someone with celebrity stature and the ability to communicate as such.
Is this a formal criteria? No.
Is this fair? No
But as early as Nixon found out and including Gore above, the media environment shows the need to be able to work the cameras
AND put out something that the public and pundits can chew on and get them excited.
Even Obama has had his challenges with this.
While he's excellent at waxing philosophic about ideals...and coming out with a quick wit, he doesn't sell his proposals well. (To Congress or the public)
His nature is to be thoughtful and intellectual, work behind the scenes...push it forward with good execution.
But this doesn't work in this day and age...to get "buy-in"
Hillary may smile well, and speak well when there is "NEED"...but she doesn't just jump into the camera like her husband did.
BUT...you can't just have media charisma either...there has to be substance behind it...AND doing policy that the whole public likes...(not just your base)
This is the problem the GOP has.
All face and spin, no meat. (exception: Jeb Bush has the same issue Hillary has...meat, no flamboyance)
JFK, Reagan and Bill Clinton has the stuff, all the criteria...whether good or not.
If not Hillary, then the Dems need to find an alternative that can have the Beef, AND work the commercial.
They don't have a deep bench for that.
Richard Nixon was, in retrospectual examination of his accomplishments, a decent president. He was also overweeningly ambitious, arrogant, deceitful, end justifying means, blah, blah, blah.
Do we want another?
The whole Hillary history is 'We are a Clinton, the rules do not apply to Us.'
A lot like Tricky Dicky.
I think the Democrats need to put up a true left-wing candidate that liberals can vote for. In other words, someone moderate enough, not some "crackpot leftie." In American terms, I mean that they need a strong centrist candidate.
The problem with Clinton is that she's basically a neoliberal who would likely carry on Obama's capitulation to the right, abandoning most of the left and much of the centre. She will maintain much of the status quo. In other words, the continued slant towards the right.
Democrats need someone to usher the party back to the centre. Someone the left can rally around. I'm not normally a fan of populism, but sometimes it's for the better.
It looks like the Democrats might start making some news and getting a debate going. Which is exactly what they need to do.
5 Great Things That Have Happened for Bernie Sanders Since He Announced | Alternet
Obama: Warren 'wrong' on free trade claims
Like I said in the election thread: Hillary is the best Republican candidate the Democrats have ever fielded. She's an anti-sex, pro-censorship, pro-1%, corporatist bigot that will jump into bed with anything she thinks will get her power and influence. She jumped in bed with Jack Thompson during the First Videogame Panic, she panders to the 1% and corporations, and she uses the feminist angle to further bolster her social influence while simultaneously dividing up the 99% and pitting them against each other.
She's a different flavor teabag. Same censorious sexually repressive moralistic authoritarianism, same deluge-upwards economic policies, same utter disregard for the bill of rights, same corporate socialism, but where the teaparty ineptly tries to pit the 99% against itself via partisanship she plays up femsploitation and identity politics to do the same far more effectively.
And I hate how I feel like a flipping marxist every time I point these tactics out, and a bloody neocon every time I need to go to breitbart or Reason to get decent reporting on her instead of church sermons.
Thank god Sanders is running, we finally have a real liberal candidate for the first time in a good while. He doesn't stand a chance of winning but he's sure as hell going to make the entire election look like the dog and pony show it is while he's up there. It's going to be beautiful watching everyone else, left and right, hate him for going off-script.
The only quibble I have with the above is going to breitbart for anything.
It's like I'm stuck in the Twilight Zone!
So have the Democrats learned anything over the past year? There are elections this Tuesday, and, even with a GOP controlled government, many races are still too close to call. The Democrats haven't changed very much, and I couldn't name one thing. The individual groups are still pushing their issues, I don't think many Republicans have changed their minds in the past year, the candidates seem to appear out of nowhere to run, and they aren't involved at the local political level ahead of time. Most of them seem to be rich and don't want to get their hands dirty.
And the split between the progressives and the centrists is probably bigger now than it was last year at this time. The DNC removed a bunch of progressives from the board, and Donna Brazille came out and said what everyone already knew, that the DNC and Debbie Wassermann Schultz wanted Hillary to win and manipulated the party to ensure that had the best chance of happening. Hillary didn't want a repeat of 2008, and I have a feeling that there were some agreements made back then that she would be the next candidate, but it was either done verbally or not on a computer.
Do you think that anything will change in the media, activist groups, the poor who should vote, or the rich who want control of the party in the next year for a better outcome? Or even if Democrats get 5 million more votes, that it won't matter and the outcome will be more Republicans in the Congress due to gerrymandering and people moving to blue states?
Her former campaign chair became the DNC chair and the then-DNC chair became her running mate, that alone was enough of a giveaway.
Going by the fact people are still trying to pin Seth Rich's leaks on Commies Russians and playing the Her Turn/Misogyny card, and excommunicating Brazille for her crimes against the Church of Socjus and its anointed Queen Hillary, I very much doubt they've learned. I mean remember these are people who responded to more than half of the National Convention delegates walking out to join >10,000 protestors outside by paying seat fillers and having the media pretend nothing was happening.
The thing is academic and media elites have overplayed their institutional control of the discourse and lost their ability to make a false narrative into reality, the vast majority of the country now trusts and approves of mainstream media even less than they do Congress and the Social Justice movement's military wing (Antifa) is utterly repugnant to a majority of mainstream America... to the point Antifa managed to offer legitimacy and sympathy to literal fucking Nazis simply by being so shitty people sided with the other guys.
If anything I'm expecting the next election or two to be an even more brutal rebuke of the DNC than this one. People hate Trump but they know they can criticize him without someone glassing them in the face with a broken bottle or beating their skull in with a bike lock and throwing M80s at them. Michael Moore was right: Donald Trump is a brick through the window of the establishment, both left and right. He's causing both parties to completely implode.
I'll just focus on this for now:
Are you seriously promoting the Sean Hannity/Alex Jones conspiracy theory blaming Seth Rich for the hacking of the DNC?
When Trump's own DoJ is now seriously considering charging six Russian government officials (despite Trump suggesting it might have been a fat 14 year old in his parent's basement).
From last week:
U.S. authorities identify six Russian officials in DNC hack: WSJ
I'll get to the larger topic tomorrow.
Democrats shaken and angered by Brazile book
I have some disagreements with the implication of corruption and manipulation.
The DNC party is a private organization...their leaders can push anyone they want to the front...or accept funds or sign contract
This is NOT a Federal or Government entity.
You vote because you want to...but the primaries CAN be completely moot....allow the "vote" to occur and then the leadership decides who anyway.
The DNC freely took Clinton's money and signed contracts as a org. This IS completely legal and ethical. You pay for their debts in full and then get some control back...happens allthe time. Banks do it too.
Bernie was NOT a Dem starting he was a independent/socialist...they ALLOWED to run as a Dem anyway, he started late...Clinton had already had several states won in the momentum
Bernie has gone BACK to being an Independent/socialist...so despite the fact he chose to run as a Dem he has no loyalty nor shown it after to the party.
IMHO, the Dems were kind to allow him to run in their primary to get national attention and leverage
Again, Hillary had a HUGE positive momentum going into the primary...NO dem wanted to oppose her. People FORGET her ratings and polling numbers...they were exceptional.
Now they blame her for "taking advantage"??
People's memories are short and they love to scapegoat after the fact...they are blurring conspiracies, misconceptions on how the system works, how they want it to work...and reality.
Did she do some posturing and manuvering??? Sure...but they ALL do it...including Bernie and all the other "pure" politicians.
So basically, Hillary was THE candidate going in...had TONS of momentum and wins already by the time Bernie decided to play with the Dems and do their primary.
Hillary had pre-prepped and then some.
Then the DNC accepted her money to get out of debt (and this IS typical and done in the past by other dominate candidates with money)
And signed some legal contract saying they get their said and some influence in return.
So how the fuck did Hillary do something unethical and evil here??
As typical, like the emails, this is much to do about nothing...how the system and our parties REALLY work...and she's getting the blame for it all like she's some dark empress.
People need to realize how their politics and laws REALLY work.
It's not what you want or prefer...it's what IS
And ANY politican and power player leverages those laws and holes in them for all their worth...including the "pure" ones.
Brazile is trying to sell a book, gain some attention and likely over idealizing her own party.
The Clintons are just the the 300 pound gorillas in the room
And everyone is whining about it...it's not fair.
You want fair...get the momentum, get the attentions, get the money, leverage the politics as much as you can.
Welcome to Washington, folks
What, you think your States are ANY more pure and ideal??
You want a better system...then vote, push
Get some laws and principles passed
Change the system.
Case in point about the Dems having not learned anything and instead doubled down on blind fanaticism, the previous two posts. Also since Rogue brought it up can we please stop pretending that the two parties are just "private organizations" and not integral parts of the electoral process nowadays since even Teddy Freaking Roosevelt couldn't win as a third party? The entire electoral system is utterly captured by these organizations.
The parties are integral to the electoral process as any two parties have been since the beginning of this country.
Not these two parties per se, just two parties.
As my grandfather liked to say, unfortunately it's baked into our system and doesn't give third parties much of a chance.
They do change, switch, and evolve, though.
Read John Lewis' autobiography about how they forced the Democrats to pretty much become a completely different party for an interesting take on that process.
The cool part is you can do make those changes yourself too if you have the gumption (probably not to the Republicans, I think they are boned).
Agreed, the Dems used to be as the GOP is now...and the GOP were as the Dems are now. Complete opposite.
People forget about the Whigs
They also have unrealistic expectations of other parties...who often put in WTF candidates and WTF notions...that most won't follow or vote for.
The Green Party, over idealized..same with the Libertarians, same with the Socialists, etc...don't take a good premise, then go to extremes with it.
To rule over the masses, you have to be balanced and pragmatic. Not over-ideal.
Sorry @Shadowex3 no matter what you think or want...the Parties ARE private orgs legally...
The only way you'd be able to get them to be more formal and a real part of the govt system is to get their OWN members to vote to do it and restrict them...the politicians are going to give up their freedom.
Unless you can convince them by taking over internally and reworking their own rules. Good luck with that.
Again, we're deal with humans here, manipulations of power and influence.
There are so many games played on so many levels, there is no clear path.
It is only allowed by tradition, precedent and momentum.
You want change, you win it.
Then you have to deal with all those opposed, with agendas, egos, conflicts of interest and anyone else who wants to take you back down. (even your own party and sometimes allies)
Looks like the Dems had a really good day finally.
Watch Out, Donald Trump. Here Come The Democrats.
And now the GOP gets more pressure and panic. Good, keep'em on their toes.
Frankly, now it's only a race to see which party will screw up their momentum the fastest.
Each has a good track record of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Separate names with a comma.