I also went with unemployed people proving that they are looking for work or in training. Although I've done neither for the last six months!
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I also went with unemployed people proving that they are looking for work or in training. Although I've done neither for the last six months!
We will see once she actually governs. People talk a lot of smack during campaigns but are then humbled by the practicality of day to day governance where they have to compromise with the opposition to get things done.
Rachel Maddow interviewed Bernie recently and it was quite good - he talked about the convention, platform, the opportunity of Trump as the opponent, and the future of the movement.
No doubt, that's the nature of things. However, people doubting her sincerity is very valid considering her record on playing progressive catch-up on LGBT rights, fracking, trade agreements, etc. And then you have her shameless pandering:
I mean, come the feck on?!
If they want benefits, sure, why not?
Proof need not be difficult to provide. As an example, here's a copy of the email I sent to company X about a position there, etc.
She's no different than Obama, who also pivoted on issues like gay marriage once the polling and focus group numbers swayed from no to yes. Most politicians balance their core principles with existing social norms, then shift when those norms evolve over time, and that ok since politicians and people in general, are allowed to change their views.
Obama on Gay Marriage circa 2008:
Thing is I haven't been looking for work.
Yup, agree with both. Illegal immigrants get healthcare if they pay taxes (though IMO emergency care is different, but that wasn't the question).
And unemployment benefits to those looking for work. The problem, from what I've read, is unrealistic criteria set for number of applications, and the lack of concessions for emergencies.
I'm still surprised I didn't get Jill Stein > Bernie though. This is the 1st time doing these types of quizzes the Green party didn't top my list.
And unemployment benefits to those looking for work. The problem, from what I've read, is unrealistic criteria set for number of applications, and the lack of concessions for emergencies.
I'm still surprised I didn't get Jill Stein > Bernie though. This is the 1st time doing these types of quizzes the Green party didn't top my list.
Does somebody actually advocate drug-testing for welfare folks?
That's fecking mental.
That's fecking mental.
I voted against drug testing welfare people, but i think i voted for limiting free healthcare for illegals.
I saw a segment on it in one of the comedy central shows. Apparently it costs far far more money to do than the number of people disqualified. And then there was some typical irony/poetic justice scandal involving the lawmakers who proposed it
The leader of the free world, making moral stances off the back of focus groups and polling. I get why it is this way, but it's pathetic and symptomatic of the problem in politics these days. And I'm not American or a registered democrat, concerned with the party's mainstream, so "Obama does it" doesn't work for me. Better president than whoever else was on offer, but still just a continuation of the kind of politics that has got us where we are today. Increased inequality, lower standards for average folk, corporate welfare, policies that foster anti-western sentiment and fertile soil for terrorists, and let's not forget the wrecking of the environment.
I see nothing wrong with it personally. A politician can do far more if they get into power than they can if they speak only out of principle but never get elected. This is precisely why internal and external polling, as well as focus groups are used so extensively - to help politicians get elected, or at least those politicians who use statistics and demography to align themselves with certain voter blocks. Only Cruz and Sanders seem to operate out of pure principle, which as we're seeing won't get either of them to a place where they can actually do anything with it.
Ugh, I'm reminded why I stopped posting in this thread. I can't believe people think more of the same will lead anywhere but disaster.
More of the same what ? We're talking about the use of polls.
As long as stupid people make up the majority of the electorate then we're stuck with it.
But how can voters know what a candidate's core beliefs are, the things he'll fight to the death for in office, if everything he says reflects the input of focus groups? How can they know what they're voting for? Democracy works best if politicians believe what they say.
Even Sanders is on shaky ground there, started supporting gay marriage openly in 2009. And then there's the guns...
By reading the various candidates' policy positions before voting for them.
Example - https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/
There are no guarantees however, that various positions won't change over time as circumstances evolve.
This brings up something I've always wondered - in the West, be it the US UK wherever, has gay marriage ever actually been a serious position until very recently? Hillary, Obama and Sanders have all been mentioned here, but are there actually any politicians who can point to records of themselves supporting it, say, in the 1990s? It seems like the cultural moment came on very suddenly and strongly.
Louis Napoleon III has a great quote about this. It's been far too long since I studied him but in summary, it implies they'll never be remembered as truly great leaders. Basically he suggested there were two types, those who were are the forefront on sweeping cultural change and those who were dragged along with it. For me, if you have to use a focus group to get the metrics needed to make your decision, you're already too late and just reacting to popular opinion.
This system where politicians care more about perception than reality is exactly how we wound up where we are, mate. That coupled with the concerns of the re-election war-chest.
Have you seen polling on gun control? It's clear that the will of the people has feck all to do with things, they're merely in a system where lobbyists have more of a say, where they're offered a (largely) false choice. Left v right, liberal v conservative, blue v red. I can understand the voter apathy, and even if you care, a lot of the population have more pressing issues than this horse-race.
Yes but these days you lose your job in an instant by saying the wrong thing.
That sentence slithers over the page like a small, venomous snake.
Why? When the facts change, I change my mind.
Definitely, but the idea highlights their rather lacklustre nous, so to speak. Essentially, they are being led by the times rather than leading them.
It always boils down to watch what they do rather than what they say.
Yeah it gained widespread political support pretty quickly in the last five years. When Labour was in power over here the party line was "we've brought in civil partnerships, it's a step forward and same-sex couples now have equality in law, let's see how that goes". Gradual progress, and it worked. The fact even Bernie couldn't be explicitly pro marriage equality until 2009 in the socially liberal Vermont says a lot.
There can be no objection to politicians changing their positions in response to a changing world. The end of the Cold War, for instance, required a readjustment in the Western alliance which maybe has yet fully to take place.
But the 'fact' which propels the evolution of policy is most often a change in the political landscape of the politician. He changes his mind because it serves his interests rather than those who voted for him on the basis of his previously stated views.
In most cases, the world doesn't change that much between a politician standing for election and assuming office. If a politician changes his views, the reasons have to be looked for within the political world rather than outside it.
I think people get a bit hung up on this idea of politicians changing their views. All humans change their views depending on changing situations and how such changes influence their own views. I'm actually more interested in politicians who change over time as opposed to those rigidly inflexible ones who dogmatically sneer at those who do.
I also prefer an effective politician who puts their energy into what can be done rather than what needs to be done but isn't practical. You have to just chip away at the big issues.
Agreed. Incrementalism is what it's at.
I cant believe people still want to want to vote for her, especially considering that there are better options out there.
Its pretty myopic to judge her based on this and anyone who does probably isn't particularly sophisticated.
Everyone knows Obama wanted single payer but it just wasn't possible.
Great point Raoul.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like i was aiming that at you. It's the annoying meme, soundbyte culture that's become pervasive on social media this cycle that is getting annoying and generally causes people to focus on frivolous distractions rather than actual policy positions.
- Status