can you imagine a world where we dont have only millionaires and billionaires running the country
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
can you imagine a world where we dont have only millionaires and billionaires running the country
Has it ever worked that way in a sense? Especially when it comes to the federal level if it wasn't money then it certainly was other means of power - look at ancient Greece and Rome. I'm far more concerned about the power corporations, outside powers and trade associations have over candidates these days. If anything I hope Mueller's investigation blows the lid off of that and leads to some serious reform. Wishful thinking I know.
And your solution to this is to cut out the middle man and let the richest people who run the biggest corporations run the highest offices in the land?
Bezos would be great for America, he'll get to combine Amazon with the Prison system and run the worlds most efficient gulags.
Arnie can say something acerbic when he kills bitches. It'll be so much better than all these boring warlords you've had lately.
this is your wishlist though right?
I was being facetious. Though Maher as Press Secretary would work for me.
That sounds terrible
I know. Where's Samantha Bee?
shes busy keeping schools segregated
Damn it. The only way a left candidate can win is if she and Sanders team up from the start (and I got the feeling that it was happening earlier).
Not sure about Warren, but i think Bernie can win if he gets a younger running mate, which would of course balance out the age issue.
Can see Warren being the compromise candidate between establishment and progressive wing. She did after all toe the party line last time around by not outrightly backing Bernie against Hillary. Her big issue would be raising funds from Wall Street given her hard stance towards financial institutions.
I'm worried about her foreign policy. The rest should be fine - I don't think she'll be different from Bernie. Other than a few hints from him about supporting worker co-ops, which is probably too far for her.
What's her general FP approach?
Its oddly spot on. Strong on engagement in the pacific, two state solution, confronting Russia, pro-Iran deal
I'd say she is equidistant between Obama and Bernie.
Bernie has been more critical of Israel, and has a left-wing history on FP (he mentioned the Monroe doctrine, Allende, Contras, and Mossadegh in a debate with Hillary) which she (former Republican!) has never shown AFAIK.
Of late both have moved to a more pro-Palestine position (Bernie in particular, this is probably unprecedented). I think their different backgrounds show up mostly in the words used, even as both vote similarly. (Though Warren voted yes on the recent huge military budget unlike him). And I love that he sees climate change as a FP issue (it is going to create a massive refugee problem and that will definitely become a conventional FP issue)
Of course, Harris (very pro-Israel by Dem standards) and Biden are worse in FP than these two, just like in most other areas.
Anyway, if you're interested in his FP: https://www.vox.com/world/2017/9/21...-transcript-foreign-policy-speech-westminster
This is the section that made me hard
Here’s a truth that you don’t often hear about too often in the newspapers, on the television, or in the halls of Congress. But it’s a truth we must face. Far too often, American intervention and the use of American military power has produced unintended consequences which have caused incalculable harm. Yes, it is reasonably easy to engineer the overthrow of a government. It is far harder, however, to know the long term impact that that action will have. Let me give you some examples:
In 1953 the United States, on behalf of Western oil interests, supported the overthrow of Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and the re-installation of the Shah of Iran, who led a corrupt, brutal and unpopular government. In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was created. What would Iran look like today if their democratic government had not been overthrown? What impact did that American-led coup have on the entire region? What consequences are we still living with today?
In 1973, the United States supported the coup against the democratically elected president of Chile Salvador Allende which was led by General Augusto Pinochet. The result was almost 20 years of authoritarian military rule and the disappearance and torture of thousands of Chileans – and the intensification of anti-Americanism in Latin America.
Elsewhere in Latin America, the logic of the Cold War led the United States to support murderous regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, which resulted in brutal and long-lasting civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
In Vietnam, based on a discredited “domino theory,” the United States replaced the French in intervening in a civil war, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese in support of a corrupt, repressive South Vietnamese government. We must never forget that over 58,000 thousand Americans also died in that war.
More recently, in Iraq, based on a similarly mistaken analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, the United States invaded and occupied a country in the heart of the Middle East. In doing so, we upended the regional order of the Middle East and unleashed forces across the region and the world that we’ll be dealing with for decades to come.
These are just a few examples of American foreign policy and interventionism which proved to be counter-productive.
Now let me give you an example of an incredibly bold and ambitious American initiative which proved to be enormously successful in which not one bullet was fired — something that we must learn from.
Shortly after Churchill was right here in Westminster College, the United States developed an extremely radical foreign policy initiative called the Marshall Plan.
Think about it for a moment: historically, when countries won terrible wars, they exacted retribution on the vanquished. But in 1948, the United States government did something absolutely unprecedented.
After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the most brutal war in history to defeat the barbarity of Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism, the government of the United States decided not to punish and humiliate the losers. Rather, we helped rebuild their economies, spending the equivalent of $130 billion just to reconstruct Western Europe after World War II. We also provided them support to reconstruct democratic societies.
In 1953 the United States, on behalf of Western oil interests, supported the overthrow of Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, and the re-installation of the Shah of Iran, who led a corrupt, brutal and unpopular government. In 1979, the Shah was overthrown by revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Khomeini, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was created. What would Iran look like today if their democratic government had not been overthrown? What impact did that American-led coup have on the entire region? What consequences are we still living with today?
In 1973, the United States supported the coup against the democratically elected president of Chile Salvador Allende which was led by General Augusto Pinochet. The result was almost 20 years of authoritarian military rule and the disappearance and torture of thousands of Chileans – and the intensification of anti-Americanism in Latin America.
Elsewhere in Latin America, the logic of the Cold War led the United States to support murderous regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, which resulted in brutal and long-lasting civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
In Vietnam, based on a discredited “domino theory,” the United States replaced the French in intervening in a civil war, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Vietnamese in support of a corrupt, repressive South Vietnamese government. We must never forget that over 58,000 thousand Americans also died in that war.
More recently, in Iraq, based on a similarly mistaken analysis of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, the United States invaded and occupied a country in the heart of the Middle East. In doing so, we upended the regional order of the Middle East and unleashed forces across the region and the world that we’ll be dealing with for decades to come.
These are just a few examples of American foreign policy and interventionism which proved to be counter-productive.
Now let me give you an example of an incredibly bold and ambitious American initiative which proved to be enormously successful in which not one bullet was fired — something that we must learn from.
Shortly after Churchill was right here in Westminster College, the United States developed an extremely radical foreign policy initiative called the Marshall Plan.
Think about it for a moment: historically, when countries won terrible wars, they exacted retribution on the vanquished. But in 1948, the United States government did something absolutely unprecedented.
After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the most brutal war in history to defeat the barbarity of Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism, the government of the United States decided not to punish and humiliate the losers. Rather, we helped rebuild their economies, spending the equivalent of $130 billion just to reconstruct Western Europe after World War II. We also provided them support to reconstruct democratic societies.
I'm not sure she's made a similar speech (focused on FP,) and I don't think her speech would be nearly as satisfying from a left PoV.
Can I ask what would be the sense in electing a far left candidate if he has to deal with a right wing Congress. All of what would make him different from a Joe Biden would be almost impossible to get in as law under even a center left Congress.
I'm just asking from a logistical standpoint. What would or rather what could a socialist type candidate like Bernie do different from a left leaning centrist with the type of Congress that has been voted in over the past couple years.
the hope would be if a socialist can become POTUS then the wave would be big enough to carry the Congress too.
Will be interesting to see how it plays out if both Sanders and Warren do run.
Last edited:
This is the fundamental problem with the very idea of electing someone like Sanders. None of his policies would get through the funding process in both a Republican and likely also a Democratic congress. The medicare for all and education programs in particular would be dead in the water from day one even if the Dems happened to barely take over the congress, and because house members in particular get elected every two years, they would instantly be under heavy pressure from opposition candidates to moderate their positions back to the center. This is why imo, its by no means a slam dunk that Bernie will win the nomination. Last time he managed to draw a sharp contrast between himself and Hillary only. This time, he will be up against far more candidates with overlapping views; some of which also connect with voters. Right now I see it as a Biden/Sanders race, but that of course could change if a younger, charismatic candidate emerges who encapsulates the sentiment among both the moderate and progressive wings.
This is why I asked the question. For all the fanfare over the man nothing that would make him different over a more centerist candidate. I just don't see the point of trying to elect sanders if the dems aren't also trying to elect 150 + Ocasio-Cortez type candidates in the house and also trying to get rid of senators like manchin and donnely and replace them with more progressive candidates
At the same time, you can't blame progressives for being aspirational and wanting to change the country for what they think is the better. The problem they will run into is the further they go hard left, the more they risk losing independents who are amenable to voting for either a Democrat or a Republican. The question then becomes, where are a majority of voters for both parties. Historically, crossover voters have been in the independent range. More recently, with the more tribal turn on both sides, they appear to be heading closer to the base, which would explain the rise of Sanders last cycle. The problem the Dems have is they don't have any viable hard left candidates other than Sanders, so they would be wise to create a hard left coalition with a younger, more centrist VP pick to broaden their votes beyond just the base.
As for policies like single payer - even under the rosiest of scenarios if Sanders got elected and the Dems sweep back into power in congress - it still wouldn't be implemented for at least a decade or more after that (if at all).
there are like 37 independent voters in this country and they are all incredibly stupid. trying to win them over at the expense of the hundred million eligible voters who didnt vote doesnt work and the way we know is because hillary clinton isnt president
What are the chances of Trump getting re-elected?
You need both since the further left you go the more you galvanize the center to vote for the opposition.
Depends on who runs against him and what sort of campaign they run. Also obviously depends on the results of the Mueller investigation.
Please god, I truly hope Sanders, Warren et al don't run again.
All these 'alt' options will only give Trump an easier route to victory.
All these 'alt' options will only give Trump an easier route to victory.
If Sanders had run against Trump, he would have won convincingly. I don't see him or Warren as alt options, particularly Warren. I do worry about Warren running largely because I'm not convinced how many Americans would welcome a liberal woman running.
Therein lies the problem. The further left you go, the more you risk alienating independents who may then consider voting for the opposition. A large chunk (around 35-40%) still identify as political independents, so you can't abandon them and still expect to win. Now if Sanders sells his message to where independents get on board, then that would be a home run for the Dems.
He may or may not have won. We simply don't know since Trump didn't waste any of his time character assassinating Bernie like he did Hillary. His numbers would have taken a hit had he been in a direct battle with Trump.
His numbers would have taken a hit but there would have been no FBI investigation and all the other baggage that comes with being a Clinton. Trump could also not claim to have that "genuine" factor against Trump like he did with Clinton. Anyway we're rehashing old ground here.
Convincingly? I don't believe that at all. He's too far to the left to convince the centrist voters.
He's the hipster choice, I get it - he was exciting and different, but lets not pretend as though he was a better candidate for president than Hilary Clinton, just because she's a POS.
And the problem with that is Sanders' schtick is that he remains true to his political leanings, and doesn't pander for votes.
He wont be able to sell that to independents, easily - and now that he's lost against Hilary, if he were to run for President, Trump will use that to assassinate his legitimacy.
imagine thinking the trump presidency proves that alt candidates don't succeed
That's definitely a possibility.
No one cared that Clinton lost against Obama. Trump and the GOP will use their existing attacks on any left candidate, that they're god damn communists. And the country won't give a shit because people want medicine and decent wages.
- Status