2016 elections - because it's never too early

[DGuller]

At some point you have to take into account breaking free of deleterious status quo, too.

How did that work out in 2000?  We definition broke free of 2000's status quo, so much so that just getting back to it would be a major step forward.

Well, we're currently in primary season.  If there is any time to vote your heart, it is now.  And 2000's status quo was the result of Clinton's watch over unprecedented mass incarceration, the destruction of welfare, the tech bubble (which collapsed a year later, if you remember), various military adventures based on slim premises that killed scores of civilians but which were conducted by air so we didn't feel any pain, etc.  I didn't want the 2000 status quo then, and I don't want it now.

You want better than 2000 status quo?  I understand that.  But you have to understand that it's a whole lot more difficult to get to the "better than 2000 status quo" place in 2016 than it was in 2000, thanks to Nader voters.

[Berkut]

This is extremely simple: the two parties in question have traded power back and forth for a few decades, and it is indiscernable to an objective observer which is actually trying to reform the system, since it seems pretty obvious neither of them do anything, hence the system we have now.

You claim that if only we just vote for Dems every single time forever and ever, they could fix it. Of course, when they are in power, they don't fix it, don't try to fix it, and are clearly absolutely reliant on the system themselves. Since we do have a two party system, that means the other party does get to win every now and again, and when they do, you get to use that as your excuse for why your party did nothing while they were in power - it was all they could manage to hold the line because 17 years ago not everyone voted as loyally as they should for the party that really does want to fix things, but can only do so if nobody ever voted for anyone but their establishment candidate. The moment there is any dissension, you get to blame 16 years of Dem leadership failures on the fact that once in a while a non-Dem gets into power.

This is pure blackmail. You know what else could prevent Republicans from getting into power? People lining up behind non-establishment Dems. People like you. But you don't - you won't in fact. Rather you will slavishly follow whatever the latest anointed establishment drone is who promises to do...what exactly? Be a Not Republican. Throw us some more peanuts and circuses, maybe some more over-priced healthcare provided by ultra powerful corporations who are happy to fund candidates promising more gravy for them. It might be gravy in the form of bombs, or gravy in the form of stupidly expensive drugs and health care, but the gravy will flow either way.

I will vote for Clinton because Trump is a nightmare - blackmail accomplished, again. The establishment wins, again. The frustrating part of it is just how well the machine actually works. Even when it creates a monster like Trump, THAT works to the machines favor as well. As long as their are well intentioned...people willing to line up behind their fig leaf carrying establishment candidates, it will continue to work.

And Clinton, if elected, will do nothing.

[DGuller]

This is extremely simple: the two parties in question have traded power back and forth for a few decades, and it is indiscernable to an objective observer which is actually trying to reform the system, since it seems pretty obvious neither of them do anything, hence the system we have now.

I think it is fairly obvious that one party is an active impediment to reform.  So, no, it's not a case of "neither of them do anything", one of them has been quite successful at doing something.  Just not something good.

You claim that if only we just vote for Dems every single time forever and ever, they could fix it.

No, that's not my claim at all.  You vote for Dems only for so long as Republicans are hellbent on making the system worse.  I already explained it multiple times before, and it's getting a little tiresome going to back to square one again and again.

People lining up behind non-establishment Dems. People like you. But you don't - you won't in fact. Rather you will slavishly follow whatever the latest anointed establishment drone is who promises to do...what exactly? Be a Not Republican.

I don't think using words such as "slavishly" is helpful.  Neither is misrepresenting my point.  Yes, I do blame the Republicans for taking one choice out of contention, which will necessarily remove the pressure from the remaining choice.  Sabotaging the other choice by splitting the vote is not going to solve that, however.

And Clinton, if elected, will do nothing.

Maybe, if the best I can get right now is nothing, I will take nothing.  Overplaying one's hand is rarely a successful strategy.

[Capetan Mihali]

You want better than 2000 status quo?  I understand that.  But you have to understand that it's a whole lot more difficult to get to the "better than 2000 status quo" place in 2016 than it was in 2000, thanks to Nader voters Gore's inability to win those votes.

FYP.  Gore could have won those votes if he hadn't toed the Clintonian "triangulation" neoliberal line, especially in the wake of the WTO just a year before, though he possibly could have lost some others, it's a Big Tent, right? 

This is the very definition of taking votes for granted.  "You're a liberal, you better vote for Gore."  "You're a liberal, you better encourage Sanders to drop out."  It's arm-twisting people who actually have different values those off the than the ruling Democratic Party. 

And, personally, I don't see eight years of a Gore presidency halting the subprime mortgage crisis or doing much more for American workers.  Abroad, who knows, but all those Gore Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly gave the go-ahead for the Iraq War, and Gore was ostensibly party to the Clinton Administration's military expeditions in Libya, Serbia, and Iraq.

And if not for Nader's 3% in 2000, maybe we wouldn't have a lot of left-liberal challenges to the Clintonian status quo over the last 15 years, up to and including a self-declared socialist winning primaries and caucsuses left and right across the country.

[Berkut]

This is extremely simple: the two parties in question have traded power back and forth for a few decades, and it is indiscernable to an objective observer which is actually trying to reform the system, since it seems pretty obvious neither of them do anything, hence the system we have now.

I think it is fairly obvious that one party is an active impediment to reform.  So, no, it's not a case of "neither of them do anything", one of them has been quite successful at doing something.  Just not something good.

And the other party has successfully maintained the power that the people who fund them want them to maintain. The Dems have been in power for 16 of the last 24 years, including the last 8, and have done NOTHING. The idea that it takes all their effort to just "not make it even worse" is poppycock. They have not tried, and why would they? The people who fund them don't want them to, so of course they do not. This is obvious, and incredibly simple. If the person who puts you in power doesn't want you to change anything, then nothing changes.

You claim that if only we just vote for Dems every single time forever and ever, they could fix it.

No, that's not my claim at all. 

That is exactly your claim. You claim that even though the Dems have had power 2/3rds of the time, the fact that they didn't win in 2000 means that they are not responsible for the status quo. So apparently, the only way they can fix the problem is if they never, ever lose - or at least lose less than 1/3rd of the time, since apparently calling the shots for 2/3rds of the time is not enough, and in fact it is the fault of those who let some not-Dem win over 16 years ago for the status quo *now*.

You vote for Dems only for so long as Republicans are hellbent on making the system worse.

Why not vote for a Dem hellbent on making the system better, rather than one hellbent on keeping the system exactly as it is right now? You are creating a false choice. There is a primary season, there are levers in play other than just voting for a Republican or a Democrat. The Democratic Party has, for nearly two plus decades, shown that it has no interest in reform.


And why should it? People like you will vote for them no matter what.


And honestly, it's not like the people sending millions to the Clintons actually care if the Clintons win, because they are sending millions to the Bushes as well.

  I already explained it multiple times before, and it's getting a little tiresome going to back to square one again and again.

It is tiresome. It is tiresome for you to return again and again to "Vote for the establishment Dem, or a Republican will win, and that will make things worse!". There is another option. The Democrats could actually care about reforming the system, and actually attempt to do so. The blackmail of your position, that you better vote for the people who will say they care but do nothing because otherwise the people who admit they don't care might win, is exactly what has created the situation we have now, with two parties who have no practical difference between them when it comes to fixing the system.

Trump and Sanders are an outcome of that system - they did not spring up out of nowhere. You have the dumbasses supporting Trump because they don't understand what is wrong, and you have Sanders who is politically broken, but at least is running on a platform that in theory could actually get some traction on the problem. Problem is he is a bloody Socialist, so all the baggage that comes along with it makes you wonder if his "fix" would be much better.

How about a non-crazy, non-socialist politician who is not bought and paid for? Of course, I suppose we hoped that was Obama, but clearly that was not the case. He has done nothing, and made it clear that to the extent that he has the power to do anything in this area, would choose to do the wrong things.


But how do we get a moderate, reform minded candidate? I honestly don't know. Hopefully we can find out in four years or so...

People lining up behind non-establishment Dems. People like you. But you don't - you won't in fact. Rather you will slavishly follow whatever the latest anointed establishment drone is who promises to do...what exactly? Be a Not Republican.

I don't think using words such as "slavishly" is helpful.  Neither is misrepresenting my point.  Yes, I do blame the Republicans for taking one choice out of contention, which will necessarily remove the pressure from the remaining choice.  Sabotaging the other choice by splitting the vote is not going to solve that, however.

The problem is that you are blind to the fact that your very argument is exactly what has gotten us here - it was what makes Clinton the chosen candidate, the basic idea that if you don't give anyone a choice but terrible and just pretty bad, just pretty bad is good enough. And if you are the people who want to make sure your bought and paid for lackey is always the "winner" no matter which side, this is exactly what you want.

The problem is that you are not willing to actually see the problem for what it is, because for you it all comes back to the partisan game, and making sure your side wins is the goal. You are no different than the Republicans all lining up like good little drones behind Trump, because no matter how odious he is, well, what is the other option? Clinton? ZOMG SHE KILLED THOSE DIPLOMATS!

The problem is that you think there are two "sides" here when it comes to the problem of reform, and one wants anti-reform, and one wants little reform. But the reality is that there is just one side, and the people who fund them both really could not care less which one wins. They win either way, and it makes the slightly cognizant content when they get their meaningless victories either way.


They have one group convinced that their interests actually align with the super rich, and another group convinced that doing nothing is at least better than doing the wrong thing. Win either way.

And Clinton, if elected, will do nothing.

Maybe, if the best I can get right now is nothing, I will take nothing.  Overplaying one's hand is rarely a successful strategy.

Doing the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different result is NEVER a successful strategy.


I agree that *right now* the terrible option who will do nothing is better than the terrible option who will do god knows what. What pisses me off is that your political ideology is what consistently results in these terribly bad options. There is nothing magical about Hillary Clinton that made it impossible for someone other than a old Socialist to challenge her.

But we will keep doing it anyway. This election cycle, more than any other, has convinced me that we are probably just plain fucked. Between some appreciable portion of the electorate following someone like Trump, another appreciable portion unwilling to even admit that anything is wrong, and most just wanting to make sure their clan wins, there is no real chance for actual reform. The US will just keep on as is until something truly drastic happens.

[Capetan Mihali]

Let's get the Chappaqua Charlatans roster ready.  So far we have:

D. Guller
C. DeMoney
G. Arbon
V. Almy

I know there's a bunch more floating around, but those are the only that come to mind right now.

[DGuller]

The problem is that you are not willing to actually see the problem for what it is, because for you it all comes back to the partisan game, and making sure your side wins is the goal.

We're done here.

[Capetan Mihali]

We're done here.

DGuller's astounding debating prowess on display yet again.

[DGuller]

We're done here.

DGuller's astounding debating prowess on display yet again.

Wow, I really must've gotten under your skin. 

[jimmy olsen]

The problem is that you are not willing to actually see the problem for what it is, because for you it all comes back to the partisan game, and making sure your side wins is the goal.

We're done here.

He's 100% right.

[DGuller]

The problem is that you are not willing to actually see the problem for what it is, because for you it all comes back to the partisan game, and making sure your side wins is the goal.

We're done here.

He's 100% right.

He's right about my thought process?  I beg to differ.  But the only way to win the debate about what I think is to not participate.

[Capetan Mihali]

We're done here.

DGuller's astounding debating prowess on display yet again.

Wow, I really must've gotten under your skin. 

There are a lot of times I've agreed with you and even praised your posts for their thoughtfulness, most recently, I think, in TBR.  But on certain issues you lose all sense of balance or dignity and substitute veiled (or not so veiled) personal attacks for reasonable responses, all the while claiming for yourself the mantel of reason and objectivity. 

You don't always act this way, but when you -- Bernie Sanders and Israel come to mind most recently -- it is a rather toxic combination.

[DGuller]

You don't always act this way, but when you -- Bernie Sanders and Israel come to mind most recently -- it is a rather toxic combination.

When did I ever say anything particularly bad about Sanders?  I think criticizing his economic policies in a rather measured tone is as negative as I ever got.  I may have also said once or twice that he will be completely ineffective at reforming anything, though I'm not sure.  Would you care to find some posts that would contradict me?

[Capetan Mihali]

You don't always act this way, but when you -- Bernie Sanders and Israel come to mind most recently -- it is a rather toxic combination.

When did I ever say anything particularly bad about Sanders?  I think criticizing his economic policies in a rather measured tone is as negative as I ever got.  I may have also said once or twice that he will be completely ineffective at reforming anything, though I'm not sure.  Would you care to find some posts that would contradict me?

You haven't said anything particularly bad about Israel either.   What was clearly meant was your posts against those that defend the former and criticize the latter.

[Admiral Yi]

Let's get the Chappaqua Charlatans roster ready.  So far we have:

D. Guller
C. DeMoney
G. Arbon
V. Almy

I know there's a bunch more floating around, but those are the only that come to mind right now.

I'm in the #NeverTrump camp.  Add me.