Earlier quoted context omitted.
What could he have feasibly done otherwise?
uh, cut spending? LOL. jesus.
Right. Given that Congress controls the purse, how?
The smug style in American liberalism
391–400 of 435 posts
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#392Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
The major argument against Sanders was that his platform was unrealistic. Remembering the disappointment that President Obama stoked when he was unable to execute much of his platform, many Democratic electors said they wanted the candidate that had a more modest platform that could be realistically achieved. In hindsight, sure, you are right. It's hard to know what do in the moment.
Even if you concede that Sanders' platform was unrealistic, he would have been running against a candidate that wants to build a wall costing somewhere north of 11-figures, get Mexico to pay for it, negotiate better trade deals through sheer force of will and deport millions of illegal immigrants. It's clear the electorate didn't take reality into consideration when casting their votes.
In retrospect, it was clear that unrealistic promises being reneged mid-campaign weren't liabilities for the Trump campaign. I'm saying that at the time, it wasn't immediately apparent that Sanders's popularity would hold up in the general election.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, so we are going to have to negotiate while the EU is still in tact. What's the plan for how we do that? What reason does the EU have to give us a good deal?
Well, I'd say "because it'd be what's best for people in EU countries" but I don't honestly believe the EU cares about that, beyond perhaps avoiding mass expulsions on both sides. So far they seem more interested in securing payments into their pensions. So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal. This does not imply the UK should have remained. They have no incentive because they aren't acc…
>So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal.
Right.
>This does not imply the UK should have remained
It probably implies that we shouldn't have thrown a temper tantrum without having a strategy.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
The telephone network hasn't had anything to do with a free market since 1934 at the latest. The Justice Department chose a monopolist winner in 1913. The USA freight rail system exhibited some monopoly through the 1880s, but since has been quite regulated. Perhaps the current level of regulation may not be ideal, but since the USA freight rail system is the best in the world it would seem foolish to tamper with it.
I think we're agreeing? I didn't mean those are monopolies now , I meant that they had wandered into monopoly territory in the past, and regulation has been somewhat (not entirely) successful in fixing that.
I guess we agree about the railroads. However, telecom has never been a natural monopoly, and the USA government has had to work hard for a century to make and keep it one (...and to convince the public that telecom monopoly is unavoidable.) VZN and ATT may not have merged officially yet, but they certainly act in concert to maintain their duopoly position. This will only change when the FCC ceases to stifle modern radio technology.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember my Facebook feed from 8 years ago - my liberal friends were celebrating, and my conservative friends were disappointed, but trying to be (somewhat) conciliatory. Now, my conservative friends are celebrating but my liberal friends attitude is "screw America, I hope you choke in your own vomit, you racist bastards".
This is a meaningless, useless anecdote. My experience eight years ago was that conservatives were foaming at the mouth in anger when Obama won. They had literally just spent the last year calling him the antichrist and saying that he was literally not American. And today my experience on facebook is literally frowny emojis from liberals and not much else. Edit: LITERALLY
I don't remember seeing conservatives rioting in the streets, or burning flags, or calling for the death of Obama voters in 2008.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endorses-hillary-clinton/
Like I said, election rhetoric meant to smear the opponent. Voters are smarter than this. Voters care more about the real issues that are affecting them (jobs, economy, etc). They don't care who the KKK is voting for. The result of the election have shown that.
Huh? My point was that the KKK really was supporting Trump, whereas it was not really supporting Hillary.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, he is not against the Islamic religion. He is just against immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism. He expressly called for all Muslims to be barred from the United States. I'm afraid that claiming he's "not against the Islamic religion" is not a fact-based argument.
Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism. And TEMPORARY only, until they can figure something out, like a vetting program, from those countries with direct ties to terrorism. He wants to protect everyone from terrorism. Yes, he wants to protect Muslims from terrorism too. He even asked them for their help in the fight against radical terrorism, because he knows th…
>Which he also later clarified to meant immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism.
That's not a clarification, that's just saying something completely different from what he originally said.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually agree with you in some cases here. I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. However, as a young women working in technology and male dominated environments, it's really hard for me to believe the pathological sexism isnt a fundamentally limiting component in making everything better. I don't believe women should get free rides and everything should be equal overnight. I'm not a man hater. I know many educated male p…
> products made in technology would be better if there were an equal gender ratio in the workforce. There is no justifiable reason for a 50/50 split in any industry. Some industries are dominated by women and some by men. That's OK. It just reflects the differences between men and women, and yes, they do exist. The same applies to the workforce at large. If a larger percentage of women than men choose not to particip…
>There is a fundamental difference between guys "shooting the shit" and actually behaving that way.
There's also a fundamental difference between killing someone and threatening to kill someone, but that doesn't make either ok.
In any case, there is abundant evidence that Trump does in fact grope women.
Re: The smug style in American liberalism
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'd say "because it'd be what's best for people in EU countries" but I don't honestly believe the EU cares about that, beyond perhaps avoiding mass expulsions on both sides. So far they seem more interested in securing payments into their pensions. So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal. This does not imply the UK should have remained. They have no incentive because they aren't acc…
>So my view is that they have no incentive to give the UK a good deal. Right. >This does not imply the UK should have remained It probably implies that we shouldn't have thrown a temper tantrum without having a strategy.
What would your strategy be for leaving?