Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment carries the implication that because this practice is American, it's OK if we continue doing it. I heartily disagree and thinks it's abominable to consider something as consequential as this election in such stark, cynical terms.
For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived b…
Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
531–540 of 553 posts
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#532Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived b…
Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President?
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#533Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some reason, say the words Founding Fathers and too many Americans' brains seize up, even though they were a motley assembly of, among other things, tax cheats, drunks, and racists. Nor were they particularly great political scientists: all of their main goals (no political parties! Congress acting on a check on the President!) fell by the wayside, and the rickety mess that is the Constitution has only survived b…
And yet it is the oldest existing nation with a constitutional government in which the people elect their own government and representatives. It's always been a work in progress and always will be.
And you ignore the other key point, which is that the US had no real national competitors near its borders, while other countries whose stability you discount did. That's the key point to American stability, not any world historical genius in drafting the Constitution.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#534Earlier quoted context omitted.
Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President?
See: impeachment proceedings. Concretely, the Trump administration ignored Congressional subpoenas, among other things, in clear acts of obstruction of justice in a way that undermined Congressional authority. Also see, for instance, his treatment of tax returns. Partisan polarization has made the idea of interbranch checks and balances defunct.
Setting those things aside, claiming that Congress doesn’t act as a check on the President simply does not square up with such things as the government shutdowns of 2013, 2018, and 2018/19, the Senate’s refusal to confirm Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, and it only goes on from there. Partisan polarization has made the checks and balances between the two elected branches more, not less relevant.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#535Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely do. Being able to understand other individual's point of view is at the center of my argument. May I suggest that you conflate support for Trump and support for his policies? It is not a meaningless distinction. Without going too much into the weeds and reciting quotes from "Hillbilly Elegy", it helps to understand that Trump supporters, on average, were not in that great of a shape financially. They wer…
I have sympathy for their economic problems, absolutely. But they vote for the party that's primarily responsible for those economic problems. Over the past 40 years, the middle class has been hollowed out, and that's been done primarily thanks to Reagan. Before Reagan, the US had more left-wing economic policies and a stronger middle class. They'd be better off voting for Sanders than Trump. Trump hasn't realy done…
And it is a feature Trump successfully exploited. It is interesting to note that Sanders and Bloomberg are also exploiting that system; just in different fashions. And I am perfectly OK with both of their approaches though I favor Sander's as it seems more honest.
All that said, with your point about being better off under Democratic reign of terror versus Republican reign of terror, I just gave you an entire list of grievances of the forgotten class ( as the current president sometimes dubs them ). Those grievances did not get addressed by either party over the last 40 years. Worse, Clinton signature is on NAFTA papers.
I would agree with you on Trump vs Sanders as they, amusingly, shared a lot of the populist message. I have my pet theories, but they would just derail this thread altogether.
I would like to note that it is hard for me to argue that Trump policies ( with exception of Soybeans and the bailout there ) has not done anything for them. For better or for worse, Trump is very keen on listening to his core supporters. He seems to genuinely care about his ratings, which does lead to all sorts of theatrics ( as you note ).
That said, note that regardless of how it was achieved and how we are going to pay for it in the future, unemployment now is low and entry level wages are up. Just that fact alone should give you pause, because that likely means that some do feel relief under Trump.
You have to admit that from that perspective a voter may be inclined to vote for Trump again in 2020.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#536Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have sympathy for their economic problems, absolutely. But they vote for the party that's primarily responsible for those economic problems. Over the past 40 years, the middle class has been hollowed out, and that's been done primarily thanks to Reagan. Before Reagan, the US had more left-wing economic policies and a stronger middle class. They'd be better off voting for Sanders than Trump. Trump hasn't realy done…
I will open by saying that the US party two party system is the root of a fair amount of issues in US. Normally, I would argue for some sort of rebalancing to ensure that the system works, but the power centers are too firmly entrenched and any real change would require major political capital. After all, levers are known. Who knows what kind of levers new system would introduce. In that sense, the party system is to…
I certainly think it'd be good if the Democratic and Republican parties both disappeared, but it's not true that both are equally corrupt or equally guilty to the problems facing the US. It really is since Reagan that economic inequality started to rise, middle class wages stagnated, and national debt started to spiral out of control. It's absolutely true that the Democratic party has been controlled by its conservative wing, with presidents Clinton and Obama not significantly changing the neoliberal direction set out by Reagan. Even so, the current economic recovery in the US was started by Obama, and that's what Trump is currently benefiting from.
But if voters want real change, the progressive wing of the Democratic party would be a better bet than voting for increasingly conservative Republicans.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#537Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will open by saying that the US party two party system is the root of a fair amount of issues in US. Normally, I would argue for some sort of rebalancing to ensure that the system works, but the power centers are too firmly entrenched and any real change would require major political capital. After all, levers are known. Who knows what kind of levers new system would introduce. In that sense, the party system is to…
I certainly agree that the two party system, and correspondingly, the first-part-the-post district system, is crippling the US political system. Proportional representation in Congress and some sort of ranked or approval voting system for the president and similar offices, would do a lot of good. I certainly think it'd be good if the Democratic and Republican parties both disappeared, but it's not true that both are…
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#538Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If Bloomberg gets elected the US is done. It's not longer anything resembling democracy and the only thing that will save us from the new order will be revolution. So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? Unlike our current super wealthy President, Bloomberg has more experience in government (mayor of NYC) and has a more successful track record in business. Money s…
> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? I don't believe anyone is saying this. Bloomberg, for example, is spending more on TV ads than every other candidate combined . It's not a level playing field at all. Bloomberg has a war chest nobody can compete with. His having it isn't the issue we're talking about here. The fact that he's able to use it in this manner sho…
It's not really relevant to the argument. I have an issue with what Steyer was doing as well, but at least he followed the rules.
Bloomberg got the rules changed to suit him, by spending money with the DNC. He's been blanketing the airwaves and buying endorsements.
It's plutocracy.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#539Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So being extremely wealthy and successful now disqualifies you from being a good President? Almost certainly yes. These people have out of control egos and little relevant experience. Bloomberg would be no different than Trump. Gates too.
So where do you draw the line? At what net worth are you saying someone can't possibly help the country? To say anyone with $X shouldn't be President sounds like profiling. Why not just disagree with his policies or actions? As far as relevant experience, Bloomberg was the Mayor of NYC and has managed a large organization. That's a lot more government and leadership experience than Trump or Obama had. Plenty of other…
It's flippant, but here's a simple test.
> has managed a large organization
If that's your justification for why you should be president, then you aren't actually qualified to be president. There is no business on earth that would adequately prepare someone to be president.
> Obama
Obama was a US senator for 4 years and a state senator 7 more.
> Trump
Is a disaster. Bloomberg would also be a disaster.
Re: Bloomberg bankrolls a social-media army
#540Why is it healthy for American democracy to have an oligarch purchase the U.S. Presidency like a shiny, new yacht?
George Washington lost his first campaign to the Virginia House of Burgess in 1755, 271-40. When he ran again 3 years later he gave away 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, 34 gallons of wine, 46 gallons of beer, and two gallons of cider royal — "nearly enough for a half-gallon per voter." And guess what, he won. Considering we wouldn't even declare independence until 18 years later, it's safe to say that buy…
We're supposed to leave some things behind. America was founded as a white supremacist and extremely classist nation. We should be trying to fight those tendencies, not embrace them.