Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Sanders Thread: Post you nerds!

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 27 Apr 2016, 21:01
Trump does want to re-negotiate NATO and remove foreign American bases. He also doesn't want to antagonize Russia or Syria in the process of fighting ISIS. He's even said he wants to renegotiate TPP and NAFTA, though I'm not sure what the terms would be since he's said he thinks Americans' wages are too high. Overall, these are good things that do shake up the Republican establishment. They're the sole reason why I prefer Trump over Cruz for the Republican nomination.

Versus Clinton though, I really don't think the good outweighs the bad:

He also wants to replace our forces in East Asia with nuclearized South Korea and Japan, which antagonizes North Korea to a degree not even seen by Bush. Clinton represents the status quo here and would do nothing differently from Obama in the Pacific.

Trump has said repeatedly he'd tear up the Iran deal, reopening the door to war with Iran through ending an inspection regime that blocks nuclear weaponry. This is something the Republican base wants, and Trump would at least have to renegotiate and tighten the noose further to save face. If he does nothing, he looks bad. Clinton supports the extant deal.

Trump has openly considered using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East which is fundamentally insane and beyond anything bog-standard hawks like Clinton have ever dreamed of in Libya and Syria. They empower Islamist fanatics by overthrowing secular dictators. This overthrows the standard of "let's not use weaponry that can kill a whole city; we don't want to live in Fallout kthx" and would lead to ISIS-on-steroids in blowback.

As my Latino friends are want to point out, Trump is also considerably more likely to find some excuse to intervene in Mexico's drug war beyond the standard DEA involvement you see now. Illegal aliens being actively dangerous is literally the only way you could get his mass deportation policies passed and not disappoint his base. Not every "anti-establishment" movement is preferable to the establishment. A certain Austrian corporal postured as "anti-establishment' too.

And I can't stress the unpredictability enough. Clinton is, in international relations terms, a "rational actor." She is totally predictable. She can be predicted to behave in a very set way that she has behaved over the course of her career. In her case this is negative, but it can be easily planned around and counteracted. Trump has about ten different positions on anything in any given day, and is prone to airing half of those in any given sentence in a bizarre stream-of-consciousness monologue. You can't plan around a madman.

I also think it's diminishing the word "neocon" to describe Clinton as it; she is a liberal hawk, the neocons are a specific faction of people who left the Democratic Party over disagreement with the Great Society and McGovern's more dovish foreign policy stance. She's in-line with her husband's foreign policy. While negative, the neocons despised her husband more than anyone over his role in the Oslo Accords and "just" maintaining starvation-level sanctions rather than going back in and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares covers this pretty well.

As for Dagoth's points; Marx advocated for coalitioning with soc-dems on specific issues like wage reform in a parliamentary context, while always pushing further than them both within and without of parliament.

It's true that Sanders would be unable to pass half of his platform without a broad-based movement, and look like a failure. Whether that failure would be seen as from the left ("socialism fails") or from the right ("he was gridlocked by Republicans and/or he was a traitor") is up for debate. Certainly Obama's base, the youth and black voters, and including anyone who supports Sanders today views Obama the latter way. Viewing him the latter way helps, does not hurt, us. It highlights how the system is rigged against popular left-wing reform.

If anything, not having soc-dem leadership allows future people like Sanders to claim to be "a real alternative," further hamstringing the left with future candidacies like Sanders'. Whereas a Sanders victory shifts the "overton window," the range of acceptable discourse in America, leftward. Sanders' failure in office would show Bolshevism over Menshevism as the only credible answer, while getting somewhat more substantive reform than we'd see under a standard DLC liberal, lessening human misery in the process.

I have noticed people who believe it'd be seen as a failure from the right tend to be older folks and people from deep-red states, where "socialism" is still a dirty word in either case. My boyfriend (from Arkansas) thought Sanders would lose badly in a general election because of the "socialism" word, but polling consistently showed independent voters went for Sanders even more than Clinton. There appears to be a huge disconnect generationally and regionally, I think it's telling.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 28 Apr 2016, 20:42, edited 9 times in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 21:43
In reality, there is no Menshevik or Bolshevik wing in America, and never has been. The CPUSA was a propaganda tool of the CPSU as far back as the Browder days, and seriously missed its chance during that era by taking funds and dictation from Comrade Stalin rather than pursuing an independent, locale-specific course.

If the disgruntlement over Clinton cronyism carrying the nomination continues, we might just see the founding of a real left wing party that may, in time, be the focus of radical social change. And, if it does split into wings, the last thing they'll call themselves will be Mensheviki and Bolsheviki.

Furthermore, when was the time for radical workers' action in this country? 1930? 1968? Why no uprising? (he asked rhetorically). And why any better chance in 2016 or 2020 when the middle class is all but counted out as a force for change? The slow death of the petit bourgeoisie, indeed.

We've been so potty-trained by the media to recognize the given definition of "terrorism" that picking up a gun automatically discredits the cause in which it is raised. The stupid farce Cliven Bundy pulled is proof of that. Do you really expect a People's Liberation Army to grow up around the memory of Bernie Sanders?

If there was going to be an uprising in this country, it would surely come after an untimely prevalence of incidents such as the one illustrated below.

Michael Moore wrote:
Dear President Obama --
Finally, after months of us begging you to come to Flint, you've decided to visit next Wednesday. I know this will make many people happy and grateful. But, as one who voted for you twice and was thrilled beyond belief over your election, I'm sorry to tell you your visit is too little too late.

You say you're coming to "listen to the people of Flint." Sir, they've been poisoned for two damn years. You've known about it since October. There's nothing to listen to. Unless you're bringing the entire U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to dig up and replace the 75,000 lead pipes, plus the Attorney General to arrest Governor Rick Snyder, then this is just another photo-op and half-baked list of new promises we don't need. If you're coming to make one of those "we need to rebuild America's infrastructure" speeches, don't bother. This is NOT an infrastructure problem - it's a hate crime and mass poisoning of Black and poor people that NEVER would happen if this were Bloomfield Hills or Grosse Pointe or any other white town. It was done in order to give a billion-dollar tax cut to the rich.

Every child here now has some form of permanent brain damage. There is NOTHING you can do to reverse that for them. There is no cure. Again, they are Black, they are poor. Do you have a cure for that? Because THAT's the only reason why this has happened. Flint's infrastructure was just fine (or what passes for fine these days in the USA). This poisoning happened because the governor said "Cut services!" -- and so one of the first services he cut was to seal off the clean drinking water pipeline from the Great Lakes and make the poor and the Black of Flint drink dirty water from the drainage ditch you and others call "the Flint River." We haven't called it that for years. I'd drink my own piss before I'd drink out of that sewer.

We don't need any more visits from politicians, even one as beloved as you. We don't need any more promises of testing. We don't need any more token digging up of pipes made rancid by the Flint River water that flowed through them (of the 75,000 pipes that need replacing, a total of 39 - 39!! - have been dug up and removed since you met with the mayor in the White House back in January). Meanwhile the poisoning continues on daily basis, even with the Lake Huron water that has been restored because it's flowing through lead-damaged pipes with a new chemical that now burns people's skin.

So unless you're bringing the U.S. Army with you to save 100,000 of your fellow Americans, and unless you're going to arrest the governor of Michigan who has now killed more Americans than ISIS, you might as well stay home. The riots here, I'm certain, will begin sometime soon. That's what you or I would do if someone was poisoning OUR kids and the government refused to stop it, right?

With respect, admiration and profound disappointment,

Michael Moore
Flint native
Michigan resident
Obama supporter
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 04 May 2016, 08:27
So, VP theories.

Clinton:

If she's smart - Elizabeth Warren. She would bring in most of the elements of Bernie's base who are planning on staying home, as a popular figure with the left of the party. A bit more hawkish and pro-AIPAC than Sanders, but otherwise not much different. She's been very forthright on Wall Street regulation, restoring Glass-Steagal, and ending Taft-Hartley. More importantly, running against two women would rile up Trump and set him in full Archie Bunker mode. His first reaction would inevitably be freaking out over "feminazis and PC types throwing men out," the reaction I've generally heard to the idea of a Clinton/Warren ticket. Easily rebutted with: "aside from Mondale/Ferraro '84 and McCain/Palin '08, literally every ticket has been two men." You would see women voters coming out in landslide numbers against Trump.

Most likely - Julian Castro. Picking a young Latino leads to favorable coverage for a few weeks, Clinton's candidacy is seen as even more historic and symbolic than it otherwise was. Unfortunately, Castro is pro-NAFTA, pro-TPP, weak on climate change, and in general firmly in the DLC wing of the party. Change on the outside, continuity on the inside.

Trump:

If he's smart - Newt Gingrich. The only person who could become more hateable than Trump for most people, and thus Cheney-like assassination insurance. Also actually a smart man who Trump could easily rely on for advice. It'd be terrible for most people, Gingrich has always been firmly part of the "bomb Iran" caucus, was a key player in the NAFTA sellout, and has similar dangerously authoritarian tendencies. But he's always been the uber-policy wonk, where Trump knows nothing about politics beyond salesmanship. And Gingrich has a similar firebrand appeal and tendency to piss off the GOP's leadership, with credibility backing it up from his record as Speaker of the House in the 90s. Including experience outfoxing Bill Clinton on welfare reform.

Most likely - Ben Carson. Trump's ego can't take someone too independent, with too strong a record of competence. He can't be outshined. More importantly, impeachment insurance. If Trump were to trip up in office, of course that would be jumped on. The Republicans would be the first to do it, and would certainly go along with the Democrats in it, if a respected party leader were in the VP slot, so they could tear off the Trump leech and put their own man in office. He needs someone as un-establishment as possible. Also, he'd likely use Carson as a bludgeon against accusations of racism, with: "see? I have a token black guy!"
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2016, 04:06
Sorry for the double-post, but slight edit on "if he's smart" for Trump: Jan Brewer of Arizona. Unlike Gingrich, she doesn't instinctively piss off anyone not already going to vote for Trump. This means she is not assassination or impeachment insurance. We'd be more cautious about it than otherwise, her immigrant bill was very draconianly "your papers, please" and the thought of President Brewer would thus unnerve the Kochs and country club types, who love having slave labor. But aside from that one specific issue, she's a pretty nondescript figure ideologically.

But, she would weaken the "Trump is Archie Bunker" narrative. And her gubernatorial experience would benefit Trump, plus reinforcing the hardline nativist message which is unfortunately popular with many Americans. Gingrich would be fear-bait for a presidency, Brewer would help Trump electorally.

Plus, despite the fact that he was ousted as Speaker by a coup from his own party for leading them on a quixotic path to destruction, there are certain small segments of the GOP leadership who are fine with the idea of President Gingrich. Neocons who love his Iran policies, and I think the Kochs could accept his grandiose insanity if he promised similar "slash and burn" to the '90s. I probably overestimated his power to keep the Republican leadership at bay. Gingrich is, for the record, being floated by Trump surrogates pretty heavily in the media right now. If he goes for it, those supporting him on here will eat their words. But I do personally think Brewer would be the smarter pick, even for him.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 May 2016, 04:42
Trump would love nothing more than to pick Sarah Palin, if only she still had some electoral value beyond the most rabid Tea Party no-hopers.

He is currently vetting a whole slew of Sith Empire veterans for his cabinet, so the idea of calling on Newt is certainly plausible.

I still wonder if he'll ultimately pick Chris Christie or Ben Carson. Christie's flatulent, loud mouthed, Jersey demeanor is certainly a fitting analog for the relationship of New York and New Jersey: Arrogant, fancy pants, big money NY and smelly, overcompensating, perpetually needy little brother NJ.

Carson, on the other hand, is the perfect example of crafty hands attached to an empty suit. He can surgically remove Trump's brain in the event of a major trauma and have it percolating in a mason jar for many moons to come. The ultimate insurance!
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 May 2016, 04:42
Seems to be no way to delete double posts, so here's a pic of a young Bernie Sanders getting static from the man in Chi-town.

Also, if Chaz were here, he'd add a snarky commentary on my use of the phrase "Chi-town." RIP Chaz.

Image
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 06 May 2016, 05:07, edited 1 time in total.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2016, 05:01
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Trump would love nothing more than to pick Sarah Palin, if only she still had some electoral value beyond the most rabid Tea Party no-hopers.

Her endorsement of him revealed she has no effing idea what he does for a living. "This is a man who made his money making big stakes! He makes money in the marketplace where nobody's too big to fail, not with those bureaucrats in Washington! This is a man who builds things!" He looked at her like she was ridiculous through the whole thing.

She's an irrelevant joke who nobody really cares about anymore besides the all of five Christian Right fanatics who voted for Huckabee and Santorum. You can pretty much take a random word generator and make a Sarah Palin speech, it'll always be some variation on: "America freedom apple pie maverick mama grizzly Toby Keith Chuck Norris Hulk Hogan."

Quote:
I still wonder if he'll ultimately pick Chris Christie or Ben Carson. Christie's flatulent, loud mouthed, Jersey demeanor is certainly a fitting analog for the relationship of New York and New Jersey: Arrogant, fancy pants, big money NY and smelly, overcompensating, perpetually needy little brother NJ.

Carson, on the other hand, is the perfect example of crafty hands attached to an empty suit. He can surgically remove Trump's brain in the event of a major trauma and have it percolating in a mason jar for many moons to come. The ultimate insurance!

I think Carson is extremely likely, about as much so as Gingrich if not more.

Trump would definitely at least give Eye Of Newt a cabinet post, he's been one of Trump's lead advisors. (Another reason to say no to Trump, kiddies.) But in as visible a post as VP? Their egos could easily clash, these are two narcissistic megalomaniacs who popped out of a comic book. Vader and Palpatine, Megatron and Starscream, towering evil overlord and the creepy mastermind behind him. As we all know, the supervillains eventually end up killing each-other in the end because they can't cooperate. I think Gingrich would start acting like he's co-President, and Trump with his hatred of delegation would never stand for that. Unless he's an idiot, and I actually don't think he is, he'd realize this before picking Gingrich.

Carson, meanwhile, in Trump's mind would deflect racism charges and is literally quite possibly the most boring man alive. He would in no way overshadow the nominee, he appears to have no ego worth speaking about. And he has no ties to the Republican leadership whatsoever; of the three I listed, he is legitimately the best insurance against something befalling Trump. The only question is whether Trump meant what he said about being personally weirded out by Carson or not, and whether or not he can get past that. As someone who gets the creeps from Carson and does not understand the baffling fragging movement that sprung up around him, who sort of liked Trump mocking him, I get the feeling it was genuine. But the way I think Trump will think about it, if Carson is willing to debase himself by being VP to a guy who pushed him around anyway, who is he to complain?

Christie, I'm sure he wants VP, but probably Secretary of Homeland Security or Attorney General. He provides no regional balance. The ticket is very Northeastern; very Springsteen middle-America for people from there, very "those two loud assholes who root for the Yankees" to everyone else. And Christie's record as Governor frankly is not great, he's encountered a budget crisis even despite his social service cutbacks. Plus both the majority of Democrats and Republican leadership would unambiguously prefer him to Trump in the White House, odious as he is. If Trump does it, it's over their personal friendship. But I think it'd be a very dumb idea politically.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 06 May 2016, 05:20, edited 7 times in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2016, 05:01
Accidental double-post, please delete?
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 May 2016, 05:26
If Trump really wanted to go 10 for 10 style wise, he'd ask Carly Fiorina. I can picture Cruz's head splitting open at the seams to reveal his alien worm leech origins upon getting the news. Plus, imagine Trump's hilarious press conference hype: "I took pity on the little lady! She was gonna Cruz to lose, and I pulled her tootsies out of the fire! Now that's charity, people! My heart is YUGE!"
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2016, 05:32
Comrade Gulper wrote:
If Trump really wanted to go 10 for 10 style wise, he'd ask Carly Fiorina.

Total disaster. Speaking as someone whose family are mostly in the tech industry: her record as CEO of Hewlett-Packard was terribad. It completely imploded as a company, it is now two different companies. She also is hated in her "home state" (actually born and raised in Texas), per literally every Californian I talk to and the terrible vote tallies in her Senate run against (popular, pretty consistently left-wing) Barbara Boxer prove it.

Her high intelligence clearance as one of the CIA's top tech advisors, plus status as protege of NSA-warrantless-surveillance-mastermind Michael Hayden, might lend him foreign policy cred and support from within the Beltway bureaucracy which he otherwise lacks, that's about it.

And lest we forget, she's prone to doing weird shit like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww-WBx9ASI0

Quote:
Plus, imagine Trump's hilarious press conference hype: "I took pity on the little lady! She was gonna Cruz to lose, and I pulled her tootsies out of the fire! Now that's charity, people! My heart is YUGE!"

Ohkay, I could definitely see that happening.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 06 May 2016, 05:49, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 May 2016, 05:48
The trouble is that we've seen all 17 of the Republican "front runners." There aren't many unknowns for Trump to tap, and as he insulted every last one of them, it really does come down to who is lily livered enough (or simply cynically pragmatic enough) to shake it off and take the post. I can only imagine it would be Christie or Carson, as the rest of the pack just don't fit the bill. Kasich would actually be the best choice, but I seriously doubt he'll be asked (although I do think he'd take the gig in a heartbeat).

The only Republican I think that would turn down a Veep offer, sight unseen, would be Jeb. It would be tantamount to admitting he's the under-Bush in the family.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 06 May 2016, 05:54
Comrade Gulper wrote:
The trouble is that we've seen all 17 of the Republican "front runners." There aren't many unknowns for Trump to tap, and as he insulted every last one of them, it really does come down to who is lily livered enough (or simply cynically pragmatic enough) to shake it off and take the post. I can only imagine it would be Christie or Carson, as the rest of the pack just don't fit the bill.

Of the 17, I'd agree. Clearly the Trump campaign is also highly considering his close advisor Gingrich considering how many surrogates have been floating that idea recently, though.

I haven't seen anything proposing Jan Brewer, but she seems to me like the best possible pick for him.

Quote:
Kasich would actually be the best choice, but I seriously doubt he'll be asked (although I do think he'd take the gig in a heartbeat).

Kasich has ads out there pretty openly declaring Trump a fascist, Mussolini parallels and all. Would he take the post anyway? I'm sure. He's sort of a hapless asshole. But Trump would never offer it to him, not after that.

Quote:
The only Republican I think that would turn down a Veep offer, sight unseen, would be Jeb. It would be tantamount to admitting he's the under-Bush in the family.

I think Jeb would take it if offered. I think Trump would never give it to him with how much infighting they had, but Jeb Bush would take the post on the grounds that Trump would then be relying on his wonkishness on economic policy. He'd feel like co-President. Like Fredo and Moe Greene, a bit of respect would go a long way.

And then, if something were to "happen" to Trump, maybe an impeachment effort participated in by the Republicans or an assassination on a state visit in Latin America... President Bush III.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 May 2016, 06:12
I can see Poppy Bush explaining this to Jeb, and Jeb ultimately (reluctantly, but ultimately) accepting this logic. I do think it would rankle with him in a way that would make his relations with Trump extremely uncomfortable. Even if the worst (for Trump, that is) occurred, he would probably still be considered a "back door" President in the vein of Gerald Ford, no matter what he went to achieve (which wouldn't be much).

A Jeb Presidency would basically consist of the Middle Eastern conflict dragging on, three new Supreme Court appointments that might finally overturn Roe v. Wade and Obamacare, and a new wave of right to work laws and corporate bailouts. Oh, and no change whatsoever on current immigration policy, except tougher restrictions on admittance for selected individuals of Arabic descent.

Update: Here's a stunner. Mary Matalin, the Republican strategist wife of, err, Democratic strategist James Carville, has switched her allegiance to the Libertarian Party.

So many things to unpack here. She's not a "front runner", but a long time conservative pundit whose words have a great deal more positive impact on right wing thought than a blathering idiot like Palin. Matalin leaving the fold, at least temporarily, carries more weight than when Glenn Beck or Pat Buchanan became unforgivable heretics.

Second, she claims this decision has nothing to do with Trump's nomination. In which case, why now? Third, she rattles off the old Jeffersonian rhetoric that Libertards love to parrot, yet isn't a Trump supporter. What gives? Who exemplifies the Randian virtues better than The Donald? He's a billionaire, he's a "builder", his attitude toward women is pushing the boundaries of rapey in fine John Galt fashion.

You can never win with Republican women. Nothing is YUGE enough to please 'em!
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 07 May 2016, 08:15
First off, totally agreed on your read of Jeb Bush. His presidency would be his brother's all over again. There is no difference on domestic policy. His father would probably have a bigger role for as long as he stays alive, Jeb was always daddy's favorite. That means more caution on foreign policy; Poppy just wanted to prop up his feudal oil buddies, he never wanted to "democratize the Middle East." But Jeb did take in some of the PNAC neocon crowd, I think the Bush dynasty has made some peace with the old Team B/Rumsfeldian faction.

Also, I recant slightly on the email issue. I say slightly because, I still believe any leak of classified information is excruciatingly unlikely to be prosecuted. With the amount of classified information the Secretary of State handles, some small bit will inevitably slip.

A more important issue would be Freedom of Information Act stuff; the issue apparently does not extend to just the Benghazi pseudo-scandal. Clinton Foundation graft is also at issue here, wherein Bill was paid to speak in some country and then the State Department did them some small favor. If there is any evidence of that on the server, that would be illegal both on the face of it and a violation of FOIA for not being marked for declassification at a future date.

I think the Foundation scandal is real based on the evidence I've seen, but it's less than likely they left a paper trail. Thus, an indictment is less likely than not. Still, if it happened... I'd still vote for felon-Clinton or her inevitable replacement (Sanders/Biden/*insert VP pick here* if after the convention) over madman-Trump, but the DLC Democrats would be entirely to blame for President Trumpf after thinking it's a great idea to put forward a candidate with 12 FBI agents on her tail. If Trump also gets (almost certainly rightly) indicted over Trump University, I think you see riots.

As for Trump and Randianism: let's not forget, Trump is a moocher. Trump is a taker. Trump is not the libertarian self-made entrepreneurial Aryan overman. He inherited the bulk of his fortune and was bailed out from bankruptcy numerous times by the Treasury. My guess is Randroids view him more as the villain of an Ayn Rand novel. Oh, and Howard Roark (hero of The Fountainhead) was the rapey one, John Galt just kind of shows up in the middle of Atlas Shrugged to give a tl;dr speech that lasts 100 pages.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 07 May 2016, 23:27
It would be an unprecedented move for one, or both, front running candidates to be disbarred from the convention. Plus, it would certainly be the ultimate black eye on American politics for the two "standard bearers" to be exposed as felons.

Of course, there's also a flip side to this, consisting of the fact that, a la Watergate, "the system worked" and the bad guys were caught and punished. Only thing is, who's going to announce that "Our long national nightmare is over?" Paul Ryan? Nancy Pelosi?


We'll have a much clearer idea of things once the VP candidates are finally announced. I wish they'd get on with it already.

I think one of the most immediate benefits of overturning the Citizens United ruling might be to restore the election cycle back to a manageable duration.

Oh, and Miss S is right about "Atlas Shrugged." I never read that crappy tome, or saw any of the films, and my ignorance shows!
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 08 May 2016, 00:50
Comrade Gulper wrote:
It would be an unprecedented move for one, or both, front running candidates to be disbarred from the convention. Plus, it would certainly be the ultimate black eye on American politics for the two "standard bearers" to be exposed as felons.

Of course, there's also a flip side to this, consisting of the fact that, a la Watergate, "the system worked" and the bad guys were caught and punished. Only thing is, who's going to announce that "Our long national nightmare is over?" Paul Ryan? Nancy Pelosi?

Pelosi is an incompetent party leader and an unlikely replacement at a convention for Clinton due to her unpopularity. Biden has been outright stated to be the leadership's preference, it could be Bernie if we protest, also Gore and Warren might be considered as compromise candidates. Her VP candidate, likely Julian Castro, could also push for it.

Five of the six listed are preferable to Hillary Clinton though; Biden is slightly better on foreign policy as Obama-continuity in every sense, Gore and Pelosi are better on almost every issue but just don't fight hard for anything, Warren is probably the second-best Senator with only some slight weakness on the Israel/Palestine question, and Bernie is Bernie. I would say Castro is par with Clinton, there is no significant difference between them anywhere.

President Ryan... it beats Trump's abject unpredictability, it would still be a Bush retread. And I do think Paul Ryan is a likely replacement for Trump at a convention. Cruz as runner-up would also play for it, and whoever Trump had tapped for VP might try to rile up his movement for his own purposes. I think Gingrich or Christie would, Carson is too hapless to try that.

Quote:
I think one of the most immediate benefits of overturning the Citizens United ruling might be to restore the election cycle back to a manageable duration.

I'm not so sure. 2008, which did operate under McCain-Feingold and was pre-Citizens United, had an even more ridiculously long election cycle. You had the process start at the end of 2006, literally the minute the midterms ended. Sure, McCain-Feingold was near-toothless so you had plenty of corporate money floating around. But I'd be surprised if that money was the main cause of this in particular.

I think it's more the 24-hour news cycle needing things to report on, and the use of the internet in grassroots campaigning (pioneered by Dean in '04, used by everyone in '08 and best by Obama) letting everyone feel involved, and YouTube allows every statement any candidate makes to be scrutinized. Basically, we're probably stuck with this, best to just get over it.

Quote:
Oh, and Miss S is right about "Atlas Shrugged." I never read that crappy tome, or saw any of the films, and my ignorance shows!

As a novel, The Fountainhead actually is not bad. It's the story of one man's struggle with collusion between corporate and government bureaucracy. An architect with a vision, whose artistic integrity is trampled on by "the man." Her taking libertarian conclusions from this shows some utopianism, the established companies did what they will always do to upstarts. Co-opt or crush. But it's pretty inspiring, admittedly. Aside from the fact that the hero is a rapist.

Atlas Shrugged is pretty awful. It starts off like a Fountainhead retread, which is good. Then it meanders into 100-page speeches. And it's much more explicitly libertarian.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2016, 01:47
I've never read either of her two giant opuses (opi?), but I did read her "Objectivism" manifesto in order to get the distilled scoop on what her "philosophy" consists of. Basically Nietzsche with a sex change, or Machiavelli for right leaning entrepreneurs. Coherent and logical enough, but repellent in the extreme.

Ayn Rand was born into an impossible political situation where she could never support either the Tsar or the Bolsheviks. She would have been much happier in the Georgian days of naked laissez faire capitalism, except that she willfully forgets that women were relegated to the kitchens and salon parlors and never allowed near the actual levers of power. Although, to be fair, I always got the feeling that she was never very happy with being a woman to begin with.

As for replacements, yes, I'd moot Ryan for President and someone like Gingrich or Kasich for VP. On the Democratic side, the establishment would very likely prefer Biden or Warren. I haven't made up my mind as to who would be a likely VP under such circumstances - especially if Bernie's momentum carries him all the way to the actual nomination process.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 08 May 2016, 02:00
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I've never read either of her two giant opuses (opi?), but I did read her "Objectivism" manifesto in order to get the distilled scoop on what her "philosophy" consists of. Basically Nietzsche with a sex change, or Machiavelli for right leaning entrepreneurs. Coherent and logical enough, but repellent in the extreme.

Nietzsche plus incoherent scrambled Aristotle for logical justifications is probably the best way to put it, though she'd claim she's the "heir to Aristotle" and that Nietzsche was an "irrationalist who believed in emotion over reason." This is because she was an obnoxious bitch who liked to pretend that her biases were the "objective, logical" way to view things, down to being a non-smoker being "illogical" because the fire is a symbol for the promethean spark of the mind. Of course, she did eventually get lung cancer.

Machiavelli would have effing loathed her, considering he was all about that income equality. Even Nietzsche would have disliked her even though their elitism was shared, because he'd find her compulsive need to view herself as a Vulcan-like supremely rational being ridiculous.

Quote:
Ayn Rand was born into an impossible political situation where she could never support either the Tsar or the Bolsheviks. She would have been much happier in the Georgian days of naked laissez faire capitalism, except that she willfully forgets that women were relegated to the kitchens and salon parlors and never allowed near the actual levers of power. Although, to be fair, I always got the feeling that she was never very happy with being a woman to begin with.

Actually, she believed it was a woman's natural place to be submissive, to "worship the male" and to assist that masculine drive as much as we can. She opposed the idea of a female President on those "logical" get-back-in-the-kitchen grounds.

Quote:
As for replacements, yes, I'd moot Ryan for President and someone like Gingrich or Kasich for VP. On the Democratic side, the establishment would very likely prefer Biden or Warren. I haven't made up my mind as to who would be a likely VP under such circumstances - especially if Bernie's momentum carries him all the way to the actual nomination process.

Gingrich would want the top slot if he were Trump's VP pick, he'd only be VP under Ryan if the establishment thought that was needed to quell the Trump forces in the event of an indictment. Considering how badly they'd protest a coup of that kind, you'd be more likely to see Gingrich in the top slot and some establishment type or potentially Cruz under him. Ryan would be who the establishment forces would put forward though.

And I don't think the establishment would want Warren per se, she does scare the hell out of Wall Street with her calls for a Wall Street sales tax, restoration of Glass-Steagal, and a number of other things that stop their gambling. But they'd probably put her forward as an attempted compromise if we protest their attempt to pull out Biden. She's slightly more amenable than Sanders. If we continued to push, I think they'd ultimately settle for Sanders considering he just is not so radical they'd fight him tooth and nail. Plus, there are concerns over how goofy Warren's claim of being American Indian on the Harvard faculty might look. She claims being "part Indian" is a since-debunked family legend; a lot of American families have myths like that, but it also looks a lot like a self-serving affirmative action lie.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 May 2016, 04:07
The "part Native American" thing is just ludicrous. I don't think it will tar Warren with any permanent opprobrium, but it does reek of cultural cosplay in a manner that doesn't do her any particular favors.

The big news is that Bernie has apparently switched managers for the upcoming California primary. This is definitely the make or break moment for the Sanders campaign. Losing in Texas and New York were bad blows for Bernie, but he can really make a comeback if he can take California. It won't blast him into the lead, but it will definitely garner him some much needed delegates.

Also, kudos to Maine for disassembling the superdelegate system in their state. Here's hoping more states follow suit in the very near future.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 12 May 2016, 05:26
I hope so, the superdelegate system is ridiculous and undemocratic in the extreme.

But if Bernie wins California, all he gets is more ability to pull Clinton leftward. Without a 75% or greater vote win, which he won't get, he still loses the nomination. His only real chance is an indictment.

Also, in further evidence that Trump supporters are dupes: his new financial advisor? Goldman Sachs board member. As in, a board member of the same company he attacked Cruz's wife for being an executive in.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.