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
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2016, 03:19
Miss Strangelove wrote:
How so?

On purely pragmatic grounds, you're correct. Deals were made, money changed hands, and, yes, Barack probably is bound to recognize her.

On ethical grounds, the two of them should probably burst into flames anytime the word "ethics" is mentioned but, of the two, Hillary is by far the more offensive.

I do think a parliamentary system would be far more representative of the American public. On the other hand, it does sort of feed into class and sectional divisions. And there may be less incentive to reach bi(tri? quadri?)partisan agreements on major policy issues when you only need a certain percentage of the vote to sign a measure into law.

Some definite pros and cons there, to be sure, but I do wonder if it's high time the two party system was updated to accurately reflect an increasingly fragmented and polarized society.
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 10 Jun 2016, 03:24
Comrade Gulper wrote:
On purely pragmatic grounds, you're correct. Deals were made, money changed hands, and, yes, Barack probably is bound to recognize her.

It's not even about "deals were made, money changed hands."

Clinton got the nomination. She got the majority in the popular vote. She is the candidate, of course the leader of her party (the sitting President) endorsed his successor. I supported her opponent in the primary, but I don't see the issue.

Quote:
I do think a parliamentary system would be far more representative of the American public.

Definitely agreed.

Quote:
On the other hand, it does sort of feed into class and sectional divisions. And there may be less incentive to reach bi(tri? quadri?)partisan agreements on major policy issues when you only need a certain percentage of the vote to sign a measure into law.

That's not how it works in a country like Sweden, which has proportional representation and a parliamentary system. It forces coalition-building, because you need like 40% of the Parliament to sit in office. Other parties that are loosely affiliated with you but a bit more "fringe" have to be represented, meaning more peoples' ideas get represented. It tends to mean more stability, not less. When coalition-building breaks down, you see the government replaced with a coalition that can actually serve.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 10 Jun 2016, 03:38
The difference is that Sweden, as far as I am aware, isn't big enough to be split into sectional identities like the United States. Of course, they have their far right and progressive left political divisions, but the country as a whole is far more compact and the population more homogeneous than ours. A multi-party system in our country would definitely reflect sectionally-based (i.e., North and South) class, cultural, and religious divisions in a way that doesn't trouble any European parliament in the present day.

That being said, I'm all for making the experiment. Anything is better than having to tote a brown paper bag into the voting booth to choose between the evils of two lessers.

Also...wow...just came across this!

Looks like Jill Stein is offering Bernie Sanders the chance to run on the Green Party ticket after all.
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 11 Jun 2016, 00:01
(Reposted from Mir so that more people can read the various articles if they haven't already)

If anyone needed proof that things have quickly returned to Business As Usual in Hillarydom:

Rolling Stone does the unthinkable and actually publishes an article worth reading.

Here's another article worth pondering

Quote:
LESTER HOLT: You gave him kudos in your speech last night for igniting a part of the party, a part of the electorate out there. What ideas--can you name one idea that he's put forward that you want to embrace? That he has really changed your position on?

SEC. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, it's not that so much as the passion that he brought to the goals that--his campaign set. I share the goals. We have different approaches about how to get there, but we are going to get to universal healthcare coverage we are going to raise the national minimum wage, we are going to make college affordable and we are going to crack down on abuses in the financial markets that might harm Main Street again.


Oh, and let's not forget "Rabid Sanders Supporters Trash Elizabeth Warren" and "Sanders Supporters Vow To Cast Protest Votes For Trump."

This also: As of today, two million California primary ballots remain uncounted.

Slick Hilly is some awesome piece of work.
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 11 Jun 2016, 05:15
Elizabeth Warren is auditioning for VP extremely publicly.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2016, 06:07
Warren is left-er-ish than Hillary, but more hawkish than Bernie.

Sort of the female Howard Dean in some ways, although not as over the top enthusiastic. I like her well enough, in an only slightly uneasy "best of what we've got" sort of way.

20 years ago, I actually had hopes for Ed Rendell to one day become a major player in the party, but he's pretty much topped out at Governor and not pursued anything beyond picking up pool money as a MSNBC talking head.

Harry Reid, ehh. I feel about the same for him as I do Biden. Nice enough guys, but not true heavyweights.

Oscar Goodman was hilarious as Mayor of Las Vegas, but would be sharing a cell with Blagojevich in any other region of the country.
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 11 Jun 2016, 06:26
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Warren is left-er-ish than Hillary, but more hawkish than Bernie.

She's slightly weaker on Israel/Palestine, still pretty solid overall on foreign policy. She was good on Syria, criticized for exactly that by New(ly) Republic(an). She also has a long record of scaring the hell out of Wall Street, they funded Scott Brown to the hilt against her and she's decisively acted on her campaign promises in the Senate. Her main issues have been restoring Glass-Steagal, ending Taft-Hartley, getting in a Tobin tax (Wall Street sales tax), and reform of the corporate college system. I definitely would not describe her as just "left-er-ish of Hillary" and vehemently disagree with the Bernie types who are writing her off as an establishment shill because she endorsed their opponent after she already won and is not their cult figure.

Picking her would be an effort to appeal to the Bernie crowd, by taking the second-most progressive person in the Senate. With the understanding with Clinton's donors that you either back Clinton/Warren or you back an unpredictable lunatic like Trump. They'll mostly take the ticket with the solid soc-dem VP over the fascist, it's not like we're seeing a Bolshevik upheaval yet where fascism looks like the better option to them. Oh, and running against two women will set Trump's toupee on fire.

Quote:
Sort of the female Howard Dean in some ways, although not as over the top enthusiastic. I like her well enough, in an only slightly uneasy "best of what we've got" sort of way.

Howard Dean was a Rockefeller Republican as Governor of Vermont ("socially liberal/fiscally conservative"), whose record was actually right of John Kerry's. He also was a horrendous DNC Chair whose "50 state strategy" was a disaster that entailed an abject lack of strategic thinking, he continually weakened progressive candidates with his "we'll provide equal funds to all Democratic candidates" policy. In doing so, he is directly responsible for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz The left-wing base only supported him on foreign policy grounds, where he was at best mildly left of Kerry because he was louder about "we should have gotten UN permission first." The Dean movement was ridiculous and he's an entirely different figure.

Quote:
20 years ago, I actually had hopes for Ed Rendell to one day become a major player in the party, but he's pretty much topped out at Governor and not pursued anything beyond picking up pool money as a MSNBC talking head.

Ed Rendell is the epitome of a DLC, Wall Street shill type. He'd be worse than Hillary Clinton, about par with Cory Booker or Mark Warner or some other asshole of that ilk.

Quote:
Harry Reid, ehh. I feel about the same for him as I do Biden. Nice enough guys, but not true heavyweights.

Biden has a mixed record. His policing/War on Drugs record is atrocious and his three-way partition plan of Iraq would have likely led to Balkans-style disaster, but he also was at the forefront of the effort to stay out of Syria in the Obama administration and has also been the left of the administration on healthcare reform. Overall, he's okay and I think he's been a great Vice President, he's been a solid voice for progress and restraint in the administration. Typical of a Democrat from a semi-Southern state though, he has an unnerving top-down pro-authority streak.

Reid, I have little problem with any of his stances on the issues. He's been consistently left on almost every hot-button issue. His problem is the Pelosi problem. He hasn't been a fighter, which was excusable when he entered office since Nevada was a swing state that was recently Republican-leaning. Now, I wish he'd be more assertive.

Quote:
Oscar Goodman was hilarious as Mayor of Las Vegas, but would be sharing a cell with Blagojevich in any other region of the country.

The other people I see being touted as VP candidates are Julian Castro, who is "change on the outside and continuity on the inside," as a firm NAFTA and TPP supporter who is only progressive by San Antonio standards. And Gavin Newsom, my Lieutenant Governor who is the closest thing to a Republican who's still electable in California. Solid record on gay rights issues, abjectly terrible and frankly right-wing on the issue of Wall Street reform.

Warren is by far the most public though.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 11 Jun 2016, 06:48, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2016, 06:46
I'll have to go back and reexamine Dean's voting record. I seem to have had a fairly (for my level of fairly) favorable-ish impression of him as at least no worse than the average idealist Gore type, although certainly no bona fide progressive.

Ed Rendell has degenerated considerably since his days as Mayor of Philadelphia. He started as an average moderate, turned rightward during his Governor days, and has mellowed somewhat (not enough) in recent MSNBC stints. He is still very much a Clinton crony, but shows flashes of independence on occasion.

Harry Reid represents the "Responsible" wing of the Democratic party that actually attempts to represent the state, whereas Oscar Goodman was the "Laissez Vegas" exemplar. His daughter who has succeeded him (!) as Mayor has much of his charm but is naturally closer to Reid in style.

I think it has to be Warren, and I'm fine with that. But I don't look for her to wield any real influence as VP. If/once Hillary gets in office, it will be straight back to Business As Usual, with the Progressive wing solidly outside looking in - and hopefully making good use of their time to send the Dems a nasty little surprise next time around.

I do hope I live to see the day when Green is the new Democrat.
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 11 Jun 2016, 06:56
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I'll have to go back and reexamine Dean's voting record. I seem to have had a fairly (for my level of fairly) favorable-ish impression of him as at least no worse than the average idealist Gore type, although certainly no bona fide progressive.

I was in early middle school at the time, but I got very active in politics 2 years later or so. I remember reading extensively about the race. Dean had a huge following in the American left, which I remembered because most of the teachers in my pretty left-of-center Beltway school supported him. But on matters of progressive taxation and corporate welfare, Dean actually had a pretty right-wing record and Kerry's record was decent in a "not a fighter" Reid or Pelosi sort of way.

He was louder about his opposition to Iraq, but his stance in its details was no different from Kerry's "it should have been a multinational UN coalition and we should have given the inspectors more time" cop-out non-answer to whether it was the right policy or not.

Quote:
Ed Rendell has degenerated considerably since his days as Mayor of Philadelphia. He started as an average moderate, turned rightward during his Governor days, and has mellowed somewhat (not enough) in recent MSNBC stints. He is still very much a Clinton crony, but shows flashes of independence on occasion.

...so, "moderate, turned rightward, has mellowed somewhat." None of this is sounding good? It reads to me like "centrist DLC hack, turned into a Blue Dog pseudo-Republican, and now is your average centrist hack again." Yeah. That sounds like Mark Warner. That somehow manages to be worse than Hillary.

Quote:
I think it has to be Warren, and I'm fine with that. But I don't look for her to wield any real influence as VP. If/once Hillary gets in office, it will be straight back to Business As Usual, with the Progressive wing solidly outside looking in - and hopefully making good use of their time to send the Dems a nasty little surprise next time around.

I think that's what Clinton and her donors would like, but I don't think Warren would keep entirely quiet. The student loan bubble is expected to pop in the next 2-6 years, that means another recession in the next presidential term. That is an avenue for serious reform, on one of Warren's key issues. And yes, I do expect a more agitated left-wing base.

Quote:
I do hope I live to see the day when Green is the new Democrat.

Likewise, and hopefully eventually Socialist the new Green.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 11 Jun 2016, 07:09, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2016, 07:05
When Socialist is the new Green, you'll have to visit me in the nursing home and shout down through my earpiece to give me the good news.

I kind of like Bernie in a respectful "Grandpa kicks some butt now and again" kind of way, and Elizabeth Warren strikes me as "Mom stands up for what she believes in and kicks butt." I sort of like these people in a general, social sort of way, but I don't feel "close" to them, or any of them, really.

When it comes to Socialism, I'm not really a people person. I'm an ultimate cause kind of person. That's selfish in a way, but it insulates me from attaching too deeply to a particular person rather than the underlying cause they represent.

Here and there, I do develop a vehement loathing for certain people. I guess that's the natural outcome of reserving so much personal judgment on so many others.

In the meantime, I'd say this sums it up neatly:

Image
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 11 Jun 2016, 07:19, 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 11 Jun 2016, 07:18
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I kind of like Bernie in a respectful "Grandpa kicks some butt now and again" kind of way, and Elizabeth Warren strikes me as "Mom stands up for what she believes in and kicks butt." I sort of like these people in a general, social sort of way, but I don't feel "close" to them, or any of them, really.

See, I don't really get much of a personal "I like them" vibe from either.

Bernie Sanders seems ultimately a likeable crotchety figure once you get to know him, but my first impression was "grumpy, stand-offish, kind of a jerk." It takes seeing the fact that he's being asked a given question for the billionth time to realize why he seems so stand-offish.

Elizabeth Warren, I get the same "crusading suburban mom" vibe now, but when I watched the Warren vs. Brown debates I actually got a "fussy head-in-the-clouds academic" impression. It takes looking at her actual record as an academic, with very concrete recommendations being touted by figures with a long record of challenging vested corporate interests from Tom Harkin to Eliot Spitzer, to see this isn't a bad thing.

For a personal "I like them" vibe, Joe Biden is a good example. And he's politically worse than both. Slightly better than Clinton, somewhat worse than Bernie. I also personally find Dubya pretty likeable, and I also consider him the worst President since the guy whose policies caused the Great Depression (Coolidge).

Quote:
When it comes to Socialism, I'm not really a people person. I'm an ultimate cause kind of person. That's selfish in a way, but it insulates me from attaching too deeply to a particular person rather than the underlying cause they represent.

I'm similar, which is why my consistent stance is "the left-most feasible thing, anywhere, ever, pushing accepted dialogue ever-further leftward." I don't go in much for cults of personality or sloganeering, as much as concrete proposals and records. Which is why, while I support Bernie Sanders on the basis of the ideas he's pushing forward, I occasionally find his supporters more than a little ridiculous.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2016, 07:26
I think we went over this before, but I honestly can't think of a single political figure I'd really want to spend personal time with.

I would love to have been present in Byzantium during the reign of Justinian and Theodora (my vote for World's Most Fascinating Monarchs), but meet them? Not so much. I'd like to be vaguely in the know about their doings and the reasoning thereof, but not "there" there.

That's the main reason why I make choices based on voting records rather than speeches. I watch the political channels more than I should (out of sheer laziness) but I always spend a few days before an election weighing out the votes. It's a tedious chore but it takes a lot of the bias caused by personal feelings out of the equation.
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 11 Jun 2016, 07:50
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I think we went over this before, but I honestly can't think of a single political figure I'd really want to spend personal time with.

Richard Milhous Nixon. He's just the right level of awkward that my own awkward doesn't feel out of place, and we could discuss Machiavellian strategery. Also, like him, I have a bit of a nasty sense of humor.

Dubya also seems legitimately fun to hang out with, like he'd be the nice/comforting kind of jock-y/frat-bro type, who's just as awkward as anyone else but is posturing due to that insecurity.

I think I'd get along well with widely-hated Republican Presidents. I'm not sure what that says about me.

Quote:
I would love to have been present in Byzantium during the reign of Justinian and Theodora (my vote for World's Most Fascinating Monarchs),

A tie. Between Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Karolus Magnus, Ivan IV Vasilyevich, Peter Alexeyevich, and Good Queen Bess.

If I had to vote though, probably Elizabeth I. She was awesome.

On a personal level, speaking as someone who opposes his excruciatingly slow pace of modernization and would have probably supported his overthrow, Haile Selassie's perpetual aura of unnatural calm is also sort of fascinating and was bound to breed a cult around him for literally no reason besides that. It was also useful in helping enemies to underestimate him.

Quote:
That's the main reason why I make choices based on voting records rather than speeches. I watch the political channels more than I should (out of sheer laziness) but I always spend a few days before an election weighing out the votes. It's a tedious chore but it takes a lot of the bias caused by personal feelings out of the equation.

Frankly, that's an extremely good policy and something I wish more voters would do. It keeps cults of personality and irrational hatreds at bay, which is pretty necessary in making a sound decision. If more voters did that, people like Donald Trump who have had twenty different positions on any issue would not be a thing.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 11 Jun 2016, 22:46
The main reason more people don't do it is because it's tedious. You get the raw data of the vote, which means you have to go back and surf through the Web to discover the circumstances of the vote. Then you have to correlate the various responses of the other candidates vis a vis the issue.

A friend of mine does it all on spreadsheets. I do it on memo pads.

Anyhow, it takes several hours to really arrive at an "objective" (as objective as I'm going to get, given my admitted biases) picture.

Occasionally, I'm surprised. I'll discover that a candidate I thought was a complete milksop has actually shown some fortitude. Sometimes, it's the opposite. A local Nevada figure named Dina Titus has some unexpectedly progressive views, but also some barbaric stances on, of all things, women's rights (not just reproductive, but even basic ones).

It ain't sports betting but, at the end of the day, if I go about 50/50 I can count it as a reasonably successful outing.
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 11 Jun 2016, 23:48
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Occasionally, I'm surprised. I'll discover that a candidate I thought was a complete milksop has actually shown some fortitude.

That's how I feel about our Senate race, although moreso actually the exact opposite of "supposed progressive champion is actually worse than her opponent" in a Kerry vs. Dean catastrofrag.

When Kamala Harris represented Oakland she was a San Francisco FiDi sell-out, much like the current Governor. Her main primary opponent, Loretta Sanchez, has secured most of the Bernie support because she was one of the few Congresscritters to vote against the Iraq War.

...except Sanchez has taken that and the fact that she has the SoCal left locked down as a Latina for granted. She's been running to the right of Harris, as someone who can "reach across the aisle." Her record on economic issues is also pretty abjectly terrible, replace San Francisco FiDi tempered mildly by Oakland with Anaheim FiDi. Overall I'm glad she lost.

And next up, it's Mayor Garcetti of LA vs. Lieutenant Governor Newsom vs. San Diego's creepy Mayor guy for Governor in 2018. Unless he screws up catastrophically like Sanchez, I'm going for Garcetti. Garcetti actually has a very solid record. Newsom is only liked because he did commendably illegally marry gay couples as Mayor of SF, but he contributed to the tech-yuppie sellout of his city and migration of the working-class to Oakland more than anyone else besides his predecessor Willie Brown. And San Diego is a plague on the state of California, full of obnoxious rich people and even more obnoxious Army types. It is, in fact, a whale's vagina.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 Jun 2016, 00:23
A whale's vagina! You're a gold mine of sigworthiness.

If you have a son one day, please him name Sigmund Worthy.

Since the departure of Reid, the Nevada race is filled with names that don't rate my attention thus far. Because Las Vegas is the epicenter of the state, the issues don't change all that much. The persons who arise to represent the various positions are thus quite interchangeable, with the exception of the occasional breakout figure like Harry Reid. Meanwhile, outside of the Reno/Tahoe area, the rest of the state is a big blank desert dotted with Army outposts and the odd brothel.
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 Jun 2016, 00:37
Comrade Gulper wrote:
A whale's vagina! You're a gold mine of sigworthiness.

If you have a son one day, please him name Sigmund Worthy.

...actually I was just quoting Anchorman, which is legit a goldmine of quotes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AIwaSD9Sco

Also I don't think I'd ever name a kid Sigmund. Any kid with that name would probably get beaten up pretty badly.

Quote:
Since the departure of Reid, the Nevada race is filled with names that don't rate my attention thus far. Because Las Vegas is the epicenter of the state, the issues don't change all that much. The persons who arise to represent the various positions are thus quite interchangeable, with the exception of the occasional breakout figure like Harry Reid. Meanwhile, outside of the Reno/Tahoe area, the rest of the state is a big blank desert dotted with Army outposts and the odd brothel.

And fundamentalist Mormon militia fanatics. Don't forget those.

But with the Libertarian upswing, I think you might see Las Vegas actually become competitive again? I think a lot of moderate Vegas Democrats would consider voting Libertarian.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 12 Jun 2016, 00:55
The "Libertarian" position, as the successor of the pre-WWII Republican ideal, gets a lot of play here in Nevada, as it does throughout the West. It's a very anti-East Coast, anti-DC position that naturally appeals to tax dodging, employee benefit evading "entrepreneurs" as well as Mormon paleo-conservatives and Cliven Bundy types.

On paper, Libertarians would clash with theocrats and Teabaggers alike, but there's a wide spectrum of discontent among the right that finds a common figurehead in Trump.

I consider Libertarianism to be a right wing ideology, because the people who support it most openly do tend to be crypto-fascists of the Ayn Rand variety. Even Penn Jilette creeps me out on occasion when he delves into the nuts and bolts of this position.
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 Jun 2016, 01:05
Comrade Gulper wrote:
The "Libertarian" position, as the successor of the pre-WWII Republican ideal,

Even post-WWII. Robert Taft and William Knowland would be considered Pat Buchanan paleoconservatives today, they weren't really purged until Taft died, McCarthy blew up in that wing's faces, and then Goldwater essentially redefined "true conservatism" along the lines of Cold War militarism.

Quote:
It's a very anti-East Coast, anti-DC position that naturally appeals to tax dodging, employee benefit evading "entrepreneurs" as well as Mormon paleo-conservatives and Cliven Bundy types.

Yeah, I've noticed they're pretty weak in the eastern parts of the Bay (Oakland and especially north thereof) which have more of a working-class and Northwestern character, but San Jose (considered semi-SoCal by a lot of us because it's where the Bay ends and things start visibly looking arid and California-ish) is definitely pseudo-libertarian. I could see Silicon Valley bolting for it almost as easily as I could Vegas casino types.

Quote:
On paper, Libertarians would clash with theocrats and Teabaggers alike, but there's a wide spectrum of discontent among the right that finds a common figurehead in Trump.

Ironically, the libertarians seem split 50/50 between Paulbots who went for Trump despite Paul's urging caution because "durp he's anti-establishment," and the actual Libertarian Party who are trying to reel in "never-Trump" types and doing very well among Mormons.

Quote:
I consider Libertarianism to be a right wing ideology, because the people who support it most openly do tend to be crypto-fascists of the Ayn Rand variety.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them fascist per se, but extremist liberals who want to slash any gains the average person has made in the direction of human dignity within government? Sure.

They generally do it rooted in a sense of utopianism, where in a totally free market you wouldn't have state protection for big business and thus the small entrepreneur would have a fair shot. It's basically an American petit-bourgeois idealist fantasy, which would never play out in the real world.

Quote:
Even Penn Jilette creeps me out on occasion when he delves into the nuts and bolts of this position.

I like Penn, on a personal level. He seems friendly, earnest, and intelligent. I also think he's tremendously misguided and an evangelist for an extremely dangerous worldview.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 12 Jun 2016, 15:42
Well. I figured it'd happen sooner or later. The "one attack away from a Trump presidency" came true.

Thanks, Islamist frags. You've just done your best to elect Herr Drumpf. Now, if you were smart, you'd actually want that. Nothing will bring liberalized, Western-born Muslims to you faster than a campaign of hate led by a sex-crazed billionaire from New York (read: "da Joos"). But I don't think you're consciously that smart. Which means you're idiot savants.

It's especially brilliant because, gay club in Orlando. I bet you half of those people worked for Disney. Which means, when the pictures of the dead are shown in commemoration, we'll see some smiling guy in a Mickey Mouse suit. "Islamists killed Mickey Mouse" is going to matter.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.