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 28 Mar 2016, 18:15
Look, I don't like Hillary either, but that doesn't mean believing every little scandal anyone says exists. She won't be indicted over the email issue, it's a politically motivated attack involving screaming "indict her!" when there's little evidence, almost exclusively by the usual suspects (Tea Party types) within the Republicans ala blowjobgate in the 90s and the Benghazi pseudo-scandal. Why is it brought up constantly? Because they can't attack her on substance. They agree with taking money from Goldman Sachs. They agree with her hardline foreign policy positions.

There is: 1) As yet, no evidence she failed to comply with any law in the use of the private server. Whether we question whether she might be being protected by Obama or not, that means there is literally no evidence with which to scream "indict!!" 2) More importantly she did nothing any other politician wouldn't do, including every preceding SecState since the dawn of the internet. Albright had one, Powell had one, Rice had one, I'm damn sure Kerry has one. She did use hers more, Powell et. al. also used the government server. But the main act she could have potentially violated, the Logan Act, is taken seriously by no one. I do think the issue will hurt her electorally, but that's as a symptom of a wider perception of secrecy rather than a legal issue.

There's a much more legitimate scandal in the cattle futures/insider trading thing from her Little Rock law firm days. But the statute of limitations has probably passed on that.

As for Bernie's wins, I think it's great. Sadly, it probably won't be enough to win him the nomination considering how far behind he is, but it can raise his profile at the convention.
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Mar 2016, 19:10
Hillary cannot be indicted because of obstruction of justice. She really was innocent in the Benghazi affair. Her emails were tampered. Just like how a playwright invented a script, it's all crap. How in the world can a law-abiding, well-behaved Hillary have a hand in the murder of an ambassador. Sounds preposterous! My golly, she studied law. Her conduct was consistent all throughout her career. And she's one of us, self-professed Leftist! Movers of the world!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4458
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 28 Mar 2016, 19:17
haha Lev I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

MissStrangeLove, I guess I've waded too far into the waters of listening to Sanders supporters who bring up the FBI investigation. Still, it wouldn't matter to me if it were the Republicans were behind the whole case, especially if it managed to damage her already tarnished reputation and help Sanders.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 28 Mar 2016, 22:07
Hillary isn't exactly a Nixon-styled unapologetic law breaker, but she's been too long inside the system to escape the inevitable corruption. Years of having to prove her bona fides over and over again in a patriarchal system that was designed to exclude her have definitely made her hardened and more than a little paranoid.

To a certain degree, the accusations of extreme cronyism and lack of transparency are understandable given her story, even as they are definitely justified.

She was ultimately willing to sacrifice every last shred of character for her chance at the brass ring, and it's a bargain with inescapable consequences. It's rendered her obnoxiously strident, domineering, and untrustworthy, just like it's rendered her husband oily and completely amoral. The kicker is that I'm sure her and Bill are both completely unconscious to their own faults.

To me, a victory for Hillary is a victory for Business As Usual - just with a slightly longer lease on life than the meltdown a Trump or Cruz presidency would lead us straight into.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4458
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 28 Mar 2016, 23:10
Order, don't get me wrong, but it seems like you almost feel sorry for Clinton -letting her off the hook for some reason. Sanders has technically been in the system almost as long as Clinton has, serving in Congress since 1990, but he managed to escape the 'inevitable corruption'. Also, I don't really know whether 'being a woman' in a patriarchal system is what made Clinton the conniving, vicious, ugly human being she is; I think sex has nothing to do with it.

I don't know, maybe domestically Clinton would be business as usual - Americans may have a greater intuitive sense for that sort of thing. Foreign policy wise, Clinton would be way more dangerous than Sanders, and more dangerous than Trump, who has been described as an 'isolationist nationalist' by his neocon detractors. As a Russian, I won't be able to sleep at night knowing there is a person in the White House who wants to see my country return to the hell of the 1990s, or be dismantled altogether. Clinton has a record of supporting color revolutions all across the FSU which have turned the lives of millions into a living hell. Then there's the Middle East and North Africa, and tens of millions more, including an independent-minded Libyan strongman who had to be murdered and mutilated and broadcast on Al-Jazeera so everyone got the message that you don't frag with the new world order.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
lev
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 256
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jan 2016, 14:43
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 28 Mar 2016, 23:51
Politics is a dirty business. If you do not return favours the other party would remember that. A small pittance from the Chinese is not bad especially if America is ruled by law. She's the sanest next to Sanders.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 29 Mar 2016, 01:53
I agree pretty much wholesale with Gulper. Though Bill Clinton seems like a deeply full of shit person all the way back to his days at Oxford at least, based on things people who knew him then have said. For example, "I did not inhale." He didn't. He's allergic, he pretended to in order to look cool. But he liked brownies.

Hillary has more of the "road to hell" background, given her start in the Methodist feed-the-poor movement and Eugene McCarthy's political campaign in college. The way Dick Morris, a Republican hack but someone who knew the Clintons well, describes it is that unlike Bill there's a definite real person behind all of that. He's a vaguely Patrick Bateman-y blank slate; she has all the human pettiness that characterized Richard Nixon. But it's a person who's obviously become extremely jaded, cynical, cautious, and yes, paranoid over the years.

soviet78 wrote:
MissStrangeLove, I guess I've waded too far into the waters of listening to Sanders supporters who bring up the FBI investigation. Still, it wouldn't matter to me if it were the Republicans were behind the whole case, especially if it managed to damage her already tarnished reputation and help Sanders.

Yeah, Sanders is so far behind at this point that some of his supporters are basically hoping this goes somewhere. It or winning literally every state from her on out are his only chances. And the former, while pretty unlikely, is exponentially more than the latter.

I don't mind driving the sword deeper into her already tarnished reputation for political reasons if it only helps the left. When it helps the right, and dangerous reactionary segments of the far-right at that, I do mind.

As for the gender thing: I do actually think it plays a role. Women in politics can't seem weak, or they're "unbecoming of the office." We often overcompensate, especially ones who got started in the 70s when politics was clearly and unambiguously a boys' club.

And on Trump being better on foreign policy, I still argue his opposition to the Iran deal objectively gives him greater potential to start a huge conflict by re-opening the "we need to stop Iran's nuclear program" debate. Besides which, he's being derided as an isolationist largely on immigration. On Syria there's little difference between Trump's "box in ISIS, no ground forces though" position and the position Biden pushed Clinton into which is literally the same thing. And I have little reason to believe he wouldn't have done Libya so long as he saw American national interest in it, given his "toppling Saddam was a bad idea but now let's loot their resources" stance on Iraq. Neither are neocon-style Whig imperialists, both are old-fashioned Tory imperialists.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 29 Mar 2016, 04:58
I think that Trump is an opportunist hyena rather than a Neocon shit-starter like Cruz. For all of Trump's bluster against the Chinese, Mexicans, etc., I don't see him making threats to "find out if sand glows in the dark" after a nuclear strike a la Cruz. He may tout the virtues of Reagan, but he would ultimately style himself as a deal maker in the vein of Nixon - and would very likely end up indicted or impeached in the same fashion.

Cruz is Bush III, far more so than Jeb will ever be.

Rubio -- empty suit with a handsome face, and a coterie of shadowy Koch employees pulling the strings.

Kasich - who? As much as I try to get a grip on the guy, he eludes me. Nothing there, nobody home.

As for Sanders, you have to remember that his lack of being tainted by the system comes from the fact that he was never a Democrat in the first place. He was always a democratic Socialist. Mainstream (modern moderate-right) Democrats look upon him as an illegitimate usurper, just as the old-guard Republicans do Trump.
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 29 Mar 2016, 22:44
Comrade Gulper wrote:
I think that Trump is an opportunist hyena rather than a Neocon shit-starter like Cruz.

Agreed, hence the "Tory imperialist" vs. "Whig imperialist" distinction. Trump is pretty in-line with the Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush 41 old-fashioned line of the Republican Party. More typical of Democrats today, it's basically the Bill Clinton/Barack Obama foreign policy. I have no doubt he'd invade wherever he felt it helpful for the geopolitical interests of the US state, his record on foreign policy shows he's no dove and his stance on Iraq was imperial in the literal "loot their resources" sense. But he probably has no urge to spread democracy throughout the globe, a Wilsonian/neoconservative stance best exemplified by the Bush 43 presidency which tends to be even more dangerous.

Though I think it's more accurate to say Cruz has neocons, rather than is a neocon. They're like fleas who infest anyone who takes them in. He had no affiliation with that clique prior to the race, and they mostly backed Rubio before he collapsed. Eliot Abrams was the one exception, but the Bill Kristols of the world seem to be following his lead with their golden boy gone. Trump also has one exception, John Bolton.

Quote:
Kasich - who? As much as I try to get a grip on the guy, he eludes me. Nothing there, nobody home.

Boring status quo Republican who wants a seat at the table. And is unnerved that his party might easily nominate a man with serious shades of George Wallace, if not Mussolini. But doesn't want to compromise with a man who has pissed off everyone he's ever worked with. Overall probably the best of the Republicans in the race, but he has no chance and considering his extensive record of union-busting that's not saying much.

Definitely agreed on the read of Rubio.

Quote:
As for Sanders, you have to remember that his lack of being tainted by the system comes from the fact that he was never a Democrat in the first place. He was always a democratic Socialist. Mainstream (modern moderate-right) Democrats look upon him as an illegitimate usurper, just as the old-guard Republicans do Trump.

Right. I've heard "lol he's not even a Democrat!!!" so many times. He ran against Democrats for the entirety of his career, and caucused with the Vermont Progressive Party in state politics. There wasn't much room to be reined in by a party apparatus he's only even so much as worked with (let alone not within) since he reached the federal legislature. Though even there, if you look at his statements from the 80s he was considerably more openly left (e.g. pro-Sandinista) than when he reached federal office and did have to compromise with the Democratic Party.

He's also from a state, Vermont, with very little in the way of major corporate interests to deal with. If you want your campaign to have any money whatsoever, you have to deal with those constituencies; that was especially the case in the post-Taft-Hartley age of crushed labor unions and before the rise of social media which allowed for easier grassroots campaigning. Hillary has been in politics in Arkansas (home of Wal-Mart and Tyson Chicken) and New York (Wall Street). Vermont has... cheddar cheese farmers, pot growers, and Ben & Jerry's? I'm sure he's made many dirty deals with the deliciously evil ice cream cartel that owns his state lock, stock, and barrel.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 31 Mar 2016, 06:52
Sorry for the double-post, but Bernie still might actually have a chance. He's currently leading by a decent margin in Wisconsin, and has ramped up his campaigning in New York. If he wins no less than 45% of the delegates in New York, if it's split functionally 50/50, then he's back on par with Clinton. Then, it's all down to California, where he does slightly lead.

Considering the Republican race is also expected to come down to California, where Trump slightly leads but needs to win to have enough delegates to not be denied the nomination, and Cruz needs it to get the nomination in his own right... this really could go into June (when the California primary is) for both parties.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 31 Mar 2016, 23:20
If it has to drag all the way through the summer, so be it. I'll donate my requisite $3 (big spender) where necessary to keep Bernie in the race.

Hillary's shot herself in the foot again by demanding $225,000 just to debate with Sanders. Like all the rest of the scandals, it won't kill her, but it's just another Washington Insider moment to add to an exponentially multiplying list.

Meanwhile, Bernie is getting some feel-good, "Kumbaya" action off the songbird incident.

It's looking like he might just pull this off after all.


Also, here is yet another priceless Hillary Clinton pointy finger Soccer Mom moment.
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 Apr 2016, 05:12
Bernie has taken Wisconsin and Nevada. He's still down on electoral votes, something over 1,000 to Hillary's 1,700. But I seriously don't think Hillary expected this much resistance, especially this far prolonged. The longer he stays the course, the better chance he has to win it all.

New York and California are the Big Stakes poker games. I really think Bernie has a good shot at both. He takes those, and it's Game Over-Lights Out for Business As Usual.

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 Apr 2016, 08:09
He's likely to win California. His lead here is narrow, it's 55/45, but he is leading and I really don't see that changing.

I think Clinton is more likely to win New York, it's her backyard and Wall Street will pull out all the stops for her. But Bernie has ramped up campaigning well, including in black communities like the Bronx where he's doing poorly. All he needs in the upcoming Northeastern primaries, like New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, is to get roughly around 50%. Even if he gets 45% or so on average, California would vault him into the lead with a win.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 06 Apr 2016, 08:24
One of the odd little things that few people are focusing on is Bernie's near-complete sweep of the fly over states (for those of you who aren't Americans, I mean the Midwestern and upper Western states such as Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, etc. that people literally "fly over" on their way from New York to California).

The people in those states have a long, long history of distrusting Big East Coast Government, and are more likely to vote Republican (in other words, the eventual Republican candidate will likely take most of these states in November, as they have in nearly every election since Bush 41's time). It's interesting to see that Bernie, rather than Hillary, seems to be the preferred choice of even the Democrats in these states.
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 15 Apr 2016, 19:06
Cata: I agree Clinton narrowly won the debate, because her closing statement was very strong. Which is a shame, Sanders probably needed a knockout punch and he didn't have one.

She spent most of the debate being a megahawk, and while her stance on Social Security is demonstrably better than any Republican's, it was confusingly weak to say the least.

I do understand her staunch line on Israel, though. AIPAC's conservative wing and the Clintons have never exactly gotten along. Netanyahu notoriously loathed Bill, mostly for his work with Yitzhak Rabin on Oslo. And Hillary Clinton was distrusted for her own role in that. You're starting to see them warm up to her because "at least she's not Bernie who's open about not completely kissing our asses," but she is afraid of the kind of backlash she's had throughout her career from them. It's akin to in 2008 with her hard line on Iran, and even then Obama netted slightly more AIPAC donations than her.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 15 Apr 2016, 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3314
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Jan 2007, 06:03
Party Bureaucrat
Post 15 Apr 2016, 22:49
Heh, RationalWiki called RevLeft a shite site.

RationalWiki is a weird site. While it's pretty good for stuff that is anti-science, a lot of the other fields are underwhelming, especially in politics.

It's pretty obvious in the name (and its history), tbh.

It's sad too, because it has so many good articles on crazy political stances. Telling which one is good and which one is bad, to the layman though, is nearly impossible.

Also, the betting odds (of winning the majority of delegates) for Sanders/Clinton is interesting. The implied probabilities imply anywhere from a 10-20% chance of winning for Sanders - much higher than what is implied from the media.

Cata wrote:
'find an expert who shares my values, let them handle it, and have them run the big decisions by me.'

I think that experts should have far more of a say in solutions to problems, instead of the whole "let big business solve it" model that we have today.
Last edited by Richthofen on 15 Apr 2016, 23:21, edited 1 time in total.
Erichs_Pastry_Chef wrote:
all I can concentrate on is looking at a peen0r.


Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 15 Apr 2016, 23:09
Every $300,000 dinner she organizes is further undermining her reputation with left-Democrat and independent voters. Every time she panders to the peasants in a speech, it further undermines her credibility with those same voters. Meanwhile, every word Bill utters on her behalf makes the both of them look like out of touch, obsolete buffoons.

Bernie now apparently has an slight but growing lead over her.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 8139
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 26 Jun 2006, 02:51
Embalmed
Post 15 Apr 2016, 23:24
MissStrangelove wrote:
Cata: I agree Clinton narrowly won the debate, because her closing statement was very strong. Which is a shame, Sanders probably needed a knockout punch and he didn't have one.


really? i thought the closing statement was one of sander's strongest points, while clinton was much stronger than sanders during the beginning of the debate.

i think ultimately they both did well enough representing themselves that it'll come down to individual people's values: whether they want the smoothest talker or the most passionate agitator, whether they want to incrementally continue where obama left off or to accelerate, etc. the fact that these differences line up with generational values is why the most fundamental split in their base of support is in terms of age.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 15 Apr 2016, 23:45
Clinton also did better early on, Sanders shined late in the debate. But I do think her closing statement was more succinct and expressed strength in a way his didn't. His will appeal to his supporters, and hers won't have that much appeal beyond her supporters. But it conveyed "I won."

Also, Bernie's national numbers are about neck and neck with Clinton's. But he needs to lose by no more than single digits in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, and then win California. He can do that. His polls in New York show him losing it by just over single digits, but he usually outperforms based on enthusiasm from his base. My fear is the increased momentum for Clinton from likely getting a majority in all of those states (only Pennsylvania is significantly competitive), probably a large one in Maryland given its black population.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 17 Apr 2016, 08:21
This just in:

Bill Clinton now believes Sanders voters are super predators who would like to shoot "every third Wall Street employee".

Ah, Bill...once the hippest middle aged man on the planet (most of you don't remember 1992 firsthand), and now it's come to this. He's like a punchy Muhammad Ali in the days just before his MS diagnosis. Sad.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.