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 20 Apr 2016, 20:21
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Hillary's email fiasco is being probed by the FBI at the same time that the Benghazi business comes to a head. If Hillary wins the ultimate office, you can expect both to either disappear in a heartbeat or explode in a cannibalistic piranha frenzy that will make Watergate look like Boss Hogg trying to frame the Duke boys for moonshinin'.

In fairness, Watergate was Congress and disaffected elements of the federal bureaucracy ("Deep Throat"; whether one man or a composite) taking down Nixon using a scandal that could have equally been said of FDR, JFK, or LBJ. All of them had White House recording systems, all of them snooped on opponents.

The Benghazi scandal, to me, looks like the most ridiculous pseudo-scandal ever. "The Obama administration covered up the fact that it was an Islamist terror attack because... because. They hate American national security!"

There probably was a violation of state secret statutes in the private email server, so that's a felony, but I'd be shocked if Albright, Powell, Rice, and Kerry didn't also have state secrets on their private servers used for about half their communication. With how much information every cabinet-level officer deals with that's classified, it's hard to not have something slip onto a server somewhere. For the record, that probabilistic argument is the only evidence I or the Republicans have on it.

Quote:
Meanwhile, I wonder if the Trump University flap really has legs, or if some sex scandal will rear its ugly head?

A sex scandal would be the most unsurprising thing ever, but Trump University unambiguously defrauded its customers. The only way it wouldn't have legs is if it can be framed like AmWay, something that really should be illegal but isn't.

Quote:
And his children appear to be a colorless bunch of time serving empty suits.

His sons are. Ivanka is sort of an evil genius, who is likely to take over most of his empire after he dies. Don Jr. will get some of it just to keep it in the family name, Ivanka will run things.

Quote:
I don't really see anyone emerging out of the swamp to claim the "mantle of Trump." He's too much of a one off, even if all of the ingredients are painfully common and obvious.

I don't think it has to be a member of his family. Virtually anyone who: 1) can pander to middle-class white resentments of both corruption in Wall Street/Congress and pressures from Muslims/Mexicans/"agitators," 2) has a domineering sense of machismo could pick up his supporters.

A pivot right by Christie. A pivot mainstream by Alex Jones, which he's already started doing; he's become the YouTube voice of the Trump campaign as much as Breitbart and Drudge are their main propaganda outlets. Or some new up-and-coming leader could easily seize it.
Last edited by MissStrangelove on 20 Apr 2016, 20:41, edited 1 time in total.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 20:36
The thing with Chris Christie is that, when you dissolve his Tony Soprano/Frankie Valli Jersey swagger, there's...nothing there. Harbor lights are on, but there's no one in the tower.

It would actually be a stroke of genius for the Teabaggers to discover and nurture a smiling, easy going David Duke-like personality. An affable, joking, media friendly personality with "principles" who won't get into cat fights with Megyn Kelly or use phrases like "The Jews love me" just off mic.

If you read the first two centuries of Christian propaganda, it was basically ISIL-level fanatical slop written in barely literate Greek and Latin. It took them 300 years to develop a line of "ready for prime time" figureheads.

With the way things are accelerating, we may due for a Teabagger who can't be so easily pigeonholed and dismissed. Give it 5-10 years. But, while they may acknowledge Trump as a door-opener, I don't think they'll be too anxious to follow his example in literal fashion. He's representative of the zeitgeist for sure, but still too rude and transparent to properly embody it in its final form.
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 20 Apr 2016, 20:57
I'm not too sure on that. I think part of Trump's appeal is his vulgarity, is his brashness. He "comes out and says the things 'most people' (middle-class white males, the Fred Flintstones of the world) wish they could say. He talks like a regular guy." That's why I find him fun to watch at least, and why I'd even consider supporting him if I didn't think a proto-fascist movement with a love of nukes was abjectly terrifying.

I think it'd be hard for a smiling, charming Mike Huckabee persona to channel the sense of rage Trump has capitalized on.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 20 Apr 2016, 21:34
I'm not sure the "rage" is permanent, though. "A sleepy London town just ain't no place for a street fighting man", etc.

Teabaggers show up at police protected rallies with stupid hats on, and maybe kick a few moonbats in the shins. They're not generally lone wolves of the McVeigh variety.

Just as the mantle of the ever smilin', affable Ronnie Reagan passed to a flatulent bigot like Trump, I think the future of the Republican party (if it has one, and doesn't split down the middle for good in the wake of this election) is to swing back to Reagan era standards of public deportment.

I agree that Trump's whole appeal is in his rudeness. But I'm not quite yet ready to believe that the lowest common denominator of MURRKA STRONG is really prevalent enough in the culture to withstand and elect more of his kind until they become the norm.

I may be fatally naive in this assumption.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3850
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 20 Apr 2016, 23:38
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Hillary's email fiasco is being probed by the FBI at the same time that the Benghazi business comes to a head. If Hillary wins the ultimate office, you can expect both to either disappear in a heartbeat or explode in a cannibalistic piranha frenzy that will make Watergate look like Boss Hogg trying to frame the Duke boys for moonshinin'.


That won't be anything compared to what would happen if Sanders actually wins. Consider what happened in Paraguay, what's going on in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela...
They'd make up a case against Bernie in a second. It doesn't matter if he did nothing, he'd be impeached after his first attempt to change anything.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Apr 2016, 05:43
So Southern Democrat leadership, ie Republicans with historical Democrat loyalty, are making a bid deal about Sanders' dismissal of Clinton's success in that third-world Frag of a region. As though Southern States matter in the national election for Democrats and as though they aren't just Republican foot-soldiers.

This all-out attack on Sanders' candidacy by the Democrat establishment will not be forgotten and I think is a mortal wound. The slow, hidden, kind like internal bleeding or cancer.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Apr 2016, 09:57
The southern states will matter again in the long run, due to great changes in their demographic makeup. For example, Texas was once the solidly Democratic base of Ann Richards. If the Sanders based paradigm change keeps up, we could see some serious changes there. The other Southern states, who knows? I think Georgia has the potential to swing Democratic because of the somewhat cosmopolitan views prevalent in Atlanta.

Of course, the ultimate dream for every Texas Teabagger is to secede from the union, drill, baby, drill, and build a big wall to keep the wetbacks out (except the ones who water the lawns and wet the Governor's whistle for a few pesos each week).

As for the Democratic establishment not trusting or accepting Bernie, they're basically correct within their view. Bernie has never been a Democrat until now. From their point of view, he's an interloper who snuck in through the back door and is now upsetting the apple cart with all these calls for change that just don't gibe with their limo liberal timetable of brokered deals with the big wigs. It doesn't help that Debbie Wasserman Schulz is in Hillary's pocket and has been for years.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 21 Apr 2016, 10:14
re: the value of the south in the future

What value? While their population growth is the highest they also have the highest brain drain (Atlanta is the only important city in the South and it isn't as important as Ted Turner thinks it is). Not to mention the absolute worst economies in the entire US all crammed into one shitty expanse. Literally the rest of the US pays for their budgets.

Nothing important will happen in the South until money goes there, and money isn't going there (might as well just throw money in the trash). Switching blue won't change this at all.

re: the Dems not "trusting" Sanders

That isn't what I am talking about. They (the DNC) are actively sabotaging their own candidate. Nobody is going to forget this especially not all the kids who got really excited over this old Jew. They'll remember the betrayal more than they'll remember Sanders. This is really an historically disasterous turning point for the Democrats I think. And even more than that I think a turning point in our two-party system. Because this has never happened before, both parties basically being wrecked by their own leaderships and ostracizing their long-term base youth.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Apr 2016, 11:49
That's why, when Miss Strangelove suggested that a third party is on the horizon, I pointed out that we seem to already have four parties.

The Republican Old Boy Network

The Jeezis H. Teabag Brigade

The Business As Usual Hillary Party

The progressive wing of the Democratic party represented by Bernie
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 21 Apr 2016, 19:55
Six.

Progressives

Wall Streeters With A Veneer of Leftism

Libertarians

Country Club Wall Street Republicans

Christian Right Teabaggers

Crazy Jackbooty Teabaggers

If either the Republican establishment splits from Trump, or Trump is denied the nomination at which point he would run third party, you have a three-way split. Gary Johnson of the Libertarians is also on the rise and could very easily get into the debates with that scenario. With cover from the right being split three ways, Bernie Sanders could easily run as a leftward third party without fears of creating Herr President Trumpf. You could also see Cruz abandoning a party establishment that really hates him too and forming his own hardline conservative party, which would rapidly become a Southerners + Mormons regional party.

It'll probably coalesce into two or three given our lack of proportional representation, our electoral system has never even had a three-party system for very long. Just 1828 (Anti-Masonic; kind of a baffling splinter from the Whigs), 1848-1860 (Free Soil/Republicans before they supplanted the Whigs; turned to four in 1860 with the regional split in the Democrats), 1888-1892 (the Populists; agrarian proto-socialists with admittedly some "socialism of fools" in their Midwestern branch, a good stance on race in the South though), 1896-1920 (the Socialists; Eugene Debs et. al., with the pseudo-progressive Bull Moose Party also existing in 1912), 1924 (the Progressive Party; not quite socialists but sort of socdem), 1948 (the Dixiecrats; reactionaries), 1968-1972 (the American Independent Party; Dixiecrat Mark II), and 1992 (Reform Party; irrelevant centrists led by a nutjob). The longest run there is the Socialists, who were also the weakest listed, only delivering a particularly good showing in 1896 and 1912.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 21 Apr 2016, 21:14
Actually, at the time that I met George Taylor of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Socialist Labor Party (Taylor also ran for Governor of the state in 1964), he assured me that the SLP was the nation's longest running Socialist party. This may still be true if they at least have an Internet presence in 2016. At the time I met with them, they were down to perhaps a dozen members in Philly and something like 500 nationwide. Debs and his SP were originally "splitters" from the De Leon-controlled SLP.

Anyhow, I don't think the Republicans will split apart during this cycle, but the next 4 years may show some very unpleasant developments. For example, Libertarians could coalesce with some of the David Duke brigade to form a new "Ivy League Diploma with a side of swastika" party. Meanwhile, the religious fanatics might form an out and out Christian party (because, after all, Christians are under attack in America).

So Miss Strangelove could well be right about this.

But could the Democrats split down the middle into a Business As Usual vs. a progressive wing? More problematic. The fact that the Republicans are headed down this road might add to their determination to keep things together at all costs, despite the cost. This could backfire, of course. But I just don't see the tell tale signs, at least at the moment.
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 22 Apr 2016, 00:42
Comrade Gulper wrote:
Actually, at the time that I met George Taylor of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Socialist Labor Party (Taylor also ran for Governor of the state in 1964), he assured me that the SLP was the nation's longest running Socialist party.

Yeah, I was just referring to third parties with major electoral success, to the point where it looked like the two-party duopoly of our system might crash or we might at least get a LibDem-like second-stringer third party.

But even the one time where long-term it actually did, the Republicans more supplanted the Whigs by snatching away their northern branches. It eventually coalesced into two parties again, even with Whigs vs. Free Soil/Republican vs. Democrats for three cycles, even with the Democrats also splitting into Northern and Southern Democrats in 1860. By 1864 it was Republican vs. Democrat, with both versus the Confederacy which also had a two-party system of pro-administration (Southern Democrat) and anti-administration (Whig). By 1868 it was just Republican vs. Democrat wholesale.

A system without proportional representation always tends to coalesce around two parties. Britain and France are more proportional than us and also have a more open-party system, but lacking PR are still essentially two-party at core. You see functioning multi-party systems only in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, and the Dutch system is this weird "party list" thing where candidates have to always abide by party orthodoxy which I consider undemocratic.

I think the amount of friction between establishment and base in both parties look like a major realignment is on the horizon, akin to at least 1896 and 1968 if not 1860.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 22 Apr 2016, 00:58
You're probably right, at least in the sense of a 1968 styled paradigm shift that embraces both parties. In the case of the Democrats, it's a developing battle between the newly re-energized Humphrey old schoolers (akin to a batch of them being rudely disgorged from a cryogenic chamber) vs. the "moderate" impostors represented by the Clintons, Dean, and Kerry.

The biggest fear I have concerning the Republicans is that the old guard seem to dying off of natural attrition, with their places being taken by a swarm of radicalized Teabaggers rather than a new generation of prematurely aged old money scions.

Of course, this also aptly illustrates why Plato and Aristotle always considered democracy to be the declining form of the ability to organize. A settled tyranny does indeed enjoy advantages that no democracy can match.


I don't normally take the side of Schopenhauer and Karl Popper against the ancient Greeks and Professor Hegel, but this is one argument that loses weight when you realize that the Teabaggers won't bring anything like stability. To tell the truth, I believe they're violent anarchists even more than they are "Blut und Volk" fascists.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4464
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 22 Apr 2016, 21:32
Step one: Sanders gets robbed of the nomination.
Step two: Trump gets robbed of the nomination.
Step three: Sanders and Trump announce break from their respective parties, each running as an independent.
Step four: No candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral college votes.
Step five: Congress installs candidate of choice in the White House via the 12th Amendment.
Step Six: Anarchy in the USA.
"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 22 Apr 2016, 22:16
As much as I love Bernie, I don't believe he has the cojones to do it. He's a common sense, ethically minded kind of guy, without an extremist bone in his body. He would never willingly embark on such a dangerous course of action.

Trump certainly will do it, but it will hand the victory to Hillary.
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 23 Apr 2016, 02:24
Yeah, unless Trump either: A) loses a majority fair and square (Cruz wins California), or B) fears destruction of the Trump brand via indictment over Trump University, he would definitely run third party if he doesn't get the Republican one. Any attempt to put another candidate in place, if he can at all claim he was robbed, will lead to him bolting.

Sanders wouldn't want Herr President Trumpf. He'd only run if you see at least a three-way split in the Republicans, making a two-way Democratic split not a bad thing.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2016, 10:25
I like Soviet78's version. But most likely it will be that if either challanger faction succeeds it will be ostracized by the other factions so they can barter leadership among each other. Which will make the challanger faction impotenet.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
That's why, when Miss Strangelove suggested that a third party is on the horizon, I pointed out that we seem to already have four parties

Our current election is the very proof that there are stilll just two parties, the DNC and the RNC. Neither Trump nor Sanders even considered playing outside the Red or Blue blocs.

This, however, is the first election in a long time where a subordinate faction (the Sandernista Progressives and the Trumpite militants or whetever the shit you want to call them) has tried to use a Presidential election cycle to seize central party leadership. In this case Populist upstarts versus Corporate Aristrocracy. But these factions all are 100% aligned under the party leadership no matter how vast their ideological separation. What we have here are seeds of real "third" parties.


MissStrangelove wrote:
Six.

There are far more internal, and critically relevant, factions within the two major party blocs. There is no real point to this dissection of rival liberal gangs. Except from an historical perspective.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2016, 17:34
I wanted to share an image here from FB, but the asshole who posted it has encrypted it to include the entire fragging page along with it. Nice work, jerkoff. You preserve your precious "credit" at the expense of making your image unshareable. Good lookin' out!
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 23 Apr 2016, 20:16
Sure there's a point. The Democrats have, in recent years, had roughly two separate coalitions with ultimately intractably different interests. "Base"/progressives, and "establishment"/donor class/DLC types.

The Republicans have had similar, the traditional base enthusiastically supports Cruz and the establishment reluctantly does too. Most of Trump's supporters would have registered independent before this year, they're the ones most visibly threatening to bolt, with ultimately intractable differences over immigration and the very existence of the party's ossified elites. But Cruz's traditional reactionary faction has threatened to leave for years as well, over a disregard for "religious liberty" issues and the lack of a "fighter" instinct among the Republican elites. Chaos in the Republican ranks provides that opportunity to shed the Republican skin for a more staunchly conservative party.

And then you have right-leaning already-independents, the libertarians, who are rising very heavily in the polls and could also threaten to play the role of a spoiler third party.

It's an analysis of likely partisan fractures. You have four plausible fractures, and the more you get the more likely others become. To the point where while I'd probably predict only a three-way race at most, a six-way race is not too unlikely.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2016, 20:34
Its just a taxonomy of factions, but whatever. These factions are still intimately linked to the one another and will vote each others leaders into place (up until recently that is). Very few Clinton or Sanders supporters would ever dream of voting for a Republican over their in-party rivals.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron