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 23 Apr 2016, 20:39
It's a taxonomy of groups with intractable differences. There are numerous factions within the "progressive" coalition, numerous factions within the "DLC" coalition. The progressive base is used by DLCers as grassroots mobilizing. The conservative religious fanatics, and to a lesser degree racist troglodytes, are used by the country-club Republicans as grassroots mobilizing. None of these are actively cared about by the leading faction, it has no real interest in their concerns beyond token red meat.

Ultimately, would most progressives vote Clinton? Yes. If the Republicans are united or only split two ways. If they split three, I think that gives someone like Sanders cover to run to the left of Clinton. Most progressives in that case would vote for him over Clinton.

The more of a chaotic Frag this becomes, the better it'll be. Hope for Trump to be robbed of the GOP nomination and then run third party. Hope for Gary Johnson to do well. Hope for the GOP's seeming death throes giving the conservatives reason to bolt from the dying country-club-Republican ship. Hope the left uses that opportunity to put forth a serious candidate too.
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, 20:51
Trump almost certainly won't waste the money on a third party bid. It would be interesting to see him try though.

I also don't think we'll see the implosion of one party without the immediate implosion of the other, they are so intertwined on even a business level.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2016, 21:00
Donald Trump has unlimited funds to run for President on any party ticket, thanks to slick moves like this.

Daily Beast wrote:
Three months ago Donald Trump held a fundraiser for wounded veterans and apparently raised $6 million. But most of that money has yet to be distributed and Trump’s chairman for veterans issues couldn’t care less.
Trump campaign’s adviser for veterans issues can’t account for $6 million raised for veterans charities by the billionaire—and from the sounds of it, couldn’t care less.
“I could ask, but it’s not high on my priority list,” Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire state representative, told The Daily Beast.


Trump's war chest is bottomless, and he can raise infinite amounts of money through con jobs like the above example.

I do believe the Republican party will explode first. It's simply absorbed too many elements that are inexorably opposed to its original founding principles. The champions of the free enterprise system versus the slave economy have become the champions of bigotry and market monopoly. Trump is exactly what they deserve and, if they serve him up on a platter, the American public will reject him as well as the clueless clock punchers who allowed him to seize control of the party machine.
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 23 Apr 2016, 21:09, edited 2 times 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 23 Apr 2016, 21:01
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Trump almost certainly won't waste the money on a third party bid. It would be interesting to see him try though.

He has outright said he will if denied the Republican nomination. The only question is whether the Republican establishment will get behind him and let the few "anyone but Trump ever" people like Lindsey Graham endorse Clinton, or whether they're so opposed to his nomination that they'd deny it in Cruz/Kasich's favor at the convention or have someone like the aforementioned Kasich run as the "real Republican."

Trump has more than enough money to do so, and takes just enough kneejerk anti-establishment voters to be competitive. Though he'd probably just end up guaranteeing President Clinton. Given his personality, he also just might do that to Cruz or Kasich out of spite.

Quote:
I also don't think we'll see the implosion of one party without the immediate implosion of the other, they are so intertwined on even a business level.

Traditionally, going off the 1860 realignment example, it took a few election cycles. First you saw the Free Soilers bolt from the Northern Whigs and Northern Democrats. That lasted in 1848 and 1852. Then in 1856 you saw the entirety of the Northern Whigs bolt into Free Soil, becoming the Republican Party. Then you saw the Democrats implode in 1860.

If one party implodes, the implosion of the other is not far behind and probably just an election cycle or two off. Both parties have an ultimately intractable gap between establishment and base. But it wouldn't necessarily be in a single cycle, historically that hasn't borne out.

Comrade Gulper wrote:
I do believe the Republican party will explode first. It's simply absorbed too many elements that are inexorably opposed to its original founding principles.

My boyfriend likes phrasing it as: "by taking in the Dixiecrats with the Southern Strategy, the Republican Party sealed their pact with the devil. With Trump, he's come to collect."

They served the interest of some of the bourgeoisie (e.g. the railroad barons) from the start, not that this was a bad thing since the rail barons' competitions were slaveocrats wanting to buy up the land they needed for other purposes. But I'd argue the seeds of it were actually sown as far back as 1896 with them taking in the plutocratic Wall Street "Bourbon Democrats"/"Cleveland Democrats" once the Populist Party provided enough leftward pressure on the Democrats that they nominated someone (William Jennings Bryan) willing to pander to said populist movement

Leading to the Republicans becoming a party built on corporate power and imperialism, nakedly, without even a veneer of reform or occasional red meat for the voters. It's inevitable that to keep their dominance, once the economic prosperity of the McKinley/Roosevelt era ended, they couldn't rely on the economic self-interest of the masses. So of course they had to eventually rely on wedge issues to get grassroots suport, like reactionary religious fanaticism and overt racism.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 23 Apr 2016, 21:47
Miss Strangelove wrote:
My boyfriend likes phrasing it as: "by taking in the Dixiecrats with the Southern Strategy, the Republican Party sealed their pact with the devil. With Trump, he's come to collect."


The Republicans have turned into a party of literal "sin eaters." 1968 enabled the Democrats to cleanse themselves of the legacy of secession, the Confederacy, and the Ku Klux Klan in one fell swoop.

True, they're still guilty of Wall Street collusion and warhawking, but the Southern Strategy was almost an enema for their system.

Meanwhile, not one in twenty Trumpnecks knows that Ft. Sumter was fired on by Democrats.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1411
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 26 Apr 2016, 21:21
I am appalled that some of my favorite comrades here are choosing one candidate over another be it Clinton or Trump. Although I've never been a supporter of just sitting back and not taking sides in matters of grave importance, I can't see how it would make a difference in this case. Those two are the cheeks of the same backside who are so full of the crap that's coming out of their mouths, and thus make it impossible to predict what they'd actually do after being elected.

Hillary feels like a terrible first female president for the feminist movement. She's too prone to mess up and make women who want a future in politics look bad; although she did recently say this: Half of my Cabinet will be women

Trump on the other hand is already a good reason why Americans can never again make fun of eccentric foreign leaders the likes of Gaddafi, Kim Jong-il, and Idi Amin.

I reserve the right to change my mind on any of this since I'm the least qualified person to post on this topic.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 26 Apr 2016, 21:43
Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for the job. This is why the majority of us posting in this thread are backing Sanders - and not Clinton, Kasich, Cruz, or Trump - with our votes.

The vomit inducing thought of having to choose between Trump and Clinton is something we're attempting to stave off by supporting Sanders in the first place.

If Clinton does garner the nomination and Sanders chooses not to run, it'll force us all to make a hideous choice. But I would still rather hold my nose and vote for Hillary over Trump, even though it's a matter of simply slowing the cancer rather than curing it. I'm just not ready to say "frag it" and smoke myself into Stage 4 just yet, you know?
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1411
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 26 Apr 2016, 21:56
I'd support Sanders if I thought he had a real shot, but a lot of very smart people I respect say that it's a pipe-dream.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 26 Apr 2016, 21:58
I have pretty much the same opinion as Gulper. I detest Hillary Clinton. I think she seems tremendously full of shit, she's in the pocket of all the wrong people, her record in the Balkans/Libya and on Syria have been terrible, and she's a career-long enabler of her husband's assholery.

That said: is a generic slightly-worse-than-Obama status quo hack better than "tactical nukes"/"nuclearize East Asia"/"Americans' wages are too high"/"round up the Mexicans for deportation camps" Herr Trumpf? Absolutely. I don't actually have to vote for Clinton, and I won't. As I said elsewhere, I'll be voting for Gloria La Riva (Party for Socialism and Liberation) or Jill Stein (Green Party), depending on how successful the latter is at her plan of capitalizing on Bernie's support. I'd like to build a left-wing alternative to the Democrats. California is a solid blue state, so California and states like it are the place to do exactly that.

But if I lived in Virginia, I would in fact vote for Clinton, holding my nose the whole time. Because spoiling her means Trump.

As for Sanders: he did have a shot at one point. He should have fought harder for Massachusetts, Illinois, Arizona. He could have won these states, which would have given him tremendous momentum. Now he has to either: A) lose no more than narrowly in Pennsylvania/Connecticut/Rhode Island (likely) and then win California by a fairly sizeable margin (unlikely), or B) win Pennsylvania and then California. He still has a chance, but it's not very likely.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 26 Apr 2016, 23:56
If stories like these have any truth behind them, it'll be much easier for me to support a third party candidate or just write Bernie's name in.

Where do they get the idea that Sanders supporters are "overzealous, white, frat boy types that troll opponents relentlessly online"? It just shows how woefully out of touch The Diva and her backers truly are.

I've yet to hear the phrase "Bernie bro" anywhere but in Clinton-esque literature. I've never spoken to or heard credible stories regarding the actions of a single one of them.
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 27 Apr 2016, 00:16
Bernie actually does slightly better with female voters than Clinton, and I really resent that totally baseless stereotyping of his supporters too. That said, I have observed some very overzealous and invariably-male-written "Clinton's a dumb -comment removed- who needs a good dicking" comments on Facebook. So, they exist, but they're a vocal minority.

Also, in Trump news: in his pivot towards appearing "mainstream" and "presidential" he's taken on Paul Manafort as lead campaign advisor. Manafort has a long history as partner in DC's "torturers lobby." In this position he has represented the Mobutu regime of the Congo, the Savimbi regime of Angola, the Saudi princes. Less likely to be controversial here and I'd agree he's at least a puppet of lesser-imperialists, also the Yanukovich regime of Ukraine. Given Manafort's overall history though, anyone who supports Trump over "at least he wants to remove overseas bases, even if it means nuclear South Korea and Japan?" should begin reconsidering their position.

I also find it kind of funny: between Stone (Cohn machine, Dole campaign, Bruno machine, now the interface between Trump and Drudge/Breitbart/Infowars) and Manafort (*insert any right-wing authoritarian regime here*), it looks like a succession of shady Republican dirty tricks operatives are coming out of the shadows to hop on the fascist train. Even as the leadership reluctantly supports the more predictable but more "slash and burn the government" Reaganism-on-steroids Cruz with his own international Manaforts/Stones in Cambridge Analytica. Seriously. Karl Rove-ing is a job description now.
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, 05:40
It's over. Bernie won Rhode Island, Clinton narrowly won Connecticut and won Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland by large margins. Bernie would need a humongous blowout (75+% of the vote) in California to win the nomination now.

For Trump vs. Cruz, Trump needs to just win either Indiana or California. Cruz needs both, though there's a good chance he can get both if Kasich drops out.

I'm hoping for a miracle win for Sanders, I'm hoping for Trump over Cruz for the Republicans and then an establishment splinter.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 13:16
MissStrangelove wrote:
It's over. Bernie won Rhode Island, Clinton narrowly won Connecticut and won Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland by large margins. Bernie would need a humongous blowout (75+% of the vote) in California to win the nomination now.

It does seem to be all over but the Hail Mary pass.

Quote:
For Trump vs. Cruz, Trump needs to just win either Indiana or California. Cruz needs both, though there's a good chance he can get both if Kasich drops out.

The Kasich and Cruz coalition fell apart as quickly as it was put together, for the simple reason that that they are ideological antagonists as well as positional rivals. I think Kasich and Cruz will stay in the race to the end, but if Trump is to be denied the nomination, some back room finagling will need to occur at the highest level.

Quote:
I'm hoping for a miracle win for Sanders, I'm hoping for Trump over Cruz for the Republicans and then an establishment splinter.

Ditto.

If not this cycle (at age 75, I don't think Bernie has many more runs left), then the next. It's a game of thrones, and SPLINTER IS COMING.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4492
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 27 Apr 2016, 13:19
Unless/until Trump is inevitably ruined by hawkish advisors and the State Department establishment (like Obama was), I'd say he's still preferable to Clinton for the planet, at least as far as Middle Easterners and East Slavs are concerned. Clinton and her policy team has a record which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths in countries from Iraq to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. Trump has publicly criticized Clinton for her role in Iraq and Libya, and even had the balls to stand before Jeb Bush in Bush country South Carolina and tell him that his brother's Iraq policy was a 'big fat mistake.' He's said multiple times that Saddam and Qaddafi were bad guys, but that getting rid of them only made things worse. He's also said that European countries should do more to deal with the Ukraine crisis (and now has Yanukovich image advisor Paul Manafort advising him to boot).

Bernie should hang in there and hope that the FBI releases its report on Clinton (although I'm 100% sure the agency's been pressured by Obama not to do so before the nomination process is wrapped up).

Consortium News founder Robert Parry wrote a piece earlier this month that really drove the argument home for me about the implications of a Clinton presidency for the world. It argues that whereas Obama served as a sort of brake to Clinton and the State Department's aggressive neocon plans, Clinton faces no such brake, since she is a neocon herself. Hence all the things we've been hearing about the Obama administration see-sawing between aggression and compromise just wouldn't hold true for Clinton.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/10/w ... more-wars/

The same, I think, could be said for Trump. He'd be told by advisors to set up a no-fly-zone in Syria and would respond with the idea 'why should we aggravate Russia when they're bombing the hell out of ISIS'. Clinton's advisors would tell her to set up a no-fly-zone in Syria and she would tell them to ramp it up and make it ten times stronger.
"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
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1411
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 27 Apr 2016, 16:11
I can understand what you're saying Soviet. I get the general feeling that Trump would be better for foreigners, while Clinton's preferable to Americans.

I thought my head was gonna go through the roof the moment I heard Trump say he would break up NATO, my sworn enemies, then again he also reserves a deep almost personal hatred for Iran, and said that he'd break up the American-Iranian deal, which has been quite beneficial to Levantines. I've been espousing the lifting of Iranian sanctions for many years and Obama made it possible, while Trump wants to destroy it all seemingly to appease the Zionists.

Trump has also made a number of opportunistic political about-faces, making whatever he says all the less reliable.

Here in Nigeria a lot of people hate Trump to death, and consider him white-trash racist, but Nigeria's always been a key American ally in Africa, and would probably not support Trump even without his xenophobic rhetoric, seeing as he's seemingly trying to adopt a policy of "America for Americans", let's stop spending money abroad, especially aid money Nigeria's politicians have been depending on for decades.

Then again Nigeria's new president has been spending a lot of time in China recently in an attempt to start trading directly with the Yuan, instead of having to use the American dollar with China. The new president has adopted a policy of importing less, producing more, and relying less on American dollar reserves. If this all works out it would hail the beginning of a new era in West African politics and economics, without having to depend on western aid or doing business with western corporations. It would certainly be good news for me, although there's already been talk about the Americans wanting to remove the Nigerian president out of the picture before any of these plans come to fruition.

Regardless I get your position in wanting to try someone who's less predictable in the hope that he might actually change something, as opposed to Clinton whose policies are more straight forward, predictable, and not good for the Slavs and Levantines.

Either way I'm personally staying on the sidelines on this one. I'm just gonna wait and see and prepare for the worst.

Quote:
Obama served as a sort of brake to Clinton and the State Department's aggressive neocon plans. The Obama administration see-sawing between aggression and compromise just wouldn't hold true for Clinton.
In this case Obama's been a god send. By refusing to interfere in Syria directly with his military, refusing to aid the Kiev regime with heavy weapons, not instigating any new wars of aggression, pushing for peace with Cuba and Iran, constantly pissing-off that Zionist maniac Nut'n'Yahoo, and admitting to Libya being his single greatest mistake etc, he's proven to be much more cool headed than any of his predecessors within my lifetime.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 17:03
Yeqon may have a point in saying that a Clinton presidency would be (marginally) better for the homeland. Hillary will keep Obamacare in its present form (although she won't advance it an inch) and push through a few other tiny token reforms. Trump, on the other hand, would pass all sorts of bizarre and reactionary legislation, then disavow it 15 minutes later when the polls came in.

As for foreign policy -- It's true that Hillary does seem to always be on the lookout for ways to promote her "tough as nails" image. An aggressive foreign policy, as opposed to Obama's cool consideration, could be one of the ways to do so. But I don't see her hiring the traditional cabinet of scary war hawks that plague Neocon administrations (Cheney, Rumsfeld, the necromancy-conjured walking corpses of Brzezinski and Kissinger) that are already filling up Trump's list of prospects.
Last edited by Comrade Gulper on 27 Apr 2016, 17:05, 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: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 17:05
Obama is just trying to build a legacy. If Libya hadn't been a colossal cluster of a fuсk he would be singing another tune.

Also can someone explain exactly how a Sanders presidency would be anything short of disasterous? The only thing he would be allowed to do is make socialism look bad/ineffectual. This candidacy has been the best possible outcome. A narrow defeat just gets people even more agitated after all. And the DNC has absolutely wrecked its credibility. Furthermore a Clinton candidacy would, once and for all, shatter the illusion that the democrats are to the left of the Republican. Mrs. Schultz and Mrs. Clinton have also completely deflated the popular appeal of CEO Feminism (a lose here would have proven much of their rhetoric true).

Really this is ideal. Either we get the ham-strung Establishment version of Trump (which will probably happen as soon as he gets the nomination) or we get the openly right-wing democrats. Either will simply prove the communists right, once again. Plus we need peak-liberalism to continue if we want to undermine its impenetrable cultural domination. It has already eroded quite a lot but it must be allowed to finish its historic task. If someone has a better way to unseat liberalism as our cultural overseer then I'd like to hear it.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 17:10
I'd like to avoid 50-100 years of economic ruination, secession, and civil war. If a peaceful transition to a socialist economy, marked by gradual shifts, is possible, I'd prefer to adopt that course.

Two things can destroy American (and, by extension, Western) hegemony: Unconditional surrender after a bloody international conflict (very unlikely) and a complete economic collapse brought on by the death of the dollar (more likely, but with catastrophic implications for the rest of the world).

I'm a little tired of people posting apocalyptic scenarios as a desirable outcome as though John of Patmos were whispering inside information to them. The collapse of civilized society, followed by a decades (or centuries) long interregnum of chaos, is nothing to wish for.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1411
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Ideology: Democratic Socialism
Party Member
Post 27 Apr 2016, 17:51
So in hindsight you support the Bolsheviks, going so far as to condone the execution of the entire Romanov family, whereas in real time you're a Menshevik at best, a social democrat at worst?

I think you owe it to us all as a long standing philosophised member of our little empire to confess here and now as to whether you are, in actuality, a White Russian!

Confess spy! Confess!
Last edited by Yeqon on 28 Apr 2016, 02:26, edited 3 times in total.
Image


The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 27 Apr 2016, 18:57
Yet you present no actual alternative Order. Yes of course it would be nice to have a peaceful transition. It would be nice to have full communism right now as well.

I think a Sanders presidency would do nothing but hurt socialism and roll it back even further.

Further any American Revolution will encounter an equal Reaction. That is how things work here and always have.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron