Quote:
Originally Posted by locknopair
i meant that trump's just a guy in relation to the system- and simply removing him from that system isn't going to address what created him in the first place nor solve why a reality tv game show host with no political experience was able to become the most powerful politician in the world.
Well it does, I think, because fame is more powerful than anything when running for office. You think Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Sonny Bono, Jesse Ventura, or even Ronald Reagan were more qualified than the people they ran against? Puh-leeze.
That said the system is clearly ****ed, but my point would just be not that much more than any other system.
Quote:
this of course differs from his growing status as a cult leader, where his followers increasingly ignore his crimes and lies in the ultimate hope that he'll empower or save them, without realizing or perhaps even caring that they're being manipulated by a narcissist.
In this we're in total agreement. I really think that if Trump wanted to go a step further and create an actual cult he could do it without any question. But I really have no idea what the people all see in the man -- I think he's tacky and transparent as hell. But then I never knew what people saw in Jim Jones or David Koresh or L. Ron Hubbard either. It's mystifying.
Quote:
how come with democrats there's always a 'but'? they could have passed single payer, but... they could have repealed the tax cuts, but... and then there's always some intricate story as to why they had to settle for some right-wing compromise.
when he took office president obama was the most powerful and popular person in the entire world who later gained a (albeit short) supermajority in congress, and i should believe that he couldn't use all his newfound political juice to publicly pressure some blue dog dems? what dem politician in their right mind would have wanted to take on obama at that moment in time?
incrementalism is just capitulation to the right. obama stood down when it mattered most which is why the left and liberals only end up getting compromised half-measures that republicans then dismantle. if this is the best to expect, how is that winning?
Well I don't know what to tell you except we were all here when all of this took place and that's what happened. Maybe the blue dogs were DINO's or closet racists or whatever, or maybe they were just afraid to lose their jobs in conservative districts to Republicans -- which to make it worse is what ultimately happened anyways -- but whatever the reasoning that's what happened.
Of course, at the end of the day passing Obamacare was politically one of the more brilliant things the Obama admin ever did, even if it wasn't intentional. By co-opting a Republican plan they basically stole the right wing's counter to full single payer health care and left them with nowhere to land in the health care debate. And we saw this play out last year with the shambles they were in trying to repeal the ACA when it became obvious to everyone that the GOP had nothing to offer on health care at all.
Quote:
this has been echoed by around four or five different posters, but anyway: even if the dem nominee was hickenlooper he'd still be labeled a socialist despite being the most conservative candidate in the field. the guy literally publicly drank fracking water and is best friends with john kasich yet to the right he'll just be a communist who wants to turn their beloved usa#1 into venezuela.
Again agreed, but it isn't always the issue of what they say so much as how it will resonate. I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. So far it seems like the RWSM is having trouble finding something on Beto that will stick, except for for some reason calling him by his actual names, and the best they could do this past weekend was a Twitter post that managed to piss off a bunch of Irish Catholics. And I know that hardly makes him bulletproof but it was kind of funny to watch.