Alt-Left Bernie: "Democrats may be worse than Trump"

[Whispering 18,865]

14 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

I know gerrymandering has weakened us but it seems this Washington Post writer is fairly optimistic about our chances in 2018. He says with our current swing of 8 points on average, we'd be able to win 80 seats. We only need 24. It seems like we're in a good position to take the house back. 

Eighty seats? Yeah...that's insanely optimistic. We still have a long way to go! 

By the way, this is an opinion piece...from the blog section of WP. Don't believe everything you read, especially in opinion pieces! 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, Whispering said:

Eighty seats? Yeah...that's insanely optimistic. We still have a long way to go! 

He said we probably won't win 80 because of the incumbency factor but it still seems like we have better then a slight chance of winning.

[Whispering 18,865]

1 minute ago, Born To Slay said:

He said we probably won't win 80 because of the incumbency factor but it still seems like we have better then a slight chance of winning.

See edit above. 

[rumours 45,521]

1 minute ago, Luiz said:

from the looks of it, they only came and went for the first 50 years while the last century and a half, democrat and republican have prevailed. yes they have changed their beliefs a lot over time but the same two parties have ruled over our country for the majority of its existence and i dont think any others will arise any time soon. the fear people have of going third,and possibly allowing the opposition win is too strong. these party's will have the lives of the american people in their hand and nobody wants to gamble with their healthcare or minimum wage by. 

 

i've always wanted the american voters to vote by principles rather than party allegiance or fear of the other party, but that is honestly too much to ask of most people. the fear of their polar opposite taking office is the reason this cant happen again. we need an overhaul in how we elect our leaders for a new party to ever establish itself. 

Yes, I would concur that it would be a difficult task. Nonetheless, the implication that it can't happen again is (in my opinion) misguided. It take the political will to do so, which I agree is lacking due to the bipolar nature of politics in the country. I will continue to vote for who I believe is the best candidate, whether that candidate affiliates with the two major parties or not. If a third party can get a likable candidate to run, I see the idea of a president from a third party to be plausible in my lifetime. 

[rumours 45,521]

1 hour ago, M Monstre said:

In regards to the Republican party, I never fully understand why they are so for "small government", I mean, doesn't "small government" mean that you, as a politican, would be less intrusive? That means less power, less money, etc. I don't know, that ideology never struck with me. 

You hit the nail on the head. The reason why neither party wants to cut down on needless bureaucracy is the power they give up by doing so. 

It doesn't necessarily mean you have less money in terms of the overall health of the economy. The goal of smaller gov is to provide localities or States more of an ability to allocate money where they see it's needed, which has pros and cons. Moreover, true Libertarians value the importance of free market interaction. The Democrats/Republicans want to regulate a lot of how things work at the federal level, which itself comes at a monetary cost. Many would argue that said regulation is expensive and permits the buildup of needless bureaucracy/overall inefficiency. Moreover, Democrats and now Republicans (Trump especially) love the thought of picking winners and losers indirectly in the economy through regulation. It's essentially glorified protectionism in the name of supposed self-interests, which I detest. Every free-market bone in my body wants to just burst into flames whenever I hear Trump talk about how he is "saving jobs" by keeping those companies producing goods in the country. That isn't free market interaction at all. Moreover, I can't tell you the number of Trump supporters I have argued with that state we should measure economic growth based on GNPs instead of GDPs...... 

 

At its core, small government is just a different interpretation of how federalism should be implemented. Both sides have valid arguments. My main issue that I vote on is the actual reduction of the nation's debt. Neither candidate from the two main parties had any intention of actually cutting spending overall, so I voted third party. To be honest, if Trump's administration is somehow able to reduce the national debt during their tenure, I'll view his presidency as a net positive (despite his overall lunacy).

 

 

[15jocart 2,305]

3 hours ago, M Monstre said:

There could be improvements to both parties, absolutely, but the way Bernie is saying it almost is like we might as well get rid of both parties. 

That's the entire point lol yes he is saying exactly this

[gabeoz 7,915]

45 minutes ago, Rumours1977 said:

To be honest, if Trump's administration is somehow able to reduce the national debt during their tenure, I'll view his presidency as a net positive (despite his overall lunacy).

 

 

That's quite a big "if". What will more than likely happen is Trump will continue to push for funds being redirected from things like education, medicaid, welfare, etc to be put into already insanely high defense spending to satisfy his base while continuing to look for ways to eradicate our current trade agreements without having actual replacement agreements, and on top of that tourism ($$$) coming into the country continues to drop at unpresidented   rates. So to sum it up, could Trump reduce our national debt and deficit? Maybe. But it doesn't look like it if things keep going how they are.

[rumours 45,521]

6 minutes ago, gabeoz said:

That's quite a big "if". What will more than likely happen is Trump will continue to push for funds being redirected from things like education, medicaid, welfare, etc to be put into already insanely high defense spending to satisfy his base while continuing to look for ways to eradicate our current trade agreements without having actual replacement agreements, and on top of that tourism ($$$) coming into the country continues to drop at unpresidented   rates. So to sum it up, could Trump reduce our national debt and deficit? Maybe. But it doesn't look like it if things keep going how they are.

Totally Agree. I never said he was actually going to succeed in doing so. He has no real desire to cut overall spending.... Like I said previously about Republicans, they still want to spend. They merely allocate the funds to a different bloated bureaucracy than the Democrats would have. It's why I had to morally vote third party this last election (and the way it's looking...indefinitely). No one really wants to deal with the nation's debt.... And it drives me up-the-wall crazy

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

6 hours ago, DominicB said:

politicians are ****.

 

period.

too bad I can't flush them

[Mast 980]

Alt-Left? Cut the ****, he's an actual leftist unlike most "liberals" and the Dem party. The Democratic party has been a centrist Republican-lite for a while now.

While I do not condone Trump at all and he can rot along with his fascist supporters, he runs on a populist platform that works because he is able to speak to the fears of the poor and white American population--even if his intentions are not truthful or his ideology is ****ed up. The fact of the matter is that he is actually in touch with what his supporters--quite a sizable amount of the United States--as to what their demands are, regardless of whether or not he fulfills them. 

Dems and liberals on the other hand, don't have a unified or populist message, and they tend to run their campaigns on pitches rather than issues. What liberal politicians are missing is that populist proximity--which is why they keep losing local elections time and time again. You gotta wonder how we rejected a massive populist-based movement like Bernie's for the likes of a disjointed, convoluted campaign such as Hillary's.  The Democratic Party at this point loves to point fingers are poor and "uneducated" Americans for their failures as if we're supposed to like them automatically because "they have the people's back," but forget the fact that the people who need them the most are the people who keep pointing fingers at for their own ineptitude. Blaming the poor white population for not being educated enough and for impulsively voting for someone who actually listened to them and said he would solve their problems (regardless of honesty), blaming POC for not coming out in big numbers when POC had made it very clear they would never vote for Hillary nor Trump--especially not when we saw the Clinton and Obama administrations target black and brown bodies for detention and death--and blaming literally anyone but themselves makes them nothing else but deplorable. Not to mention that they claim to push identity politics but they don't seem to have a ****ing clue about what identity politics and how they are very limiting and actually quite ineffective (which is why Hillary kept getting roasted for "pandering"). 

[Mast 980]

8 hours ago, M Monstre said:

There could be improvements to both parties, absolutely, but the way Bernie is saying it almost is like we might as well get rid of both parties. 

That's exactly his point. I personally think that hoping for improvements from bureaucrats is ineffective, counter-intuitive, and ultimately useless. We should dissolve both parties--they are THE problem of American politics besides all the sexism, anti-queerness, racism, xenophobia, capitalism, classism and nationalism in it (but these are much harder things to reverse, and a massive reworking of politics must precede a change such as this). The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. 

[itsjustlucarifc 126]

9 hours ago, SychosSoChic said:

So I'm just gonna sit here.

And wait.

For someone to come in here and say "He's right".

So I have an excuse to post in the "Mock a GGD User" thread.

Mock me then - he isn't wrong. Democrats didn't solely lose the election due to electoral college difficulties, etc., they lost because they tried to force Liberals to vote Democrat perpetuating the idea behind the two-party system everybody has wanted to get away from in the first place. The real fear mongering took place amongst Democrats who demanded you vote for Hillary in place of Bernie, etc., for fear of Trump.

[gagarox 1,495]

I'd love to see Kamala Harris run in 2020 for presidency. The Bernie bros can suck it they did more harm to hillary and her brand then trump or comey. **** them

[gagarox 1,495]

58 minutes ago, Mast said:

That's exactly his point. I personally think that hoping for improvements from bureaucrats is ineffective, counter-intuitive, and ultimately useless. We should dissolve both parties--they are THE problem of American politics besides all the sexism, anti-queerness, racism, xenophobia, capitalism, classism and nationalism in it (but these are much harder things to reverse, and a massive reworking of politics must precede a change such as this). The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. 

Why do u guys give unrealistic solutions? im sorry but how the hell is it possible to dissolve the 2 most popular parties?

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 minutes ago, alejandro24 said:

I'd love to see Kamala Harris run in 2020 for presidency. The Bernie bros can suck it they did more harm to hillary and her brand then trump or comey. **** them

You think Bernie supporters hurt her more then Comey? The guy who literally destroyed her poll numbers in the days before the election?