ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Well Oliver Stone tried- and it backfired, lol
Obama to net $400K for Wall Street speech
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Heil Tweetler
Well-Known Member
I believe that would be the rate for world class thought leaders. NO ONE has his experience, not even remotely close.
Why wouldnt they? $400k isn't an extravagance on Wall st.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
54% of the country voted and more than half of those voted against Trump
So again, what can you point to that objectively supports the idea that incrementalism is a successful political strategy or it's what people want?
If people wanted slight change, Hillary Clinton would have won the election. Trump is dramatic change for the worse. He sold people the populist message they wanted and conned millions of people into voting for him.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why didn't he use his power and influence to regulate Wall Street and bring back Glass-Steagall when he had the actual power to do so?
I bet he tells em to "Cut it out, guyz! I mean it!"..
Heil Tweetler
Well-Known Member
Stop right there with that feeble tunnel vision. Real change is learning, it's incremental. Half the population religiously insists on not changing. What fantasy scenario did you envision?
Are you placing trump's actions under the rubric of real change? Sometimes "real change" is exponentially worse than any change.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
... And it's a tax deductible business expense!
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
So maybe we should push candidates who think big.
Justin-case
Well-Known Member
Simple, the popularity of the aca since it's passing has increased annually. Once people saw it in action, and realized it wasn't the disaster it was made out to be, it became more popular, incremental baby steps.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Push for sea change, accept incremental improvement. This may be the way forward in American politics. I hate it because I'm impatient, but I'm learning to accept it as a personal flaw lol
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I sincerely doubt there's a single person on this forum more liberal than me over the last 50 years.
Excuse me if 45 years of voting and activism, and having elected officials in the family and as close friends, has made me a little cynical as to what we can achieve these days.
You make it sound simple. All we have to do is get together and back the progressive candidate.
I've been doing that for fucking decades.
It's just not that simple. Resistance is strong and frequently over whelming.
Voters are fickle and often down right fucking stupid. And now, uncompromising and polarized.
I wish the whole country was more like California, but it just isn't. I supported Sanders in the primary and was called a communist. You can talk to some of these rednecks for hours and get nofuckingwhere.
I'm more in touch with how people are thinking on a rural suburbian level than most. My wife works the polls. I stand there with her for 45 minutes at a time (until I can't stand it anymore, ready to vomit).
We're FUCKING up against it to get a basic Democrat elected half the time, but you act like it's easy and want more liberal, more progressive candidates?
The political climate is horrible right now. Science is denied, human rights are denied, medical access is limited for many, and the whole thing sucks.
I like your core liberal views, but Jesusfuck, it's a battle every election just to hold ground and not go backwards. And when we get stuck with not the best candidate, I am a team player and support them, because after 45 years, I know which one will do the best job for the greater good.
It's not all about you. You can't have everything you want.
And that's from someone very much like you 35-40 yrs. ago depending on your age.
It's a battlefield out there. I've lost the good fight many times, but I show up every election day and do MY very best to try to keep the Trumps of the country the fuck out of office.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your experience. What do you see as the way forward?
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I think the biggest problem is media distortion. Fake news, people who get their news from FB (not to mention BS sites), people who have opinions without ever reading a newspaper or watching a news broadcast.
Basic mainstream news reporting almost seems ignored, yet it remains a good source if you avoid the opinion shows. You have to be up on basic current events.
It would be nice to have a mainstream produced 'how government works' series, because I don't think most people even understand it. (And that includes the current president). A popular reliable network that gets ratings, not some obscure web site, and put it out there as a public service in prime time a couple times a week including some basic economics and debt study. I think a lot of people would watch.
Many people didn't vote on issues last November, they voted on feelings and what their friends said. Or conspiracy theories. People believe bizzare shit just from here say.
If we could educate the 10% swing voters in the middle, we could start to think about winning some seats back. Until we have control of something, we're on the outside looking in with nothing more than a wish list.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Our modern political situation is quite simply bizarre. Rather than learning the facts and addressing who will represent their interests the best, people are now acting on 'values' and 'beliefs'- and not just idiots. Educated people are turning to this kind of metric as well, and it's adding up to a very depressing future in terms of political progress in our country.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What about the 27 million people who still don't qualify for "affordable healthcare" under the ACA?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What did Dodd-Frank do to regulate investment banking from commercial banking?
Did Dodd-Frank set banking regulations on anyone who might come along next time and try to pull the same sub-prime mortgage crisis shenanigans again?
Because Glass-Steagall did.
Why didn't Obama reinstate Glass-Steagall?
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
The 1st line is an understatement.
And everybody is entitled to their oppinion, but it does get irratiting at times to hear, 'if we run these particular candidates things will change'.
Yeah maybe, but try actually getting them elected. "It's a tough crowd", like Rodney Dangerfield used to say.
You have to sway some of the other side to win.
You may now need more than a 3 million vote lead to cinch a presidential election.
Democrats get more overall house votes in elections, but that's stiffled by gerrymandering.
It's going to be an uphill battle, you have to decide what you really want vs. what you can accept and live with.
It would be nice to have 'fact and science based' candidates. If they're that, I'll listen to them.
If they take a campaign contribution from someone I like, (like a labor union) I don't see that as a bad thing under current rules.
I would also point out as a labor union member dating back to summer work in 1972, just because a union donates cash to a campaign, that doesn't guarantee the union is going to get everything they want. They absolutely do not.
But it's nice to get pro labor judicial appts., etc. That's just playing by the rules, trying to help the middle class who make higher wages as union employees and make for a higher tax base.
There are good political donors also. Until finance reform comes along, whenever the fuck that happens.
