Hillary to run again in 2020 (Op-ED)

[Joun_Lord]

Is there any way to really prevent it though? Right now the Left is pretty tight together because they have a certain orange haired maniac to rally against. He'll still remain a threat but eventually, especially when the next election cycle starts up again, existing divisions will create problems again though to hwat degree remains to be scene.

As others have pointed out there is some anger towards Bernie Sanders himself and his supporters for as they see it continuing to run long after they lost and then actively sabotaging Clinton's campaign. Any support Sanders had for his party's nominee was lackluster and even now he continues to not support the DNC's efforts by not turning over his email list. On the other side Bernie supporters see the DNC as corrupt and having stole the election from Sanders, was real dicks to him, and didn't exactly make a big effort to welcome them back.

The problems with the Dems no longer appealing to rural voters has hit them right in the nuts this election to the point they are turning to Joe ManChinand asking, "How do I reach these keeds....I mean rural people." Pissed of angry people that used to be pretty damn solid supporters of your party voting against you doesn't help your party much, might get some of the few remaining Blue Dog Dems to go their own way rather then being loyal party members. Senators and shite are beholden to their voters and if their voters stop liking the Dems they are up shit creek if they don't follow their voters wishes. Blue Dogs were cut in half in 2010 then cut in half again in 2012 showing that support even for more conservative Dems are stinking in rural areas. If they don't find some way to win back rural areas they could find themselves getting hurt every election to come until something totally expected happens and rural voters get tired of being shit on by Repubs but its hard to say how long that will take, rural voters can take alot of shit.

Probably the thing that hurts them the most is their is currently no real heir apparent for the next election, nobody realistic to bend over Trump like the whiny baby he is and blister his hide. People are wanting nominees who either didn't do so hot and probably won't do better in the future (Clinton and Sanders), ones that have been burned by the party (Sanders), ones that seem like near impossible long shots at best (Biden and Michelle Obama), or complete unknowns. Probably the best candidate floated is Elizabeth Warren but she seems like a flash in the pan candidate who is in some ways Clinton-lite on some issues, would hurt her the same as Clinton was hurt in rural areas and for younger people. Not to mention polls show her not performing well.

Too many candidate seem to be part of the problem for some voters, old fogeys who cannot connect with young people, poor people, rural people, really anyone. They are the IRL versions of "How do you do fellow kids" for those voters. No charisma, really nothing going for them beyond not being Trump. Thats helpful by alot but might not cinch the nom.

Can Obama run again?

[Ralin]

Is there any way to really prevent it though? Right now the Left is pretty tight together because they have a certain orange haired maniac to rally against.

Have you even been paying attention for the past couple months? Intra-left-ish bickering and recriminations begin within an hour of Trump winning. It's still going on. Just look at this thread, and that's mild compared to some places.

The problems with the Dems no longer appealing to rural voters has hit them right in the nuts this election to the point they are turning to Joe ManChinand asking, "How do I reach these keeds....I mean rural people."

The problems with getting people who aren't racist shits to vote hit the Democrats hard in this election. Why oh why will people not shut up about how we need to cater more to people who aren't going to accept any liberal program that doesn't include a "Blacks, Mexicans and gays need not apply" clause instead of focusing on voters who actually aren't part of the problem?

[Joun_Lord]

Have you even been paying attention for the past couple months? Intra-left-ish bickering and recriminations begin within an hour of Trump winning. It's still going on. Just look at this thread, and that's mild compared to some places.

I know, that was part of my point. My point was also that its currently relatively contained thanks to having a shitbag in chief to keep people together. People are currently not super divided if for nothing else then self interest, they know divided they aren't going to be able to stand against Trumpolini.

However rational thought and self interest may not last forever and eventually people will want to settle scores.

The problems with getting people who aren't racist shits to vote hit the Democrats hard in this election. Why oh why will people not shut up about how we need to cater more to people who aren't going to accept any liberal program that doesn't include a "Blacks, Mexicans and gays need not apply" clause instead of focusing on voters who actually aren't part of the problem?

Thats more or less what I've been harping. The morons who voted for Trump because he promised to kick out all them there Muslims and Make America White Again are lost causes any way you look at it as well they should be. But they aren't ones I'm really talking about nor the ones the Dems themselves are tearing out their hair currently trying to figure out why they lost them like I lost my self respect. Factory workers, miners, farmers, and rural voters in general hit hard by the economy and by drug problems, people who have been traditionally Democratic voters. People who didn't suddenly stop voting blue because they all became bigots or something but because other reasons.

[Ralin]

I know, that was part of my point. My point was also that its currently relatively contained thanks to having a shitbag in chief to keep people together. People are currently not super divided if for nothing else then self interest, they know divided they aren't going to be able to stand against Trumpolini.

However rational thought and self interest may not last forever and eventually people will want to settle scores.

I think you greatly overestimate how much that is happening.

Factory workers, miners, farmers, and rural voters in general hit hard by the economy and by drug problems, people who have been traditionally Democratic voters. People who didn't suddenly stop voting blue because they all became bigots or something but because other reasons.

The Democrats support welfare, unions, workers rights, etc to a greater or lesser degree. The alternative was someone who...doesn't and a party that...manifestly doesn't. Exactly what are you suggesting? Even more subsidies to rural areas that aren't economically viable? Pay coal companies to create jobs mining coal that there is increasingly not a market for? Pay farmers even more money to grow fewer crops (leaving aside how much of the farm industry is big business corporations)?

[Tribble]

The Democrats support welfare, unions, workers rights, etc to a greater or lesser degree. The alternative was someone who...doesn't and a party that...manifestly doesn't. Exactly what are you suggesting? Even more subsidies to rural areas that aren't economically viable? Pay coal companies to create jobs mining coal that there is increasingly not a market for? Pay farmers even more money to grow fewer crops (leaving aside how much of the farm industry is big business corporations)?

Democrats pushing for trade agreements which were guaranteed to gut jobs and human rights even more than are already didn't help. Nor their insistence on fast-tracking said agreements even when it became clear just how unpopular they were. Clinton officially changed sides last minute when she realised just how much support Sanders and Trump were getting over the issue, but by that point it was difficult to believe she was being sincere.


That's probably the thing that annoys me the most about a lot of Democrats atm. Yes in many ways the current setup is unfair and heavily skewed towards Republicans (not to mention voter suppression tactics, which is another story), but guess what? Until the rules are changed they are the rules everyone has to play by, and throwing temper tantrums and going home does not help matters. If the Democrat's current polices are not convincing rural people to vote for them, and they need the rural vote in order to win... then they have to cater more to the rural vote than they are at present. It's as simple as that. No matter how much urban Democrats find the idea deplorable and unnecessary, if getting more of the rural vote is necessary to win they are going to have to do it. Complaining about it at best solves nothing, and at worst makes rural voters even more likely to vote Republican.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think backing off on the support for trade deals that are likely to cost American jobs is something the Democratic Party really needs to do. Avoiding running candidates with a long history of ties to Wall Street probably isn't the worst idea either.

What we should not do is start compromising on things like civil liberties to get the white racist vote (and I'm glad to see that the party as a whole has resisted moving in that direction, as I feared it would after the election), both for the sake of basic decency, and because we're never going to out-racist the Republicans, and trying is only going to cost us more than it gets us in terms of lowering minority turnout for the Democrats.

I would think that the Democratic Platform needs to be built on two basic pillars:

1. An unflinching defence of our democratic institutions (particularly the right to vote and the right to freedom of belief/expression), rule of law, and legal equality against Republican attempts to undermine them. This should include pushing for an end to Citizens United.

2. A bold progressive economic platform aimed at winning the working class vote, including the aforementioned stance on trade deals, minimum wage increases, an expansion of Medicare, and addressing the affordability of post-secondary education. Exactly how far we should go on each of these issues should be open to compromise, but we should not be timid.

As to gun control... I don't think it matters a great deal. I don't feel, as some seem to think, that we were badly hurt by our pro-gun control stance. Most Americans want more gun control, particularly those inclined to vote Democrat, and the Republicans will use that to attack us regardless of weather its true. I don't think it should be one of our central issues to campaign on, though, because frankly, their are more important issues at the moment.

[FireNexus]

Backing off on the support of trade deals is totally unnecessary. An era of protectionism is about to show us why those trade deals end with us better off than without them, as prices skyrocket for basic items. Then just attack opponents of trade as wanting your food/clothing/electronics prices to increase.

It's not as if the jobs gained by protectionism will make up for the price increases. The cost to import most items could literally double and it would still be cheaper to outsource the production. The idea that trade deals "cost American jobs" in a meaningful way is really fucking stupid.

Moreover, those trade deals can be spun in a secondary way as being good stewards of our foreign relationships. Because we're going to need to work really hard to get the rest of the world back on board with us. And since you can open with "are you sick of paying x for your y?" and move on to "are you sick of z being a better friend to the rest of the world than we are?" so the voters associate the idea of higher prices and the anger they feel with the idea of being an asshole to the world.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll concede that strong opposition to trade deals may be a case of "preparing to fight the last war", so to speak. We'll have to see where public sentiment on the issue lies in three years or so.

[Tribble]

Backing off on the support of trade deals is totally unnecessary. An era of protectionism is about to show us why those trade deals end with us better off than without them, as prices skyrocket for basic items. Then just attack opponents of trade as wanting your food/clothing/electronics prices to increase.

It's not as if the jobs gained by protectionism will make up for the price increases. The cost to import most items could literally double and it would still be cheaper to outsource the production. The idea that trade deals "cost American jobs" in a meaningful way is really fucking stupid.

Moreover, those trade deals can be spun in a secondary way as being good stewards of our foreign relationships. Because we're going to need to work really hard to get the rest of the world back on board with us. And since you can open with "are you sick of paying x for your y?" and move on to "are you sick of z being a better friend to the rest of the world than we are?" so the voters associate the idea of higher prices and the anger they feel with the idea of being an asshole to the world.

Were it just about reducing tariffs, I might agree (at least when it comes to reducing tariffs in countries with similar GDP per capita, living standards, laws etc). However most modern trade agreements usually contain more than just that, and are terrible for workers, the environment and the public as a whole. For example, one common element is the Investor State Dispute Settlement system, which gives corporations the right to sue any government in the agreement for any policy which might impact potential future earnings... and completely bypasses the court system by going to a secret arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers who are paid on a per-case basis and not subject to any kind of accountability. Then there is the massive expansion of corporate intellectual rights, particularly when it comes to medicine (making things like pharmaceuticals much more expensive then they already are). And the massive expansion to the "temporary foreign workers" program, so that corporations can bypass many labour laws such as min wages. That doesn't sound remotely beneficial to the average person.

Both Democrats and Republicans these kinds of agreements 100% until Trump and Sanders, and IMO the Democrats need to change their attitude in that respect.

[Tribble]

Or in other words Democrats should be pushing for "fair trade agreements" where everyone can potentially benefit rather than "free-trade agreements" which in hindsight have clearly been designed solely to benefit corporations by bypassing the democratic process and normal rules of law.

[Simon_Jester]

As to gun control... I don't think it matters a great deal. I don't feel, as some seem to think, that we were badly hurt by our pro-gun control stance. Most Americans want more gun control, particularly those inclined to vote Democrat, and the Republicans will use that to attack us regardless of weather its true. I don't think it should be one of our central issues to campaign on, though, because frankly, their are more important issues at the moment.

Gun rights and abortion are two issues that create a significant number of single-issue voters who uniformly vote Republican, even when the Republicans run filthy candidates.

Which of those two would you rather compromise on? Because we could sure have used an extra 35000 swing votes in Pennsylvania, let me tell you. And we'll be needing them just as much in 2018 and 2020 as we needed them in 2016.

Backing off on the support of trade deals is totally unnecessary. An era of protectionism is about to show us why those trade deals end with us better off than without them, as prices skyrocket for basic items. Then just attack opponents of trade as wanting your food/clothing/electronics prices to increase.

I'll concede that strong opposition to trade deals may be a case of "preparing to fight the last war", so to speak. We'll have to see where public sentiment on the issue lies in three years or so.

I agree that it's too soon to be sure. However, given that anti-globalization was powerful enough that it even motivates otherwise left-wing voters to grudgingly admire Trump for being protectionist, I think we should seriously consider that maybe actively supporting globalization trade deals may well be a non-starter in 2018 and 2020.

Much like gun rights, I consider it a negotiable issue compared to things like "people have rights." Or "progressive taxes are better than flat taxes, regressive taxes, or anarchy," or "there should be a social safety net."

[K. A. Pital]

The tariffs are very low anyway.

The coming agreements would have little to do with tariffs and a lot with demolishing sovereignity and worker rights. And ISDS, yeah.

And I think if wages allow it, the high price of goods should not put people off. It is a relative matter. It is also a matter of paying those producing the goods a decent wage.

We all know the origin of the above-mentioned "cheapness", do we not? Or someone needs a reminder? How much child labour and sweatshops is enough to placate the corporations, who want unfettered access to the entire world so that they may search for others to exploit, when organized workforces become "too expensive" or even too unruly?

[Tribble]

The tariffs are very low anyway.

The coming agreements would have little to do with tariffs and a lot with demolishing sovereignity and worker rights. And ISDS, yeah.

And I think if wages allow it, the high price of goods should not put people off. It is a relative matter. It is also a matter of paying those producing the goods a decent wage.

We all know the origin of the above-mentioned "cheapness", do we not? Or someone needs a reminder? How much child labour and sweatshops is enough to placate the corporations, who want unfettered access to the entire world so that they may search for others to exploit, when organized workforces become "too expensive" or even too unruly?

This. There are very good reasons why the people who are generally left on most issues are opposed to agreements like CETA, TTIP, TPP, NAFTA etc. There is far more to the price of goods then just how much they cost monetarily.

Even the "poorer" countries like Mexico have not benefitted from current trade agreements, if the virtual destruction of Mexico's agricultural sector and national industries are any indication. Also, Mexico's average wages are lower proportionally to the US than they were when it signed on to NAFTA in 1994. Why did corporations want Mexico in NAFTA? It's precisely because Mexico has by far the lowest living standards, wages, labour rights etc. and corporations were fully intent on exploiting that to the hilt. And they fully intend on keeping it that way for as long as possible.

[Ralin]

Democrats pushing for trade agreements which were guaranteed to gut jobs and human rights even more than are already didn't help. Nor their insistence on fast-tracking said agreements even when it became clear just how unpopular they were. Clinton officially changed sides last minute when she realised just how much support Sanders and Trump were getting over the issue, but by that point it was difficult to believe she was being sincere.

Catering to nativists by insisting that trade agreements be slanted in favor of US workers in uncompetitive fields would fall under catering to bigoted shits.

For example, one common element is the Investor State Dispute Settlement system, which gives corporations the right to sue any government in the agreement for any policy which might impact potential future earnings...

A trade treaty that can be derailed if any given part of the US decides to pass laws unfairly restricting foreign companies’ ability to do business isn’t going to hold much water, now is it?

and completely bypasses the court system by going to a secret arbitration panel composed of corporate lawyers who are paid on a per-case basis and not subject to any kind of accountability.

Hey, you know how judges in much (most?) of the US are elected in popular elections? Without an arbitration clause there’s nothing stopping politicians from fucking over a company by declaring that they have to close a factory down because it’s killing off some endangered toad species or something stupid like that to pander to their greedy constituents. Corporate lawyers would have the knowledge to separate stuff like that from legit concerns.

Then there is the massive expansion of corporate intellectual rights, particularly when it comes to medicine (making things like pharmaceuticals much more expensive then they already are).

Oh my god, companies will be able to decide who uses their patents and how much to charge for their medications?! The horror.

And the massive expansion to the "temporary foreign workers" program, so that corporations can bypass many labour laws such as min wages.

Yeah, that’s straight up nativism. Do you have any idea how many hoops you have to jump through to get a work visa in the US? My heart just bleeds for these people who apparently got vapors at the idea of having to compete with nasty foreigners.

That doesn't sound remotely beneficial to the average person.

It sounds plenty beneficial to the investors who lay out the money to fund companies and run businesses. You know, the ones who actually matter?

People really need to get over this idea that corporations are welfare agencies that owe them jobs and shit.

[K. A. Pital]

Catering to nativists by insisting that trade agreements be slanted in favor of US workers in uncompetitive fields would fall under catering to bigoted shits.

US workers are "bigoted shits"? How do you know if a field is uncompetitive? The world has several highly industrialized nations in Asia which have many times the US workforce and produce things cheaper due to the massive wage level disparity. Does this mean all of US manufacturing should be axed? Why not?

A trade treaty that can be derailed if any given part of the US decides to pass laws unfairly restricting foreign companies’ ability to do business isn’t going to hold much water, now is it?

This also applies to sovereign nations. Restricting their ability to pass laws. This is the biggest heap of bullshit in defence of ISDS I've ever seen. Who the fuck cares if the companies don't like the law? The law is supreme. They have to abide by it - or go away. Of course pro-oligarchic fuckers will always try to subvert and enslave - but they shall not prevail.

Without an arbitration clause there’s nothing stopping politicians from fucking over a company by declaring that they have to close a factory down because it’s killing off some endangered toad species or something stupid like that to pander to their greedy constituents. Corporate lawyers would have the knowledge to separate stuff like that from legit concerns.

"Corporate lawyers" would have to crush legitimate concerns first and foremost, and then deal with the laughable stuff. It is not like corporations have a glorious record of caring about negatively affected by their actions, either:

Oh my god, companies will be able to decide who uses their patents and how much to charge for their medications?! The horror.

Do you have any idea how many hoops you have to jump through to get a work visa in the US?

Do you? I did it, but you apparently and obviousy did not. You don't know neither the wages (they are minimum or thereabout, with every attempt to give lower than minimum and make work unpaid overtime, if there are any such ways) nor the conditions. And you do not know in what conditions the seasonal workers live. But sure, please enlighten us...

It sounds plenty beneficial to the investors who lay out the money to fund companies and run businesses. You know, the ones who actually matter? People really need to get over this idea that corporations are welfare agencies that owe them jobs and shit.

You need to get over the idea that corporations do not owe anything to the public, but can do what they want with it.

[Joun_Lord]

I think you greatly overestimate how much that is happening.

The "Dems staying together because of Trump" or "Dems playing the blame game"? The former I'd say I'm relatively accurate, right now while trump is fresh in peoples minds and diddling our laws and rights the Left wing has alot of anger at him to get out and get motivated. You could see a similar phenomenon when Obama was first elected and people on the Right were pissed, Tea Partiers and bog standard Republicans held rallies and shit. However as time went by the zeal went away. Unlike the Left though the Right hadn't the cracks the Left is having now, not to anywhere the degree.

Which addresses the latter, people are pissed as fuck at each other. Everyone knows the election was the Democrats to win and it was theirs to lose. Trump shouldn't have won even through the electoral college system. He was unpopular, he was a jackass, he was at best a bit of a dumbass, he said shitty things about women and minorities, he was in Home Alone 2, and nobody even himself expected to win. The fact he did win makes people blame each other, possibly even more then they do him. Again it was their election to win or lose and they lost it, its not a stretch to think it was the fault of Sanders or Clinton or racial minorities or women or young people or who ever. Over time that anger towards their own might get worse as they lose the drive to stand against Trump and turn inwards.

The Democrats support welfare, unions, workers rights, etc to a greater or lesser degree. The alternative was someone who...doesn't and a party that...manifestly doesn't. Exactly what are you suggesting? Even more subsidies to rural areas that aren't economically viable? Pay coal companies to create jobs mining coal that there is increasingly not a market for? Pay farmers even more money to grow fewer crops (leaving aside how much of the farm industry is big business corporations)?

I don't know the solution. I'm smart enough to know I'm nowhere near smart enough to figure out how to deal with the quagmire that has become many rural areas anymore then I know how to fix similarly blighted urban areas. Investment in new industries, education, force people to move (yeah I've heard that one), or expand public benefits, I dunno.

All I know is despite Democrats saying they supporters workers and farmers and the like jobs have disappeared massively, entire regions have shrunk, towns have become ghettos, drug problems are at record levels in some areas, and it seems like Democrats are doing little if anything to help.

If Democrats cannot reach out and show overt support, actually improve lives, there is no way for them to win there.

As to gun control... I don't think it matters a great deal. I don't feel, as some seem to think, that we were badly hurt by our pro-gun control stance. Most Americans want more gun control, particularly those inclined to vote Democrat, and the Republicans will use that to attack us regardless of weather its true. I don't think it should be one of our central issues to campaign on, though, because frankly, their are more important issues at the moment.

I think it matters some but mostly as an issue that Republicans can use against them especially in some areas much like how opposition to marijuana legalization can be used to hurt some Dems in some areas among some demographics.

Being anti-gun (which is how its played and sometimes with plenty of evidence) really doesn't help Dems with voters who hunt, who shoot, who own a weapon for self defense. Not just some bucktoothed redneck but plenty of other people. Even among Dems there is a hefty portion of people who own guns and plenty of independents too. Not to mention plenty of Republicans who are single issue when it comes to guns.

People do want more gun control but actual sensible gun control, a better background check system, an improved NFA, and not stupid shit like bans based on cosmetic features or bans really at all. The problem is too many Dems think shit like Australia gun control or merry old Englands gun control are reasonable, think banning shit like shoulder things that go up and barrel shrouds.

I think Dems should stop putting so much stock in gun control.

When it comes to single issue issues like gun rights and abortion compromising on abortion restricts rights, hurt women and minority women especially, and is based on religious tomfoolery. There should be no compromise, no backing away. I don't think its the same thing with guns just as I think the same holds true for weed, not being so against it will help them more then harm them.

[Ralin]

US workers are "bigoted shits"? How do you know if a field is uncompetitive?

The fact that having to compete without the government coddling workers in that field will apparently kill their jobs?

The world has several highly industrialized nations in Asia which have many times the US workforce and produce things cheaper due to the massive wage level disparity. Does this mean all of US manufacturing should be axed? Why not?

The parts that aren’t profitable, certainly.

This also applies to sovereign nations. Restricting their ability to pass laws. This is the biggest heap of bullshit in defence of ISDS I've ever seen.

Psst. Any time a country signs a treaty they accept restrictions on their ability to pass laws and the like. This is no different from the US signing a visa waiver agreement with Canada and not letting Texas require Canadians to produce a visa to enter Texas.

Who the fuck cares if the companies don't like the law? The law is supreme. They have to abide by it - or go away.

Who the fuck cares if voters don’t like foreign companies doing business in their area? You don’t like it? Work for someone else.

Of course pro-oligarchic fuckers will always try to subvert and enslave - but they shall not prevail.

Blah blah, Internet Maoist crap.

"Corporate lawyers" would have to crush legitimate concerns first and foremost, and then deal with the laughable stuff. It is not like corporations have a glorious record of caring about negatively affected by their actions, either:

Blah blah, Internet Maoist crap.

And this is exactly why intellectual property rights have to be upheld. Otherwise those companies would have been cheated out the profits they were entitled to by being forced to sell their intellectual property for well below what the market is apparently willing to pay.

Do you? I did it, but you apparently and obviousy did not. You don't know neither the wages (they are minimum or thereabout, with every attempt to give lower than minimum and make work unpaid overtime, if there are any such ways) nor the conditions

Haven’t had any need to. But I have gone through the Chinese work visa process and by all accounts the US version is a hell of a lot worse.

And you do not know in what conditions the seasonal workers live. But

Conditions that they’re willing to accept, evidently. But that’s fine, being legally allowed to work in the US allows them to push for better conditions.

You need to get over the idea that corporations do not owe anything to the public, but can do what they want with it.

Snerk. No, I really don’t.

[Tribble]

Catering to nativists by insisting that trade agreements be slanted in favor of US workers in uncompetitive fields would fall under catering to bigoted shits.

Given that the competition is in many instances virtual slave labour, yes I think there is cause for concern. Free trade agreements are all about bringing labour, environmental and living standards around the world lower, not higher.

A trade treaty that can be derailed if any given part of the US decides to pass laws unfairly restricting foreign companies’ ability to do business isn’t going to hold much water, now is it?

There is a difference between restricting foreign companies' ability to do business because they are foreign and restricting business practices for public policy reasons. Working with the public is part of the cost of doing business. Giving corporations the ability to completely bypass that for the sake of maximising their profits is wrong as far as I am concerned.

[/i]

Hey, you know how judges in much (most?) of the US are elected in popular elections? Without an arbitration clause there’s nothing stopping politicians from fucking over a company by declaring that they have to close a factory down because it’s killing off some endangered toad species or something stupid like that to pander to their greedy constituents. Corporate lawyers would have the knowledge to separate stuff like that from legit concerns.

Right. So for example when a state tries to pass a law banning a clearly dangerous substance or practice, or protecting the environment, or protecting workers, or anything at all which can potentially impact corporate profits really, corporations should be able to completely bypass public policy and the rule of law by suing the governments in a secret tribunal with no accountability to rack up their profits.

Oh my god, companies will be able to decide who uses their patents and how much to charge for their medications?! The horror.

When it comes to things like, say, someone purchasing a drug patent then raising the price by 5,000% simply to rack up more money even if literally means people dying, yes, that is a problem. In many ways US patent laws are absurd enough already, no need to put them on steroids.

And btw, pharmaceutical companies already manage to make good profits with current laws, why do they need to be expanded?

Yeah, that’s straight up nativism. Do you have any idea how many hoops you have to jump through to get a work visa in the US? My heart just bleeds for these people who apparently got vapors at the idea of having to compete with nasty foreigners.

Ya, how dare people complain that corporations are attempting to setup a system where they can import temporary workers with practically no rights / wages the dispose them at leisure for the specific goal of wiping out the local labour forces. Again, your just proving my point that they entire goal of these agreements is to lower everyone's wages and rights as much as possible.

It sounds plenty beneficial to the investors who lay out the money to fund companies and run businesses. You know, the ones who actually matter?

People really need to get over this idea that corporations are welfare agencies that owe them jobs and shit.

I draw the line at corporations being able to bypass national sovereignty and public policy outright (including the court system) simply to maximise profits.

It's quite possible for corporations and investors to make a tidy profit without having to screw over as many people as possible.


EDIT: this is going off topic, so perhaps its better to put it in another thread.

[Flagg]

Nexus, you realize there's a difference between saying Bernie should continue to campaign during the primary, and saying that we should continue to pick on internal divisions long after the election has ended, right? The entire point of the primary is to focus the party's message for the election. Whether or not you agree with Bernie is irrelevant, because it's a clearly different situation to now, because the election is over, and continuing to use Bernie as a scapegoat (or whatever the hell Flagg has been trying to do) is silly.

Despite the fact that I have asked this in multiple threads, not a shred of evidence has been provided that Bernie continuing to campaign during the primary had any effect on Hillary's election chances at all. Regardless, that's still utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing now, which is how the American left should act AFTER THE ELECTION. Further note that even TRR supported Hillary in the election proper, despite his support for Bernie in the primary. It's a completely different situation, now.

I'm just continuing to point out that a long time member of a party that has literally spent years raising tens of millions for that party, held a Senate seat as a member of that party, and was secretary of state for a President and member of, that very same party is not getting some kind of "unfair" advantage when she's running for the nomination for that party against the guy who jumped into the party JUST. IN. TIME. to make a bid for the same nomination. Notice how I said she wasn't getting an "unfair" advantage over Burning Slanders? She was getting a perfectly fair (by the rules everyone agreed to when they threw their hat in) advantage as a decades long, staggeringly well experienced, and big-time money raiser for her party should get. Party primaries go by party rules that the party agrees to. If they didn't, there wouldn't be much of a party, would there?

The fact is that honest people (which neither are) like Serney Blanders should have conceded the second it was obvious that he had no way to win, just as Clitlary should have in 2008.

And all the little shits mewling and crying "let every state caucus or hold their primary!" as Donnie Douchebag was picking his VP Were doing the exact opposite fucking thing the Hillary morons did in 2008.

And in both 2008 and 2016 there was a ton of intra-party shit-flinging. in 2008 it was by the Hillary fucks and in 2016 it was the Bernie blowers.

And Ziggy, I don't blame the Sanders suckers for the loss as much as I do the fact that he can be used as a scapegoat. That and that idiots who felt it was somehow unfair for someone who contributed nothing to a party to be refused to be trusted with that parties greatest "prize" for lack of a Better word: the nomination to be POTUS

[Flagg]

And all the little shits mewling and crying "let every state caucus or hold their primary!" as Donnie Douchebag was picking his VP Were doing the exact opposite SAME fucking thing the Hillary morons did in 2008.

Fixed that. Someone needs to kick that posters ass.

[Tribble]

Trade part of the thread split to here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=166164

[His Divine Shadow]

As to gun control... I don't think it matters a great deal. I don't feel, as some seem to think, that we were badly hurt by our pro-gun control stance. Most Americans want more gun control, particularly those inclined to vote Democrat, and the Republicans will use that to attack us regardless of weather its true. I don't think it should be one of our central issues to campaign on, though, because frankly, their are more important issues at the moment.

Gun rights and abortion are two issues that create a significant number of single-issue voters who uniformly vote Republican, even when the Republicans run filthy candidates.

Which of those two would you rather compromise on? Because we could sure have used an extra 35000 swing votes in Pennsylvania, let me tell you. And we'll be needing them just as much in 2018 and 2020 as we needed them in 2016.

Backing off on the support of trade deals is totally unnecessary. An era of protectionism is about to show us why those trade deals end with us better off than without them, as prices skyrocket for basic items. Then just attack opponents of trade as wanting your food/clothing/electronics prices to increase.

I'll concede that strong opposition to trade deals may be a case of "preparing to fight the last war", so to speak. We'll have to see where public sentiment on the issue lies in three years or so.

I agree that it's too soon to be sure. However, given that anti-globalization was powerful enough that it even motivates otherwise left-wing voters to grudgingly admire Trump for being protectionist, I think we should seriously consider that maybe actively supporting globalization trade deals may well be a non-starter in 2018 and 2020.

Much like gun rights, I consider it a negotiable issue compared to things like "people have rights." Or "progressive taxes are better than flat taxes, regressive taxes, or anarchy," or "there should be a social safety net."

Some sensible opinions, otherwise this thread was starting to look like how democrats refuse to learn and were already starting planning how to loose in 2018 and 2020.

If it looks like a repub, talks like a repub, acts like a repub, why vote for it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XZiZ3YR8gI&t=408s

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, one thing I think desperately needs to be remembered is just how wide the gap is between "looks, talks, and acts like a Republican" is as a valid criticism, and where just about every Democratic politician is. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because "she seemed too much like a Republican" was being, in my honest opinion, a fool.

If the Republican Party's candidates and leaders were suddenly replaced with a swarm of Rubio, Kasich, and Pence clones, we could work with that. That wouldn't be nearly so disastrous as having Cruzes (let along Trumps) running around peeing all over everything. There are a very specific subset of Republican policies that present grave problems for the future of America, and another subset on which negotiation and compromise are appropriate or even actively desirable.

In an environment where Democrats are actively trying to succeed, a Democrat who is only a short distance to the left of someone like Kasich or Rubio should be able to run as a Democrat, if they so desire. They should not have to worry about the party as a whole rejecting them as a "DINO" or whatever.

That would greatly reduce the Democrats' vulnerability to voter suppression and the Electoral College, because it would enable us to win support in, as the guy you linked to noted, "rural areas Obama won."

And it really shouldn't present an ideological problem; if the Republicans can expand their tent to include Marco Rubio and Steve Bannon, we should be able to expand ours to include both centrists and progressives.

[The Romulan Republic]

While there is some truth to that, there is also a reality that a lot of Democrats, liberals, and progressives, myself included, are sick of Centrists who compromise too much. Especially when the only "compromise" most Republicans seem interested in, of late, is total capitulation on our parts. That's part of the problem- making some slight gains in the Centre won't help us if it costs us an equal or greater number of votes with the Left/progressives.

That said, I think that at this point, those of us who are opposed to Trump and his allies should be willing to work with pretty much anyone who is sincerely committed to upholding democratic government, fundamental checks on executive power, the rule of law, legal equality, and the maintenance of a functional social safety net.

I also think that to an extent, policy is less important than personality in winning elections. It is unfortunate that it should be so, but I think that one of the lessons that we can potentially take from Obama winning in those "rural areas", and Clinton losing them to Trump, is that people vote for a personality that excites/inspires them, either positively (as in Obama's "hope and change") or negatively (as in Trump's strong man posturing, fear mongering, and scape goating).

The upside of this is that it may not be necessary to compromise significant chunks of the Democratic platform, if we can find a personality who can convincingly sell it to a majority of the electorate.

Edits: I truly don't believe that we lost this election on our platform. We lost due to a combination of a system weighted against us (which unfortunately is something that will likely take a long time to fully reform), and Clinton's history and personality, or rather the somewhat distorted public perception of them.

That's not meant as just a jab at Clinton either. I hold the Right wing propaganda machine and the FBI more responsible than her. It just is a recognition of the situation.

[His Divine Shadow]

Honestly, one thing I think desperately needs to be remembered is just how wide the gap is between "looks, talks, and acts like a Republican" is as a valid criticism, and where just about every Democratic politician is. Anyone who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton because "she seemed too much like a Republican" was being, in my honest opinion, a fool.

If the Republican Party's candidates and leaders were suddenly replaced with a swarm of Rubio, Kasich, and Pence clones, we could work with that. That wouldn't be nearly so disastrous as having Cruzes (let along Trumps) running around peeing all over everything. There are a very specific subset of Republican policies that present grave problems for the future of America, and another subset on which negotiation and compromise are appropriate or even actively desirable.

In an environment where Democrats are actively trying to succeed, a Democrat who is only a short distance to the left of someone like Kasich or Rubio should be able to run as a Democrat, if they so desire. They should not have to worry about the party as a whole rejecting them as a "DINO" or whatever.

That would greatly reduce the Democrats' vulnerability to voter suppression and the Electoral College, because it would enable us to win support in, as the guy you linked to noted, "rural areas Obama won."

And it really shouldn't present an ideological problem; if the Republicans can expand their tent to include Marco Rubio and Steve Bannon, we should be able to expand ours to include both centrists and progressives.

You assume the rural areas would always vote conservative or moderate, which is mostly prejudice about "the other" in my view. These same areas voted Obama... And then stayed home for Hillary Clinton and her message of more of the same. I bet these "hicks" would have been more interested in what Bernie had to say, who was able to play to a lot of the same problems regarding trade that Trump was. It's always this when the democrats loose because they field a centrist, it's always "not right enough", gotta keep that right wing part wide open, but don't give an inch to the progressive side of the party.

The democratic party doesn't need to lose the right wing side, but the party and it's leadership sure as heck needs a serious leftwards kick in the balls when it comes to trade/economics. It can skip the gun issue, too.