Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Democracy's (very excited)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Justice Democracy's (very excited)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats


    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=zkdzpTQeZWs

    This is epic, hugely epic.

  • #2
    That would be nice if were successful. Unfortunately, running for office takes a lot of money, so I don't expect very many Democrats to be lining up to ditch their political donations. If the Justice Democrats can't exert enough pressure to force Democrats to bow, most of them won't. And then, even if a bunch of Democrats did sign on, if they can't somehow make up the money they're losing from those political donations, they'll have a harder time winning elections.

    While this previous election cycle showed that you can win even without spending that much money, the reality is, money does make it easier to get elected. There's a number of reasons why many Democrats will resist this (some of those are even reasonable), and hopefully those who agree don't end up crippling their campaigns and losing elections because they didn't get enough money. If that happens, that would be the death of this movement.

    So there are some potential problems it that immediately stood out to me, and I imagine the Justice Democrats will have a huge uphill battle. But if this movement takes off, I think it would be fantastic for the Democratic Party.
    Last edited by AnubisXy; 01-30-2017, 01:06 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      KayIGjfbGOKGrB6TTtzZwznOTb0SkGfD6ZlVzErhLhIlqTAsJU Vs0kuwpZC_lHs07LQAw

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
        KayIGjfbGOKGrB6TTtzZwznOTb0SkGfD6ZlVzErhLhIlqTAsJU Vs0kuwpZC_lHs07LQAw
        Did you just stroke out? Should I call an ambulance?

        Comment


        • #5
          That... Sounds... Pretty fucking rad, actually.


          Onyx Path Forum Moderator

          My mod voice is red. I use it so you know when I'm speaking in an official capacity, not as an indication of tone.

          Comment


          • #6
            Guess some people really want to take the Centre out of Centre-Left Democrats.

            Will be interesting to see who wins that civil war, if one even starts.
            Last edited by Weirdboyz; 01-30-2017, 03:06 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Eh.

              There's a lot of good in there, but there's also some self-sabotage. Like not taking any money from billionaires. Why? Not all billionaires are the same. Warren Buffett gave to Clinton, but gave a good deal less than many millionaire donors do, because he completely agrees with the need to get financial reform of the election process. If Buffett gives a candidate $25K... that politician is going to face a primary on general principle of... what? All billionaires are evil? Or do people like Buffett who would probably support a lot of the Justice Democrat platform (if not all of it) have to give to the Justice Democrat leadership so they can distribute the money (which just sets them up to be the same sort of organization as the DNC anyway)? If a billionaire wants to help people get elected because they'll tax billionaires more, ensure money has less power over elections, and so on... what's the point of not letting them use their wealth to make that happen? Being "bought" by a billionaire for the sole purpose of making sure billionaires can't buy politicians doesn't exactly seem like a big moral compromise to me. Their platform even includes implementing the Buffett rule! So we'll follow your economic advice but not use your money to make it happen...

              Pressure for greater transparency among Democratic candidates? OK, that's a good standard. There's no self-sabotage there. If you want to give to the Democratic cause, you shouldn't be scared to let people know it, and they shouldn't be scared to let people know who the big donors are.

              I think there's another issue with getting support:

              Their platform isn't really that different from the main democratic platform. A lot of the differences are implementation ones (universal health care in pieces aka Obamacare vs. single payer, universal higher education vs. debt free higher education).

              So the big differences when you break it down are:

              Trade deals, though there stance seems to not really understand how trade deals work. Opposing bad trade deals is all well and good, but they have a key point backwards. Outsourcing happens because costs are cheaper somewhere else. That happens with or without trade deals. Good trade deals are the leverage to reduce the economic impact of that without getting into a trade war. If the Justice Democrats oppose trade deals completely, then what? If it's just, "oppose bad trade deals, but use good ones," that's the Center Democrats party line already. Yelling about NAFTA is a useful tool for populism, but not really a great economic policy position (as Trump's administration seems to be learning).

              Military spending, but that seems to be more a matter of degree than not.

              Nation Building... though that seems to be something Center Democrats are toning down/backing off from anyway.

              Ranked Choice Voting, but that seems something of an odd thing to force on the federal level candidates. Federal level candidates can't force Ranked Choice on the States. That's got to be a local level thing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. We're also seeing the first state wide Ranked Choice going into effect in 2018 anyway, with lots of smaller jurisdictions already adopting it (and most of them are largely Democratic leaning areas as it is). There doesn't really seem to be any significant Center Democrat opposition to this plank, just a lack of priority to it.

              It feels like this is going to be the Sanders Campaign all over again. The positions aren't so different or motivating to mirror the Tea Party successfully. I don't think the Democratic voter base is down enough with the "purity" primary and pushing that tactic too hard is going to be a problem. Do they seriously think they could go after someone like Elijah Cummings or John Lewis if they don't abide by the Justice Democrat purity tests? If John Lewis says, "Warren Buffett can donate to my campaign like any other private citizen," the Justice Democrats are screwed. Trying to primary him is going to destroy their credibility with the mainstream Democratic voter, but not doing it means they don't have the backbone to go after anyone.

              There's no need to be absolutists in this. They can avoid all the problems with extremely popular Democrats that might not pass the strict purity test by having a score card system that says, "we primary everyone that doesn't get an A- or better."

              The Tea Party strategy might have been really good for creating a power opposition, but it sucked for getting effective candidates elected that could actually govern to get all those platform ideals passed. The Freedom Caucus vs. the Republican leadership has been bad for the Republicans, not good.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think if Warren Buffet gave a whooping $250 say, they'd give it a pass, the idea is billionaire shouldn't be in the business of buying politicians, it's about the ethics of the act of billionaire getting a politic in their debt that is the problem, it doesn't matter what policies they support, saying it's okay if a billionaire agrees, with us, but not if they don't is hypocracy, the rule has to be consistent or it undermines the whole thing.

                You can't ask one side to give up massive donations from the rich to get big money out of politics, then accept those types of donations because a billionaire happens to agree with your politics, the other side will rightly point out such hypocracy.

                The difference between single payer universal healthcare and Obamacare which is really Mittromneycare as I understand it, is absolutely massive.

                The difference between some debt relief for tuition and free public post secondary education is massive.

                Cutting reckless defence spending and stopping the destructive influence of the military industry complex isn't just a matter of degree, it's removing the driving force behind the endless parade of wars America finds itself in.

                These aren't piddly things, there utterly massive differences.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AnubisXy View Post
                  Did you just stroke out? Should I call an ambulance?
                  No LMFAO, for some reason the copy paste of the link to their website didn't work properly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm cautiously down with this. I say "cautiously," because I don't really know enough about macroeconomics to assess what the real effects of some of these policies would be.


                    On the frontier of the Wild South, there's only one woman with the grit to take on its most dangerous outlaws and bring them Back Alive, or Maybe Dead.

                    Avatar by K.S. Brenowitz

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Eh, I'm much less excited or interested. I see it as "Hey Bernie Sanders was super-popular during the last election, lets set up a whole GROUP of people that can glom onto that sort of popular support but still be as party-biased as ever!"


                      Odd_Canuck is not a topical medication or food product and is not to be taken internally or seriously.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
                        I think if Warren Buffet gave a whooping $250 say, they'd give it a pass, the idea is billionaire shouldn't be in the business of buying politicians, it's about the ethics of the act of billionaire getting a politic in their debt that is the problem, it doesn't matter what policies they support, saying it's okay if a billionaire agrees, with us, but not if they don't is hypocracy, the rule has to be consistent or it undermines the whole thing.

                        You can't ask one side to give up massive donations from the rich to get big money out of politics, then accept those types of donations because a billionaire happens to agree with your politics, the other side will rightly point out such hypocracy.
                        But this is the whole problem with the purity test ideology that the Tea Party model uses. You can't say, "no money from billionaires" and then cut Buffett some slack (that's also hypocrisy).

                        That's why I call this self-sabotage. It's a symbolic purity test that doesn't actually equate to any practical assurance of results. It's also a completely arbitrary cut off point that makes for good talking points but bad policy. If I'm a Democratic candidate, I can avoid a primary challenge by refusing money from billionaires and corporations... and then get millions of campaign dollars from extremely wealthy millionaires instead.

                        If the Justice Democrats are really serious about this, they should have a much more practical/meaningful test such as, "our candidates pledge to be completely transparent in their donations, and to refuse donations in excess of the legal individual contribution limits from individuals that loopholes allow." That way Buffett can give his $25K (this is not a number I'm pulling out of thin air btw), and there's no hypocrisy.

                        No dark money, and not using loopholes to get around donation caps is really what this ideology is about and should be what the test actually is. Not saying, "billionaires and corporations!" just because it sounds better.

                        The difference between single payer universal healthcare and Obamacare which is really Mittromneycare as I understand it, is absolutely massive.

                        The difference between some debt relief for tuition and free public post secondary education is massive.
                        That depends entirely on what your goals are.

                        If you want to try to enshrine healthcare/higher education as rights, the differences is massive.

                        If you want to get good healthcare and affordable higher education to the maximum number of citizens... not so much.

                        If you want to try to get at some of the systemic issues in the US system around these topics, either approach in both cases gives the federal government enough political power to assert itself for the good of the populace. We don't need single payer for the federal government to have standing/political power to address the ridiculous way medical services are priced. The US government already is the largest single insurance provider in the country, with all the leverage that allows on top of legislative power. We don't need free higher education to address the way the job markets have devalued a college/university degree and all the negative impacts that has on top of how expensive they are to get. Federal money is already on the line for many schools and business to step into that arena and address those problems. Job creation in middle class sectors plus lower student loan interest rates would drastically reduce the student debt problem without the debt-free vs tuition free debate.

                        Cutting reckless defence spending and stopping the destructive influence of the military industry complex isn't just a matter of degree, it's removing the driving force behind the endless parade of wars America finds itself in.
                        "Reckless" is a subjective standard which does make this a matter of degree.

                        As well, most of the excessive military spending in the US federal budget has nothing to do with foreign wars. The DoD and associated bodies have consistently told Congress that they don't need all this money to do what they're being asked to do in regards to combat readiness and active deployment.

                        Most of that money is actually about members of Congress creating jobs for their States/Districts. Large military bases = jobs for the local community. Tank factories that make tanks that are all mothballed immediately = factory jobs. A massive portion of the defense budget is really just a scheme to create socialized jobs without calling them government jobs.

                        These aren't piddly things, there utterly massive differences.
                        I'm not sure you've demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of these issues to actually make that assessment.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was referring to having a donation limit as opposed to directly banning Billionaires from donating. But I agree if it's an out right ban on donations from all billionaires then it has to apply even to ones allies. Warren Buffet will live he can give to the homeless, wounded war vets, or to fight climate change instead,ect...

                          No offence but your disastrous healthcare system is the warning Canadians point to when some selfish asshole wants to privatize healthcare.

                          It's time for universal healthcare in America, there is no excuse for the disaster you have, it not like there aren't models that work far better for you to emulate.

                          So take that military money and build something useful with it, roads, hospitals, enviromental technology, research, manufacture stuff for the poor, ect...

                          Look at the Canadian Healthcare system, which does have it's flaws, and heartbreaking mess America is in.

                          There are a tons of information supporting single payer universal healthcare out there, too much for me to link to it all.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
                            I was referring to having a donation limit as opposed to directly banning Billionaires from donating. But I agree if it's an out right ban on donations from all billionaires then it has to apply even to ones allies. Warren Buffet will live he can give to the homeless, wounded war vets, or to fight climate change instead,ect...
                            Having an outright ban on billionaires is still a dumb position. It's not like there's a ban on people worth between $100 and $999 million in this, and there's a lot of those to pick up the slack in violation of the ideology of the movement.

                            No offence but your disastrous healthcare system is the warning Canadians point to when some selfish asshole wants to privatize healthcare.
                            No offense taken. Our healthcare system is shit. But the ACA did a huge amount to start to address it. The ACA isn't perfect, but as a framework it can address the issue of distributing insurance and reforming insurance standards. The issues in our system that aren't just about distributing insurance though. Things like addressing the aggressive increase in drug costs is not an issue of how we get people insurance. Combating the illogical price disparities where in two comparable hospitals operating in the same area charge radically different costs for the same thing. ACA vs. single payer, doesn't inherently fix that in one of those hospitals saline IV drips are $25 a bag, and $150 a bag in another; insurance companies don't write the charge sheets. The government doesn't need to be an insurance provider at all to step in and regulate charge sheets.

                            This is what I mean about comprehensive understanding of the issues. You don't seem to have any depth of knowledge about where the cracks in the system actually are, and what measures are needed to fix them.

                            I'm a supporter of single payer. I'd be overjoyed if we stopped putting health insurance company profits over ensuring a healthy populace. You don't need to sell me on it being what I would do if I could snap my fingers and change government policies.

                            However, I also live in the USA. I have to deal with the laws that actually get passed. I will take the imperfect (and improvable) ACA over going back to before the ACA, The problem here isn't the left. The left is sold on universal healthcare being the right idea. The right, however, doesn't want it, and will take no health care reform and letting people die because they don't have enough money over it.

                            Taking a purity stance on healthcare in the USA means screwing people like me over, because not accepting a compromise solution like the ACA means no healthcare reform at all until the Democrats have a solid and massive political mandate. "Universal healthcare or nothing" vs "Private healthcare or nothing," means "or nothing" is going to win, and people like me are fucked.

                            People's lives are on the line. This isn't something to be playing political chicken over. Fighting for a universal single payer system is a great cause. But primarying Democrats that want to fight to protect the ACA in the meantime to make sure people don't die until single payer can be a political reality is not the way to go.

                            So take that military money and build something useful with it, roads, hospitals, enviromental technology, research, manufacture stuff for the poor, ect...
                            I agree. The mainstream Democratic party agrees. That's why this is far more a matter of degree as I said before. The Democratic party is in general support of less defense spending and more spending and on everything you just listed. The Justice Democrats aren't adding anything new there, they're just pushing to make bigger cuts to defense than mainstream Democrats.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              How did Obama's compromise solution pan out, oh wait it's being tossed in the trash by Trump, even though Republicans actually the ones who came up with it! That's the kind of crazy your dealing with.

                              You can only make reason compromises with whose willing to recipericate.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X