Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

grasswire

(50,130 posts)
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:18 PM Feb 2016

Why should Millennials wait for incrementalism?

Why?

Why?

Why?

Will things improve in their lives during their lifetimes if Hillary is elected?

What is the evidence of that?

Why shouldn't they want NOW what people in other first world countries enjoy?

What is the benefit in voting for someone whose policies are the past?

87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why should Millennials wait for incrementalism? (Original Post) grasswire Feb 2016 OP
Don't wait UglyGreed Feb 2016 #1
Incrementalism insures nothing changes. Fuddnik Feb 2016 #54
My cat's breath smells like cat food. onehandle Feb 2016 #2
Go rest up UglyGreed Feb 2016 #3
How about; Sanders loses and everything goes backwards? brooklynite Feb 2016 #4
How about; Hillary loses and everything goes backwards? Katashi_itto Feb 2016 #24
But would that solve Racism/Sexism? daleanime Feb 2016 #53
There is no time for incrementalism BOSNYCDC Feb 2016 #5
Millennials ain't gonna get nothing by trolling workinclasszero Feb 2016 #6
Your answer reminds me of the events that prompted MLK's Letter from Birmingham PatrickforO Feb 2016 #68
Don't wait. yallerdawg Feb 2016 #7
Look at the responses on this thread from Hillary supporters libtodeath Feb 2016 #8
It really is gross. Especially from people who call themselves "Democrats". kath Feb 2016 #10
They seem to be UglyGreed Feb 2016 #15
They are uncomfortable and insecure... dchill Feb 2016 #30
Or they may be the ones UglyGreed Feb 2016 #34
Yes, I think these people have probably amassed some wealth. frylock Feb 2016 #52
They don't seem to be struggling, judging by their complacent attitudes. n/t TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #64
I've brought it up more than once to them and haven't heard any denials. frylock Feb 2016 #66
Of course not. n/t TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #67
One poster here openly boasts about his wealth and connections. frylock Feb 2016 #73
I know who you're talking about. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #74
Yep, same here. SoCal suburban punk, graduated HS in '83. frylock Feb 2016 #76
I was born in 1980, so I was in diapers during the hardcore days. TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #80
I was happy about Jello's endorsement as well. frylock Feb 2016 #81
Ian Mckaye says he votes for the most viable anti-war candidate. n/t TIME TO PANIC Feb 2016 #82
They would be able to smell that it is not rain, but they walk around holding their noses all day Dragonfli Feb 2016 #36
It is their core message to the young voters Dragonfli Feb 2016 #26
Incrementalism brought us the first black president. LAS14 Feb 2016 #9
No it didn't. Fearless Feb 2016 #42
yes, bush's incrementalism did help elect Obama noiretextatique Feb 2016 #72
Incrementalism brought us the Affordable Care Act LAS14 Feb 2016 #11
That's "hilly care" Fearless Feb 2016 #43
No, passing a bill quakerboy Feb 2016 #87
Incrementalism saved us from another great depression. LAS14 Feb 2016 #12
Many have not been UglyGreed Feb 2016 #17
Well, the extremely rich and marginally rich were saved and that is all that matters Dragonfli Feb 2016 #39
Hank Paulson's $700 billion, Deny and Shred Feb 2016 #47
Incrementalism has a chance. Revolution doesn't. LAS14 Feb 2016 #13
Incrementalism apparently brings us forum spam. jeff47 Feb 2016 #19
I guess FDR didn't get that memo . . . n/t markpkessinger Feb 2016 #77
Because artyteacher Feb 2016 #14
AHHHHHH UglyGreed Feb 2016 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author cyberpj Feb 2016 #21
More Democrats voted for Bush than Nader. HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #29
In this case Hillary gets you Trump or Cruze Dragonfli Feb 2016 #32
+100 workinclasszero Feb 2016 #63
To be 100% fair, comparing a 3rd party candidate to someone running through a major party PoliticalMalcontent Feb 2016 #69
Because they will be totally inspired to think their great grandchildren might have health care. nt jeff47 Feb 2016 #16
Working within the system or the market when it is rigged??? tokenlib Feb 2016 #18
We've waited far too long and have lost nearly two decades. It's not sustainable. ram2008 Feb 2016 #22
What do we want? Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #23
Yeah!!!! UglyGreed Feb 2016 #27
there's nothing to guarantee that a President Sanders won't need to 'wait' for incrementalism bigtree Feb 2016 #25
Because nothing requires our political climate remain the same. jeff47 Feb 2016 #31
Obama had a larger 'swath' bigtree Feb 2016 #33
Turnout was still not that great in 2008. jeff47 Feb 2016 #38
man, you come at it with someone in D.C. politics for 30+ years bigtree Feb 2016 #41
Nope, 25 years. jeff47 Feb 2016 #46
unbelievable bigtree Feb 2016 #49
What's hard about that question? jeff47 Feb 2016 #50
. bigtree Feb 2016 #56
Still not a hard question to answer. jeff47 Feb 2016 #58
Bernie will take us in the right direction. immoderate Feb 2016 #35
My 18 year old will be casting their first vote ever grntuscarora Feb 2016 #28
I honestly don't feel you want to know but I'll take a shot uponit7771 Feb 2016 #37
You didn't really answer the question, grntuscarora Feb 2016 #40
The answer is they don't have to wait just get off their asses and get a dem congress uponit7771 Feb 2016 #51
"They"? grntuscarora Feb 2016 #57
They ARE doing that. Ken Burch Feb 2016 #61
They don't like having majorities Hydra Feb 2016 #78
If you don't START you can't finish. Fearless Feb 2016 #44
Um, we have no choice. The Constitution doesn't allow for instant revolutionary changel ecstatic Feb 2016 #45
ironic, tho, isn't it grntuscarora Feb 2016 #48
Go See "Where To Invade Next" zentrum Feb 2016 #55
Because they haven't figured out how to quit asking permission for freakin' everything? jtuck004 Feb 2016 #59
Every great social justice victory in history... iandhr Feb 2016 #60
The millennials should realize they DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT! They can have it NOW! DrBulldog Feb 2016 #62
A Hillary whitehouse wouldnt just mean incrementalism BlandGrenade Feb 2016 #65
Because some of us understand the U.S. system is designed to be slow mythology Feb 2016 #70
It didn't get this way over night Gman Feb 2016 #71
Dear Franklin . . . markpkessinger Feb 2016 #75
Oh, that's going to leave a mark! Hydra Feb 2016 #79
Uhm, because it is her turn? Betty Karlson Feb 2016 #83
frankly... the evidence points to the opposite tk2kewl Feb 2016 #84
Why should anyone wait .. Crap ... I'm old and could die before anything happens MichaelSoE Feb 2016 #85
Incrementalism brought us Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 VRA Empowerer Feb 2016 #86

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
54. Incrementalism insures nothing changes.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:45 PM
Feb 2016

1 step forward, 2 steps back. And vice versa.

I'm 64 years old, and we've been taking the "incremental 2 steps back most of my life.

Fuck that shit!

Feel the Bern!!!!!!

 

BOSNYCDC

(66 posts)
5. There is no time for incrementalism
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:21 PM
Feb 2016

Dire straights. Global warming. Inequality. Terrorism.

Incrementalism --> Too late

PatrickforO

(14,578 posts)
68. Your answer reminds me of the events that prompted MLK's Letter from Birmingham
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:12 AM
Feb 2016

Jail. MLK, and black people in general, were told for years and years and years that they needed to wait, that people weren't comfortable with rapid change. You know what he said? In part:

"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

So there it is. People are tired of hearing 'wait' which actually means 'never.'

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
7. Don't wait.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:23 PM
Feb 2016

Stand by your principles and values.

Support longshots and fringe candidates.

Then you can look back over the last 40, 50 years and ask yourself, "Why am I still waiting?"

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)
8. Look at the responses on this thread from Hillary supporters
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:26 PM
Feb 2016

their answer is because they should have no hopes and dreams.

Sickening.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
73. One poster here openly boasts about his wealth and connections.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:31 AM
Feb 2016

He won't shuddup about it. Dig your sigline graphic. Are you a punker?

TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
74. I know who you're talking about.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:00 AM
Feb 2016

Yeah I'm a punk, grew up listening to all the greats, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys, Circle Jerks, Germs, etc. My mother was very cool and encouraged it.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
76. Yep, same here. SoCal suburban punk, graduated HS in '83.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:14 AM
Feb 2016

Jello Biafra really helped to shape my politics. Have you seen these? Really like the reimagined Circle Jerk's 'Skank Kid'.



TIME TO PANIC

(1,894 posts)
80. I was born in 1980, so I was in diapers during the hardcore days.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 02:33 AM
Feb 2016

I was stoked to hear that Jello endorsed Sanders, all of the DK songs are still relevant today.

Yeah, I ordered all the pins about a week ago. I'm thinking of ordering the Circle Jerks/Sanders t-shirt, it will confuse a lot of people.



.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
81. I was happy about Jello's endorsement as well.
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 02:47 AM
Feb 2016

Keep hoping that more of these guys come out and endorse him. I think Rollins has. Haven't seen anything from Ian MacKaye. I was on Keith Morris' Facebook page last week, and he had some pro-Bernie stuff posted, but no endorsement. Peace!

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
36. They would be able to smell that it is not rain, but they walk around holding their noses all day
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:55 PM
Feb 2016

In training for the election.

noiretextatique

(27,275 posts)
72. yes, bush's incrementalism did help elect Obama
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:24 AM
Feb 2016

but hope and change is why he won, not incrementalism

quakerboy

(13,920 posts)
87. No, passing a bill
Sat Feb 20, 2016, 05:26 PM
Feb 2016

even in the face of drastic resistance brought us the ACA.

Incrementalism would have seen us pass through all 8 years of the Obama Presidency with only minor changes in the health care/insurance system.

Dragonfli

(10,622 posts)
39. Well, the extremely rich and marginally rich were saved and that is all that matters
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:15 PM
Feb 2016
to the top percenters who are the only ones not still in ruin, underwater, poorer due to inflation not matched by wages, those still underemployed by replacement jobs that pay half of what they once earned or now irredeemably unemployed (the over 50s that still can't find job replacements) since the crash.

To a Hillary supporter, a large portion of which are either making $200,000 or above or are extremely affluent even the .01% supporters (that literally support her lavish lifestyle $$$) and that caused the crash but got the bailout money, this incrementalism has worked out pretty darn well. Of course they like these types of incremental change! During this last bought of change all the new money went to those in this paragraph, in other words, to the top percenters, Hillary's largest base.

Deny and Shred

(1,061 posts)
47. Hank Paulson's $700 billion,
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:32 PM
Feb 2016

Bernanke's unlimited liquidity, the TAF program, US government buying billions of mortgages every month for years, pruposely low interest rates, QE 1, QE 2, QE 3, these are not increments.

Taken together, the only precedent in US history is the response to the Great Depression, and I don't think that even compares.

Unprecedented intervention 'saved us' from another depression. Read up on Bernanke if you think he thought 'increments' would have been sufficient.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
19. Incrementalism apparently brings us forum spam.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:35 PM
Feb 2016

Try using the big box sometime. You can write in it too!!

artyteacher

(598 posts)
14. Because
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:32 PM
Feb 2016

With Nader you get dubya.

With Bernie you get Trump or Cruz.

And you'll not only get nothing, you'll lose rights and all FDR'S gains.

Response to artyteacher (Reply #14)

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
29. More Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:48 PM
Feb 2016

And Hillary on the ticket will be a bloodbath. She'll lose every single swing state, in particular Florida and Ohio, snd possibly a few blue ones.

69. To be 100% fair, comparing a 3rd party candidate to someone running through a major party
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:21 AM
Feb 2016

is a false equivalency.

Nader was running as a third party candidate which allowed him to siphon off votes from Gore. Sanders has stated time and time again that he intends to back Hillary if she is the eventual nominee because she's a MUCH better candidate than any Republican. If Sanders isn't running it can be assumed he won't siphon off votes from Clinton.

The fact that Sanders polls better than Clinton against any of the republican candidates (as of today) really undercuts your point when combined with the fact that he won't be running as a third party candidate.

As a bonus, his favorability numbers are vastly superior to other candidates per Huffpo's aggregate model.

Sanders Favorability - +12.5% and climbing
Clinton Favorability - -12.0% and falling

It's hard to win elections with negative favorability ratings. People flat out just don't like Clinton for various reasons (legit reasons or smears).

Now, with this information available I'd posit that Jill Stein (Green Party candidate) would siphon off more votes with Clinton as nominee than if Bernie Sanders were the nominee. In fact, Jill Stein did a relatively good job of grabbing votes in '12 for a green party candidate (Wiki link). It's likely that Sanders as a non-traditional Democratic candidate with history as an independent could reclaim some of those Green Party votes.

That's my...2.... 4... 10 cents. Just let's stop comparing Sanders to Nader, because that's an argument that's easy to dispute.

tokenlib

(4,186 posts)
18. Working within the system or the market when it is rigged???
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:34 PM
Feb 2016

And support the candidate that has helped the 1% to make it so???
And SETTLE for the crumbs that they may or may not toss your way...

Incrementalism in a rigged system?

ram2008

(1,238 posts)
22. We've waited far too long and have lost nearly two decades. It's not sustainable.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:36 PM
Feb 2016

Enough with incrementalism.

bigtree

(85,999 posts)
25. there's nothing to guarantee that a President Sanders won't need to 'wait' for incrementalism
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:42 PM
Feb 2016

...given our political climate and history, it's almost guaranteed he'll be forced to.

What's the benefit in voting for such a naive neophyte?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
31. Because nothing requires our political climate remain the same.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:51 PM
Feb 2016

A vast swath of voters do not bother to vote because we fail to give them enough of a reason. "We'll screw you over less" is not going to change that.

That "naive neophyte" is giving them a reason.

bigtree

(85,999 posts)
33. Obama had a larger 'swath'
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:54 PM
Feb 2016

...you folks think you're reinventing politics.

What's 'revolutionary' to you is old hat for those of us who've been working with our coalition for decades and decades to advance progressive changes.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
38. Turnout was still not that great in 2008.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:02 PM
Feb 2016

Better than other years, but still had a lot of voters who didn't bother.

What's 'revolutionary' to you is old hat for those of us who've been working with our coalition for decades and decades to advance progressive changes.

If you've been working on it, then you've been utterly failing for the last 40 years. Even your "achievements" like the ACA are Republican plans (The ACA was Bob Dole's response to Hillary Clinton's attempt at healthcare reform)

With that track record, why should we expect a different outcome in the future?

We have utterly failed our children. It's time to stop pretending we know better. Because we obviously don't.

bigtree

(85,999 posts)
41. man, you come at it with someone in D.C. politics for 30+ years
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:20 PM
Feb 2016

...with a piddling to show for it. He's been part and parcel of what you call a 'failure.'

Not exactly a stellar hand you have there.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
46. Nope, 25 years.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:31 PM
Feb 2016

And being among the small group of dissenters does not stop the mass of DLC-style Democrats from destroying everything.

Again, we were the ones who were supposed to fight the destruction of much of the Great Society and New Deal. We failed. Badly. Heck, Democrats did a good chunk of the shredding!

With that failure, why do you feel we have any right to say "how things really work"? If we actually knew what worked, we would not have utterly failed.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
50. What's hard about that question?
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:41 PM
Feb 2016

If we knew "how things really worked", why have Republicans controlled the direction of the country for 40 years?

Bill Clinton killing welfare, "era of big government is over", Obama passing Dole's health insurance plan....

If we know how things really work, how'd all that happen?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
58. Still not a hard question to answer.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:59 PM
Feb 2016

If we know how politics really works, why have Republicans controlled the direction of the country for the last 40 years?

Clearly, our "understanding" isn't working.

grntuscarora

(1,249 posts)
28. My 18 year old will be casting their first vote ever
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:44 PM
Feb 2016

in PA's April primary.

They're not interested in waiting for change at a pace slower than continental drift. Neither is their mom.

We're voting Bernie. At least he's a fighter.

uponit7771

(90,347 posts)
37. I honestly don't feel you want to know but I'll take a shot
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 09:58 PM
Feb 2016

The times in America where there was no incrementalism was times when there was gating dem control of congress.

FDR had an avg dem congress in the 70s and 80 percentile, LBJ had it in the 60 and 70 percentile

Those periods of change weren't just people being angry and sayin single word slogans... they had congressional weight behind them.

Otherwise things went slow or not at all...

Sanders whole critique of dems leaves out this little tidbit so he can lead the temper tantrum of the establishment

grntuscarora

(1,249 posts)
40. You didn't really answer the question,
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:20 PM
Feb 2016

except to say that incrementalism is better than nothing.

Nothing personal, but, fuck that.

I've had a belly full of your incrementalism. Perhaps our "tantrums" will carry us to something better, faster. I hope so.

grntuscarora

(1,249 posts)
57. "They"?
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:57 PM
Feb 2016

Now isn't that something we ALL should be working on TOGETHER, DU friend? Or does Hillary think she'll be able to make change, incremental or otherwise, all on her own?

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
61. They ARE doing that.
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:13 PM
Feb 2016

How do we know HRC even wants a Dem congress?

She and Bill didn't try to get one in 1996.

Hydra

(14,459 posts)
78. They don't like having majorities
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 02:06 AM
Feb 2016

It requires them to pretend to care about Dem issues instead of just "caving" and saying they had to to save us.

ecstatic

(32,712 posts)
45. Um, we have no choice. The Constitution doesn't allow for instant revolutionary changel
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:27 PM
Feb 2016

And it's not a good idea to lie to them about how our system works.

grntuscarora

(1,249 posts)
48. ironic, tho, isn't it
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:33 PM
Feb 2016

how we were founded on revolutionary change.

so i guess somewhere in our national psyche we believe in the possibility.

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
55. Go See "Where To Invade Next"
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 10:54 PM
Feb 2016

….to get a real eye full of what millennials in other countries are "allowed" to have from their government.

The rest of the industrialized world pities us.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
59. Because they haven't figured out how to quit asking permission for freakin' everything?
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:07 PM
Feb 2016


Respectfully, where is the evidence that they know how to get anything else?

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
60. Every great social justice victory in history...
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:08 PM
Feb 2016

... was won not with a sweeping revolution but with a series of smaller victories over a long period of time.


I am not saying it's right. I am saying that is the way it has always to happen.

 

DrBulldog

(841 posts)
62. The millennials should realize they DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT! They can have it NOW!
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:21 PM
Feb 2016

There are 75,000,000 of them! ALL they have to do is SHOW UP AT THE POLLS AND VOTE!

Why in earth are there so many of them who do not understand that basic fact of reality?

BlandGrenade

(29 posts)
65. A Hillary whitehouse wouldnt just mean incrementalism
Thu Feb 18, 2016, 11:54 PM
Feb 2016

Like Obama, she will only do enough to appease progressives and then blame republican obstructionism for failing to move the needle. I voted twice for Obama and I'm disappointed as hell that we didn't get a single-payer system. We've already seen the extreme lengths to which republicans will go to obstruct any democratic president, so a moderate like hillary won't achieve anything. She lacks the authenticity and charisma needed to galvanize the disenfranchised liberals into a true movement. If bernie isn't the nominee, I'll stay home and let trump have at it. Maybe after four years of his madness and bullshit, we on the left will finally get our shit together and start a truly progressive movement. By then I'm guessing we will pick up a lot of tea party voters who will back true political outsiders and just maybe our grandchildren will have a future to look forward to.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
70. Because some of us understand the U.S. system is designed to be slow
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:24 AM
Feb 2016

Even if Sanders gets elected, the Republicans will control the House. I'm not saying that will be different if Clinton wins, but if you promise people that you're going to give them the moon and can't even come close to delivering, you are setting them up to become disillusioned. I see a number of Sanders supporters here saying that they were Obama supporters in 2008 but felt he didn't do enough once elected to live up to the illusion they had of him in 2008. I believe Sanders would be worse for that as I think there is very little chance the next president will be anywhere near as consequential as Obama has been.

Then there's the fact that the Sanders plans aren't properly paid for. Any plan that relies on assuming a 5.3% growth over time is absolute bunk and should be treated as such. What happens when they realize the Sanders plans come with a bunch of unpaid bills and consequences?

Gman

(24,780 posts)
71. It didn't get this way over night
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 12:24 AM
Feb 2016

And it won't change just because some person gets elected. What we have now is a result of decades of incrementalism. And things have to change slowly as a result. If progressive Democrats controlled the WH, congress and the a senate, yeah you wouldn't have to wait. But it ain't like that.

Whoever gets elected prez can't will if all to change. He can jump up and down and scream as president, nothing changes. You have to have patience and never stop working to change things. It's hard work.

markpkessinger

(8,401 posts)
75. Dear Franklin . . .
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 01:05 AM
Feb 2016
Dear Franklin:

I know you have ambitious dreams for helping the poor and unmployed as we try to climb out of this Depression in which we find ourselves. I'd love to do all those things, too. But it just isn't how things are done in this country.

Yours sincerely,
Herbert


 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
84. frankly... the evidence points to the opposite
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 11:02 AM
Feb 2016

things have been getting incrementally worse economically for the 99% over the past 30+ years. there have been a few wins on social justice and some significant losses. in my view, if even if you are a beneficiary of improved social justice, if you need to spend 50+ hrs a week to at best tread water economically, you don't get much benefit of such gains.

Empowerer

(3,900 posts)
86. Incrementalism brought us Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1965 VRA
Fri Feb 19, 2016, 04:12 PM
Feb 2016

and many more things.

Of course, we would all prefer that these things NOT be done incrementally and that change comes immediately. but in the real world, with real people living real lives who have real differences, the change we want rarely comes dramatically all at once.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Why should Millennials wa...