Patriot Party: DabbingSanta/GregTheGreat ticket

[S019]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

The Democratic Party is not really dominated by neoliberals, at all. The misuse of the term neoliberal is something that really irks me since it's used in so many ways to discredit the successes of the Third Way Left of the 1990s and early 2000s. Anyways, putting that aside, neoliberalism at its core involves market liberalization and arose as a consequence of the excesses of Keynesian economic policy as practiced by left-wing parties (referred to in some countries as the Post War Consensus). The stereotypical neoliberals are not Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Really all use of the term does is discredit much of the progress made by the global left during the 1990s.

[S019]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

The Democratic Party is not really dominated by neoliberals, at all. The misuse of the term neoliberal is something that really irks me since it's used in so many ways to discredit the successes of the Third Way Left of the 1990s and early 2000s. Anyways, putting that aside, neoliberalism at its core involves market liberalization and arose as a consequence of the excesses of Keynesian economic policy as practiced by left-wing parties (referred to in some countries as the Post War Consensus). The stereotypical neoliberals are not Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Really all use of the term does is discredit much of the progress made by the global left during the 1990s.

Who reformed welfare, unleashed a wave of outsourcing on the textile and other industries and set the stage for the Great Recession by signing two major pieces of financial deregulation in his term?

Well I believe we need to look back at before the 1994 Republican Revolution, when frankly the Republican Revolution forced Clinton's hands on many of these issues. His 1994 budget, while yes cutting spending, did implement sizable tax increases. To the degree that the left did practice neoliberalism, which okay maybe Clinton did, but really none of the other Third Way leaders (Blair, Schroder, etc.) did, it was a different type than the right practiced. Sure Clinton did not raise taxes back to their pre-Reagan levels of 70%, because the party was of course different, and sure it had to concede some matters on economics to the right given the clear failure of the Keynesian Consensus, but overall, this is a pretty reductive view of the left of the 1990s. On the point of outsourcing, that was basically inevitable as globalization increased and fighting it was a fools errand. When you're forced to concede some of your economic policy since it clearly failed, you'd rather not swim against the current, so that's the first thing you'll concede. Anyways blaming the Global Financial Crisis simply on the repeal of Glass Steagall is not exactly the best reasoning. The legislation had already become significantly weak by the time of its repeal, so it would've done little to stop the risky lending that would balloon during the first half of the 2000s. On the topic of the GFC, we should note that America was far from the only place with let's say not-ideal economic factors, as we of course saw with the Southern Europe disaster. Lastly, the market does ebb and flow, and expecting housing prices to rise forever, especially in the context of all of these risky loans, is just unrealistic. Maybe both parties share blame, maybe the market cycle shares blame, maybe it's a mix, but one thing is for sure, there were far more factors than the repeal of Glass-Steagall that contributed to the GFC.

[S019]

IMO Cao lost since he announced his bid relatively close to election weekend and thus lost the support of DAers who had endorsed (and voted for) Scott when it was assumed that Spark would be the Federalist candidate.

Also, Scott, being pro-gun, makes him an exceptionally strong Laborite candidate and highly appealing to swing voters.*

*since while Atlasia is heavily left-wing, Atlasia is about 50/50 on guns with a sizeable pro-gun Laborite minority and likewise, there is a substantial minority of pro-life and anti-PC Laborites (at least in my opinion).

Atlasia has a different political alignment from real life, its almost like there is a sizable rural contingent that votes on issues like unions and workers rights and thus the left party has a large pro-gun and even pro-life contingent like the Democrats did 20 years ago. Perhaps this is an indicator of what a Democratic Party could be if it wasn't dominated by donors and neoliberals.  Pro-gun socialists and leftwing populists.

The Democratic Party is not really dominated by neoliberals, at all. The misuse of the term neoliberal is something that really irks me since it's used in so many ways to discredit the successes of the Third Way Left of the 1990s and early 2000s. Anyways, putting that aside, neoliberalism at its core involves market liberalization and arose as a consequence of the excesses of Keynesian economic policy as practiced by left-wing parties (referred to in some countries as the Post War Consensus). The stereotypical neoliberals are not Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, but Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Really all use of the term does is discredit much of the progress made by the global left during the 1990s.

Who reformed welfare, unleashed a wave of outsourcing on the textile and other industries and set the stage for the Great Recession by signing two major pieces of financial deregulation in his term?

Well I believe we need to look back at before the 1994 Republican Revolution, when frankly the Republican Revolution forced Clinton's hands on many of these issues. His 1994 budget, while yes cutting spending, did implement sizable tax increases. To the degree that the left did practice neoliberalism, which okay maybe Clinton did, but really none of the other Third Way leaders (Blair, Schroder, etc.) did, it was a different type than the right practiced. Sure Clinton did not raise taxes back to their pre-Reagan levels of 70%, because the party was of course different, and sure it had to concede some matters on economics to the right given the clear failure of the Keynesian Consensus, but overall, this is a pretty reductive view of the left of the 1990s. On the point of outsourcing, that was basically inevitable as globalization increased and fighting it was a fools errand. When you're forced to concede some of your economic policy since it clearly failed, you'd rather not swim against the current, so that's the first thing you'll concede. Anyways blaming the Global Financial Crisis simply on the repeal of Glass Steagall is not exactly the best reasoning. The legislation had already become significantly weak by the time of its repeal, so it would've done little to stop the risky lending that would balloon during the first half of the 2000s. On the topic of the GFC, we should note that America was far from the only place with let's say not-ideal economic factors, as we of course saw with the Southern Europe disaster. Lastly, the market does ebb and flow, and expecting housing prices to rise forever, especially in the context of all of these risky loans, is just unrealistic. Maybe both parties share blame, maybe the market cycle shares blame, maybe it's a mix, but one thing is for sure, there were far more factors than the repeal of Glass-Steagall that contributed to the GFC.

It wasn't just Glass Steagal, it was also the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which legalized many of the same classes of derivatives that were at the heart of the meltdown. Clinton also pushed irresponsible lending as did Bush who followed him, but the housing market's impact on the rest of the economy was only made possible thanks to the exposure to mortgage backed securities and the proliferation of these in the early to mid 2000s, thanks to the deregulation signed by Clinton in the 1990s.

 

Well sure I don't deny that legislation was part of it, but risky loaning, imo, would've happened regardless, banks often find loopholes through laws, so even if the legislation remained in place, I don't think we just see subprime mortgages disappear completely, or even get reduced much at all. As for mortgage backed securities, those had already been popular by the 1980s, so again not convinced leaving this one law in place changes that. Sure we can say that banks bought a lot of mortgage backed securities, and maybe this legislation would've prevented some of the more risky ones from being traded. But like most financial crises, there were many causes, and there were far more steps that needed to be taken than leaving one or two laws in place to avert it. In fact, maybe it was never possible to be averted, but if it was, at least, in my opinion, you'd need to fundamentally change the behavior of the banks and the lenders, who were perhaps the largest contributors to the crisis, one or two pieces of regulation would not achieve that, in my opinion.

[S019]

"election integrity," lmao

[S019]

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2016/10/clown_lives_matter_protest_clowns_creepy.html

[S019]

Do you actually know what climate change is? Serious question.

[S019]

You are a total clown.