|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Why is it impossible? If The Democratic Party was actually for working people, why aren't they in the streets with Fight For $15? Because they're too busy and exhausted to do that. They have families to feed and if they get their rear end thrown in jail or lose their jobs, then they're children and partner are hosed. It's just easier to be quiet, go to work, and hope someday things will change.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:So Giuliani admitted on TV that they are not bothering to do a blind trust of Trump's companies because if they did it would 'put his kids out of work'. It's OK though, because we didn't get the "corrupt" candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
AbsentMindedWelder posted:Hypothetically, let's say Minimum Wage does increase to $15... Index all wages as a multiplier of the minimum wage- everybody gets raises when the min wage goes up! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Because they're too busy and exhausted to do that. They have families to feed and if they get their rear end thrown in jail or lose their jobs, then they're children and partner are hosed. It's just easier to be quiet, go to work, and hope someday things will change. The Venn diagram of "people who belong to the Democratic party" and "people who demonstrate for Fight for $15" would have considerable overlap. Why are we talking like the Democrat supporters turn their nose up at this? They are in many ways the same people (though not 100% the same people.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Is anyone interested in a thread focused on how to get involved with the Democratic party, like, how to affect internal leadership processes and stuff? I would be very interested in a thread detailing how to get involved in local politics or grassroots movements and I suspect a lot of other people on this forum would be as well. I think people are realizing that there is more to being involved in politics than following the news and voting every two years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Showing up for the election isn't good enough. If Bernie and progressives allied with him had started campaigning and building a network in 2012 he would've won the primary and had a shot at the election instead. Instead, he showed up a year out and expected people to back some old dude from Vermont they've never heard of. This is a reasonable point. I would have appreciated Bernie being a part of the Democratic fold earlier. As it is, it seems like even the crowded line up the GOP had was better than no competition. Trump may not have been the GOP's best candidate, but it seems he wasn't bad enough to lose to Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Because they're too busy and exhausted to do that. They have families to feed and if they get their rear end thrown in jail or lose their jobs, then they're children and partner are hosed. It's just easier to be quiet, go to work, and hope someday things will change. I meant the elected officials of the Democratic Party. The workers are already doing these things despite the risks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Because they're too busy and exhausted to do that. They have families to feed and if they get their rear end thrown in jail or lose their jobs, then they're children and partner are hosed. It's just easier to be quiet, go to work, and hope someday things will change. Most people who live in red states are pretty hosed if they never change anything. A huge amount of the policies we need have to happen at the state level and if people don't change their state governments then those lovely governments will resist attempts to impose progress from above and have the legal power to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:I voted for Hillary and so did the vast majority of progressives to try and stop trump. She was such a terrible candidate that she lost to Trump. politics isnt a "once every four years" thing. if you dont like your candidates then get the hell off your rear end and get to work elevating alternatives. if no one listens to you, then obliging them by slouching off to pitch a sulk in the wilderness wont help.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't give a gently caress about optics that's why Donald Trump is president, FYI liberals thought they could just retreat into their bubble and not do the whole 'politics' thing and win anyways, i guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Yeah, Bernie was gaining momentum and would probably have won with even 2 months more lead time. I think his decision was probably a last minute one when he realized there would be no other competition, so he didn't start campaigning soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Showing up for the election isn't good enough. If Bernie and progressives allied with him had started campaigning and building a network in 2012 he would've won the primary and had a shot at the election instead. Instead, he showed up a year out and expected people to back some old dude from Vermont they've never heard of. I had never heard of Bernie before the primary. I became a supporter after listening to his ideas. Why couldn't Hillary supporters do the same? Do you think it was her turn just because she had been around longer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Showing up for the election isn't good enough. If Bernie and progressives allied with him had started campaigning and building a network in 2012 he would've won the primary and had a shot at the election instead. Instead, he showed up a year out and expected people to back some old dude from Vermont they've never heard of. That really sounds like a problem with people and not with Bernie considering how much better of a candidate he was. I backed some old dude from Vermont I'd never heard of. Besides, you can Monday morning quarterback all you want and say "if Bernie had only started in 2000 he surely would have won, it's his fault!" but the fact is that plans take time to organize and people warm up to things slowly sometimes. I think he ran when he was ready to run, and not a moment later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
has anyone pointed out yet that technically, grover norquist was completely correct about vape nation
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Gwen Ifill has died.  EDIT: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/14/502031518/gwen-ifill-host-of-washington-week-pbs-newshour-dies
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Index all wages as a multiplier of the minimum wage- everybody gets raises when the min wage goes up! This already happens naturally because the minimum wage is a price floor and it pushes everything up. The actual problem is that we have a huge underclass of destitute people and poor immigrants who can serve as undercutting labor. If we want to fix that problem, we have to make those people not poor. And no, deporting all the immigrants won't help. The companies will just move the factory to Mexico, and if we block that, automate. So long as there is an underclass, somewhere, we will be at risk to have our labor undercut. We have to fix poverty in places like Mexico and Bangledesh to achieve lasting worker protection. icantfindaname posted:that's why Donald Trump is president, FYI Hurr de durr durr, I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, rear end in a top hat. The fact that right wingers can run efficient smear campaigns and baseless accusations and get away with it consistently - Kerry got this poo poo too remember - should immensely concern progressives because it's not like we're going to be immune to it either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:has anyone pointed out yet that technically, grover norquist was completely correct about vape nation persuasion levels are reaching a critical threshold https://twitter.com/grovernorquist/status/703309700750839810
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Is there any world where 79 year old Bernie runs for office in 2020?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hurr de durr durr, I didn't vote for Hillary in the primary, rear end in a top hat. The fact that right wingers can run efficient smear campaigns and baseless accusations and get away with it consistently - Kerry got this poo poo too remember - should immensely concern progressives because it's not like we're going to be immune to it either. They weren't baseless accusations though. Hillary really did take millions of dollars from various dictators around the world to her personal foundation. She actively created the basis for them. Maybe in a perfect world it shouldn't matter, but in this world, it does matter, and saying "gently caress the world I don't have to care" means Donald Trump becomes president. Sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:that's why Donald Trump is president, FYI Every single person on earth including Trump and Conway thought Trump was losing up until he didn't on tuesday. Nobody but the wackjobs who were totally in the tank saw this coming. Clintons campaign was excellent, but she was running against a dude who managed to ignite racist sexist populist fire and rallied disinfranchised white working class people like so many populists before. That's a very hard thing to counter. There's definitely a precedent for it, but we haven't seen something like that happen in decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Local politics is completely accessible to everyone. It's really a matter of attendance. Showing up to the lowest level party meetings every month, consistently for a year will put you in the elite. Re: $15 an hour people. There is only one thing that matters in determining salary, and that's your bargaining position. If there are a thousand other applicants, your position is weak, if companies are competing for applicants, your position is strong. If you have skills that are common, your position is weak, if you have skills that are rare, your position is strong. And specifically relevant to wage increases. If the employer knows that they have the highest paying job that you're qualified for, your position is weak. If they know that there are a thousand other options where you can make nearly the same wage under better conditions, your position is strong. So, when negotiating, don't bother appealing to fairness and that you deserve to make more than people flipping burgers. Argue that as an employer, they have to compete to get the best employees, and that there's suddenly a lot more competition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:I had never heard of Bernie before the primary. I became a supporter after listening to his ideas. Why couldn't Hillary supporters do the same? Do you think it was her turn just because she had been around longer? Cup Runneth Over posted:That really sounds like a problem with people and not with Bernie considering how much better of a candidate he was. I backed some old dude from Vermont I'd never heard of. People ought to back the better candidate, but name recognition matters. This is marketing 101. Most people won't change brands to something they've never heard of they don't trust it or feel a compelling enough reason. The point is just using Bernie as an example, any progressive could've run. But whatever you say about Hillary, she worked really hard within the party and with advocacy groups to set herself up as the one everyone had heard of and basically had an idea of what they were getting. Progressives need to do that poo poo too, well before the primaries. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
"It wasn't her fault, those mean republicans ran ads against her" Seriously? Hillary is the least liked candidate in the history of polling. She ran a poo poo campaign and handed almost the entire government over to the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
JVNO posted:Is there any world where 79 year old Bernie runs for office in 2020? God I hope not
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Every single person on earth including Trump and Conway thought Trump was losing up until he didn't on tuesday. Nobody but the wackjobs who were totally in the tank saw this coming. Clintons campaign was excellent, but she was running against a dude who managed to ignite racist sexist populist fire and rallied disinfranchised white working class people like so many populists before. That's a very hard thing to counter. There's definitely a precedent for it, but we haven't seen something like that happen in decades. When you're running against a dangerous quasi-authoritarian you really cannot responsibly allow any missteps at all, and the blase attitude towards Hillary's faults was the opposite of that
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The Venn diagram of "people who belong to the Democratic party" and "people who demonstrate for Fight for $15" would have considerable overlap. Why are we talking like the Democrat supporters turn their nose up at this? Because they do. You don't have to look far to see evidence of it too! The shame there too is that you're right, there is a lot of overlap. Dems could have won with that overlap too, but those people are gigantic filthy savages so let's not work with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:When you're running against a dangerous quasi-authoritarian you really cannot responsibly allow any missteps at all, and the blase attitude towards Hillary's faults was the opposite of that I knew her faults, I knew her liabilities but I believed the numbers nerds who all said it was a lock and not to worry. PEC said 100% day of, every poll showed her winning and he only thing to argue about was if the House was going to flip too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:"It wasn't her fault, those mean republicans ran ads against her" She lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote by a decent margin and Republicans already had both floors of congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Every single person on earth including Trump and Conway thought Trump was losing up until he didn't on tuesday. Nobody but the wackjobs who were totally in the tank saw this coming. Clintons campaign was excellent, but she was running against a dude who managed to ignite racist sexist populist fire and rallied disinfranchised white working class people like so many populists before. That's a very hard thing to counter. There's definitely a precedent for it, but we haven't seen something like that happen in decades. Her campaign was NOT excellent. It was bordering on incompetent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:When you're running against a dangerous quasi-authoritarian you really cannot responsibly allow any missteps at all, and the blase attitude towards Hillary's faults was the opposite of that This is true, and I have to say, I kind of feel like the people who shouted down any criticisms of Clinton at all, even from those who were planning on voting for her, need to own up to being part of the problem. I'm not going to name names, but I've noticed that a lot of them haven't posted since last Tuesday...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Because they do. You don't have to look far to see evidence of it too! I've never seen this attitude in the real world. I can believe that at the absolute top of the party the top nobs might have lost touch, but most of the party is local officials and volunteers not much distant from the struggle. If you ask a "Fight for 15" demonstrator who he voted for, he'd probably say "Clinton" or "Stein" not "Trump" or "Johnson"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:"It wasn't her fault, those mean republicans ran ads against her" None of this makes it any less stupid to sit out. You just lose the opportunity to vote for a better candidate in the next primary. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, Bernie will never win if the people who supported him rage out and quit voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:When you're running against a dangerous quasi-authoritarian you really cannot responsibly allow any missteps at all, and the blase attitude towards Hillary's faults was the opposite of that What were the misteps? When you have Russia and wikileaks and the FBI attacking you that's going to be an insane force to deal with for anyone but that's not a thing anyone could have expected. What did they do wrong? That was the strongest campaign I've ever seen in my life, and it was brought down by outside forces and racist/sexist populism combining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
This election made it clear: people don't want incrementalist bullshit like Hillary. They only voted for her to stop Trump, but she was so bad she couldn't even manage that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Glazier posted:I knew her faults, I knew her liabilities but I believed the numbers nerds who all said it was a lock and not to worry. PEC said 100% day of, every poll showed her winning and he only thing to argue about was if the House was going to flip too. Only 538 dissented and said it was pretty close, which was true. And boy did they get poo poo on for this! I heard here that they were fudging the numbers to get ad clicks from the gullible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Aesop Poprock posted:What were the misteps? When you have Russia and wikileaks and the FBI attacking you that's going to be an insane force to deal with for anyone but that's not a thing anyone could have expected. What did they do wrong? That was the strongest campaign I've ever seen in my life, and it was brought down by outside forces and racist/sexist populism combining. the hillary campaign severely neglected "safe" blue rustbelt states, that is a legit criticism
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:She lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote by a decent margin and Republicans already had both floors of congress. Since when is less than half a percentage point a "decent margin"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Gwen Ifill has died. Fuuuuck. We really missed her coverage last Tuesday. PBS was still the only OTA network worth watching but it wasn't the same without her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is true, and I have to say, I kind of feel like the people who shouted down any criticisms of Clinton at all, even from those who were planning on voting for her, need to own up to being part of the problem. I'm not going to name names, but I've noticed that a lot of them haven't posted since last Tuesday... There is a concept called "toxx" on this board which means that people who post in a certain thread agree to be banned if their favoured candidate loses. I suspect this had some impact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:People ought to back the better candidate, but name recognition matters. This is marketing 101. Most people won't change brands to something they've never heard of they don't trust it or feel a compelling enough reason. So then why didn't she beat Trump? I probably sound like I'm being a smart aleck, but I honestly think More people knew about her than Trump. As it is, Did anyone know about Barack Obama outside of his constituency before he became the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008? If Bernie got as far as he did without name recognition, just how well would he have done with another year to get his name out, alongside the well known Democratic party name?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 20:30
|
|