|
Guy Goodbody posted:The Democrats have campaigned hard on women's rights for the past two elections and lost both times, so an argument could be made that people don't care about women's rights. Women's rights are still important, and that should be a part of the platform and they should be fought for, but pretty clearly they can't be the primary message if you want to win elections. It's this and its so insanely simple. You just need a charismatic forceful dude/ette to aggressively and sincerely push a message of economic populism with a good deal of banal American patriotism. At least, that is what was needed for this cycle and probably what will be needed for the next couple (fingers crossed!).
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:No I meant that to them all poor whites are hateful troglodytes who only want to burn gays and lynch black people. So to them being socially conscious is impossible when talking to all poor people because white poor people are uniquely hateful. I don't think this kind of sarcastic hateful speech is that useful even when you're pretending "that's how the other side talks" Like what's your real point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
The establishment Democrats are avowed neoliberals and never followed through with any of those policies
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your post said that we would be able to start running on progressive platforms in 2020, but it sounds like you actually don't think that matters. My bad. I probably should have said "policies" or "values".
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I locked in a 3.375% rate on a mortgage on 10/31 Doing the math -- a new furnace + installation (divided by 2) vs. what you're probably paying in extra interest over the next 30 years -- you just made mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Your post said that we would be able to start running on progressive platforms in 2020, but it sounds like you actually don't think that matters. What is wrong with the 2016 platform (ignoring what we think of it's likeliness of being implemented)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Telephones posted:It's this and its so insanely simple. You just need a charismatic forceful dude/ette to aggressively and sincerely push a message of economic populism with a good deal of banal American patriotism. At least, that is what was needed for this cycle and probably what will be needed for the next couple (fingers crossed!). Well when you leave women's rights out of the platform and fail to energize large sections of the base, maybe the lesson of 2016 will start to sink in. FeedingHam2Cats posted:The establishment Democrats are avowed neoliberals and never followed through with any of those policies I wouldn't be so harsh on Warren, Obama, Sanders, Reid et al they're trying hard. Do you really think they're anti-union?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:The establishment Democrats are avowed neoliberals and never followed through with any of those policies To be fair they occasionally will when it's convenient and won't cost their donors money. It's the one thing that makes them better than the GOP that's just nakedly corrupt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think this kind of sarcastic hateful speech is that useful even when you're pretending "that's how the other side talks" Actually if I had the time to I would gladly find several posts from 2012 arguing this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:The establishment Democrats are avowed neoliberals and never followed through with any of those policies Truth Seriously, you're kidding yourself if you think any of the things listed are establishment Democrat positions. Strengthening unions? Get the gently caress outta here Trabisnikof posted:I wouldn't be so harsh on Warren, Obama, Sanders, Reid et al they're trying hard. Do you really think they're anti-union? They don't have to be anti union. The fact of the matter is that democrats have done literally nothing to strengthen unions besides bitch as republicans passed bills to kill them. In addition to all the other things like tax hikes and expanding the welfare state and etc sit on my Facebook fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Motto posted:Does the Bernie wing still think that he sufficiently addressed those issues in the primary? It's like you need him to take your dick out of his mouth every five minutes and remind you he's sucking it. He's not bad at blowing you, you just suck at getting your dick sucked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:I was considering voting in the GOP primary for the same reason, but on the actual day I decided Bernie probably needed more help to win than Trump. I was right I vote in the GOP primary most years because Texas. I like having a say in the actual election rather than the general. Tried desperately to save David "zzzzzz" Dewhurst from Ted Cruz that first time. Didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Here, have a video of actual smart people explaining the election. tl:dw: we have to end the concept of work itself. It's going to get worse before it gets better. Edit: I think it was Phone who showed me who Mark Blyth is? Thanks! I'm going to use these to write a paper.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well according to you that means the majority just want police violence. No, it's something that will most likely never affect them, because they're white and our justice system actually attempts to live up to innocent until proven guilty for them. They just don't give a poo poo because at a fundamental level they don't believe rampant police violence and discrimination takes place because it does not jive with their personal experience dealing with cops. On the other hand, their boyfriend's dad is a cop, or their uncle or their neighbor, and they're telling stories about all the perps and thugs they deal with and how they're outgunned and outmanned on patrol. They're worried about home invasions to an inordinate extent, that's half the reason why they have a gun if they own one. If you have a good way of convincing people that their worldview is not representative of everyone who lives in this country and that minorities have to deal with all the same problems they do, with an added helping of systemic racism on top, let me know because I have been trying for a while now to do this and I don't think I've made much progress
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:What is wrong with the 2016 platform (ignoring what we think of it's likeliness of being implemented)? I like the 2016 platform, so it confuses me when people say "tear it all down" the suggest we replace it with basically the same thing. Crowsbeak posted:Actually if I had the time to I would gladly find several posts from 2012 arguing this point. Then we could again argue about your known inability to detect sarcasm, yay! sit on my Facebook posted:Truth You've clearly not been paying much attention, labor is literally a core part of the Democratic Party establishment. Shall we go over how many labor leaders control party positions? It is amazing how deep down the rabbit hole we are if Democrats are now considered anti-union.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
gently caress this argument, seriously https://twitter.com/asmith83/status/798688013924626432
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
If Obama is anti-union, explain his DoJ & DoL labor initiatives and NLRB appointments? It makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
They genuinely do not a give poo poo about unions and are absolutely ok with policies that destroy them - stuff like charter schools and NAFTA and TPP and a complete unwillingness to spend money and fight right to work policies. They say they support them to get votes from an ossified union leadership that hasn't really progressed beyond the 1980s when it comes to dealing with their problems. Either they are against unions, or they simply do not care. In any case, they certainly do nothing to help them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If Obama is anti-union, explain his DoJ & DoL labor initiatives and NLRB appointments? It makes no sense. Democrats failed to pass pro-union legislation despite controlling almost 45% of Congress, that's just a fact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Democrats failed to pass pro-union legislation despite controlling almost 45% of Congress, that's just a fact. lol I actually believe people are thinking like that in this thread. FeedingHam2Cats posted:They genuinely do not a give poo poo about unions and are absolutely ok with policies that destroy them - stuff like charter schools and NAFTA and TPP and a complete unwillingness to spend money and fight right to work policies. They say they support them to get votes from an ossified union leadership that hasn't really progressed beyond the 1980s when it comes to dealing with their problems. Either they are against unions, or they simply do not care. In any case, they certainly do nothing to help them. You seem to forget the fight over card check. Or is that proof they don't care enough? The Democratic Party is massively pro-union and sure there are Democrats who aren't and many states where expanding unions is a no-go due to Republicans. But that doesn't make it an anti-union party. Also TPP had pro-labor parts, now we can see it unions do better without it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I like the 2016 platform, so it confuses me when people say "tear it all down" the suggest we replace it with basically the same thing. Yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:It's like you need him to take your dick out of his mouth every five minutes and remind you he's sucking it. He's not bad at blowing you, you just suck at getting your dick sucked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I wouldn't be so harsh on Warren, Obama, Sanders, Reid et al they're trying hard. Do you really think they're anti-union? they didn't put card check up for a vote when then had a super majority lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well trab it's about results and especially with the Clintons we don't get that. If only we had nominated Bernie he would've Judo'd the Republicans into becoming pro-union somehow with his incredible powers of compromise, Hillary could learn a thing or two. SpiderHyphenMan posted:This is legit the most patronizing thing I have ever read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
Zikan posted:they didn't put card check up for a vote when then had a super majority lol I guess you'd rather we never have passed Obamacare? Or are all Democrats to blame for Lieberman and the other mostly-purged yellow dogs? Or do political realities not count when judging success? Crowsbeak posted:Well trab it's about results and especially with the Clintons we don't get that. So nothing has to change for 2020 except pick a hip cool candidate?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well when you leave women's rights out of the platform and fail to energize large sections of the base, maybe the lesson of 2016 will start to sink in. Yeah you're right I'm just exhausted. Agggh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I guess you'd rather we never have passed Obamacare? Or are all Democrats to blame for Lieberman and the other mostly-purged yellow dogs? Or do political realities not count when judging success? Pick someone who is trustworthy. Your side is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Zikan posted:they didn't put card check up for a vote when then had a super majority lol The super majority was basically a myth, good luck basing your reality around it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I guess you'd rather we never have passed Obamacare? Or are all Democrats to blame for Lieberman and the other mostly-purged yellow dogs? Or do political realities not count when judging success? The Democrats had a majority of both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency in 2008. They could have passed single payer if they had the loving guts to actually fight for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Yeah you're right I'm just exhausted. Agggh. My answer is "say it all in a beautiful perfect way but don't ask me how" so I'm as stumped as anyone. But the answer isn't that we need more economic populism and less other parts of the left, but that the left needs to figure out how to push for all of them at once.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:The Democrats had a majority of both the House and the Senate, and the Presidency in 2008. They could have passed single payer if they had the loving guts to actually fight for it. lol yeah, just gonna cruise through the senate with 35 votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
You. Lost. and in spectacular fashion. There is absolutely no credibility to anything you say, especially with regards to "electability."
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Democrats failed to pass pro-union legislation despite controlling almost 45% of Congress, that's just a fact. I guess it's the republicans fault too that teacher's unions are getting squeezed even in liberal bastions and charter schools are floated by the Clinton Foundation and the neoliberal establishment as a solution to the issues facing k-12 education
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:You. Lost. and in spectacular fashion. There is absolutely no credibility to anything you say, especially with regards to "electability." I don't think trabisnikof is hillary clinton tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:They don't have to be anti union. The fact of the matter is that democrats have done literally nothing to strengthen unions besides bitch as republicans passed bills to kill them. In addition to all the other things like tax hikes and expanding the welfare state and etc What can you do when you bitch and complain and make it public in places like Wisconsin and people continue to hand the keys to Scott Walker and his cronies? If you don't have a legislative option to stop it and people keep refusing to vote in changes...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Pick someone who is trustworthy. Your side is not. It's loving baffling that people can't seem to grasp the notion that words are not action, and some people actually have memories longer than a goldfish when it comes to the Democratic Party's revealed preferences and values over the past several decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:My answer is "say it all in a beautiful perfect way but don't ask me how" so I'm as stumped as anyone. If Clinton's loss proved that we need a more authentic progressive voice, Bernie's loss proved that economic populism isn't sufficient on its own. FeedingHam2Cats posted:You. Lost. and in spectacular fashion. There is absolutely no credibility to anything you say, especially with regards to "electability." PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Republicans don't have a loving supermajority either right!?!? But why is everyone making GBS threads their pants? Because you can poke holes in these loving coalitions. Just like the GD Democrats could have done
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:lol yeah, just gonna cruise through the senate with 35 votes. If only they had tried harder they would have gotten Republican support for Nationalizing a $3 Trillion Sector of the economy. FeedingHam2Cats posted:You. Lost. and in spectacular fashion. There is absolutely no credibility to anything you say, especially with regards to "electability." Hey. Guess what. Single Payer was on the Ballot too. Look up the results and get back to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:53 |
|
|
I see we're at the "reinvent history to badmouth the Democrats" juncture of the post-election period.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2016 03:06
|
|
