|
WampaLord posted:You have a lot more faith in the Rust Belt than I do, I guess. I live here. You cannot let the "bring back the '50s" narrative stand if you want your success to last longer than two years. These people honestly, legitimately do not think that Mexicans or Chinese people are people. They don't think that macroeconomic policy is complicated. Their rationale is "tariffs = more American jobs, gently caress foreigners," which is both not true and deeply selfish. If you allow this narrative that "the jobs are coming back, the rich just won't let them" stand, the right-wing populists will take their xenophobia and run with it.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Otoh it's really super relevant that free trade is good for everybody if coupled with a robust social safety net (lol good luck). This is why the whole TPP debate was so painful for me. Not enacting it now only pushes the can down the road and keeps the US out of a loving gigantic export market. If we had enacted the TPP and coupled it with a huge federal push for educating and bankrolling a green technology export economy, we would be in pretty good shape. China's going to continue eating our lunch instead, because we have a president who literally doesn't believe in the one product the whole world wants to buy right now, let alone the social safety net we would need to retrain all the service industry jobs we would lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is why the whole TPP debate was so painful for me. Not enacting it now only pushes the can down the road and keeps the US out of a loving gigantic export market. If we had enacted the TPP and coupled it with a huge federal push for educating and bankrolling a green technology export economy, we would be in pretty good shape. China's going to continue eating our lunch instead, because we have a president who literally doesn't believe in the one product the whole world wants to buy right now, let alone the social safety net we would need to retrain all the service industry jobs we would lose. The TPP was a great example of messaging failure. The "No TPP" side had a simple and clear message - "TPP Bad." Meanwhile the pro-TPP side did exactly what to advocate for it? I never heard any positives about it, no one mentioned how the TPP would improve my life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is why the whole TPP debate was so painful for me. Not enacting it now only pushes the can down the road and keeps the US out of a loving gigantic export market. If we had enacted the TPP and coupled it with a huge federal push for educating and bankrolling a green technology export economy, we would be in pretty good shape. China's going to continue eating our lunch instead, because we have a president who literally doesn't believe in the one product the whole world wants to buy right now, let alone the social safety net we would need to retrain all the service industry jobs we would lose. TPP had severe structural problems and massive hand outs to corporations, and is basically emblematic of the problem with free trade agreements. We make bad trade agreements, and then are forced to defend them against morons who outright believe we can stop all trade and become a factory worker's paradise via tariffs. Instead of restructuring the economy and government services to ensure that standards of living remain constant regardless of what the bedrock of the economy is, sector-wise, we just let these people languish and wonder why there's a populist backlash. We shouldn't need the average person to understand trade policy, it just should never have been an issue in the first place. The chronic lack of social services and public goods in the US, and the total lack of effective labor and environmental protections, are our problem, not trade. Now why there is a chronic lack of social services and public goods is a very interesting, separate question. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:So the jobs that can't be automated go overseas when the economy dips? And the trade deals have nothing to do with this? The automation doesn't necessarily lead to job losses right away. Even though the automation infrastructure that gets added may allow the same amount of work to be done with fewer people, it's rare for executives to recognize exactly how many jobs they can trim right off the bat. Typically, things will slide along with maybe more workers than are absolutely necessary for a while...at least until something (like a recession) puts a dent in profits or sales and sends the executives scrambling for ways to trim costs and increase efficiencies. That's typically when layoff waves start happening as they recognize that they can leverage the existing automation to reduce headcount more than they already have. When first implemented, automation is potential job losses, and doesn't get converted into actual job losses until something shakes up the business a bit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The TPP was a great example of messaging failure. The "No TPP" side had a simple and clear message - "TPP Bad." That and EFF was sounding the alarm that the patent/trademark/IPlaw related elements of TPP was SOPA/PIPA levels terrible. It was an awful stand for Obama to go out on. edit: I'm 25 pages back when y'all were accusing people of being anti-semetic and trying to parse a difference between Ellison/Perez than just rehashing a primary, and I want to say that it's pretty funny that the general assumption is that if the far-left doesn't get on board with the center-left and let the center-left win, then the right wing will overrun us all. It feels like an admission that there's no reason to be centrist. A proper centrist should draw enough votes from the Republicans that losing a few radicals shouldn't matter. Also, can we admit that if we do recalibrate our meaning of left/right that some old voting blocks might become less powerful? Part of the reason I've speculated that the Sanders left was viewed as a bunch of white boys who couldn't get black people to vote for them may be because, as a national demographic, black people have a strong role for the church in their communities. I have periodically thought that, if the Republicans weren't always attacking the poor as a signal of attacking black people, that their anti-abortion, pro-church viewpoints would get them more traction in the black demographic. It's possible that the Democrats 98% support among black people might need to erote to 70% or so if we're to move further leftward, and we'd just have to accept that. I don't want to "play the card" or whatever, but Ellison may be able to better bridge that divide. That's one reason I lean toward him. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The TPP was a great example of messaging failure. The "No TPP" side had a simple and clear message - "TPP Bad." TPP has very little to do with free trade and a whole lot to do with soft power and hedging against China. Think Cordel Hull/FDR "trade relationships encourage peace" type policy. FDR's 1944 state of the union. quote:There are people who burrow through our Nation like unseeing moles, and attempt to spread the suspicion that if other Nations are encouraged to raise their standards of living, our own American standard of living must of necessity be depressed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 05:16
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Meanwhile the pro-TPP side did exactly what to advocate for it? I never heard any positives about it, no one mentioned how the TPP would improve my life. It was unsellable. There was nearly no short-term upside except maybe an enforcement mechanism against the Chinese knockoff industry, which probably wouldn't prevent the PRC from just pretending it doesn't exist anyway. It's the sort of policy that you pass quietly halfway through your term because if the public figures it out you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It was unsellable. There was nearly no short-term upside except maybe an enforcement mechanism against the Chinese knockoff industry, which probably wouldn't prevent the PRC from just pretending it doesn't exist anyway. It's the sort of policy that you pass quietly halfway through your term because if the public figures it out you're hosed. The TPP would've been sellable if it had been better written. The problem isn't that the TPP is intrinsically a bad idea on principle, the problem is that as written it was a pretty poo poo deal. Trade deals would be marketable to the public if they had something worth marketing in them, but we don't write them as such because they aren't written with us in mind, and that more than anything is what must change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I can't speak to Portman, but Feingold can be explained by Wisconsin hurtling rapidly towards being a garbage Republican state. It also has crippling voter suppression (due to said Republicans) much like NC and several other states that have been made to suffer under single party GOP control. And the GOP is fully intending to do the same thing nationwide now that they control all 3 branches of government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:It also has crippling voter suppression (due to said Republicans) much like NC and several other states that have been made to suffer under single party GOP control. Well yeah, I think this is part of the problem with the whole "what is the difference between conservative Democrats and Republicans." The answer is that conservative Democrats don't kneecap the system so that people who would vote against them can't vote anymore. Every single Republican victory makes it easier for them to stay in power indefinitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well if you're "Skeptical" then lets hear your answers. How do you save the democrats. I mean if we're all full of poo poo as you claim. Tell us your answer. Cálmate. Nobody is calling you full of poo poo. I've been chalking most of the overheated preferences for either candidate as primary rewarming. I'm pressing for more clarification on other factors while attempting to ignore the common theme of fail/be failed, since that would confirm my priors rather than add insight. What would I do?
I prefer Perez because he's led departments and divisions to progressive victories in the past, while I'm nervous about the time it'll take Ellison to scale up to leading at an executive level and how transferable his strategy is. I'm more confident in Perez' ability to have Virginia and Georgia Dems implementing a grassroots plan while he's fundraising in New Mexico than I am Ellison in the same scenario. Perez' voting rights victories impress me more than Ellison's constitutional amendment. It's not that Ellison is bad or incapable, I just think the learning curve is a risk and I'd rather he play to his strengths than have to lean on skills he's yet to demonstrate. The reason I asked about Portman and Feingold is that I don't believe that there's a silver bullet in populism (or however you want to phrase the big-P Progressive attempt to stake a claim on Economic Justice) that will ease the journey back to power, but I wanted perspectives on what I might be missing. What I'm hearing is people (especially here in the Rust Belt) are tired of Washington and the Corporate Elite and want someone who rejects that to fight for them.... but that those races and the Primary, where people voted for what I'm told they're tired of and Hillary outperformed, aren't good examples. The Kingfish posted:A populist upstart just won the presidency for the first time in almost two centuries and people are skeptical that Americans are feeling populist? Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
The biggest problem that I'm aware with those ex-new maybe failed trade deals like TPP and it's european version the TTIP would be the part about the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) which implements an system of international arbitration where court battles between private companies and states can be solved and which the US has used to exploit in its favor against some of it's trade partners through legal trickery with some really nasty consequences for quality of food, ecological standards and the protection of digital privacy. Understandibly a bunch of countries are a bit fed up with this even if they mostly have bent the knee because of the promise of economic growth. https://bfogp.org/publications-and-projects/the-transatlantic-colossus/
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
Yeah but like exporting the American IP system and loving over Vietnam through ISDS isn't about American jobs, which is supposedly the problem with TPP vis-a-vis losing elections
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
I get your point, maybe people extrapolate that it's just another showing of how corporations lord over states more and more, and that the US isnt exempt from that either in a general sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I want to say that it's pretty funny that the general assumption is that if the far-left doesn't get on board with the center-left and let the center-left win, then the right wing will overrun us all. It feels like an admission that there's no reason to be centrist. A proper centrist should draw enough votes from the Republicans that losing a few radicals shouldn't matter. It's because they're overly reductive labels that have lost all meaning but still have weight attached to them, so they're still brought up (almost exclusively) in arguments like these. Everyone's usage is relative to their own position-because obviously whatever terms I'm using are correct. So if I'm left-the reasonable, proper kind-anyone to my right (on issues that matter to me) must be center left. Or centrist, if they're really far over. If you're to my left (especially on issues that don't matter to me), you must be far left. I've long believed there's a cognitive bias, where the accuracy of one's description is inversely related to the passion with which they hold it (or the frequency with which they attempt to label others). Craptacular! posted:Also, can we admit that if we do recalibrate our meaning of left/right that some old voting blocks might become less powerful? Part of the reason I've speculated that the Sanders left was viewed as a bunch of white boys who couldn't get black people to vote for them may be because, as a national demographic, black people have a strong role for the church in their communities. I have periodically thought that, if the Republicans weren't always attacking the poor as a signal of attacking black people, that their anti-abortion, pro-church viewpoints would get them more traction in the black demographic. It's possible that the Democrats 98% support among black people might need to erote to 70% or so if we're to move further leftward, and we'd just have to accept that.  I think you can stop speculating. Are you familiar with Moral Mondays? How do you foresee black people voting Republican moving the Dems leftward-like, in what way are black voters holding the party back, and how is that helped by giving extra votes to the GOP?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Younger black people majority supported Bernie iirc. Older black people for whom the New Deal and Civil Rights Movement are living memories are right to be suspicious of economic populism tho because the New Deal was built on the political consensus on and foundation of exclusion of black Americans, and the New Deal coalition broke down almost explicitly because Southern Democrats abandoned the party after JFK and LBJ backed the Civil Rights Movement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Uh so I randomly looked up interviews with tom perez and keith ellison and they both seemed like the most by-the-numbers people ever. Granted I looked at about 10 minutes of interviews for each person, so maybe theres more things I didnt run into, but those 10 minutes felt like eternity. Is there something im missing with either of these dudes? Do they just not interview well? e:I guess to be fair, the one exciting thing ellison had for him was the Bernie backing, but if I didn't know that, I wouldn't have ever guessed. buglord fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
I'm not so much speculating so much as I am reacting to the primary threads where the general consensus was that the Sanders coalition was a bunch of whiny whites and thank god that Democratic turnout in the south were sane and voted Abuela. The only thing I actually know is in the south party affiliation frequently aligns with race. Clinton supporters read those turnout numbers and saw fit to chalk it up to the black vote. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And even if we grant that Hassan is a true pure non-establishment progressive, the important question isn't if she won or lost, it's did she outperform Hillary in NH? The margin of victory was very tight in both races, but Hillary's margin was 0.2% larger. Which one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I'm not so much speculating so much as I am reacting to the primary threads where the general consensus was that the Sanders coalition was a bunch of whiny whites and thank god that Democratic turnout in the south were sane and voted Abuela. The only think I actually know is in the south party affiliation frequently aligns with race. Idly wondering whether or not a white progressive party would be more successful is literally the reason why black people were on average wary of Sanders, hth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Idly wondering whether or not a white progressive party would be more successful is literally the reason why black people were on average wary of Sanders, hth. If that's what you read, you didn't read it right. Going left is going to cause some moderate people to feel that the party left them. I'm talking about deeply religious black voters because the deeply religious white voters are already Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It couldn't be that some unscrupulous politicians in our party have sold displaced manufacturing workers a bunch of hokum about ending NAFTA and bringing those jobs back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If that's what you read, you didn't read it right. Going left is going to cause some moderate people to feel that the party left them. I'm talking about deeply religious black voters because the deeply religious white voters are already Republicans. So long as the Republican Party is overtly racist most people of color are not going to swap over. There already are black Republicans and conservative black people, but even as the Democratic Party has advanced on social issues they haven't swapped over in large numbers. Black people, as a general group, aren't against economic leftism. They're against economic leftism for white people only, which is a thing that has historically been popular in the US and needs to be killed as an idea now. That people keep snidely decrying "identity politics" or getting mad at a lack of support for Sanders among older black people in the South is obliquely referencing the obvious fact that yeah, you could basically run a white progressive party and win every election, you'd just also inevitably leave minorities behind and become racist, just as we did with the New Deal. Edit: or to put it another way, the answer to "why can't we just stop talking about race and focus on class?" is simply, because when you stop talking about race white people assume racism has stopped existing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This is why the whole TPP debate was so painful for me. Not enacting it now only pushes the can down the road and keeps the US out of a loving gigantic export market. If we had enacted the TPP and coupled it with a huge federal push for educating and bankrolling a green technology export economy, we would be in pretty good shape. China's going to continue eating our lunch instead, because we have a president who literally doesn't believe in the one product the whole world wants to buy right now, let alone the social safety net we would need to retrain all the service industry jobs we would lose. WampaLord posted:The TPP was a great example of messaging failure. The "No TPP" side had a simple and clear message - "TPP Bad." If it was so loving important to get the treaty signed you sure couldn't tell from the way they conducted the negotiations. Every time a draft copy was leaked it confirmed everyone's worst fears about it, and the only assurance we were given was a totally unverifiable "don't worry, we'll take out the naughty bits in the final version" which turned out to be mostly bullshit. And it didn't help that it came on the heels of SOPA et al, containing language those industries wanted and exported the United States' dysfunctional copyright regime overseas. You're absolutely right we need a trade deal with those nations. Shame the Democratic President, in his hubris, hosed it up so very badly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:yeah, you could basically run a white progressive party and win every election See, I don't think you can. And that's kind of what scares me. My emotional brain is concerned because for some reason leftism is associated with godlessness in this country, and my analytical brain is concerned because we already saw of a large black turnout in California in 2008 and the passage of prop 8 (gay marriage ban), and all theories trying to suggest correlation instead of causation never quite added up. All of that suggested that if the Republicans weren't virulently racist, Democrats would be losing a lot of voters over our stance on abortion, gays, etc. I suppose however there's not many ways that Democrats can oppose the political position of churches much further than they already have. Still, to me it suggests we need to do more to improve and invest in minority communities schools, services, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:See, I don't think you can. And that's kind of what scares me. My emotional brain is concerned because for some reason leftism is associated with godlessness in this country, and my analytical brain is concerned because we already saw of a large black turnout in California in 2008 and the passage of prop 8 (gay marriage ban), and all theories trying to suggest correlation instead of causation never quite added up. Shifting towards positive Christianity and utilizing liberal, often minority churches to counter the toxic influence of Evangelicals should be a higher priority of the party anyway, so I don't agree that, that is a permanent problem. I don't agree that Proposition 8 is evidence for turncoat socially conservative black people. Also lol at any forseeable future where Republicans aren't virulently racist. We should invest more in at risk communities in general, both minority and poor white, because the total failure of every institution at every level in the US for these groups is grossly unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
That's a good, reassuring post. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So long as the Republican Party is overtly racist most people of color are not going to swap over. There already are black Republicans and conservative black people, but even as the Democratic Party has advanced on social issues they haven't swapped over in large numbers. loving sounds like they need to listen to MLK Jr. some more. That dude knew what was going on and nailed it before most of us were born. “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are incapable of being conquered,” “You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry. Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong with capitalism. There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” People that push idpol only got their poo poo capitalist-washed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Grognan posted:loving sounds like they need to listen to MLK Jr. some more. That dude knew what was going on and nailed it before most of us were born. haha really, the unironic appeal to MLK to tell black people what they should think? Nevermind that this isn't contradictory whatsoever to anything I said and that MLK also explicitly warned against white moderates who considered themselves liberal being bad allies because they weren't actually interested in changing the status quo on race when the cards come down to the table. Literally you quoted a thing I said that "black people as a group aren't against economic leftism, they're against economic leftism for white people only" and came out with that? I also did not at any point say that identity politics are the only thing that mattered, so please, really, try actually reading what is posted before you quote it. Edit: for your convenience Martin Luther King, Jr. posted:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
If Black Conservative voters want to waffle on progress because they got their middle-class poo poo comfortable and accepted enough to poo poo on others, they are probably wrong. MLK Jr. had it right and it earned him a ton of cross-party hate. I do not see why real progress would be any different. Edit: Mostly talking about this because I see Democrats shut down progress because they see such progress as being impossible. They will blame it on the nebulous other, but their own lobbyists and movers and shakers also don't want change to happen. It is really easy to just pin it down on the other party instead of taking an ineffectual stand and alienating the hands that hold their purse strings. Grognan fucked around with this message at 08:41 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Grognan posted:If Black Conservative voters want to waffle on progress because they got their middle-class poo poo comfortable and accepted enough to poo poo on others, they are probably wrong. Black conservatives already tend to vote Republican, and those that don't aren't a significant number for you to get all dumb and gross about it. Martin Luther King Jr. was ahead of his time in class politics, but knew full well that progressivism coming from white people couldn't be trusted by black people because if race issues are pushed to the side they'll never come back. Ellison is an excellent spokesperson precisely because he signals that progressivism will not abandon minorities to drone on about no war but the class war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
I like Ellison because he probably will not abandon any class consciousness while also representing religious and racial interests if his ties to the Berner are worth a drat. Edit: I apologize for my words, if what I said came across as implying that you supported identity politics with the exclusion of socio-economic class. Because that is a real hazard in our current atmosphere. The waffling in the democratic party that gets assigned to "the voters will rebel against it" probably haven't championed something that will help the poor and/or are really trash at selling something outside the donor class. Much less actually putting out a positive vision for people to be excited about. Like before we even try to propagate something it is shot down by "sensible" types that bank on the fact that they are "middle-class" and noone got anything done in their day anyways. Grognan fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Ellison's organization is devoted to getting out the vote and energizing progressives even when the rest of the ticket isn't backing him. His experience is exactly what the Democrats need right now. That was the most convincing case I've heard for Perez's experience, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:That and EFF was sounding the alarm that the patent/trademark/IPlaw related elements of TPP was SOPA/PIPA levels terrible. It was an awful stand for Obama to go out on. I think it's important to remember that black religious people do not think the same as white religious people. Remember there was a brief period of time where black support for Gay marriage was greater than white people as a whole. Shortly after Obama started pushing it. Another key difference is that black evangelicals are much much more likely to support abortion in all cases than white evangelicals and that black people are slightly more for abortion than white people. http://www.pewforum.org/2017/01/11/public-opinion-on-abortion-2/ Lightning Knight posted:Younger black people majority supported Bernie iirc. This is true up to a point. After around age 30, the votes for Sanders sharply fell off, and even among those under 30, the vote was still pretty close. But it really didn't help that they were only 3 percent of the electorate in the states polled. Craptacular! posted:I'm not so much speculating so much as I am reacting to the primary threads where the general consensus was that the Sanders coalition was a bunch of whiny whites and thank god that Democratic turnout in the south were sane and voted Abuela. The only thing I actually know is in the south party affiliation frequently aligns with race. Clinton supporters read those turnout numbers and saw fit to chalk it up to the black vote. I don't want to say it was a bunch of whiny whites, but the racism coming out of supposed white progressive mouths around that time was palpable. I will just leave it at that to avoid further primary chat. Grognan posted:If Black Conservative voters want to waffle on progress because they got their middle-class poo poo comfortable and accepted enough to poo poo on others, they are probably wrong. Is there any reason you are blaming alot of this stuff on Black conservatives instead of white conservatives or Hispanic conservatives? Party affiliation is pretty complex when complicated by race and doesn't necessarily fall along class or religious lines. Cease to Hope posted:Ellison's organization is devoted to getting out the vote and energizing progressives even when the rest of the ticket isn't backing him. His experience is exactly what the Democrats need right now. That was the most convincing case I've heard for Perez's experience, though. Honestly, they are both about the same on pretty much every thing I have heard from them on, which completely confuses me from posters in this thread because it seems to me that you would want Ellison out there talking about policy, not being locked away raising money from donors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Its legitimately depressing to me some of the attitudes I'm seeing here and elsewhere from people how'd probably describe themselves as hard left with regards to some of their attitudes towards black people or other minority groups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Grognan posted:If Black Conservative voters want to waffle on progress because they got their middle-class poo poo comfortable and accepted enough to poo poo on others, they are probably wrong. Dems don't see progress as impossible, they see it as undesirable and unwanted. They want to destroy unions and grind the poor to dust much like republicans, they just disagree on the timetable. Why else would they work on new and inventive ways of oppressing the poor, like claiming that demonstrating for a decent wage is racism? Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Feb 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:And it didn't help that it came on the heels of SOPA et al, containing language those industries wanted and exported the United States' dysfunctional copyright regime overseas. our dysfunctional copyright regime is actually imported from Europe
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Grognan posted:loving sounds like they need to listen to MLK Jr. some more. That dude knew what was going on and nailed it before most of us were born. “It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? What will it profit him to be able to send his children to an integrated school if the family income is insufficient to buy them school clothes? What will he gain by being permitted to move into an integrated neighborhood if he cannot afford to do so because he is unemployed or has a low-paying job with no future? In asking for something special, the Negro is not seeking charity. He does not want to languish on welfare rolls any more than the next man. He does not want to be given a job he cannot handle. Neither, however, does he want to be told that there is no place where he can be trained to handle it. Few people consider the fact that, in addition to being enslaved for two centuries, the Negro was, during all those years, robbed of the wages of his toil. No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries. Not all the wealth of this affluent society could meet the bill. Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 16:04 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:“It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? What will it profit him to be able to send his children to an integrated school if the family income is insufficient to buy them school clothes? What will he gain by being permitted to move into an integrated neighborhood if he cannot afford to do so because he is unemployed or has a low-paying job with no future? i agree, special programs need to be created to help PoC (beyond affirmative action, etc.). too bad the dems won't do anything. the only special interest group dems are interested in helping is the corporate sector and wall street.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2017 14:44
|
|