|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think that for a lot of minorities, they hear and know that if you do not address systemic racism first or as a major part, that anything you do to improve "economic equality" automatically helps white people more than it helps them. This is, of course, a larger debate of intersectionality, but I think it's an important thing to remember. So why can't we posit income equality with a racial angle? I don't see why it isn't irrelevant to them. Honestly, I might ask in a post in the great race space, since I might get a clearer answer.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They don't like banks. The hope is healthcare. The hope ain't healthcare. What emotion does healthcare provoke in people? Anger, hate, division. A reminder that they are not in control over their future, that environmental and other external factors have a greater influence than their intrinsic will. When you try to sell healthcare, you're trying to sell taking away individual freedom and autonomy. It just don't loving win.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But this ignores a huge problem of people don't understand the difference in "the rich" and them in a meaningful way. That's true, and thats why its important to find a number that won't alienate larger families and upper-middle class voters, while still being effective action. This is where theres one aspect of Obama's narratives that I genuinely liked; very early on he imprinted in peoples' heads that people below 300,000 would be paying less taxes. Obviously republicans nit picked at it regarding families, but ultimately it had a positive impact in how people perceived his pre-presidency tax plans and healthcare. It brought enough straight-facts to the discussion that the republicans made themselves look ridiculous to everyone with their clipart "single struggling businesswoman earning 300,000 a year" presentations. It's one of the few cases where democrats actually understood Optics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh no we might make the GOP mad. Let's just not do anything as long as they SE sociopaths are angry. Not mad, very very happy you dense nazi propaganda spewing gently caress!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Drug re-importation isn't a "lefitst" thing per-sey though. it was done to reduce the cost of medicine and help the poor. there are better options, like price controls, but with what we had we could pass that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:There's this really interesting tendency where "populism" is totally divorced from the historical People's Party/Populists, who were formed around a wonkish argument about the necessity of an inflationary monetary policy that was put together and promulgated by farmers. In fact, there were multiple such groups, and lengthy public debates over Greenbacks versus Free Silver. I guess Americans have just become stupider since the 1880s though. I think they're thinking of left-populist pieces of legislation, like the Pure Food & Drug Act, Sherman Antitrust, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The hope ain't healthcare. What emotion does healthcare provoke in people? Anger, hate, division. A reminder that they are not in control over their future, that environmental and other external factors have a greater influence than their intrinsic will. When you try to sell healthcare, you're trying to sell taking away individual freedom and autonomy. It just don't loving win. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:b5 you're so hateful Calling people autistic as an insult isn't hateful, but being mean about a forum they post in is. This is obviously a Bernout idea of morality. Majorian posted:I'm guessing he won't agree that that's what he's saying. Plenty of people, like The Kingfish, have rejected the idea of having policies at all, but instead suggest having slogans. They refuse to admit that this is what they are doing, but we can either allow them to define reality, or empirically conclude what they believe from their actions. PS: Having worked in union shops for the last couple years, most of my coworkers felt there was a lack of substantive support for labor rather than a lack of words supporting labor. They want policies, not proclamations. thechosenone posted:Has anyone here been using the historical definition of populism here besides you? if so, would you care to share the definition you use for populism? Populism, n: A political ideology aimed at sewing together the fingers of the poster thechosenone so that the people are free from his posts while he tries to cut the stitches off. So named because of the popularity of this course of action.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Calling people autistic as an insult isn't hateful, but being mean about a forum they post in is. This is obviously a Bernout idea of morality. Nothing hateful about pointing out most people don't experience excessive attention to detail, as many of those with autism do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it was done to reduce the cost of medicine and help the poor. there are better options, like price controls, but with what we had we could pass that. Folk don't give a poo poo about the outcome of healthcare; they care about the costs of access. When you talk about importation of drugs from canada, you're making enemies of a well-financed lobby while also telling people that government needs a greater role in their life. When you got Medicaid on the hook for $970 of a 90-day oxycotin script, and the individual pays a $5 co-pay if at all, nobody gives a poo poo if you lower oxycotin to $370 with a $5 co-pay, all they give a poo poo about is that addicts are abusing the welfare system to feed their cravings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think they're thinking of left-populist pieces of legislation, like the Pure Food & Drug Act, Sherman Antitrust, etc. The point, Majorian, is that the idea of "hurr durr let's scam people into voting for us with Donald Trump impressions" is a historical aberration, and I am pointing this out in the hopes that there are some people who are not yet lost. Homeless Friend posted:Nothing hateful about pointing out most people don't experience excessive attention to detail, as many of those with autism do. So, how much did you giggle when you wrote this, and did you jump up and hug yourself when you finished?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Calling people autistic as an insult isn't hateful, but being mean about a forum they post in is. This is obviously a Bernout idea of morality. Don't think anyone has used this definition. Also, I have certainty in my ability to use my face, toes, or a helpful bystander to continue my posting in the meantime of such an event. (eg for bystander: Satan, The Worm that Walks, Shoggoth #330482)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
I know you like testing messages and ideas here, but I don't think this one's a winner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The point, Majorian, is that the idea of "hurr durr let's scam people into voting for us with Donald Trump impressions" is a historical aberration, and I am pointing this out in the hopes that there are some people who are not yet lost. We should win votes by appealing to emotion above all else, and then govern according to fact as we perceive them. Voters anticipate politicians to be hypocritical; all they give a poo poo about any more is whether they are a [i]genuine hypocrite or come off like Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The hope ain't healthcare. What emotion does healthcare provoke in people? Anger, hate, division. A reminder that they are not in control over their future, that environmental and other external factors have a greater influence than their intrinsic will. When you try to sell healthcare, you're trying to sell taking away individual freedom and autonomy. It just don't loving win. Free health care is hope. As long as they are receiving it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Why the gently caress should I sweat the policy specifics when I can just pay some little Yalie bitch to write that for me after I'm elected?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, that's the thing. If Americans are creatures of the gut who need to be controlled by technocrats, in your opinion, you are not a leftist and you need to be opposed by actual leftists. So you need to be honest with yourself instead of thinking leftism is just elaborate flimflam artistry done with noble intentions. What in the world are you talking about? If anything you are the one arguing for a technocrat and elect elite. I'll I argued for is a candidate that has some pretty simple ideas that are easy to sell to all Americans. Ever read anything by George Lakoff? Here's his take on an Obama debate back during the '12 elections: quote:You don’t win a presidential debate by being a policy wonk. Obama violated all the basics of presidential debating. The best defense is a good offense. You have to set the terms of the debate and press those terms. Obama failed. Here are those basics: You could sub Obama for Hilary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:So why can't we posit income equality with a racial angle? I don't see why it isn't irrelevant to them. So MIGF made like two mostly grounded in reality posts before he veered back into crazy town, and one of them was on the nature of the New Deal as being sold mostly as for white people only and functioning as such in practice. It's not that racial minorities are categorically against economic progressivism, though obviously older people generally are more conservative. It's that racial minorities know that there is a history of one-size-fits all color blind economic progressives, usually white dudes, getting into office and then leaving minorities out to dry. Now that the country is increasingly less white, this matters more and more. This is important because as Bernie taught us, if you don't appeal well to minority groups in large numbers, you aren't winning a Democratic presidential primary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Free health care is hope. As long as they are receiving it. Free healthcare ain't hope, its entitlement. Crowsbeak, when I say that you are entitled to nothing, what do you feel? A majority of Americans sufficient to win the electoral college feel liberated; they feel inspired; they love freedom more than Barack Obama upon having his first slice of custard-covered apple pie since Michelle started the 'FLOTUS Your Moves' healthy lifestyle campaign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Plenty of people, like The Kingfish, have rejected the idea of having policies at all, but instead suggest having slogans. Well, again, I don't think he'd agree that that's what he's arguing. But even if he is, he's still basically right about what the Dems need to do when it comes to electoral strategy: convince voters who are hurting that they feel their pain. I mean, just think about it for a second: we're at a point where the Democrats need to dramatically change course in order to convince Rust Belt working class voters that they give more of a poo poo about them, than Republicans (and particularly Donald Trump!) do. That's not a great place for the Dems to be in right now. quote:PS: Having worked in union shops for the last couple years, most of my coworkers felt there was a lack of substantive support for labor rather than a lack of words supporting labor. They want policies, not proclamations. I believe you, and I believe that that's probably true on a broader level, as well. The problem is, as you yourself have argued pretty fervently (and correctly) in the past, the Democratic platform in 2016, and Hillary Clinton's campaign platform, had significantly better policy prescriptions for the working class than Trump. The failure was in how they communicated this to a pretty important and widespread swath of working class voters. The policy positions themselves weren't the big, #1 problem, IMO. I would like to have seen them significantly more in a leftward direction, but the positions themselves should have been enough to beat Trump. The problem was, not enough voters in those demographics and areas believed Clinton or the Dems when they said they gave a poo poo about them. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So MIGF made like two mostly grounded in reality posts before he veered back into crazy town, and one of them was on the nature of the New Deal as being sold mostly as for white people only and functioning as such in practice. It's not that racial minorities are categorically against economic progressivism, though obviously older people generally are more conservative. It's that racial minorities know that there is a history of one-size-fits all color blind economic progressives, usually white dudes, getting into office and then leaving minorities out to dry. Now that the country is increasingly less white, this matters more and more. Don't get me loving started on the child welfare system, foster care, and public education. Those policies were enacted by progressive reformers as a means to kill the indian and save the white man; as a means of marginalizing catholicism. LBJ and Obama were the first Democrats to pass expansion of welfare and government control for all, rather than whites, and what was the result? Two Nixon victories, and a Trump win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why the gently caress should I sweat the policy specifics when I can just pay some little Yalie bitch to write that for me after I'm elected? I too want idiots running the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Calling people autistic as an insult isn't hateful, but being mean about a forum they post in is. This is obviously a Bernout idea of morality. Haven't you Brainiac 5, rejected the idea of having reasons at all, but instead suggest people uncritically accept your viewpoints?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I too want idiots running the country. well duh, you support perez and the hillary wing running the party
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So MIGF made like two mostly grounded in reality posts before he veered back into crazy town, and one of them was on the nature of the New Deal as being sold mostly as for white people only and functioning as such in practice. It's not that racial minorities are categorically against economic progressivism, though obviously older people generally are more conservative. It's that racial minorities know that there is a history of one-size-fits all color blind economic progressives, usually white dudes, getting into office and then leaving minorities out to dry. Now that the country is increasingly less white, this matters more and more. And, as Clinton taught us, you don't win minority votes by campaigning upon increasing government control over livelihoods. You can win white voters with that message when you dogwhistle that you mean to use it to control black people; you can't win enough of them white votes a Democratic primary. You can win enough white votes to win the R nomination and general; you can't win enough white votes with that to win the Democratic primary. My takeaway? Circle the square and message expanded government control for whites, and increased individual liberty to minorities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I too want idiots running the country. With all you gently caress'n proposed and discuss, we now have Trump. Your way of doing politics lost, its time for you to give more and talk less while the professionals redirect the party to winning again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
And there you go off back into crazytown, the gently caress do you people smoke down in Chicago? You should pass a law to fix that, Mr. Emmanuel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I too want idiots running the country. My Imaginary GF posted:With all you gently caress'n proposed and discuss, we now have Trump. Your way of doing politics lost, its time for you to give more and talk less while the professionals redirect the party to winning again. I guess this makes me want to ask, what is the failure state of the democratic party's strategy?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So MIGF made like two mostly grounded in reality posts before he veered back into crazy town, and one of them was on the nature of the New Deal as being sold mostly as for white people only and functioning as such in practice. It's not that racial minorities are categorically against economic progressivism, though obviously older people generally are more conservative. It's that racial minorities know that there is a history of one-size-fits all color blind economic progressives, usually white dudes, getting into office and then leaving minorities out to dry. Now that the country is increasingly less white, this matters more and more. I agree 100% with the point about the New Deal and other widespread left-populist bundles of legislation in the past, and I think there's a lot of truth to the point about Bernie's campaign as well. But I also think that Sanders course-corrected on race a lot more quickly than non-Sanderistas give him credit for, too. A big part of the reason why it ended up hobbling him was because the Clinton campaign did a pretty effective job of convincing Dem primary voters that Sanders was, definitively, "bad on race."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well duh, you support perez and the hillary wing running the party Those arent even a thing good lord you're dense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree 100% with the point about the New Deal and other widespread left-populist bundles of legislation in the past, and I think there's a lot of truth to the point about Bernie's campaign as well. But I also think that Sanders course-corrected on race a lot more quickly than non-Sanderistas give him credit for, too. A big part of the reason why it ended up hobbling him was because the Clinton campaign did a pretty effective job of convincing Dem primary voters that Sanders was, definitively, "bad on race." Then the thing is, how do we get someone with political ideology similar to sanders, whom is a minority, since if Hillary had tried that with Bernie!Obama, she would have spontaneously combusted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Those arent even a thing good lord you're dense. I think the idea is that Hillary and Perez were supported by Democratic establishment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I think the idea is that Hillary and Perez were supported by Democratic establishment. That's not the same thing!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The point, Majorian, is that the idea of "hurr durr let's scam people into voting for us with Donald Trump impressions" is a historical aberration, and I am pointing this out in the hopes that there are some people who are not yet lost. Well, that may or may not be Kingfish's perspective (I haven't seen him argue it), but regardless, it's not my perspective. I think the Dems should feel the working class' pain, effectively communicate that they do, and then draft legislation that eases the working class' pain once they are in power. My belief is that the Dems' biggest failure in 2016 was in the second part of that strategy, ie: communicating their empathy effectively. And by "communicating their empathy," I don't just mean, "Awww, poor baby." I mean, "Hey, I know that free trade agreements haven't worked out for you or your town at all. I've seen how it affects you, and listened to your story. Here is what I'm going to do about it."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's not the same thing! So you do not support the establishment wing of the democratic party?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree 100% with the point about the New Deal and other widespread left-populist bundles of legislation in the past, and I think there's a lot of truth to the point about Bernie's campaign as well. But I also think that Sanders course-corrected on race a lot more quickly than non-Sanderistas give him credit for, too. A big part of the reason why it ended up hobbling him was because the Clinton campaign did a pretty effective job of convincing Dem primary voters that Sanders was, definitively, "bad on race." You mean in the same way that Hillary corrected course on economics very quickly which Sanderistas reused to acknowledge, to the point of insisting she never supported $15 an hour or retraining for people in the rust belt?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Then the thing is, how do we get someone with political ideology similar to sanders, whom is a minority, since if Hillary had tried that with Bernie!Obama, she would have spontaneously combusted. I think that might have been more of an issue with Hillary.  It would also probably be an issue for Booker, but I don't think Booker will get the nomination in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree 100% with the point about the New Deal and other widespread left-populist bundles of legislation in the past, and I think there's a lot of truth to the point about Bernie's campaign as well. But I also think that Sanders course-corrected on race a lot more quickly than non-Sanderistas give him credit for, too. A big part of the reason why it ended up hobbling him was because the Clinton campaign did a pretty effective job of convincing Dem primary voters that Sanders was, definitively, "bad on race." I mean, this mostly comes down to issues of perception and messaging, Bernie was gonna have trouble with minority voters even if he didn't make the occasional unforced error because he was an ancient white dude from New England with no name recognition coming down to do a vanity presidential run he didn't think was going anywhere. Those are all still problems that can be fixed though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean in the same way that Hillary corrected course on economics very quickly which Sanderistas reused to acknowledge, to the point of insisting she never supported $15 an hour or retraining for people in the rust belt? I do think a lot of Sanderistas failed to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on enough things, yes. And some of them did that because they ascribed an unrealistic degree of mendacity and cynicism to Clinton personally. Having a tit-for-tat argument on who was more unfair during the primaries, Clinton or Sanders, doesn't serve the left-of-center/anti-Trump cause, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, how much did you giggle when you wrote this, and did you jump up and hug yourself when you finished? I didn't, I did go and take a shower tho. Majorian posted:I think that might have been more of an issue with Hillary. Thank god I live in Cali so I don't have to vote for Booker if it does happen, fuckkkk
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2017 00:23
|
|