Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
Yes | 33 | 6.38% | |
No | 343 | 66.34% | |
Keith Ellison | 54 | 10.44% | |
Pete Buttigieg | 71 | 13.73% | |
Jehmu Green | 16 | 3.09% | |
Total: | 416 votes |
|
The Kingfish posted:It doesn't matter if the GOP has failed to demonize the poor among the poor. We wouldn't need to demonize the billionaires among the billionaires. They are already extremely class conscious anyhow. So this is you sticking with no poor person ever respecting or envying a rich person ever for any reason? I'm genuinely curious how far this goes in your head. Do you think every fan of Batman or Iron man is themselves a billionaire industrialist?
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 06:51 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 02:20 |
|
Fulchrum posted:So this is you sticking with no poor person ever respecting or envying a rich person ever for any reason? I love that Fulchrum literally thinks that people think some guy who their told screwed them out of their home or their job is like Bruce Wayne.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 06:55 |
|
Fulchrum posted:
The gently caress is wrong with you? How could you seriously make this argument?
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 06:57 |
|
The Dems could never profit from denouncing billionaires because voters love comic book heroes.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:00 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:I love that Fulchrum literally thinks that people think some guy who their told screwed them out of their home or their job is like Bruce Wayne. You're the idiots who say they're exactly like Oprah. I'm asking where you think the line is.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:05 |
|
Fulchrum posted:You're the idiots who say they're exactly like Oprah. I'm asking where you think the line is. Look I know you have a real tangible grasp on reality. What with being a liberal, but they don't exist.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:08 |
|
KomradeX posted:The gently caress is wrong with you? How could you seriously make this argument? I'm not. If you could follow an argument, that's the logical extension of what Kingfish is saying. The claim is that no poor person in America respects, envies, or wishes to be a rich person ever, for any reason, purely because they are rich, and so there is no form of downside to demonizing all rich people. This is his insane delusion. I point out that if this were the case, which its not, then something that is clearly untrue would be the case. Do you grasp this yet, or do I need to break this down to pictographs for you? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:09 |
|
Personally attacking Oprah is not the logical extension of demonizing billionaires.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:23 |
|
Why not? She's rich. That is literally all you need to know that she's the enemy, going by your rhetoric. You could just sidestep this easily, and demonize only the rich who don't want to fund government services. But you won't do that since it's not about getting votes, it's about attacking Dems.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:27 |
|
Oh, Fulchrum calling anyone delusional is hilarious.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:27 |
|
Fulchrum posted:I'm not. If you could follow an argument, that's the logical extension of what Kingfish is saying. You're insane if you think the logical end point of targeting the rich is people rallying around them because of comic book superheroes or Oprah. Jesus Christ Trump just won an election in part by being a rich person talking about how they've set the rules to benefit him and not regular people. Like he successfully demonized other rich people. Christ the 1% has become a part of our lexicon, people aren't going to think you're attacking Oprah and loving Batman when you talk about how the rich are loving them over. Jesus Christ Clinton losing must have broken your brain pretty drat bad if you've lost the plot so quickly There have been a lot of dumb arguments about why Left Wing action is impossible, but because people will feel bad for Oprah and Batman has to be a new level of shitposting
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:28 |
|
The people who envy the rich or wish to be like them are absolutely susceptible to anti-billionaire propaganda. I doubt many people respect billionaires or would be particularly alienated if the Democrats start denouncing them as a class for letting the country get this bad.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:27 |
|
KomradeX posted:You're insane if you think the logical end point of targeting the rich is people rallying around them because of comic book superheroes or Oprah. Jesus Christ Trump just won an election in part by being a rich person talking about how they've set the rules to benefit him and not regular people. Did you get that? Like how he was specifically attacking the ones who rigged the system in their favor? Not all of them indiscriminately? Do you think there may be a reason for that?
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:32 |
|
Just get some rich celebrities like Oprah and Katy Perry to make a commercial for the Democratic candidate. Americans love rich celebrities, landslide ahoy!
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 07:33 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes, and Schumer who was DSCC at the time, and Reid as leader, both tactically endorsed that plan because they were busy fighting other fires and figured that Sanders was better than splitting a vote and letting some rear end in a top hat Republican take the seat. If you had bothered to read the sources you would seen that the local Democratic leader admitted they had no chance of beating Bernie even if they nominated someone as a Democrat to run against him because he is the Most Popular Politician In America. 'Clearing the field' for the coronation of a widely disliked and distrusted politician who would likely lose the nomination without near-unanimous elite backing is pretty much the exact opposite of deciding not to run a Democratic candidate against an independent you know would thrash you with the voters. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Good luck finding a young vibrant woman of color that is a socialist and willing to go through what Bernie went through I look forward to the whispering campaign of dead-ender #Hillarymans insisting that the Kshamabros are really a bunch of racists and misogynists and that the truly woke must support Tim Kaine. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 08:25 |
|
A reminder that "Can't believe the Waaahm" Deak is also a transphobic piece of poo poo in addition to being a colossal loving knob. Literally in all ways worthless, please stop loving quoting the black poo poo he spews in this forum.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 10:56 |
|
A reminder that this claim of transphobia of yours is literally just me saying that the word transgenderism is not a slur. Also, the person who claimed it was said that WPATH would never use that term, despite WPATH publishing the International Journal of Transgenderism. And him claiming that the suffix -ism only applies to religions.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 11:41 |
|
Why is everyone just ignoring his ludicrous claim that 200k puts someone in the .1% Thats actually below the 20 percent line. Half of 1% of those people are in the top .1% I have only seen Nazi memes quote that number as the 1% line so I guess we know where Fulchrum is getting his news now
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 14:37 |
|
GlyphGryph posted:Why is everyone just ignoring his ludicrous claim that 200k puts someone in the .1% .1% is something like >$1.09m
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 15:07 |
|
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/844916211024572418
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 15:21 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Yes. He did. He did not say all Billionaires are all evil and all should be hated. When you have beaten a dog for long enough, it learns to cower when you so much as look in its direction. Witness exhibit A: paralyzed by the fear of even saying a thing that might upset a billionaire, let alone materially affect one. Someone whose view of the purpose of government has been so broken that the furthest limit of his dreams is a politician directing platitudes in his direction, because the thought of a government, even a single representative, who actually acts in the interests of the people who elected them has been discarded as a radical left-wing fantasy. Someone who, like JeffersonClay, can only explain away the abject failures of the Democratic Party that taught him this vision with "well, maybe if we water down the platitudes some more we can get Republicans to vote for us next time." Donald Trump got more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. And these spineless cowards still recoil from the idea of policies that would help constituents like a vampire faced with a loving cross.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 17:32 |
|
Great post! Very serious thinkers and political "realists" are really sad people. They've experienced nothing but New Democrat hackery for the majority of their lives. And for being very smart and educated, they don't see that they partake in the same bullshit red/blue tribalism as their dreaded enemy, the dumb poor folk.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 18:13 |
|
Fulchrum posted:The claim is that no poor person in America respects, envies, or wishes to be a rich person ever I don't think anybody actually claimed that. Also, you don't really have to work hard to convince the rural and Rust Belt poor that Wall Street is loving them over. Saw this earlier; glad to hear it. I hope this means Schumer recognizes which way the political wind is blowing (ie: not towards centrism).
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 18:24 |
|
Crossposting from the "Trump Administration" thread:Main Paineframe posted:It's correct that Youngstown and Reading have very high poverty rates...but do you know what else they have in common? They're both less than 50% white. Why is a city with almost as many black people as white people being portrayed as a place where votes are decided entirely by the "white working class"? Why is her failure to carry that city being blamed on a failure to carry white voters, without even a single mention of the low turnout among the just-as-numerous black voters? The same goes for Reading, which has more Puerto Ricans alone than people under the poverty line. Why is the fifth-largest city in PA, whose population is 56% Hispanic and 14% African-American, being cited as evidence of failure to appeal to the rural white working class? From the NYT article: quote:Youngstown, Ohio, where Mr. Obama won by more than 20 points in 2012, was basically a draw. Mr. Trump swept the string of traditionally Democratic and old industrial towns along Lake Erie. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points. Those are comparatively huge swings - too huge to discount the role that the white working class swinging away from the Democrats played. The reason why I didn't mention the depressed turnout among black and Latino voters in the other thread was because we were talking about whether or not the Dems' position on white working class defectors should be, "gently caress 'em, they'll die from lack of health care anyway." Plus, white people tend to have higher voter rates than black people or Latinos, which is a bad thing, but a fact. e: Voter suppression plays a role in that, and it undoubtedly played a role in this election as well. But the Democrats aren't going to be able to do anything about voter suppression tactics unless they retake power from the Republicans. They're not going to be able to retake power unless they bring back in some of the '08/'12 Obama voters who stayed home or defected to Trump in '16. e2: Also crossposted from Trump Admin thread: Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 18:40 |
|
Majorian posted:Crossposting from the "Trump Administration" thread: You're missing a few links in the chain, though. You're just pointing at places that had a large percentage swing and saying, "see, it must be the working class whites" - despite the fact that those areas are less than 50% white. Anyhow, I couldn't find results for just Youngstown itself, but I checked vote tallies for Mahoning County in 2012 and 2016, even though (as I pointed out in the other thread) the county is a lot less black and poor than the city itself is. While there was certainly a big swing in percentage, from 63-35 in 2012 to 50-47 in 2016, the real story is in the actual vote numbers: Trump got 9,000 more votes than Romney did, while Hillary got 18,000 fewer votes than Obama did. That means that half the change from 2012 to 2016 wasn't due to Obama voters flipping to Trump, it was due to Obama voters staying home and not voting at all. And while I see you jumped straight to voter suppression as the only possible explanation for non-whites staying home, there's another possibility: that just like white people, they might have felt that Hillary wasn't offering them enough! Deeply embedded in the whole "white working-class" narrative is the idea that programs that help poor people aren't good enough for whites and that poor whites need specially-targeted programs for poor white people only, which is one aspect of the New Deal mindset I'd rather see gone.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 19:43 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:You're missing a few links in the chain, though. You're just pointing at places that had a large percentage swing and saying, "see, it must be the working class whites" - despite the fact that those areas are less than 50% white. As someone else pointed out in the other thread, though, those are just the inner city areas. The whole Youngstown–Warren–Boardman metropolitan area is overwhelmingly white: almost 87%. quote:Anyhow, I couldn't find results for just Youngstown itself, but I checked vote tallies for Mahoning County in 2012 and 2016, even though (as I pointed out in the other thread) the county is a lot less black and poor than the city itself is. While there was certainly a big swing in percentage, from 63-35 in 2012 to 50-47 in 2016, the real story is in the actual vote numbers: Trump got 9,000 more votes than Romney did, while Hillary got 18,000 fewer votes than Obama did. That means that half the change from 2012 to 2016 wasn't due to Obama voters flipping to Trump, it was due to Obama voters staying home and not voting at all. That's still a really big issue for the Dems, though: either way, the Democratic candidate didn't get their votes. The Democratic platform did not speak to them specifically, and/or they did not trust the Democratic nominee to make good on her promises. quote:And while I see you jumped straight to voter suppression as the only possible explanation for non-whites staying home, there's another possibility: that just like white people, they might have felt that Hillary wasn't offering them enough! Deeply embedded in the whole "white working-class" narrative is the idea that programs that help poor people aren't good enough for whites and that poor whites need specially-targeted programs for poor white people only, which is one aspect of the New Deal mindset I'd rather see gone. I mean, I agree on all of this, but the fact of the matter is, Obama also ran on a partially economically populist platform in 2008, and these counties turned out for him overwhelmingly. So the narrative that offering social welfare programs that benefit minorities as well as white people would somehow turn off too many white working class voters in these areas, doesn't seem particularly well-founded. (which I know you haven't explicitly argued, but it is an argument I've seen in this thread) Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 19:52 |
|
Majorian posted:I don't think anybody actually claimed that. You might think The Kingfish wouldn't be that stupid, but, no, he did claim that. When I pointed out you cannot attack someone the audience innately respects or envies without your messaging falling flat, he said that wasn't a problem since only billionaires respect or envy billionaires. I assume he thinks all poor people have perfect class consciousness understanding from birth due to the way their brains react to the magnetic fields of the earth. GlyphGryph posted:Why is everyone just ignoring his ludicrous claim that 200k puts someone in the .1% Wow, you're seriously actually using the "$200,000 per year isn't that much" HENRY argument. Is there literally no Republican argument that you won't gleefully adopt to attack Democrats? Majorian posted:Also, you don't really have to work hard to convince the rural and Rust Belt poor that Wall Street is loving them over. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 19:56 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Wall Street is not the entirety of the rich, and leftists need to grasp this. No, but they are a pretty visible symbol, and they played a fairly pivotal role in the '07-'08 economic collapse. Centrists need to grasp this.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 19:59 |
|
Fulchrum posted:You might think Frijolero wouldn't be that stupid, but, no, he did claim that. When I pointed out you cannot attack someone the audience innately respects or envies without your messaging falling flat, he said that wasn't a problem since only billionaires respect or envy billionaires. I assume he thinks all poor people have perfect class consciousness understanding from birth due to the way their brains react to the magnetic fields of the earth. There is nothing you can think of to do to win back the working-class voters, white, black, and hispanic, that your cowardice lost than try sucking up to the rich and powerful a little more. Your existence is a sick joke.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:00 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Wow, you're seriously actually using the "$200,000 per year isn't that much" HENRY argument. democrats cannot fail, they can only be failed now in post form!
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:03 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:There is nothing you can think of to do to win back the working-class voters, white, black, and hispanic, that your cowardice lost than try sucking up to the rich and powerful a little more. Whereas you think if we just attack their heroes that will make them love us. You are a dumb dense fucker who cannot comprehend a difference between "don't rail indiscriminately against all rich people and instead try to attack just the bad ones" and "we need to slash taxes and regulations on the ultra rich".
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:06 |
|
Fulchrum posted:You are a dumb dense fucker turn on your monitor
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:07 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Whereas you think if we just attack their heroes that will make them love us. They don't like them, Fulchrum. They are not their heroes. Their contempt can be heard every time they hear that an athlete is holding out for a better deal, every time someone who fucks them over gets a golden parachute, every time one of Those Fuckers *vague gesticulation upwards* have screwed them over. There is only one demographic that views the 1% as heroes, and they are white, suburban republicans. You just saw what a democratic campaign designed to appeal to them looks like. It did not end well.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:12 |
|
Ze Pollack posted:They don't like them, Fulchrum. They are not their heroes. Their contempt can be heard every time they hear that an athlete is holding out for a better deal, every time someone who fucks them over gets a golden parachute, every time one of Those Fuckers *vague gesticulation upwards* have screwed them over. I guess that's why pro sports and action movies all have absolutely no audience in rural areas and you never see a bar in a working poor town that has Football on throughout the season. And once again I do have to ask, since The Kingfish figured out it was a loving stupid idea and backed off this argument, how deeply does this delusion of yours go, that only white suburban Republicans can ever respect anyone in the 1%? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:19 |
|
Majorian posted:That's still a really big issue for the Dems, though: either way, the Democratic candidate didn't get their votes. The Democratic platform did not speak to them specifically, and/or they did not trust the Democratic nominee to make good on her promises. There are many confounding factors here that have nothing to do with the democratic platform or how it was sold. And even if we assume the change had to do with policy, it makes a lot more sense that voters in the rust belt, but not elsewhere, were concerned about trade policy than the extent of the welfare state. If Democrats need to make some leftward concession to shore up their base, the three options seem to be trade, welfare, and wall street. My preferences would look like this: 1) Wall Street. Jailing some dudes from wall street, making GBS threads on them in speeches, and advocating strong financial regulations isn't much of a lift. Nobody likes Wall Street so it's a low risk strategy. It probably wouldn't help the average person much, although regulations might stop another financial crisis on a long-term timeframe, and it wouldn't do much to address inequality, except maybe slow it down at the edges, but it would be a political win. Policy impact C-, Politics A. 2) Welfare. Advocating a larger welfare state would actually help people the most of the three options. It might be popular, but it's a higher risk strategy because Republicans are good at using the southern strategy to get working class whites to vote against handouts to minorities. Policy impact A, Politics C+ due to unertainty. 3) Trade. Solutions that would actually help people aren't easy to explain or sexy (capital controls?). Policy impact C politics D. Solutions that are popular (repeal Nafta) would be disasterous for the poor. Policy impact D-, Politics B. Demonizing wall street seems like the best compromise between political risk/reward and actual policy impact. It's also really easy to tie Trump to Wall Street. But if the rust belt really didn't trust Hillary because of trade, getting their votes is a lot trickier. I guess you could make arguments about capital controls under the umbrella of Wall Street regulations but I wouldn't expect anything that wonky to actually resonate with non-college educated rust belters.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:23 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:There are many confounding factors here that have nothing to do with the democratic platform or how it was sold. But it's a significant factor that the Democrats do, in fact, have the power to change. They don't have the power to change things like voter suppression. They don't have the power to change whether or not the FBI director is going to kneecap their nominee. They do have the power to actually reach out to voters who traditionally have voted for them, but are wavering. quote:And even if we assume the change had to do with policy, it makes a lot more sense that voters in the rust belt, but not elsewhere, were concerned about trade policy than the extent of the welfare state. I've posted a number of articles now of poor rural and Rust Belt white people who desperately need help from the government, and got tricked into believing that Trump would offer them better government aid than they've been receiving from Democrats. Their support for him has tapered off as it's become clear that he had no intention of making good on those promises. I realize, of course, that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data," but all the evidence we have on hand does seem to point towards the unravelling social safety net as a major factor in these voters defecting or staying home. quote:If Democrats need to make some leftward concession to shore up their base, the three options seem to be trade, welfare, and wall street. My preferences would look like this: It's going to have to be all of these things, if the Democrats' best-case scenario isn't going to just be a hamstrung President who's forced to compromise on everything with a Republican Congress, Republican governors, and Republican statehouses.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:31 |
|
Fulchrum posted:You might think Frijolero wouldn't be that stupid, but, no, he did claim that. When I pointed out you cannot attack someone the audience innately respects or envies without your messaging falling flat, he said that wasn't a problem since only billionaires respect or envy billionaires. I assume he thinks all poor people have perfect class consciousness understanding from birth due to the way their brains react to the magnetic fields of the earth. Honest question, wtf are you talking about? I haven't mentioned billionaires or class consciousness once. Click here and ctrl-F for yourself. Are you mistaking me for another poster or are you just lost in your own little discourse? Fulchrum posted:And once again I do have to ask, since Frijolero figured out it was a loving stupid idea and backed off this argument, how deeply does this delusion of yours go, that only white suburban Republicans can ever respect anyone in the 1%? Wtf are you talking about???? Frijolero fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Mar 23, 2017 |
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:36 |
|
Fulchrum posted:I guess that's why pro sports and action movies all have absolutely no audience in rural areas and you never see a bar in a working poor town that has Football on throughout the season. Have you ever known a football fan in your life. They love the team! But the second the subject of money comes up, GOD do they hate the players. They work hard, dammit, and these fuckers are getting paid obscene amounts of money for playing a goddamned game. It's reliable enough the owners lean reeeeal hard on it any time contract negotiations become a thing: the longer you hold out for more money, the more the fans dislike you.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:41 |
|
Majorian posted:But it's a significant factor that the Democrats do, in fact, have the power to change. They don't have the power to change things like voter suppression. They don't have the power to change whether or not the FBI director is going to kneecap their nominee. They do have the power to actually reach out to voters who traditionally have voted for them, but are wavering. We have control over more than just policy. We could pick a more charismatic candidate. We could pick one with fewer vulnerabilities for the Republicans to kneecap. We could pick better FBI directors instead of appointing republicans to look bipartisan. We could learn to trust our nominee when she tells us the Russians are collaborating with the republicans to divide our coalition. We can run more competent campaigns. quote:It's going to have to be all of these things, if the Democrats' best-case scenario isn't going to just be a hamstrung President who's forced to compromise on everything with a Republican Congress, Republican governors, and Republican statehouses. It isn't necessarily going to need to be all these things, and depending on how important those above factors are it might not need to be any of them. Additionally, the politics of trade and welfare expansion aren't necessarily going to make it easier for us to win.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:41 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 02:20 |
|
Frijolero posted:
I mistook your endless vapid whining for Kingfish's. It all sounds the same to me.
|
# ? Mar 23, 2017 20:42 |