|
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 | ||
|
Majorian posted:Well, for one thing, there was already hundreds of miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, and securing the borders is an important national security concern. Drug smuggling does take place across the border, and it's hardly inconceivable that a non-state actor would try to sneak a WMD into the U.S. as well. So it is the government's job to secure the border, to some degree. The question is, at what point does it stop serving national security, and just start being sadistic and cruel against undocumented workers? Given that the '06 fence bill was part of trying to actually relax restrictions for people gaining residence in the country, I don't think it falls under the latter category. But she didn't say anything about any of the poo poo you mentioned and specifically said it was too keep "illegals" out 
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:But she didn't say anything about any of the poo poo you mentioned and specifically said it was too keep "illegals" out It was a quid pro quo for the '06 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. (which ended up dying between Houses of Congress anyway) She said it was "to keep illegals out" because again, she has a dumb reflexive compulsion to try to look as tough as possible on crime at any given opportunity, no matter how self-defeating.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Racism played a role, but I don't think one can claim that it played the only, or even the largest, role. Had the ACA worked perfectly from the moment it was signed into law, I strongly doubt voters would have been whipped into as much of a frenzy. It was intensely unpopular with republicans the moment it was proposed, and its overall approval was underwater from the beginning. It didn't change much when the staggered implementation of the provisions started. Opposition was always ideological. Majorian posted:The Iraq War vote, I won't defend, other than to say, as others have, that a lot of people got really stupid after 9/11. But it was a terrible, terrible mistake, and Clinton should have owned up to it earlier and more clearly. It was a bad vote, but as the senator from New loving York, voting no means pissing off a lot of your constituents 13 months after 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Why's Bernie working his rear end off to defend the ACA then? Because of its positives and because the 'replacement' is an abomination. I don't really understand why you would bring up Sanders' defense of the ACA as some kind of retort to "ACA results in expensive premiums and is thus unpopular". The big distinction between Sanders and Clinton during the primaries with regards to healthcare was precisely the fact that Sanders was more openly critical of the ACA and more open to the notion of building something fundamentally different. The accusation was always that Sanders was a pie-in-the-sky dreamer, but it was really the opposite. It was the fact that he was willing to be more direct about things being bad, or at least being nowhere near good enough, that made his appeals to 'bigger' ideas successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It was intensely unpopular with republicans the moment it was proposed, and its overall approval was underwater from the beginning. It didn't change much when the staggered implementation of the provisions started. Opposition was always ideological. There was a lot of ideology at play, though, besides simply racism. "Government takeover of healthcare!!!" was a pretty salient scare-line for Republican voters. The point is, again, just blaming it on racism, while not incorrect, per se, is misleading. Opposition to social welfare programs like the ACA can't just be reduced to one thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you think "but Hillary said a racist thing once!" is a relevant and interesting point in a conversation about Republicans and the southern strategy, you might be a dumb leftist. Donald Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. Hillary Clinton had a record of actively supporting racist policies. JeffersonClay thinks the path forward for Democrats, after the woman with the history of racist policies ran a campaign on "Donald Trump is bad," is to deemphasize pluralism even more. JeffersonClay believes he is in a position to decree what subjects are worthy of discussion. Draw your own conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LaurenDezenski/status/845405796863225858 this is a shift from 2012-yesterday when she would deflect these questions to "I support the ACA"
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It was intensely unpopular with republicans the moment it was proposed, and its overall approval was underwater from the beginning. It didn't change much when the staggered implementation of the provisions started. Opposition was always ideological. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 tho 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There was a lot of ideology at play, though, besides simply racism. "Government takeover of healthcare!!!" was a pretty salient scare-line for Republican voters. The point is, again, just blaming it on racism, while not incorrect, per se, is misleading. Opposition to social welfare programs like the ACA can't just be reduced to one thing. It's coded racism. "Big government" is code for government that might help out people of color. That's the southern strategy in a nutshell. It's how they get poor whites to vote against social welfare policies that would benefit them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's coded racism. "Big government" is code for government that might help out people of color. It's more complicated than that. It can be a dog whistle, but it also can simply be people ideologically opposed to the government "dictating" which doctor they can see and when, which health care plans they have access to, etc. It's an opposition based out of ignorance, but it's still extremely reductive to just flat-out say that fear of government is always just racism and nothing else. It's also possible for it to be both (or more) things at once.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It was a bad vote, but as the senator from New loving York, voting no means pissing off a lot of your constituents 13 months after 9/11. That should not be a consideration at all and is a truly appalling way of mitigating Clinton's egregious failure. Majorian posted:The Iraq War vote, I won't defend, other than to say, as others have, that a lot of people got really stupid after 9/11. But it was a terrible, terrible mistake, and Clinton should have owned up to it earlier and more clearly. In what sense? Morally? The Iraq war doesn't even count as a mistake. It's pretty much disqualifying (and it was in 2008, and in some ways probably was in 2016).
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 tho Well the political calculus was between "Send tens of thousands of troops to war for no reason and have a few thousand of them return back in body bags" or "piss off my constituents who couldn't even find Iraq on a map if it was labeled", so it was honestly a pretty easy call. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's more complicated than that. It can be a dog whistle, but it also can simply be people ideologically opposed to the government "dictating" which doctor they can see and when, which health care plans they have access to, etc. It's an opposition based out of ignorance, but it's still extremely reductive to just flat-out say that fear of government is always just racism and nothing else. It's also possible for it to be both (or more) things at once. Ok, but I don't agree that racism is necessarily less important than ideological opposition to the government telling people what to do, or that those two things are easily separated in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Donald Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. As I pointed out earlier, immigration lawyers and activists did not see Clinton as somebody who supported their causes or could be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok, but I don't agree that racism is necessarily less important than ideological opposition to the government telling people what to do, or that those two things are easily separated in the first place. I'm not even saying it's less important, just that it's not the only factor. And there are other factors that Democrats have more control over than voters' racism. It's tough to make anybody "less racist" in the span of a presidential election campaign. It's less-tough to convince them that hey, they'll have a better chance to improve their standard of living under your program than your opponent's, especially if you show that you care about improving their standard of living. Pedro De Heredia posted:In what sense? Morally? Eh, I tend to not put as much responsibility on the then-junior Senator from New York as, say, Doug Feith, who literally and deliberately manipulated intelligence to fool people into supporting the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Donald Trump won more of the Hispanic vote than Mitt Romney. This is almost certainly untrue. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-pedraza-latino-vote-20170111-story Majorian posted:I'm not even saying it's less important, just that it's not the only factor. And there are other factors that Democrats have more control over than voters' racism. It's tough to make anybody "less racist" in the span of a presidential election campaign. It's less-tough to convince them that hey, they'll have a better chance to improve their standard of living under your program than your opponent's, especially if you show that you care about improving their standard of living. . I'm not suggesting we can force people to be less racist. But we need to factor the Republicans' ability to use racism to resist expansion of the welfare state into our strategy to expand the welfare state. It isn't necessarily true that making our policy proposals more expansive will make them more popular. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm not suggesting we can force people to be less racist. But we need to factor the Republicans' ability to use racism to resist expansion of the welfare state into our strategy to expand the welfare state. It isn't necessarily true that making our policy proposals more expansive will necessarily make them more popular. I mean, Obama certainly pulled it off well enough to get elected. It wasn't just his God-given oratorical ability; in the end, he made people feel like he cared about making their lives better, to the degree that for many it trumped racism. Bill Clinton managed to do the same thing (although he didn't have the disadvantage of being a person of color, obviously). I'm not seeing where in recent history economic populism hasn't been a good general election strategy for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Eh, I tend to not put as much responsibility on the then-junior Senator from New York as, say, Doug Feith, who literally and deliberately manipulated intelligence to fool people into supporting the war. Voters did in 2008 when she lost the primaries to Obama, in large part because of her support of the Iraq war. That should have been a sign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Voters did in 2008 when she lost the primaries to Obama, in large part because of her support of the Iraq war. That should have been a sign. That was part of it, but there was more to her primary loss IMO - including a less-economically populist message, and quite frankly just a really shittily-run campaign. Also, remember, Clinton won the popular vote in that primary, so...that mars the sign a bit. But my point is, there are so many people who are so, so much more to blame for the Iraq War than Clinton, and they're never going to get punished for it, and that's infuriating. So I can't really see myself calling for her head on that crime alone. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, Obama certainly pulled it off well enough to get elected. It wasn't just his God-given oratorical ability; in the end, he made people feel like he cared about making their lives better, to the degree that for many it trumped racism. Bill Clinton managed to do the same thing (although he didn't have the disadvantage of being a person of color, obviously). I'm not seeing where in recent history economic populism hasn't been a good general election strategy for the Democrats. In this regard Obama's centrism might have been an advantage. McCain and Romney weren't making overt appeals to racism like Trump, and Obama wasn't promising big expansions of government. And there was the "vote for Obama to prove I'm not racist" angle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, Obama certainly pulled it off well enough to get elected. It wasn't just his God-given oratorical ability; in the end, he made people feel like he cared about making their lives better, to the degree that for many it trumped racism. Bill Clinton managed to do the same thing (although he didn't have the disadvantage of being a person of color, obviously). I'm not seeing where in recent history economic populism hasn't been a good general election strategy for the Democrats. it stopped being a good strategy when it got in the way of attracting megadonors. Majorian posted:That was part of it, but there was more to her primary loss IMO - including a less-economically populist message, and quite frankly just a really shittily-run campaign. Also, remember, Clinton won the popular vote in that primary, so...that mars the sign a bit. true enough hillary's excuse for her vote still pisses me off. like anyone's gonna believe GWB tricked hillary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgO1LUijb0k
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:JeffersonClay believes he is in a position to decree what subjects are worthy of discussion. Good point. What can we do to get Biden to run on a platform of Universal Basic Income?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:true enough Well, Bush didn't trick her, but Feith and the Pentagon Office of Special Plans certainly may have. They tricked a lot of people, by cooking intelligence to an insane degree. The fact that Obama didn't prosecute Feith is one of my greatest disappointments in his administration. e: Sy Hersh had a great piece on it in '03: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/selective-intelligence JeffersonClay posted:In this regard Obama's centrism might have been an advantage. McCain and Romney weren't making overt appeals to racism like Trump, and Obama wasn't promising big expansions of government. And there was the "vote for Obama to prove I'm not racist" angle. Obama did call for a major government expansion. In fact, he promised a public option in 2008. That's a big part of why a lot of lefties were disappointed with the final outcome of the ACA. McCain, in contrast, was all about tax credits and "getting government out of your health care/small business/whatever." Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, Bush didn't trick her, but Feith and the OUSDP certainly may have. They tricked a lot of people, by cooking intelligence to an insane degree. The fact that Obama didn't prosecute Feith is one of my greatest disappointments in his administration. there were senators who didn't fall for it. there were people who didn't fall for it. I can buy hillary got swept up in the jingoism, but I cannot believe she honestly believed authorizing the iraq war was the best way to avoid war
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there were senators who didn't fall for it. there were people who didn't fall for it. I can buy hillary got swept up in the jingoism, but I cannot believe she honestly believed authorizing the iraq war was the best way to avoid war No, that's true, that was a really stupid excuse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Obama did call for a major government expansion. In fact, he promised a public option in 2008. That's a big part of why a lot of lefties were disappointed with the final outcome of the ACA. McCain, in contrast, was all about tax credits and "getting government out of your health care/small business/whatever." It was on his website, but he didn't talk about it much at all. He threw out plenty of bullshit bromides about cutting the deficit too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there were senators who didn't fall for it. there were people who didn't fall for it. I can buy hillary got swept up in the jingoism, but I cannot believe she honestly believed authorizing the iraq war was the best way to avoid war I'm sure a lot of it was just drifting in the political winds, as Hillary and many of the other centrists tend to do. Bush's Iraq warmongering was clearly stupid even in 2002...but despite that, the Iraq War was somehow really popular at the time. Clinton said a few negative things about the Iraq War in the early years, but she didn't really come out against it hard until its popularity started really dropping in 2005-2006.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Obama always tried to be like Lincoln. Voting against the Iraq war, as Lincoln did the mexican-American war, was the good part. Insane commitment to bipartisanship that ends up loving him over and empowering the shittiest racists was the bad part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm sure a lot of it was just drifting in the political winds, as Hillary and many of the other centrists tend to do. Bush's Iraq warmongering was clearly stupid even in 2002...but despite that, the Iraq War was somehow really popular at the time. Clinton said a few negative things about the Iraq War in the early years, but she didn't really come out against it hard until its popularity started really dropping in 2005-2006. i can see that. i can guess that maybe she was afraid to take a stand against the repubs in 2002 because the nation was really jingoistic as gently caress after 9/11 and looking for revenge. i don't particularly like that about her and think bernie's approach was better though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama always tried to be like Lincoln. Voting against the Iraq war, as Lincoln did the mexican-American war, was the good part. Insane commitment to bipartisanship that ends up loving him over and empowering the shittiest racists was the bad part. Obama didn't join the Senate until 2005, how'd he manage to vote against the Iraq war in 2002?
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Like, I'll admit it's easy to overstate how unpopular it was in 2003 in the US itself; the protests in Canada were bigger than those in the US at the time, with Montreal, Toronto and Montevideo being the largest protests in the americas, and that was dwarfed by the millions who went in the streets in Europe on the biggest day of them. That said "we were tricked" is a loving stupid excuse, centrist dems wouldn't have tried to lean so hard on Kerry's military record in 2004 (which backfired horribly) without having swallowed the jingoist kool-aid as hard as they did the year before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Obama didn't join the Senate until 2005, how'd he manage to vote against the Iraq war in 2002? Mea culpa
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Obama didn't join the Senate until 2005, how'd he manage to vote against the Iraq war in 2002?  STUPID LEFTISTS!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:
You're the one acting like voting to have any fencing along the border is equivalent to Trump's wall, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
tight booty shorts i submit to you that a fence is not equivalent to a wall, as walls have a solid foundation whereas fences consist merely of posts connected horizontally by beams or wires
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:You're the one acting like voting to have any fencing along the border is equivalent to Trump's wall, so you don't have much of a leg to stand on either. It's not about the semantics of "giant wall" vs. "giant fence with barbed wire on top" It's about wanting to keep "illegals" out of this country, hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Right, it's about wanting to keep "illegals" out of the country. And making a false equivalence between the immigration positions of Clinton and Trump because they both support some kind of barrier on the US/Mexico border is real dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Right, it's about wanting to keep "illegals" out of the country. And making a false equivalence between the immigration positions of Clinton and Trump because they both support some kind of barrier on the US/Mexico border is real dumb. Correct, one rich white idiot wants to build a barrier in the desert to keep refugees out, and the other one is a rich white idiot who wants to build a barrier in the desert to keep refugees out
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
They both wanted some sort of barrier, but only one of them wanted to keep DACA and DAPA and offer amnesty and a path to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants currently in the US. The other one wants to kick them all out, reduce legal immigration and stop accepting refugees. There's no equivalency there, unless you're willing to erase all the pain and horror the Trump administration is likely to cause the immigrant community in order to score some cheap political point. And as a Latino immigrant yourself (IIRC) that's pretty loving lovely. The problem with "build the wall" wasn't that it entailed a physical barrier on the border. The problem with "build the wall" is it's a dog whistle for "kick out all the latino rapist gangsters".
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:43 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They both wanted some sort of barrier, but only one of them wanted to keep DACA and DAPA and offer amnesty and a path to citizenship for the undocumented immigrants currently in the US. The other one wants to kick them all out, reduce legal immigration and stop accepting refugees. There's no equivalency there, unless you're willing to erase all the pain and horror the Trump administration is likely to cause the immigrant community in order to score some cheap political point. And as a Latino immigrant yourself (IIRC) that's pretty loving lovely. Obama deported my grandma
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2017 03:41
|
|