|
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 | ||
|
Frijolero posted:Oh snap, this is the policies thread? I'm good with all of those except for number 7 cause lol Why are you only prosecuting Bush and Obama instead of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, et al? Also, I'd amend number one to also include housing, and access to clean food and water. Also, also, slash DoD's budget, imo. Majorian posted:Well, first of all, why would it need to be the same companies who destroyed these people's lives rehiring them? With enough government investment, there are a lot of green industries that could easily employ blue collar manufacturing workers, after some retraining. Secondly, I don't see a GMI or UBI as an "instead" sort of thing; I fully support mandating a living wage on a federal level. Ok, but if these retraining programs haven't been shown to work so far, shouldn't we also research other policy for alleviating this problem? How do we incentivize these relatively newer companies to take these older workers who will want benefits versus dumb kids straight from college who are obviously younger though? Like what's the mechanism you see being used to implement this? Moreover, what gaps do you anticipate being filled and where are these green companies based? Would you be willing to raise the support money and moving expense stipend if these companies and jobs are based somewhere where the cost of living is significantly higher than where they live? Can we guarantee good employment opportunities and should we make benefits like health care, pensions, etc mandatory?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Every republican campaign in the last 40 years has made overt appeals to racial resentment. no-one could figure it out. the dog whistles weren't working!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Did you read your quote? That is because job growth has been stronger in the U.S. than in the rest of the G7, until now. Trade adjustment programs are not meant to boost job growth; they're meant to alleviate the cyclical friction during times of slow job growth. quote:Moreover, I'm totally ok with slashing dod's defence and raising taxes but as your quote says, of these programs aren't efficacious, perhaps we should research other policy or begin thinking about restructuring along the lines of a gmi or ubi. If you have a look at the section in the CFR piece on Denmark's "flexicurity" model, you'll see that it is very effective. This is also a model that Bernie Sanders routinely talks up. You say that these programs have been shown not to work, but I don't think that's accurate. They've been shown not to work when not given anywhere close to adequate funding and resources by the government. They have been shown to work in other developed countries. But again, I'm totally down with a GMI or, ideally, a UBI. quote:How do we incentivize these relatively newer companies to take these older workers who will want benefits versus dumb kids straight from college who are obviously younger though? Like what's the mechanism you see being used to implement this? You brought up tax incentives; I think that would be a great start. quote:Moreover, what gaps do you anticipate being filled and where are these green companies based? Would you be willing to raise the support money and moving expense stipend if these companies and jobs are based somewhere where the cost of living is significantly higher than where they live? Solar companies and other green energy industries require factories, line workers, and unskilled supply chain workers. I'm 100% in favor of requiring benefits, the government or the company paying relocation costs, etc. Majorian fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
Hey for once I agree with Stone Cold. Seriously every member of the Bush Administration that took part in the Iraq war should be handled over to the government of Iraq.
Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Solar companies and other green energy industries require factories, line workers, and unskilled supply chain workers. I'm 100% in favor of requiring benefits, the government or the company paying relocation costs, etc. Do these factories exist in significant numbers in the US though, I mean as long as we're talking global supply chain? Just off the top of my head, the bulk of solar photovoltaic cells is in China, iirc so is the bulk of CFL light bulbs. How much green labor is available here for these workers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Do these factories exist in significant numbers in the US though, I mean as long as we're talking global supply chain? I'm not sure what the number is, but there are quite a few U.S.-based PVC and other solar tech manufacturers. SolarCity is a big one, and while it had to cut jobs last year, given the proper government incentives, that could be avoided (particularly now that Tesla owns it). The government learned the wrong lesson from Solyndra and HelioVolt; public investment in green technology is a wise strategy. It just needs to not get spooked when the price of silicon goes down. quote:Just off the top of my head, the bulk of solar photovoltaic cells is in China, iirc so is the bulk of CFL light bulbs. How much green labor is available here for these workers? It would take a lot of public investment to guarantee green labor, but hey, lots of public investment is how new industries get off the ground and start to employ lots of people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I feel like these posts are just an elaborate way to assume Americans are all idiots so we don't have to worry about thinking about anything. To be quite frank. Saying that people are not rational doesn't mean they're all idiots. We can still point to factors - some rational and some not so much - that influence behavior. But it is absolutely a fact that the majority of voters do not pay much attention to policy outside of maybe one or two issues they really care about, and this past election in particular had a bunch of non-policy elements influencing voter behavior. The "establishment vs. outsider" stuff was a big one, and it's kind of tricky to figure out what exactly that was a proxy for. It's possible that preference for candidates (perceived to be) outside of the establishment could be interpreted as dissatisfaction with the status quo, for example. Majorian posted:Lefties aren't insisting that at all. We're all perfectly cognizant of the fact that those jobs aren't coming back. That's part of why it's so important to re-strengthen social welfare programs in the region, and invest heavily in trade adjustment programs to revitalize these communities. Bill Clinton didn't have a very good record here, and Obama's record was mixed. Eh, so be fair some are. They're a pretty small minority, but there are some people who actually think we should become super protectionist (including some who post on this forum I think). Such opinions don't really concern me, though, because they don't have any influence to speak of within the party and the chance of their wishes coming to fruition is next to none. edit: Actually, what I just mentioned above brings me to a greater point about why most of my posts tend to focus on arguing with the more centrist (I know they're not actually centrist but I can't think of a more accurate term) posters. I don't really understand the motivation behind Democrats/liberals who spend a lot of time/effort arguing and disagreeing with leftists. Leftists have very little power within the Democratic Party, so there isn't any risk of some of their dumber proponents having much of an influence. But more mainstream/centrist Democrats do have a bunch of power and more or less control the party, so, to me, it seems more important to focus on criticizing their shortcomings (since they can actually influence the country). So even though I actually thinking that JeffersonClay (for example) is smarter than some of the leftist posters in this thread, I consider the problems with his views to be a more pressing issue since they more closely reflect the problems that exist with the actual Democratic Party (as opposed to some hypothetical radical left party that isn't going to be coming into power any time soon). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Eh, so be fair some are. They're a pretty small minority, but there are some people who actually think we should become super protectionist (including some who post on this forum I think). Such opinions don't really concern me, though, because they don't have any influence to speak of within the party and the chance of their wishes coming to fruition is next to none. That's fair; I amend my position: they don't exist in appreciable number, with appreciable influence, and if I see them, I'll laugh derisively at them. quote:edit: Actually, what I just mentioned above brings me to a greater point about why most of my posts tend to focus on arguing with the more centrist (I know they're not actually centrist but I can't think of a more accurate term) posters. I don't really understand the motivation behind Democrats/liberals who spend a lot of time/effort arguing and disagreeing with leftists. Leftists have very little power within the Democratic Party, so there isn't any risk of some of their dumber proponents having much of an influence. But more mainstream/centrist Democrats do have a bunch of power and more or less control the party, so, to me, it seems more important to focus on criticizing their shortcomings (since they can actually influence the country). So even though I actually thinking that JeffersonClay (for example) is smarter than some of the leftist posters in this thread, I consider the problems with his views to be a more pressing issue since they more closely reflect the problems that exist with the actual Democratic Party (as opposed to some hypothetical radical left party that isn't going to be coming into power any time soon).  completely. I think a lot of centrist Dems are afraid that, since Trump was able to break through the ranks of more established primary candidates so easily, the left-Dems will do the same thing with a left-wing version of Trump, jettisoning principles like antiracism in the process. Which is a really silly fear, when you delve into it, but eh, fears aren't always rational.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I think moderate Republican Dems are primarily afraid of other principles being jettisoned!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Saying that people are not rational doesn't mean they're all idiots. We can still point to factors - some rational and some not so much - that influence behavior. But it is absolutely a fact that the majority of voters do not pay much attention to policy outside of maybe one or two issues they really care about, and this past election in particular had a bunch of non-policy elements influencing voter behavior. The "establishment vs. outsider" stuff was a big one, and it's kind of tricky to figure out what exactly that was a proxy for. It's possible that preference for candidates (perceived to be) outside of the establishment could be interpreted as dissatisfaction with the status quo, for example. Arguing that people only are fully informed on a few policies is not the same thing as arguing that people are solely driven by the gut, and the latter is far more common to see in this thread than the former. Your problem is that you assume that people promoting poo poo like protectionism are stupid instead of malevolent, that leftism is inherently doomed to powerlessness, that there is no point in ideological education for its own sake, and that it was only in 2016 that antifascist action became worthwhile because neo-Nazis were a fringe before then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:edit: Actually, what I just mentioned above brings me to a greater point about why most of my posts tend to focus on arguing with the more centrist (I know they're not actually centrist but I can't think of a more accurate term) posters. I don't really understand the motivation behind Democrats/liberals who spend a lot of time/effort arguing and disagreeing with leftists. Leftists have very little power within the Democratic Party, so there isn't any risk of some of their dumber proponents having much of an influence. But more mainstream/centrist Democrats do have a bunch of power and more or less control the party, so, to me, it seems more important to focus on criticizing their shortcomings (since they can actually influence the country). So even though I actually thinking that JeffersonClay (for example) is smarter than some of the leftist posters in this thread, I consider the problems with his views to be a more pressing issue since they more closely reflect the problems that exist with the actual Democratic Party (as opposed to some hypothetical radical left party that isn't going to be coming into power any time soon). I spend a lot of time arguing with leftists because I want them to succeed. I tolerate centrists as a bulwark against the right, but I'd much rather see them replaced by leftists. In reality, though, the economic left's power has been on a decline for decades while power has flowed into the hands of the centrists, and that means that the left needs to do better. People complain a lot about the perceived political incompetence of the centrists, but they at least managed to take control of the Democratic Party and even hold majorities in Congress a few times, and that's more than we can say for the left in the past couple decades. Sure, the system's stacked against them on numerous levels, but it always has been, and it's not going to change just from whining about it - we need to rebuild a strong left, and that means grassroots organizing with committed leaders rising from out of the movement to dedicate their time to causes they truly believe in. This might be the first time in two decades or more that the left has done anything besides flailing helplessly or throwing minor tantrums, and I really want to see that energy directed in productive directions rather than getting bogged down in distractions or dissipating. Bernie Sanders works fine as the starting point for the movement, but the leaders the left should really be looking to for the future are grassroots figures like Pete Buttigieg or khalid kamau, not establishment pedestals like Sanders or Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Every republican campaign in the last 40 years has made overt appeals to racial resentment. There was a significant difference between those appeals from McCain and Romney and those from Trump. Consider the difference between McCain shutting down the lady at the town hall who called Obama a Kenyan Muslim to Trump who's the king of the birthers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There was a significant difference between those appeals from McCain and Romney and those from Trump. Consider the difference between McCain shutting down the lady at the town hall who called Obama a Kenyan Muslim to Trump who's the king of the birthers. All the while Palin was basically holding Klan rallies all over the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There was a significant difference between those appeals from McCain and Romney and those from Trump. Consider the difference between McCain shutting down the lady at the town hall who called Obama a Kenyan Muslim to Trump who's the king of the birthers. oh yeah good job there by mccain with "he's not a muslim, he's a good family man"
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:oh yeah good job there by mccain with "he's not a muslim, he's a good family man" hey, remember the genius of the "try to paint Trump as a Dangerous Outsider, Not Like Other Republicans" strategy Hillary tried man, that strategy sure was a good idea with successful outcomes let's defend it some more
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There was a significant difference between those appeals from McCain and Romney and those from Trump. Consider the difference between McCain shutting down the lady at the town hall who called Obama a Kenyan Muslim to Trump who's the king of the birthers. While this is true, it doesn't seem likely to me that the thing that dislodged blue collar Rust Belt workers from the Democratic coalition was that McCain and Romney weren't racist enough, but Trump was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Is the argument y'all are making that there was nothing notable or different in the racial rhetoric and appeals between Trump and the Republican candidates who immediately preceded him? Because that's obviously wrong.Majorian posted:While this is true, it doesn't seem likely to me that the thing that dislodged blue collar Rust Belt workers from the Democratic coalition was that McCain and Romney weren't racist enough, but Trump was. Think about it like this. The white working class voters who supported obama had, as a group, a nonzero level of racial resentment. Some had more racial resentment than others. If 25% of them switched from Obama to trump, it makes sense that the ones with the most racial resentment would be heavily represented in this group, because Trump was making direct appeals to that resentment in a way that previous GOP candidates had not. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
no just laughing at you trying to paint john "i'll hate the gooks as long as i live" mccain as being less racist because he knows how to keep his mouth shut slightly more than trump
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is the argument y'all are making that there was nothing notable or different in the racial rhetoric and appeals between Trump and the Republican candidates who immediately preceded him? Because that's obviously wrong. Nope. It's that, while Trump upped the ante considerably, his appeals to racial resentment weren't a new concept at all. They were views that everybody pretty much knew that right-wingers held; he was just, you know, actually saying them. The part where I disagree with you is, again, your assumption that this turning up the heat on explicit racism is what dislodged Rust Belt blue collar workers from the Democratic coalition. e: \/\/\/exactly\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Being more racist was only one of the things that made Trump different than McCain and Romney.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Being more racist was only one of the things that made Trump different than McCain and Romney. Being more OPENLY racist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Think about it like this. The white working class voters who supported obama had, as a group, a nonzero level of racial resentment. Some had more racial resentment than others. If 25% of them switched from Obama to trump, it makes sense that the ones with the most racial resentment would be heavily represented in this group, because Trump was making direct appeals to that resentment in a way that previous GOP candidates had not. It's also possible that what's overrepresented in that 25% is "voters who were disappointed by the Obama presidency".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Think about it like this. The white working class voters who supported obama had, as a group, a nonzero level of racial resentment. Some had more racial resentment than others. If 25% of them switched from Obama to trump, it makes sense that the ones with the most racial resentment would be heavily represented in this group, because Trump was making direct appeals to that resentment in a way that previous GOP candidates had not. It's possible, but there's also no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this hypothesis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
The most reasonable hypothesis is that hardcore racists voted for a black man because ??? and then voted for Trump because Trump appealed directly to their racism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
It doesn't actually make that much sense to suggest that, in lieu of a sufficiently racist candidate, people with racist beliefs will vote for the black candidate instead. It almost sounds like suggesting that if you have a racist seed in your heart, Trump can control you by Saying The Words. Otherwise you'll make rational decisions. It really sounds like a convoluted way of avoiding the real question, which is "how did Obama get racists to vote for him?" Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It doesn't actually make that much sense to suggest that, in lieu of a sufficiently racist candidate, people with racist beliefs will vote for the black candidate instead. he knows how. he's specifically avoiding admitting it because he's trying his damndest to argue against economic populism atm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:It's also possible that what's overrepresented in that 25% is "voters who were disappointed by the Obama presidency". Its very likely they were both disappointed with Obama and had higher levels of racial resentment. That's why immigration policy makes a lot of sense in explaining their voting behavior--Obama pushed comprehensive immigration reform heavily in his 2nd term and then did DACA and DAPA when it failed in the house. The only other policy that fits is trade, and that's a less satisfying explanation because Obama signed 3 free trade deals in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
it honestly floors me that JC is trying to argue that 2008 had less racism in its election than 2016. the drat election where a presidential candidate had to release his long-form birth certificate to try to get people to stop claiming he was a foreign agent the ironic thing is that less documentation was necessary for actual foreign-agent trump compared to obama
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's possible, but there's also no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this hypothesis. We certainly know racial resentment was a significant predictor of Trump support., and that effect was significantly more pronounced than in 2012. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...an-in-electing- Condiv posted:it honestly floors me that JC is trying to argue that 2008 had less racism in its election than 2016. the drat election where a presidential candidate had to release his long-form birth certificate to try to get people to stop claiming he was a foreign agent Uh, he didn't release that until 2011 and that was to clown trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Anyone pretending there are as no racism in 2008s election is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Yes, strawman arguments are often ridiculous--that's the whole point of constructing one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Anyone pretending there are as no racism in 2008s election is pretty funny. admitting that there was racism in the 2008 election opens up the tale of the original Stupid Leftists, the Obama Boys, whose misogyny was the only possible explanation for why it was possible for someone to support "the kid who would have been getting us coffee a few years ago" over Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Think about it like this. The white working class voters who supported obama had, as a group, a nonzero level of racial resentment. Some had more racial resentment than others. If 25% of them switched from Obama to trump, it makes sense that the ones with the most racial resentment would be heavily represented in this group, because Trump was making direct appeals to that resentment in a way that previous GOP candidates had not. I don’t think any rust belt worker was thinking about anything other than how they were going they were going to pay their bills for that month. They might even sometimes wonder about why things went south (literally) over the last three decades. Trump had a coherent message for them. Hillary did not. Trump’s, or even Hillary’s, views on race was at the bottom of their respective priority lists. Groups like BLM remained largely ignored except when they forcibly seized the stage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Its very likely they were both disappointed with Obama and had higher levels of racial resentment. That's why immigration policy makes a lot of sense in explaining their voting behavior--Obama pushed comprehensive immigration reform heavily in his 2nd term and then did DACA and DAPA when it failed in the house. The only other policy that fits is trade, and that's a less satisfying explanation because Obama signed 3 free trade deals in 2011. Many people don't follow specific policies. They just know that things aren't very good for them Obama immigration reform was not something that materially affected most Americans, I doubt these people even noticed anything that changed. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
I genuinely wonder what JC thinks about women and minorities who voted for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
All these racists hating a blonde white woman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:I genuinely wonder what JC thinks about women and minorities who voted for Trump. Check his rap sheet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We certainly know racial resentment was a significant predictor of Trump support., and that effect was significantly more pronounced than in 2012. Right, but that's still the greater aggregate of Trump supporters; we don't know that that was particularly true of the Obama voters who defected to Trump - much less that it was the fulcrum issue that dislodged them from the Democratic coalition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Its very likely they were both disappointed with Obama and had higher levels of racial resentment. That's why immigration policy makes a lot of sense in explaining their voting behavior--Obama pushed comprehensive immigration reform heavily in his 2nd term and then did DACA and DAPA when it failed in the house. The only other policy that fits is trade, and that's a less satisfying explanation because Obama signed 3 free trade deals in 2011. It didn't have to be anything Obama did in particular that caused them to abandon the Democrats in 2016; there was plenty that Obama didn't do to offer them relief, and there was even more that Hillary failed to do and say in courting their vote. And again, why should we believe that Rust Belt Democratic defectors cared about DACA and DAPA, beyond how they (mistakenly) believed it affected their ability to find jobs and revitalize their communities?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We certainly know racial resentment was a significant predictor of Trump support., and that effect was significantly more pronounced than in 2012. quote:Moreover, Hillary Clinton moved to the left of Obama in both her rhetoric and policies on race-related issues in order to retain support from a coalition increasingly comprised of minorities and racially progressive whites. Democrats’ growing racial liberalism in 2016 may have accelerated defections from the party among racially resentful whites. literally fake news
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 18:49
|
|