Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

«‹›92 »

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

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

blackguy32 posted:

I am being facetious. But that is what you have to do if your goal is to win back some of those White working class voters that many on the left seem to want to win back.

What would you actually like to see then, because that was a really central and straightforward question which granted your premise and you almost pulled a muscle not answering it

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 07:26

blackguy32: Oct 1, 2005; Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Willie Tomg posted:

What would you actually like to see then, because that was a really central and straightforward question you almost pulled a muscle not answering

It is almost as if you didn't read the part that wasn't quoted.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:43

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Oh man, back to the "economic reform only helps racists, honest people don't need to eat" part of the bullshit cycle.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:43

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

blackguy32 posted:

It is almost as if you didn't read the part that wasn't quoted.

That wasn't an answer either. You're just insisting again and again to decenter whiteness which is nice in the abstract but is so abstract it's unactionable.

What does Hillary winning look like to you?

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:47

blackguy32: Oct 1, 2005; Say, do you know how to do the walk?

steinrokkan posted:

Oh man, back to the "economic reform only helps racists, honest people don't need to eat" part of the bullshit cycle.

This argument overlooks that the economy was talked about and that for minorities, the economy is still an issue. Nothing I have said has said to ignore economic reform.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:49

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

blackguy32 posted:

You keep saying this and I have yet to see you prove it. Hillary actually won voters who said that the economy was their priority.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.807eca0f0cca

That doesn't actually prove anything.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:53

blackguy32: Oct 1, 2005; Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Willie Tomg posted:

That wasn't an answer either. You're just insisting again and again to decenter whiteness which is nice in the abstract but is so abstract it's unactionable.

What does Hillary winning look like to you?

That was an answer, it just wasn't an answer you liked. Now repeat what I read again. I said focus on minority areas. One can argue for free college and better healthcare while pushing a message of diversity. However, if one is going to put issues of diversity front and center, then we have to accept that many voters are going to be turned off at a message like that.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:53

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

blackguy32 posted:

You keep saying this and I have yet to see you prove it. Hillary actually won voters who said that the economy was their priority.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.807eca0f0cca

Wait you're saying she won over an orange baby-handed millionaire that had everything handed to him and still hosed up several businesses.

This is no indication on if she ran as an economic leftist. It just shows she was more trusted with money by voters than orange etc.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 19:59

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

But Clinton did focus on minority areas. Theoretically.

Theoretically, Clinton's advantage over Sanders was largely because of black voters. Theoretically, Sanders' weakness was that his platform didn't address minority concerns. Theoretically, Clinton was running a general election campaign focused on minority concerns. Theoretically, Clinton was going to win the election on the back of large minority turnout. Theoretically, Clinton was going to match Obama's numbers by virtue of her campaigning and by virtue of Trump's racism.

But in the end, it didn't happen. In some ways, it never was happening. It was a false narrative.

You are basically repeating what we all heard throughout the election, now that we know it failed.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:03

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

blackguy32 posted:

This argument overlooks that the economy was talked about and that for minorities, the economy is still an issue. Nothing I have said has said to ignore economic reform.

Except literally every time you come into the thread, your shtick is to accuse anybody talking about economic issues of trying to bring the Democrats back to their antebellum beliefs.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:05

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Hrm, let's see what the liberal commentariat is up to. Surely they've gotten the message about sticking to a muscular left-wing line, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-free-to-speak-her-mind.html

quote:

In the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again, and speaking her mind.

In her first interview since the election, she acknowledged that she had expected to defeat Donald Trump and that the outcome had been �so devastating.�

�I just had to make up my mind that, yes, I was going to get out of bed, and, yes, I was going to go for a lot of long walks in the woods. And I was going to see my grandchildren a lot and spend time with my family and my friends. They have rallied around me in an amazing way.�

�As a person, I�m O.K.,� she said. �As an American, I�m pretty worried.�

Clinton spoke to me for more than 45 minutes on stage Thursday at Tina Brown�s Women in the World Summit. She seemed relaxed and comfortable, much less guarded than during the campaign.

[headlines left in for the LOL factor]

My Most Unpopular Idea: Be Nice to Trump Voters
APR 6
In Trump Country, Shock at Trump Budget Cuts, but Still Loyalty
APR 1
President Trump vs. Big Bird
MAR 30
Trump�s Triumph of Incompetence
MAR 24
�There�s a Smell of Treason in the Air�
MAR 23

I�ve known Clinton a bit for many years, and when she was running for office she was always monumentally careful in her language � a natural impulse when critics are circling, but it also diminished her authenticity as a politician. Her prudence came across to voters as �calculating.�

Now she�s out of her shell, freed by defeat, and far more willing to speak bluntly.

�Certainly misogyny played a role� in her loss, she said. �That just has to be admitted.�

She noted the abundant social science research that when men are ambitious and successful, they may be perceived as more likable. In contrast, for women in traditionally male fields, it�s a trade-off: The more successful or ambitious a woman is, the less likable she becomes (that�s also true of how women perceive women). It�s not so much that people consciously oppose powerful women; it�s an unconscious bias.

Clinton characterized the mind-set of some Trump voters as, �I don�t agree with him, I�m not sure I really approve of him, but he looks like somebody who�s been president before.� She did indicate that there were many other factors that contributed to her loss � including her own mistakes.

Clinton acknowledged that Democrats need to do a better job reaching working-class Americans, but she added that part of her problem was that many voters were already struggling with tumult in their lives, �and you layer on the first woman president over that, and I think some people, women included, had real problems.�

I asked what advice she would offer the countless young women who have been galvanized by her loss � in a way they never were by her candidacy � to become more engaged in public life. �Toughen up your skin,� she counseled, referring to the nastiness often directed at prominent women. �Be ready. It�s not a new phenomenon, but it feels new and painful every time it happens to you.�

Clinton noted that when she stepped down as secretary of state, she had an approval rating of 64 percent and was one of the most popular public officials in America. But that was ancient history by Election Day. �Oh my gosh,� she said, �by the time they finished with me, I was Typhoid Mary.�

We talked about lots of issues, including Syria � she advocated attacking Syrian air strips; hours later, President Trump did just that � and she was ready to fire a few salvos of her own. She raised the �chaotic functioning� of the new administration and said she didn�t understand the Trump team�s �commitment to hurt so many people,� from its travel ban to its health care legislation.

Why did she lose the election? Clinton�s staff has conducted autopsies that, she said, suggested that two of the most important factors were the plunder and release of her campaign emails and the last-minute announcement by the F.B.I. director, James Comey, that the investigation into her use of a private email server could be reopened.

So, I asked, when you heard Comey say recently that he had been investigating Trump�s Russia ties since July but couldn�t disclose it then because it�s inappropriate to discuss ongoing investigations, what did you throw at the television?

She savored the question. �Yes,� she said, smiling. �That was one of the high points of the last weeks.�

Clinton said she doesn�t know if there was collusion between the Trump team and the Kremlin, but she urged the formation of an independent commission to investigate. And she noted that whether or not there was collusion, there certainly was a concerted Russian effort to rig the American election.

Russia�s hacking of campaign emails �was a more effective theft even than Watergate,� she said, adding: �We aren�t going to let somebody sitting in the Kremlin, with 1,000 agents, with bots and trolls and everybody else, try to mix up in our election. We�ve got to end that, and we need to make sure that�s a bipartisan, American commitment.�

The issue Clinton seemed most passionate about was the one that has occupied much of her career, ever since she took a job out of Yale Law School with the Children�s Defense Fund: advocacy for women and children. She grew particularly animated in describing what she called Trump�s �targeting of women.�

As a candidate, both in 2008 and in 2016, Clinton was careful not to push too hard on feminist buttons for fear of antagonizing men � which, given the results, was a reasonable concern. But this is where her passions lie, and even as secretary of state traveling to an overseas capital, she would often visit a women�s shelter or an organization fighting human trafficking, dragging along bewildered diplomats and foreign officials to remind them that women�s rights are human rights.

In our conversation, she was scathing in denouncing Trump�s version of the �global gag rule,� which cuts off money for any health provider abroad that offers abortion counseling or promotes abortion rights, and Trump�s plan to defund the United Nations Population Fund, which battles maternal mortality and helps women get access to contraception.

Asked about the infamous photo of Republican men discussing women�s health, Clinton described her favorite internet meme: a group of dogs around a conference table, with the caption, �today�s meeting on feline health care.�

�The things that come out of some of these men�s mouths!� Clinton said. �Like, �why do we have to cover maternity care?� Well, I don�t know, maybe you were dropped by immaculate conception?�

One gauge of Clinton�s new freedom is the simplest: her name. She had decided at age 9 that she would keep her name when she married, and after her wedding with Bill Clinton in 1975 she initially remained Hillary Rodham � even though her mother-in-law cried about that. Then Arkansas voters ousted her husband as governor in 1980, in part because they were uncomfortable with her feminism, so she helped his political career by becoming Hillary Clinton.

When she ran for United States Senate in New York she was Hillary Rodham Clinton, but her 2016 campaign book and ballot name downsized her to Hillary Clinton to avoid antagonizing traditionalists. Her Twitter page and website are still just Hillary Clinton � but after our interview we walked backstage together to sign a poster for Women in the World, and she scrawled: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Free at last!

Clinton said she was working on a book about her campaign and wrestling with why so many women � including 53 percent of white women voters � supported Trump. I asked whether she would be a candidate again, or would consider running Unicef (that�s my vote for the best next job for her, allowing her to save millions of children�s lives).

She said she doubted that she would ever run for office another time but didn�t have plans other than to help more women enter politics and help Democrats take back Congress.

�I am passionate about the unfinished business of the 21st century,� she said, �the rights and opportunities for women and girls.�

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/hillary_clinton_is_not_going_away.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton Is Not Going Away
Good.

Since the election, thinking about Hillary Clinton has been painful. Every photograph of Donald Trump standing before a grinning phalanx of white men as he signs another attack on the social compact is a reminder of what could have been. Many people on the left are furious with her; they blame her sense of entitlement and poor political instincts for our current dystopia. But when I think about Clinton I just feel sick with grief�both for our country, and for her unredeemable, life-defining loss. On the scale of people whose existence will be blighted by the Trump presidency, Clinton is nowhere near the top. Still, I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right?

That was the first question that Nick Kristof asked her onstage on Thursday evening in Manhattan. The live interview, part of Tina Brown�s Women in the World conference, was the first time since the election that Clinton has spoken publicly at any length about her defeat. Kristof said that he queried his social media followers about what he should ask her, and while there were many policy questions, lots of people just wanted to know how she�s doing. �You know what, I�m doing pretty well, all things considered,� Clinton said. She described the aftermath of the election as �devastating,� but said that with the help of friends and family, she�d picked herself up. �I would put it this way,� she said. �As a person, I�m OK. As an American, I�m pretty worried.�

It was appropriate that Clinton was speaking at a women�s conference. Twenty-two years ago, during a moment of political crisis and despair following the collapse of her attempt at health care reform, Clinton revived herself by traveling to Beijing for the United Nations Fourth World Congress on Women where she famously said, �Human rights are women�s rights, and women�s rights are human rights.� She�s always seemed most comfortable when working on behalf of women and girls, which she described on Thursday as the �unfinished business of the 21st century.� With her future suddenly a blank, Clinton says her only plans are to write a book�which will, among other things, explore the role misogyny played in the presidential election�and work to recruit and train young women to run for office.

It�s hard to imagine, now, what it would have been like to have a president who finds her solace in feminism. Clinton, like many American women, has been aghast at the administration�s systematic attacks on women�s rights and health: the expanded global gag rule, the defunding of the United Nations Population Fund, the attempts in the American Health Care Act to jettison mandatory insurance coverage for maternity care and to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. �The targeting of women, which is what�s going on, is absolutely beyond any political agenda,� she said. �There�s something else happening here.� She didn�t say exactly what that �something� is, but the suggestion is that Trump represents a wave of misogynist rage.
Get Slate in your inbox.

The conservative media is already mocking Clinton for saying that sexism contributed to her defeat, but she�s clearly right. �It is fair to say that certainly misogyny played a role. That just has to be admitted,� she said. Clinton pointed to research on how ambition affects women�s likeability. �With men, success and ambition are correlated with likeability, so the more successful a man is, the more likeable he becomes,� she said. �With a woman, guess what. It�s the exact opposite.�

She reminded us that when she left her job as secretary of state, her approval rating was around 65 percent. Then she decided to seek the highest office in the land, and suddenly, public perception shifted. �Even people who had supported me in the media during my time as secretary of state or even as senator, all of the sudden it�s: Who is she? What does she want?� she said. �I always feel like I'm in Waiting for Godot.�

As bittersweet as it was to hear Clinton talk and imagine the sort of president she might have been, the interview offered a stark reminder of why many on the left distrusted her. Speaking hours before Trump launched airstrikes on Syria, she made it clear that she�d also have been a hawkish president. The United States, she said, should take out Bashar al-Assad�s airfields, �and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them.� During the campaign, she said, people asked her if she was afraid that her plan to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would lead to a Russian response. �It�s time the Russians were afraid of us!� she said heatedly. �Because we were going to stand up for human rights, the dignity and the future of the Syrian people.�

Having suffered an epochal rebuke that could well cleave American history into before and after, she still refuses to disappear.

Clinton�s worldview is sincere, but this sounds like a recipe for another unwinnable war. Yet instead of her carefully considered plan for greater military intervention in Syria, we now have Trump�s impulsive bombing raid, disconnected from any greater strategy. Under Trump, there�s been an increase in civilian deaths in Muslim countries, possibly because he has loosened the military�s rules of engagement. During the campaign, it was common to hear people on the left describe Clinton�s foreign policy as �scarier� than Donald Trump�s, to use Green Party candidate Jill Stein�s word. Yet what we have now is aggression unchecked by competence, analytical rigor or compassion.

It could have been so different. And Clinton has to carry the burden of knowing that if she�d done things differently, it might have been. Last week, Timothy Stanley wrote a CNN column arguing that it�s too soon for her to return to the public eye, given her responsibility for allowing Trump to become president. �America needs to move on,� Stanley said. �She needs to pause and reflect.�

He can speak for himself. It�s hard to watch Clinton these days, but it�s also inspiring. Having suffered an epochal, humiliating rebuke that could well cleave American history into before and after, she still�still!�refuses to disappear. Speaking of the viciousness with which women in politics are treated, she said, �Part of the personal attacks, part of the bullying, part of the name calling that has certainly become much more pervasive because of the internet, is to crush your spirit, to make you feel inadequate, to make you doubt yourself. I just refuse to do that.� This toughness would have served her well as president. But she might need it even more now that she never will be.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:09

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

blackguy32 posted:

Read the article and the chart again, this is in those swing states. More and more data is coming out that this election really wasn't about the economy and as I have said numerous times before, trying to go after the "Obama voters" that were supposedly lost is a lost cause if you want your campaign to focus on equality and civil rights, because to focus on that is to decenter whiteness, and anytime you do that, those White voters begin to get nervous.

You really really did not answer! You at no point came close to answering in a concrete fashion the question "If we were to concede that her leftist economic message was actually heard loud and clear, and no adjustments are necessary there, then what's the solution?"

And now you're on the Discourse Bus where you claim things other than the thing everyone can plainly read right there

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:10

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

blackguy32 posted:

It is almost as if you didn't read the part that wasn't quoted.

Answer the question. Also :lol:

@ Hillary showing "toughness" by speaking to reporters. Seriously this is why I read Paste and Jacobin.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Apr 9, 2017

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:10

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

E; gently caress this post, I just want to hear the answer.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:11

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Economy was the one category in which Clinton was known for sure to beat Trump, and it was a category where she needed to win big. She instead eked out a very, very modest victory while losing in every other segment, and the polls don't even attribute her victory / loss to her ideological leaning. The stats about Clinton's marginally higher support among economy oriented voters are, if anything, another reason to condemn Clinton's campaign.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:12

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

*Trump wins 49% of voters concerned about economy*

Reasoned response: Truly a landslide for Hillary - the statistics show all the people with economic concerns came together, and only left the racists on Trump's side. Also from these numbers we can OBVIOUSLY see that Hillary has already captured literally 100% of people who would like a more redistributive economic platform, under one name or another. We can also see that literally nobody on Hillary's side who picks candidates based on economic policy is economically conservative or moderate, that just isn't a possibility at all.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:15

Pedro De Heredia: May 30, 2006

The thing is that, on its own, a fact like "voters who said their main concern was the economy voted for Clinton" is kind of meaningless.

It's kind of meaningless because there is no direct relationship between the answer to that question and people's votes. Or, at least, we don't know its direction.

We know most people vote along party lines. They are not voting on who they think is 'better for the economy'.

There's really only a small subset of voters who might actually make decisions based on their answer to those concerns. Exit polling also addresses only those who did vote; anyone who did not vote because they did not find Clinton's economic platform convincing isn't included there.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:24

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

blackguy32 posted:

Stop talking about identity politics. Anything that doesn't put whiteness as front and center is seen as an affront.

The election was lost through a handful of places and not as some overarching mandate against her. Perhaps focus even more on minority areas.

What do you care about anything or anyone? Aren't you and 'your people' prepared to continue to suffer until a pure solution comes along?

Also lol at the idea that winning by small margins on economic priorities meant Clinton was fine and perfect on economics and everyone loved her ideas.

icantfindaname posted:

Hrm, let's see what the liberal commentariat is up to. Surely they've gotten the message about sticking to a muscular left-wing line, right?

Oh

It's Everyone Else's Fault: The Hillary Rodham Clinton Story

# ? Apr 9, 2017 20:57

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

blackguy32 posted:

That was an answer, it just wasn't an answer you liked. Now repeat what I read again. I said focus on minority areas. One can argue for free college and better healthcare while pushing a message of diversity. However, if one is going to put issues of diversity front and center, then we have to accept that many voters are going to be turned off at a message like that.

That isn't an answer. I'm looking for concrete strategy. My argument is that there is little to lose by openly embracing populist economic policies a la Bernie. If you think it won't do any good, then I want to hear exactly what will. This also says there is something that Clinton wasn't doing and could have done better in minority communities, but this directly contradicts the arguments about vote suppression earlier, so I feel like this is just some circular bullshit that starts and ends with "Clinton deserved to win".

# ? Apr 9, 2017 21:12

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

I am curious what "issues of diversity" looks like as a policy proscription as distinct from greater access to and affordability of education and healthcare.

Also on what level of governance these changes will be enacted, such that it fixes the problems with HRC's campaign, chief among them that she needed to pay people of sound mind to get them to like her.

Or perhaps a future campaign on the same platform which we are assuming for the sake of argument was otherwise fine and didn't need measures like "health insurance you can afford to use"

Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Apr 9, 2017

# ? Apr 9, 2017 21:14

Nix Panicus: Feb 25, 2007

We create a new government branch of Thought Police and have them go around telling people to stop being racist all the time. Also we meekly ask our corporate overlords for more diversity hires to boost profit margins.

We do absolutely nothing to address systemic racism in access to resources, healthcare or educational opportunities for anyone not a HENRY though, because that smacks of abhorrent leftism.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 21:19

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Willie Tomg posted:

I am curious what "issues of diversity" looks like as a policy proscription as distinct from greater access to and affordability of education and healthcare.

Also on what level of governance these changes will be enacted, such that it fixes the problems with HRC's campaign, chief among them that she needed to pay people of sound mind to get them to like her.

Or perhaps a future campaign on the same platform which we are assuming for the sake of argument was otherwise fine and didn't need measures like "health insurance you can afford to use"

In a year of asking this question on a regular basis, I have received literally no answer to this.

Therefore I've concluded this argument here on the forums is mainly used by people who are afraid of their tax bills going up, and so they accuse progressives of selfishness and racism, to hide their own selfish motives. Naturally there are some true believers out there, but they would, presumably, be able to formulate some sort of a reply, and so I don't think anybody posting here can lay a claim to being one of them.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 21:28

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

steinrokkan posted:

In a year of asking this question on a regular basis, I have received literally no answer to this.

Therefore I've concluded this argument here on the forums is mainly used by people who are afraid of their tax bills going up, and so they accuse progressives of selfishness and racism, to hide their own selfish motives. Naturally there are some true believers out there, but they would, presumably, be able to formulate some sort of a reply, and so I don't think anybody posting here can lay a claim to being one of them.

There are many, many policies that are only directly relevant to minorities and immigrants, some of which I've discussed in this thread, and I think those are essential parts of any Democratic platform. I actually think I replied to you in particular about that.

What's truly loving absurd is that we keep getting this antipathy for economic reform instead of positive advocacy for racial justice, women's and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, disability rights, etc., like it's some zero sum game. This made some sense in the context of Sanders v. Clinton (because you have people who can take or leave "free college tuition" but are going for who they perceive as the stronger feminist) but it makes zero sense right now when we're talking about a platform reorganization after an epic loss.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 22:22

Willie Tomg: Feb 2, 2006

I think it's really cool how that resistance will be geometrically more difficult in 2018/2020 after Legitimately Presidential Donald has been a wartime president for multiple years exercising the DNC foreign policy consensus despite running on: not that, at all.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 22:41

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:

There are many, many policies that are only directly relevant to minorities and immigrants, some of which I've discussed in this thread, and I think those are essential parts of any Democratic platform. I actually think I replied to you in particular about that.

What's truly loving absurd is that we keep getting this antipathy for economic reform instead of positive advocacy for racial justice, women's and reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, disability rights, etc., like it's some zero sum game. This made some sense in the context of Sanders v. Clinton (because you have people who can take or leave "free college tuition" but are going for who they perceive as the stronger feminist) but it makes zero sense right now when we're talking about a platform reorganization after an epic loss.

I totally agree, and by focusing on the supposed hidden motives of economic policies, the liberals not only waste their own time that could be spent writing up and refining their social policies, they also waste progressives' time by making them retreat to apologize for their economic core, instead of letting them flash out their policies in other areas. They are creating a self fulfilling prophecy of economic policy killing social change by constantly retreading grounds that are, by all accounts, well surveyed and which contain no substantial controversy.

# ? Apr 9, 2017 22:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Willie Tomg posted:

I think it's really cool how that resistance will be geometrically more difficult in 2018/2020 after Legitimately Presidential Donald has been a wartime president for multiple years exercising the DNC foreign policy consensus despite running on: not that, at all.

well now you see I actually agree with my opponent here on an awful lot, however I thi

# ? Apr 9, 2017 23:06

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Willie Tomg posted:

I think it's really cool how that resistance will be geometrically more difficult in 2018/2020 after Legitimately Presidential Donald has been a wartime president for multiple years exercising the DNC foreign policy consensus despite running on: not that, at all.

Last time it took eight years for people to realize that war is bad. But now people are twice as smart, so it will only take four years!

# ? Apr 9, 2017 23:09

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Trump will stand in front of a hanger full of flag covered caskets and blame the Democrats for their deaths by agreeing with him to commit troops to Syria and how only he truly respects their sacrifice. Then the New York Times will call him the most presidential man in the country.

I'm hoping they don't fall for the obvious trick of supporting a GOP led invasion only to get hosed when it goes tits up but D.C politicos of all stripes love dead soldiers and missile strikes.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Apr 10, 2017

# ? Apr 10, 2017 13:25

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

Radish posted:

Trump will stand in front of a hanger full of flag covered caskets and blame the Democrats for their deaths by agreeing with him to commit troops to Syria and how only he truly respects their sacrifice. Then the New York Times will call him the most presidential man in the country.

I'm hoping they don't fall for the obvious trick of supporting a GOP led invasion only to get hosed when it goes tits up but D.C politicos of all stripes love dead soldiers and missile strikes.

Hey, missile manufacturers employ people too!

# ? Apr 10, 2017 14:32

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Radish posted:

Trump will stand in front of a hanger full of flag covered caskets and blame the Democrats for their deaths by agreeing with him to commit troops to Syria and how only he truly respects their sacrifice. Then the New York Times will call him the most presidential man in the country.

I'm hoping they don't fall for the obvious trick of supporting a GOP led invasion only to get hosed when it goes tits up but D.C politicos of all stripes love dead soldiers and missile strikes.

American Adventurism is the only place where there still is a bipartisan consensus.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 14:46

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

hillary really hosed up

if trump gets another supreme court nomination y'all can kiss any hopes of single health payer goodbye because it's gonna be ruled unconstitutional

# ? Apr 10, 2017 16:31

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Radish posted:

Trump will stand in front of a hanger full of flag covered caskets and blame the Democrats for their deaths by agreeing with him to commit troops to Syria and how only he truly respects their sacrifice. Then the New York Times will call him the most presidential man in the country.

I'm hoping they don't fall for the obvious trick of supporting a GOP led invasion only to get hosed when it goes tits up but D.C politicos of all stripes love dead soldiers and missile strikes.

I don't think we're going to actually invade Syria (or anywhere else for that matter). I mean, there have been plenty of times in the past when the US has stuck to "only" bombing countries.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 16:37

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

hillary really hosed up

if trump gets another supreme court nomination y'all can kiss any hopes of single health payer goodbye because it's gonna be ruled unconstitutional

lol yeah because Abuela "single payer will never ever happen" Sachs was really going to stack some folks that would get it done.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 16:52

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

lol yeah because Abuela "single payer will never ever happen" Sachs was really going to stack some folks that would get it done.

There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:00

Hail Mr. Satan!: Oct 3, 2009; by zen death robot

Ardennes posted:

There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen.

Well it's an economic issue, and as this thread's posters have clearly indicated, voters don't care about the economy while simultaneously overwhelmingly voting Hillary Clinton's economic policy as the most leftist in history? I don't know, I get lost here sometimes

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:03

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

Well it's an economic issue, and as this thread's posters have clearly indicated, voters don't care about the economy while simultaneously overwhelmingly voting Hillary Clinton's economic policy as the most leftist in history? I don't know, I get lost here sometimes

That'd because progressives and voters are too dumb to realize that this period of late capital is the best things will ever be.

Never forget that the Very Serious People are far more conservative than the voter base.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:11

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:

lol yeah because Abuela "single payer will never ever happen" Sachs was really going to stack some folks that would get it done.

absolutely no Democratic-appointed justice will ever find the federal government lacks the power to do single payer

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:22

temple: Jul 29, 2006; I have actual skeletons in my closet

When I read discussions within the democratic party, people present policy as either or. I'm a minority by American standards and I don't believe Democrats are limited to one policy proposal every 10 years. You can racial progress and economic progress. Is there anyone willing to explain why this isn't so?

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:27

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Ardennes posted:

There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen.

Nah,what there needs to be is is just continued extra party activities to elect progressives to congress.

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 07:26

redneck nazgul: Apr 25, 2013

temple posted:

When I read discussions within the democratic party, people present policy as either or. I'm a minority by American standards and I don't believe Democrats are limited to one policy proposal every 10 years. You can racial progress and economic progress. Is there anyone willing to explain why this isn't so?

Because they have to offer a middle-ground between what their leftist base wants and what they can actually negotiate out of the Republicans, thus, their proposals become "Either <x> or the Republicans get everything".

# ? Apr 10, 2017 17:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

«‹›92 »