|
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 | ||
|
Ardennes posted:There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen. This is probably true for most major reforms in the US at this point. Edit: are we still doing the fat dog thing? 
AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 10, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
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? It is so, but centrists are unable to understand it. There used to be this thing called "political capital" in the 60s and 70s when Republicans and Democrats would trade favors with each other to achieve some level of compromise in enacting policy. The Republicans haven't been willing or able to compromise on anything at all since the Reagan administration, but centrist Democrats are unable to mentally process this fact for some reason. They willingly trade away policy because they assume that at some point they'll be able to cash in their chips and get something they want. The liberal centrist view of American politics is one where no matter what party occupies the White House, the American government runs by a set of unspoken, meritocratic rules of common decency and respect because of the Strength and Nobility of the Institutions of the United States. It's complete horseshit fantasy, but if you understand this, a lot of centrist behavior makes more sense. Especially when examining the Obama administration. Right now, some of the Democratic leadership seems to be starting to understand that they're never going to get what they want. They don't have any specific plan or idea for how to fix the situation, but at least reality seems to be sinking in for (i.e.) Chuck Schumer. Contrast his recent rhetoric with Pelosi's for an example of what I mean. Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen. Not necessarily. Pretty much every business on the planet not tied to the medical/insurance industries would benefit greatly from it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:absolutely no Democratic-appointed justice will ever find the federal government lacks the power to do single payer Bullshit, she would have put in a socially liberal corporate stooge. That is what her whole campaign was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted: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. Yeah I really hope not but the Trump administration doesn't seem to be bound by a lot of conventional politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted: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". Yup. And promising your base that you'll start from a position of compromise is not just a terrible negotiation strategy, it's a terrible election strategy to boot. Alex Pareene was on "Chapo" last week, and he made the salient point that elected Dems, and especially the party leadership, are so ridiculously, viscerally convinced that their base doesn't approve of left-wing policies. They have a weird compulsion to apologize for what they're pushing from the get-go. Republicans don't ever seem to worry that their base is out-of-step with their right-wing policy proposals. I kind of wonder how that can be changed, if at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:It is so, but centrists are unable to understand it. There used to be this thing called "political capital" in the 60s and 70s when Republicans and Democrats would trade favors with each other to achieve some level of compromise in enacting policy. The Republicans haven't been willing or able to compromise on anything at all since the Reagan administration, but centrist Democrats are unable to mentally process this fact for some reason. They willingly trade away policy because they assume that at some point they'll be able to cash in their chips and get something they want. In the long run I think Aaron Sorkin has done more damage to American politics by melting the brains of Liberals than all of the race resentment Nixon unleashed on us
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
It's because the circles they travel in are the donor class. They aren't out there among the public.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I kind of wonder how that can be changed, if at all. Primary anyone to the right of Stalin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:In the long run I think Aaron Sorkin has done more damage to American politics by melting the brains of Liberals than all of the race resentment Nixon unleashed on us I heard them say this on Chapo, but I don't think they were entirely fair. Every generation has its share of tv shows, movies, literature, etc, that unrealistically idealize politics, negotiation, convincing people through the virtues of your argument, etc. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," anyone? Hell, the Roman Republic had more than its fair share of stuff like this. frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:It's because the circles they travel in are the donor class. They aren't out there among the public. To some degree, this is true, but there's more to it than just that, I think. I think a lot of politicians are forgetting what era they're in. Politics has always been a corrupt, cynical business, but I think a lot of Republicans have been quicker on the uptake than Democrats that we're living in a particularly nasty age of politically nihilistic tribalism. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Apr 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
The idea of decency in politics has always been a fantastic lie. In the 1800s a man was beaten with a cane in his office by another Senator while that guy's thug friends stopped anyone from intervening and that Senator became a hero in the South. The fact that modern Democrats live in a fantasy land is pretty much to the detriment of everyone in this country as they don't stand as a reasonable counter to the Republicans which understand that power is meant to be used, not bargained away in order to look fair. They seem to FINALLY be getting it since 2016 couldn't be written off or ignored like 2014.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:It's because the circles they travel in are the donor class. They aren't out there among the public. It's exactly this. The major problem is that literally everyone who can enact change hasn't been poor in a long loving time, if at all. Why would they care about the fight for $15 when the last time they made less than 6 figures was decades ago?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:The idea of decency in politics has always been a fantastic lie. Eh, yeah, but there have been times in which there was a greater chance of getting a legislator to cross party lines. There's a reason why LBJ got elected after the Civil Rights Act, and it wasn't just because Goldwater was a complete nutball. This is not one of those times, though, and the Dems need to realize that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I heard them say this on Chapo, but I don't think they were entirely fair. Every generation has its share of tv shows, movies, literature, etc, that unrealistically idealize politics, negotiation, convincing people through the virtues of your argument, etc. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," anyone? Hell, the Roman Republic had more than its fair share of stuff like this. You're a smart enough guy that I'm not going to point out why using the Roman Republic isn't the best example. But Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was also political fantasy that has never actually worked like Abe of course Democratic and Republican politicians of the 1930s and 40s never behaved like that. I don't think the era of political tribalism has anything too do with it. The mush brained idealism that all the beltway class get from Sorkin has never existed in our society, it's pure political fan fiction that has captured the way our leadership behaves in the exact same way that the Right has been captured by your racist grandpa only the Democrats have been captured by fantasy that dooms them to failure
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:To some degree, this is true, but there's more to it than just that, I think. I think a lot of politicians are forgetting what era they're in. Politics has always been a corrupt, cynical business, but I think a lot of Republicans have been quicker on the uptake than Democrats that we're living in a particularly nasty age of politically nihilistic tribalism. But that goes back to their privileged positions as lackeys of the donor class. The only skin they have in the game is staying in power, which they do by kowtowing to the wealthy. They aren't ever going to be affected by the policies they put into law that hurt the poor and middle classes. It's better for them to advocate policy for their donors and lose, than it is to go against them and win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DavidKlion/status/851503710433890304 ok
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:You're a smart enough guy that I'm not going to point out why using the Roman Republic isn't the best example. I think it's a terrific example - the Republic was a shitshow on so many levels, but that's kind of my point. A lot of what Cicero and Polybius and Livy wrote, extolling the virtues of the Republic, was the "West Wing" of its day. quote:I don't think the era of political tribalism has anything too do with it. The mush brained idealism that all the beltway class get from Sorkin has never existed in our society, it's pure political fan fiction that has captured the way our leadership behaves in the exact same way that the Right has been captured by your racist grandpa only the Democrats have been captured by fantasy that dooms them to failure I agree with all of this, but there are times when it's worse and there are times where it's better. It's pretty clear that we're in a time where it's worse - where the government has reached a peak of disfunction. There's a reason why the Senate Republicans refusing to even bring Garland's SCOTUS nomination to the floor created such a stir: it's because there are previous eras in American history where that would not have happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup. And promising your base that you'll start from a position of compromise is not just a terrible negotiation strategy, it's a terrible election strategy to boot. People got so mad about the idea of starting negotiations from your preferred compromise position being a bad strategy
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
redneck nazgul posted: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". Dr. Fishopolis posted:It is so, but centrists are unable to understand it. There used to be this thing called "political capital" in the 60s and 70s when Republicans and Democrats would trade favors with each other to achieve some level of compromise in enacting policy. The Republicans haven't been willing or able to compromise on anything at all since the Reagan administration, but centrist Democrats are unable to mentally process this fact for some reason. They willingly trade away policy because they assume that at some point they'll be able to cash in their chips and get something they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tinyrevolution/status/851528354683604992
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:There would have to be literal revolution (most likely violent) in the US for single-payer to ever happen. ...go on
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
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. The bolded is the only explanation left for Democrats' war boners. The wars are terrible for our country, they're terrible for the Middle East and the people living there who are left worse off every time, and they're terrible for the Democrats politically because their support just boosts approval for the Republican war mongers and then when it all goes to poo poo the Republicans just brazenly lie and say "oh I was against it the whole time, ignore the video proof and trust me" and then blame it all on the Democrats because they voted for the war. Then the Republicans run on ending all these Democrat foreign interventions and win. But the arousing allure of big bombs and dead Arabs and mutilated soldiers and flag-draped caskets is just too strong for Democrats to resist... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
The Democrats will absolutely reinstate the filibuster once they're back in power and then continue to point to it as the reason they can't end the war in New Zealand or unravel Trump's executive order legalizing hobo knife fights. It's so obvious at this point that it doesn't even qualify as a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
quote:People got so mad about the idea of starting negotiations from your preferred compromise position being a bad strategy People defended it by accusing Bernie Sanders of promising more than he could deliver, but I'd rather have someone that does that than someone that starts negotiating from the preferred compromise position right out of the gate. There's nothing stopping a candidate in the future from just saying "This is what I'm fighting for" without promising it using words like "I will sign". I'd rather hear "I will fight for [some policy]" than "I promise to deliver something halfway to [some policy]", but I understand there's probably some marketing people saying over their shoulders "Just say 'I will sign [some policy] into law." galenanorth fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Apr 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:People defended it by accusing Bernie Sanders of promising more than he could deliver, but I'd rather have someone that does that than someone that starts negotiating from the preferred compromise position right out of the gate. There's nothing stopping a candidate in the future from just saying "This is what I'm fighting for" without promising it using words like "I will sign". I'd rather hear "I will fight for [some policy]" than "I promise to deliver something halfway to [some policy]", but I understand there's probably some marketing people saying over their shoulders saying "Just say 'I will sign [some policy] into law." It's been brought up before but the reason politicians start from compromised positions is because their positions have already been negotiated down by the time they go public with them. Basically before you go to the people with your free college idea you go to the student loan lobby to try and convince them not to spam the airwaves with a million ads calling you a dog rapist. After several meetings you come to an agreement where you'll agree to subsidize just half of student tuition and in exchange the student loan lobby will avoid direct confrontation and instead focus on a whisper campaign about how you exposed yourself at Disneyland. Resistance to your bill minimized you're then free to go public and the *formal* negotiations can begin. It's just one of many wonderful ways that money in politics makes nice things impossible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think it's a terrific example - the Republic was a shitshow on so many levels, but that's kind of my point. A lot of what Cicero and Polybius and Livy wrote, extolling the virtues of the Republic, was the "West Wing" of its day. I get the feeling we might be agreeing with each other more than I first realized when I responded to you at work,. I apologize for that
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It's been brought up before but the reason politicians start from compromised positions is because their positions have already been negotiated down by the time they go public with them. So what was the Republican starting position if, "Oppose everything Obama suggests, regardless of what it is," was the negotiated down position?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
also politics isn't a negotiation any more because there's no such thing as bipartisan legislation
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:So what was the Republican starting position if, "Oppose everything Obama suggests, regardless of what it is," was the negotiated down position? Repeal Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare and the VA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I heard them say this on Chapo, but I don't think they were entirely fair. Every generation has its share of tv shows, movies, literature, etc, that unrealistically idealize politics, negotiation, convincing people through the virtues of your argument, etc. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," anyone? Hell, the Roman Republic had more than its fair share of stuff like this. Well, Mr Smith at least puts forth a sincere if naive vision of an ideal civic virtue and participation in republican government. Sorkin meanwhile presents politics as an HBO drama. Not really comparable IMO
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Well, Mr Smith at least puts forth a sincere if naive vision of an ideal civic virtue and participation in republican government. Sorkin meanwhile presents politics as an HBO drama. Not really comparable IMO Well, I think that's just where we differ on this, then. To me, "naive vision of an ideal civic virtue and participation in republican government" describes "The West Wing" to a "t." I don't see how anyone could see it as not well-meaning, however you may feel about its accuracy. KomradeX posted:I get the feeling we might be agreeing with each other more than I first realized when I responded to you at work,. I apologize for that That's all right, I rush out posts at work pretty frequently myself, so I'm in no position to judge. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
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. Hillary didn't talk about economics, or basically anything at all. Rust Belt blacks stayed home b/c of this lack of emphasis
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
menino posted:Hillary didn't talk about economics, or basically anything at all. Rust Belt blacks stayed home b/c of this lack of emphasis Welllll, let's not forget that there was quite a bit of voter suppression too. That said, yeah, if Clinton had spoken to Rust Belt voters about issues that directly concern them, she probably would have gotten a better turnout among black voters in the region.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Welllll, let's not forget that there was quite a bit of voter suppression too. Yeah voter suppression definitely a thing too, but racial splits were about equal to 2012 in WI and MI and Dem votes cratered there, especially in Wayne and Milwaukee counties
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:also politics isn't a negotiation any more because there's no such thing as bipartisan legislation Do you think the Democrats get that? I'm not sure all of them do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:It's been brought up before but the reason politicians start from compromised positions is because their positions have already been negotiated down by the time they go public with them. I wonder if politicians are continually surprised by the lukewarm reception their crap compromised policies receive. I guess once you've been in politics long enough and/or disposed of your soul through the blasphemous ritual it all just starts to make sense. Of course you invite the guy from the student loan lobby to help you write the bill disposing of the student loan lobby. We don't want him to call us a dog fucker and he's an important stake holder! He probably knows best how to regulate his own industry. Nevermind that the starting goal was to eliminate or at least severely curtail his industry, now we're looking to make some cosmetic changes while maintaining (or expanding) his profit margins!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:So what was the Republican starting position if, "Oppose everything Obama suggests, regardless of what it is," was the negotiated down position? You don't need to negotiate a position that industry paid for in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
So in order to keep people off the Obama Thread I thought I might just post that in the Kansas House District 4 Special Election the Democrat, Thompson is only losing by a percentage point to the Republican Estes. Should be noted that this district is where one of the Koch Bros live. Also the DNC until the last minute IGNORED THE loving ELECTION! Seriously going to laugh at the centrists who are now going to say it was sensible to ignore elections like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:So in order to keep people off the Obama Thread I thought I might just post that in the Kansas House District 4 Special Election the Democrat, Thompson is only losing by a percentage point to the Republican Estes. Should be noted that this district is where one of the Koch Bros live. Also the DNC until the last minute IGNORED THE loving ELECTION! Seriously going to laugh at the centrists who are now going to say it was sensible to ignore elections like this. Also that it's fruitless running even a mildly populist campaign. I hope the Dems learn the right lesson from this, but we'll see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:I wonder if politicians are continually surprised by the lukewarm reception their crap compromised policies receive. I guess once you've been in politics long enough and/or disposed of your soul through the blasphemous ritual it all just starts to make sense. Of course you invite the guy from the student loan lobby to help you write the bill disposing of the student loan lobby. We don't want him to call us a dog fucker and he's an important stake holder! He probably knows best how to regulate his own industry. Nevermind that the starting goal was to eliminate or at least severely curtail his industry, now we're looking to make some cosmetic changes while maintaining (or expanding) his profit margins! It's hard because lobbies replaced machines. So they've ended up occupying the same niche.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 03:10
|
|