|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
McCloud posted:Well..duh? I mean, money rules in politics. It's very unfortunate that this is the state of things in the US, and maybe if more people paid attention to politics and voted, and also were less terrible human beings swayed by racism, religion and right wing talking points, they wouldn't be in this mess, but they don't and they are. So... Obama deserves praise for playing along with the corrupt system, because corruption is the norm? Nothing stood in his way except for his greed, and the greed of the Congress, and it was his choice to either surrender to his lowest impulses, or at least use his position to point fingers at politicians acting against public interest .
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 10:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:So... Obama deserves praise for playing along with the corrupt system, because corruption is the norm? Nothing stood in his way except for his greed, and the greed of the Congress, and it was his choice to either surrender to his lowest impulses, or at least use his position to point fingers at politicians acting against public interest . When did pointing out that politicians are scumbags stop people voting for them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Until recently "leftist" policies didn't get you elected, because that's not what the voters wanted. When he ran on leftist policies he won a supermajority. Then he gave criminal banks a big ol blowjob and passed Romneycare, and got the worst midterm defeats in history, lost states in 2012 that went for him in 2008, got destroyed in 2014, then also ya know the living avatar of triangulating pragmatism went on to lose to the most unpopular candidate in polling history. The actual evidence we have from the last eight years contradicts your pat little theory, McCloud. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:51 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:we don't have time for "pragmatic" tiny shifts in policy over 30 years If we only progress toward UHC at the speed of the private market's collapse -- with two parties holding off that collapse as best they can -- then, well, gently caress. Hot Take: That would be unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 10:58
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Again..Duh? The problem is, again, that without money you lose, so compromises are a necessity. Ever thought that maybe you need to take the money because you take the money? That once you compromise on everything to get the money you no longer have anything of worth left except for the money?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
If the voters don't like when we sell out, that means we need even more money to stay competitive in a climate of declining voter enthusiasm!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Well..duh? I mean, money rules in politics. It's very unfortunate that this is the state of things in the US, and maybe if more people paid attention to politics and voted, and also were less terrible human beings swayed by racism, religion and right wing talking points, they wouldn't be in this mess, but they don't and they are. Hahahahaha what an idiot Woops I thought this was the safe zone My bad Here op- There is no such thing as welfare queens. Makes you sound racist actually. Go gently caress yourself lol white sauce fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
See it's *~*~pragmatism~*~*
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:doubtful. you don't get people voting and paying attention to politics by chanting "pay attention!" and "vote!" at them. you get them excited. and you do that by addressing their issues. but the dems were fatally unable/unwilling to do that because the massive amounts of money they took came under conditions that required them to be business friendly. so we get student debt forbearance for startup creators and tweaks to a healthcare system that people can't afford to use because premiums and deductibles are skyhigh. You are condensing an immensely complicated issue here. Yeah, your basic point is correct in that they have sacrificed freedom for financial backing, but until very recently money was a huge influencing factor. With no money, you lost, because you had no way of getting yourself noticed by the voters. This has changed recently, in that you can get shitton of attention via social media and internet, but even 10 years back money was a big factor in who won. In addition, Democrats have tried and passed stuff that's at least small improvements, but in the end, if people want more leftist politics, they should encourage that behaviour by voting, which so far, they haven't! Because again, the voters are stupid and don't pay attention, and a lot of what's going on in politics can't be summarised in a soundbite. Don't get me wrong, democrats have failed, but what I am saying is that their behavior makes sense, and hindsight is 2020. On almost any I can think of, democrats have been far better on than the GOP. Gun control, infrastructure, finance reform, environment, etc. Maybe they don't go far enough, but again, the public until recently didn't seem interested in going to far in these respective issues. Raising taxes was a surefire way to lose, as was being soft on crime, or being too hard on "job creators". Compared to the GOP the dems are vastly better on almost every issue, yet people keep voting GOP. What's the motivation then to move further left? At some point, you have to stop blaming the dems and start blaming the voters. If they can't pull their heads out of their asses for more than two seconds once every 2 years, take a look at the political landscape and not vote for the toxic dumpster fire that is the GOP, that's on them, because I can't think of a single metric where the GOP would benefit your average voter more than the dems. Condiv posted:that pragmatism has seen us lose every branch of the federal government to republicans. it's not actually pragmatism, it's defeatism Dems lost for a multitude of reasons, not the very least of which is voter intimidation and suppression, influence from a foreign nation with aid from the republicans, gerrymandering, bungling of an investigation by a incompetent FBI director, and also a vast media propaganda machine of which the left don't really have an answer for. If voters really cared for more leftist policies, Bernie would have won the primaries and Hillary would have won the general (by more than she did, I mean). He didn't, and she didn't. But clearly, there are other things more important than student loans and healthcare, like black people being uppity and gays getting married. seriously mccloud, do you think climate change is important? cause too many businesses don't, and we can't get serious about combating it while they are our donors. hillary was all for fracking, which is really loving bad for the environment and climate change, and i'll give you three guesses why she thought it was a good idea. [/quote] Yeah, Hillary was for fracking, but have you actually stopped to consider that maybe she supports it for other reasons than the oil lobby? Decreasing US dependence on foreign oil means that we are less beholden to Saudi Arabia, and decrease their leverage on global politics. The importance of this cannot be understated. Yes, the environment is important, which is why Hillary supported the climate change agreement, and presumably would also keep investing heavily in renewable energy like Obama did. Again, there's complexity and nuance to this issue, and you just reduce it to a pithy talking points about dems sucking the oil lobbies cock. steinrokkan posted:So... Obama deserves praise for playing along with the corrupt system, because corruption is the norm? Nothing stood in his way except for his greed, and the greed of the Congress, and it was his choice to either surrender to his lowest impulses, or at least use his position to point fingers at politicians acting against public interest . This is just laughable. A president is not an emperor, he's constrained in what he can do, and cannot just unilaterally write and pass laws. He can't declare healthcare for all and then have it happen. You know this, yes? Or do you need a civics lesson? Accretionist posted:There's a tinge of Just World Fallacy -- I agree that politicians are not doing as much as they could be doing. But I also argue that to do more, they need to be in power, and they pursued the best course of action to get to/remain in power. The reason they didn't do more for the people is because they thought this would be detrimental to them, either via loss of money, or votes, or both, and in that regard I prefer incremental progress to incremental decline. But Ultimately I hold the voters responsible. Even paying a little attention you can see that the GOP is filled with virulent racist, crazies and religious nuts, but they still get almost 50% of the vote. It beggars belief, and the only conclusion I can draw from this is that america is filled with spiteful bastards who'd happily tie a noose around their necks if it means those loving socialists/blacks/gays got hanged first. The voters get the politicians they deserve after all. The dems didn't think moving left would be beneficial, and the proof is, again, Hillary, because she did move left and still lost to the orange facist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
quote:
You're racist op
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:See it's *~*~pragmatism~*~* A lot of those state seats were literally surrendered since the Democrats didn't feel the need to even run again the GOP. Even Hillary won districts in Virginia that had seats which were unopposed. That's "Pragmatism;" literally giving up and losing because why bother if you can't be 51% sure of a win?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
McCloud posted:At some point, you have to stop blaming the dems and start blaming the voters. Lmao e: McCloud posted:[Democrats] pursued the best course of action to get to/remain in power. 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lmao If you ever get to the point where you think "voters failed the party" makes sense get the gently caress out of politics. Even if that was remotely true (which it certainly isn't, Hillary Clinton isn't entitled to be President because of her resume or how lovely her opponent she wanted to run against is), it's defeatism and has no solution to make future wins.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/907776989423128576 Oklahoma just had a 30 point shift towards democrats in the election of Jacob rosencrants (where's guildenstern?  )!!Did they do it with tempered pragmatism? Or blaming voters? No!! Rosencrants' policies posted:
Wow, someone to the left of the establishment dems got elected in a blood red state! That's supposed to be impossible! Only blue dogs are supposed to be able to win here!! Condiv fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obama ran far to the left of how he actually governed tho. Romneycare was the best possible compromise during the time, don't be disingenuous. He also helped save the bank and autoindustry, which saved a shitton of jobs, and prevented further damage to the economy, and also passed the stimulus bill, which again helped save jobs. So by your insane reasoning, voters did not approve of the stimulus and would rather lose more jobs and have the world economy collapse. Like seriously, did you forget about the astroturfing of tea parties? That voter turnout amongst dems is always lower in midterms? That folks are more likely to vote for the party that isn't sitting in the WH? How unpopular ACA was at the time? In fact, Obama had this image as being super left at the time, so if voters actually cared about that sort of stuff, this would have actually been reflected in the votes! white sauce posted:Hahahahaha what an idiot Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I take it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Like I don't understand how in the tank you have to be to look at the bungling mess the Democrats have made of Republican opposition, even taking the inherent anti-Democratic systems of this country like the EC and Senate into consideration, and think "yeah these guys are totally playing to win and their strategy is working great." There's only so many excuses you can make before you have to realize that it's not about winning at all costs, it's about being devoted to a very specific ideology and pretending that is the only way despite all evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Romneycare was the best possible compromise during the time, don't be disingenuous. He also helped save the bank and autoindustry, which saved a shitton of jobs, and prevented further damage to the economy, and also passed the stimulus bill, which again helped save jobs. So by your insane reasoning, voters did not approve of the stimulus and would rather lose more jobs and have the world economy collapse. whatever you say Baghdad Bob 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
People, do not actually debate the hillfolk, it only makes them believe they have a legitimate point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:People, do not actually debate the hillfolk, it only makes them believe they have a legitimate point. They'll believe it regardless. But they can change. I mean heck yes loam is improving a lot, peachfart too, and this thread is filled with former pragmatists who have changed their minds. So go ahead and argue with them, that's what this thread is for!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like I don't understand how in the tank you have to be to look at the bungling mess the Democrats have made of Republican opposition, even taking the inherent anti-Democratic systems of this country like the EC and Senate into consideration, and think "yeah these guys are totally playing to win and their strategy is working great." There's only so many excuses you can make before you have to realize that it's not about winning at all costs, it's about being devoted to a very specific ideology and pretending that is the only way despite all evidence to the contrary. I am merely saying that the democrats behavior up until recently made sense given the political reality. Yeah, Obama cozies up to insurers because it's either that or not passing healthcare reform. Yeah Hillary supports fracking, because the option is to be dependent on Saudi Arabia and that's terrible, etc etc. In hindsight, yeah they should have started pushing for a more leftist agenda, but again, investments in infrastructure means raising taxes or borrowing money, and neither seemed appealing at the time. VitalSigns posted:Lmao I didn't say it was a successful strategy  Edit: Just to be clear, I fully support dems pushing a socialist agenda, tax the rich and publicly execute the Koch brothers/GOP for treason with guillotine, and forcibly drag the country into the 21st century and put every single idiot redneck who voted for the tea party into a reeducation camp. But I also prefer incremental progress over a massive step back, and that until recently these where the only options available, and the reason we only had these two choices isn't as clear cut as "democrats are terrible". McCloud fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
McCloud posted:This is just laughable. A president is not an emperor, he's constrained in what he can do, and cannot just unilaterally write and pass laws. He can't declare healthcare for all and then have it happen. You know this, yes? Or do you need a civics lesson? A funny thing to say about Barack "Executive Order" Obama. Anyway, a president is not an automaton, he is a person with agency. His environment doesn't excuse his actions. If it did, Trump or W or even Nixon would be perfect, model presidents who just reacted to the realities surrounding them in politically expedient ways. Had he been committed to public service, he should have eviscerated every single Democratic legislator standing in the way of his better, more progressive ideas, straighten the party up and let people know there is no place in it for opportunists and profiteers. In reality, however, he had no desire to push for more than a Republican healthcare project, and acted accordingly. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A funny thing to say about Barack "Executive Order" Obama. Would you prefer he push for single payer and fail or push for ACA and have it pass?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
The thing is about 'the budget' and 'the economy' is that the government is, by definition, legally allowed to use cheat codes in those areas, and it's not even hard if you do it right. And pretty sure policies like welfare and health care tend to reap massive dividends across all of society, because it turns out having less sick, destitute and disabled people means they can do more productive stuff with their time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Would you prefer he push for single payer and fail or push for ACA and have it pass? To rectify his own party so it can eventually pass better legislation, instead of allowing its problems to fester under a hastily applied bandage. That way perhaps there would be no Trump, and a new Democratic president would have the mandate to pass broader social reforms with the help of a new blood in the Congress. Obama's legacy of unnecessary, unpopular compromises is self-defeating, and is at a verge of being completely erased less than a year after the end of his term. The pragmatic agenda you praise planted the seeds of its own demise. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Romneycare was the best possible compromise during the time, don't be disingenuous. He also helped save the bank and autoindustry, which saved a shitton of jobs, and prevented further damage to the economy, and also passed the stimulus bill, which again helped save jobs. So by your insane reasoning, voters did not approve of the stimulus and would rather lose more jobs and have the world economy collapse. Bolded the important part for you. Compare what happened when he had that image, to what happened when he shoveled a few hundred billion into the pockets of the ultra-rich and protected criminal bankers as they stole homes from people while he was locking the public out of his healthcare negotiations and letting corporate ghouls write the ACA to prize guaranteed industry rent-seeking over affordable coverage and cost control. It was reflected in the votes! When people thought Obama would help them, they turned out in record numbers. When he didn't do it, they got disillusioned and stayed home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
McCloud posted:
Agreed
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lmao Somehow I just don't see it 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Not intentional, I have used my mistrust of this thread to shitpost, and I will try and not do that as there are some very legitimate good faith posters here that want what I want, but use very different means. Not everyone is NFS, and it took some time for me to see this. WampaLord really helped me with this as well. Hey, Irma kept me out of the thread for a few days, but I was catching up on posts and I wanted to say that I'm glad I was able to convince you that this thread (unlike the Dems) is not a waste. (By the way, everyone I know is totally safe and cool, we got extremely lucky that it weakened and moved the way it did and didn't wipe Tampa off the map) Ultimately, though, I just want to ask you if the overall message we're trying to convey is getting through to you. You seem like you're kinda slowly eventually thinking about abandoning centrism, but you seem reluctant to fully embrace actual progressivism/leftism. Am I reading your posts correctly in this interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bolded the important part for you. I say this politely, but you're full of poo poo. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-democrats-lost-the-house-to-republicans/ http://winstongroup.net/2010/12/22/put-out-the-fire-an-analysis-of-the-2010-midterm-elections/ Both these post 2010 midterm articles point to dissatisfaction with the economy. People were angry that Obama hadn't fixed the economy yet and because they hated the stimulus. In short, voters are stupid, and the reason the dems lost has nothing to do with "protecting criminal bankers" and everything to do with high unemployment and anger at the stimulus bill, and the misstaken belief that Obama could wave his magic wand and fix the worst economic meltdown in recent memory. If you think the public stayed home because he protected wall street, prove it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
I will say, youth turnout was low in midterms. But then, they're always low in midterms. Youngsters don't vote in midterms, old people do, this is a well established pattern that goes back way further than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
People actually love bankers and would love to give them their own money, I say sagely Also, people disliked the stimulus spending, except for the parts that propped up banks, they were stoked about those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
Looks at the GOP holding the greatest amount of power in decades Yup, that's just the usual result of electoral cycles, nothing to be done about it. I'm the adult in the room because I desperately cling to the comfortable, mind numbing idea that the world operates according to rational rules, and in doing so will defend anything that has happened as necessary, and condemn anything counterfactual as spreading chaos into my delicate petit bourgeois world view. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Looks at the GOP holding the greatest amount of power in decades Holds the greatest amount of power in decades, can't repeal ACA. I guess true power is relative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:Holds the greatest amount of power in decades, can't repeal ACA. When the GOP fails to use their majority effectively, it's a massive failure on their part. When Obama does the same, it's a feature of his pragmatic presidency.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:People actually love bankers and would love to give them their own money, I say sagely steinrokkan posted:Looks at the GOP holding the greatest amount of power in decades Nice meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:When the GOP fails to use their majority effectively, it's a massive failure on their part. I'm not going to hold your opinion against you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
Like, there's a big difference between Obama using his supermajority to pass healthcare reform and stimulus bill which saved the economy, and Trump who used his Supermajority to ?!?!? vvvvvvvvv You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Duly noted. McCloud fucked around with this message at 13:49 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
McCloud posted:Like, there's a big difference between Obama using his supermajority to pass healthcare reform and stimulus bill which saved the economy, and Trump who used his Supermajority to ?!?!? Point of technical correction - Trump just has a majority, not a super majority.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
If the Obama years actually represented the absolute best that the dems can accomplish you might as well pack it in and dissolve the party because loving lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:48 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:If the Obama years actually represented the absolute best that the dems can accomplish you might as well pack it in and dissolve the party because loving lol If the voters can't be arsed to vote for better candidates, then they deserve Trump, imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 13:53
|
|