|
Ze Pollack posted:great to hear we've still got the senate, the- I didn't really follow the primary all that much. Why did Bernie do so much better with white women?
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, that's a shame. I had a lot of respect for her, but holy moly... tbf she didn't write the piece, she just linked to it
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I thought Hillary Clinton was a leftist. There was a bunch of reports about her being the most left-wing senator on TV and in newspapers. The lesson here is that there is no degree to which a Democrat can move to the center, that will shield them from accusations of being staunch leftists. It's a strategy that needs to be abandoned. The Muppets On PCP posted:tbf she didn't write the piece, she just linked to it Oh phew. Still, 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:great to hear we've still got the senate, the- Sorry that Hillary didn't solve white racism, I guess it was unrealistic to think she couldn't
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Boon posted:I think that in order for the Democrats to shift to this position they would necessarily have to instill the same messaging in their constituency that the GOP has in theirs, that there is no working with the opposition, that anyone who does not toe the line is to be primaried, and that the GOP is the enemy at all costs and nothing good can from them, that they cannot be worked with, full stop. but to many millions of people the government is broken. the government makes the rules for the game that is our economy, justice system, and our lives. for so many people all those things loving suck right now. sometimes a step back in hopes of taking two steps forward is necessary. if the dems address the things that people think are broken and promise to fix them then maybe they'll see success. and its not just things republicans are doing. its obama saying "no wall streeters in my cabinet" and then appointing timothy geithner. its palosi refusing to acknowledge the damage low-regulation capitalism is doing to people. its the failure to address the horrors of the GWoT and the War on Drugs from both parties. are either party advocating for a reduction in wealth inequality? which party wants to take on citizens united? its simple things like these that are indicative of our current institutions. the status quo is damaging. why are people trying to save and protect that? we need to come up with a plan to challenge the powers that be, not tacitly endorse them for fear of breaking things further. to many people a further break would be hardly noticeable because to them its already broken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sorry that Hillary didn't solve white racism, I guess it was unrealistic to think she couldn't Doesn't that suggest that her whole "response" to economic populism with, "But will it end RACISM?!?!" was, I dunno...cynical and wrong-headed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:if i was a football man, and i got the ball and unexpectedly broke through the lines to have a clear shot at a touchdown, wouldn't i rightly be called a massive loving idiot if i ran around in circles like a panicked idiot because i had only planned to wait out the clock on the game? This current situation is like getting a critical interception, then realizing your entire team is defense and all they ever do is block the nearest player on either team even when the QB is searching desperately for an open receiver. US politics is now Breaking Madden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sorry that Hillary didn't solve white racism, I guess it was unrealistic to think she couldn't nobody expected that, though it certainly would have been nice. expecting her to solve the problem of "how do I get the people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for me" would have sufficed. probably means we keep the Senate, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm going to need you to substantiate this claim... https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/30/1477194/-Hillary-and-Bernie-are-both-Liberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
haveblue posted:This current situation is like getting a critical interception, then realizing your entire team is defense and all they ever do is block the nearest player on either team even when the QB is searching desperately for an open receiver. thank you for using your expertise to create a far better analogy then i could
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but here's the flip-side of that: what if the Republicans didn't have a complete and utter moron as President? Without that variable, I think it's pretty likely that the ACA would be very dead by now. If they didn't then they wouldn't be in the situation that they are in right now. Perversely I don't think a more competent presidential candidate would make it out of the Republican primary. Trump is a symptom of their structural issues. Inescapable Duck posted:The GOP playbook works. The Democrat one doesn't. The GOP playbook works because Governmental Failure is an acceptable (if not desirable) outcome, and that's kind of the default when you don't actually get anything done. Two of the three (Simplified) outcomes are acceptable to regressives but only one is acceptable to progressives.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:nobody expected that, though it certainly would have been nice. expecting her to solve the problem of "how do I get the people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for me" would have sufficed. probably means we keep the Senate, too. Nobody actually thought she'd lose those votes because people didn't think that white people are so blase about racism they can vote for a black man and then immediately vote for a giant loving nazi but, lol, white people
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:nobody expected that, though it certainly would have been nice. expecting her to solve the problem of "how do I get the people who voted for Obama in 2012 to vote for me" would have sufficed. probably means we keep the Senate, too. Was there a specific policy that Bernie had that made him so much more popular with white women or was it just a personality thing? And how did Hillary win the primary without White Men and White Women? I didn't really follow, but I thought she won a lot of white states?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:i don't understand how this is a response to what i said I'm not sure how well sports analogies work in this circumstance, because "the game" depends so much on persuasion of others. I can't really think of a good analogue without jumping into weird board game or videogame analogies and I'm not gonna be that guy. Then there's the question of what they're trying to achieve - each senator has a personal "I want to win elections" thing, and that's what they were REALLY going for - so they said things to win elections. They didn't say most of what they've said in order to get rid of Obamacare, they said things so that they would get elected again and again. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:If you want to argue Leftists vs Liberals/Democrats take it to the loving Dem thread. The "democrats are a waste" thread is a waste. The title is not ironic, the content is ""gently caress these DEMS" and accellerationist circle jerks. I stopped following it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I'll make this short: No, it also could have happened it they nominated a propaganda figurehead thinking reason would win out. *checks over the candidate list* I don't know if Hilar Yclinton qualifies, lets ask the audience. *holds out the mic*
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The "democrats are a waste" thread is a waste. The title is not ironic, the content is ""gently caress these DEMS" and accellerationist circle jerks. I stopped following it. ok, and, what is the lesson to be learned from "distilled leftist/liberal slapfights are so terrible nobody wants to read them"? you're on step one, what is step two?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Push El Burrito posted:https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/1/30/1477194/-Hillary-and-Bernie-are-both-Liberal That's a pretty misleading piece, IMO - it treats "liberalism vs. conservatism" as a single-axis sort of thing, and doesn't seem to take economic platforms into account. It's pretty easy to be socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. Taerkar posted:If they didn't then they wouldn't be in the situation that they are in right now. Perversely I don't think a more competent presidential candidate would make it out of the Republican primary. Trump is a symptom of their structural issues. I don't think that's something that we can assume quite so readily. Someone as flamboyant and unapologetically fascist as Trump was probably needed for the Republicans to win, but I don't think the candidate needed to be quite as know-nothing about politics. My point is, I think it's a mistake to suggest that the Republicans taking complete control of the government isn't that big of a deal, because they've only gotten Gorsuch out of it so far. The Democrats had to lose pretty spectacularly over the course of several elections to reach this state of affairs, and it's only through a miracle that the GOP has been so unable capitalize on our loss.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The "democrats are a waste" thread is a waste. The title is not ironic, the content is ""gently caress these DEMS" and accellerationist circle jerks. I stopped following it. I honestly don't follow that dumb thread, I (and a lot of people) are just sick of the constant circular arguments between the Dems/Liberals/Leftists/Centrists. It never goes anywhere, nothing is ever learned, no one ever changes their minds. and although this is about US Politics there is an entire thread dedicated to tearing apart/defending the dems. It is more relevant there. Uspol was closed before because of dumb slapfights and circular arguing, if yall wanna keep it alive I suggest you actually add something to it. There are posters who genuinely try to contribute and they often can get drowned out due to the circular firing squad. it's not a good look. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a pretty misleading piece, IMO - it treats "liberalism vs. conservatism" as a single-axis sort of thing, and doesn't seem to take economic platforms into account. It's pretty easy to be socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. Which Democratic or Republican Presidential candidates in 2016 would that apply to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nobody actually thought she'd lose those votes because people didn't think that white people are so blase about racism they can vote for a black man and then immediately vote for a giant loving nazi but, lol, white people failure to grasp the situation, Jaxyon. Trump got just about the same number of votes Mitt Romney got. sure, there were some Obama->Trump voters. there were some Romney->Hillary voters. statistically speaking, they are noise. Trump did not activate some hidden horde of reactionary voters. he activated the same old Republican voters there always have been. and Hillary lost the Obama coalition. how did Hillary lose the Obama coalition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Which Democratic or Republican Presidential candidates in 2016 would that apply to? Hillary Clinton at least talked a good talk on issues like racial justice, gender equality, LGBT rights, etc. Her economic message, though, was about as pro-status quo as it could have gotten.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's pretty easy to be socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. Nope. There is no difference, it's simply a semantic game where people pretend to be one or the other, but it's a false dichotomy that makes no sense in the real world. It's more or less the "I support rear end in a top hat policies but I don't want to feel like an rear end in a top hat".
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nope. There is no difference, it's simply a semantic game where people pretend to be one or the other, but it's a false dichotomy that makes no sense in the real world. ...you're going to have to delve into this a bit, because I'm not understanding how you can say this is a semantics game that presents a false dichotomy. Unless you're saying that people who are economically conservative are full of poo poo when they claim to be pro-POC/pro-women/pro-LGBT, in which case I think there's a lot of truth to that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:failure to grasp the situation, Jaxyon. Trump got just about the same number of votes Mitt Romney got. Not huge amounts, but like 2% of the electorate or something
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Nope. There is no difference, it's simply a semantic game where people pretend to be one or the other, but it's a false dichotomy that makes no sense in the real world. yuuuup for further reference see Emmanuel, Rahm
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Hillary Clinton at least talked a good talk on issues like racial justice, gender equality, LGBT rights, etc. Her economic message, though, was about as pro-status quo as it could have gotten. So, your thinking is that Hillary Clinton was: quote:socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. Where does that put Gary Johnson, Rand Paul, or Marco Rubio on the spectrum?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's pretty easy to be socially liberal and very, very economically conservative. the symptoms are bad, but the causes are very, very good
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
i love social justice but let me gentrify neighborhoods and keep schools segregated white liberals!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I got to go get some things done yet today but I don't want to leave you hanging before I do, but expect limited or delayed responses. RaySmuckles posted:the answer is to shift your positions. the problem is that both parties primarily only serve a small slice of the american electorate. by reaching out to the people and giving them the things they really want then the democrats can accrue more votes. if they start winning elections then the republicans will have to change or face being powerless. I agree with most of this. I think where I break from you is in the following manner, and these are the two biggest factors: - How does the Democratic party build a cohesive coalition that brings the interests of minorities and the majority white population together when previous mechanisms like unions are broken? Societal institutions are weaker and weaker. - How does the party maintain that coalition over the necessary time frame to actually build the necessary foundation for such a coalition to sustain itself? These things cannot be accomplished in the span of a presidency. Until those two factors can be accomplished, I don't think that walking away from the proverbial table is wise. I also do not think that shifting the party position and maintaining the adult in the room status is mutually exclusive. The Democratic party has noticeably shifted, Bernie is largely to congratulate for that - he literally made it acceptable for the party as a whole to adopt the stated positions. Even today we're talking about one of the most conservative Democratic Senators in the party, Joe Manchin, opening to the idea of Medicaid for All. That is a noticeable shift of position. One of the things that I think back to whenever we have these discussions is posters like Three Olives and other members of the LGBT community. One of the big promises that Obama brought was the liberalization of attitudes on LGBT. However, progress on those issues were not immediate and if you recall, there was a great deal of disappointment and consternation. Rightfully so, I think. It's hard for me to imagine what it's like for something so personally effecting to be put off like that and I'm not going to say that they're wrong to be upset - they're not. However, from my view, it seemed wise to hold off in order to push for things like immigrant and labor policies and, of course, healthcare so long as LGBT was accomplished in the process. And it was, but it took time and other things held priority. What is most remarkable to me about this last election is not htat Hillary failed to stop Trump. It's that literally everyone failed to stop Trump. Trump himself is an anomaly, but most of the GOP candidates arrayed against Trump I would have feared more in a general election than Trump himself. RaySmuckles posted:but to many millions of people the government is broken. the government makes the rules for the game that is our economy, justice system, and our lives. for so many people all those things loving suck right now. sometimes a step back in hopes of taking two steps forward is necessary. if the dems address the things that people think are broken and promise to fix them then maybe they'll see success. and its not just things republicans are doing. I agree that government is broken for many. I think this is a fact of life no matter which country you are in. However, I think upturning the entire process and system does not mean positive change, and often means that things get real bad for a real long time for an even wider set of people. The question of the Democratic party trying to address things that are important to people goes back to the above about coalition building. People's issues are so insanely diverse that it's hard to be a party of everything to everybody. Boon fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The "democrats are a waste" thread is a waste. The title is not ironic, the content is ""gently caress these DEMS" and accellerationist circle jerks. I stopped following it. sounds like someone who is owned but won't admit it would say
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:...you're going to have to delve into this a bit, because I'm not understanding how you can say this is a semantics game that presents a false dichotomy. Unless you're saying that people who are economically conservative are full of poo poo when they claim to be pro-POC/pro-women/pro-LGBT, in which case I think there's a lot of truth to that. Fundamentally "Socially Liberal but Economically Conservative" means 'I'm not racist/bigoted, but I don't care that other people are'. Or anarcho-corporatist libertarian. It really ties in pretty strongly to Puritan Work Ethic. Majorian posted:I don't think that's something that we can assume quite so readily. Someone as flamboyant and unapologetically fascist as Trump was probably needed for the Republicans to win, but I don't think the candidate needed to be quite as know-nothing about politics. My point is, I think it's a mistake to suggest that the Republicans taking complete control of the government isn't that big of a deal, because they've only gotten Gorsuch out of it so far. The Democrats had to lose pretty spectacularly over the course of several elections to reach this state of affairs, and it's only through a miracle that the GOP has been so unable capitalize on our loss. Yeah, I certainly think that could have happened, but I think it's really such a divergence from what has actually transpired to be a little more than a mental exercise. If anything I think Trump's mushbrained-ness was what was necessary for that to work because outside of a Perfect Fascist, I think a more competent individual would have gotten less excuses for the things he was saying than. Granted that might be (and maybe is) a bit too optimistic about people in general. But keep in mind, with the way that congress and the presidency are set up, both the House and Senate are pretty biased against the Democrats in the first place, especially when you factor in non-presidential election years. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I like how a narrow loss including a millions of vote popular victory is a massive loss. Tiny changes, including ending voter suppression, would have gotten Hillary the Presidency but tiny changes do not award the Democrats control of Congress or even a majority of state legislatures and governors. With only tiny changes, 2016 would have been a devastating failure regardless of who won. Majorian posted:...you're going to have to delve into this a bit, because I'm not understanding how you can say this is a semantics game that presents a false dichotomy. Unless you're saying that people who are economically conservative are full of poo poo when they claim to be pro-POC/pro-women/pro-LGBT, in which case I think there's a lot of truth to that. "Economic conservatism" pushes policy that directly oppresses people. If you are against oppression, then you must be against unregulated capitalism, because unregulated capitalism oppresses people. If you claim to be against oppression, and then turn around and approve policies that make the rich richer, then you are approving policy that oppresses the same people you claim to be helping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:failure to grasp the situation, Jaxyon. Trump got just about the same number of votes Mitt Romney got. sure, there were some Obama->Trump voters. there were some Romney->Hillary voters. statistically speaking, they are noise. A lot of reasons, including not being as charismatic as a once in a lifetime candidate, voter suppression, a media desperate to make it look like an even race. From a policy standpoint Hillary and Obama weren't much different.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
To be serious for a second it's not conservatives who are buying up homes and refurbishing them in poor neighborhoods and its not conservatives who move into bougie condos in the inner cities. It's rich liberals. liberalism basically boils down to talking about poo poo to make yourself feel good while being completely apathetic at best about the actual damage that you do to other people or the suffering the system you support creates for people But gotta tear down a historically black neighborhood to make my condominiums and soccer stadiums There's a reason why New York City is the most segregated city in the US and it's not because conservatives codified into law, its because liberal practice made it that way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:*Loses every branch of government, including presidency to the most hated, unpopular, and unqualified candidate in American history. I know it sounds bad, but all three branches of government were held by one party or another several times over the last century: quote:* Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled at certain points all three branches while President George W. Bush occupied the White House. GOP control was interrupted between 2001 and 2003, as the Senate majority flipped to the Democrats as one senator switched his party affiliation, one senator died, and when the 2002 midterm elections shifted control of the upper chamber. http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2016/12/01/fact-check-one-party-three-branches-federal-government/94636286/ The issue is that the Democrats aren't losing to "reasonable" Republicans, they're losing to idiots, clowns and fascists. They're also losing at one of the worst times in history to lose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:To be serious for a second it's not conservatives who are buying up homes and refurbishing them in poor neighborhoods and its not conservatives who move into bougie condos in the inner cities Buying a house and refurbishing it has objectively improved the property.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Tiny changes, including ending voter suppression, would have gotten Hillary the Presidency but tiny changes do not award the Democrats control of Congress or even a majority of state legislatures and governors. With only tiny changes, 2016 would have been a devastating failure regardless of who won. quote:"Economic conservatism" pushes policy that directly oppresses people. If you are against oppression, then you must be against unregulated capitalism, because unregulated capitalism oppresses people. If you claim to be against oppression, and then turn around and approve policies that make the rich richer, then you are approving policy that oppresses the same people you claim to be helping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:A lot of reasons, including not being as charismatic as a once in a lifetime candidate, voter suppression, a media desperate to make it look like an even race. the biggest difference I can see is that Obama ran on policies. and Hillary Clinton, proudly and aggressively, refused to do so. when you as a party allow yourselves to be outflanked by Donald loving Trump in the realm of "I will enact policies that help you" you have hosed up to an almost incalculable degree. the Clinton campaign was good on racism in exactly the way the Socially Liberal Economic Conservative is good on racism: they were willing to condemn open displays of racism. and do literally nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Buying a house and refurbishing it has objectively improved the property. lol is this parody apparently to liberals, improving property values takes superiority over not displacing people of color
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 19:25
|
|