|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Where exactly has this thread gone? Do we have any prescriptions on how to deal with 2018? -Run on things like single payer, financial reform, anti-interventionism, and protecting social security and Medicare/Medicaid -Mobilize the Democratic base, attract the people who weren't motivated enough to turn out in 2016, pick off some populists who had voted for Obama but voted for Trump, discourage the remaining populist Trump supporters from turning out for him, etc.
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Where exactly has this thread gone? Do we have any prescriptions on how to deal with 2018? support the DSA and ourrevolution. join your local orgs. work outside and inside the dems simultaneously so the dems can't shut you down as easily but you're still working towards taking control of the democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
This thread sucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:so do you have any salient points to make or you just here to masturbate I'll take that as a solid "no". Carry on little retard. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Liquid Drink posted:I'll take that as a solid "no". Carry on little retard. so why do you find dodd frank, particularly the volcker rule, to be a neoliberal policy please, demonstrate your intellectual competency, since you seem to think asserting the above is the mark of the non-brain damaged
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
quote:Regulators gave the public until February 13, 2012 to comment on the proposed draft of the regulations (over 17,000 comments were made).[38] Under the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, the regulations went into effect on July 21, 2012. However, during his report to Congress on February 29, 2012, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the central bank and other regulators would not meet that deadline.[38] Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, and it seems according to wikipedia that "legacy covered funds" are still filling extensions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Where exactly has this thread gone? Do we have any prescriptions on how to deal with 2018? also, policy-wise, i'd like to see single-payer and raising the minimum wage as well as fighting to reduce sentence lengths and a STRONG focus on holding police accountable for crimes they're committing, cleaning up corruption in the police, and most importantly purging the KKK and white nationalists from the police.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://agenda-blog.com/2017/07/03/primary-colors-on-democratic-presidential-politics-neoliberalism-and-the-white-working-class/ The problem here is that it implicitly assumes that the "white working class" as a group is roughly unified and reacts to the same things. It's entirely possible that both 1. the white working class would have gradually moved away from the Democratic Party regardless and 2. it wouldn't have moved away as much if the Democratic Party had remained more pro-labor. Like, instead of declining from X% to Y%, it may have just declined to more-than-Y%. Like, the article's analysis is certainly preferred to the leftists who just blindly assert a narrative, but it also doesn't really contradict the idea that being more pro-labor would have improved "white working class" support relative to not being more pro-labor. It just supports the idea that support would have decreased overall regardless. Digiwizzard posted:Yeah but the fear is more acute with Tulsi because everyone is rushing to anoint her as the new leftist champion because she's photogenic and endorsed Bernie (or alternatively decry her as secret hitler). If she actually puts up on left economic policy then I'm all for her, but at the moment it feels like she has the same calculated vague positions that 08 Obama had. This is the way I feel. Stuff like her support for Modi makes me very doubtful as to how leftist she really is. I think that many people just really want someone they can unconditionally throw their support towards. I would still support her over someone like Clinton, but I see no reason (at present, at least) to be so enthusiastic about her. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010, and it seems according to wikipedia that "legacy covered funds" are still filling extensions. whatever point you're trying to make, you might want to read your words the fed is allowed to make three separate one year extensions for that specific conformance deadline and said specifically that banking entities are expected to make plans well in advance of the end of the extended conformance period regarding how they will conform or divest legacy covered fund investments in an orderly and safe and sound manner if you read the statute they don't get to keep those specific funds indefinitely
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
So like I said it is 2017 and they are still filling extensions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:So like I said it is 2017 and they are still filling extensions. this is the last year math hard
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Dodd. Frank was. We should have broken up th financial industry if not nationalized it. Lets not get crazy here, lets just make chase get a .xxx address.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Gonna be honest I don't see a piece of 2010 legislation passing the house on a "guillotine those pieces of poo poo" message. Dodd-Frank ain't perfect but lol that's America it was basically communism as far as the country's loudest dipshits with megaphones are concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Gonna be honest I don't see a piece of 2010 legislation passing the house on a "guillotine those pieces of poo poo" message. well i mean it was what it was sorely needed financial regulations that you read and go holy poo poo how did this not already exist what the gently caress even which, for neoliberal american idiots yeah, i guess it might as well have been communism
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
stone cold posted:this is the last year Law360, New York (June 7, 2017, 8:00 PM EDT) -- The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it granted Deutsche Bank AG, SVB Financial Group and UBS Group AG an extra five years to comply with fund requirements set by the Volcker Rule, which banned banks' proprietary trading under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. The three banks now have until July 21, 2022, to conform their investments in certain "illiquid funds” to requirements in the Volcker Rule, which also bars banks from most hedge, private equity and other outside fund investments. The rule was enacted to prevent banks from making certain high-risk investments that contributed to the financial crisis in 2008. “In the aggregate, the fund investments for which [the banks have] requested an extension represent a de minimis percentage of the firm's total assets,” the Fed said. “As a result, the proposed extension of the compliance period in this case would not appear to pose a significant or material risk to the firm[s] or to the financial stability of the United States.” https://www.law360.com/articles/932412/deutsche-svb-ubs-get-time-for-volcker-rule-compliance
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Law360, New York (June 7, 2017, 8:00 PM EDT) -- The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it granted Deutsche Bank AG, SVB Financial Group and UBS Group AG an extra five years to comply with fund requirements set by the Volcker Rule, which banned banks' proprietary trading under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. did we forget that foreign banks have exemptions
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
but yeah Ardennes just go ahead and scrap it, that's not the neoliberal action at all clearly it's useless
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
Read back a few pages and didn't see this posted: http://www.theroot.com/as-democrats-keep-chasing-trump-voter-waterfalls-will-1796546943
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
To be honest, I think Crowbeaks particular criticism really wasn't off base or that extraordinary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
stone cold posted:but yeah Ardennes just go ahead and scrap it, that's not the neoliberal action at all i think people like ardennes are either arguing for enhancing regulations and giving them teeth, or writing new ones that have teeth. not for deregulation
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think people like ardennes are either arguing for enhancing regulations and giving them teeth, or writing new ones that have teeth. not for deregulation Granted, the real rest of Dodd-Frank will be another crisis, and what the ultimate result of it will be. That said, I wasn't particularly overwhelmed with Dodd-Frank when it was passed. Granted, I could say the say thing about the ACA (and particularly its legacy).
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Read back a few pages and didn't see this posted: This piece seems to kind of be missing the forest through the trees: the campaign platform that will recapture some of the white working class vote is, in many areas, identical with that which will turn out the black vote in record numbers. Black working class people want to protect and strengthen Medicaid, Medicare, social security, and the rest of the social safety net as much as white working class people. They get at least as hurt by financial sector fuckery as working class white folks. When auto plants close, black and white industrial workers lose their jobs together. Obviously, black people have other, even more pressing concerns, ie: "please make the cops stop shooting us with wild abandon, thanks, I would prefer not to die," but those are in no ways at odds with an economic populism platform. Clinton's big strategic mistake wasn't that she didn't talk to white people enough; it's that she spent way too much time trying to win over affluent white suburban Republicans who were never going to vote for her, while neglecting working class communities made up of black and white workers. If the Democrats adopt a platform that emphasizes economic populism, they will be able to turn out white and black working class voters. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, the real rest of Dodd-Frank will be another crisis, and what the ultimate result of it will be. That said, I wasn't particularly overwhelmed with Dodd-Frank when it was passed. Granted, I could say the say thing about the ACA (and particularly its legacy). stress tests are good volcker rule is good swap regulation is good title ii is incredibly good requiring hedge fund guys to register as fas is good the creation of the fsoc, ofr, bcfp were good requiring fiduciary duty is good this is all not even most of what dodd frank does
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:and fwiw it looks like Warren has been at least tacitly in favor of single payer since around 2008 so whats the statue of limitations here The quote I posted was from 2012, she's been against single payer since at least that time
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This piece seems to kind of be missing the forest through the trees: the campaign platform that will recapture some of the white working class vote is, in many areas, identical with that which will turn out the black vote in record numbers. Black working class people want to protect and strengthen Medicaid, Medicare, social security, and the rest of the social safety net as much as white working class people. They get at least as hurt by financial sector fuckery as working class white folks. When auto plants close, black and white industrial workers lose their jobs together. Obviously, black people have other, even more pressing concerns, ie: "please make the cops stop shooting us with wild abandon, thanks, I would prefer not to die," but those are in no ways at odds with an economic populism platform. Clinton's big strategic mistake wasn't that she didn't talk to white people enough; it's that she spent way too much time trying to win over affluent white suburban Republicans who were never going to vote for her, while neglecting working class communities made up of black and white workers. If the Democrats adopt a platform that emphasizes economic populism, they will be able to turn out white and black working class voters. So your response to "democrats just take black voters for granted" is "yes they do"? The piece is asking Democrats to *specifically* engage with black voters and politicians on strategy, not say "well if we do things that we think will attract whites we'll get blacks too".
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
But black voters care more about jobs and the economy than they do police violence, at least according to some surveys of the black community. And yet, only the voices that result in "no new taxes" get amplified by liberals. It's super sad to me that Hillarymen see black people getting killed by police and have a problem with that (as they well loving should), but then turn around and tell the black people getting killed by our healthcare system (due to lack of health insurance for ultimately racist reasons) or working for drastically lower pay than their white peers that they should bootstrap themselves. call to action fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So your response to "democrats just take black voters for granted" is "yes they do"? Nope, my response is that this piece is wrong to cast catering to white and black working class voters as necessarily mutually exclusive, particularly as it pertains to the Democrats' economic platform. Yes, the Democrats take black voters for granted, and yes, if they want to get better turnout from black voters, they need to engage them much more frequently and effectively. e: AND, of course, listen to black strategists, black leaders, etc, so that they can effectively and frequently engage black voters. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
call to action posted:But black voters care more about jobs and the economy than they do police violence, at least according to some surveys of the black community. And yet, only the voices that result in "no new taxes" get amplified by liberals. I would say mention that black communities in the midwest/north had been brutally hit by both outsourcing and the recession in general and in many ways have fallen even further behind white ones. While some new factories in the south hire black workers, the pay and benefits are usually are completely laughable. It has been going on for a while, a big factor in the collapse of South Central LA in the first place was when the Ford assembly plant down there shut down. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
The problem with these "engage black voters, stop thinking about all working class voters" is that for a lot of them, "engage black voters" means "engage with the rich black voters". There's a pretty obvious divide between the older, richer black democrats and younger egalitarian black democrats. Rich black voters are the kind who scoff at a political figure getting support from rappers rather than suits, who will chase police brutality cases because its something that could happen to them, while ignoring the number of black americans in jail for pot. They tend to believe in the Trickle Down theory as applied to social justice, despite that very obviously not working among LGBT groups. They typically become most prominent because a lot of black activism avoids the compartmentalization of problems that happens in say, the LGBQT community in favor of a Black Unity approach, which results in the people who can afford to speak for all black americans speaking for all black americans, irregardless of how many issues they might share. The reality is that young black democrats are firmly on the side of the left, and that organizations such as Our Revolution already pull heavily from BLM for candidates in local elections. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Colorblind policy results in racist outcomes. That's always been the problem with saying we'll fix the issues facing everyone: It ignores that racism exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Colorblind policy results in racist outcomes. Economic leftism does not need to be colorblind. Neither do we have to ignore the fact that generic economic leftism will help black communities, even if it will not help them as equally as white communities.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Colorblind policy results in racist outcomes. No one here is advocating a colorblind policy. Again, the notion that antiracism and economic populism are mutually exclusive and conflicting principles is a big part of why the Democrats keep losing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No one here is advocating a colorblind policy. Again, the notion that antiracism and economic populism are mutually exclusive and conflicting principles is a big part of why the Democrats keep losing. The article is specifically saying that Democrats aren't listening to black folks within the party and that they should. You said it misses the forest for the trees because quote:my response is that this piece is wrong to cast catering to white and black working class voters as necessarily mutually exclusive, particularly as it pertains to the Democrats' economic platform. Yes, the Democrats take black voters for granted, and yes, if they want to get better turnout from black voters, they need to engage them much more frequently and effectively." They may NOT be mutually exclusive, but the point is that they need to focus specifically on black voters and not just try to cater to both. I don't think the article misses the forest for the trees, I think it makes a good point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The article is specifically saying that Democrats aren't listening to black folks within the party and that they should. There's literally nothing I've ever posted that suggests that the Democrats shouldn't put extra effort into mobilizing the black vote, whereas I've made quite a few posts arguing that social democrats/democratic socialists/Bernies/left-populists need to make a special effort to listen to, and engage with, black voters. Hell, I even said it in the post you quoted (although it was an edit a couple minutes after I hit post reply, so you might have missed it). e: from a ways upthread: Majorian posted:Are you referring to Submarine Sandpaper? If so, let's be fair to his/her/their argument, because it's not that helping poor people is racist. The concern among a lot of the pro-identity politics progressives is a valid one, IMO: instituting a $15/hour federal minimum wage (or offering single-payer health care, or any other broad-based economic populist policy) is nice, but it doesn't do much to address other structural inequalities against minorities. Black folks, Latinos, women, etc, would still likely enjoy less of a benefit out of such a policy than white people, and that is pretty bullshitty. How can we, as leftists, claim to stand by our principles, if we're not doing everything we can to drive down barriers that prevent large swaths of people from enjoying the benefits to which they're entitled? It's easy for those of us who are white, male, cisgender, etc, to say, "Oh, don't worry, economic leftists will make sure that there are provisions to make sure that underprivileged minorities will be able to catch up financially." But a lot of PoCs, women, LGBT folks, and other underprivileged groups are wary. They worry that once we get a $15/hour minimum wage, we'll declare "mission accomplished!" and then forget about everyone else who helped us get there. Majorian fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jul 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's literally nothing I've ever posted that suggests that the Democrats shouldn't put extra effort into mobilizing the black vote, whereas I've made quite a few posts arguing that social democrats/democratic socialists/Bernies/left-populists need to make a special effort to listen to, and engage with, black voters. Hell, I even said it in the post you quoted (although it was an edit a couple minutes after I hit post reply, so you might have missed it). I'm not sure what your problem with the article in question is, then. Is that you didn't write it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm not sure what your problem with the article in question is, then. Is that you didn't write it? The very title of the article spells out the problem: "As Democrats Keep Chasing Trump Voter Waterfalls, Will They Ever Listen to Their Actual Base: Black People?" Characterizing the effort to recapture white working class votes as "chasing waterfalls," and labeling black voters as the Democrats' "actual base" makes it pretty clear that the author sees catering to these two groups as mutually exclusive. That's my problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The very title of the article spells out the problem: "As Democrats Keep Chasing Trump Voter Waterfalls, Will They Ever Listen to Their Actual Base: Black People?" Characterizing the effort to recapture white working class votes as "chasing waterfalls," and labeling black voters as the Democrats' "actual base" makes it pretty clear that the author sees catering to these two groups as mutually exclusive. That's my problem with it. Did you just read the title? The actual body of the article you appear to agree with 100%. Like are you violently agreeing with this article, I'm just kind of mystified. Edit: I'm just going to let this go
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Did you just read the title? The actual body of the article you appear to agree with 100%. I've read the whole piece, yes. I myself am a little mystified that you seem to think I shouldn't consider the piece's title relevant, since it affects the implications of the piece pretty significantly. Or are you suggesting that the author didn't pick the title of her piece?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've read the whole piece, yes. I myself am a little mystified that you seem to think I shouldn't consider the piece's title relevant, since it affects the implications of the piece pretty significantly. It's possible that she didn't, some sites run like that. I tend to base my opinions on articles on the article, and if I didn't like the title i complain about it but don't consider it part of the article, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Majorian posted:
... they frequently don't
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2017 21:58
|
|