|
Tiberius Christ posted:quit over reacting no one ever said it was, maybe just recognize that poor whites need help. Because they're poor, remember? Use those super enlightened liberal powers and realize that having poo poo wages, no retirement and bad health care affect everyone with no money regardless of skin color. But I guess you could just call them racist again. All right look, I know I don't post in D&D often but it's story time. I have a couple friends, they are a gay married couple. One is from Maryland (where they currently reside) and one is from Maine. Both are white, both are aetheist. Both are not financially well off, in fact they're barely holding it together right now on the apartment they rent with 2-3 other people. I have had discussions with them about things like minimum wage, pay gaps, social safety nets etc. They continuously are against raising the minimum wage because they think it means the price of everything will skyrocket and inflation is bad. Nothing I say, do, or show them, changes that opinion. They are against things like Welfare because they think Welfare Queens are a real thing, and the one from Maine was actually turned down for unemployment insurance and lost his apartment up there. The reason for being turned down, as he tells it, was that the people told him "since you're not black or a single mother you probably won't get it." Now yeah, that's a real dumb problem in a state that's like 96% white, that shouldn't have happened. At all. My solution as I outlined it to him was "fix the system in place so that people like you, who deserved help just as much as the others, can receive it, not take it away from everyone just because you didn't get it." But that didn't work. They both staunchly believe that governments and businesses should not have to cover for people's "mistakes". They think it's perfectly fine for women and minorities to be paid less in jobs despite similar qualifications because they see the world as inherently unfair and think that women get extra benefits like Maternity Leave and Minorities get benefits like Affirmative Action. They aren't wrong that the world is unfair, there's a lot of poo poo that's unfair, but their solution is to gently caress over people who aren't them for literally no benefit just because they were hosed by a bad system; usually a state-level bad system. Their solution is to want to get rid of programs that are nominally supposed to help them because they don't feel they're being helped enough. They think their solution is to make it harder for women and minorities to make money even though they constantly bang on and on about how money is the only way you get anything done in this country. Even worse, one of them has read "A People's History of the United States" so how the hell he comes to the conclusions he has is absolutely mind-boggling. Ultimately I don't know if either of them even voted this year because they didn't like Hilary but also really hated Trump How the gently caress do I reach people like that? I have tried being nice and I have tried not to just jump down their throats for supporting obviously racist and sexist ideas and they just will not budge. More importantly, if I can't even convince friends, how the gently caress do I, or anyone else, hope to convince complete strangers? Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 11, 2016 |
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Quorum posted:I swear Trump is really an incredibly simple man, he believes whoever most recently told him something in a calm, reassuring, nonthreatening voice. If Obama stayed on full-time to be Trump's President Coach, we might actually see some decent governance. This won't happen and he's surrounded himself with despicable cockgoblins. Yeah get ready for him to change his mind on this the instant Newt gets his ear.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:So are liberals going to flip on net neutrality now that the lack of media gatekeepers determining everything people see has temporarily inconvenienced them That's not what Net Neutrality means. Net Neutrality specifically refers to preventing ISPs themselves from controlling your ability to browse and throttling sites that didn't bribe them enough. Facebook cracking down on bullshit lies that just happens to "disproportionately" affect Right Wing Media sites (can't imagine why  ) has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Deadulus posted:Could Obama actually have ended the surveillance state given Congressional grid lock? Does the President have the power to do that? He signed an executive order to close Gitmo. Republicans somehow stalled out even that. I don't think ending the PATRIOT Act is even possible anymore because the GOP will just go "look at how weak those limp-wristed Democrats are on terror and national security". No amount of dead Osamas Bin Laden will offset that message. EDIT: To be clear I don't think Obama really wanted to stop the surveillance either unfortunately, I'm just saying in the future I don't think anybody on the left can end this poo poo without losing the follow-up election. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Ron Johnson ran an ad (now missing from YouTube apparently) attacking Russ Feingold for voting against "giving law enforcement the tools to keep Americans safe from international terror". People want the illusion of security, the PATRIOT Act and things like a Muslim Registry (what the goddamn gently caress) create that illusion very easily. The most hilarious(?) thing is people who are in favor of those things then turn around and talk about how gun control legislation creates an illusion of security. A Wizard of Goatse posted:I don't think anyone except the most bad-faith neocon shill is pretending that the Bush administration didn't start eroding our rights bigtime post-9/11, even the Bushies I've spoken to just quibble on whether Obama was still worse because he kept and expanded the security state, but Democrats have been fully enthusiastic participants in that and like clockwork when challenged on this from within the party wash their hands of their own ongoing policy with a "Bush did it first!!!" Saying "what about the politicians who continue and expand the programs" is also whataboutism. It ends up absolving the initial offenders (by making it the new guy's problem, just like the GOP did to Obama on things like the financial crisis, Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, 9/11, and so on) and also has the effect that it creates the occasional bullshit pie-in-the-sky idea that if you vote in the party who put the poo poo in place in the first place that they'll pull a Nixon and do something accidentally good by dismantling it. You are right that we should hold our politicians accountable for their bullshit, but there's a fine line to walk between holding the Democrats responsible for expanding the surveillance state instead of getting rid of it like they said they would, and giving them sole blame for the problem existing. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Do you think the immediate priority here is launching some kind of Nuremberg tribunal for the initial signatories to the PATRIOT act, or getting sitting politicians to stop the NSA from monitoring your every word for thoughtcrime that the President's star chamber can legally order your assassination for? I had added the answer to your question through an Edit but i'll restate it here. Yes we should hold sitting politicians accountable for their bullshit or walking back promises, they are after all the only ones who can really do anything about it at this point. But at the same time we have to make it absolutely 100% loving clear who was responsible for this poo poo so that Republicans can't just get elected back in and do it all over again because "well warrantless wiretapping and NSA overreach was a Democrat idea, honest". There is a super-fine line to walk there and I don't know if anybody has the skill at being that nuanced or even if the general public would care about that nuance. gently caress's sake there are people who blame Obama for a Hurricane that happened 3 years before he was President.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Obama could have disbanded the whole thing in 08 but he didn't. Instead he doubled down and codified it into law and as a result an orange lunatic now has the keys to every piece of personal information in existence. So he dismantles it and in 2012 Romney/Huckabee/JEB!/Perry/Gingrich (pick your favorite) is elected on the wave of "The Muslim Hordes are infiltrating this country and we need to re-establish the PATRIOT Act", what now? Like do you honestly believe Democrats would win a messaging war about how the PATRIOT Act and Warrantless Wiretapping were bad? You could sell this country that getting stabbed through the eye with a needle every day would prevent terrorism and people would gladly do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Were a Democratic administration to walk back NSA total surveillance and the FISA courts it is incredibly unlikely they would end up owning them in the next election, I know people here don't want to acknowledge the logic of the electoral system when it's unfavorable to them but this pretense that voters are just crazy fuckin' random morons who flip a coin on what to believe and you can't do anything about it has got to stop. The Democrats currently own the NSA and FISA because they've spent their time in power supporting them; they're bipartisan policy that plays poorly to the public, and like a lot of other things the leadership of both parties very much wants and very much doesn't want to be publicly associated with (globalism, corporate welfare) they play this little game where they pretend their role in perpetuating it doesn't count because the other guy's also doing it, so really when you think about it it's his fault, and their partisans who mostly get their news from party-leaning sources go for it every single time, and no further questions get asked. If you honestly think that anybody, Democrat or further left, is capable of winning a messaging war that starts with "The PATRIOT Act and warrantless wiretapping did not actually do a drat thing to keep us safe and are in fact infringing on the rights of innocent Americans" 8 years ago or even now, then you are hopelessly naive. I'm not even saying we don't hold people accountable for not doing what they said they'd do (we definetely need to do that more so that they actually feel their actions have consequences), I'm just trying to point out how without proper messaging it would be political goddamn suicide to do so, and ultimately might not accomplish anything especially since Republicans have no problem creating laws to gently caress people in the name of "security", and who's going to replace those Democrats that "have left us defenseless against infiltration from our enemies?" take a guess. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 16, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:Really America? A national registry? Really ?? You're really going allow them to place the groundwork for an actual nazi style registry and database? Really? I know people who are against a gun registry database "because 2nd Amendment" who will gladly take this poo poo lying down because they don't think the 1st Amendment is as important (at least, I'd assume a registry that specifically applies to only one religion would violate the 1st Amendment in theory). It's sickening. Of course since this only seems to apply to immigrants I guess the Constitution doesn't protect them 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Wait you actually think the PATRIOT act is such a critically important issue that Obama could have lost if he tried to dismantle it? It has absolutely gently caress-all impact on an average person's life, I'm highly skeptical that the average person really cares about it at all. I was admittedly conflating warrantless wiretapping etc. all into the PATRIOT Act which was probably a bad decision on my part. Either way I felt that at least in 2008 people still thought that poo poo was fine. Hell even as recent as 2013 more people were in favor of the NSA's shenanigans than not. There is probably a decent chance by now that, in theory, we could roll some of that poo poo back, but it doesn't matter if the average person does care or not, because again the GOP would probably frame the messaging on it as "well now we're completely undefended against a sneak attack". It's basically the "tough on crime" paradox as applied to a national level. And the only reason I think the GOP would be able to do that is because I know several people who think that ISIS is somehow this uber-powerful group that is constantly infiltrating us, een though that isn't true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/798986221703794688 It's basically this scene only with politician names https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LCggmsCXk4&t=13s
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
I will admit it's hilarious to see how many people actually clicked the link versus those who didn't and those who also didn't look five goddamn posts down from the initial post to see that what Trotsky quoted isn't actually in the goddamn article.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:The most obvious clue is that he didn't link to the article in question. Also, it's riddled with typos. Ah right, forgot the link was posted by the poster who called it out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Service guarantees citizenship? Speaking from experience it's people who have either never served in the military (but worship it for some nebulous reason) or never saw active combat. So you know, exactly the same sort of person Heinlein was.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean I too thought Starship Troopers was unequivocally a great idea when I first read it. To be fair I didn't clarify that I meant adults, but I did mean adults because we've all had ideas and thoughts at a high-school age that we look back on and go "Man what the gently caress I was I thinking"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It gets better. Needs the Socialists to be 13 people squabbling with each other over who's the most leftist and punching one another in the groin instead of dealing with actual issues to be truly accurate 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Haha what is this poo poo. Sounds like my dumbass friend who was like "Trump proves that anybody can be President!" Forgetting that Trump is rich and that no, the average person cannot become president because you need a poo poo-ton of money to do so for campaigning and so forth. Said dumbass also thought every single President before Trump was in government beforehand (because he doesn't know poo poo about US History despite him verbally fellating the Constitution at every opportunity, and forgot about people like Ulysses S. Grant and Ike Eisenhower).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Black Baby Goku posted:Would you really consider 2 billion people a minority? Black Baby Goku posted:There's more white men. Looks like you answered your own question there EDIT: Beaten
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The general public always hates the top of house leadership. Those jobs are not about winning elections or being a public face; the job is to wrangle people into the best position you can get, endure an enormous amount of poo poo flung at you from all sides, and take it in stride so that the rest of your party can vote as a unified front. They are not figureheads. Reminder, people kept screaming about Clinton not being progressive enough despite voting with Bernie 93% of the time in the Senate. The American Left is still unable to figure out how to stop doing this constant purity test bullshit because they've decided anybody in power before now is automatically bad. Next they're going to demand we get rid of Elizabeth Warren. Wait they were already demanding that at one point for some stupid spurious reason, sometime around the NRLB formation if I remember right. NewForumSoftware posted:The democratic primary voters failed to eject the Wall Street elements of their party like the GOP primary voters did. Granted, superdelegates make it much more difficult to do so (by design I might add) but i guess that's what happens when you're as in bed with wall street as the Democrats are, which is somehow more than the GOP. Trump's nominating a Goldman Sachs banker for Secretary of the Treasury, the GOP primary voters did absolutely gently caress-all to eject Wall Street.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Stop holding people indefinitely. Don't allow "enhanced interrogation" methods. Try prisoners. Let prisoners know the charges against them, and have lawyers. If you want to prosecute terrorists, whatever, I'm not a lawyer and don't know anything about crime across national borders. But you have to actually prosecute them. Stop using it as an offshore platform for committing human rights abuses. He literally tried to do that. He wanted to try every single remaining detainee in civilian courts stateside and assess whether or not they were even actually terrorists and the Republicans again stalled it out, whinging inside out about national security and how risky it'd be and so on and so forth.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:The GOP voters didn't want an establishment candidate and they didn't get one. Yes they did. Trump is the establishment writ-large. A rich lying rear end in a top hat who benefits from loving over other people. What's not establishment about that?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Glazier posted:No he didn't try, he talked about maybe doing it and when the GOP whined he backed off. Presidential memorandum detailing the closure of the detention facilities and moving the detainees to a prison in CONUS Senate blocks detainee transfer Obama reiterating his desire to want to try the detainees in US Civilian Courts, in 2013, despite continued congressional blocking But keep going on about he didn't try because lol nothing matters. Guess he should've just become a dictator when his Executive Order to close Gitmo didn't take. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:If you have trouble seeing how people can question the progressive creds of the master of triangulation and someone who spent the entire primary calling Sanders unrealistic, only to immediately accept most of his platform as soon as he gave her a run for her money, I don't know what to tell you. So when Trump lies to people to get votes it makes sense, but when Hilary does it it's bad, lol ok. Also I guess we can add "is a renegade Time Lord" to Hilary's resume because she traveled back in time to change her Senatorial voting record to be 93% in line with Sanders?  MariusLecter posted:Good thing Bernie "Trump has an ally with me" Sanders isn't in the party then. What a champion of progressivism.
Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"I'm going to pardon everyone held at Gitmo after MM/DD/YYYY if you don't allow the courts to handle them." And where would said recently-pardoned detainees go, exactly? Or do the details ruin your perfect world scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Also it's worth mentioning that 2008 wasn't an anti-establishment year, it was an anti-GOP year. The Democrats were expected to completely turn around the country based on the campaign of Obama. If anything the american left had way more faith in the political system in 2008 than they did in 2016. Obama might have survived had the internet not been a thing but the reality is you simply can't play this master compromiser and make everyone happy. People are too smart to fall for that poo poo any more and they want someone who will fight for them. Basically, Campaign Obama. If the American Left had lost faith after 2008 then all the various "Socialist" parties in the country would've banded together under a united national-level banner for 2012. However, because they didn't want to actually do anything, they instead continued their petty squabbles and doing things like PSL running Peta Lindsey for President despite not being eligible due to being too young. After all, the real pressing issue of 2012 was not economic inequality but "maybe we should have a 28 year old be eligible for President" The fact the 10+ "Socialist" parties in this country still have not united after this election further proves that the American Left is, by and large, only interested in talk, and not action.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
Glazier posted:No when Hillary lies people didn't believe it because she is the establishment. People were desperate for someone who was not a familiar face and had not spent the last thirty years in and around establishment politics No instead they just wanted someone who was a reality show TV celebrity who had benefitted greatly from the Establishment and yet somehow is not it just because he never held office. And also occupy any and all positions about any and all topics. But you know, JOBS EMAILS BENGHAZI MUSLIMS MEXICANS WALLS. Eimi posted:And I think campaigning as a compromiser is bad. It makes it look like you have no integrity and won't fight the hard fight when the chips are down. Just look at how spineless the Dems look now. I have zero faith in their desire, let alone ability, to fight for my rights as the Pubs cackle and prepare their heinous program. As opposed to Trump literally changing his mind mid-sentence? Business Gorillas posted:I mean you might not like it but people saw straight through the bullshit stance of "we need gradual incrementalism", adopting a progressive platform, and then campaigning on literally "I'll be more of the same" as soon as she thought she had the election in the bag. Trump has also done the same thing given how he's been (allegedly) walking back all his more firey rhetoric (but not actually). But again I guess that's fine when you're not "the Establishment", man.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:There were plenty of Democrats hoodwinked into voting for Obama because of "Change", why can't the GOP just be stupid instead of evil? Yeah I remember when Obama said he was going to close all the borders and deport all Muslims. It's almost like being a person that votes for Trump in spite of him being a woefully inexperienced ill-tempered shitlord that pals around with fascists just because you think he'll give you your manufacturing job that left 30 years ago isn't actually excusable just because you live in a fantasy world. Business Gorillas posted:Trump won because he actually spent like 2% of his incoherent ranting saying "i know you're hurting and I'm going to make those fuckers who stole your future pay". People were so desperate for that message that they ignored all of the heinous poo poo about him. I literally do not loving care. I am one of the people who had their "future stolen from me" by the misfortune of finishing college in the middle of the financial crisis and I still didn't believe a loving word that Donald Trump said because he's Donald Trump. Empathy is great, but I'm not going to feed people's delusions. The lesson I took from Obama is "you can't lie about Change, you have to actually do it." Turns out that lesson was a loving lie because people just voted for Trump off of the same bullshit only couched in more racism. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Here's another take: politicians have a moral obligation to the rural white poor regardless of if they are racist or have bad dental hygiene You're right, they do, but shockingly whenever they try to help them out they go "no, because gently caress you for helping people who aren't white as well", and somehow nobody here has a solution for that other than "just tell lies it'll be awesome and totally not bite you in the rear end later" while also being annoyed with a candidate for telling lies and being "inauthentic" EDIT: To be clear, I also am not happy with the fact that Democrats severly underestimated "It's the Economy, stupid", this election. comingafteryouall posted:The sentiments from OWS didn't just disappear and have not had an outlet. Yeah, Donald "Small Loan of a Million Dollars" Trump, hero of the 99% Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Right, I'm not saying he ran a campaign on economic policy alone, but the Democrats definitely should be shifting focus to telling people how they can help them out financially since that seems to be the thing most Americans are focused on right now I agree, but the problem is whoever runs against the Democrat can just lie and make poo poo up to counter an actual economic policy and they'll win because facts don't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:You're overlooking Trump being able to say "hey, I don't have to fundraise for SuperPACS and I've bought politicians myself. The system is broken and I will fix it." "Politicians are corrupt and in the pocket of big business!" *votes for the guy who literally boasted about bribing politicians to make lawsuits where he hosed over the little guy go away* I'm not overlooking it at all, because again, he is exactly what the American Public kept complaining about. Big Business, Big Money, corruption. Who cares that he's not "beholden" to corporate interests, he is a corporate interest! Business Gorillas posted:I mean i just gave you a solution and you literally told me "I don't loving care" so maybe you're not really looking for an answer Business Gorillas posted:"maybe actually give a poo poo about your constituents and empathize with their struggles" As I just said, show me how that actually works and doesn't result in a bunch of angry white people rejecting the help because it's going to help black people as well. Even more impressive, show me how to do it without telling one group one thing and another group something else. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
EDIT: double post
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Those are actually different things and for example, if Bill Gates decided to run for President as a democrat I'd have much easier of a time trying to justify my vote for him as opposed to Hillary Clinton. Result is the same, especially since he's not going to to the "blind trust" and has his campaign cronies telling us how "the President can't possibly have a conflict of interest" yet is already using his newfound political capital to get business deals rammed through. NewForumSoftware posted:I know people hate to admit Trump said some ok things but his whole "I use an accountant and avoid taxes like the rest of rich america" was refreshingly honest. Being open about the corporate interest and saying you're going to change them gets you a long way. Except he's not going to change them and you know that, so no, it's not honest at all. Much like how he wouldn't show his tax returns because he was "under audit" despite that not being a restriction. NewForumSoftware posted:Angry white people who refuse to help black people is a miniscule portion of the electorate and had nothing to do with why Hillary lost but feel free to keep parroting the latest hysteric's take on things. Feel free to keep not offering any real solution or evidence to keep me from "parroting" "hysterics" because you're not interested in actually solving the problem. EDIT: Khisanth Magus posted:I'm curious what you plan on doing for giving them a future? This is something that always comes up. People come in saying that the Democrats can't just ignore the rural poor in the rust belt, but never say what they should do. Those people have for decades and will continue to resist any and all government assistance such as infrastructure investment, which would provide a ton of jobs. They elect local representatives who campaign specifically on opposing such help. So how are you going to magically get them to vote for you, because the GOP uses complete BS lies about bringing back the factories to do it. Exactly this. I may have overstepped it by couching the resistance to improvements as being racist in nature, but this is the problem. The rural poor continuously does not want the help that Democrats try to give. And then a Republican goes "jobs!" and the rust belt votes for them and the jobs don't come back and they never figure it out. And the people in this thread constantly going "you shouldn't have ignored the Rust Belt" don't actually say what to do to fix that. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:All I'm saying is that we open up the dialogue and actually use the bully pulpit to shame the legislators that refuse the help. The point isn't to chase after hard conservatives, it's to motivate the people that sat at home or voted straight D for 30 years then magically went for trump See while this is a great idea, I thought the problem was you can't "run against" something, in this case run against a legislator who is loving over his constituents out of some stupid ideological pledge or worse. I imagine the way to do it would be wrapping it in "This is what we want to do to help you, and this is the guy who won't let us do it" thus making it seem more like you're "for" something? EDIT: Like I'll fully admit some of my anger and disdain stems from having friends who are in this kind of position but frequently hold positions or vote against their interests because of a lot of belief in stuff that just isn't true, and also some bigotry that they just refuse to acknowledge. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:You run against the status quo and actually have a plan how to help people, not run the epitome of an establishment politician that only grows a progressive gland when they find out it's politically convenient to do so Not really what I meant. In 2014 everyone said "Democrats lost becuase they ran against _____, and you can't win by running against things". Same with this year. But I feel like you can run against things because that's literally all I see Republicans doing. "Immigrants stole your jobs" "Gays are ruining society" "Repeal Obamacare" "Make Obama a 1-term president" "Seal the borders to protect us from the Muslim Hordes" "Welfare queens" "NAFTA bad!". So I'm asking if it's a messaging thing that I'm honestly not understanding, regardless of whether or not I think people are idiots for listening to and believing in those messages when they're lies or just pandering to hatred. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Real solution? How about backing Bernie Sanders next time instead of Hillary? Letting third way bullshit die out. Support Ellison for DNC chair, etc. I did back Sanders and I am doing what I can to contact the people who decided DNC chairmanship in my state and telling them to support Ellison (or even Perez if he's still in the running, since he's pro-labor). Admittedly my problem with Trump voters is that every single person I know that voted for Trump (not that there are many), are racist and misogynist. Or Libertarians (but I repeat myself). And they also said "well don't worry he won't do all of that bad stuff he said"...once they were done trying to sing the national anthem at me like they were trying to exorcise me of my Progressivism. So it's hard to think anybody who voted for Trump didn't know what they were getting based on my sample size, though I know on some level that's wrong. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:
How about instead of interrupting and misinterpreting my answer (which was me explaining my bias problem due the idiots I know who voted Trump in response to him pointing out that "maybe they aren't all secret facists"), you answer my question about how Republicans can run against things all live-long day and Democrats can't besides a nebulous "incumbency" problem. Unless you're just in love with the sound of your own "voice" Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:07
|
|
DONT PAY ATTENTION TO THEM. PAY ATTENTION TO THE DEMOCRATS WHO STAYED AT HOME
|
Business Gorillas posted:Considering conservatism is by definition wanting to keep things the same, are you asking how the conservative party is able to run on stopping or reversing change while the liberal party cannot? So you're saying you can't run "This is how things are now and they loving suck and we need to change it", you can only go "They want to change things and we can't let them" or "They changed things and it sucks so let's rewind about 50 years". I really do not believe this for a moment. It has to be a messaging thing. A change is by its very nature, going against something, in this case the status quo. To act like Obamacare (for example) is now the status quo because it's existed for less than a decade just doesn't make sense to me. Wage stagnation, Climate Change and other stuff that's been happening for 20+ years feel more of a status quo thing to me because of how long they've been a problem, but perhaps I'm looking at it in too much of a long-term situation. Angry_Ed fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:It's a good thing the people went with the more anti-Wall Street candidate in the end. Oh wait, they didn't. After all the deregulation, more Wall Street money is going to be on Trump's side than the Dem candidate. It wasn't this time because of how unstable Trump seemed. Once they have millions more, they won't care as much. No you see Trump said "I don't pay my taxes like all good rich people because accountants" and that's refreshingly honest and he'll totally change the rules you guys he's just nominating a Goldman Sachs banker to the Treasury cause of course a guy like that understands money 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. Too bad you need money to get elected, unless you can just leverage "I had a reality TV show and i'm a loud rear end in a top hat" into an assload of free press. If you want the DNC leadership to change and honestly think about the people and you have a way to do it that doesn't involve ceding control of the government to the GOP for the next 20 years I'm all ears. Ellison's a good start but him being in charge of the DNC won't mean much if there isn't a party anymore because we successfully purged all the "neoliberals" and can't win anything now as a result.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:We're basically in agreement, you just think that the democratic leadership wants to be progessive but can't whereas I think that they honestly don't give a poo poo about anyone else besides their donors. Unless you can leverage "I had a reality TV show and i'm a loud rear end in a top hat look at me!" into free TV time you're not getting elected without some sort of financial backing. Purging the "neoliberals" isn't going to help in the short-term either, but putting more progessives in to counter them (assuming there are even enough) would help. But that's not enough. There needs to be more tangible plans and ideas. There's a big difference between (metaphor time) calling out Donna Brazile about what a shitshow everything was because you're understandably pissed off, and then actually staying around to say "and here's how we're going to fix it" instead of walking out because you got your "and everyone stood up and clapped" moment. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I believe Democratic leadership finally got the point that neoliberal centrism doesn't work. They literally adopted Bernie's platform wholesale as their own, but their candidate failed to campaign on it. We have a good shot at either Keith Ellison or Ilyse Hogue as DNC chair, but even if we end up with Dean again, the platform is more progressive than it has been in 30 years. The question is now if they can sell it. I would like to think they could but I have a feeling that people will just go "oh it's not authentic enough". Talmonis posted:Facts, scandals and corruption only effect Democrats. Republicans will never be held accountable for anything they do. Also this. How can you shame a party that literally does not have shame and never suffers repercussions for their actions?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:39
|
|