Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?

Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed.
Yes	33	6.38%
No	343	66.34%
Keith Ellison	54	10.44%
Pete Buttigieg	71	13.73%
Jehmu Green	16	3.09%
Total:	416 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

And look at the substantial shifts in GOP opinion on free trade and Russia since Trump got the nomination. He told the base to get hosed on those issues and they loved him for it.

The GOP base was never meaningfully pro-free-trade or anti-Russia after they dropped the Communism and replaced it with alt-right white nationalism

Trump won by giving the GOP base what they wanted, which the Gingrich/Ryan generation did not do

You're a dumbass

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 06:16

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Fulchrum posted:

Ah yes, I remember how the Tea Party reaction to Obama trying to improve relations with Russia was "good for them, this will be a boon for peace".

That was when a Kenyan born Muslim traitor was doing the negotiating, who probably was a Communist deep down too

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:24

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

So you're asserting that the transition from anti-communism to alt-right white nationalism had nothing at all to do with the rise of trump, despite these two events happening concurrently and the change in the GOP electorate matching Trump's positions exactly. I'm not sure you should be throwing around terms like dumbass without a bit of self-reflection.

Russia moved to white-nationalist ethno-nationalism back in the 90s dude. Pat Buchanan was lavishing praise on the Russian far right 25 years ago. It just took until now for the libertarian leadership of the conservative movement to be unseated

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DGSP2N2/

Here's a good book on it

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:34

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Fulchrum posted:

In the GOP you loving moron.

Yeah, in the GOP and in movement conservatism the idolization of Russians a a right-wing bastion of the white race has been floating around under the surface for 25 years, you loving dumbass

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:37

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

OK, then this statement you just made...

must be wrong if republicans stopped giving a poo poo about communism in the 90's. You also need to explain why Republicans were lying in all the political polls from 1990 to 2016 where they reported hating Russia and loving free trade. There was a massive change during and after Trump's candidacy, not before.

No, I don't, because the idea that people have complicated opinions and that their propensity to change them based on new circumstances and the right arguments is actually an important part of their worldview, is obvious to anyone who's not a dumbass :shrug:

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:42

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

stone cold posted:

Also, it ignores the neocons that ran the last loving Republican administration's foreign policy whose ideology was formed around hating Russia. Like are we gonna pretend that Bush wasn't the poster boy for the conservative movement now?

Yes, the man who stared into Putin's soul and saw that it was good, was a Russia hater through and through

The neocons stopped caring about Russia when Communism went away, and were actually pretty eager to get the new, white-nationalist Russia into their orbit through at least the end of Dubya's term

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenia_Summit_2001

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 6, 2017

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:43

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

If you're admitting that Trump had the right arguments to change their opinions and convince them that circumstances had changed, why are you calling me a dumbass for suggesting exactly that happened?

I think it's because maybe the dumbass is you.

That's not what you suggested, you suggested he told them to 'get hosed' and they changed their mind. You're a loving idiot

quote:

He really did tell them to get hosed did you pay attention to the Republican primary at all?

The idea that not all politicians or parties have as much contempt for their own voters as elite liberals do for theirs, or that maybe such contempt is a bad strategy in purely electoral terms, is utterly alien to some people

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Mar 6, 2017

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 00:49

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

Are you honestly trying to argue that Trump used empathy, smart arguments and rational discussion to win the GOP primary here?

He started the primary campaign by telling the Bush family and all their supporters to go choke on a dick and they all fell in line.

I'm saying that the hostility to Russia was a tenuously held conviction and a holdover from decades prior, and that the seeds of a friendly attitude towards Russia based on their shared far-right ideology and whiteness, were deeply rooted and existed for a long time. Which means Trump actually was pretty smart and tuned in to the Republican base. Which is why he won.

Same with the Bushes and the war in Iraq, people backed them out of pure team loyalty, once it became OK to change your mind on them many right-wing voters did

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 01:01

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

The thing that made it OK for them to change their mind was trump telling the establishment to get hosed and winning!

He told the establishment to get hosed. Not the voters. He told them to get hosed and the voters said 'hey we kindof like this guy'. You seem to think that means the base loved and identified with the establishment

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 01:35

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Fulchrum posted:

You honestly think these were skilled workers in a specialized factory?

so you're saying Hillary keeping Haitian wages from going too high was a good thing? just for the record

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 03:01

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

VitalSigns posted:

"Gay marriage is impossible you babies, how about a separate institution that's totally equal just you know special and set apart and segregated just for you."

yeah, lol i remember people on this very forum arguing months ago that DADT was actually a good thing and if you aren't grateful for it you're a traitor and may as well be a Republican

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 04:22

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

ahahahahaha holy gently caress the hill people are literally saying we should invade Iran

you know, i did not actually believe that Hillary was secretly a committed third-way/anti-left/center-right diehard, but seeing her supporters right now i think she actually would have been forced by them into taking such positions if she'd won

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 08:43

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Fulchrum posted:

The P5 were signatories to the agreement you loving idiot.

Oh wait, I forgot that France was opposed to all war ever forever.

pretty sure i'd rather be ruled by the first 100 people in a french telephone book than you and other alt-centrist hillary freaks, tyvm

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:09

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

No crowsbeak has literally said he doesn't give a poo poo about non-american workers and shouldn't have to, so kvetching about the Haitian minimum wage from him is pretty drat rich.

low wages aren't actually what makes poor countries industrialize, it's government investment in infrastructure and public goods and an active industrial policy. there's a reason china industrialized when it did and bangladesh didn't. the neoliberal washington think tank consensus does not allow either of those things to happen, joe studwell's book on asian economic developmentis basically 100% the story of Malaysia and Thailand listening to World Bank and IMF economists and getting mediocre at best results and Japan and SK and Taiwan completely ignoring them and succeeding. given that fact you actually are advocating snatching bread from the mouths of poor black people in a third world country, both by directly reducing their welfare at home and removing their ability as a sovereign nation to regulate their economic intercourse with the world at large, and justifying it with nonsense. im pretty sure if this were 200 years ago you'd be saying Haitians were better off as plantation slaves working for the french than an independent nation

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Mar 6, 2017

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:15

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

the countries that have nukes have proven themselves to be really loving bad at preventing other countries from getting them though. turns out moral authority doesn't mean as much as you want it to in the world of great power politics

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 17:50

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

JeffersonClay posted:

Clinton successfully lobbied the Haitians to pass a smaller minimum wage increase in 2011, and they passed the full increase in 2014. Have we seen any substantial improvement in the Haitian economy since 2014? We don't have any robust economic statistics past 2014. But the incomplete statistics from 2015 show slowing GDP growth, slowing investment, and significantly increased inflation. https://www.focus-economics.com/countries/haiti So the assertion that delaying the full minimum wage increase for 3 years caused Haitians to starve cannot be based on anything but your gut feels.

those stats you cited have nothing at all to do with hunger or food scarcity, or domestic welfare? sorry you hate third world black people, but your case that starvation is actually good doesn't hold up to facts or logic

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 18:11

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

archangelwar posted:

people who are basically fairly representative of democratic party voters

Not sure which side of this argument you're referring to here. Seems to me both are pretty well represented

# ¿ Mar 6, 2017 19:43

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Main Paineframe posted:

How is it splitting the vote to run as a Democrat?

i dunno, ask all the people who got mad at bernie for joining the party and running as a democrat

# ¿ Mar 7, 2017 03:26

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Main Paineframe posted:

Wait, wouldn't this be a good thing? It's an opportunity for a centrist - a Clinton, no less - to lose to a leftist in a hilarious, humiliating fashion. The party can run Chelsea, and the party can support Chelsea, but ultimately it's up to the voters to decide who wins. And if the left can't even overcome a political nobody running entirely on the strength of their (widely-unpopular) name and connections in a safe blue district, there's not much hope for the revolution.

ahahahahaha jesus christ can you even imagine the white hot ball of rage if the Bernie Bros backed a candidate to the left of Chelsea in a contested election?

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:02

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

It's a dumb slogan because it promises something it's not; but whatever you want to call it fine I am not going to waste time trying to argue over it.

Make America Great Again - a dumb slogan that promises something it's not

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:04

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Raskolnikov38 posted:

p sure we just got done living through it

it'd make the presidential primary look like nothing, only excepting the slight importance of the seat

# ¿ Mar 20, 2017 22:05

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Bi Now Gay Later is the Clinton staffer, JC is just a dude who writes angry political posts on Facebook

# ¿ Mar 27, 2017 18:59

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Condiv posted:

hey,speaking of trump supporters, why the gently caress are hillary and friends loving on trump for going to war and why are they advocating for him to go to war? he's a fascist madman, and the dems are turning him loose upon the world!?

is the allure of fascism too much for the diseased neoliberal mind to resist?

what do you think?

if there's one thing you should have learned about liberals from the last 70 years of history it's that literally nothing on earth will ever outweigh or deter the psychological drive to bomb Bad People in other countries, in order to prove that they are Good People

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Apr 8, 2017

# ¿ Apr 8, 2017 03:56

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Hrm, let's see what the liberal commentariat is up to. Surely they've gotten the message about sticking to a muscular left-wing line, right?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-free-to-speak-her-mind.html

quote:

In the most wrenching, humiliating way possible, Hillary Clinton has been liberated. She is now out of the woods again, and speaking her mind.

In her first interview since the election, she acknowledged that she had expected to defeat Donald Trump and that the outcome had been �so devastating.�

�I just had to make up my mind that, yes, I was going to get out of bed, and, yes, I was going to go for a lot of long walks in the woods. And I was going to see my grandchildren a lot and spend time with my family and my friends. They have rallied around me in an amazing way.�

�As a person, I�m O.K.,� she said. �As an American, I�m pretty worried.�

Clinton spoke to me for more than 45 minutes on stage Thursday at Tina Brown�s Women in the World Summit. She seemed relaxed and comfortable, much less guarded than during the campaign.

[headlines left in for the LOL factor]

My Most Unpopular Idea: Be Nice to Trump Voters
APR 6
In Trump Country, Shock at Trump Budget Cuts, but Still Loyalty
APR 1
President Trump vs. Big Bird
MAR 30
Trump�s Triumph of Incompetence
MAR 24
�There�s a Smell of Treason in the Air�
MAR 23

I�ve known Clinton a bit for many years, and when she was running for office she was always monumentally careful in her language � a natural impulse when critics are circling, but it also diminished her authenticity as a politician. Her prudence came across to voters as �calculating.�

Now she�s out of her shell, freed by defeat, and far more willing to speak bluntly.

�Certainly misogyny played a role� in her loss, she said. �That just has to be admitted.�

She noted the abundant social science research that when men are ambitious and successful, they may be perceived as more likable. In contrast, for women in traditionally male fields, it�s a trade-off: The more successful or ambitious a woman is, the less likable she becomes (that�s also true of how women perceive women). It�s not so much that people consciously oppose powerful women; it�s an unconscious bias.

Clinton characterized the mind-set of some Trump voters as, �I don�t agree with him, I�m not sure I really approve of him, but he looks like somebody who�s been president before.� She did indicate that there were many other factors that contributed to her loss � including her own mistakes.

Clinton acknowledged that Democrats need to do a better job reaching working-class Americans, but she added that part of her problem was that many voters were already struggling with tumult in their lives, �and you layer on the first woman president over that, and I think some people, women included, had real problems.�

I asked what advice she would offer the countless young women who have been galvanized by her loss � in a way they never were by her candidacy � to become more engaged in public life. �Toughen up your skin,� she counseled, referring to the nastiness often directed at prominent women. �Be ready. It�s not a new phenomenon, but it feels new and painful every time it happens to you.�

Clinton noted that when she stepped down as secretary of state, she had an approval rating of 64 percent and was one of the most popular public officials in America. But that was ancient history by Election Day. �Oh my gosh,� she said, �by the time they finished with me, I was Typhoid Mary.�

We talked about lots of issues, including Syria � she advocated attacking Syrian air strips; hours later, President Trump did just that � and she was ready to fire a few salvos of her own. She raised the �chaotic functioning� of the new administration and said she didn�t understand the Trump team�s �commitment to hurt so many people,� from its travel ban to its health care legislation.

Why did she lose the election? Clinton�s staff has conducted autopsies that, she said, suggested that two of the most important factors were the plunder and release of her campaign emails and the last-minute announcement by the F.B.I. director, James Comey, that the investigation into her use of a private email server could be reopened.

So, I asked, when you heard Comey say recently that he had been investigating Trump�s Russia ties since July but couldn�t disclose it then because it�s inappropriate to discuss ongoing investigations, what did you throw at the television?

She savored the question. �Yes,� she said, smiling. �That was one of the high points of the last weeks.�

Clinton said she doesn�t know if there was collusion between the Trump team and the Kremlin, but she urged the formation of an independent commission to investigate. And she noted that whether or not there was collusion, there certainly was a concerted Russian effort to rig the American election.

Russia�s hacking of campaign emails �was a more effective theft even than Watergate,� she said, adding: �We aren�t going to let somebody sitting in the Kremlin, with 1,000 agents, with bots and trolls and everybody else, try to mix up in our election. We�ve got to end that, and we need to make sure that�s a bipartisan, American commitment.�

The issue Clinton seemed most passionate about was the one that has occupied much of her career, ever since she took a job out of Yale Law School with the Children�s Defense Fund: advocacy for women and children. She grew particularly animated in describing what she called Trump�s �targeting of women.�

As a candidate, both in 2008 and in 2016, Clinton was careful not to push too hard on feminist buttons for fear of antagonizing men � which, given the results, was a reasonable concern. But this is where her passions lie, and even as secretary of state traveling to an overseas capital, she would often visit a women�s shelter or an organization fighting human trafficking, dragging along bewildered diplomats and foreign officials to remind them that women�s rights are human rights.

In our conversation, she was scathing in denouncing Trump�s version of the �global gag rule,� which cuts off money for any health provider abroad that offers abortion counseling or promotes abortion rights, and Trump�s plan to defund the United Nations Population Fund, which battles maternal mortality and helps women get access to contraception.

Asked about the infamous photo of Republican men discussing women�s health, Clinton described her favorite internet meme: a group of dogs around a conference table, with the caption, �today�s meeting on feline health care.�

�The things that come out of some of these men�s mouths!� Clinton said. �Like, �why do we have to cover maternity care?� Well, I don�t know, maybe you were dropped by immaculate conception?�

One gauge of Clinton�s new freedom is the simplest: her name. She had decided at age 9 that she would keep her name when she married, and after her wedding with Bill Clinton in 1975 she initially remained Hillary Rodham � even though her mother-in-law cried about that. Then Arkansas voters ousted her husband as governor in 1980, in part because they were uncomfortable with her feminism, so she helped his political career by becoming Hillary Clinton.

When she ran for United States Senate in New York she was Hillary Rodham Clinton, but her 2016 campaign book and ballot name downsized her to Hillary Clinton to avoid antagonizing traditionalists. Her Twitter page and website are still just Hillary Clinton � but after our interview we walked backstage together to sign a poster for Women in the World, and she scrawled: Hillary Rodham Clinton. Free at last!

Clinton said she was working on a book about her campaign and wrestling with why so many women � including 53 percent of white women voters � supported Trump. I asked whether she would be a candidate again, or would consider running Unicef (that�s my vote for the best next job for her, allowing her to save millions of children�s lives).

She said she doubted that she would ever run for office another time but didn�t have plans other than to help more women enter politics and help Democrats take back Congress.

�I am passionate about the unfinished business of the 21st century,� she said, �the rights and opportunities for women and girls.�

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/hillary_clinton_is_not_going_away.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton Is Not Going Away
Good.

Since the election, thinking about Hillary Clinton has been painful. Every photograph of Donald Trump standing before a grinning phalanx of white men as he signs another attack on the social compact is a reminder of what could have been. Many people on the left are furious with her; they blame her sense of entitlement and poor political instincts for our current dystopia. But when I think about Clinton I just feel sick with grief�both for our country, and for her unredeemable, life-defining loss. On the scale of people whose existence will be blighted by the Trump presidency, Clinton is nowhere near the top. Still, I find myself wondering at odd times of the day and night: How is Hillary? Is she going to be all right?

That was the first question that Nick Kristof asked her onstage on Thursday evening in Manhattan. The live interview, part of Tina Brown�s Women in the World conference, was the first time since the election that Clinton has spoken publicly at any length about her defeat. Kristof said that he queried his social media followers about what he should ask her, and while there were many policy questions, lots of people just wanted to know how she�s doing. �You know what, I�m doing pretty well, all things considered,� Clinton said. She described the aftermath of the election as �devastating,� but said that with the help of friends and family, she�d picked herself up. �I would put it this way,� she said. �As a person, I�m OK. As an American, I�m pretty worried.�

It was appropriate that Clinton was speaking at a women�s conference. Twenty-two years ago, during a moment of political crisis and despair following the collapse of her attempt at health care reform, Clinton revived herself by traveling to Beijing for the United Nations Fourth World Congress on Women where she famously said, �Human rights are women�s rights, and women�s rights are human rights.� She�s always seemed most comfortable when working on behalf of women and girls, which she described on Thursday as the �unfinished business of the 21st century.� With her future suddenly a blank, Clinton says her only plans are to write a book�which will, among other things, explore the role misogyny played in the presidential election�and work to recruit and train young women to run for office.

It�s hard to imagine, now, what it would have been like to have a president who finds her solace in feminism. Clinton, like many American women, has been aghast at the administration�s systematic attacks on women�s rights and health: the expanded global gag rule, the defunding of the United Nations Population Fund, the attempts in the American Health Care Act to jettison mandatory insurance coverage for maternity care and to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood. �The targeting of women, which is what�s going on, is absolutely beyond any political agenda,� she said. �There�s something else happening here.� She didn�t say exactly what that �something� is, but the suggestion is that Trump represents a wave of misogynist rage.
Get Slate in your inbox.

The conservative media is already mocking Clinton for saying that sexism contributed to her defeat, but she�s clearly right. �It is fair to say that certainly misogyny played a role. That just has to be admitted,� she said. Clinton pointed to research on how ambition affects women�s likeability. �With men, success and ambition are correlated with likeability, so the more successful a man is, the more likeable he becomes,� she said. �With a woman, guess what. It�s the exact opposite.�

She reminded us that when she left her job as secretary of state, her approval rating was around 65 percent. Then she decided to seek the highest office in the land, and suddenly, public perception shifted. �Even people who had supported me in the media during my time as secretary of state or even as senator, all of the sudden it�s: Who is she? What does she want?� she said. �I always feel like I'm in Waiting for Godot.�

As bittersweet as it was to hear Clinton talk and imagine the sort of president she might have been, the interview offered a stark reminder of why many on the left distrusted her. Speaking hours before Trump launched airstrikes on Syria, she made it clear that she�d also have been a hawkish president. The United States, she said, should take out Bashar al-Assad�s airfields, �and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop Sarin gas on them.� During the campaign, she said, people asked her if she was afraid that her plan to impose a no-fly zone in Syria would lead to a Russian response. �It�s time the Russians were afraid of us!� she said heatedly. �Because we were going to stand up for human rights, the dignity and the future of the Syrian people.�

Having suffered an epochal rebuke that could well cleave American history into before and after, she still refuses to disappear.

Clinton�s worldview is sincere, but this sounds like a recipe for another unwinnable war. Yet instead of her carefully considered plan for greater military intervention in Syria, we now have Trump�s impulsive bombing raid, disconnected from any greater strategy. Under Trump, there�s been an increase in civilian deaths in Muslim countries, possibly because he has loosened the military�s rules of engagement. During the campaign, it was common to hear people on the left describe Clinton�s foreign policy as �scarier� than Donald Trump�s, to use Green Party candidate Jill Stein�s word. Yet what we have now is aggression unchecked by competence, analytical rigor or compassion.

It could have been so different. And Clinton has to carry the burden of knowing that if she�d done things differently, it might have been. Last week, Timothy Stanley wrote a CNN column arguing that it�s too soon for her to return to the public eye, given her responsibility for allowing Trump to become president. �America needs to move on,� Stanley said. �She needs to pause and reflect.�

He can speak for himself. It�s hard to watch Clinton these days, but it�s also inspiring. Having suffered an epochal, humiliating rebuke that could well cleave American history into before and after, she still�still!�refuses to disappear. Speaking of the viciousness with which women in politics are treated, she said, �Part of the personal attacks, part of the bullying, part of the name calling that has certainly become much more pervasive because of the internet, is to crush your spirit, to make you feel inadequate, to make you doubt yourself. I just refuse to do that.� This toughness would have served her well as president. But she might need it even more now that she never will be.

# ¿ Apr 9, 2017 20:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 06:16

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Majorian posted:

I heard them say this on Chapo, but I don't think they were entirely fair. Every generation has its share of tv shows, movies, literature, etc, that unrealistically idealize politics, negotiation, convincing people through the virtues of your argument, etc. "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," anyone? Hell, the Roman Republic had more than its fair share of stuff like this.

To some degree, this is true, but there's more to it than just that, I think. I think a lot of politicians are forgetting what era they're in. Politics has always been a corrupt, cynical business, but I think a lot of Republicans have been quicker on the uptake than Democrats that we're living in a particularly nasty age of politically nihilistic tribalism.

Well, Mr Smith at least puts forth a sincere if naive vision of an ideal civic virtue and participation in republican government. Sorkin meanwhile presents politics as an HBO drama. Not really comparable IMO

# ¿ Apr 11, 2017 04:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Will the democrats change and represent their membership?