Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,051 to 2,100 of 4,260 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>

Samy wrote:


Public sector jobs in 2020 need to be significantly different than 1930. Building paved paths might have been sufficient then, but today, we need to also provide something to do for the highly educated.

and in 2030 watson is going to take those jobs too. Paving paths is going to be a more useful skill.


KingOfAnything wrote:
Places like Japan, Germany, Korea, and France? [PDF] China has only three entries on the top 100 parts suppliers. I think your point would be better made in a different industry.

Well, let's take a look at the first US producer on the list - Johnson Controls, Inc.

From their website:
"Already well established in China for decades, global multi-industrial company Johnson Controls continues to grow throughout the Asia-Pacific region through plant openings, key customer partnerships, joint ventures and strategic agreements.

Due to an increasing presence in the market, Johnson Controls will open an Asia-Pacific headquarters in Shanghai in June 2017.

Broad manufacturing footprint
Johnson Controls serves customers in the Asia Pacific through an extensive branch network and broad manufacturing footprint, spanning over nearly 400 branches, 42 manufacturing plants, six distribution centers and five major technology centers. The company’s footprint in China includes 17 manufacturing plants, three research and development facilities, almost 100 branches, 9,000 employees and channel partners across 200 cities. The company was recently recognized for its capabilities in China with the “Top Employer China” award for the sixth consecutive year.

Johnson Controls supports customer growth strategies through its world-class engineering, innovation and industrial design capabilities. The company operates local automotive design studios, global technical centers and engineering offices across China with full testing capabilities."

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It makes my point far better then I could.


Irontruth wrote:
Driving is way more complex than most manufacturing jobs by the way, because it relies heavily on our ability to visually identify the world around us, something we're bad at programming machines to do. It's really amusing that you think we haven't been able to design machines to do much more simple tasks that take place in manufacturing.

Actually we're pretty good at it. The rover Curiosity demonstrates that, and we've already had a self-driving Budweiser truck demonstrate that it can be done. As I understand it, the majority of accidents that involve self-driving people are the fault of the human-driven cars that ram them. Self-driving cars are less likely to make stupid mistakes, or deliberately ignore traffic laws in order to save 5 seconds on a commute.


Fergie wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Places like Japan, Germany, Korea, and France? [PDF] China has only three entries on the top 100 parts suppliers. I think your point would be better made in a different industry.

Well, let's take a look at the first US producer on the list - Johnson Controls, Inc.

From their website:
"Already well established in China for decades, global multi-industrial company Johnson Controls continues to grow throughout the Asia-Pacific region through plant openings, key customer partnerships, joint ventures and strategic agreements.

Due to an increasing presence in the market, Johnson Controls will open an Asia-Pacific headquarters in Shanghai in June 2017.

Broad manufacturing footprint
Johnson Controls serves customers in the Asia Pacific through an extensive branch network and broad manufacturing footprint, spanning over nearly 400 branches, 42 manufacturing plants, six distribution centers and five major technology centers. The company’s footprint in China includes 17 manufacturing plants, three research and development facilities, almost 100 branches, 9,000 employees and channel partners across 200 cities. The company was recently recognized for its capabilities in China with the “Top Employer China” award for the sixth consecutive year.

Johnson Controls supports customer growth strategies through its world-class engineering, innovation and industrial design capabilities. The company operates local automotive design studios, global technical centers and engineering offices across China with full testing capabilities."

That is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It makes my point far better then I could.

What is your point? Lots of stuff gets made overseas? Yeah. Fully conceded. We import both parts and completed products.

What that doesn't show is that we don't make stuff here as well. You haven't even tried to support the claim that the measurements of increased manufacturing don't consider parts.
And if we are actually increasing manufacturing, while losing manufacturing jobs, it's hard to figure that just stopping the offshoring will actually make a big difference in bringing back manufacturing jobs.


Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Don't Blame China

Robots, not trade...

You are missing an incredibly obvious problem between the numbers, and the conclusions drawn from those numbers. And I think this is a perfect symbol of the problem Democrats have when they went from being the party of workers, to the party of... let me put this nicely, people who over-think things, without direct interaction.

"American" cars are made from overseas parts. This is the case with virtually everything manufactured in the US. So yes, GM has a bunch of robots that do the efficient-to-automate processes. But all the stuff that isn't cheep-and-easy to use robots for, is made in a sweatshop in China, or wherever is the best place to exploit workers and the environment. As an example, the GMC Arcadia is made from 60% non-domestic parts. The percentage of US made parts in an "American" car has been dropping every year, and I'm not even sure that you can find any car that is even 75% US parts anymore.* American manufacturing is NOT producing more with less people, they are just using sweatshop labor to produce labor intensive components overseas, and then automating what is left. If the US automakers had to do it all domestically, it would require more people.

This is what happens when you take something like outsourcing, and reduce it to over simplified numbers, and then make claims based on those numbers. You miss the incredibly obvious thing that everyone who is actually affected understands on the most basic level, yet you think you understand better then they do.

I think this is where the resentment felt by the working class toward their "educated" betters comes from. The elites and "well educated" can look at all kinds of reports and numbers, and the "smartest guys in the room" all agree, but working...

I love the claim that smart people are too dumb to figure stuff out and the fact you make several mistakes in your own post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I love the claim that smart people are too dumb to figure stuff out and the fact you make several mistakes in your own post.

Hey, I never said I was smart.

Also, The Smartest Guys in the Room was used sarcastically and as a reference to the movie with that title. It was an attempt at humor.
Hey, I never said I was funny.

Often people who study things, especially vast complex systems, and draw conclusions based on conclusions, are often wrong, although they may indeed poses great intellect.


I would love to see the numbers on people with great intellect who study things and draw conclusions versus regular people who just guess at things. I imagine they might not meet your expectations.


I second Comrade Jeff's proposal to improve upon the idea of our comrades of yore and inscribe "20 for 40!" on our banners.

I also second Comrade Fergie's proposal for a federal works program.

In other news, the DSA kids finally got wise to us (I suspect they were tipped off). They sent us a message saying that they had heard that we have a reputation for "poaching their best and brightest"--I kinda thought that was a pretty good reputation to have, actually--and wanted to know whether we intended to "thwart" their plans to "take over" the Democratic Party. They further confessed that they were completely new to politics and that if Clinton had won they probably never would have gotten involved. Anyway, they also wanted us to know that they thought we were super rad and hoped there would be no bad blood.

I thought that was kind of nice and responded that I wasn't sure what they meant by "thwart" but, yeah, Down with the Democrats! and as for all that "poaching" stuff, I said that we had been looking forward to red competition in the Granite State since Occupy and welcome to socialism!

Should make for an interesting time at their meeting this coming Sunday.


could you please stop pulling the peoples front of judea skit and work together to defeat your real enemy, the roma..erm. republicans?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, because showing up and working with people while engaging in vigorous debate is exactly like that scene in Life of Brian.

Also, my enemy is the capitalist class, regardless of party affiliation.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Yes, because showing up and working with people while engaging in vigorous debate is exactly like that scene in Life of Brian.

Also, my enemy is the capitalist class, regardless of party affiliation.

Good luck with that.


Thank you, it should be fun.

They called for a rally tomorrow evening against Trump's Muslim ban 2.0. I'll be at work, alas, but we're sending some comrades.


Fergie wrote:


And yes, I do plan on fighting self driving vehicles. As a cyclist and motorcyclist, there are a variety of unanswered questions that are really important, namely, who is responsible when your self driving vehicle destroys a bus full of school kids. The Chinese company that made the sensor, the third party software developer, the guy who kept driving with the service light on, etc? Also, I know cars, specifically beat up old cars and also old computers. They stop working so well after 10 years in the best conditions. Are people going to be allowed to operate old self driving cars? Who is going to be replacing all those old parts? How much public money is going into "self-driving roads"? But honestly that isn't the point of this thread at all.

You think 2% of all current jobs in the US isn't relevant to how democrats talk to blue collar workers? This is literally the problem you guys are talking about. Unemployed workers who are angry about losing their jobs. I'm telling you about 3.5 million people who are shortly going to be out of work. This is a big deal for politics down the road.

Sovereign Court

So instead of rearranging the deck chairs on employment, like the GOP, how does the democratic party approach this problem effectively?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pan wrote:
So instead of rearranging the deck chairs on employment, like the GOP, how does the democratic party approach this problem effectively?

It doesn't. Because the steps it would need to take, would never pass muster with the moneybags that the DNC and individual Democrats are beholden to.

The moneybags in question were and still are, absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a Sanders Presidency, they would much have rather lost to the Republicans than let one come about. The DNC rigging things as much as they could in Clinton's favor was nothing more than following marching orders.

It will however take nothing less than a Sanders to bring this Party about.

Sovereign Court

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pan wrote:
So instead of rearranging the deck chairs on employment, like the GOP, how does the democratic party approach this problem effectively?

It doesn't. Because the steps it would need to take, would never pass muster with the moneybags that the DNC and individual Democrats are beholden to.

The moneybags in question were and still are, absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a Sanders Presidency, they would much have rather lost to the Republicans than let one come about. The DNC rigging things as much as they could in Clinton's favor was nothing more than following marching orders.

It will however take nothing less than a Sanders to bring this Party about.

Sure how about chipping away at the establishment with some local wins? How does the party prepare themselves for a working class friendly candidate? I think hoping for a top down overhaul is a poor plan.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Blah blah blah self driving cars But honestly that isn't the point of this thread at all.
You think 2% of all current jobs in the US isn't relevant to how democrats talk to blue collar workers? This is literally the problem you guys are talking about. Unemployed workers who are angry about losing their jobs. I'm telling you about 3.5 million people who are shortly going to be out of work. This is a big deal for politics down the road.

I was saying that the point of this thread is not debating the merits of self driving cars. I'm also not terribly interested in predictions of technological wonders that are going to radically change the future when reality points in other directions. You are welcome to start a new thread on the topic. Maybe I'll change my opinion when I get a jet-pack or VR that is better then Max Headroom or Lawnmower Man. Maybe.

I am happy to discuss all matters related to employment and the economy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I encourage you understand the difference between automation and outsourcing. I'm glad that you seem aware that unemployment is a problem, as most democrats don't seem to understand that it is anything more then a perception issue. Most Democrats seem to think the stock markets are the true measure of the economy, and don't understand the importance of jobs in peoples lives. I encourage you to go to places that have lost factories and industries over the last decade or two, and talk to people about these issues. I think you will find that people who have been living directly with this stuff have a viewpoint that you might find enlightening.

EDIT: Also, this isn't a problem that is going to develop in a few years. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and has been for many years. Democrats are still stuck in the mid-1990's, and need to pull their heads out of their asses yesterday, or they are dead in the water!


Pan wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pan wrote:
So instead of rearranging the deck chairs on employment, like the GOP, how does the democratic party approach this problem effectively?

It doesn't. Because the steps it would need to take, would never pass muster with the moneybags that the DNC and individual Democrats are beholden to.

The moneybags in question were and still are, absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a Sanders Presidency, they would much have rather lost to the Republicans than let one come about. The DNC rigging things as much as they could in Clinton's favor was nothing more than following marching orders.

It will however take nothing less than a Sanders to bring this Party about.

Sure how about chipping away at the establishment with some local wins? How does the party prepare themselves for a working class friendly candidate? I think hoping for a top down overhaul is a poor plan.

Exactly. Trying for grassroots change from the top down doesn't make much sense. If you want to change the "establishment", you have to actually change the establishment. Take it over from the bottom up. Complaining about the establishment supporting establishment candidates and somehow expecting them to do anything else is just silly.

Mind you, I think there's a balance to be found there. You don't want to accept losing to the Republicans in the name of anti-establishment fervor. That's the same mistake we're blaming the establishment for. Pick your fights.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, this isn't a problem that is going to develop in a few years. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and has been for many years. Democrats are still stuck in the mid-1990's, and need to pull their heads out of their asses yesterday, or they are dead in the water!

Since, I've turned the Democratic Socialists of America into a running subtheme, I can't help but mention my many, many plugs, pre-2016 election, for Michael Harrington's The Other America and Vonnegut's God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Has been brewing for decades.

Anyway, Marxian concepts about machinery that will apply to robots. Warning Labor theory of value ahead!

The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Fergie wrote:
EDIT: Also, this isn't a problem that is going to develop in a few years. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and has been for many years. Democrats are still stuck in the mid-1990's, and need to pull their heads out of their asses yesterday, or they are dead in the water!

Since, I've turned the Democratic Socialists of America into a running subtheme, I can't help but mention my many, many plugs, pre-2016 election, for Michael Harrington's The Other America and Vonnegut's God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. Has been brewing for decades.

Anyway, Marxian concepts about machinery that will apply to robots. Warning Labor theory of value ahead!

The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall

If I remember correctly, you weren't that fond of the Michael Harrington crowd. I still have copy of The Other America, which I have to admit, I bought decades ago for the photography.


The Michael Harrington crowd is the DSA. You don't have to remember correctly because I've been talking about them in this thread repeatedly, along with witches.

Anyway, I do believe that in probably a quarter to a third of my pre-2016 posts on the subject ran something like "A pox on Michael Harrington and the DSA for being Democrats, but, actually, The Other America is pretty well worth reading."

My copy doesn't have pictures. :(

Actually, that might be for the better...


And, for no reason whatsoever, anyone know whatever happened to Citizen K(e)rensky? Sometimes I think Sir Meh is he, returned, but, although the good knight has Alex's gift for withering snark, I don't think that's the case. Then I remember him often talking about his health problems and I worry.

Anyone?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

The Michael Harrington crowd is the DSA. You don't have to remember correctly because I've been talking about them in this thread repeatedly, along with witches.

Anyway, I do believe that in probably a quarter to a third of my pre-2016 posts on the subject ran something like "A pox on Michael Harrington and the DSA for being Democrats, but, actually, The Other America is pretty well worth reading."

My copy doesn't have pictures. :(

Actually, that might be for the better...

The edition I have is almost a coffee table book and every other page is part of an excellent collection of urban photography. And according to a friend of mine formerly at Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research, EVERY SINGLE COUNTY in the US of A is urban. Urban being defined as posessing at least one element of light industry within it.

I can't seem to find an online reference copy of the edition I have. I imagine it's decades out of print.

Edit: I was wrong... the book I have is The Next America


The Other America is the one, legend holds, that inspired the War on Poverty although, apparently, Kennedy only read a review of it (by Dwight MacDonald, I wanna say?) and not the actual book.

Inspired by Mike's working with the Catholic Worker crowd, vivid descriptions of poverty in those halcyon Keynesian days of yore the Democrats yearn for. At least one memorable section on technological unemployment in which Mike passionately, and in retrospect a little quaintly, draws attention to the "tens of thousands" being thrown on capitalism's scrap heap.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
It's a distribution problem. A social and political problem.

This. And solving the problem is going to require re-thinking some fundamental economic assumptions. I don't know if the answer is the UBI or something else entirely, but my fear is that most people aren't even asking the right questions.


Made in the USA

Americans may think of International Women’s Day as a sentimental export from abroad—but this week’s global strike is a throwback to its real history.

Most interesting thing about this, for me, is that the author lives in New Hampshire. I have already Facebook stalked her and we don't have any friends in common, so either she doesn't leave activist traces on Facebook or she's just a journo.

Anyway, don't have any plans to participate in any strike activity locally, but we are having a meeting at UMass Lowell to commemorate the centenary of the overthrow of the tsar by the working women of Petrograd, discuss tactics for ways to escalate the resistance and get a free lecture from Professor Sue about women in the sanctuary movement.

I, alas, will be at work.

:(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pan wrote:
So instead of rearranging the deck chairs on employment, like the GOP, how does the democratic party approach this problem effectively?

It doesn't. Because the steps it would need to take, would never pass muster with the moneybags that the DNC and individual Democrats are beholden to.

The moneybags in question were and still are, absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a Sanders Presidency, they would much have rather lost to the Republicans than let one come about. The DNC rigging things as much as they could in Clinton's favor was nothing more than following marching orders.

It will however take nothing less than a Sanders to bring this Party about.

Yawn


Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Blah blah blah self driving cars But honestly that isn't the point of this thread at all.
You think 2% of all current jobs in the US isn't relevant to how democrats talk to blue collar workers? This is literally the problem you guys are talking about. Unemployed workers who are angry about losing their jobs. I'm telling you about 3.5 million people who are shortly going to be out of work. This is a big deal for politics down the road.

I was saying that the point of this thread is not debating the merits of self driving cars. I'm also not terribly interested in predictions of technological wonders that are going to radically change the future when reality points in other directions. You are welcome to start a new thread on the topic. Maybe I'll change my opinion when I get a jet-pack or VR that is better then Max Headroom or Lawnmower Man. Maybe.

I am happy to discuss all matters related to employment and the economy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I encourage you understand the difference between automation and outsourcing. I'm glad that you seem aware that unemployment is a problem, as most democrats don't seem to understand that it is anything more then a perception issue. Most Democrats seem to think the stock markets are the true measure of the economy, and don't understand the importance of jobs in peoples lives. I encourage you to go to places that have lost factories and industries over the last decade or two, and talk to people about these issues. I think you will find that people who have been living directly with this stuff have a viewpoint that you might find enlightening.

EDIT: Also, this isn't a problem that is going to develop in a few years. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and has been for many years. Democrats are still stuck in the mid-1990's, and need to pull their heads out of their asses yesterday, or they are dead in the water!

Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And, for no reason whatsoever, anyone know whatever happened to Citizen K(e)rensky? Sometimes I think Sir Meh is he, returned, but, although the good knight has Alex's gift for withering snark, I don't think that's the case. Then I remember him often talking about his health problems and I worry.

Anyone?

Sorry, I'm just me. Hope your friend is okay.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?

I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

Clinton didn't veto it and it is therefore entirely his fault. Republicans get no blame for anything they can get any Democrats to sign onto.

This is a thing Democrats need to learn.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

Clinton didn't veto it and it is therefore entirely his fault. Republicans get no blame for anything they can get any Democrats to sign onto.

This is a thing Democrats need to learn.

Republicans seemingly don't get blamed for anything.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

Clinton didn't veto it and it is therefore entirely his fault. Republicans get no blame for anything they can get any Democrats to sign onto.

This is a thing Democrats need to learn.

Republicans seemingly don't get blamed for anything.

They do, but it wears off quickly. They were pretty unpopular by the end of Bush's term.


thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

Clinton didn't veto it and it is therefore entirely his fault. Republicans get no blame for anything they can get any Democrats to sign onto.

This is a thing Democrats need to learn.

Republicans seemingly don't get blamed for anything.
They do, but it wears off quickly. They were pretty unpopular by the end of Bush's term.

Bush was unpopular. Republicans just changed their name to "the tea party" and kept doing the exact same things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Are you honestly going to look at Obama and Bush and say Democrats don't care about unemployment?
I can look at Bill Clinton's "Welfare Reform" and point out that at times, they can be just as enthusiastic in punishing the unemployed and the poor for being poor as the Republicans. He certainly did damm little to reverse the attacks on Unions perpetrated by his two predecessors.

Sigh

Quote:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a major welfare reform. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was authored by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

Clinton didn't veto it and it is therefore entirely his fault. Republicans get no blame for anything they can get any Democrats to sign onto.

This is a thing Democrats need to learn.

I can fully blame the Republican Congressfolk for the bills they create. Just as I can blame the Democratic Presidents who sign off on them. The guilt of the first party does not absolve the actions of the second.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Democrats don't want to be tarnished by Republican assaults on welfare, they might consider a) not running on ending it as we know it; and b) not bragging about it in their (ghost-written?) autobiographies.

Whether that reaches the same level of enthusiasm for punishing the poor as the Republicans, I will leave to others to decide.

Possible hyperbole aside, I find the idea that Citizen Moonrunner is somehow soft on the Republicans amusing.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

If the Democrats don't want to be tarnished by Republican assaults on welfare, they might consider a) not running on ending it as we know it; and b) not bragging about it in their (ghost-written?) autobiographies.

Whether that reaches the same level of enthusiasm for punishing the poor as the Republicans, I will leave to others to decide.

Possible hyperbole aside, I find the idea that Citizen Moonrunner is somehow soft on the Republicans amusing.

The Republicans who write the bills are generally people from other states that I didn't vote for. The Presidents that take the election, whether I voted for them or not, are charged with representing the whole country, so I have more of a right to directly castigate them, as well as New Jersey's representatives to Congress who behave badly.


Fergie wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:
Blah blah blah self driving cars But honestly that isn't the point of this thread at all.
You think 2% of all current jobs in the US isn't relevant to how democrats talk to blue collar workers? This is literally the problem you guys are talking about. Unemployed workers who are angry about losing their jobs. I'm telling you about 3.5 million people who are shortly going to be out of work. This is a big deal for politics down the road.

I was saying that the point of this thread is not debating the merits of self driving cars. I'm also not terribly interested in predictions of technological wonders that are going to radically change the future when reality points in other directions. You are welcome to start a new thread on the topic. Maybe I'll change my opinion when I get a jet-pack or VR that is better then Max Headroom or Lawnmower Man. Maybe.

I am happy to discuss all matters related to employment and the economy. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I encourage you understand the difference between automation and outsourcing. I'm glad that you seem aware that unemployment is a problem, as most democrats don't seem to understand that it is anything more then a perception issue. Most Democrats seem to think the stock markets are the true measure of the economy, and don't understand the importance of jobs in peoples lives. I encourage you to go to places that have lost factories and industries over the last decade or two, and talk to people about these issues. I think you will find that people who have been living directly with this stuff have a viewpoint that you might find enlightening.

EDIT: Also, this isn't a problem that is going to develop in a few years. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and has been for many years. Democrats are still stuck in the mid-1990's, and need to pull their heads out of their asses yesterday, or they are dead in the water!

Where do you get off on this shit? I've lived in a town that used to be an up and coming small city, not far from a major metropolis. It's now a ghost town with most of the "downtown" area empty. I knew a lot of people who lost their jobs and that depressing feeling of a town that dies. I don't know what the town is like now, cause I moved out 14 years ago, but I know what it was like to live there.

You don't know me. Stop assuming that you do.

You're right, the thread isn't about self-driving cars specifically, but those self-driving cars are going to remove the existence of millions of jobs in this country. Don't debate the self-driving cars, tell me what you're going to do about those jobs. Is it your plan to move to a centrally controlled economy where the government creates make-work jobs for people to keep them busy?

If those truck drivers were the town I used to live in, it sounds like you don't have a plan. It sounds like you don't know what you're going to do for them when they lose their jobs. You sound like all the empty promises of the democrats you complain about.


I was trying to encourage empathy and understanding. Talking to a wide variety of people about their jobs and lives. I honestly don't know why that is offensive to you.

I would again direct you to the WPA link that I posted the other day. While some might view those as busy-work kind of jobs, I would strongly disagree. I enjoy roads, a wide variety of park land, and buildings that were WPA projects. My middle school building was a WPA project, and there were some really nice paintings in my high school auditorium that I recall were WPA projects.

Capitalism is just one way of deciding where money, labor, resources and investments go. It does some things well, but has built in problems, and inequality is a major one. When Capitalism fails to create jobs, especially decent jobs, as it has in the US, democracy should step in and correct the problem. It isn't as if the tax structure, federal reserve, and various other laws are not influencing this stuff - it is long overdue to shift that influence toward benefiting the working class, rather then the ownership class.

The WPA created millions of jobs to the point were the nation had full employment! And that was during some of the worst economic time the country has faced in peacetime. Imagine what a similar program (paid for with a fraction of military spending) could do for our railroads! Imagine how many doctors and nurses you could train! Think of the care you could provide for veterans, the elderly, and those with special needs!

We are also going to have to start charging tariffs on some nations again. You can't allow your country to be flooded with sweatshop products, and expect domestic goods to compete without addressing the issue.

And finally, any discussion of employment has to include illegal immigrants, or undocumented if you prefer. Something must be done about the millions of people composing the current desperate underclass of workers the poor and middle class citizens must compete with for jobs and services. It would be a lot more humane to bring them into society legitimately, including voting, or they have to be kicked out. I would much rather the former, but labor is never going to substantially improve without a drastic change in the way we deal with non-citizens.

For the record, I would put my plan up against anything the Democratic party has put forward (4 more years of Clintonomics - HA!) and see what experts and average citizens think. If anyone know of any better alternatives, I'm open to your thoughts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So Fergie...neither the Democrats or Republicans actually give two shits about American workers, but the Republicans are more successful because they're better at pretending to care?

This is a serious question. I'm asking because there seems to be a common thread among former Obama voters who voted for Trump. Many of them specifically say they voted for Trump because he said he would "bring the jobs back." Of course, Trump hasn't presented a coherent plan for actually doing so, but that doesn't seem to matter to these folks. Just saying he is going to do it seemed to be enough, despite the fact that the man has a clear history of using foreign manufacturing and labor to save costs.

As far as I can tell, Trump won because he lies even more readily (and bigly!) than other politicians do. Are you suggesting the Democrats should out-lie Trump in order to be successful? :P


bugleyman wrote:

So Fergie...neither the Democrats or Republicans actually give two s!$+s about American workers, but the Republicans are more successful because they're better at pretending to care?

This is a serious question. I'm asking because there seems to be a common thread among former Obama voters who voted for Trump. Many of them specifically say they voted for Trump because he said he would "bring the jobs back." Of course, Trump hasn't presented a coherent plan for actually doing so, but that doesn't seem to matter to these folks. Just saying he is going to do it seemed to be enough, despite the fact that the man has a history of using foreign manufacturing and labor to save costs.

As far as I can tell, Trump won because he lies even more readily (and bigly!) than other politicians do. Are you suggesting the Democrats should out-lie Trump in order to be successful? :P

I believe that has already been suggested several times in this thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Capitalism is just one way of deciding where money, labor, resources and investments go. It does some things well, but has built in problems, and inequality is a major one. When Capitalism fails to create jobs, especially decent jobs, as it has in the US, democracy should step in and correct the problem. It isn't as if the tax structure, federal reserve, and various other laws are not influencing this stuff - it is long overdue to shift that influence toward benefiting the working class, rather then the ownership class.

Correct...which is, if I'm not mistaken, pretty much the Democratic Party economic platform.

On a side note, it really puzzles me when people think that unfettered Capitalism is the "natural state of man" or some nonsense.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Fergie wrote:

The WPA created millions of jobs to the point were the nation had full employment! And that was during some of the worst economic time the country has faced in peacetime. Imagine what a similar program (paid for with a fraction of military spending) could do for our railroads! Imagine how many doctors and nurses you could train! Think of the care you could provide for veterans, the elderly, and those with special needs!

We are also going to have to start charging tariffs on some nations again. You can't allow your country to be flooded with sweatshop products, and expect domestic goods to compete without addressing the issue.

If we had an effective WPA or similar program, would we still need tariffs protecting domestic manufacturing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

So Fergie...neither the Democrats or Republicans actually give two s+&*s about American workers, but the Republicans are more successful because they're better at pretending to care?

No... it was Trump that was the success, not the GOP itself. Clinton even with all her baggage would have slaughtered any of the other members of the 2016 clown car, including Mike Pence. Which is why despite all of the hopeful dreams, the Republicans aren't going to impeach Trump unless he puts them in a position where they have no other choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

So Fergie...neither the Democrats or Republicans actually give two s!+@s about American workers, but the Republicans are more successful because they're better at pretending to care?

This is a serious question. I'm asking because there seems to be a common thread among former Obama voters who voted for Trump. Many of them specifically say they voted for Trump because he said he would "bring the jobs back." Of course, Trump hasn't presented a coherent plan for actually doing so, but that doesn't seem to matter to these folks. Just saying he is going to do it seemed to be enough, despite the fact that the man has a clear history of using foreign manufacturing and labor to save costs.

As far as I can tell, Trump won because he lies even more readily (and bigly!) than other politicians do. Are you suggesting the Democrats should out-lie Trump in order to be successful? :P

No, because the Democrats are already considered to be liars. They're not ever going to be trusted by the 40 percent who voted for Trump. It's that middle 20 percent who decided that 8 years of Obama didn't lift their prospects enough or at all that gave him the election.

But the real major issue is that the Democrats could not even energise their own base. A significant number of Obama voters voted for Trump. A significant number didn't even bother to show up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But the real major issue is that the Democrats could not even energise their own base. A significant number of Obama voters voted for Trump. A significant number didn't even bother to show up.

According to Wikipedia, Obama got 65,915,795 votes in 2012, while Hillary got 65,853,625 in 2016. Trump got 62,985,106.

Forgive me, but it seems like the Dems did just fine...they just ran afoul of the Electoral College. In fact, the Republicans have managed to win the popular vote exactly once since 1988. In other words, all the hand-wringing and prognostication over existential crisis facing the Democratic party is overblown. I appreciate that you might want it to be true, so as to make the argument that the party needs to move left, but it simply isn't borne out by the vote totals. Besides, we've seen this sort of thing about the losing party pretty much every four years since, well...forever.

The Democrats just need to field a strong candidate. Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren, and have since well before most people had any idea who she was.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


No, because the Democrats are already considered to be liars. They're not ever going to be trusted by the 40 percent who voted for Trump. It's that middle 20 percent who decided that 8 years of Obama didn't lift their prospects enough or at all that gave him the election.

1) If Democrats are considered liars more broadly than Republicans, then we might as well just give up, cause that's just insane.

2) Of course the hard core conservative base isn't reachable. That's a given. It's always the middle that matters. Republicans aren't going to win the Democratic base either. It's turnout of the base and reaching the persuadables in the middle.
Now, the reasons why that middle 20% moved more towards Republicans are debatable.


bugleyman wrote:
The Democrats just need to field a strong candidate. Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren, and have since well before most people had any idea who she was.

I like Warren. I'm not convinced I like her for a presidential candidate. We'll see. It's still a long time and a lot of work before that race. I'm far more concerned with 2018 than 2020 right now.

And with non-electoral opposition to Trump.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
But the real major issue is that the Democrats could not even energise their own base. A significant number of Obama voters voted for Trump. A significant number didn't even bother to show up.

According to Wikipedia, Obama got 65,915,795 votes in 2012, while Hillary got 65,853,625 in 2016. Trump got 62,985,106.

Forgive me, but it seems like the Dems did just fine...they just ran afoul of the Electoral College. In fact, the Republicans have managed to win the popular vote exactly once since 1988. In other words, all the hand-wringing and prognostication over existential crisis facing the Democratic party is overblown. I appreciate that you might want it to be true, so as to make the argument that the party needs to move left, but it simply isn't borne out by the vote totals. Besides, we've seen this sort of thing about the losing party pretty much every four years since, well...forever.

The Democrats just need to field a strong candidate. Personally, I really like Elizabeth Warren, and have since well before most people had any idea who she was.

To have a successful government you need to do more than win the presidency. You need the support of state governments as well as congress. In that regard Dems really are not doing all that well right now.

While I don't think its "end of the party bad", it's something democrats do need to be seriously worried about.

2,051 to 2,100 of 4,260 << first < prev | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards