Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

701 to 750 of 4,260 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Bull. If it's as screwed up as you claim, then even Bernie's just part of the con.

I don't see how that follows.

At all.


pres man wrote:


Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?

Can you show me a job you can do with just a highschool diploma that won't leave you below the poverty line?


pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?

Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

In this instance, the privilege is being part of the norm. Typically minorities are... minorities. So if one person was black in that town, they'd be an obviously identifiable "other". So, a white person in an all white town has the benefit of belonging (barring some other thing that might make them an outcast). Odds are, if this town is in America, it's built on land that was originally occupied by a different people who were kicked off or killed for it. If it's in the South, it's either in extreme poverty, or has at some point benefited from slave labor.

Consider BET and the common retort to it's existence, "why isn't there a WET?" The answer that doesn't seem obvious to the person objecting to BET's existence is that the majority of shows on the major networks are filled with predominantly white characters. They constantly see people who look like them in positions of power, influence and authority. They're constantly reminded of the success of other white people who helped build this great nation.

The problem it seems to me, is that when you, and I'm being specific here, you, pres man... when you hear the term "white privilege" it almost seems like you're conjuring up images of white people wearing white clothes drinking lemonade at a golf course. That isn't what the term means. The term "privilege" in this case are small, but distinct advantages/benefits that are hard to see if you aren't looking for them. It doesn't mean that you'll never have hardship, or that you won't have to work hard in your life. It does mean that when you walk into Barneys, unless you're dressed like a homeless person, you probably aren't tailed by security, or even detained without cause.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EivX77ORIIs]An example of white privilege.[url] Basically, white characteristics are considered beautiful, while black characteristics are not. This has a profound psychological impact on people.


thejeff wrote:
1) And if helps minorities more, even incidentally, than it comes with that pushback.

But far less, the same way that programs can have a discriminatory effect (we only hire college graduates) have less pushback than outright discrimination. The right is always going to push back. The middle isn't. "Hey! I get to take off to vote, this is easy" is a gain for everyone.

2) I honestly don't know, but closing our eyes and pretending it isn't a problem isn't the solution. As I said, we're starting to come up with ways to at least study it.

Government as an instrument makes an anvil look like a razor blade. I am not using a tool that blunt on peoples heads for a quality of life impact you need to measure at the quantum level


BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
Can you show me a job you can do with just a highschool diploma that won't leave you below the poverty line?

The poverty line for a single individual was $11,770 in 2015. Working 40 hours at minimum wage of $7.25 for 50 weeks a year (2 weeks unpaid vacation), would earn $14,500. So if someone could find a 40 hour a week job scrubbing toilets, they could stay above the poverty line.

For a family of 4, including 2 children the line was $24,250. So both parents working full time jobs at minimum wage would keep the family above this.

I am not saying it is easy, in fact those jobs probably suck and even then finding ones that will give you full time might be hard enough.

EDIT: I should have said a 35 hour week (due to unpaid breaks). It would then be $12,687.50. Sorry about the mistake. They still make it, but the margin is certainly less.

Liberty's Edge

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
2) I honestly don't know, but closing our eyes and pretending it isn't a problem isn't the solution. As I said, we're starting to come up with ways to at least study it.
Government as an instrument makes an anvil look like a razor blade. I am not using a tool that blunt on peoples heads for a quality of life impact you need to measure at the quantum level

Except it's not. It's hiring, it's promotion, it's housing, it's everything. It's hard to nail exactly where the prejudice comes in when it's not being openly admitted, but the impacts are huge.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
Can you show me a job you can do with just a highschool diploma that won't leave you below the poverty line?

Any job with the "or equivalent experience" in the requirements?


pres man wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
pres man wrote:


Too simplistic? More "pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps" b.s.? Some truth in it?
Can you show me a job you can do with just a highschool diploma that won't leave you below the poverty line?

The poverty line for a single individual was $11,770 in 2015. Working 40 hours at minimum wage of $7.25 for 50 weeks a year (2 weeks unpaid vacation), would earn $14,500. So if someone could find a 40 hour a week job scrubbing toilets, they could stay above the poverty line.

For a family of 4, including 2 children the line was $24,250. So both parents working full time jobs at minimum wage would keep the family above this.

I am not saying it is easy, in fact those jobs probably suck and even then finding ones that will give you full time might be hard enough.

Yeah, that's the rub. And unlike in days past, they'll be "flexible" hours so there's no way to schedule 2 part time jobs to make it work.


Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.


Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Yeah, I was just thinking that. This isn't actually about Democratic candidates. This is about internet arguments.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:
It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Of *course* it's about the perception! That's what we need to change! We need to get them to realize that we care about them too!


thejeff wrote:
Except it's not. It's hiring, it's promotion, it's housing, it's everything. It's hard to nail exactly where the prejudice comes in when it's not being openly admitted, but the impacts are huge.

Do you have any actionable plan for reducing racism?

Do you have any law, bill, or even vague plan for fixing it?

If not you are not ready for politics. Get a plan, then go to the voters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.


Irontruth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


Any future candidate is going to face off against Trump. Knowing and understanding why he won, what were his strengths and weaknesses, and different ways to beat him will be far more useful than hypotheticals that change the outcome of the previous election.

And...

Trump won because Clinton was a bad candidate. That is why analyzing him will not work.
And which of these two is more likely to be in the 2020 race?

It depends on what we decide to do with what we've learned. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.
Of *course* it's about the perception! That's what we need to change! We need to get them to realize that we care about them too!

But you're perpetuating a misconception with the premise of your argument.

It's like you're trying to argue against a flat earther by starting out, "well, you're right, we can't prove the Earth is round..."

That's what you sound like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


The other prongs exist for the express purpose of supporting this prong. Social disparity exists in no small part from deliberate efforts to have an underclass for the white middle class to look down on and vote against.

This prong is the only one you're going to get government action on.

Moving that prong moves all of the other ones.

That's what many blacks insisted during Reconstruction—the people who didn't want to talk about lynching and discrimination because it made too much of a stir and got the whites too offended. Turns out, that big prong ain't gonna budge an inch before the lynching and discrimination are dealt with.

You can't fight for economic justice while abandoning social justice. It doesn't work. It has never worked. Privileged* leftists want so badly for it to work. It will never work. If you don't create a multi-pronged approach, you're really just trying to eat spaghetti with a skinny knife.

*In non-economic measures, of course.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Except it's not. It's hiring, it's promotion, it's housing, it's everything. It's hard to nail exactly where the prejudice comes in when it's not being openly admitted, but the impacts are huge.

Do you have any actionable plan for reducing racism?

Do you have any law, bill, or even vague plan for fixing it?

If not you are not ready for politics. Get a plan, then go to the voters.

Let's see...

...legislation rewarding businesses that accept affirmative action. Closer regulation for police forces (start investigating every extrajudicial killing, not just the ones that get press). The Equality Act, penned by my very own two senators, Wyden and Merkley. Restoring the Voting Rights Act. Legislation to discourage gentrification and segregation. Probably some efforts in the education sector itself—start combating bigotry early on. You won't find any shortage of proposed solutions, and some of them might even work. Not all of it is good to campaign on exclusively, but all of it is worth fighting for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.

Reread the question. Please address the question.

I don't care about your theory of what the problem is, unless you can SHOW me the problem.

For example, here's an article that does a break down of key words in Clinton's speeches.

Huh, interesting that when I read that article, it seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. That's so weird. Perhaps you have something you can refute that with? Other than just your opinion that is.


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.

Reread the question. Please address the question.

I don't care about your theory of what the problem is, unless you can SHOW me the problem.

For example, here's an article that does a break down of key words in Clinton's speeches.

Huh, interesting that when I read that article, it seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. That's so weird. Perhaps you have something you can refute that with? Other than just your opinion that is.

Breaking voters down by issue, "improving economic conditions" break for Trump 48/43

Your question is irrelevant, the only thing that is important is perception. Democrats have a perception problem on this topic. It doesn't matter "What the most common words in HIllary Clinton's speeches," are. If it isn't selling, it isn't selling. The democrats need to own their image and that means managing more effectively.

So, anyway. I gave you a link to SHOW you the problem. The message Clinton gave didn't resonate. THAT's the problem.

Edit: I updated the link to go directly to the statistic I was talking about.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:


...legislation rewarding businesses that accept affirmative action. ... Not all of it is good to campaign on exclusively, but all of it is worth fighting for.

Earlier in the thread i proposed most of that as the prong i want to move, but for some reason it's not eliminating racism and not social justice, so its a no go.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Or the implication that refugees from Syria practically waltz in to the U.S. It was already taking 18-24 months of rigorous thorough vetting. But the Dems practically let Trump have that talking point without a fight.

Can't win hearts and minds to your candidates if you don't fight hard to control, or at least shape, the narrative.

Oh yes. The total unwillingness of Democrats (or our worthless 'news' media) to call rightwingers on their 'alternative facts' is one of our biggest problems. (And not just a political problem, a BASIC SANITY problem at this point.)
There's no point in doing so. The base that supports Trump proved time and time again that they won't listen to "facts" coming from sources they despise. Which is everyone save Trump, BriteBart, and FOXX.

Yes, but they're not the majority. They're not even the majority of Republican voters, I'd guess.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Samy wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Let me state it outright. Your hypothetical white dude, unexpectedly unemployed and with 3 kids, has it f!cking hard. But you can't credibly tell me that your hypothetical dad wouldn't most likely have a harder time turning his circumstances around if he was also a black man.

Of course he would have it harder if he was black too. But if you want his vote, you need to tell him that you're going to make his lot better, not that "hey buddy, you're privileged so nevermind you, I'm gonna help this trans lesbian Muslim disabled person over here."

You need to know what to say to each demographic to appeal to them. Nobody wants to hear "you don't matter compared to these worse-off guys". They want to hear that you want to do something to help them. If you don't, then you don't get their vote.

When precisely did a candidate say something like that last year?

It feels like this conversation is more about Republican perception of Democrats, than actually about Democrats.

Absence of conversation carries a de facto meaning as well. Essentially *not* talking about the economic, social, health, and emotional realities/concerns of people leads them to (rightly or not) believe that the topics you *are* talking about are more important to you AND represent your priorities.

Reread the question. Please address the question.

I don't care about your theory of what the problem is, unless you can SHOW me the problem.

For example, here's an article that does a break down of key words in Clinton's speeches.

Huh, interesting that when I read that article, it seems to say the opposite of what you're saying. That's so weird. Perhaps you have something you can refute that with? Other than just your opinion that is.

...

I know you can't see it, because you said it and so in your mind it all flows and makes sense, but from my perspective, you just got confronted with evidence that proved your previous point wrong, so you adopted my point and told it back to me like you're revealing something to me.

You said she didn't talk about those issues. I challenged that, with proof she did talk about them, and that it was a perception problem. You then come back at me with it being a perception problem.

Do you need me to say the next part so you know what it is?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem started when you thought that my reply to you meant that I disagreed with you.

The difference coming in that I think the democrats are responsible for the way they are perceived (vs being the republicans fault for perceiving them "wrongly") and I'm not sure that you or thejeff think that is the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

96.58% white over here and while we don't have lead in our water, it is contaminated with a chemical called PFOA from the plastics factory.

I have only gotten up to here in the thread, but I can't help but again repeat my observation that it sure is ironic that "white skin privilege," a term invented by American Maoists in the sixties, didn't really catch until that privilege was worth less than it ever has.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Well sure, if you think that's the actual plan then the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and probably working with them to run the con and all of politics is just a waste of time and we might as well just start blowing things up.

This is the conversation I keep having with the kids. They're all in love with Black Block and Antifa, and me and Mr. Comrade are all like, "you know what Lenin used to say about the left-wing terrorists? That they were 'enraged liberals', lacking the understanding or patience to organize the masses, so they just go try and shoot the tsar, or trash a Starbucks. Substitutionist liberal nonsense. Now, go sell the paper!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
We know that, barring impeachment, Trump will be running in 2020.
Do you think? My guess would be he'll run if he thinks he can win and if he thinks he can't win he'll sail off into the sunset declaring that he's fixed everything and didn't even need the second term (which he would have won easily, of course).

What specific action has he taken that leads you to believe that he backs down in the face of public scrutiny?

He doesn't back down. He doubles down.

In however many years, he'll be on his death bed, telling us "Two more weeks, give me two more weeks and I'll build the wall. And Mexico will pay for it and it will be amazing, just absolutely tremendous. Best wall you've ever seen. Just like our brave men and women fighting ISIS, with the plan I came up with after my generals told me their plan, because my son Barron can do amazing things on the cyber that you wouldn't believe. Gyna."

Trump might not make it to 2020 due to age and his ruthlessly supressed health records. I suspect that he will leave by then and retire.

It is Pence and Bannon who are the real scary ones. Pence is a Dominist,

Wikimagic:

Dominion Theology is a group of Christian political ideologies that seek to institute a nation governed by Christians based on Christian understandings of biblical law. Extents of rule and ways of achieving governing authority are varied. For example, Dominion Theology can include theonomy, but does not necessarily involve advocating Mosaic law as the basis of government. The label is applied primarily toward groups of Protestants in the United States.

Prominent adherents of these ideologies are otherwise theologically diverse, including Calvinist Christian Reconstructionism, Charismatic/Pentecostal Kingdom Now theology, New Apostolic Reformation and others. Most of the contemporary movements labeled Dominion Theology arose in the 1970s from religious movements reasserting aspects of Christian nationalism.

Some have applied the term "Dominionist" more broadly to the whole Christian right. This usage is controversial. There are concerns from members of these communities that this is a label being used to marginalize Christians from public discussions.

Depending on how much a believer he really is, he wants his Christian nation and then kick off bringing Christ to earth by sacrificing the Jews in a blood sacrifice. His more recent atrocities include Conversion Therapy support where prayer and electroshock is used on GLBT people to try to make them straight.

Bannon is a nazi.

Both of them actually have a real clue on how to do things so they have to be watched even more closely.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Sharoth wrote:
Ok. So that means that all states that voted for Trump get to do what they want to do? Really? Did you think for a few minutes before writing that? Please.

I guess you missed the part about my suggestion being what should happen when the Democrats are in power? So... nothing to do with the current situtation.

Basically, I am saying that Democrats should stop 'bailing out' GOP voters. All they get as a result is the blame when GOP policies make things worse and Dem policies don't immediately fix everything.

The GWB admin wrecked the economy... and the health care industry. Under Obama, both improved steadily. Yet Republicans were still able to convince their voters that it was Dem policies causing the problems. We need to take that lie away from them. Let states that vote Republican continue to live under GOP economic and health care plans through both GOP and Dem control of the government. Give them what they want and they will either learn better or eventually die off from their own self-inflicted wounds. Personally, I think it would result in the Republican party either radically changing their policies for the better or ceasing to exist within a few election cycles.

Meanwhile, states that vote Dem could move forward unimpeded by trying to keep the GOP states afloat. In exchange for allowing GOP states to destroy themselves with Republican policies the other states get real progress... single payer instead of just Obamacare, livable minimum wage rates, et cetera. It would be better for states voting Dem in the short term, and better for everyone in the long term.

Republicans always lose votes when they make a mess of things (e.g. Bush 1 & 2)... they are only able to win when Dems have started to make conditions better again (e.g. Clinton & Obama). That's perverse and needs to stop. We can't keep voting in Republicans and wrecking the country all over again every time the Democrats manage to stem the bleeding.

After thinking about this I kind of like it. let each state choose what practices work (or don't work) for them. they can take it or leave it.


Also I think trump won because people thought he didn't have a chance and didn't bother to come out and vote in the areas that mattered. that and I think it is time to get rid of the delegate system. might inspire more people to come out and vote. I voted I live in a red State i feel I could of stayed and home and in fact i could of stayed home and nothing would of changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

An article about Obama voters who went for Trump and the reasons they did

Pro Trump America


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
After thinking about this I kind of like it. let each state choose what practices work (or don't work) for them. they can take it or leave it.

Because then it's a race to the bottom for companies to move or organize into the worst states: do you think most fortune 500 corporations are in a po box in delaware for the view?

Also state governments aren't necessarily any more representative of the people there than the federal government is. If anything they're cheaper to buy.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

I guess you missed the part about my suggestion being what should happen when the Democrats are in power? So... nothing to do with the current situtation.

Basically, I am saying that Democrats should stop 'bailing out' GOP voters. All they get as a result is the blame when GOP policies make things worse and Dem policies don't immediately fix everything.

The GWB admin wrecked the economy... and the health care industry. Under Obama, both improved steadily. Yet Republicans were still able to convince their voters that it was Dem policies causing the problems. We need to take that lie away from them. Let states that vote Republican continue to live under GOP economic and health care plans through both GOP and Dem control of the government. Give them what they want and they will either learn better or eventually die off from their own self-inflicted wounds. Personally, I think it would result in the Republican party either radically changing their policies for the better or ceasing to exist within a few election cycles.

Meanwhile, states that vote Dem could move forward unimpeded by trying to keep the GOP states afloat. In exchange for allowing GOP states to destroy themselves with Republican policies the other states get real progress... single payer instead of just Obamacare, livable minimum wage rates, et cetera. It would be better for states voting Dem in the short term, and better for everyone in the long term.

Republicans always lose votes when they make a mess of things (e.g. Bush 1 & 2)... they are only able to win when Dems have started to make conditions better again (e.g. Clinton & Obama). That's perverse and needs to stop. We can't keep voting in Republicans and wrecking the country all over again every time the Democrats manage to stem thebleeding.

After thinking about this I kind of like it. let each state choose what practices work (or don't work) for them. they can take it or leave it.

I don't know. Kinda sounds like when Clinton turned federal AFDC into state-run TANF to me.


eh fair Corporations are like the nobility in ancient times controlling peoples lifes with the sole goal of getting rich on the back of its workers. Uh oh better watch it they might find the post and fire me for questioning them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CrystalSeas wrote:

An article about Obama voters who went for Trump and the reasons they did

Pro Trump America

Complementary article from back in November about black residents of Milwaukee who didn't vote for Hillary.

Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Also state governments aren't necessarily any more representative of the people there than the federal government is. If anything they're cheaper to buy.

See, for example, ALEC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Well sure, if you think that's the actual plan then the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans and probably working with them to run the con and all of politics is just a waste of time and we might as well just start blowing things up.

This is the conversation I keep having with the kids. They're all in love with Black Block and Antifa, and me and Mr. Comrade are all like, "you know what Lenin used to say about the left-wing terrorists? That they were 'enraged liberals', lacking the understanding or patience to organize the masses, so they just go try and shoot the tsar, or trash a Starbucks. Substitutionist liberal nonsense. Now, go sell the paper!"

...Wait, Comrade Anklebiter and Doodlebug Anklebiter are different people?

This is what I get for being too lazy to read your thread all these years.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mr. Comrade is my best bud. It's a bromance for the ages.

There used to be a Mrs. Comrade, too, but they got divorced and now she's Ex-Mrs. Comrade and then she joined the Democratic Socialists of America.

Splitter.


Ah, gotcha. And I thought the Captain was tricky to keep track of.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

*now pictures the goblin version of the peoples front of judea scene, with a lot more fire*


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Or the implication that refugees from Syria practically waltz in to the U.S. It was already taking 18-24 months of rigorous thorough vetting. But the Dems practically let Trump have that talking point without a fight.

Can't win hearts and minds to your candidates if you don't fight hard to control, or at least shape, the narrative.

Oh yes. The total unwillingness of Democrats (or our worthless 'news' media) to call rightwingers on their 'alternative facts' is one of our biggest problems. (And not just a political problem, a BASIC SANITY problem at this point.)
There's no point in doing so. The base that supports Trump proved time and time again that they won't listen to "facts" coming from sources they despise. Which is everyone save Trump, BriteBart, and FOXX.

Basically all everyone's social media feed becoming "look at this lie/terrible thing" managed to do was exhaust and annoy everyone not interested in a 24/7 constant state of frustration and anxiety with the occasional hit of dopamine from feeling superior to those idiots over there.

Silver Crusade

Well, I come back to find some of my comments removed because someone thought I was talking about a person that I wasn't talking about, even after I clarified that I wasn't.

Don't really know how I feel about that. But really, I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm just going to leave this here, and I'm done with this thread. Maybe it'll give you a better understanding as to where the Democratic Party is headed if you don't wake up and see what is really going on. Because if you don't, more and more people who would otherwise agree with you will do what I did: leave.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:

Well, I come back to find some of my comments removed because someone thought I was talking about a person that I wasn't talking about, even after I clarified that I wasn't.

Don't really know how I feel about that. But really, I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm just going to leave this here, and I'm done with this thread. Maybe it'll give you a better understanding as to where the Democratic Party is headed if you don't wake up and see what is really going on. Because if you don't, more and more people who would otherwise agree with you will do what I did: leave.

The thing about that is the same behavior is seen on both sides in fact the video itself is grouping all progressives into a single box itself which is what its warning aginst.

Heck I am a white male christian and I don't feel i'm targeted by others as evil. also I don't remember this that well but did the government force that baker to make the gay couple a cake? I don't remember that.
What with the nun example is that made up or actually from something?

Silver Crusade

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Blayde MacRonan wrote:

Well, I come back to find some of my comments removed because someone thought I was talking about a person that I wasn't talking about, even after I clarified that I wasn't.

Don't really know how I feel about that. But really, I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm just going to leave this here, and I'm done with this thread. Maybe it'll give you a better understanding as to where the Democratic Party is headed if you don't wake up and see what is really going on. Because if you don't, more and more people who would otherwise agree with you will do what I did: leave.

The thing about that is the same behavior is seen on both sides in fact the video itself is grouping all progressives into a single box itself which is what its warning aginst.

Heck I am a white male christian and I don't feel i'm targeted by others as evil. also I don't remember this that well but did the government force that baker to make the gay couple a cake? I don't remember that.
What with the nun example is that made up or actually from something?

I wasn't coming back to this, but here I am anyway....

I've never denied that the problem exists on both sides. I've even said as much in previous posts. Not all on the left act in that way, but they are becoming a shrinking minority in the left because they are slowly realizing that the ideals they share aren't necessarily the same as the more outspoken majority. Especially those that just want to see the world burn. And so they do what I did... leave.

If you don't feel threatened yet, good on you. As a conservative black Mormon man, I can only say this to you: just wait and see how that changes over the course of this year.

The Little Sisters of the Poor had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, who unanimously ruled in their favor, to overturn lower court decisions to make them act against their religious beliefs when it shouldn't have been a thing in the first place.

Sovereign Court

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
CrystalSeas wrote:

An article about Obama voters who went for Trump and the reasons they did

Pro Trump America

Complementary article from back in November about black residents of Milwaukee who didn't vote for Hillary.

Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It

Clinton's elitism was hard to choke down these good folks were not the only ones who had to pinch their nose to vote for her if they even bothered to vote. I don't blame them.

However,"As for Mrs. Clinton, “other countries probably wouldn’t have respected us because we had a woman running the country,” he said."
yessiree no sexiam in this race juts lefties makin good ol trump look bad for no good reason.....


pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?

It's the other way around, Does a location that small with that limited a population speak for America at large?


thejeff wrote:
Kullen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I agree that Democrats haven't been great on the economic front in the last decades, though I don't think it's as bad as you do. They've still vastly outperformed Republicans.

That's like the Son of Sam saying, "well, I didn't kill nearly as many people as Ted Bundy!"

When enough people get desperate enough, "not as bad" still isn't good enough. At least Bernie, as crazy and unelectable an old coot as any we've recently seen, understood this much. Trump got it -- we know he won't fix it in reality (and will in fact make it a lot worse), but at least addressing it head-on was enough to get him elected.
Bull. If it's as screwed up as you claim, then even Bernie's just part of the con.

He DOES caucus with the Democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's telling you that when you tell a white guy with 3 kids that just lost his job and he's going to be homeless with his kids in CPS that he's "privileged" to be white and male you are catapulting him into the republican polls.

Has anyone in this thread said poor white people don't have very difficult lives? Has anyone said that working class white people are doing hunky dory? No.

maybe not. But professionally speaking it can be damn hard for them to get the help they need. That does turn it into a competition of a left handed sort. It frustrates me a great deal that I have no answers there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
pres man wrote:
What does the idea of "white privilege" mean in regards to someone living in a small town that has a population that is 100% white? In that setting they have no structural advantage over anyone else in the town based on their "whiteness" (of course there are all kinds of other privileges that different people benefit from at different times).

Well for one, that town isn't likely to have lead in the water.

It also isn't likely to have Mount Fuji nearby either. You are comparing other locations to this location. I am saying within the context of this particular location, does this idea of "white privilege" have any meaning?
Well, since you just invented that use for the term white priviledge, you tell me. That isn't what the term traditionally describes though.

Here's what defines white privilege, recently in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, which is about as whitebread a small town you can get, me, my spouse, and a part black friend of mine were walking to the train station. My part black friend was the one who got stopped by the local police, and his ID ran through the circuit.

That's the demonstration of white privilege.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It's telling you that when you tell a white guy with 3 kids that just lost his job and he's going to be homeless with his kids in CPS that he's "privileged" to be white and male you are catapulting him into the republican polls.

Has anyone in this thread said poor white people don't have very difficult lives? Has anyone said that working class white people are doing hunky dory? No.

maybe not. But professionally speaking it can be damn hard for them to get the help they need. That does turn it into a competition of a left handed sort. It frustrates me a great deal that I have no answers there.

That's always been the strategy since colonial days, turn poor whites and negroes against each other, by giving poor whites slightly higher social standing than negro slaves.

701 to 750 of 4,260 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards