Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

1,101 to 1,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>

Hey-o, quick question, I just saw some comrades duking it out over on Facebook on that fake future Native American map meme going around.

Imaginary Borders

One commie nerd thought it was a map from Shadowrun. Anyone know?

(Never mind, article answers the question. No rpg connection, alas, just alternate historical fiction.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

shadowrun map

They're not that far off, but then again neither would most vaugely defined regions be, because there's a reason the native Americans formed into nations they way they did (geography)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good article in The Intercept.

Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention

"..., one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth."


Fergie wrote:

Good article in The Intercept.

Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention

Oh, thanks. I saw an Observer article on that, but didn't want to link it because it was from the Observer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that you can't long term succeed tell people that you are fighting for workers and then turn to the majority of those workers (by demographics) and say, "Oh yeah, you all are a bunch of sexist racist transphobic homophobic islamphobic ... bigots. Can we please have your vote." This is what is turning off the white working class, often unionized, voters. They say, "I have never personally done any of those things." To which they are told that they are part of the institutionalized oppression and have internalized the bigotry (PC version of Original Sin).

I always find it strange when Democrats attack the police, a group that is vital to government operations, protecting the helpless, and a highly unionized organization.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
I always find it strange when Democrats attack the police, a group that is vital to government operations, protecting the helpless, and a highly unionized organization.

Do you mean democratic voters? I've never heard any elected politician criticize the police at all. In fact they usually bend over backward to shield police abuses. For example, Rahm Emanuel covered up a murder by his police force, and DeBlasio praised the great NYPD handing of protest. (NYC set records for settlement payments after police abuses at many major demonstration events). With the exception of a few "fringe radicals" (myself occasionally included) I hear only condemnation of bad cops, not police in general.


Fergie wrote:
pres man wrote:
I always find it strange when Democrats attack the police, a group that is vital to government operations, protecting the helpless, and a highly unionized organization.
Do you mean democratic voters? I've never heard any elected politician criticize the police at all. In fact they usually bend over backward to shield police abuses. For example, Rahm Emanuel covered up a murder by his police force, and DeBlasio praised the was NYPD have handled protest so well (NYC set records for settlement payments after police abuses at major demonstration events). With the exception of a few "fringe radicals" (myself occasionally included) I never hear anything but condemnation of bad cops, not police in general.

Congressional Black Caucus reference "Hands up, don't shoot" on House floor

The hands up don't shoot narrative has largely been debunked by physical evidence and reliable eye-witnesses to the incident.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
The hands up don't shoot narrative has largely been debunked by physical evidence and reliable eye-witnesses to the incident.

That is a highly debatable and speculative position. I don't think it is a good idea to open that topic up in this thread (I started at least one of the threads on that subject that got very locked). The important point is that minorities, who don't pose a threat, are killed by law enforcement at an alarming rate. That is a serious problem that need to be addressed. Acknowledging that problem is not an attack on the police, but rather seeking to improve the police.


BigDTBone wrote:

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:


The hands up don't shoot narrative has largely been debunked by physical evidence and reliable eye-witnesses to the incident.

lying on the ground, hands in the air, in a parody of a black guy going out of his way not to have the police shoot him.

He's not event the suspect

Still shot by police.

Scarab Sages

Unbelievable...a Satire magazine could not make that up. *Facepalm*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
feytharn wrote:
Unbelievable...a Satire magazine could not make that up. *Facepalm*

"Black Man lies down on ground, raises hands, shot by police" does sound like an Onion article.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The important point is that minorities, who don't pose a threat, are killed by law enforcement at an alarming rate. That is a serious problem that need to be addressed. Acknowledging that problem is not an attack on the police, but rather seeking to improve the police.

But it is seen as an attack on the police, by many of those same white working class voters you think can be won over with economic policy. Because they've never had troubles with the police and don't see that minorities are treated differently.

This is what I've been saying all along, from the other angle. It's not that "Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition", it's that far too much of the electorate doesn't want to move on Civil Rights, whether that's because they're actually prejudiced themselves or more often because they don't actually recognize the institutional prejudice and thus see any further steps as "special treatment".

Similarly, with foreign policy. People don't see the choice as between corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, because they don't recognize what we've been doing as corporate wars. They may sour on long wars, but still favor a strong military and "stopping the bad guys who want to hurt us".

Scarab Sages

Gaekub wrote:
feytharn wrote:
Unbelievable...a Satire magazine could not make that up. *Facepalm*
"Black Man lies down on ground, raises hands, shot by police" does sound like an Onion article.

Black man who isn't even a suspect for anything lies on the ground, raises hands and gets shot by a policeman whu sais he doesn't know why he has shot" does sound too much, even for Onion...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

This is what I've been saying all along, from the other angle. It's not that "Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition", it's that far too much of the electorate doesn't want to move on Civil Rights, whether that's because they're actually prejudiced themselves or more often because they don't actually recognize the institutional prejudice and thus see any further steps as "special treatment".

Similarly, with foreign policy. People don't see the choice as between corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, because they don't recognize what we've been doing as corporate wars. They may sour on long wars, but still favor a strong military and "stopping the bad guys who want to hurt us".

The same voters who elected a black guy with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" when he was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and bring back coal jobs? Are you not seeing how to reach those voters? Am I being gaslighted, and not realizing it?

As for foreign policy, again, the people vote for the candidate who can realistically claim to be against Free Trade. Free Trade is VERY UNPOPULAR! Al-NAFTA-Gore had no credibility and lost to Dubyah. Clinton had no credibility and lost to Trump. All you need to do is talk about bringing good jobs back to America. It really is that simple.

As for the military, of course you have a strong military. We could cut our budget in half, and still have a stronger military then everyone else in the world. Right now the main "enemy" that people care about is ISIS and to a lesser extent Al Qaeda. Both groups are militarily insignificant in a historical context, and best handled through international coalitions and small operations. For example, if we are to take the previous administration at their word, then Bin Laden could have been killed without either of the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. While talking like a big ole tough guy is an American tradition, the only thing less popular then looking weak is soldiers getting killed in pointless was. Right now we are bombing the crap out of many different countries that most people barely even know about.

How many votes did Iraq get the democrats, for example?
How about Libya? Was that a vote-getter?
How about our shenanigans in the Ukraine?
How did being an Ultra Hawkish, Super Arms dealer work out for Clinton?


Fergie wrote:


The same voters who elected a black guy with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" when he was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and bring back coal jobs?

So.. lie?


Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.

Actually, my original claim in September was that we should consider the possibility that there is a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

I never said wood chippers don't work, I said they were being used poorly in this case.

As for anti-vaxxers, There is a notable exception that I made a claim based on my own observation about the past which then proved to be correct in the future. Anti-vaxxers don't have evidence to demonstrate their claims. I do.

You are the one without evidence to the contrary. You are the one having difficulty coming to terms with reality. It sounds like you are actually the anti-vaxxer.

As soon as you are ready to strike an actual claim based of evidence rather than, "LALALA DONT BELIEVE YOU LALALALA," I have a significant amount of substantiating data and a one-way ANOVA to show you. But until then I am happy to stay with, "I don't have to know why a thing is to know that a thing is."

Edit: since no one else seems interested in this topic; if you want to continue, let's take it to PM.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fergie wrote:


The same voters who elected a black guy with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" when he was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and bring back coal jobs?

So.. lie?

I believe that was the advice of the Liberal Redneck, a comedian that I wouldn't pay much attention, but all the gay male comrades like sharing his shirtless porch rants. This one, alas, isn't shirtless.

Reaching Rural America


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Fergie wrote:


The same voters who elected a black guy with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" when he was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and bring back coal jobs?
So.. lie?

That historically will win you an election, but it usually only works for a short time. That is why either political party usually gets hammed in mid-term elections. In Obama's case, he talked a big and vague game, then appointed guys like Timothy Geithner. He also went back on most of the surveillance state stuff, and a host of other issues. Had Romney not been the poster boy for vulture capitalism, Obama might have been in real trouble.

Hillary lied like a rug, in fact, it was her main campaign focus, but because Bill had used that lie as the central focus of his presidency, and AL Gore had been a real smug a!@%%&$ about it for years after, well, that is what brought us to Trump. And guess what, Trump lied, got elected, and is going to get hammered when he does the same stuff to benefit the ultra rich that Hillary was going to do.


Fergie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

This is what I've been saying all along, from the other angle. It's not that "Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition", it's that far too much of the electorate doesn't want to move on Civil Rights, whether that's because they're actually prejudiced themselves or more often because they don't actually recognize the institutional prejudice and thus see any further steps as "special treatment".

Similarly, with foreign policy. People don't see the choice as between corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, because they don't recognize what we've been doing as corporate wars. They may sour on long wars, but still favor a strong military and "stopping the bad guys who want to hurt us".

The same voters who elected a black guy with the name "Barack Hussein Obama" when he was promising to renegotiate NAFTA and bring back coal jobs? Are you not seeing how to reach those voters? Am I being gaslighted, and not realizing it?

No, I swear I'm not gaslighting you.

We're talking past each other somehow or our viewpoints are just far enough apart.

As I understand you, you think the Democrat's policies (and the liberal reputation in general) on civil rights (lumping in race/gender/orientation/etc) aren't a political problem and don't cost them any significant votes. That all they need to do is break with corporations and Free Trade and take an anti-war stance and they'll be able to sweep back into power - even before the actual benefits from this approach pay off, as long as they're credible enough to be believed.

Meanwhile, we've got pres man talking about Democrat's attacking police and others complaining about political correctness/safe spaces/free speech on campuses, but you see that as essentially irrelevant politically, right?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The "War on Police" is just made up b+!~#+@~ like the "War on Christmas". It is propaganda pushed by the likes of Fox news to create a fantasy world that justifies abuse of the most vulnerable members of society, while the wealthy and powerful flaunt the law with impunity.

With that said, I would not expect a political candidate to use the language of the far left intellectuals. My lest several posts are not about how to sell this stuff, but rather what the underlying fundamentals need to be.

The Democrats have been pushing policy that is bad for the vast majority of Americans for decades, and still wining things like the popular vote by lying. Imagine how well they would do if they used the same level of salesmanship to actually do things people wanted?

Again, Trump had an almost 60%!!! disapproval rating, and beat BOTH political parties with economic populism. Imagine how well someone could do who wasn't a walking pile of burning garbage!

EDIT:

thejeff wrote:
As I understand you, you think the Democrat's policies (and the liberal reputation in general) on civil rights (lumping in race/gender/orientation/etc) aren't a political problem and don't cost them any significant votes.

I don't think the Democratic Party has a credible liberal reputation. They have an elitist reputation with some leftist elements. Their reputation is pampered, wealthy, out-of-touch, over-educated and over-privileged jerks who are hypocritical and heap scorn on the under classes, while ignoring their own faults. They use minorities and workers to get votes, then throwing them under the bus when they need to score political points and appease wealthy donors.

That is the Democrats reputation among much of America, and it is well deserved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

The "War on Police" is just made up b*~++&%# like the "War on Christmas". It is propaganda pushed by the likes of Fox news to create a fantasy world that justifies abuse of the most vulnerable members of society.

With that said, I would not expect a political candidate to use the language of the far left intellectuals. My lest several posts are not about how to sell this stuff, but rather what the underlying fundamentals need to be.

The Democrats have been pushing policy that is bad for the vast majority of Americans for decades, and still wining things like the popular vote by lying. Imagine how well they would do if they used the same level of salesmanship to actually do things people wanted?

Again, Trump had an almost 60%!!! disapproval rating, and beat BOTH political parties with economic populism. Imagine how well someone could do who wasn't a walking pile of burning garbage!

Of course it's made up b+~&#@%$. It's made up b#!~*++% that works! That's the problem. That's what you're ignoring. All the "Blue Lives Matter" and similar themes are actually a problem.

And that it was economic populism that beat BOTH political parties, rather than white identity politics or some toxic combination of the two is what we're discussing here. I think he actually got a good deal of support because he was a walking pile of burning garbage.


BigDTBone wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:

Or on a more interesting front; present some evidence that I am wrong. If observation isn't substantial enough, then make your case.

I think you have overlooked a very important aspect of this conversation. I haven't offered a solution. That is why I don't need to know why. If I had told you how I propose to fix the bias then I would need to know intricate information about the bias. I have only asserted that there was a bias.

To give a common (real, non-wood-chipper) example: Gregor Mendel didn't have to understand why heritable traits transferred from one generation of pea plant to the next in order to observe it, predict it, or manipulate it. Knowing why something is is simply not a prerequisite to knowing that something is.

I don't have to present evidence you're wrong. You've presented bad data, made assumptions based that bad data, then when confronted with the fact that you didn't have good data, claimed you were right all along anyways. I've already identified that your methodology at arriving at conclusions is sloppy and inaccurate. If your method of seeking answers provides a correct one, it is through luck or reliance on parroting things you've heard with no understanding.

To use your analogy, you don't actually know that the thing is a wood chipper. You've heard about wood chippers and think this might be one based on the vague description, but there's a chance it's a paper shredder too. You're also asserting that because you shouldn't put your hand in it, that the machine should be avoided at all costs and everyone should consider it useless. You're asserting that because there is a chance of danger, it is impossible for it to be useful.

In this instance, you are not Gregor Mendel. You are an anti-vaxxer.

Actually, my original claim in September was that we should consider the possibility that there is a polling bias in favor of Clinton.

I never said wood chippers don't work, I said they were being used poorly in...

Right now, my only claim is that you're bad at using data, and when caught using bad data, you get smug about it.

Go back and read my posts the past couple pages. You'll note I haven't actually agreed or disagreed with your point once. I've merely noted that your method of arriving at that conclusion has been b~%***$$.


Fergie wrote:


EDIT:
thejeff wrote:
As I understand you, you think the Democrat's policies (and the liberal reputation in general) on civil rights (lumping in race/gender/orientation/etc) aren't a political problem and don't cost them any significant votes.

I don't think the Democratic Party has a credible liberal reputation. They have an elitist reputation with some leftist elements. Their reputation is pampered, wealthy, out-of-touch, over-educated and over-privileged jerks who are hypocritical and heap scorn on the under classes, while ignoring their own faults. They use minorities and workers to get votes, then throwing them under the bus when they need to score political points and appease wealthy donors.

That is the Democrats reputation among much of America, and it is well deserved.

"Reputation" isn't what I meant to say there. Or at least not in that context. Not the "reputation of the Democratic party as liberals", but more to include other left or liberal groups in with it, since they affect the general views of Democrats and liberals. Whether it's BLM, various gay & trans rights groups or even the student protesters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

Of course it's made up b#!$@~*&. It's made up b$~+##&! that works! That's the problem. That's what you're ignoring. All the "Blue Lives Matter" and similar themes are actually a problem.

And that it was economic populism that beat BOTH political parties, rather than white identity politics or some toxic combination of the two is what we're discussing here. I think he actually got a good deal of support because he was a walking pile of burning garbage.

If that is so popular, why did Trump have a 60% disapproval rating? Which republican was NOT a "Blue Lives Matter" guy? If that was a winning strategy, why isn't Rudi Ghoulani a winner? (oh god, sooo many reasons!) David Duke? Why did Barack Obama win handily against this powerful movement? Also, was Hillary not a Blue Lives Matter candidate? The Clinton's spent decades pushing a hard core, pro incarceration agenda that most Republicans could only dream of.

There was a clown car of walking garbage wing-nuts who all got beaten shamefully by the one guy preaching economic populism*.

*OK, there was one other guy, and it took huge amounts of money and cheating so bad the chair of the DNC resigned in disgrace to keep him out of the picture. How much do economic populists have to succeed against all odds before party types stop considering them a liability?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the main thing that economic populists have against them is that both parties - that is, the real elected players in both parties - are funded by the ultra-wealthy, who are not willing to let emerge economic populist leaders.

I'm a little unclear as to why grassroots Democrats don't try to forge a new party on a populist economic mandate ? Maybe some Democrats could enlighten me (it's not sarcasm, I'm really curious to know the answer(s) to that one).


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.

That's probably a fair assessment. Obviously Democrats should ditch both.

Become a labor/socialist party that never ever talks about racism or sexism or any kind of prejudice. That'll guarantee they sweep every state.

Add in some pacifism too, because everyone knows the US only uses the military for corporate ends. That'll get more votes.

that.. Would be interesting. Hm.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Fergie wrote:


If that is so popular, why did Trump have a 60% disapproval rating? Which republican was NOT a "Blue Lives Matter" guy? If that was a winning strategy, why isn't Rudi Ghoulani a winner? (oh god, sooo many reasons!) David Duke? Why did Barack Obama win handily against this powerful movement? Also, was Hillary not a Blue Lives Matter candidate? The Clinton's spent decades pushing a hard core, pro incarceration agenda that most Republicans could only dream of.

There was a clown car of walking garbage wing-nuts who all got beaten shamefully by the one guy preaching economic populism*.

*OK, there was one other guy, and it took huge amounts of money and cheating so bad the chair of the DNC resigned in disgrace to keep him out of the picture. How much do economic populists have to succeed against all odds before party types stop considering them a liability?

The elections seems a million years ago, but at least recent polls suggest that for the most part Republican voters and allied groups still support the president. Democrat voters hate him. There seems to be a real pattern where polls performed by live people underestimate Trump support, because some fraction of the populace likes what he is doing but feel too embarrassed to admit it to a live person (versus an automated poll)

Anyway...there were a lot of reasons Trump did well. Better outreach in rural/rustbelt areas and promising to bring back jobs was definitely part of it. I don't think it was the only.

I agree with you that a strong economic message is vital for the democratic party. But its going to have to be pretty amazing right now to shake the baggage the democrats have accrued over the last 8 years in some folks minds.


Fergie wrote:

If the Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition, the best thing would be for them to collapse ASAP.

Same with foreign policy. If the choice is corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, the party needs to die a quick, unmourned death.

Agreed. Either-or is a recipe for disaster.

The Democratic Party needs to seriously fight for an economic message, and it needs to do real work reaching out to rural voters and showing them that the interests of the minority are their own interests—that all everyone wants is a level playing field. Yeah, you won't win the right-wing and the fiscal moderates, but we tried reaching out to them last year and look how that worked out.

Sell the message the people want to hear, of course. Go to Ohio and push solidarity and trade reform. Go to Texas and push economic populism. Go to Eastern Oregon and push environmentalism and support for the rural clinics that'll get shut down if the ACA gets repealed. We need to win in 2018.


Quiche Lisp wrote:

I think the main thing that economic populists have against them is that both parties - that is, the real elected players in both parties - are funded by the ultra-wealthy, who are not willing to let emerge economic populist leaders.

I'm a little unclear as to why grassroots Democrats don't try to forge a new party on a populist economic mandate ? Maybe some Democrats could enlighten me (it's not sarcasm, I'm really curious to know the answer(s) to that one).

Because third parties don't work in the US system.

Because grassroots Democrats are Democrats.
Because perhaps economic populism isn't quite the sure winner some here think it is.

Honestly, I think a grassroots takeover of the Democratic party would be far more likely to work. Such an attempt could be co-opted, but so could any third party. Essentially what the Tea Party did to the Republicans, but with less crazy* and less corporate funding and media support. Hmmm, maybe I see a problem.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It kind of amuses me to have the discussion here keep switching back and forth between "It's the corporatism" and "It's the political correctness", with both those groups basically arguing with the same people and ignoring each other.
Corporatism drives out the far left and political corectness draws out the right of the party/middle of the country.

That's probably a fair assessment. Obviously Democrats should ditch both.

Become a labor/socialist party that never ever talks about racism or sexism or any kind of prejudice. That'll guarantee they sweep every state.

Add in some pacifism too, because everyone knows the US only uses the military for corporate ends. That'll get more votes.

that.. Would be interesting. Hm.

That would be complete and total political disaster, IMNSHO.


MMCJawa wrote:
I agree with you that a strong economic message is vital for the democratic party. But its going to have to be pretty amazing right now to shake the baggage the democrats have accrued over the last 8 years in some folks minds.

I don't know. The Republican party was able to shake an awful lot of baggage between 2008 and their upset in 2010.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

shadowrun map

They're not that far off, but then again neither would most vaugely defined regions be, because there's a reason the native Americans formed into nations they way they did (geography)

SHADOWRUN WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Quiche Lisp wrote:

I think the main thing that economic populists have against them is that both parties - that is, the real elected players in both parties - are funded by the ultra-wealthy, who are not willing to let emerge economic populist leaders.

I'm a little unclear as to why grassroots Democrats don't try to forge a new party on a populist economic mandate ? Maybe some Democrats could enlighten me (it's not sarcasm, I'm really curious to know the answer(s) to that one).

I guess the biggest obstacle going forward will be getting that unwieldy coalition of protesting voices to collate around a economic message. There is a lot of popular anger on the left, but it's not really focused on the economy at all, mostly healthcare, immigration, antiscience, BLM, etc. (at least from what I have seen).

So I mean if this becomes the nucleus of a future "Green Tea Party movement*", it might have trouble extending the influence of the Democratic party past the suburbs and cities of Blue and Purple states. I think you will need a major healthcare or economic disaster (NOT IMPOSSIBLE) for it to start attracting folks in rural areas.

The Tea Party basically pulled the republicans further right, especially in the states they control. The "Green Tea Party" assuming it consolidates will probably pull the Democrats further left. So I really just see this as mostly resulting in our country become even more divisive and partisan, and even more messed up.

*Need some name for the left Tea Party. Will humbly support better/more descriptive labels :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Fergie wrote:

If the Democrats think Fair Economics and Civil Rights are an either/or proposition, the best thing would be for them to collapse ASAP.

Same with foreign policy. If the choice is corporate wars and Free Trade, or total isolation, the party needs to die a quick, unmourned death.

Agreed. Either-or is a recipe for disaster.

The Democratic Party needs to seriously fight for an economic message, and it needs to do real work reaching out to rural voters and showing them that the interests of the minority are their own interests—that all everyone wants is a level playing field. Yeah, you won't win the right-wing and the fiscal moderates, but we tried reaching out to them last year and look how that worked out.

Sell the message the people want to hear, of course. Go to Ohio and push solidarity and trade reform. Go to Texas and push economic populism. Go to Eastern Oregon and push environmentalism. We need to win in 2018.

Possibly surprisingly, I agree.

I just think it's going to be a very hard sell - not just or even mostly because Democrats have a reputation of corporatism - but because they have a (almost entirely false) reputation of taking money from hard working real Americans and giving it to lazy urban welfare cheats.
When you try to convince those rural voters that " the interests of the minority are their own interests—that all everyone wants is a level playing field", you'll get a lot of pushback about how minorities already have a leg up on that supposed level playing field. Many of those who aren't really racist or sexist don't believe in the whole institutionalized racism/sexism argument and thus see anything that tries to help as skewed against them.

And when you try to sell Eastern Oregon with environmentalism, remember it'll be used against you in Ohio & Texas as job-killing regulations.

I'm certainly not saying don't try, but it's not nearly so easy as Fergie's making it sound.


I'm generally more surprised when we disagree, actually, since we almost never clash outside of threads like this. ;P

thejeff wrote:
And when you try to sell Eastern Oregon with environmentalism, remember it'll be used against you in Ohio & Texas as job-killing regulations.

Well, I'm talking in local elections, so what happens in Oregon would not happen in Ohio/Texas, and vice versa. Not that it won't be used to characterize Democrats, but pushback is a lot less effective when the "job-killing regulations" don't actually affect anyone in the states that hate them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So to summarise thus far, Democrats need to:
1) Stop using the language of social justice.
2) Focus on economic issues.
3) Embrace the far left.
4) Give a different message to every region.
5) Lie to coal and manufacturing workers.
6) Support unfettered free speech, even involving ideas that are harmful, blatantly incorrect, or meant to encourage violence/harassment.
7) Completely dump free trade for fair trade.
8) Maybe stop talking about civil rights.
9) Cut all corporate ties and go full socialist.

Sounds pretty doable...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

10) Give KC $50.

I mean, as long as we're listing it all...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

10) Give KC $50.

I mean, as long as we're listing it all...

That's one way to get the money out of politics.

Sovereign Court

Fergie wrote:

Good article in The Intercept.

Tom Perez Apologizes for Telling the Truth, Showing Why Democrats’ Flaws Urgently Need Attention

"..., one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth."

So anybody got more thoughts on this? About dnc chair? Perez? Ellison?


Scythia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

10) Give KC $50.

I mean, as long as we're listing it all...

That's one way to get the money out of politics.

I'd much prefer the Democrats to give bribes to average Joe voters than to take them from corporate overlords.


More Communist Witches

I knew that Ex-Comrade Who Was Published in Jacobin fancied himself as "The Wizard of Monadnock" but I never watched any of it. Now, I have and, I must say, I kind of wish I hadn't.

The Wizard of Monadnock

I asked La Principessa if it was sexist to call him a "witch" and she agreed that it wasn't.


Scythia wrote:

So to summarise thus far, Democrats need to:

1) Stop using the language of social justice.
2) Focus on economic issues.
3) Embrace the far left.
4) Give a different message to every region.
5) Lie to coal and manufacturing workers.
6) Support unfettered free speech, even involving ideas that are harmful, blatantly incorrect, or meant to encourage violence/harassment.
7) Completely dump free trade for fair trade.
8) Maybe stop talking about civil rights.
9) Cut all corporate ties and go full socialist.

Sounds pretty doable...

11) Be swept into the dustbin of history.


Economic justice is a non-starter. It is a meaningless term. If you disagree, I am willing to listen. It means either "everyone gets good money", which a huge number of people will not agree with - economic reward should be given for a reason. Or, it means "Everyone who works and takes responsibility should get good money", which the rest will not agree with on account of lots of people who need the money don't get it. Choose, market that term, and stop weaseling.

As for free trade, what a sad number of Americans (and others) don't realize is that free trade is a win for countries. Of course, that doesn't help those whose jobs get impacted, but ignoring trade would rapidly dump the size of the US economy. Where would that be felt? The cities, or the rural areas that lost those jobs? Yeah. In short, it IS possible to get production jobs back, but it not only necessitates stopping free trade, it also requires even more massive subsidies.

Third, I don't think the democrats have much to worry about. Trump wagered his future on bringing production jobs back. Whether he does or not, the entire situation is going to crash and burn. Two years in, the only thing the Democrats have to say is "Trump".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Economic justice is a non-starter. It is a meaningless term. If you disagree, I am willing to listen. It means either "everyone gets good money", which a huge number of people will not agree with - economic reward should be given for a reason. Or, it means "Everyone who works and takes responsibility should get good money", which the rest will not agree with on account of lots of people who need the money don't get it. Choose, market that term, and stop weaseling.

As for free trade, what a sad number of Americans (and others) don't realize is that free trade is a win for countries. Of course, that doesn't help those whose jobs get impacted, but ignoring trade would rapidly dump the size of the US economy. Where would that be felt? The cities, or the rural areas that lost those jobs? Yeah. In short, it IS possible to get production jobs back, but it not only necessitates stopping free trade, it also requires even more massive subsidies.

Third, I don't think the democrats have much to worry about. Trump wagered his future on bringing production jobs back. Whether he does or not, the entire situation is going to crash and burn. Two years in, the only thing the Democrats have to say is "Trump".

"Free Trade" is a buzzword for a particular type of trade agreement. Ignoring trade would be disastrous. "Free trade" is itself disastrous.


There's also a high likelihood of a new recession within 2 years, nearly guaranteed within 4.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Irontruth wrote:
There's also a high likelihood of a new recession within 2 years, nearly guaranteed within 4.

While the country has never gone more than ten years w/o a recession that doesn't mean it can't. It isn't a magical cycle that just automatically happens... there has to be something which causes it.

For the last two, the dot-com and housing speculation bubbles were easy to see coming. Right now I can't see any comparable problem which is about to blow up.

Which is not to say that we won't have one. The GOP almost seems to go out of its way to have recessions. Other than a brief recession the first six months of 1980 under President Carter, the last ten US recessions (back to 1953) all began under GOP presidents. The only GOP president in that time who didn't start a recession was Ford... he inherited one from Nixon along with the office.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:


For the last two, the dot-com and housing speculation bubbles were easy to see coming. Right now I can't see any comparable problem which is about to blow up.

Student loans that aren't going to get paid back because people can't find jobs.

The housing market, again, because republicans are going to remove the dob frank regulations that prevents it from happening again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's the thing, I do think Trump could enact some stuff that will short-term boost job growth at incredible long-term expense. That is something he is intimately familiar with as displayed in every business he's ever been a part of, cut all those pesky environmental regulations, neuter the EPA (which he's already begun), build a useless boondoggle (the Wall), etc. All of these things could over a short term increase the number of jobs, but the long term impacts will be devastating, and he will not care, it will work just long enough give the republican party the opportunity to change the rules enough so that there exists no legal avenue to undue the damage.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


For the last two, the dot-com and housing speculation bubbles were easy to see coming. Right now I can't see any comparable problem which is about to blow up.

Student loans that aren't going to get paid back because people can't find jobs.

As bad as it is for the students, that is just not big enough to cause a major collapse. The housing bubble was roughly ten times as large. Student loans also have a higher thresh-hold (i.e. 'undue hardship') for default / bankruptcy than most other debts... meaning that instead of being able to get rid of them when you're broke you are usually forced in to a form of indentured servitude... without calling it that. Definitely an issue that needs to be addressed, but not going to send the country into recession any time in the next few decades.

Quote:

The housing market, again, because republicans are going to remove the dob frank regulations that prevents it from happening again.

True, and much bigger than 'just' housing if they do half of what they are saying, but that will take a while to build up.

Basically I am saying that I don't see any time bombs which are currently ticking down towards zero. Yes, the GOP has brought together huge numbers of sticks of dynamite, matches, and pyromaniacs... but as of yet they've mostly just been drooling over the possibilities and talking about the wonderful things they will do.

1,101 to 1,150 of 4,260 << first < prev | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards