Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

2,201 to 2,250 of 4,260 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Vo Giap, Ambassador of Bachuan wrote:

What I saw on the news today suggested that the next likely president of South Korea will be Moon Jae-in, the chief of staff under the previous president at the end of the Sunshine Policy years.

That being said, I'm only posting because the removal of the South Korean president reminds me that it's been a while since I made a witch post.

Choi Soon-sil - Shaman or con artist?

It's kind of a right wing thing in the US to claim to be guided by supernatural powers, most of the candidates in these past primaries claimed god told them to run for president, which can only be embarrassing for god as that many people being wrong about their wishes can only lead some to doubt there's actually any supreme being and, in fact, that it's opportunistic sociopaths exploiting people's beliefs for personal gain. I'll try to avoid saying which side of the debate I fall under.

Or astrologers. Don't forget the astrologers.

But to pretend to take it more seriously for a moment, just because God wants you to run doesn't mean he wants you to win.

To quote Stephen King: “When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”

Sovereign Court

Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
It seems rather pointless to continually bemoan that Bernie was not chosen by Democratic voters, much less to continue to mistakenly blame the DNC. Bernie lost by millions of votes, I know it stings to lose, but hyping up highly inaccurate conspiracy theories is the exact opposite of useful.
I know, all the DNC did was coordinate with the Clinton campaign to smear Sanders, give Clinton debate questions, conduct massive purges of voter registries prior to elections, deliberately misinform independents when they were allowed to vote in open primaries about which ballet to use, helped to spread a narrative about Bernie voters being violent/sexist/uninformed, but to be fair to the DNC they did that in secret. If it hadn't been for the "Russian hackers" none of that would have come to light. We should place our attention on the thing that cost the Democrats the election: Russians!

Just curious, can you link me to credible sources that cite any of this information? Not the e-mails, but the actual activities undertaken by the DNC that have been corroborated.

For example, the only purging of voters in a democratic primary that I can find happened in Brooklyn, where Clinton won pretty handily. It seems unlikely Clinton would have purged voters in a district that supported her strongly, unless there's evidence that they could target voters rolls with laser like precision... which given all the evidence of other polling being off, seems unlikely. Odds are, Clinton lost more voters than Sanders did in the voter roll purge, which seems like a really bad way to cheat in Clinton's favor.

Who do you think is going to corroborate it though? The news media? The only ones interested in that would be Faux or NPR or something and I don't think they've bothered. We know once these emails started surfacing we had Debby Wasserman Schultz step down as head of the DNC and Donna Brazile stepped in to take her place. That's as close to a confirmation that the emails were genuine as I'm sure we're going to get.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:
a lot of that read like junior staffers throwing around ideas, probably getting slapped down in emails (or more formal communications?) we didn't get to see.

This is the most likely scenario but it does give us the appearance of bias, I mean it's clear that most Democratic party insiders didn't like Bernie and were actively plotting against him, and so when you have emails showing campaign strategies, even if it's with junior staffers at the DNC, colluding with the Clinton campaign (and even if those strategies weren't used) it suggests bias and the DNC is supposed to be neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:
a lot of that read like junior staffers throwing around ideas, probably getting slapped down in emails (or more formal communications?) we didn't get to see.
This is the most likely scenario but it does give us the appearance of bias, I mean it's clear that most Democratic party insiders didn't like Bernie and were actively plotting against him, and so when you have emails showing campaign strategies, even if it's with junior staffers at the DNC, colluding with the Clinton campaign (and even if those strategies weren't used) it suggests bias and the DNC is supposed to be neutral.

That "most likely scenario" is a long way from what you described above. Particularly "conduct massive purges of voter registries prior to elections, deliberately misinform independents when they were allowed to vote in open primaries about which ballet to use".

Were these things just suggested or did they actually happen?

I agree that it certainly suggests bias. That was the point of releasing it. From what I understand it's shocking to the naive, but pretty much assumed by those who follow political campaigns. It's a dirty business. It's always been a dirty business. No one involved is actually neutral or pure. Everything here seemed small potatoes to me. Nothing illegal. No serious ratf#$#ing.
Edit: The purges would be more serious, but also counter-productive for the general election. Purging voters likely to support your party is political malpractice. I've also seen little evidence of it.

But you expose one group's sausage making (and probably a slanted version of it at that, with mitigating evidence held back) while leaving everyone else's hidden, that makes a big difference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I also can't imagine why democratic party might be less than excited to elect someone who isn't even a democrat, just someone who caucuses with them, as their presidential candidate.

At any rate, that is over and done. We have no idea how Bernie would have done in the election, and you could make an equal argument he would have done just as poorly as Hillary did in electoral votes. In an alternate timeline moderates would probably be haranguing Sanders folks about some other controversy and the emails wouldn't have been released.

Sovereign Court

2016 is over and done, true, but it still is a good story for folks telling the democratic party what they don't want more of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

I also can't imagine why democratic party might be less than excited to elect someone who isn't even a democrat, just someone who caucuses with them, as their presidential candidate.

At any rate, that is over and done. We have no idea how Bernie would have done in the election, and you could make an equal argument he would have done just as poorly as Hillary did in electoral votes. In an alternate timeline moderates would probably be haranguing Sanders folks about some other controversy and the emails wouldn't have been released.

I am kind of amused by the alternate universe where we're all analysing Sander's loss and arguing about how if we'd only run the centrist we could have captured the moderates turned off by Trump.

Sovereign Court

I was referring to your take on the emails. As for the other things I mention: the New York voter Purge is still under investigation, we know it happened, but we also had voter registration issues across the country, people being switched to independent or even republican mysteriously. Polling stations cut in a number of states as well as other suppression efforts to limit access. In California many who requested a democratic ballot instead received a no-part preference ballot. The was a story about polling officials being instructed to give people provinal ballets in open states or same day registration states unless they knew to ask doe a regular ballot. I mean I could go on, there's lots of stories, albeit from poll workers and there doesn't look like there's going to be any other investigations so no unless we hear something from New York, no official word, and so these claims can't be independently confirmed. There really isn't any desire at this point to look into these things either. The people in power don't seem to want to tip the apple cart. Maybe this level of irregularities are normal in chaotic primaries, and it's only now that I'm hearing about it, but as a neutral outside observer it smacks of meddling and I don't have much faith in the Democratic party at the moment. I very well could be wrong but it feels like the game was rigged. However I'll freely admit that even if it were rigged it may not have been a singular effort orchestrated by the DNC on the national level, it might have been a bunch of state level members organizing against outsiders on their own. Either way though we're still given the impressions of someone putting their thumb on the scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
... We have no idea how Bernie would have done in the election, and you could make an equal argument he would have done just as poorly as Hillary did in electoral votes. ...

We can get an excellent idea how Bernie would have done in a general election against Trump.

General Election: Trump vs. Sanders
Bernie crushes Trump by 10 points.

Just for the record, The polls were dead-on about Trump vs Hillary.

Honestly, all it would have taken was Bernie talking about growing up, his family, and his marriage, and Trump would have looked like a space alien in comparison. The DNC pushed Hillary like they were her personal servants, and they got exactly what they deserved - Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

We can get an excellent idea how Bernie would have done in a general election against Trump.

General Election: Trump vs. Sanders
Bernie crushes Trump by 10 points.

Just for the record, The polls were dead-on about Trump vs Hillary.

Honestly, all it would have taken was Bernie talking about growing up, his family, and his marriage, and Trump would have looked like a space alien in comparison. The DNC pushed Hillary like they were her personal servants, and they got exactly what they deserved - Trump.

Uhm, no. No, we can't.

Because we have no idea what the Republican party would have dredged up to use against Bernie. At best we can ask people what they believe they would have done if nothing else had changed, (which we actually can conclude with 100% certainty would not have been the case). Without a time machine, we can never know what would have happened.

My guess is that Sanders would have lost to Trump just like Clinton did. But that's a guess.


Oh, and as it turns out, we apparently do have some idea what the Republican party would have thrown against Sanders (see point #2, in particular).


It's hilarious to watch someone ridicule other people's belief in God while at the same time worship thier lord and savior Bernie Sanders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

There's every reason to suspect that the same bigots who propped up Trump would've displayed their anti-Semitism had Sanders managed to get the millions more votes he needed to overtake HRC. And that's long before you even get to the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist running against a party that called a center-right black guy "socialist" every chance they got.

Some stories write themselves. Sanders v. Trump is one of them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


To quote Stephen King: “When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, "Why god? Why me?" and the thundering voice of God answered, There's just something about you that pisses me off.”

If only that was true. The actual motivation is even worse. If you actually READ the Book of Job, All that was done onto him because Satan suggested that it'd be a good idea to test him that way. For some reason, God needs to prove to Satan that Job can't be broken and he tells the Adversary to do his worst.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
If only that was true. The actual motivation is even worse. If you actually READ the Book of Job, All that was done onto him because Satan suggested that it'd be a good idea to test him that way. For some reason, God needs to prove to Satan that Job can't be broken and he tells the Adversary to do his worst.

That Old Testament God was a real peach. Just ask Abraham.


If it helps, the Book of Job is not believed to be an actual historical account, but rather a story used to provide teachings on various concepts. That said, I think this is getting a little off-base from the thread topic, so... *Coughs*

I'm actually kind of interested to see if the Democratic Party is going to respond to the maligning of the CBO. I mean, sure, the Republicans can say "Way fewer people got insurance under Obamacare than the CBO predicted, therefore they're not trustworthy", but that's ignoring the fact that Republicans managed to win a Supreme Court case that stopped the expansion of programs in certain states... that is, they significantly changed the situation after the CBO made its analysis, then claimed the CBO was somehow wrong as a result of that. That's a bit like running a bunch of people over with your car, then using the higher death toll to try and restrict other people from driving.

But then, alternative facts are very much in vogue right now, and why be honest when you can spin literally everyone else into an enemy...?


All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."

Like I've said before. Sanders draws from much of the same themes that Trump did. Both of them are beating iconclastic drums.


thunderspirit wrote:
There's every reason to suspect that the same bigots who propped up Trump would've displayed their anti-Semitism had Sanders managed to get the millions more votes he needed to overtake HRC. And that's long before you even get to the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist running against a party that called a center-right black guy "socialist" every chance they got.

So, your narrative is that the majority of the electorate are right-wing bigots and will never be anything but? Then why are you still living in the United States? If no democrat ever has a chance to be elected except by making themselves a Republican in all but name, the game is over. There would seem to be very little point in continuing.


Rednal wrote:
I'm actually kind of interested to see if the Democratic Party is going to respond to the maligning of the CBO.

Probably not. Or at least not forcefully enough. In the farce of modern U.S.politics, anything that isn't aggression is invariably viewed as weakness.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."

Didn't several people call that strategy "lying" a couple pages back?


Drah,

That maybe, and I'm not saying all populism is good, but so far I like Sanders more than I do Trump's. Probably because he's got clearer ideas, agenda and better experience.

But that might just me being biased, I admit.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
There's every reason to suspect that the same bigots who propped up Trump would've displayed their anti-Semitism had Sanders managed to get the millions more votes he needed to overtake HRC. And that's long before you even get to the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist running against a party that called a center-right black guy "socialist" every chance they got.
So, your narrative is that the majority of the electorate are right-wing bigots and will never be anything but? Then why are you still living in the United States? If no democrat ever has a chance to be elected except by making themselves a Republican in all but name, the game is over. There would seem to be very little point in continuing.

I'm having a hard time getting "never" from the two very specific scenarios he mentioned, or getting from there to "no democrat has a chance," ever.

Even so, I can tell you I've given very serious thought to leaving the country. We have a substantial population of the willfully ignorant, most of whom seem to wear their ignorance like a medal. Ultimately, three things have kept me put: Family ties, laziness, and a stubborn refusal to let the idiots win. :P

Edit: A fourth thing is the realization that the U.S. is not alone in having a "substantial population of the willfully ignorant."


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."
Didn't several people call that strategy "lying" a couple pages back?

They might have. I didn't read that part since I was watching the TV airing.


bugleyman wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
There's every reason to suspect that the same bigots who propped up Trump would've displayed their anti-Semitism had Sanders managed to get the millions more votes he needed to overtake HRC. And that's long before you even get to the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist running against a party that called a center-right black guy "socialist" every chance they got.
So, your narrative is that the majority of the electorate are right-wing bigots and will never be anything but? Then why are you still living in the United States? If no democrat ever has a chance to be elected except by making themselves a Republican in all but name, the game is over. There would seem to be very little point in continuing.

I'm having a hard time getting "never" from two very specific scenarios, or getting from there to "no democrat has a chance."

Even so, I can tell you I've given very serious thought to leaving the country. We have a substantial population of willfully ignorant people who wear their ignorance like a medal. Ultimately, three things have kept me put: Family ties, laziness, and a stubborn refusal to let the idiots win. :P

That and money. Plus permanently moving to another country can be harder than you think.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."
Didn't several people call that strategy "lying" a couple pages back?
They might have. I didn't read that part since I was watching the TV airing.

But you're okay with both Bernie and Trump being dishonest in order to win support from voters? Just to be clear.


Guy Humual wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Squeakmaan wrote:
It seems rather pointless to continually bemoan that Bernie was not chosen by Democratic voters, much less to continue to mistakenly blame the DNC. Bernie lost by millions of votes, I know it stings to lose, but hyping up highly inaccurate conspiracy theories is the exact opposite of useful.
I know, all the DNC did was coordinate with the Clinton campaign to smear Sanders, give Clinton debate questions, conduct massive purges of voter registries prior to elections, deliberately misinform independents when they were allowed to vote in open primaries about which ballet to use, helped to spread a narrative about Bernie voters being violent/sexist/uninformed, but to be fair to the DNC they did that in secret. If it hadn't been for the "Russian hackers" none of that would have come to light. We should place our attention on the thing that cost the Democrats the election: Russians!

Just curious, can you link me to credible sources that cite any of this information? Not the e-mails, but the actual activities undertaken by the DNC that have been corroborated.

For example, the only purging of voters in a democratic primary that I can find happened in Brooklyn, where Clinton won pretty handily. It seems unlikely Clinton would have purged voters in a district that supported her strongly, unless there's evidence that they could target voters rolls with laser like precision... which given all the evidence of other polling being off, seems unlikely. Odds are, Clinton lost more voters than Sanders did in the voter roll purge, which seems like a really bad way to cheat in Clinton's favor.

Who do you think is going to corroborate it though? The news media? The only ones interested in that would be Faux or NPR or something and I don't think they've bothered. We know once these emails started surfacing we had Debby Wasserman Schultz step down as head of the DNC and Donna Brazile stepped in to take her place. That's as close to a...

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. You're mad about things said in some e-mails, you are not actually mad about things that were done.

Or do you have evidence of things that were done?

This happens every 3 or 4 pages in this thread. Someone complains about how the DNC colluded with the Clinton campaign, and I ask for evidence that this happened. So far, the only conclusive thing that has shown up is the one debate question from one debate. Do you have evidence of something more?

I don't care about your theory of what happened, or theory media bias. What can you show me?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
That and money. Plus permanently moving to another country can be harder than you think.

I personally happen to have accounted for (and accepted) those two factors -- that's how serious I was about leaving -- but money is almost certainly a roadblock for many. It's clearly flippant to imply that it's trivial (or even viable) for everyone to just up and leave the country.

Besides, that's what they want. Continued protests, on the other hands, seems to have them utterly confounded (and annoyed).


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."
Didn't several people call that strategy "lying" a couple pages back?
They might have. I didn't read that part since I was watching the TV airing.
But you're okay with both Bernie and Trump being dishonest in order to win support from voters? Just to be clear.

I remain unconvinced about Bernie being dishonest. I've lived in this state (West Virginia) for most of my 40 years. I've heard plenty of people from the local, state, and federal level say "We'll fight for coal miners!" So far I've only seen a handful. Sanders is currently in that group. Trump falls in the category of "We'll say this to be elected but forget about it later in the fall." But I do understand why people might be skeptical of Bernie's claims due to the fact he's making wide approaches that might fail. But so far, I like his ideas versus Trump's.


I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...


Thomas Seitz wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:
All I know is Bernie Sanders had a HUGE town hall event, with people that voted FOR Trump and still managed to applaud for a guy like him that was saying "Changes in Energy do not mean we toss out coal miners. We need to reinvest in these places to bring EVERYONE back up."
Didn't several people call that strategy "lying" a couple pages back?
They might have. I didn't read that part since I was watching the TV airing.
But you're okay with both Bernie and Trump being dishonest in order to win support from voters? Just to be clear.
I remain unconvinced about Bernie being dishonest. I've lived in this state (West Virginia) for most of my 40 years. I've heard plenty of people from the local, state, and federal level say "We'll fight for coal miners!" So far I've only seen a handful. Sanders is currently in that group. Trump falls in the category of "We'll say this to be elected but forget about it later in the fall." But I do understand why people might be skeptical of Bernie's claims due to the fact he's making wide approaches that might fail. But so far, I like his ideas versus Trump's.

It's always better when the people you like say the things you want to here.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:
There's every reason to suspect that the same bigots who propped up Trump would've displayed their anti-Semitism had Sanders managed to get the millions more votes he needed to overtake HRC. And that's long before you even get to the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist running against a party that called a center-right black guy "socialist" every chance they got.
So, your narrative is that the majority of the electorate are right-wing bigots and will never be anything but? Then why are you still living in the United States? If no democrat ever has a chance to be elected except by making themselves a Republican in all but name, the game is over. There would seem to be very little point in continuing.

Bigots are a major factor in American politics and have been for a long time. Not accepting that and planning for it would be crazy. Misogyny hurt Clinton. Anti-Semitism would have hurt Sanders, as would the socialism - perhaps less than in the past, but still. Racism in general helped Trump and he played to it more openly than any Presidential nominee in my lifetime.

A majority of the electorate are at least willing to ignore it and a large minority are driven by it. This isn't new. It's been hurting Democrats since the 60s. It's a large part of the reason we've turned more against welfare and entitlement programs - because they've been more and more open to blacks and too many whites won't accept paying for that, even if they benefit too.

I couldn't tell you if a democrat would ever have a chance without "making themselves a Republican in all but name" without knowing what you mean by that. Few Democrats look much like the Republicans I'm familiar with. Even Clinton. Or Obama, for that matter.

But we're not really talking about that, are we? We were talking about whether Sanders would have swept into office on a populist tide if only the DNC hadn't cheated him out of it. And I suspect the answer to that isn't as clear as the Clinton-haters think. There's a difference though between that and "only Republican-lite can win".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man who has faced no serious attacks in his entire political career more popular than woman constantly demonized for over 20 years.

Hey, did you know the sky is blue?


bugleyman wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...

Well unfortunately because you're doing that to people that do have to depend on getting the coal out of the ground instead of say, robots, you're pretty much tossing coal miners out. Especially when they shut down mines.

Knight,

That may be. I have no basis in reality to believe Sanders any more than Trump. However I guess because he (Sanders) has experience in governance and especially in policy making, I find his speeches more...credible. I think you'll agree, credibility matters.


Thomas Seitz wrote:


I remain unconvinced about Bernie being dishonest. I've lived in this state (West Virginia) for most of my 40 years. I've heard plenty of people from the local, state, and federal level say "We'll fight for coal miners!" So far I've only seen a handful. Sanders is currently in that group. Trump falls in the category of "We'll say this to be elected but forget about it later in the fall." But I do understand why people might be skeptical of Bernie's claims due to the fact he's making wide approaches that might fail. But so far, I like his ideas versus Trump's.

Yeah, but what does "We'll fight for coal miners!" mean?

If it means "We'll bring back the good high paying coal mining jobs", it's a lie. They're not coming back. If it means retraining or other programs to help them, it's not a lie, but it's not what they want to hear.


Thejeff,

I think it's something they'll want to hear IF it's explained to them how the reinvestments would work, IE perhaps bringing experts to help them try producing local goods (IE produce, hand crafts, healthcare centers, etc.) It's not always good to hear but to know they have other options besides coal mining AND that it won't be difficult to transition to those fields, I think would help. Especially if we're talking having them do infrastructure rebuilds. Goodness knows, West Virginia's roads are pretty terrible.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:

Oh, and as it turns out, we apparently do have some idea what the Republican party would have thrown against Sanders (see point #2, in particular).

Jumping back here, since I actually stopped to read this and it made me put together a couple things I never really had before: Sanders was vulnerable as hell on a number of fronts and there were plenty of pretty nasty attacks lined up for him from the Republican side if he'd won. All pretty much standard, perfectly acceptable political warfare. Damaging, but not underhanded.

Sanders never faced any of it. He was largely untested in nasty campaigning, at least on the national scale.
Clinton had to have known at least some of it. Basic opposition research stuff. Some of it would have worked better in a general election than with the Democratic base, admittedly, but not all.
Why didn't she use it? Why didn't she attack Sanders, pretty much at all? If Sanders was such a threat to her and to the establishment why not use this kind of thing to take him down, rather than all the elaborate conspiratorial tricks she's accused of?

My suspicion is that the answer is simple. Sanders never really was a threat and she knew it all along. Not only did she not use the attack material, she didn't actually conspire against him either. Because she didn't need to.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...

Well unfortunately because you're doing that to people that do have to depend on getting the coal out of the ground instead of say, robots, you're pretty much tossing coal miners out. Especially when they shut down mines.

Knight,

That may be. I have no basis in reality to believe Sanders any more than Trump. However I guess because he (Sanders) has experience in governance and especially in policy making, I find his speeches more...credible. I think you'll agree, credibility matters.

In 2012, it was predicted that in 2040 natural gas would comprise roughly 31% of the energy market and coal would fall to about 34% (from a height of 50% in 2000). We actually reached those numbers in 2015.

In 2015 there were 14.8 gigawatts worth of coal producing plants retired, or about 5% of the total amount of coal producing energy in the country. In the first half of 2016 another 6.5 gigawatts of coal energy production was retired. 3 states have zero coal energy production, and another 5 states have one plant left each. There are significant numbers of coal plants that are set to retire just this year, and a whole bunch more in the next 5-7 years. These are all older plants that it would be more costly to refurbish than switch to other means of production... like natural gas or renewable. It has nothing to do with climate change policy, other means of production keep having falling costs, while coal remains stagnant.

Power plants are by far the biggest consumers of coal, so as they go, so do the mines. Unless you're proposing we just pay them to mine coal and then do nothing with it. There are plans for another 100 gigawatts of new production in the country by 2023, and of that total only 1.5 gigawatts is currently planned as coal.


Thomas Seitz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...

Well unfortunately because you're doing that to people that do have to depend on getting the coal out of the ground instead of say, robots, you're pretty much tossing coal miners out. Especially when they shut down mines.

Knight,

That may be. I have no basis in reality to believe Sanders any more than Trump. However I guess because he (Sanders) has experience in governance and especially in policy making, I find his speeches more...credible. I think you'll agree, credibility matters.

Since when?


Thomas Seitz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...
Well unfortunately because you're doing that to people that do have to depend on getting the coal out of the ground instead of say, robots, you're pretty much tossing coal miners out. Especially when they shut down mines.

That's the boat we're all in eventually. But for the time being, if coal mines -- when forced to account accurately for their true costs to society -- cannot compete with other forms of energy, they should be shut down. It's hardly fair to say that must involve "tossing out" the people presently employed in the industry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I don't think anyone wants to "toss out" the coal miners. Coal mining itself, though...

Well unfortunately because you're doing that to people that do have to depend on getting the coal out of the ground instead of say, robots, you're pretty much tossing coal miners out. Especially when they shut down mines.

That may be. I have no basis in reality to believe Sanders any more than Trump. However I guess because he (Sanders) has experience in governance and especially in policy making, I find his speeches more...credible. I think you'll agree, credibility matters.

Remember though that it's largely economics and the natural gas boom that's killing coal. It doesn't really matter what anyone wants. Coal mining is going. The question is what to do with the coal miners.

Though if I understand correctly, the decline in coal jobs over the long run is also tied to changes in production - automation and mountaintop removal vs traditional deep mining - means more coal with less workers.

And yeah, to me, Sanders is infinitely more credible than Trump. But that's not saying much. I'm already convinced Trump is a lying liar who lies. To a lot of people, for reasons I don't completely understand, Trump comes across as the guy who says what he thinks and tells it like it is - even when he's lying through his teeth or has no idea what he's talking about.
Edit: As far as "experience in governance and especially in policy making", for a lot of people that's a negative. Government is the problem and having experience in it just means you've been there and haven't fixed their problems. So throw the bums out and bring in someone new.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My understanding is that Trump tends to talk big on ideas, but small on concepts - basically, he says things that get people to imagine what they want, and they support their own idea of what he's saying.

Consider, for example, "Make America Great Again". He said it a lot, but rarely gave specifics as to what it actually means. What is this "great" status he wants to restore? (There was a bit more on the "Make" side of things, as in "We're going to Make A Wall", but even that was limited at best.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It's hilarious to watch someone ridicule other people's belief in God while at the same time worship thier lord and savior Bernie Sanders.

Unlike most Republicans apparently, I can back a person for public office without insisting that he's some kind of supernatural being. I can even support Sanders even if he has positions which I do disagree with, (he does). If he had been on the ticket, I'd have voted for him, and I did vote for Clinton despite the fact he wasn't. And despite the fact that I've disagreed with her considerably more than I did with Sanders.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It's hilarious to watch someone ridicule other people's belief in God while at the same time worship thier lord and savior Bernie Sanders.

Slow down chief, Bernie was the best candidate running in 2016, but that's like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. The field was not stellar. You had two people who most people hated winning the nominee. Suggesting that Bernie was a perfect candidate is just plain silly. People liked his message. If you're not a fan of socialized medicine, free public education, and income inequality than I suppose you're fine with whatever the republican + pro choice party, or republican (original flavor) are putting out.

Sovereign Court

thejeff wrote:


My suspicion is that the answer is simple. Sanders never really was a threat and she knew it all along. Not only did she not use the attack material, she didn't actually conspire against him either. Because she didn't need to.

She had major networks with Bernie blackouts, if Ted Cruse and John Kasich had of been a single person fighting against Trump that race still wouldn't have been as close as Sanders vs Clinton. We got to see a lot more of that race though. Sanders strength was strictly from the internet and word of mouth.

Had he been a serious candidate, gotten into the race earlier and actually worked at getting out the vote, making himself known in those early states, that primary would have been even closer and Hilary might have tried her dirty republican tricks on him. However, I think Sanders never thought he could win, he was just trying to move the democratic platform to the left, and in that regard he succeeded admirably. I'm not sure it was "the most progressive platform in party history", we certainly didn't hear much policy talk at all after Sanders coincided, but I think that was what Sanders always had as his goal that cycle.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
It's hilarious to watch someone ridicule other people's belief in God while at the same time worship thier lord and savior Bernie Sanders.
Slow down chief, Bernie was the best candidate running in 2016, but that's like being the thinnest kid at fat camp. The field was not stellar. You had two people who most people hated winning the nominee. Suggesting that Bernie was a perfect candidate is just plain silly. People liked his message. If you're not a fan of socialized medicine, free public education, and income inequality than I suppose you're fine with whatever the republican + pro choice party, or republican (original flavor) are putting out.

Some people liked his message. Those who did were very enthusiastic. That's nice, but doesn't always win elections.

And seriously, the Democrats are Republicans thing is such bull. If you were honest about it and claimed it was "Republican+pro choice+LGBT rights+civil rights+ womens' right plus " party vs the "original flavor - science - environment - health care - social security + even more war". You can make something of an argument that Democrats on broad economic issues are closer to Republicans of the 60s or so, while being vastly better than those Republicans on nearly every social issue, but you can't then imply that modern Republicans are anything like those Republicans even on the economic issues. And it's not just Trump, it's the whole damn party. Democrats may not be making the steps forward we'd like to see, but Republicans are working on rolling back the whole damn 20th century. Medicare, Social Security, public education, environmental protections. They want it all gone.

I would have loved to have Sander's policies enacted, though I lacked faith in his ability to get them done, even if he had won. Which I also don't think would have been the easy victory some see. But I damn well didn't want to see so much of what we do have swept away, so I was quite willing to settle for Clinton and I find this kind of false equivalence not merely complete bull, but dangerous as well. The whole "Sanders or nothing" crowd helped us into this disaster.


Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:


My suspicion is that the answer is simple. Sanders never really was a threat and she knew it all along. Not only did she not use the attack material, she didn't actually conspire against him either. Because she didn't need to.

She had major networks with Bernie blackouts, if Ted Cruse and John Kasich had of been a single person fighting against Trump that race still wouldn't have been as close as Sanders vs Clinton. We got to see a lot more of that race though. Sanders strength was strictly from the internet and word of mouth.

Had he been a serious candidate, gotten into the race earlier and actually worked at getting out the vote, making himself known in those early states, that primary would have been even closer and Hilary might have tried her dirty republican tricks on him. However, I think Sanders never thought he could win, he was just trying to move the democratic platform to the left, and in that regard he succeeded admirably. I'm not sure it was "the most progressive platform in party history", we certainly didn't hear much policy talk at all after Sanders coincided, but I think that was what Sanders always had as his goal that cycle.

I thought you though she did try the "dirty republican tricks"? My point was she didn't even bother with standard campaign attacks. Bernie never got enough traction to need it. You can blame the media for that, if you like, but Clinton and the DNC sure as hell don't run the media or they wouldn't have spent nearly so much time on Clinton scandals. It might have been closer than the Republican race, but it wasn't nearly as close as the Obama/Clinton race in 2008 was.

I think you're right about Sander's initial approach. Something changed after the early primaries, though. It may have been closer than he'd expected, but still a real long shot at victory, but he started to work on tearing her down, even though his chances of catching up were slim. I don't know if he just got caught up in the race or what, but some where in the spring it shifted on his part from running on policy differences to him pushing the corporate corruption angle and that hurt her badly in the general, without really helping him in the primary. Might have been bitterness from what he could see of DNC bias, for all I know.


thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
thejeff wrote:


My suspicion is that the answer is simple. Sanders never really was a threat and she knew it all along. Not only did she not use the attack material, she didn't actually conspire against him either. Because she didn't need to.

She had major networks with Bernie blackouts, if Ted Cruse and John Kasich had of been a single person fighting against Trump that race still wouldn't have been as close as Sanders vs Clinton. We got to see a lot more of that race though. Sanders strength was strictly from the internet and word of mouth.

Had he been a serious candidate, gotten into the race earlier and actually worked at getting out the vote, making himself known in those early states, that primary would have been even closer and Hilary might have tried her dirty republican tricks on him. However, I think Sanders never thought he could win, he was just trying to move the democratic platform to the left, and in that regard he succeeded admirably. I'm not sure it was "the most progressive platform in party history", we certainly didn't hear much policy talk at all after Sanders coincided, but I think that was what Sanders always had as his goal that cycle.

I thought you though she did try the "dirty republican tricks"? My point was she didn't even bother with standard campaign attacks. Bernie never got enough traction to need it. You can blame the media for that, if you like, but Clinton and the DNC sure as hell don't run the media or they wouldn't have spent nearly so much time on Clinton scandals. It might have been closer than the Republican race, but it wasn't nearly as close as the Obama/Clinton race in 2008 was.

I think you're right about Sander's initial approach. Something changed after the early primaries, though. It may have been closer than he'd expected, but still a real long shot at victory, but he started to work on tearing her down, even though his chances of catching up were slim. I don't know if he just got caught up in the race or what,...

Sanders had major problems from the getgo, but his biggest weaknesses were among minority voters. He tried to get around this by making a token hire from Black Lives Matter to be his minority liaison, but I didn't see much liasing going on afterwards.


thejeff wrote:
To a lot of people, for reasons I don't completely understand, Trump comes across as the guy who says what he thinks and tells it like it is - even when he's lying through his teeth or has no idea what he's talking about.

"People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty, Lewis. They drink it because they don’t know the difference."

Whoops, I guess that's my Liberal Elitism(TM) again...


And people think denying reality is limited to extremist republicans....

2,201 to 2,250 of 4,260 << first < prev | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards