EPTOn April 28 2017 16:17 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
He sounds like he is already tired of winning.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7418
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
He sounds like he is already tired of winning. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
Same thing with the position on military interventions. A lot of those voters who were saying Trump was the candidate of less war are now likely feeling quite upset about their choices. If there was a party that embraced a non-war position, they could potentially gain a lot of votes. But, once again, people like Tulsi Gabbard are ostracised even within the Democratic party. I'd love to see the Democratic party be 'changed from within'. But looking at how hard they are working to undermine the kinds of messages that try to inspire that kind of change, I just don't see it happening. There's a whole bunch of people who care very little about the details of social issues that are now the major divide between the Republicans and Democrats. They care about economic issues, about putting an end to the constant wars, etc. They care about opposition to all the things that Democrats and Republicans agree on. I imagine that if a People's Party would take off somehow, and through some magical way that none of us could see, actually win states and districts across the whole of the US, then the Democrats and Republicans would eventually merge into one party that is basically pro-war and economically on the far-right with some divisions in their social issues agenda. I'm talking 20-30 years down the line here, not next week or something. Yeah, it's likely the Republicans would be better off in terms of winning seats for a time due to the departure of many Democrats. But at the same time I really doubt that if they are really as incompetent and useless as the majority of people here like to suggest, then there's no way people would keep voting for them over a period of 10-20 years if there was an alternative that - like Bernie and that pro-life guy who dared to suggest doctors should inform their patients about options (speaking of being ideologically pure, eh?) - doesn't take such absolute stances on some social issues. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21736 Posts
On April 28 2017 18:41 a_flayer wrote: Yeah... Sanders going to Trump country and getting crowds to cheer for him should be an eye opener for the Democratic party that they can take on a more economically left message to actually win votes, rather than lose them to the Republicans. But they don't seem to have taken notice. At least, I'm not seeing the Democrats embracing an 'anti-Wallstreet/anti-banker/anti-pharma' position for some obscure reason. Its almost like a state is not a monolithic block and that there are atleast 200k democrats in West-Virginia based on the latest election results. Who knew! Or that a lot of Trump voters believed the con man and are now coming around to a different reality. Only to run to the next con that promises to turn back the clock 100 years by the power of #winning Who knew! | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23268 Posts
On April 28 2017 18:49 Gorsameth wrote: Its almost like a state is not a monolithic block and that there are atleast 200k democrats in West-Virginia based on the latest election results. Who knew! Or that a lot of Trump voters believed the con man and are now coming around to a different reality. Only to run to the next con that promises to turn back the clock 100 years by the power of #winning Who knew! The point being that being like Manchin isn't the only way to get both those Democrats and those Trump voters, turns out Bernie's economic message is more effective. Not trying to mash a neoliberal economic message with a right wing/centrist social and environmental message. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland12216 Posts
On April 28 2017 18:49 Gorsameth wrote: Its almost like a state is not a monolithic block and that there are atleast 200k democrats in West-Virginia based on the latest election results. Who knew! It's almost like the people who were in that town hall were specifically Trump voters and not democrats from West Virginia. Who knew! Oh sorry, I guess you didn't. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21736 Posts
On April 28 2017 18:56 Nebuchad wrote: It's almost like the people who were in that town hall were specifically Trump voters and not democrats from West Virginia. Who knew! Oh sorry, I guess you didn't. On April 28 2017 18:52 GreenHorizons wrote: The point being that being like Manchin isn't the only way to get both those Democrats and those Trump voters, turns out Bernie's economic message is more effective. Not trying to mash a neoliberal economic message with a right wing/centrist social and environmental message. See my second point. As previously established Bernie has a nice message but no clue how to get it done. In that he is little better then Trump (tho he would obviously make a much better president). | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23268 Posts
On April 28 2017 19:10 Gorsameth wrote: See my second point. As previously established Bernie has a nice message but no clue how to get it done. In that he is little better then Trump (tho he would obviously make a much better president). This "no clue how to get it done" is based off of that particular interview still isn't it? Comparing his comprehension and understanding of how DC works or what it will take to move toward solutions to Trumps either betrays an utterly disingenuous argument, a flair for hyperbolic exaggeration, or plain ignorance. I think it's mostly just lazy leftovers from the primary though. Even if it were true, Democrats should be figuring out how to make it happen not saying it "will never ever happen". Less of course they'd like to just keep losing. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18022 Posts
On April 28 2017 19:34 GreenHorizons wrote: This "no clue how to get it done" is based off of that particular interview still isn't it? Comparing his comprehension and understanding of how DC works or what it will take to move toward solutions to Trumps either betrays an utterly disingenuous argument, a flair for hyperbolic exaggeration, or plain ignorance. I think it's mostly just lazy leftovers from the primary though. Even if it were true, Democrats should be figuring out how to make it happen not saying it "will never ever happen". Less of course they'd like to just keep losing. That really depends on what you're promising. If you promise rainbows (aka coal jobs coming back to the Appalacians), there's no way of working out how to make it happen (which is not to say that you cannot create a program to bring functional economical reform to the Appalacians), and you should simply not promise rainbows, or get yelled at and told it can never happen if you do. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 28 2017 21:39 LemOn wrote: Can the president just step down without any major reason? Yes. It is still civil service. They would resign and the VP would become president. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10741 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42866 Posts
On April 28 2017 15:59 GreenHorizons wrote: That you're so arrogantly sure that it can't happen reminds me of something.... Democrats are collapsing in on themselves, and that's why they spastically attacked Bernie over the Mello thing. They are scared he is taking control of the base, and they're right. It's a small but vocal minority within the party with animosity toward Sanders, but nearly unanimous distaste in corporate media and people are putting that together. With just the right spark the Democratic party could easily combust into a flaming garbage heap with politicians fleeing toward anything that isn't them. No doubt the cards are stacked against such a thing, but if I were you I'd take a break about being too sure about what's politically possible. So Bernieites needs to take control of it from within, the same way Blair did with New Labour. They need to challenge Democrat incumbents in primaries and beat them with their better grassroots support so that the argument "we're a broad coalition, get on board or get left behind" is levied at the Clinton Democrats, not the Bernie Democrats. But splintering has been tried many times before. The majority are politically apathetic and vote on party lines, they're not about to stop voting Democrat just because Bernie divides the party. The brand is worth something, change the product, keep the brand. If Bernie ran a popular, efficient, progressive party while the Democratic rump was literally just Clinton muttering "Russia" to herself over and over the best possible result attainable for the Bernie party would be something like 40% Bernie, 40% Republican, 20% Democratic. But in the 1983 election I alluded to earlier the Labour rump ran a manifesto popularly known as "the longest suicide note in history", promising unilateral nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from the EC (now EU), renationalization of heavy industry (British Aerospace, ship builders etc), abolition of our higher Parliamentary house and other batshit insane shit and they still got 25% of the vote. Meanwhile the SDP, who were largely identical to what would become New Labour, got 23% of the vote, which is amazing for a brand new party, and handed total power to Thatcher. People vote for the brand. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21736 Posts
On April 28 2017 21:45 opisska wrote: This makes me kinda sympathetic for Trump. I once contemplated how an airline pilot would handle the situation if he was in the middle of overflying the Atlantic suddenly finding out that he doesn't want to continue flying the plane, because somethign like that would happen if I were a pilot. Probably why the majority of Presidential candidates are politicians. So they atleast have some knowledge of what its like to govern. Same way airlines probably won't put a fresh pilot on a 17 hour flight from Dallas to Syndey. Who knew being President could be so hard and so much work (other then... everyone). There is a reason presidents seem to age 40 years during their term. Its a damn hard job. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Regarding Trump starting to hate his job, I imagine a lot of delegating to Mike Pence soon, if not already. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On April 28 2017 22:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This man child in the Oval office. https://twitter.com/SalenaZito/status/857764977582669824 To be fair he was being interviewed on the counties he won during the election when that picture happened. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On April 28 2017 22:11 KwarK wrote: So Bernieites needs to take control of it from within, the same way Blair did with New Labour. They need to challenge Democrat incumbents in primaries and beat them with their better grassroots support so that the argument "we're a broad coalition, get on board and get left behind" is levied at the Clinton Democrats, not the Bernie Democrats. But splintering has been tried many times before. The majority are politically apathetic and vote on party lines, they're not about to stop voting Democrat just because Bernie divides the party. The brand is worth something, change the product, keep the brand. If Bernie ran a popular, efficient, progressive party while the Democratic rump was literally just Clinton muttering "Russia" to herself over and over the best possible result attainable for the Bernie party would be something like 40% Bernie, 40% Republican, 20% Democratic. But in the 1983 election I eluded to earlier the Labour rump ran a manifesto popularly known as "the longest suicide note in history", promising unilateral nuclear disarmament, immediate withdrawal from the EC (now EU), renationalization of heavy industry (British Aerospace, ship builders etc), abolition of our higher Parliamentary house and other batshit insane shit and they still got 25% of the vote. Meanwhile the SDP, who were largely identical to what would become New Labour, got 23% of the vote, which is amazing for a brand new party, and handed total power to Thatcher. People vote for the brand. People also vote for the opposite brand, and hate the brand they do not vote for as much as they like their own. The level of polarization between the brands is so high these days, even higher as it was during the civil war. People who are now entrenched in their parties are unlikely to switch brands even if the other party would obectively better represent their interests. At the same time, there's an ever growing group of people that detest both brands. If there was a third brand, a new brand, without the baggage of the old, then perhaps some of those entrenched people would be more likely to switch, and it might attract a lot of people who are currently disgusted by both parties. Especially if this new brand is headed by an exceptionally popular politician. It obviously wouldn't happen overnight, and it might take an election cycle or three to come to completion, but I think it could be worth it if it broke the extreme levels of polarization that we see today. The Democrats basically already handed total power to the Republicans in November, and are utter shite in their opposition to Trump, so there's not much to lose at this point. | ||
| ||
