|
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. |
On May 06 2017 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
The failure of the democratic party was so apparent to me at the dnc. Completely ignored the white working class and instead catered to only minorities and even illegal immigrants lol. That is a straight slap in the face to all people who have been hurt by globalization and immigrants. I'm an immigrant and I could understand how horrible the strategy of identity politics played out. No clear message other than "we aren't donald trump." Sorry that's not going to cut it especially after having a democrat for 8 years in the white house. I didn't understand this. It felt like such a poor allocation of resources.
anti gay accusations and I think he once gave a speech or something against the theory of evolution. not super sure on details
|
On May 06 2017 05:27 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:26 Mohdoo wrote:On May 06 2017 04:13 biology]major wrote:
The failure of the democratic party was so apparent to me at the dnc. Completely ignored the white working class and instead catered to only minorities and even illegal immigrants lol. That is a straight slap in the face to all people who have been hurt by globalization and immigrants. I'm an immigrant and I could understand how horrible the strategy of identity politics played out. No clear message other than "we aren't donald trump." Sorry that's not going to cut it especially after having a democrat for 8 years in the white house. I didn't understand this. It felt like such a poor allocation of resources. anti gay accusations and I think he once gave a speech or something against the theory of evolution. not super sure on details
Who are you talking about?
|
On May 06 2017 05:24 Nevuk wrote:Anyone know what attacks he is referring to? I've never even heard of this guy
I quoted the wrong thing. was responding to this
|
On May 06 2017 05:12 a_flayer wrote:
It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well.
One of the reasons I'm personally invested in this is that my brother votes for right wing cranks, but honestly his thinking is very muddled. You can't have a discussion with him because he starts going off on tangents about globalists and Eigen Volk stuff. He won't bother to understand what the benefits of international institutions or global markets are, he just rants about how it's all about eliminating national sovereignty.
He only started to engage with really suspicious fringe politics when the Dutch media normalized Geert Wilders and when he started reading the Dutch version of Breitbart. I don't understand the appeal myself, but to someone like my brother, who identifies himself with a sort of (near-fictional) marginalized working-poor with bad job security, which is constantly under siege by global forces like immigration, right wing populism seems to be very seductive.
I don't think Trump voters are stupid, but they are certainly willing victims of a con artist, and like I said I'm perpetually confused about how people can be so gullible. They should know better, and in my opinion it's important to actually identify the GOP as radical and evil, and how voting for them is bad. Kinda like how the nazis were discredited in retrospect, and people who supported them were made to feel bad.
|
On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary....  I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front.
Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic?
|
To add to my previous comment.
Noam Chomsky said this a few months ago:
"If we were honest, we would say something that sounds utterly shocking and no doubt will be taken out of context and lead to hysteria on the part of the usual suspects, but the fact of the matter is that today’s Republican Party qualify as candidates for the most dangerous organization in human history. Literally."
I don't think he's wrong. Personally I have this visceral, boundless contempt and loathing for anyone associated with the GOP, it's beyond anything I feel for any Dutch politician even including Wilders.
|
On May 06 2017 05:01 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs? I thought Republicans were against PC speech now? I'm saying it like it is. People voting for impossible solutions, having it explained to them that they don't work and then doing it anyway because "What do we have to lose" are stupid. Well they are going to find out what they have to lose when their benefits get cut, state development funds get cut and their healthcare is gutted. I just feel sorry for the 54% who didn't vote Republican.
people don't like being called out on their failings; a common issue in politics. as is hypocrisy
mostly though it's that most people are just not remotely capable of making sound decisions on these issues, even in aggregate, and wisdom of crowds effects don't apply either.
|
On May 06 2017 05:12 a_flayer wrote:
It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well.
Stupid is perhaps a bit too broad. Insecure and weak to his kind of influence are perhaps much worse qualities, though. The kind of person I imagine is some kinda father who has never been able to fully provide for his family, despite the expectations he holds for himself. His father was a factory worker and he raised a family. But now he can't? He feels bad about himself and ultimately feels like he failed his family. Looking for what went wrong, it is easy for these people to find someone else to blame instead of the long list of bad decisions they made. It is easy for this guy to believe "your job is great, and it would totally pay well if we were more protectionist" rather than "times have changed and the overall technical level of the world is much higher such that your grunt labor is just really not that special anymore". These guys aren't doing anything amazing and they are essentially just bodies.
At the end of the day, many of the lower level people who voted for Trump are people who are blaming the wrong people for their inability to feel good about themselves. A big issue with white rural America right now is their general feeling of value and respect. They feel marginalized and forgotten. But that's not so much the case as they are simply not keeping up. Value is being created in a lot of different ways and other countries are becoming competitive by being actual civilized countries. India, China and other countries were basically shit holes for a long, long time. These countries having the ability to replace the work being done in the US only speaks to how low a bar these rural communities were meeting. Congrats, you made a steel beam. If that meant anything, this remarkably uneducated Chinese worker wouldn't be replacing you.
At the end of the day, there was an enormous amount of our population that had an artificially inflated image and capability for success. Once the world started the catch up and had their own ways of accomplishing incredibly basic tasks, these people stopped being special. But they never were special.
|
On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic?
I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine.
|
On May 06 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message. I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic? I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine.
Far enough, it might be a bit cynical, but there is an abundance of evidence that it's a fair position in American politics.
I think believing the Democratic party is going to pull it's head out of it's ass is an overly optimistic perspective and we'll see how the Democratic party fares over the coming years.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 06 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message.
I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic? I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine. Far enough, it might be a bit cynical, but there is an abundance of evidence that it's a fair position in American politics. I think believing the Democratic party is going to pull it's head out of it's ass is an overly optimistic perspective and we'll see how the Democratic party fares over the coming years.
I have to say that they've given every indication that they learned nothing from their defeat. It's mostly just Racist Russian Comey who caused their defeat here. Unrepeatable circumstances, not the result of their own weakness.
|
On May 06 2017 06:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:
[quote]
I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic? I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine. Far enough, it might be a bit cynical, but there is an abundance of evidence that it's a fair position in American politics. I think believing the Democratic party is going to pull it's head out of it's ass is an overly optimistic perspective and we'll see how the Democratic party fares over the coming years. I have to say that they've given every indication that they learned nothing from their defeat. It's mostly just Racist Russian Comey who caused their defeat here. Unrepeatable circumstances, not the result of their own weakness.
Would be interesting to see a graphical representation of how much they think each aspect contributed to losing 2016, then compare that to a similar image of why they think they lost 1000+ seats nationwide over the past years.
|
On May 06 2017 05:12 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs? It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well.
It is the level of discourse right now. There are people in this thread who talk about how dumb democrats were for supporting minorities and the rights of illegal immigrants. You hear talk about snow flakes and other insults for people who give a shit things like race and diversity. I’ve said it before, but my brother voted for Trump and I have called him quite a few things since. Only recently has he come to terms with the idea that he voted to take away my wife’s health care. And we still don’t talk about it and try to get along. We do not always succeed.
I don’t know when it happened, but there was a tipping point when people believed they could hold any political view without consequences for that view point.
|
On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups.
You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly.
Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted.
Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure.
|
On May 06 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message.
I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic? I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine. Far enough, it might be a bit cynical, but there is an abundance of evidence that it's a fair position in American politics. I think believing the Democratic party is going to pull it's head out of it's ass is an overly optimistic perspective and we'll see how the Democratic party fares over the coming years.
The Dems are always better within the margins. They're supported by silicon valley, while the GOP is supported by hedge funds etc. I'd rather have Alphabet Inc. running the country than Goldman Sachs, but it's hardly ideal.
I read an article which said that the party has become more and more dependent on wealthy donors, so it probably won't change in the near future. None of the recent actions of the DNC have demonstrated a desire to move towards more populist economic messaging.
|
On May 06 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:12 a_flayer wrote:On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs? It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well. It is the level of discourse right now. There are people in this thread who talk about how dumb democrats were for supporting minorities and the rights of illegal immigrants. You hear talk about snow flakes and other insults for people who give a shit things like race and diversity. I’ve said it before, but my brother voted for Trump and I have called him quite a few things since. Only recently has he come to terms with the idea that he voted to take away my wife’s health care. And we still don’t talk about it and try to get along. We do not always succeed. I don’t know when it happened, but there was a tipping point when people believed they could hold any political view without consequences for that view point.
the biggest tipping point shift was this election cycle. more generally i'd say i'ts been consistently getting worse for the past ~26 years; for very understandable reasons iirc the bases for them.
|
On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure.
I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance.
What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response.
|
On May 06 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:07 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:19 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 04:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 06 2017 03:15 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 03:11 Logo wrote:On May 06 2017 03:01 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
People will write books about it, but the long and short of it is that the Democrats failed. In their effort to make the biggest tent possible and be the most inclusive party, they diluted their message.
I feel like this is a cop-out excuse for the failure of the Democratic party over the actual economic and foreign relation policies of the Democrats not favoring the working class at all and often catering to company interests at their expense. I think it works fine. When you try to be the party of labor, small businesses and the billion dollar tech industry(for example), your message gets diluted. This is how the GOP was able to become the party of the working poor. The Democrats became more about “cultural change” and not economic change. There was this theory that they had figured out the economy and it was fine. This is form someone who grew up in the 90s and saw the slow erosion of the Democrat's support. There have been a lot of factors, but a lack of focus seems to be the main problem. They mostly seem to have put up things for the GOP to run against in recent years. Almost as if they should have ran a candidate with an intense focus on the economic anxieties across demographics and partisan lines, if only they had someone like that begging them to see reason during the primary.... I would have liked to see a wider field across the board for the DNC. And a less “combative primary” process in general. But that isn’t what happened. Rejoice though, you will likely get your way in the end. It is just a question of crafting a message centrist democrats can get on board with. I'm inclined to push the whole "suck it up buttercup and stop Trump/Republicans with the most popular politician/message in the country whether you agree or not", but meh. Probably more likely Trump buys off Manchin with some promises for coal miners healthcare and Democrats help pass some shitty mod for Obamacare. You are free to be as pessimistic as you want GH. I have zero investment in changing your view on that front. Just curious what signs you've been seeing that give you the perspective that my view is pessimistic rather than realistic? I cannot fully describe my lack of interest in answering that question or debating the difference between cynicism and realism with you. You have conviction in your views and I don’t feel the need to change them. Nor do I feel like defending mine. Far enough, it might be a bit cynical, but there is an abundance of evidence that it's a fair position in American politics. I think believing the Democratic party is going to pull it's head out of it's ass is an overly optimistic perspective and we'll see how the Democratic party fares over the coming years.
I should have been clearer on that front. You will win in the end. Maybe not 2020, but it will happen. The Democrats will have to change with the world around them.
|
On May 06 2017 06:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:18 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:27 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 05:11 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 05:01 Grumbels wrote:On May 06 2017 04:41 Plansix wrote:
White, college educated men have been the GOP’s demographic as long as I have been alive. This is why the Dems get accused of “identity politics” so much. The GOP mostly appeals to one or two “identities”. Whites without a college education is where the democrats fell down this time.
There are always different standards for conservatives than there are for liberals, same with white vs black, male vs female. If a GOP politician engages in some sex scandal no one cares, even though they're the ones that espouse family values rhetoric, but if a democrat does the same it can be the end of their career. They are always positioning themselves as the voice of moral authority, capable of judging others, but they can never be judged themselves. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's only democrats that are accused of trafficking in identity politics, never the GOP, regardless of the merits of the accusation. (I do think some of it is merited) You want to talk about different standards for politics and open up with the GOP suffering less from sex scandals than a Dem? I certainly hope you've got more in the bag than that woozy. Are you thinking of Bill O'Reilly&Co? I don't mean to say that the GOP suffers less from sex scandals, because they probably have more of them on average (FOX News apparently was almost like a harem with an absurdly sexist culture), but rather that the posture of both the mainstream media and the republican party whenever it is discovered that a conservative politician or figure engaged in some sort of illicit sexual practice (or even divorce) they virtually never bother to condemn this behavior and very frequently it has no effect on their career. If on the other hand there is even a trace of scandal around some liberal the media never stops blabbering about their serious moral concern, and all of right wing media hypocritically gloats about liberal immortality and the importance of family values. And it's not about this specific issue, it's about how conservatives cynically exploit every possible angle of attack and feign outrage about everything, with the tacit support of the media, even though they engage in the exact same behavior themselves. It has to do with temperament (liberals are less likely to be hypocritical in this way), but also with negative stereotyping of underprivileged groups. You said politicians, so I wasn't including Bill O'Reilly. Herman Cain is a prominent example. Affair scandal and boom, he's gone. Big front runner, and a lot of my Obama voting friends were quite prepared to vote for him instead of the Obama re-election based on their own economic fortures. Because Phillip Hinkle got caught, boom gone. Mark Foley, gone. This is just off the top of my head right now, because it sounded like you were Spicer in the Briefing Room for a second there. I lived through these high profile sex scandals and how, far from "no one cares," they plummeted and were gone, I gotta call bullshit. It's absolutely ironic for how quick they all rocketed out of there that people like you might legitimately never heard of them. It would be doubly ironic to put up with the first round of watching sex scandals ruin candidates/elected politicians, hearing Republican hypocrisy at how many bit the dust from the family values party, and hearing a second whammy that it never was a big deal for Republicans because the hypocrisy was accepted. Family values rhetoric was at the core of the GOP. Only in big liberal states could you get by without it. Trump is absolutely a noticeable departure. I don't think these are good examples. Herman Cain is a fringe figure and no one in the GOP liked him, so they would easily turn on him. Hinkle and Foley deeply embarrassed the GOP by being involved in gay sex scandals, and homophobia certainly played a large part in their disappearance. What I'm talking about is the garden variety pseudo-scandal where someone has an affair or is accused of sexual misconduct, or even divorces. Liberals are held to different standards than conservatives. Much like how if some rightwing extremist shoots up a school it's a non-event, but if a Muslim does the same thing it's front page news: terrorist attacks sweep the nation and require endless war as the only logical response.
do you have a link to a study or somesuch to verify your belief? I ask because personal impressions are often quite inaccurate.
at any rate, my personal impression is that sex scandals take down people from both parties quite readily enough.
|
On May 06 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 06 2017 06:17 Plansix wrote:On May 06 2017 05:12 a_flayer wrote:On May 06 2017 04:47 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 04:15 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 03:57 Gorsameth wrote:On May 06 2017 03:46 Danglars wrote:On May 06 2017 02:44 opisska wrote:
How in the US the right wing party is the one for poor workers is the greatest mystery of your continent. The left was basically invented for poor workers. The greater mystery is how the left managed to so badly represent their interests. Or how about nominating a white woman and being your standard intellectual, coastal, women-rights quintessential group yet losing the vote of white women, even of college-educated white women. Pound your keyboards that they're supposed to hate what's clearly misogyny and they're supposed to vote for the party that considers abortion rights as part of women's health. Too much identity politics spoils the broth. Too much cosmopolitan-elite-feel ruins your rural appeal. Take a vote too much for granted and you lose it. + Show Spoiler +On May 06 2017 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:
That's how Republicans get elected time and time again by poor workers. Because they are idiots who believe in unicorns.
I mean, Trump won the Rust belt by promising to turn the world back 100 years to bring their jobs back, the proof is right infront of you.
If people could just pause from evil Trump messaging for half a second, reflect on what it means to call voters who don't vote for your gal idiots because a vote for the Democrats is naturally a vote in their own self-interest. It takes a belief in unicorns to expect their support when you're so ready to turn it all around if they don't vote for who they're told. You might not even get a damn visit from the candidate to your state. I just don't think people are sufficiently nonpartisan to see just how fucked up that situation is. Look at what Trump promised on Healthcare Look at what he is delivering How did they not vote for a Unicorn? opisska: Damn why'd the left lose poor workers danglars: They didn't represent their interests, and here's how you know. gorsameth: Damn would you look at Trump not delivering, my my. Maybe we could move on to ways both parties share being bad if it wasn't anathema to analyze why the left lost. How did the left lose poor workers? They offered actual solutions which are not great because the world is not perfect (or great depending on your outlook) What did the Republicans offer? Unicorns about bringing back steel mills and coal in rural America. Who did they vote for? The unicorn. People like to be told that everything will be fine and that someone will fix all their problems. They don't like being told that their jobs are not coming back but that the government will offer to re-school them (as an example). Rural area's being left behind compared to cities is an economic problem across the world. I gave you two shots at it, so you can't say I didn't try. I wasn't expecting you to double down on poor workers being too dumb to know "they offered actual solutions" and the only reason they aren't great is that "the world is not perfect," but I'll take it. I know voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are listening at how quick your allies are to trash their intelligence the second they don't decide in favor of Democrats. It's starting to approximate the colonial governor trying to figure out why the natives are restless; after all, his policies are offering actual solutions and the world isn't perfect in his own approximation, why should he have to listen and respond to their needs? It's frustrating when everyone just goes about calling Trump voters stupid. Such generalizations are offensive, don't you know? You don't have to be stupid to be conned into something. You can just be gullible or hopeful as well. It is the level of discourse right now. There are people in this thread who talk about how dumb democrats were for supporting minorities and the rights of illegal immigrants. You hear talk about snow flakes and other insults for people who give a shit things like race and diversity. I’ve said it before, but my brother voted for Trump and I have called him quite a few things since. Only recently has he come to terms with the idea that he voted to take away my wife’s health care. And we still don’t talk about it and try to get along. We do not always succeed. I don’t know when it happened, but there was a tipping point when people believed they could hold any political view without consequences for that view point. the biggest tipping point shift was this election cycle. more generally i'd say i'ts been consistently getting worse for the past ~26 years; for very understandable reasons iirc the bases for them.
We do not fully understand the internet’s impact on political discourse. But all the evidence points to it being a net negative. I think the “zero consequences ” nature of the internet seems to have leaked into reality and the public’s thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
41494
1725
1097
201
EPT
