|
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 July 25 2017 07:05 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 06:46 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two big problems. A Papa John's slogan, and Nancy Pelosi who is so pro Corporate and arrogant that she refuses to budge to allow younger leaders to gain insight into the party. Six months after Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats have outlined a plan to improve their chances of methodically taking it all back.
They are leaning heavily on a re-branding of their greatest hits — more and better-paying jobs, lowering health care costs and cracking down on the what are seen as the abuses of big business.
As an agenda and a slogan, "A Better Deal," hearkens back to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went 50 miles outside the Beltway, to Berryville, Va., to unveil it, hoping the ideas will resonate with suburban voters, many of whom were energized by Trump's campaign-trail populism.
"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong?" Schumer said, speaking on ABC's This Week Sunday. "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for."
Responding to the plan on Monday, President Trump tweeted that in releasing the plan, Democrats were admitting that it was their own fault they lost the election, and not Russian meddling.
Democrats say they want to double federal support for apprenticeship programs to help train young people and put out-of-work adults back in the work force. They also want tax incentives for companies to retrain workers, as well as new standards aimed at limiting corporate mergers that throw people out of work. In addition, the plan calls for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
"We will aggressively crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," the Democratic leadership said in a statement. "We will fight to ensure a living wage for all Americans and keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare, so seniors can retire with dignity."
Berryville, with a population less than 5,000, is situated in one district that Democrats desperately would like to flip in 2018. It is currently represented by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock and it stretches from just outside Washington to more rural parts of the state.
Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Pelosi said that since taking the reins in January, Republicans have squandered opportunities to help average Americans. "[Instead] of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform," she said, "Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Democrats need to wrest 24 Republican-held seats in the House to gain control of that chamber. In the Senate, however, they are playing defense, fighting to retain Democratic-held seats in states won by Trump. Source I actually like this approach. I feel they took away the lessons they needed from 2016 (At least they are saying that they have. they need to put it into action) This shows real promise for the DNC to me I'm a little bit more skeptical, unfortunately. Especially when Schumer said "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for" and then later on with the list of their ideas. I understood those ideas, loud and clear. I knew what Bernie's and Hillary's and the DNC's plans were regarding healthcare, education, and all the other big platforms. I thought that the #1 thing that the Democratic establishment did wrong was that their overall message was more towards the center and they wouldn't even entertain moving left or supporting anyone who was to the left of their message, leaving Bernie supporters and anti-establishment liberals feeling disenfranchised, and so they didn't vote in the general election or didn't vote for Hillary. When you have a person like Bernie getting new people engaged and enthusiastic, you can't just cut him off and expect his supporters to stick with you. I have to disagree with you there. The Democrats' problem in the 2016 election was not that they were insufficiently far to the left. EDIT: This actually looks to me like one of the most constructive things the Democrat party has done in a long time. No crying about racism or sexism or homophobia or Islamophobia or arachnophobia or any other -ism or -phobia. Instead it is a refocusing of the Democrat message, to try and make the Democrats a party of the working class, like it was in the past with FDR.
Fairly sure you're saying the same thing he is.
|
On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms.
I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out
|
On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out
But what happens if he starts backstabbing the top of the ticket by complaining the Pres isn't Bernie-Progressive enough? You think his ego will allow him to play a supporting role?
|
On July 25 2017 07:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Dems can come up with all kinds of expensive and even good slogans, but if a voter really has that white grievance in them, then it won't make a damned difference. DJT speaks to the need to punish and box in the other, and Dems don't. Either Dems get the whole Obama coalition together, or they lose. Here's my suggested message for the Dems
(1) Reinforcing Civil Rights
(2) Expanding Public Investment
(3) Restoring Professionalism in Government
(1) Includes laws that: restore VRA, sentencing reform, labor rights reinforcement (card check), and immigration pathways to citizenship.
(2) Includes laws that: repair Republican damage to ACA, expand medicaid/medicare coverage, invest in sciences and administrative state, and allow medicaid/medicare buyins.
(3) This is running on not being Trump. Everyone makes fun of this, but it is a real thing worth running on. The Trumpkins and Republicans in the legislature are buffoons that can't govern (see demonstrative legislative failures).
I mean, if Democrats aren't going to adopt a more progressive economic stance they can't help but lead with civil rights, which basically dumps on their other leg of this which is reaching "reasonable blue collar Republicans".
Not to mention there's the whole Democratic leaders having their own problems with civil rights. Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, all come to mind, isn't helping.
Best way for Democrats to somehow still lose to the political zombie that is the Republican party is to listen to advice like Wulfey's
DPB is the type of stuff you want coming out of Democrats if they are to have any hope of gaining back those 1000+ seats they lost listening to the bad advice from that "centrist" wing of the party.
On July 25 2017 07:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out But what happens if he starts backstabbing the top of the ticket by complaining the Pres isn't Bernie-Progressive enough? You think his ego will allow him to play a supporting role?
lol You need to lay off the Joy Reid and crew on twitter. Of Bernie's problems, no one outside of his Democratic haters believes he's got an ego problem.
|
On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out
Tim Kaine for 2020? The pro TPP and who voted Yes on every single Trump confirmation... Hell no.
|
On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out
It's hard for me to imagine Bernie as VP. He has very strong and outspoken stances on several issues, and if he was VP he would have to conform those stances to those of his running mate. Unless there is some younger version of Bernie out there who is a good pick for president, he would just end up looking like a sellout.
|
On July 25 2017 07:25 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out It's hard for me to imagine Bernie as VP. He has very strong and outspoken stances on several issues, and if he was VP he would have to conform those stances to those of his running mate. Unless there is some younger version of Bernie out there who is a good pick for president, he would just end up looking like a sellout.
I think him and Nina make a strong ticket, and also conveniently shut up a lot of his critics about how Bernie's supporters are all misogynistic, black hating, bro's.
Considering the role and their relative experience I think it makes more sense for Bernie to be at the top of the ticket, but Bernie would happily step aside for another progressive he believed in.
Bernie didn't even want to run in 2016 (few may remember the press conference announcing his bid), he ONLY ran because there wasn't a progressive candidate.
|
On July 25 2017 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out Tim Kaine for 2020? The pro TPP and who voted Yes on every single Trump confirmation... Hell no.
Who brought up Tim Kaine?
|
On July 25 2017 07:29 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out Tim Kaine for 2020? The pro TPP and who voted Yes on every single Trump confirmation... Hell no. Who brought up Tim Kaine?
Ah thought you were suggesting Clinton's VP pick run and have Sanders be his VP.
|
I don't get the Bernie love still going on, honestly. I find a lot of parts of his campaign quite suspicious, what with the ongoing Russian revelations. Look up Tad Devine's work in Ukraine, and who he worked with there, if you're interested.
|
On July 25 2017 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out Tim Kaine for 2020? The pro TPP and who voted Yes on every single Trump confirmation... Hell no.
Yeah. Kaine and shitty Obama 2.0 can uh...no.
|
On July 25 2017 07:20 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:05 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 06:46 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two big problems. A Papa John's slogan, and Nancy Pelosi who is so pro Corporate and arrogant that she refuses to budge to allow younger leaders to gain insight into the party. Six months after Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats have outlined a plan to improve their chances of methodically taking it all back.
They are leaning heavily on a re-branding of their greatest hits — more and better-paying jobs, lowering health care costs and cracking down on the what are seen as the abuses of big business.
As an agenda and a slogan, "A Better Deal," hearkens back to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went 50 miles outside the Beltway, to Berryville, Va., to unveil it, hoping the ideas will resonate with suburban voters, many of whom were energized by Trump's campaign-trail populism.
"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong?" Schumer said, speaking on ABC's This Week Sunday. "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for."
Responding to the plan on Monday, President Trump tweeted that in releasing the plan, Democrats were admitting that it was their own fault they lost the election, and not Russian meddling.
Democrats say they want to double federal support for apprenticeship programs to help train young people and put out-of-work adults back in the work force. They also want tax incentives for companies to retrain workers, as well as new standards aimed at limiting corporate mergers that throw people out of work. In addition, the plan calls for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
"We will aggressively crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," the Democratic leadership said in a statement. "We will fight to ensure a living wage for all Americans and keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare, so seniors can retire with dignity."
Berryville, with a population less than 5,000, is situated in one district that Democrats desperately would like to flip in 2018. It is currently represented by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock and it stretches from just outside Washington to more rural parts of the state.
Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Pelosi said that since taking the reins in January, Republicans have squandered opportunities to help average Americans. "[Instead] of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform," she said, "Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Democrats need to wrest 24 Republican-held seats in the House to gain control of that chamber. In the Senate, however, they are playing defense, fighting to retain Democratic-held seats in states won by Trump. Source I actually like this approach. I feel they took away the lessons they needed from 2016 (At least they are saying that they have. they need to put it into action) This shows real promise for the DNC to me I'm a little bit more skeptical, unfortunately. Especially when Schumer said "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for" and then later on with the list of their ideas. I understood those ideas, loud and clear. I knew what Bernie's and Hillary's and the DNC's plans were regarding healthcare, education, and all the other big platforms. I thought that the #1 thing that the Democratic establishment did wrong was that their overall message was more towards the center and they wouldn't even entertain moving left or supporting anyone who was to the left of their message, leaving Bernie supporters and anti-establishment liberals feeling disenfranchised, and so they didn't vote in the general election or didn't vote for Hillary. When you have a person like Bernie getting new people engaged and enthusiastic, you can't just cut him off and expect his supporters to stick with you. I have to disagree with you there. The Democrats' problem in the 2016 election was not that they were insufficiently far to the left. EDIT: This actually looks to me like one of the most constructive things the Democrat party has done in a long time. No crying about racism or sexism or homophobia or Islamophobia or arachnophobia or any other -ism or -phobia. Instead it is a refocusing of the Democrat message, to try and make the Democrats a party of the working class, like it was in the past with FDR. Fairly sure you're saying the same thing he is.
I think we are saying the exact opposite actually.
DPB: "I thought that the #1 thing that the Democratic establishment did wrong was that their overall message was more towards the center and they wouldn't even entertain moving left or supporting anyone who was to the left of their message, leaving Bernie supporters and anti-establishment liberals feeling disenfranchised, and so they didn't vote in the general election or didn't vote for Hillary."
Me: "The Democrats' problem in the 2016 election was not that they were insufficiently far to the left."
Move farther left vs move towards the center. Seems like we've got pretty opposite viewpoints to me.
EDIT: Also who the heck is Nina? I thought people were just making jokes about ninazerg.
|
|
|
This whole, "Dems need to be harder left and alienate the suburbs and exurbs harder" line is ridiculous. When Dems had the Blue Dogs, we passed ACA, Dodd-Frank, Stimulus, and got Supreme Court justice. Without them and those suburban and exurban seats? We have Paul Ryan. Also, check out the congressional vote totals in 2016. No, going harder left will do nothing to swing those marginal voters in the middle who switched over to Republicans.
Republicans captured the majority of the "popular vote" for the House on Election Day, collecting about 56.3 million votes while Democrats got about 53.2 million, according to USA TODAY calculations.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/10/democrats-won-popular-vote-senate-too/93598998/
|
|
|
On July 25 2017 07:34 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:20 Nebuchad wrote:On July 25 2017 07:05 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On July 25 2017 06:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 06:46 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two big problems. A Papa John's slogan, and Nancy Pelosi who is so pro Corporate and arrogant that she refuses to budge to allow younger leaders to gain insight into the party. Six months after Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats have outlined a plan to improve their chances of methodically taking it all back.
They are leaning heavily on a re-branding of their greatest hits — more and better-paying jobs, lowering health care costs and cracking down on the what are seen as the abuses of big business.
As an agenda and a slogan, "A Better Deal," hearkens back to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went 50 miles outside the Beltway, to Berryville, Va., to unveil it, hoping the ideas will resonate with suburban voters, many of whom were energized by Trump's campaign-trail populism.
"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong?" Schumer said, speaking on ABC's This Week Sunday. "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for."
Responding to the plan on Monday, President Trump tweeted that in releasing the plan, Democrats were admitting that it was their own fault they lost the election, and not Russian meddling.
Democrats say they want to double federal support for apprenticeship programs to help train young people and put out-of-work adults back in the work force. They also want tax incentives for companies to retrain workers, as well as new standards aimed at limiting corporate mergers that throw people out of work. In addition, the plan calls for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
"We will aggressively crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," the Democratic leadership said in a statement. "We will fight to ensure a living wage for all Americans and keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare, so seniors can retire with dignity."
Berryville, with a population less than 5,000, is situated in one district that Democrats desperately would like to flip in 2018. It is currently represented by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock and it stretches from just outside Washington to more rural parts of the state.
Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Pelosi said that since taking the reins in January, Republicans have squandered opportunities to help average Americans. "[Instead] of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform," she said, "Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Democrats need to wrest 24 Republican-held seats in the House to gain control of that chamber. In the Senate, however, they are playing defense, fighting to retain Democratic-held seats in states won by Trump. Source I actually like this approach. I feel they took away the lessons they needed from 2016 (At least they are saying that they have. they need to put it into action) This shows real promise for the DNC to me I'm a little bit more skeptical, unfortunately. Especially when Schumer said "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for" and then later on with the list of their ideas. I understood those ideas, loud and clear. I knew what Bernie's and Hillary's and the DNC's plans were regarding healthcare, education, and all the other big platforms. I thought that the #1 thing that the Democratic establishment did wrong was that their overall message was more towards the center and they wouldn't even entertain moving left or supporting anyone who was to the left of their message, leaving Bernie supporters and anti-establishment liberals feeling disenfranchised, and so they didn't vote in the general election or didn't vote for Hillary. When you have a person like Bernie getting new people engaged and enthusiastic, you can't just cut him off and expect his supporters to stick with you. I have to disagree with you there. The Democrats' problem in the 2016 election was not that they were insufficiently far to the left. EDIT: This actually looks to me like one of the most constructive things the Democrat party has done in a long time. No crying about racism or sexism or homophobia or Islamophobia or arachnophobia or any other -ism or -phobia. Instead it is a refocusing of the Democrat message, to try and make the Democrats a party of the working class, like it was in the past with FDR. Fairly sure you're saying the same thing he is. I think we are saying the exact opposite actually. DPB: "I thought that the #1 thing that the Democratic establishment did wrong was that their overall message was more towards the center and they wouldn't even entertain moving left or supporting anyone who was to the left of their message, leaving Bernie supporters and anti-establishment liberals feeling disenfranchised, and so they didn't vote in the general election or didn't vote for Hillary." Me: "The Democrats' problem in the 2016 election was not that they were insufficiently far to the left." Move farther left vs move towards the center. Seems like we've got pretty opposite viewpoints to me. EDIT: Also who the heck is Nina? I thought people were just making jokes about ninazerg.
I can read thank you, from what you described I expect that what he calls moving to the left and what you call moving towards the center are very similar things in nature.
Nina is Nina Turner.
|
On July 25 2017 07:32 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
I don't get the Bernie love still going on, honestly. I find a lot of parts of his campaign quite suspicious, what with the ongoing Russian revelations. Look up Tad Devine's work in Ukraine, and who he worked with there, if you're interested.
JFC. Because if you look at his time in congress/the senate he seems to be one of very few who even seem to give a shit about the people they are legislating for.
I disagree with him on plenty and think he's far from perfect, but to borrow a phrase "have you seen the other guys?"
They are practically all bought and sold by their corporate financiers. It's often pointed out that the system is unlikely to change because the people with the power to change it are dependent on it staying the way it is. Bernie doesn't have that restriction. He's there because people genuinely think he represents them well and fights for stuff that matters.
If anything is going to improve, it's going to be from people like Bernie pressing Democrats to be better, not from anyone the party (bosses) likes.
|
On July 25 2017 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two big problems. A Papa John's slogan, and Nancy Pelosi who is so pro Corporate and arrogant that she refuses to budge to allow younger leaders to gain insight into the party. Show nested quote +Six months after Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats have outlined a plan to improve their chances of methodically taking it all back.
They are leaning heavily on a re-branding of their greatest hits — more and better-paying jobs, lowering health care costs and cracking down on the what are seen as the abuses of big business.
As an agenda and a slogan, "A Better Deal," hearkens back to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went 50 miles outside the Beltway, to Berryville, Va., to unveil it, hoping the ideas will resonate with suburban voters, many of whom were energized by Trump's campaign-trail populism.
"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong?" Schumer said, speaking on ABC's This Week Sunday. "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for."
Responding to the plan on Monday, President Trump tweeted that in releasing the plan, Democrats were admitting that it was their own fault they lost the election, and not Russian meddling.
Democrats say they want to double federal support for apprenticeship programs to help train young people and put out-of-work adults back in the work force. They also want tax incentives for companies to retrain workers, as well as new standards aimed at limiting corporate mergers that throw people out of work. In addition, the plan calls for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
"We will aggressively crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," the Democratic leadership said in a statement. "We will fight to ensure a living wage for all Americans and keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare, so seniors can retire with dignity."
Berryville, with a population less than 5,000, is situated in one district that Democrats desperately would like to flip in 2018. It is currently represented by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock and it stretches from just outside Washington to more rural parts of the state.
Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Pelosi said that since taking the reins in January, Republicans have squandered opportunities to help average Americans. "[Instead] of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform," she said, "Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Democrats need to wrest 24 Republican-held seats in the House to gain control of that chamber. In the Senate, however, they are playing defense, fighting to retain Democratic-held seats in states won by Trump. Source
This missed a few things that the WSJ mentioned:
1) $15 minimum wage
2) Potential Medicare buy-in, Medicaid buy-in. And/or expanding Medicare to 55 and over.
3) More regulation on Wall Street
-------------------------------------------------------
I see it as a populist message designed to try to win back the union supporters they lost to Trump and offer enough to Progressives that they'll weaken their attacks on the establishment a little. We'll see how it turns out politically.
In terms of policy, it's an utter mess imo, but I didn't have high expectations. It's basically the "Here kids, I'll give you ice cream instead of vegetables!" approach that the Dems currently stand for.
Protectionism, higher minimum wage, more regulations on Wall Street (who knows why in 2017 though, other than the need for a boogieman), no entitlement reform (though they expand them), limiting mergers that cut jobs (??? we want support superfluous jobs in this country as welfare now?), and I'm sure identity politics aren't going anywhere.
The Dems and GOP really make it hard to decide which party is less damaging to vote for. We're either stuck with the ice cream party or the party that elected DJT.
@LordofAwesome: It's hard to accuse your opponents of being racist/sexist/whatever in a party platform without hurting yourself politically. I'm sure that theme will come back when the elections start.
|
On July 25 2017 07:39 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Two big problems. A Papa John's slogan, and Nancy Pelosi who is so pro Corporate and arrogant that she refuses to budge to allow younger leaders to gain insight into the party. Six months after Republicans gained control of the White House and both houses of Congress, Democrats have outlined a plan to improve their chances of methodically taking it all back.
They are leaning heavily on a re-branding of their greatest hits — more and better-paying jobs, lowering health care costs and cracking down on the what are seen as the abuses of big business.
As an agenda and a slogan, "A Better Deal," hearkens back to the days of President Franklin Roosevelt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer went 50 miles outside the Beltway, to Berryville, Va., to unveil it, hoping the ideas will resonate with suburban voters, many of whom were energized by Trump's campaign-trail populism.
"When you lose an election with someone who has, say, 40 percent popularity, you look in the mirror and say what did we do wrong?" Schumer said, speaking on ABC's This Week Sunday. "And the No. 1 thing that we did wrong is ... we didn't tell people what we stood for."
Responding to the plan on Monday, President Trump tweeted that in releasing the plan, Democrats were admitting that it was their own fault they lost the election, and not Russian meddling.
Democrats say they want to double federal support for apprenticeship programs to help train young people and put out-of-work adults back in the work force. They also want tax incentives for companies to retrain workers, as well as new standards aimed at limiting corporate mergers that throw people out of work. In addition, the plan calls for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.
"We will aggressively crack down on unfair foreign trade and fight back against corporations that outsource American jobs," the Democratic leadership said in a statement. "We will fight to ensure a living wage for all Americans and keep our promise to millions of workers who earned a pension, Social Security and Medicare, so seniors can retire with dignity."
Berryville, with a population less than 5,000, is situated in one district that Democrats desperately would like to flip in 2018. It is currently represented by Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock and it stretches from just outside Washington to more rural parts of the state.
Writing in The Washington Post on Sunday, Pelosi said that since taking the reins in January, Republicans have squandered opportunities to help average Americans. "[Instead] of creating good-paying jobs, or rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure, or advancing tax reform," she said, "Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans' health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires."
Democrats need to wrest 24 Republican-held seats in the House to gain control of that chamber. In the Senate, however, they are playing defense, fighting to retain Democratic-held seats in states won by Trump. Source This missed a few things that the WSJ mentioned: 1) $15 minimum wage 2) Potential Medicare buy-in, Medicaid buy-in. And/or expanding Medicare to 55 and over. 3) More regulation on Wall Street ------------------------------------------------------- I see it as a populist message designed to try to win back the union supporters they lost to Trump and offer enough to Progressives that they'll weaken their attacks on the establishment a little. We'll see how it turns out politically. In terms of policy, it's an utter mess imo, but I didn't have high expectations. It's basically the "Here kids, I'll give you ice cream instead of vegetables!" approach that the Dems currently stand for. Protectionism, higher minimum wage, more regulations on Wall Street (who knows why in 2017 though, other than the need for a boogieman), no entitlement reform (though they expand them), limiting mergers that cut jobs (??? we want support superfluous jobs in this country as welfare now?), and I'm sure identity politics aren't going anywhere. The Dems and GOP really make it hard to decide which party is less damaging to vote for. We're either stuck with the ice cream party or the party that elected DJT. @LordofAwesome: I t's hard to accuse your opponents of being racist/sexist/whatever in a party platform without hurting yourself politically. I'm sure that theme will come back when the elections start.
Sadly, you are almost certainly correct.
|
On July 25 2017 07:30 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 07:29 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On July 25 2017 07:20 IyMoon wrote:On July 25 2017 07:12 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 25 2017 02:06 Yurie wrote:On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+
Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".
Agreed. Trump shows signs of age related mental problems (according to some professionals) and any person at that age will have a much higher chance for illnesses and accidents that impact a term. I like Bernie's platform but would likely not vote for him due to his age and the likely problems it would cause. Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket? Not really. I would suggest running that VP as the main candidate and put Sanders as VP instead where he can use his popularity but not be a major hindrance near the end of his terms. I could get behind bernie as the VP. Make his base happy, give him a role, but nobody has to be too worried if he gets sick and has to back out Tim Kaine for 2020? The pro TPP and who voted Yes on every single Trump confirmation... Hell no. Who brought up Tim Kaine? Ah thought you were suggesting Clinton's VP pick run and have Sanders be his VP.
Oh no, I am saying get a new fresh face for the Ticket and have Bernie as their VP. god stay away from Tim Kaine
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
