EPTThe numbers don't lie #thetruthisoutthere
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9691
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14203 Posts
The numbers don't lie #thetruthisoutthere | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote: The best thing liberal posters can do it get involved in local elections, IMO. Most political activism revolves around public schools and town meetings. And that is where you find people who can have their minds changed or at least broadened. Edit: The democratic party can be changed from within. It happened before and it can happen again. I’ve always said that the smartest thing Bernie ever did was run as a Democrat. But its hard, thankless work that will never end. Agreed, and I've said multiple times this is how I personally engage beyond this forum. It seems a lot of people's political activism starts and ends on this forum and they presume mine does too. If you aren't doing something politically active (meaning outside of your house interacting with other local politically minded people) more than once a month you are on the sidelines. I can respect this point of view (the edit) but I disagree with it. The institution will only allow as much change as it deems supportive of it's overall task, which is to make policy designed by the powerful intended to make them more powerful palatable to the masses. This sounds more like common sense and less like conspiracy when you recognize that's what the Constitution did in the first place granting more self-determination to white, wealthy, land owning, men. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 15 2018 21:51 levelping wrote: I think Catholics in general are very much more supportive of leftwing economic policy. Catholic mass always talks about the virtue of the poor, how being rich is bad, etc.. As I understand all this gets a bit lost in protestant, and especially prosperity gospel communities. In a country where Trump gets the vast majority of evangelical votes I don't think there is much hope for the Christian community honestly. Catholics are a bit distinct from the mainstream protestant churches though, both in demographics and outlook. I think it makes more sense for the Democrats to try to reach Catholic voters, as opposed to moderate republican voters, which they seem to be doing now. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:43 Sermokala wrote: See GH is a secret conservative plant under deep cover to destabilize the democratic party and give decades of complete control to the GOP. He constantly fights against the democratic party and merely dismisses the GOP whenever it comes up with him. Whenever he gets in a discussion with other liberals he never agrees with them and is always in conflict with them. The numbers don't lie #thetruthisoutthere Yeah guys, let’s face it. We can’t spend all this time arguing over pointless details like policy, the real concern is that we have to stop Trump at all costs. This is why you just have to put your actual goals aside and blindly get behind the Democrats. We Democrats are the only thing that can stop the Trump menace who is by the way so bad that nothing else matters. Yes, you might have some misgivings. But you can’t oppose the Democratic candidate that the DNC has handpicked to do battle against the forces of darkness. And as the Diamond Resorts dude says, we can’t let ourselves fall to far left savagery. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:35 Plansix wrote: The best thing liberal posters can do it get involved in local elections, IMO. Most political activism revolves around public schools and town meetings. And that is where you find people who can have their minds changed or at least broadened. Edit: The democratic party can be changed from within. It happened before and it can happen again. I’ve always said that the smartest thing Bernie ever did was run as a Democrat. But its hard, thankless work that will never end. I think so too, the USA electoral system is just hostile to third parties in general, but in many non-competitive local races progressive candidates can win the primary and work to move the party (and the country, and the judiciary etc.) to the left. Of course the party establishment will seek to prevent it, because they're not actually very interested in pursuing genuine leftwing economic policy to the benefit of the public, since donors might not invite them to parties anymore... On January 16 2018 01:50 LegalLord wrote: Yeah guys, let’s face it. We can’t spend all this time arguing over pointless details like policy, the real concern is that we have to stop Trump at all costs. This is why you just have to put your actual goals aside and blindly get behind the Democrats. We Democrats are the only thing that can stop the Trump menace who is by the way so bad that nothing else matters. Yes, you might have some misgivings. But you can’t oppose the Democratic candidate that the DNC has handpicked to do battle against the forces of darkness. And as the Diamond Resorts dude says, we can’t let ourselves fall to far left savagery. I think it speaks to the moment that I have trouble recognizing this as sarcasm. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:43 Sermokala wrote: See GH is a secret conservative plant under deep cover to destabilize the democratic party and give decades of complete control to the GOP. He constantly fights against the democratic party and merely dismisses the GOP whenever it comes up with him. Whenever he gets in a discussion with other liberals he never agrees with them and is always in conflict with them. The numbers don't lie #thetruthisoutthere lol. You realize we already have President Trump right? EDIT: Nah not GOP, Russian, that's the narrative. On January 16 2018 01:40 zlefin wrote: whatever you want to believe gh, but you haven't provided a decent proposal, merely a bad proposal. and working toward a bad proposal won't accomplish anything. you assume that if it's not the democrats, this alternate group will be magically better, rather than simply having the same problems occur. you're no taddressin the structural issues. many people are unable to recognize which ideas have merit and which do not. and they thus blithely follow meritless ideas; at least I don' tdo that  and I say a great deal of things of merit, people just do not recognize them as such. and a person can be terribly unconvincing even if everything they say has great merit. I get it, you're going to wait until someone else does all the work of creating a viable alternative, grieving it the whole time, then blithely follow along when it's the only viable option. | ||
KwarK
United States44279 Posts
On January 15 2018 13:00 Archeon wrote: alright, I take it back, a poor chance then xD But damn, she lost against Trump, that basically says everything you need to know. Ofc there are factors like providing/gathering funding, image creation, tour planning and execution etc. I get that my post above was oversimplifying the matter a lot. But generally leaving a bad impression is something that makes winning an election very hard. I mean she got more votes that Trump. She only lost under weird American "what if we give rural whites more voting power" rules. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:54 KwarK wrote: I mean she got more votes that Trump. She only lost under weird American "what if we give rural whites more voting power" rules. It's not like we just changed the rules in 2016. She knew the game, better than anyone I hear. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:54 KwarK wrote: I mean she got more votes that Trump. She only lost under weird American "what if we give rural whites more voting power" rules. You mean the “States will smaller populations will not sign to this whole federal government thing if we don’t create a system like this” system? That system was made with a clear purpose back when we started all of this. I get the frustration with the system, but it is the only office in the entire country that isn’t elected by pure popular vote. And it is the office that is supposed to preside over the entire Nation of States that is the USA. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:43 Sermokala wrote: See GH is a secret conservative plant under deep cover to destabilize the democratic party and give decades of complete control to the GOP. He constantly fights against the democratic party and merely dismisses the GOP whenever it comes up with him. Whenever he gets in a discussion with other liberals he never agrees with them and is always in conflict with them. The numbers don't lie #thetruthisoutthere an amusing hypothesis; but occam's razor requires me to stick to just considering him the left's version of the tea party. and @gh yes, you have to strawman my position like that in order to feel good about yourself. nice work on that straw! | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: I think so too, the USA electoral system is just hostile to third parties in general, but in many non-competitive local races progressive candidates can win the primary and work to move the party (and the country, and the judiciary etc.) to the left. Of course the party establishment will seek to prevent it, because they're not actually very interested in pursuing genuine leftwing economic policy to the benefit of the public, since donors might not invite them to parties anymore... New parties need to start at the local level and work their way up. Shooting the moon and only running for the highest office every 4 years is the dumbest shit ever and why third parties are a joke in the US. The very idea that a third party can become viable by only running for office once every 4 years is beyond stupid. The green party is pretty centered around my state, given that their head lives here. They hold a total of zero elected offices in my state. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:50 LegalLord wrote: Yeah guys, let’s face it. We can’t spend all this time arguing over pointless details like policy, the real concern is that we have to stop Trump at all costs. This is why you just have to put your actual goals aside and blindly get behind the Democrats. We Democrats are the only thing that can stop the Trump menace who is by the way so bad that nothing else matters. Yes, you might have some misgivings. But you can’t oppose the Democratic candidate that the DNC has handpicked to do battle against the forces of darkness. And as the Diamond Resorts dude says, we can’t let ourselves fall to far left savagery. Recently released internal memo from DCCC shows their 2018 campaign strategy. Critics alternatively pointed out its similarity to the 2016 campaign strategy, and allegations that the leaker is an ethnic Russian benefitting from hacking efforts from a foreign adversary. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote: New parties need to start at the local level and work their way up. Shooting the moon and only running for the highest office every 4 years is the dumbest shit ever and why third parties are a joke in the US. The very idea that a third party can become viable by only running for office once every 4 years is beyond stupid. The green party is pretty centered around my state, given that their head lives here. They hold a total of zero elected offices in my state. I get this perspective but think that 2016 and the fallout has shown that the party more effectively changes those individuals than those individuals change the party. As to the national thing, I sorta agree, but I would add that running a national race is a fantastic marketing tool regarding inspiring those at the local level. Which was what was so critically different between Hillary and Bernie's campaign. Bernie was telling people essentially "I don't give a shit if you agree with me on everything, the bottom line is these guys have rigged the game against you and you gotta fix this shit. That means all of you need to get engaged in your communities and wrestle (back) control of your government from moneyed interests that are exploiting your fear and ignorance" Which is in part why a lot of the people Bernie inspired to do just that are actually to his left. Contrast that with Clinton and Trump's campaign of "Only I can solve this", Her's self-satirized with the slogan/logo "I'm with Her" and an H with a red arrow pointing to the right | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote: Agreed, and I've said multiple times this is how I personally engage beyond this forum. It seems a lot of people's political activism starts and ends on this forum and they presume mine does too. If you aren't doing something politically active (meaning outside of your house interacting with other local politically minded people) more than once a month you are on the sidelines. I can respect this point of view (the edit) but I disagree with it. The institution will only allow as much change as it deems supportive of it's overall task, which is to make policy designed by the powerful intended to make them more powerful palatable to the masses. This sounds more like common sense and less like conspiracy when you recognize that's what the Constitution did in the first place granting more self-determination to white, wealthy, land owning, men. I think the whole “We need to replace them” narrative I hear out of a lot of progressives is the problem. I had a discussion last week about this with a co-worker that is in the “replace them all” camp. The problem I see with the plan is that you can’t fire your way to an efficient, functional party/business/system. Replacement doesn’t assure that the replacement is superior. And a lot of less activist, but still progressive, people point out that flaw. And you see it in this thread too. People want a plan beyond “replace them all” because they know that winning elections isn’t the real end game. On January 16 2018 02:22 GreenHorizons wrote: Bernie was telling people essentially "I don't give a shit if you agree with me on everything, the bottom line is these guys have rigged the game against you and you gotta fix this shit. That means all of you need to get engaged in your communities and wrestle (back) control of your government from moneyed interests that are exploiting your fear and ignorance" I think there is a lot of millage in this message. The reluctant Republican voters the Democrats want would respond well to it. But there is this overtone of a culling of the party that it needs to be addressed. That it isn’t about a purge of the party, but freeing it from needing the super wealthy. Reforming elections for everyone, not just the DNC. A return to the 1980s style of elections, where they were barely funded and they needed to beg the federal government for help. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote: I think the whole “We need to replace them” narrative I hear out of a lot of progressives is the problem. I had a discussion last week about this with a co-worker that is in the “replace them all” camp. The problem I see with the plan is that you can’t fire your way to an efficient, functional party/business/system. Replacement doesn’t assure that the replacement is superior. And a lot of less activist, but still progressive, people point out that flaw. And you see it in this thread too. People want a plan beyond “replace them all” because they know that winning elections isn’t the real end game. I look at it like a baseline. A similar approach that I support in law enforcement, and was recently tried (to an extent) in Georgia (the country). Fire everyone and hire with new standards. Some people that were fired will meet the new standards, but those who don't won't be able to stick around on seniority. It's a basic and rudimentary plan, but it addresses the primary concern you mention "replacement doesn't ensure superiority", and mine/ours "these people can't stay". Once we all agree to that baseline we have something to work from. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote: I look at it like a baseline. A similar approach that I support in law enforcement, and was recently tried (to an extent) in Georgia (the country). Fire everyone and hire with new standards. Some people that were fired will meet the new standards, but those who don't won't be able to stick around on seniority. It's a basic and rudimentary plan, but it addresses the primary concern you mention "replacement doesn't ensure superiority", and mine/ours "these people can't stay". Once we all agree to that baseline we have something to work from. I agree that it is a baseline. But I think it has a messaging problem for the more pragmatic left leaning voters. Especially with the back drop of the Republicans struggling to pass basic legislation with the conservatives in their party. Much like you and others were not willing to accept Clinton and the status quo, those voters don’t not want to vote for change alone. Personally, I believe the progressives would get a lot of mileage out of running on making elections less shitty. Less money in politics because people want it and it prevents shit like Russia dumping several million into the NRA and other groups. Find shit centrists care about and commit to addressing that too. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44279 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:02 Plansix wrote: You mean the “States will smaller populations will not sign to this whole federal government thing if we don’t create a system like this” system? That system was made with a clear purpose back when we started all of this. I get the frustration with the system, but it is the only office in the entire country that isn’t elected by pure popular vote. And it is the office that is supposed to preside over the entire Nation of States that is the USA. Sure, but whenever we say Hillary lost the election we really ought to add an asterisk saying that she got more votes than Trump and lost because who the plurality of the people voted for doesn't decide the winner. That the people voted for Hillary. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24329 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote: I agree that it is a baseline. But I think it has a messaging problem for the more pragmatic left leaning voters. Especially with the back drop of the Republicans struggling to pass basic legislation with the conservatives in their party. Much like you and others were not willing to accept Clinton and the status quo, those voters don’t not want to vote for change alone. Personally, I believe the progressives would get a lot of mileage out of running on making elections less shitty. Less money in politics because people want it and it prevents shit like Russia dumping several million into the NRA and other groups. Find shit centrists care about and commit to addressing that too. I think it's a messaging problem more than a policy problem. The left I subscribe to thinks letting countries democratically elect someone who opposes US imperialism/capitalism is okay, whereas the left you're finding yourself increasingly alienated from thinks assassinating them and replacing them with a dictator is preferable. It's not us that stands in opposition to cleaning up elections or other things in that vein that centrists want, it's the centrist and the people they support. Personally I'm in the camp that hasn't abandoned the tens of millions of people in the US who don't/can't vote and will take getting them engaged (People who don't/can't vote are overwhelmingly left leaning) over trying to change the minds of older "set in their ways" socially liberal centrists. But I don't think that means we can't do a better job of helping them to recognize they are standing in their own way. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:46 KwarK wrote: Sure, but whenever we say Hillary lost the election we really ought to add an asterisk saying that she got more votes than Trump and lost because who the plurality of the people voted for doesn't decide the winner. That the people voted for Hillary. That is how history normally addresses elections. A president's term is measured by how they were elected and the state of the country when they leave. Trump will have the same record as Bush 2. Barely elected, pulled a bunch of bullshit while in office and left the country far worse off than when he took office. It is just a question of it takes 4 or 8 years to get to 2007 crisis levels. Though the Russian investigation does put a big "Maybe?" around that entire prediction. I have no idea how that thing is going to land politically in congress. Long term, I believe it will change the "money is speech" debate for the nation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 16 2018 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote: I think it's a messaging problem more than a policy problem. The left I subscribe to thinks letting countries democratically elect someone who opposes US imperialism/capitalism whereas the left you're finding yourself increasingly alienated from thinks assassinating them and replacing them with a dictator is preferable. It's not us that stands in opposition to cleaning up elections or other things in that vein that centrists want, it's the centrist and the people they support. Personally I'm in the camp that hasn't abandoned the tens of millions of people in the US who don't/can't vote and will take getting them engaged (People who don't/can't vote are overwhelmingly left leaning) over trying to change the minds of older "set in their ways" socially liberal centrists. But I don't think that means we can't do a better job of helping them to recognize they are standing in their own way. I am with you on most of it, but the pragmatic part of me fears over reach. As a recovering centrist thinker, I am faced with the prospect of changing the mind of my 2007-2008 self and wonder what it would take. And for most topics, racism, sexism, police violence, military action, justice reform and so on, I can only say time. I had not seen enough. Had not been let down by the system enough to see how broken it was. The one thing I keep coming back to campaign finance reform. My milquetoast, white centrist politics would have gone as far left as possible for removing money from elections. | ||
| ||
