|
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 January 16 2018 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 02:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 02:40 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 02:27 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:45 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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 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.
This is part of what Serm was picking up on in my posting. Constantly confronting people with the realities of the failures they've allowed themselves to rationalize, justify, ignore and so on.
Just look at all the centrist people posting about MLK today ignoring his socialism, disneyfying his defiance, and forgetting how the equivalent centrist liberals of the day berated him.
Or the ones that somewhat remember some of that, but spent the last year caping for the same institution that designated him the "most dangerous negro" in the country and tried to get him to kill himself, and we know participated in the assassination of his contemporary Fred Hampton (for which no one was imprisoned).
The same institution that just last year was exposed for essentially re-forming COINTELPRO (if we're to believe it ever went away) around the new designation of "Black Identity Extremist" using the same old bullshit.
EDIT: If liberal corporate media gave a shit you would see at least as much about all that today as you see about Trump-Russiagate on a Tuesday.
|
I’m with you GH. I dislike the whitewashing of history as much as anyone. I’m just providing the perspective of someone from a family of centrists and who’s friends are mostly centrists. I can’t just confront, people just shut down or tune me out. I have to find other vectors to change folk’s minds.
|
On January 16 2018 03:32 Plansix wrote:
I’m with you GH. I dislike the whitewashing of history as much as anyone. I’m just providing the perspective of someone from a family of centrists and who’s friends are mostly centrists. I can’t just confront, people just shut down or tune me out. I have to find other vectors to change folk’s minds.
A wise man once said:
its hard, thankless work that will never end.
Today and MLK is just one example. You can find the same stuff for many topics. I can't dissuade you from trying to reach your family, however lost they may or may not be, but the issue you mention is why I'd rather engage people who already tend to agree with me and just feel left out rather than people who obstinately and ignorantly refuse to be informed or inform themselves, at least as far as movement building goes.
Why bother, when so many will just hop on the bandwagon anyway once it's the only game in town?
The "it's Democrats or bust" people serve as an example. If the political faction I support is the only people with a shot to beat "Trump" they'll be voting for it whether we changed their mind on policy or not.
|
On January 16 2018 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 03:32 Plansix wrote:
I’m with you GH. I dislike the whitewashing of history as much as anyone. I’m just providing the perspective of someone from a family of centrists and who’s friends are mostly centrists. I can’t just confront, people just shut down or tune me out. I have to find other vectors to change folk’s minds. A wise man once said: Today and MLK is just one example. You can find the same stuff for many topics. I can't dissuade you from trying to reach your family, however lost they may or may not be, but the issue you mention is why I'd rather engage people who already tend to agree with me and just feel left out rather than people who obstinately and ignorantly refuse to be informed or inform themselves, at least as far as movement building goes. Why bother, when so many will just hop on the bandwagon anyway once it's the only game in town?
Because they won’t show up when its time to cast the ballot.
|
On January 16 2018 03:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2018 03:32 Plansix wrote:
I’m with you GH. I dislike the whitewashing of history as much as anyone. I’m just providing the perspective of someone from a family of centrists and who’s friends are mostly centrists. I can’t just confront, people just shut down or tune me out. I have to find other vectors to change folk’s minds. A wise man once said: its hard, thankless work that will never end.
Today and MLK is just one example. You can find the same stuff for many topics. I can't dissuade you from trying to reach your family, however lost they may or may not be, but the issue you mention is why I'd rather engage people who already tend to agree with me and just feel left out rather than people who obstinately and ignorantly refuse to be informed or inform themselves, at least as far as movement building goes. Why bother, when so many will just hop on the bandwagon anyway once it's the only game in town? Because they won’t show up when its time to cast the ballot.
You mean the people who berated those who did that will turn around and abandon what little principal they have and do the same? Surely we must win those people over.
I prefer the idea of replacing them with the people who already don't show up because they have no one to vote for.
|
|
|
On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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.
This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever").
The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues."
In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot.
|
Did he just throw in the hurting our military because he thinks it's what the base wants to hear?
|
On January 16 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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. This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever"). The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues." In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot.
You correct in every way, except that my post was lazy answer to a complex problem. It doesn’t claim to be the answer at all, but a critique of the current efforts by ‘third parties” to gain a political foothold by running every 4 years for the highest office and then vaporize from the political discussion for 4 years. The only way a political movement can gain any level of power in this country is to govern at some level. And you don’t get that by running for one office every 4 years.
|
On January 16 2018 06:23 Adreme wrote:
Did he just throw in the hurting our military because he thinks it's what the base wants to hear?
I don't know; but that sounds like a very plausible explanation. or he's vaguely (mis)remembering some tidbit from somewhere that he's alluding to.
|
|
|
On January 16 2018 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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. This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever"). The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues." In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot. You correct in every way, except that my post was lazy answer to a complex problem. It doesn’t claim to be the answer at all, but a critique of the current efforts by ‘third parties” to gain a political foothold by running every 4 years for the highest office and then vaporize from the political discussion for 4 years. The only way a political movement can gain any level of power in this country is to govern at some level. And you don’t get that by running for one office every 4 years.
I think you see some of that, but the problem is locally it seems a lot easier to run as a Dem or Republican with the ideals of the 3rd party. Which is great but does complicate the whole idea of bringing a 3rd party into power.
Something like: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/10/what_democratic_socialist_lee_carter_s_upset_win_suggests_about_the_left.html
It's just inherently the easier way; winning 2 1-on-1 races is a lot easier than winning a 3-way race vs both a Dem and Republican.
|
On January 16 2018 07:03 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 06:33 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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. This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever"). The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues." In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot. You correct in every way, except that my post was lazy answer to a complex problem. It doesn’t claim to be the answer at all, but a critique of the current efforts by ‘third parties” to gain a political foothold by running every 4 years for the highest office and then vaporize from the political discussion for 4 years. The only way a political movement can gain any level of power in this country is to govern at some level. And you don’t get that by running for one office every 4 years. I think you see some of that, but the problem is locally it seems a lot easier to run as a Dem or Republican with the ideals of the 3rd party. Which is great but does complicate the whole idea of bringing a 3rd party into power. Something like: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/10/what_democratic_socialist_lee_carter_s_upset_win_suggests_about_the_left.htmlIt's just inherently the easier way; winning 2 1-on-1 races is a lot easier than winning a 3-way race vs both a Dem and Republican.
I don’t support third parties in general for that reason. My comment on third parties was in response someone saying they people needed to think beyond the two parties. At no point did I say it would be easy or possible. My tone was conversational and not prescriptive.
|
On January 16 2018 07:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 07:03 Logo wrote:On January 16 2018 06:33 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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. This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever"). The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues." In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot. You correct in every way, except that my post was lazy answer to a complex problem. It doesn’t claim to be the answer at all, but a critique of the current efforts by ‘third parties” to gain a political foothold by running every 4 years for the highest office and then vaporize from the political discussion for 4 years. The only way a political movement can gain any level of power in this country is to govern at some level. And you don’t get that by running for one office every 4 years. I think you see some of that, but the problem is locally it seems a lot easier to run as a Dem or Republican with the ideals of the 3rd party. Which is great but does complicate the whole idea of bringing a 3rd party into power. Something like: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/10/what_democratic_socialist_lee_carter_s_upset_win_suggests_about_the_left.htmlIt's just inherently the easier way; winning 2 1-on-1 races is a lot easier than winning a 3-way race vs both a Dem and Republican. I don’t support third parties in general for that reason. My comment on third parties was in response someone saying they people needed to think beyond the two parties. At no point did I say it would be easy or possible. My tone was conversational and not prescriptive.
what experience "governing at some level" did trump and trumpists have?
"ah, well trump ran as a republican didn't he"
|
On January 16 2018 07:28 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 07:09 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 07:03 Logo wrote:On January 16 2018 06:33 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 06:22 IgnE wrote:On January 16 2018 02:06 Plansix wrote:On January 16 2018 01:51 Grumbels wrote: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... 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. This is a typically lazy P6 post which manages to reduce a complex problematic to a trivialized problem and to frame the proposed "obvious" solution as universally accepted wisdom (although in this case the effect is achieved by calling the only perceived alternative "the dumbest shit ever"). The problem with building up from local elections is that municipalities and even states are so thoroughly integrated into the globalized economic system that they are inherently limited in their options. Education, healthcare, pensions, etc. are all nearly entirely dependent on extrinsic factors which cannot be changed at the local level. It may be possible to focus on what could be called purely "local" issues related to local infrastructure, social peculiarities, or what have you, but when you do that you are making it impossible to build a truly connected political movement which can be expanded to other "local areas" with by-definition different "local issues." In some senses we are lucky to live in the US, where our national elections have the impact to change the world in significant ways. We can "think globally and act locally" (i.e. nationally, to use a stupid marketing slogan) in ways that other smaller countries cannot. You correct in every way, except that my post was lazy answer to a complex problem. It doesn’t claim to be the answer at all, but a critique of the current efforts by ‘third parties” to gain a political foothold by running every 4 years for the highest office and then vaporize from the political discussion for 4 years. The only way a political movement can gain any level of power in this country is to govern at some level. And you don’t get that by running for one office every 4 years. I think you see some of that, but the problem is locally it seems a lot easier to run as a Dem or Republican with the ideals of the 3rd party. Which is great but does complicate the whole idea of bringing a 3rd party into power. Something like: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/10/what_democratic_socialist_lee_carter_s_upset_win_suggests_about_the_left.htmlIt's just inherently the easier way; winning 2 1-on-1 races is a lot easier than winning a 3-way race vs both a Dem and Republican. I don’t support third parties in general for that reason. My comment on third parties was in response someone saying they people needed to think beyond the two parties. At no point did I say it would be easy or possible. My tone was conversational and not prescriptive. what experience "governing at some level" did trump and trumpists have? "ah, well trump ran as a republican didn't he"
The running as a Republican part sort of precludes the argument that he was a third party. I said earlier that the smartest thing Bernie did was run under the Democratic ticket too.
|
The Tea Party showed how you change a party from the inside out. They successfully primaries Republicans to the point where they gained great leverage in Congress and then delivered a President.
Where it went wrong (if you can say it went wrong) is that there is still a large enough continent of none Tea Party Republicans left to stop the 'crazy' stuff from being passed. And the two sides of the Republicans party are pretty opposed to each other, hence their failure to really capitalize on control of all 3 branches and the need to bribe individual congressmen with tailored amendments.
A similar thing could be done to the Democratic Party to force through the change GH wants. And I would imagine it more successful once they get to hold power in congress because there is the possibility for compromise.
|
I'm surprised it wasn't Little Dick Durbin.
And to Trumpsplain: No deal = Government Shutdown = Hurting Our Military
The Democrats are the ones that aren't going to make a deal, I don't know if there will be a shutdown. There shouldn't be because if there is our military gets hurt very badly. We cannot let our military be hurt.
Just like in Boehner-Obama, you want to try to get the other side to take the fall in a budget impasse. It won't work, but that's the goal.
|
On January 16 2018 07:42 Danglars wrote:I'm surprised it wasn't Little Dick Durbin. And to Trumpsplain: No deal = Government Shutdown = Hurting Our Military Show nested quote +The Democrats are the ones that aren't going to make a deal, I don't know if there will be a shutdown. There shouldn't be because if there is our military gets hurt very badly. We cannot let our military be hurt. Just like in Boehner-Obama, you want to try to get the other side to take the fall in a budget impasse. It won't work, but that's the goal.
Its hard to spin it on the Democrats when you control all 3 branches and shouldn't need a single of their votes.
|
Yeah that's why it's not "just like Boehner-Obama"; it is something rather different.
|
On January 16 2018 07:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2018 07:42 Danglars wrote:I'm surprised it wasn't Little Dick Durbin. And to Trumpsplain: No deal = Government Shutdown = Hurting Our Military The Democrats are the ones that aren't going to make a deal, I don't know if there will be a shutdown. There shouldn't be because if there is our military gets hurt very badly. We cannot let our military be hurt. Just like in Boehner-Obama, you want to try to get the other side to take the fall in a budget impasse. It won't work, but that's the goal. Its hard to spin it on the Democrats when you control all 3 branches.
And the break down in discussions revolves around the Republican president dropping the racist bombs when the deal is presented to him. Bombs that no one else in the room disputes were dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
