|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42655 Posts
On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from.
You're misunderstanding the deplorables, perhaps on purpose.
Basically what she said is
1) We can divide Trump supporters into two groups.
2) Group 1 are people who feel economically disenfranchised by globalization, automation, and the changing position of the United States in the global economy and look to Trump because he says that he has an answer.
3) Group 2 are racists and sexists who think it's funny when he mocks disabled reporters.
4) If you're in group 2 you're an asshole.
What the media reported is "if you support Trump you're an asshole" but that's not at all what she said. The only people she was calling assholes were the assholes in group 2 who, and I don't think you'll even dispute this point, are massive gaping assholes. They're the proud boys etc.. It was a weird situation where you had a bunch of people decide that they identified as group 2 and start wearing hats with "PROUD TO BE DEPLORABLE" on them as if group 2 was the one you wanted to be in.
|
On December 06 2020 04:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. You're misunderstanding the deplorables, perhaps on purpose. Basically what she said is 1) We can divide Trump supporters into two groups. 2) Group 1 are people who feel economically disenfranchised by globalization, automation, and the changing position of the United States in the global economy and look to Trump because he says that he has an answer. 3) Group 2 are racists and sexists who think it's funny when he mocks disabled reporters. 4) If you're in group 2 you're an asshole. What the media reported is "if you support Trump you're an asshole" but that's not at all what she said. The only people she was calling assholes were the assholes in group 2 who, and I don't think you'll even dispute this point, are massive gaping assholes. They're the proud boys etc.. It was a weird situation where you had a bunch of people decide that they identified as group 2 and start wearing hats with "PROUD TO BE DEPLORABLE" on them as if group 2 was the one you wanted to be in. Considering Trump was praised for "saying how it is" when being a racist masochistic I would say a significant part of republicans wants group 2 to be an acceptable social position so the "proud to be deplorable" stuff makes sense.
|
Something I don't think was talked about was that for the first time the demographics were actually trending to the republicans in this last election instead of for democrats. I think the massive turnout campaign with early voting masked a lot of the serious issues that dems are going to need to solve going forward.
There was a story I read that the California senate seat for Harris was very contentious because Hispanic groups wanted a Hispanic to the senate but African American groups didn't want to lose a voice for them to the senate. New Mexico Hispanics were unhappy with how the cabinet announcements were happening with someone I don't know being leaked and then not announced for it.
Its WAY to early to start seriously talking about 2024 but perhaps more then the progressives to keep happy in the meantime the dems need to keep Hispanics happy in order to deliver potentially texas but to secure new Mexico and navada.
Its really hard to see the map as it is and wonder if its not time for the first Hispanic president to come in 2024.
|
United States10154 Posts
Dems need to hard pick back up Hispanics definitely. Florida should've been the warning already when they got smashed in that Cuban vote.
|
On December 05 2020 23:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2020 23:12 Zambrah wrote:Let the Republican attacks roll imo, Americans will respond to being appealed to, being talked to, listened to, feeling understood, and feeling that there might be hope for the future. Let the Republicans sling their crappy insults, focus on helping people understand what you're for via grassroots efforts, phone banking, door-to-door ground work (when that eventually becomes safe) and I'd argue Democrats REALLY need to evaluate the importance of a strong digital presence too. Isn't that more or less what Hillary tried only to get buried because of years and years of Republican attacks? She came with actual solutions for fixing the issues of working class Americans only for them to turn to the guy promising to bring their fathers coal jobs back. I'm not saying your premise is wrong. Republicans will always attack and if they can find no good avenue they will invent one out of thin air but we have first hand proof that trying to appeal to actually fixing the issues doesn't beat a bucket of bullshit. Sadly I don't think America lives in a world were an honest campaign focused on fixing the issues would work anymore.
Hillary ran on policy for sure, but her organization was crap (and probably more important those decades of Republican mudslinging stuck to her REALLY well because shes also not particularly likeable), she was campaigning in places she had no business campaigning and ran mediocre Democrat campaign. I think her unique unlikability and organization were her downfall and given the slim margin with which she lost, I'm comfortable saying that a proactive message wasnt the biggest downfall to her chances.
The key will be grassroots though, Hillary's policywonking didnt really reach people and almost no candidates can or will, its important to have that grassroots organization network thats actively talking to people about what their candidate can do for them. Its not enough to have the candidate talk on TV once in a while, you gotta have people on the ground spreading the word and really communicating with people one on one in my opinion.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same.
|
On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same.
So then they decided to... elect somebody from the wealthy business class directly. I'm sorry, but at that point I'm going to call somebody stupid if that's the key issue they voted on.
|
Cmon man, surely the guy who made his money off the back of workers all his life will defend worker rights those 4 years!
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 06 2020 10:56 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. So then they decided to... elect somebody from the wealthy business class directly. I'm sorry, but at that point I'm going to call somebody stupid if that's the key issue they voted on.
You don't have to have voted for Trump to realize that Clinton was no good. And hey - at least the guy from the wealthy business class made the promise to clean things up at the cost of his own wealth, as much of an obvious lie as that might have been.
|
On December 06 2020 11:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 10:56 Gahlo wrote:On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. So then they decided to... elect somebody from the wealthy business class directly. I'm sorry, but at that point I'm going to call somebody stupid if that's the key issue they voted on. You don't have to have voted for Trump to realize that Clinton was no good. And hey - at least the guy from the wealthy business class made the promise to clean things up at the cost of his own wealth, as much of an obvious lie as that might have been.
Clinton was the candidate that lost in 2016. We already had people voting for Trump against someone else. Why in the world are you still talking about Clinton lol
|
On December 06 2020 11:19 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 10:56 Gahlo wrote:On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. So then they decided to... elect somebody from the wealthy business class directly. I'm sorry, but at that point I'm going to call somebody stupid if that's the key issue they voted on. You don't have to have voted for Trump to realize that Clinton was no good. And hey - at least the guy from the wealthy business class made the promise to clean things up at the cost of his own wealth, as much of an obvious lie as that might have been.
Well, they're voters that didn't vote for Clinton in this frame work. So unless they voted 3rd party, which are in incredibly small mintory, they are Trump voters.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 06 2020 12:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 11:19 LegalLord wrote:On December 06 2020 10:56 Gahlo wrote:On December 06 2020 10:40 LegalLord wrote:
The people who today, four years later, still insist that "people were too stupid to realize that Hillary was the solution to their problems" insult the intelligence of the voters who correctly identified that her platform was mediocre at best on its face and beset by the credibility problem of being the platform of a candidate with a long history of being first and foremost a servant of the wealthy business class. Indeed, they were smart enough not to fall for that line of propaganda, unlike certain others who really are none the wiser.
Four years of Trump still don't make any sane person think, "if only Hillary had been in charge!" It would have been different, certainly, but a downward trend all the same. So then they decided to... elect somebody from the wealthy business class directly. I'm sorry, but at that point I'm going to call somebody stupid if that's the key issue they voted on. You don't have to have voted for Trump to realize that Clinton was no good. And hey - at least the guy from the wealthy business class made the promise to clean things up at the cost of his own wealth, as much of an obvious lie as that might have been. Clinton was the candidate that lost in 2016. We already had people voting for Trump against someone else. Why in the world are you still talking about Clinton lol
Because other people did. You are correct in noting that Clinton should be relegated to a footnote of election history by now.
|
Tomorrow are the debates for the Georgia senate runoff:
The Loeffler-Warnock debate will kick off at 7 p.m. EST on Dec. 6, after Jon Ossoff takes the stage at 5 p.m. by himself. Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., declined invitations from the Atlanta Press Club (APC) to debate his challenger again.
Fox News Channel will air Georgia's Loeffler-Warnock debate live, the only such matchup before the runoff election on Jan. 5.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/when-are-the-georgia-senate-debates
Might watch to see who these people are... Meanwhile more 100k Americans currently hospitalized with covid, yikes.
|
Perdue refusing to debate his opponent, I hate that, if it pays off for him I'm going to be really disappointed.
I've liked what I've seen from Warnocke, namely that I've seen ads for him (Warnocke and Ossoff have this weird Christmas Grinch attack ad thats kind of funny) and I'm pulling for him in particular. Naturally hoping Ossoff can pull through too, 'cause fuck a candidate who refuses to debate his opponents.
|
Perdue is refusing because last time he got crushed. Between his portfolio and his ads, he has too much to lose.
|
United States10154 Posts
Republicans: defending freedom of speech and claiming to be true defenders of our democracy
Also Republicans: refusing to debate their ideological opponents and tried to stage a coup to overthrow our democracy.
|
|
|
On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes.
'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then?
You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right?
You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'?
You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards.
|
On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards.
Imagine an alternate universe in which the only difference is that Bezos and Zuck were never born. How detrimental would that be to people's convenience? The way I see it, not even a tiny bit. We'd have those niches filled by identical services within the same timeframe. There were alternatives every step of the way, the races they won were on a ticking time clock, they weren't open ended races like say discovering penicilin.
In principle I'm not opposed to people that have made massive contributions to society to be obscenely wealthy, but our economic system can't and doesn't even attempt to quantify that. For most of the planet's richest it's at best unclear whether they improved things at all.
|
On December 07 2020 02:43 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2020 03:52 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 03:34 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2020 02:52 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2020 02:08 Danglars wrote:
Every sentence Hillary uttered to try and boost her working-class support felt staged and part of a political stunt. She didn’t even bother to show up in Wisconsin to speak to the rust belt voters there, with predictable results. And calling people deplorables is the worst way to convince people that you’re in it to win their vote.
She’s not the example of why appealing to the voters doesn’t work for Democrats; far from. I'd say Clinton is actually a great example of the overall mindset that prevents Democrats from appealing to the working class. They aren't willing to address why these people are mad, they aren't willing to do things that will appease these people. The poor, working class hate the elite. They understand that most of their problems are actually the result of an out of touch elite who does not feel like they actually need to make concessions to the working class. That's why most Democrat measures don't really actually do anything to harm the elite. Clinton focused on racism and elitist sentiments and hoped Joe Shmoe would agree with her. But it all comes down to a fundamental unwillingness to address the actual grievances of the working class. Republicans are totally willing to address people's anger, fan the flames and give a huge middle finger to the elite. Now, they still completely don't follow through by giving tax breaks to the rich and allowing for the working class to suffer more and more. So in my eyes Republicans are actually WORSE for working class people than Democrats. But its not about what a party does, all that matters is validating anger and saying the right things. In that regard, the republican party wildly outperforms democrats. The tax cuts for the rich are an elite opinion: you can't be happy for the actual reduction in taxes that working class people experienced, because you're supposed to be mad that the people paying the bulk of tax revenue profited more. Yes, because they are still paying unethically too little. They could double the amount they pay and still live excessively extravagant lives. Their capability to do good far exceeds the good they currently do. If I donated an extra $500 per month I would feel the pain from that. If billionaires had their effective tax rate tripled they would still be buying new houses every year without worry. Too many people are suffering to allow for extreme wealth to flourish. Maybe if people weren't suffering, whatever, but there are large groups of people who are excessively suffering and we aren't doing enough to help them. It shouldn't be legally possible for Bezos to have the kind of empire he has. I never said people of your type wouldn’t double down lecturing people on why extra money in their pocketbook was a bad thing and Trump + Republicans voting that into existence was also a bad thing. Your class war against the rich is, well, why your message that they’re acting out of anger is the pot calling the kettle black. For the rest, quote and respond to the substantial majority of my post, not the single sentence to use to continue talking down to the working class while pretending to ask for their votes. 'Extra money in your pocketbook' is now a metaphor for 'more money made daily than most people will make in their entire lives' then? You know Jeff Bezos makes several million dollars hourly, right? You consider that dismissable as 'extra money in his pocketbook'? You don't have to be angry at rich people to recognise that that is an absolutely disgusting state of affairs and an absolutely untenable movement of wealth upwards.
We're all temporarily embarrassed billionaires, now, haven't you heard? I've just had a bit more embarrassment that happens encompass my entire temporary life, but who knows. Maybe a meteor of gold will crash out in my front yard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
