|
Bernie _______ This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| would've won! |
|
87 | 34.52% |
| has won! |
|
45 | 17.86% |
| will win! |
|
56 | 22.22% |
| is winning! |
|
64 | 25.40% |
| Total: | 124 votes | ||
|
Last time on the dems are a waste thread: I opened with a post predicting that Tom Perez, Obama's worthless flunky would abandon the 50-state strategy he campaigned on. Fast-forward to today and Perez has proven to be every bit as worthless as people thought he'd be, and he's completely abandoned the 50-state strategy he campaigned on. Back to the present... Hillary published a book, where she praises reagan! https://twitter.com/evepeyser/status/908493162024439808 of course, this isn't the first time she's praised the reagan administration, so we already knew she was terrible in this way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3cW6VSwPZI further, she blasts bernie constantly in her book, complaining that him staying in the race too long is one of many things he did that cost her the election: https://twitter.com/evepeyser/status/908490681517314048 however, when she was was running against obama she had no problem with a losing candidate staying in as long as possible:  Worse yet, she makes unironic bootstraps arguments in this wasteful tome  what a shameful democrat! what with all of this, plus her getting her burg on with war criminal george w bush, I wouldn't blame you if you thought she was a republican herself! (if only) but she's not the only one! joe biden, who was one of the more popular 2020 possibles has decided to be lovely too! https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/909590685061394432 Nice! That's not to mention schumer's failed better deal and he and pelosi being massive idiots wrt trump: quote:U.S. House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she trusted President Donald Trump’s sincerity in working to protect so-called Dreamers brought to this country illegally and that the effort to shield this group from immigration would not include cuts to legal immigration. "yes I trust the most insincere president we've ever had to be sincere!" -  Of course, it only makes sense that anti-antifa dem Nancy Pelosi would have faith in a fascist lover like trump. meanwhile, on the leftist side of things, Bernie is winning a lot of hearts and minds with his recent medicare for all proposal. Hopefully dems grow a brain and start listening to him, but considering how they're circling around the whiner in chief, it seems unlikely for now... https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/909407312149991425 Banned Posters Jefferson Clay Call me Charlie You should probably put these posters on ignore if you haven't already call to action - Fascist sympathizer shrike82 - trump voter/aspiring trump 2020 voter/white supremacist Old threads original thread (i'll find the link someday, when i get around to it) The democrats are a waste Books? Rappaport posted:
Wise Words Calibanibal posted:When the centrists send their people, they’re not sending their best. They’re bringing insults. They’re bringing shitposts. They’re trolls. And some, I assume, are good people https://twitter.com/shanevader/status/908691031243321347 Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Sep 18, 2017 |
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
The Democrats are a waste because they are trying to be the Republicans of the 80's, and every time they lose they go "well, maybe moving to the right will fix it!" What I am saying is: They truely are a waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:The Democrats are a waste because they are trying to be the Republicans of the 80's, and every time they lose they go "well, maybe moving to the right will fix it!" https://twitter.com/daniecal/status/909138422328999936
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
thread title isn't "The democrats are a mess" voted 1 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Anyone who believes a single loving word Booker, Harris, Pelosi, or Schumer say should be checked into a mental ward with a preliminary diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Did Hillary ever explain her Nancy Reagan AIDS quote or was it just her fans trying to claim she was doing political jujitsu in order to. Ring awareness of what a monster Nancy was? I'm asking because Hllairy post election is making me think she might have been earnest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:thread title isn't "The democrats are a mess" voted 1 should've posted that when i called for suggestions in the last thread. you have no-one to blame but yourself!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
just getting in on the ground floor to say 1) the democrats suck 2) hillary's campaign was an unmitigated disaster and she is to blame for much of it 3) bernie is cool and good and would have won 4) it'd be cool if the democrats are sincere in their discussion to pass things like M4A, but i'm not going to hold my breath 5) the democrats are incompetent and dishonest so be aware before you put your faith in them
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:thread title isn't "The democrats are a mess" voted 1 That implies the Democrats can be fixed
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Somehow the dems will lose seats in 2018. My aching knees predict it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
Even though I like to think I follow US politics quite closely from over here in the EU, I literally haven't the faintest idea what policies the Democrats currently stand for or what their big idea is, especially since the election. They seem to be "not Trump", which I suppose is a decent reason, but what is it they're actually pitching now? All I ever read are stories about how "not Trump" they are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
I'm hoping for another Abuela run in 2020 so we can get "What Happened Pt. 2"
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Even though I like to think I follow US politics quite closely from over here in the EU, I literally haven't the faintest idea what policies the Democrats currently stand for or what their big idea is, especially since the election. They seem to be "not Trump", which I suppose is a decent reason, but what is it they're actually pitching now? no, you've got it p much. the closest mainstream dems have come out with wrt policy is schumer's better deal which involved tons of tax cuts. tax cuts for corporations to train people for example they honestly think that all they should need to do and have to do to win is promise they'll be better than trump
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Even though I like to think I follow US politics quite closely from over here in the EU, I literally haven't the faintest idea what policies the Democrats currently stand for or what their big idea is, especially since the election. They seem to be "not Trump", which I suppose is a decent reason, but what is it they're actually pitching now? The Democrats don't have anything because they are not supposed to and neither are the Republicans really. The whole point of the neoliberal reformation of American politics was supposed to be that the differences in the partiers were supposed to disappear and eventually we would have a "radical centrism" that everyone who "mattered" could feel comfortable with. That's why Clinton is praising "sane" Republicans and lamenting the "decline" of the GOP, we were supposed to be "at the end of history". Gynocentric Regime fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Even though I like to think I follow US politics quite closely from over here in the EU, I literally haven't the faintest idea what policies the Democrats currently stand for or what their big idea is, especially since the election. They seem to be "not Trump", which I suppose is a decent reason, but what is it they're actually pitching now? its one of the reasons they suck so hard literally no vision their donors don't want any change to the left, so the democrats now exists as a bulwark against the left who can sneak in some conservative legislation now and then or, if they have to, pass extremely watered down legislation to prevent a revolt. the only policy they can act on is social policy, which certainly has its merits, but anything economic or reformative is off the table
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Dumb question but can tax reform be combined with DACA? I assume not because one is budgetary and the other isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
The DNC are turning into 'Reagan Democrats' and the actual left in this country is desperately trying to steer them away from their stupid bullshit before it's too late
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Vanguard politics is the only way forward for the Left in America. Infiltrate the DNC! Crush the liberal opposition! Seize power; wield it boldly!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The DNC are turning into 'Reagan Democrats' and the actual left in this country is desperately trying to steer them away from their stupid bullshit before it's too late
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Cool, I guess I'll run for city council on the democrat ticket and slowly work my way up in local politics and destroy them from the inside. OR - I'll just keep voting for Emmanuel Cleaver.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
 BOOK RECOMMENDATION Everyone who thinks the Dems are a waste should read Listen, Liberal by Thomas Frank, it pretty much nails the reasons behind the behaviour of all the centrists who haunted the previous thread. And why the Dems are a loving waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Boy the newest lovett or leave panel was a great example of why dems are bad and dumb when it comes to single payer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:
you could read Hillary's book and get the same effect tbh
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Boy the newest lovett or leave panel was a great example of why dems are bad and dumb when it comes to single payer. Quick synopsis?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:its one of the reasons they suck so hard Well, social reform that helps minorities helps the working class, at least insofar as minority groups tend to be poorer. Further, by reducing the barriers between different groups in here makes it easier over time to introduce more left wing reform. As it is, social reform is good, and if they are using it to stall, it is best to get it out of the way so they don't have anything to hide behind later.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Javes posted:Quick synopsis? How to pay for it, what about the insurance industry jobs, it is impractical, it is very hard to do right now or ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, social reform that helps minorities helps the working class, at least insofar as minority groups tend to be poorer. Further, by reducing the barriers between different groups in here makes it easier over time to introduce more left wing reform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, social reform that helps minorities helps the working class, at least insofar as minority groups tend to be poorer. Further, by reducing the barriers between different groups in here makes it easier over time to introduce more left wing reform. they don't actually work towards social reform though. they'll claim credit when the work's been done for them (see: gay marriage), but they will only give lip service to social reform during an election and then forget about it entirely afterwards
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they don't actually work towards social reform though. they'll claim credit when the work's been done for them (see: gay marriage), but they will only give lip service to social reform during an election and then forget about it entirely afterwards I was merely responding to someone under the premise that they do so. So, your statement is valid, and I'm sure that they could do more for minorities even if they in fact are helping with social reform, though if nothing else, getting in the way less is better than the opposite. Even if the effort is only outside of the government, by everyone working to eliminate prejudice, it helps us to organize together more strongly and focus on bigger fish for us to fry. Combined with the fact that it does help people who are disproportionately poor, it is a good thing to focus on as well (though I understand that wasn't what you were talking about, I just decided to write that thought down). I also think that as we deal with more social issues, it will force them to pay more lip service to more left wing ideology, as they won't be able to pay lip service to things that are already common. I am also not sure if any social reform has every really started from the government down. Though you could say that they are at least easier to work with since they have a presumably lower threshold for public support of something to start supporting it themselves. I also think that since socialist reform doesn't necessarily have to hurt the rich, that they might not actually hate it so much once they get used to it. I think that rich people who aren't simply megalomaniacs might even enjoy having less power (since more power, like more money, means more problems). thechosenone fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:How to pay for it, what about the insurance industry jobs, it is impractical, it is very hard to do right now or ever. I mean it's a huge disruption of a large part of our economy and we should definitely consider that it will cost a lot of jobs. the benefits outweigh that but it's a legitimate concern
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean lots of social reform doesn't help the poor at all. Like reducing voter obstruction is objectively good, but it doesn't actually help the poor when the only viable choices are capitalist class hawks. Similarly legal gay marriage is good, but it's only providing economic justice to people rich enough to be concerned about estate taxes (maybe there were states where health insurance covered married people but not domestic partners?). You're correct we should still do social reform, but Democrats are clearly using it as a distraction from economic issues. Well, I mostly view the gay marriage issue as being representative of the increase in support for gay people, and by doing so directly wounding anti-LGBT cultural forces, making it easier to further advance lgbt rights, and also reducing public discrimination against them by some amount. While the economic benefits are not particularly direct, they are still there, and it is good to have them. For purposes of advancing left wing agendas, at least partially resolving the issue makes it easier to discuss things that would otherwise be put on the back burner in place of it, and even if something else is brought up, it will probably help to address the next wedge issue some as well. Also a large number of LGBT folks have disproportionate issues with homelessness, poverty and whatnot. Reducing voter obstruction also helps to prevent worse candidates from getting in, thereby easing the process of pushing politicians to support various issues, and slowing any erosion of policies that are ahead of their time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:I mean it's a huge disruption of a large part of our economy and we should definitely consider that it will cost a lot of jobs. the benefits outweigh that but it's a legitimate concern Too bad the new system wouldn't need administrators.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Too bad the new system wouldn't need administrators. One of the appeals is that single payer is more efficient so presumably there would be less admininstrators than current insurance company employees gently caress insurance companies but it seems legit to me, beautiful and well informed poster Darth windu.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:One of the appeals is that single payer is more efficient so presumably there would be less admininstrators than current insurance company employees Honestly I would think that even the rich would have reason to support universal healthcare (so long as they don't own stock in healthcare companies). Less barriers to hiring people full time, don't have to have nearly the same amount of employees for human resources. I think it is just a matter of if enough of them realize the benefits of it to throw the ones who are invested in private healthcare companies under the bus. Not that they are active enough or willing enough to do it of their own accord. Any reform that happens will come from the bottom up, its just a matter of how much those above resist it (which is based on if they (know) they will benefit or not).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:I was merely responding to someone under the premise that they do so. So, your statement is valid, and I'm sure that they could do more for minorities even if they in fact are helping with social reform, though if nothing else, getting in the way less is better than the opposite. Even if the effort is only outside of the government, by everyone working to eliminate prejudice, it helps us to organize together more strongly and focus on bigger fish for us to fry. Combined with the fact that it does help people who are disproportionately poor, it is a good thing to focus on as well (though I understand that wasn't what you were talking about, I just decided to write that thought down). i don't disagree at all. dems do in fact get in the way less than republicans, and i guess that's something to be praised (though really they should be way better than they are, especially with how they campaigned in 2016, as if economic issues would drown out social issues if hillary even spent a second addressing them)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:One of the appeals is that single payer is more efficient so presumably there would be less admininstrators than current insurance company employees UBI, Jobs Training Programs, and trillion dollar infrastructure Bill would help alleviate your concerns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Well, I mostly view the gay marriage issue as being representative of the increase in support for gay people, and by doing so directly wounding anti-LGBT cultural forces, making it easier to further advance lgbt rights, and also reducing public discrimination against them by some amount. While the economic benefits are not particularly direct, they are still there, and it is good to have them. For purposes of advancing left wing agendas, at least partially resolving the issue makes it easier to discuss things that would otherwise be put on the back burner in place of it, and even if something else is brought up, it will probably help to address the next wedge issue some as well. Also a large number of LGBT folks have disproportionate issues with homelessness, poverty and whatnot. quote:Reducing voter obstruction also helps to prevent worse candidates from getting in, thereby easing the process of pushing politicians to support various issues, and slowing any erosion of policies that are ahead of their time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:UBI, Jobs Training Programs, and trillion dollar infrastructure Bill would help alleviate your concerns. Also a pony would help
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure gay marriage is the best example of ground-up change. It was literally a grant of judicial fiat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 00:54 |
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Even though I like to think I follow US politics quite closely from over here in the EU, I literally haven't the faintest idea what policies the Democrats currently stand for or what their big idea is, especially since the election. They seem to be "not Trump", which I suppose is a decent reason, but what is it they're actually pitching now? I think Democrats seem to simply be the "not Trump" party because Republicans are a death cult trying to destroy our government. Many commentators don't seem to consider fighting to keep or expand values many take for granted as an important position to take in itself. In broad terms I would say positions of the Democratic party include: fighting for civil rights(minority, LGBT, disability and women's rights), universal healthcare, criminal justice reform, expanded social programs, protecting voting rights, higher minimum wages, higher taxes on the wealthy and closure of tax loopholes, stricter environmental regulations and renewable energy, industrial regulations, affordable housing, affordable secondary education, being pro-immigration, and pretty much anything you'd describe as having a working federal government at all. Here's a link to the Democratic party platform if you'd like to read their official positions. Not every member holds the same values, many disagree on the best way to reach their goals, and some small few are corrupt, but all-in-all the Democratic Party is good. treasured8elief fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 17:07
|
|
