|
VitalSigns posted:If you don't know that Obama literally tried to cut Medicare, one of the signature accomplishments of the Great Society then you're really not informed enough to be worth talking to honestly. I'm well aware of this, but your "hands off my Medicare, Obummer!" doesn't really change anything here. Obama took a negotiating position that literally was unacceptable to Republicans because it was too good at separating the rich from their wealth.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did you read the article at all? I did - evidently a little more carefully than you did. None of what you posted said we should "forgive" Patman for supporting segregation or Vietnam. quote:The article's premise is that the removal of Patman from Banking was one of the mistakes that led towards the pro-banking era of the Democratic party. The article's premise is actually that removing Patman signaled a turning away from left-wing economic populism. The change in policy and emphasis was the bad thing, not getting rid of the segregationist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I'm well aware of this, but your "hands off my Medicare, Obummer!" doesn't really change anything here. Obama took a negotiating position that literally was unacceptable to Republicans because it was too good at separating the rich from their wealth. lmbo E: That is to say, the argument you're incompetently trying to make is so self-evidently stupid it's not even worth engaging with. The idea that trying to cut Medicare was Obama's 99th-dimensional chess move to trick the Republicans into giving up on cutting Medicare is absurd; Obama was the president and his party controlled the Senate, there was no way the Republicans could cut Medicare as long as he refused to let them. The only reason to offer it is because Obama believed in austerity and balanced budgets and actually wanted to cut entitlements in order to get higher taxes and more deficit reduction. Like unless you've got some proof to back it up (spoiler alert: you don't), this is just the laziest and dumbest trolling I've seen in a while, and given what D&D is like these that's fuckin saying something. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I did - evidently a little more carefully than you did. None of what you posted said we should "forgive" Patman for supporting segregation or Vietnam. The article certainly was arguing that removing Patman was a mistake. He was removed because of his support for segregation and Vietnam, so yeah the article is arguing that should have been ignored in favor of his populism on banks. As someone who has repeatedly argued Democrats need a broad coalition, the similarities between this and Democrats who supported the Iraq war or militarizing the police are interesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did you read the article at all? Also it ignores that campaigns aren't won on banking policy in this century. That is literally the dumbest of takes. At least trade is an issue actual numbers of voters have an opinion on. No low attention voter understands anything about actual banking... you might as well just run ads saying "those fuckers our poo poo" on loop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The article certainly was arguing that removing Patman was a mistake. He was removed because of his support for segregation and Vietnam, so yeah the article is arguing that should have been ignored in favor of his populism on banks. The article isn't arguing anything of the sort. Just admit you didn't read it very carefully, jesus dude. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article isn't arguing anything of the sort. Just admit you didn't read it very carefully, jesus dude. You seriously think that the article doesn't argue that removing Patman was a mistake? This passage argues that the destruction of the anti-bank tradition of Democrats was furthered by removing Patman as chair. quote:At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You seriously think that the article doesn't argue that removing Patman was a mistake? The article's lamenting the loss of an anti-monopoly, anti-corporate tradition among the Democrats. It's not about Patman personally; it's about a broader rejection of populism by the Democratic leadership. The notion that this implies that we should "forgive" his segregationism or his support for Vietnam is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article's lamenting the loss of an anti-monopoly, anti-corporate tradition among the Democrats. It's not about Patman personally; it's about a broader rejection of populism by the Democratic leadership. But the article says that by dethrowning Patman, the Watergate Babies helped the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition. Where in the article do you find it saying removing Patman was a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
I don't think the article is saying that segregation is a good thing, I think it's accusing the Democratic Party of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No longer tolerating segregationists and warlovers: good. Also turning its back on anti-trust and banking regulation: bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the article says that by dethrowning Patman, the Watergate Babies helped the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition. Where in the article do you find it saying removing Patman was a good thing? It doesn't say it was a good thing. What it does say is this: quote:The result today is a paradox. At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump. So again, your claim that this piece is saying that we should "forgive" Patman for his segregationism or support for Vietnam is really dumb. e: VitalSigns posted:I don't think the article is saying that segregation is a good thing, I think it's accusing the Democratic Party of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No longer tolerating segregationists and warlovers: good. Also turning its back on anti-trust and banking regulation: bad Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It doesn't say it was a good thing. What it does say is this: You're right you got me, the article doesn't say we should forgive him, just let him keep his Banking chair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're right you got me, the article doesn't say we should forgive him, just let him keep his Banking chair. The article doesn't say that either. Just stop.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article doesn't say that either. Just stop. So you think the article says that removing Patman from Banking was a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you think the article says that removing Patman from Banking was a good thing? From my understanding the article is drawing a pretty clear line that by rejecting so much of what Democrats like Patman stood for they got rid of both toxic and essential aspects of the party platform. Basically: VitalSigns posted:I don't think the article is saying that segregation is a good thing, I think it's accusing the Democratic Party of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No longer tolerating segregationists and warlovers: good. Also turning its back on anti-trust and banking regulation: bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you think the article says that removing Patman from Banking was a good thing? Adlai Stevenson posted:From my understanding the article is drawing a pretty clear line that by rejecting so much of what Democrats like Patman stood for they got rid of both toxic and essential aspects of the party platform. Basically: Exactly. And the fact that so many Democrats are apparently unable to disaggregate these two things is pretty discouraging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Exactly. And the fact that so many Democrats are apparently unable to disaggregate these two things is pretty discouraging. They don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Exactly. And the fact that so many Democrats are apparently unable to disaggregate these two things is pretty discouraging. Its not that they are unable to. Its that they are doing this deliberately. They like that the poor are hosed and bring up these issues to not have to admit what kind of sociopathic creatures they are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Centrist dems don't have any problem differentiating economic populism and racism whenever they reach for the racist dogwhistles to attack non-white and/or non-Christians running on economically populist themes. Just like they have no scruples accusing anyone who likes Medicare of loving the Vietnam War because LBJ, while voting for every one of our colonial adventures in the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
The concept of learning from history is dead because every time you come up with a historical example, some chud crawls out of a hole and helpfully mentions that some of the context of your scenario was problematic, and therefore the content of your example is problematic by proxy. So the only proper way to conduct oneself is to ignore all past experience and blindly stumble forward in a fit of end-of-history neoliberalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics."
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:But the article says that by dethrowning Patman, the Watergate Babies helped the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition. Where in the article do you find it saying removing Patman was a good thing? It's not so much an endorsement, but an explanation. It was good for younger Democrats to go by their conscience and remove Patman. The fact that he was also an influential watchdog for banking is one of those accidents of Fate that led us to where we are today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics." Aw now liking LBJ in some capacity is like being pro nazi. gently caress off Troll.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics." "You know who else was popular and brought economic growth? That's right..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Aw now liking LBJ in some capacity is like being pro nazi. gently caress off Troll. You are dumb as hell if you think that is the point but I guess that's to be expected given the historical ignorance of D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
You see, we need to double down on losing because somebody, somewhere, at one point in time was in favour of social programs but also had bad opinions. I am clearly the adult in the room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:You are dumb as hell if you think that is the point but I guess that's to be expected given the historical ignorance of D&D. Person who says balanced budget is not running to the right accuses others of historical ignorance. gently caress off sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Person who says balanced budget is not running to the right accuses others of historical ignorance. gently caress off sociopath. Guess the well has run dry and we're back to sociopath as the favored insult. Also you say taxing the rich is running to the right and now wants to open carry as an intimidation tactic. So who is the actual sociopath, maybe the poster with no sense of empathy who wants to see the world burn? Welcome to the ignore list. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Guess the well has run dry and we're back to sociopath as the favored insult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics." this is the thread winner for most stupid goddamn post in TDOME up to this point, though I'm sure you'll outdo yourself eventually
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
"hey maybe the democrats should run on a platform of making the economy not be a loving grind for 99.9% of the population" yronic heroism "oh you mean like hitler"  seriously dude go look at yourself in the mirror and then punch yourself in the face, hard
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Idk feeling bad for the bottom 0.9 of the top 1% is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
But seriously a lot of the leftier-than-thou posturing in this thread and D&D in general draws a really rose colored picture of the mid 20th century. That is a real thing for that is being done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But seriously a lot of the leftier-than-thou posturing in this thread and D&D in general draws a really rose colored picture of the mid 20th century. That is a real thing for that is being done. It's actually not, but boy, try and let that stop you from projecting it onto us as if it were so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Should Democrats even want to be popular? You know who else was popular...
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
It's fine to suggest Democrats try to recapture the kind of popularity that LBJ and FDR enjoyed, but it's weird to assert their popularity was solely due to expanding social services and had nothing to do with their ideological defenses of free enterprise and capitalism and their interventionist foreign policy to defend the same across the world.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
The Democrats' big mistake was abandoning organized crime in favor of the financial industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Democrats' big mistake was abandoning organized crime in favor of the financial industry. Hey the mafia kills far less people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The Democrats' big mistake was abandoning organized crime in favor of the financial industry. One of the Republicans' biggest triumphs was making organized labor synonymous with organized crime, in the minds of many voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's fine to suggest Democrats try to recapture the kind of popularity that LBJ and FDR enjoyed, but it's weird to assert their popularity was solely due to expanding social services and had nothing to do with their ideological defenses of free enterprise and capitalism and their interventionist foreign policy to defend the same across the world. Mmm yes noted defensive war, the colonial occupation of Vietnam
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:55
|
|