Democratic Party 2017 and beyond

[frae]

Here's a question where are the quotes of sexism, homophobia, or racism by members of the squad? There should be many available for you, right?

One week later and nothing. Will I get these examples before or after Ted Cruz is President?

[The Feral Slasher]

One week later and nothing. Will I get these examples before or after Ted Cruz is President?

Just spend all your time watching their press conferences. I've heard they are full of hate and vile, nasty stuff.

[GwynnInTheHall]

One week later and nothing. Will I get these examples before or after Ted Cruz is President?

Conservatives are in duck and cover mode.

No chance they can actually defend the debacle in the White House.

[onejayhawk]

Just spend all your time watching their press conferences. I've heard they are full of hate and vile, nasty stuff.

Good answer. Were you serious?

The Democrats talked Trump out of retiring after one term, see rule of unintended consequence. Since Cruz is not running in 2020, he has a harder road. I still think he is the best chance in 2024, but there are too many unknowns. Next year he would have won the nomination and won the general at a stroll.

J

[onejayhawk]

Conservatives are in duck and cover mode. No chance they can actually defend the debacle in the White House.

It has been a very successful first term. Why defend what you can celebrate?

This from formerly never-Trump National Review

No serious person can dispute the president’s economic successes (especially the virtual elimination of unemployment and energy imports), his revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation, taking serious measures to stop mass illegal immigration, moving decisively to address dangerous disadvantages in some trading relationships, and shaping up the Western alliance from an association of freeloading beneficiaries of an American military guaranty.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-trump-steamroller/

J

[revo]

It has been a very successful first term. Why defend what you can celebrate?

This from formerly never-Trump National Review

No serious person can dispute the president’s economic successes (especially the virtual elimination of unemployment and energy imports), his revival of a viable policy of nuclear nonproliferation, taking serious measures to stop mass illegal immigration, moving decisively to address dangerous disadvantages in some trading relationships, and shaping up the Western alliance from an association of freeloading beneficiaries of an American military guaranty.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/the-trump-steamroller/

J

Wait -- you're using an article by a guy who WAS PARDONED BY TRUMP and who wrote a glowing tribute to him, "Donald J. Trump, A President Like No Other", as gospel that he's been a roaring success? Omigod man, just stop.

[onejayhawk]

Wait -- you're using an article by a guy who WAS PARDONED BY TRUMP and who wrote a glowing tribute to him, "Donald J. Trump, A President Like No Other", as gospel that he's been a roaring success? Omigod man, just stop.

Yep. That National Review is behind him and the book is important.

You would think that any book not openly critical of Trump was a glowing tribute,but I notice you don't argue with his points. Look past the superficial and deal with the substance.

J

[frae]

Good answer. Were you serious?

The Democrats talked Trump out of retiring after one term, see rule of unintended consequence. Since Cruz is not running in 2020, he has a harder road. I still think he is the best chance in 2024, but there are too many unknowns. Next year he would have won the nomination and won the general at a stroll.

J

Go ahead give me a full quote, just one. Otherwise, I continue to hear blah blah blah blah.

[Art Vandelay]

.....

[The Feral Slasher]

Apparently you can get healthcare for $10 !! Hope Hilary doesn't accuse him of giving out free chocolate milk.

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1204448901291487233?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1204448901291487233&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2019%2F12%2F200pm-water-cooler-12-11-2019.html

[The Feral Slasher]

I've been reading this series about the Democratic party. I guess it is a book released in chapters every other day. Anyway, I found it interesting

https://prospect.org/politics/take-back-our-party-restoring-the-democratic-legacy/

https://prospect.org/takebackourparty/chapter-2-bad-policy/

[The Feral Slasher]

Matt Stoller is one of my favorites on twitter. He's figured out the centrist Dem strategy of pretending you want to make changes. But he's better than Trump so....


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-...e888a4d331?u5n

“He represents how Democratic elites have controlled the Democratic party for three decades,” said Matt Stoller, a fellow with the Open Markets Institute. “What you do is very simple: You say we want to do the same thing as the progressive with the idea, that there is no difference in values. Then you come up with this pedantic disagreement which basically tells the elites that you won’t do it.”

At the start of his campaign, Buttigieg went on the record supporting sweeping policies that have become increasingly popular with the Democratic base. But in the last few months he has hit the campaign trail questioning hallmark progressive policies around education and health care. In February 2019, Buttigieg called the Affordable Care Act a “conservative proposal” and Medicare for All “a compromise” between the national health care system in the United Kingdom and free market private health insurance. Now, Buttigieg says he could still support single-payer in the long term, but has put forward a “Medicare for All Who Want It” alternative — an expansion of the Affordable Care Act. He has also run an ad warning against the dangers of Medicare for All.

[Sour Masher]

Matt Stoller is one of my favorites on twitter. He's figured out the centrist Dem strategy of pretending you want to make changes. But he's better than Trump so....


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete-...e888a4d331?u5n

“He represents how Democratic elites have controlled the Democratic party for three decades,” said Matt Stoller, a fellow with the Open Markets Institute. “What you do is very simple: You say we want to do the same thing as the progressive with the idea, that there is no difference in values. Then you come up with this pedantic disagreement which basically tells the elites that you won’t do it.”

At the start of his campaign, Buttigieg went on the record supporting sweeping policies that have become increasingly popular with the Democratic base. But in the last few months he has hit the campaign trail questioning hallmark progressive policies around education and health care. In February 2019, Buttigieg called the Affordable Care Act a “conservative proposal” and Medicare for All “a compromise” between the national health care system in the United Kingdom and free market private health insurance. Now, Buttigieg says he could still support single-payer in the long term, but has put forward a “Medicare for All Who Want It” alternative — an expansion of the Affordable Care Act. He has also run an ad warning against the dangers of Medicare for All.

Interesting and probably fairly accurate read. But it does leave unanswered the question--are these concerns real in the minds of voters? Wouldn't the fact that this strategy works--saying you want big changes, but pointing out that big changes are hard and require commitment and buy-in that we may not be ready for--show the concerns are real? Why else would this strategy work if voters didn't want to buy into this message? It seems to me that if progressive-talking, moderate acting politicians have dominated for the last three decades, it must be because Democratic voters are intellectually aligned with progressive ideals in theory, but don't have the stomach for executing them in practice. They want to say they want these things, but they also don't actually want to pay/commit to these things?

Time will tell if this strategy works for Mayor Pete. Purely from a strategy position, it was probably his best play to pivot to the middle given Biden's weakness. He was never going to convince Bernie progressives that he was the real deal.

[Sour Masher]

I thought it would be interesting to start issue-focused conversations about the candidates. I'll start it off with the environment. While I understand that focusing on the environment as the central issue of one's campaign is a losing strategy, it is arguably the most important issue we face. After all, short term benefits of universal healthcare hardly matter if we ignore the environmental issues we face, which will end up impacting billions of lives with famine, displacement, disease, etc.

So, I want to start with that issue and this question: How would you rank the remaining viable candidates in terms of what you think they will get done on environmental issues like climate change, pollution and poisoning of animals and people, and public safety related to clean drinking water, air, and reducing our exposure to harmful substances?

I'm not asking about their stated positions here, but our perceptions of what the candidates will actually prioritize and get done, and why you think the way you do. Unlike some here, I have not totally made up my mind about who I want to support (I thought I had, but I'm waivering and open to switching). I hope this discussion will help me, as this is an important issue to me.

[The Feral Slasher]

Wouldn't the fact that this strategy works--saying you want big changes, but pointing out that big changes are hard and require commitment and buy-in that we may not be ready for--show the concerns are real? Why else would this strategy work if voters didn't want to buy into this message? It seems to me that if progressive-talking, moderate acting politicians have dominated for the last three decades, it must be because Democratic voters are intellectually aligned with progressive ideals in theory, but don't have the stomach for executing them in practice. They want to say they want these things, but they also don't actually want to pay/commit to these things?

.

The point is that the centrists are pretending to be progressives to try to get progressive votes, while really planning to not implement progressive policices. Of course it is hard to make real change, but talking about how hard it is to make change is a sign that you really aren't very committed. Did MLK continually try to tell everyone to accept things the way they were because it would be hard to change anything ? It's all about commitment to a goal or cause. And it's clear, to me at least, that Mayor Pete isn't committed to anything except getting elected.