Dem Post Mortem

[Loren Pechtel]

This is going through via reconciliation which has no tangency with the filibuster.

It's going through reconciliation, yes, meaning that they don't need to have the filibuster to cause instability.

And both of you are just eating it up.

Enjoy the king your fear of progress put on the throne.

No, enjoy the king your demand for "progress" put on the throne.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question is whether there is current discrimination causing poverty, or whether we are simply seeing past effects that haven't had time to fade away.

That’s not a question. There are multi-generational effects, generational effects and immediate effects of discrimination.
To deny that there are immediate effects, claiming that long term effects are creating the appearance of immediate effects, is a total cop out. Even granting the reality of that dynamic, inferring that it implies no need or benefit to trying to address immediate effects, is a logical error. There ARE undeniable effects. Whether they are rooted in traditional racism or new-age racism doesn’t allay the immediate need to address those effects.

Sure there are effects. But in insisting on more and more anti-"discrimination" efforts you are demanding we look for the keys under the streetlight. We need to go after the actual problems, not paint over them.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry, but you're in a left wing echo chamber. You think people want the liberal brand of progress.

What makes you think they don't?

The people overwhelmingly support Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, universal child care, and free higher education. And they want to raise the taxes on the rich to pay for it.

 

[Derec]

Sorry, but you're in a left wing echo chamber. You think people want the liberal brand of progress.

What makes you think they don't?

If they did, more people would have voted for Kamala Harris, as well as Dem House and Senate candidates.

The people overwhelmingly support Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, universal child care, and free higher education. And they want to raise the taxes on the rich to pay for it.

Those things always depend on how you ask the questions. Which is why I would like to see a link to the poll you have in mind.

People might like the idea of, say a law that fights climate change, but the devil is in the details. The GND proposed by AOC et al would come with a $60-100T price tag. Big part of the reason for the huge price tag is the fact that their proposal includes a lot of things that have nothing to do with climate or the environment, such as federal job guarantees. They also might not be inclined to give up air travel or beef.
And note that even though the original GND resolution was introduced in 2019, AOC and others have done little to flesh out the details. Even though they maintain that the matter is urgent. They wanted to go to net-zero greenhouse emissions within 10 years, but have already wasted half of that time frame.

About free higher education. I agree in principle that state and federal governments should invest more in higher education. But to make it free goes too far, at least without a fundamental reform of the entire tertiary education system.
There are some countries, such as Germany, have free university education, but their system is far more restricted than ours.
Germany does not have this silly notion that everybody should be able to go to college, no matter how poorly they did in high school. They do not have remedial courses. They do not have colleges like Clayton State University[sic] that will pass almost anybody with a pulse.

 

[Derec]

Maybe you were drunk or high at the time, I don't know, but what is this sentence?

Proof of someone's illiteracy, apparently.

Sure, on your part. Because that sentence was completely incoherent.

How many times does it have to be explained that the solution that works for everyone in the zero sum game is mutually assured destruction if the rules of fair play and minimization of conflict are broken?
The solution, if someone chooses contests of unequal strength over contests of random chance or true merit to survival as has been previously decided, is to destroy everything rather than persist in a world where the unjust have any power.

See, you can write coherent sentences after all.
Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. Blowing up the whole thing and getting Trump is not a rational response to losing the primary, no matter how much you feel that your guy should have won.

Also, your whining ignores that the Biden administration gave a lot of say to the prog wing of the party. Way too much, if you ask me, and that contributed to his low approval ratings. He was elected to restore normalcy, not to cosplay FDR.

Maybe you are just constantly drunk or high. Every accusation is an admission, I think.

Naw. Why don't you just admit that the sentence in question was a hot mess? It's ok, it happens. As does high/drunkposting.

This is exactly why Hillary lost the election: she failed to commit to fair play and those committed to fair play reacted in the only way they had the power to.

Blow the whole thing up because you did not get your way and feel slighted? That is a reaction of a child, or somebody stuck in a childish mentality.

A presidential election is a binary choice. Not voting for somebody more aligned to your values out of spite just helps the candidate less aligned with your values.

 

[Elixir]

We need to go after the actual problems, not paint over them.

Sounds politically correct, but it’s just a principle in search of an action. Meanwhile we have real problems that need more than iteration of principles to mitigate their effects.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is going through via reconciliation which has no tangency with the filibuster.

It's going through reconciliation, yes, meaning that they don't need to have the filibuster to cause instability.

And both of you are just eating it up.

Enjoy the king your fear of progress put on the throne.

No, enjoy the king your demand for "progress" put on the throne.

Well, people elected the most radically unhinged leader they possibly could, and you claim this is about people being too radical.

Hell, it isn't even about "progress", at this point as much as it is the fact that the Dems jumped on their own goddamn sword to save the filibuster when the filibuster didn't give them jack shit.

The Big Beautiful Bill is going to pass, and Trump will be made king, and one of the things the Dems are directly responsible for was making sure that Bernie, rather than losing the primary in a fairly played primary battle, lost the primary in an ugly, spiteful, unsportsmanlike shutout that screamed loudly to the entire country that the "big tent" party was full of shit.

That image of doing the right thing for everyone is the democrat's brand, like it or not.

If you make it clear that it's only a "big tent" for some of the people in it and it's more "our way or shut up", well, guess who won't maintain the force they need to actually be a majority?

 

[Elixir]

If you make it clear that it's only a "big tent" for some of the people in it and it's more "our way or shut up", well, guess who won't maintain the force they need to actually be a majority?

That is the Republican Party right now, except that instead of OUR way or shut up, it’s MY (Trump’s) way or shut up. And it’s a very exclusive club.
Every one of the 70 million MAGA fools are very special people and belong to a very small group of Trump’s favorites. .
They have a functional majority because they are bound together by stupidity and/or greed and/or cowardice PLUS the common enemy du jour as dictated by Dear Leader.

The need for a Strong Leader remains dominant in the American male who, for all his bravado and declarations of self sufficiency, really just wants to be the favored subject of a benevolent (to him) and awesomely powerful King/Daddy figure.


“Democrats! Stop fighting! Unite your message! We need more sheep!”

 

[Harry Bosch]

If you make it clear that it's only a "big tent" for some of the people in it and it's more "our way or shut up", well, guess who won't maintain the force they need to actually be a majority?

That is the Republican Party right now, except that instead of OUR way or shut up, it’s MY (Trump’s) way or shut up. And it’s a very exclusive club.
Every one of the 70 million MAGA fools are very special people and belong to a very small group of Trump’s favorites. .
They have a functional majority because they are bound together by stupidity and/or greed and/or cowardice PLUS the common enemy du jour as dictated by Dear Leader.

The need for a Strong Leader remains dominant in the American male who, for all his bravado and declarations of self sufficiency, really just wants to be the favored subject of a benevolent (to him) and awesomely powerful King/Daddy figure.


“Democrats! Stop fighting! Unite your message! We need more sheep!”

It's very difficult for the left to unite. It's laughable to claim that Donna Brazille giving the questions to HRC before a townhall threw the election for Hillary! But the left buys this crap. It's a key difference between the left and the right: the right unites for the common cause. They are very comfortable voting for the lessor evil. Not the left.

 

[Elixir]

They are very comfortable voting for the lessor evil.

Hell, they're comfortable voting for the greater evil!

 

[WAB]

If you make it clear that it's only a "big tent" for some of the people in it and it's more "our way or shut up", well, guess who won't maintain the force they need to actually be a majority?

That is the Republican Party right now, except that instead of OUR way or shut up, it’s MY (Trump’s) way or shut up. And it’s a very exclusive club.
Every one of the 70 million MAGA fools are very special people and belong to a very small group of Trump’s favorites. .
They have a functional majority because they are bound together by stupidity and/or greed and/or cowardice PLUS the common enemy du jour as dictated by Dear Leader.

The need for a Strong Leader remains dominant in the American male who, for all his bravado and declarations of self sufficiency, really just wants to be the favored subject of a benevolent (to him) and awesomely powerful King/Daddy figure.


“Democrats! Stop fighting! Unite your message! We need more sheep!”

It's very difficult for the left to unite. It's laughable to claim that Donna Brazille giving the questions to HRC before a townhall threw the election for Hillary! But the left buys this crap. It's a key difference between the left and the right: the right unites for the common cause. They are very comfortable voting for the lessor evil. Not the left.

Lessor evil? They vote for evil landlords?

 

[ZiprHead]

Sorry, but you're in a left wing echo chamber. You think people want the liberal brand of progress.

What makes you think they don't?

If they did, more people would have voted for Kamala Harris, as well as Dem House and Senate candidates.

The people overwhelmingly support Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, universal child care, and free higher education. And they want to raise the taxes on the rich to pay for it.

Yes, all that's required is a platform. Campaigning means nothing. The opposition means nothing. Campaign spending and advertising is meaningless.

 

[Derec]

Yes, all that's required is a platform. Campaigning means nothing. The opposition means nothing. Campaign spending and advertising is meaningless.

What are you talking about? Kamala Harris campaigned a lot and spent a lot. Lack of campaigning and money was not the reason she fell short.

 

[Politesse]

"Too far left" means something incredibly depressing in political Americanese these days...

 

[Politesse]

Yes, all that's required is a platform. Campaigning means nothing. The opposition means nothing. Campaign spending and advertising is meaningless.

What are you talking about? Kamala Harris campaigned a lot and spent a lot. Lack of campaigning and money was not the reason she fell short.

The GDP of most countries, thrown after the wind...

I'm never giving another dime to the Democrats directly, at least not while it seems like they have no idea how to spend it effectively.

 

[scombrid]

The campaign was in the social media controlled by the broligarchs and a complicit MSM. Brawndo has electrolytes you know.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, all that's required is a platform. Campaigning means nothing. The opposition means nothing. Campaign spending and advertising is meaningless.

What are you talking about? Kamala Harris campaigned a lot and spent a lot. Lack of campaigning and money was not the reason she fell short.

She was far outspent by PAC money. Where was the Democratic 250 million Elon Musk money?

 

[Elixir]

Where was the Democratic 250 million Elon Musk money?

and her

Internet Research Agency​

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, all that's required is a platform. Campaigning means nothing. The opposition means nothing. Campaign spending and advertising is meaningless.

What are you talking about? Kamala Harris campaigned a lot and spent a lot. Lack of campaigning and money was not the reason she fell short.

The GDP of most countries, thrown after the wind...

I'm never giving another dime to the Democrats directly, at least not while it seems like they have no idea how to spend it effectively.

I can't help but think that a lot of it comes from the fact that media organizations as they exist in America are cleary down with pushing the Overton window to the right.

Its always "Kristi Noam" shooting the puppy and never "republican official shoots puppy".

This tells me that traditional media and tactics cannot win elections against the favored sons of traditional media. It's like asking someone who hates you to "put in a good word".

It's less about having any idea of how to spend effectively and more about the fact that an effective platform to say those specific messages is simply not available at all.

The media at large's conservative bias is well established at this point.

If they want to spend effectively, they need to start coordinating grass roots efforts on platforms that don't have algorithms in place to choke progressive and democrat messaging.

What's worse, democrats neglect that they still need to have effective emotional messaging, for all they have the weight of facts behind them, conservatives lean towards emotional arguments because they work even in the absence of facts.

Having emotional messaging with footnote support is way more powerful, but while one side is talking about gay frogs and creepy feelings thinking about that one trans track athlete halfway across the state, the dem side is talking spreadsheets and "Akshully...".

The fact is that the people in charge of strict policy wonk stuff still have to hire people skilled in emotional messaging to put together their public image, no matter how right they are that that shit is stupid as hell, and then they have to actually put SOME policy behind it that satisfies whatever outrage they stoked.

 

[Harry Bosch]

"Too far left" means something incredibly depressing in political Americanese these days...

To me, too far left simply means a candidate pushing ideas that will win in a safe democratic district, or a very split democratic primary; but won't appeal to the moderates in the swing states. As a result, we lose another election. The far left seems to be focused on politics of justice. They want more rights for trans people, acceptance of DEI, punish corporations because they are mean, end fossil fuels, and etc. I actually support these policies also. But they are losers nationally! Most Americans want a better economy. Period. They want less inflation, more affordable homes, better jobs. None of the justice items lead to a better economy. I think Harris lost in 24 because she couldn't articulate how her policies could help the economy.