The Dems Don't Get It: How liberalism without a spine gave way to a party without a brain or soul

[Jack V Savage]

I liked your rant. Had to pull up here though. Tackling immigration concerns with a wall and easing economic anxiety by renegotiating trade deals isn't policy? Maybe I'm outside the definition here.

Both of those things are more symbolic, though, aren't they? We basically just rebranded existing trade deals and now everyone who hated them before is happy (realistically, few people understand it but they were whipped into a frenzy and now they're told they should be happy), and illegal southern border crossings have been net negative for a decade now. People who supported the wall mostly realized there wouldn't be one built but they liked that "someone was finally talking about the issue" that had actually been a much-talked about issue until effective solutions were implemented.

 

[Jack V Savage]

We really deserve better as a nation.

The GOP was content to ride their populist MAGA cheerleader train all the way to its inevitable end, renewed corporate parasitism. Unfortunately for their voters that's exactly they'll get. Their blind devotion will be rewarded with an increasingly contentious economic reality.

On the other side, Democrats' failing belongs to themselves. The moderates grew distasteful of identity politics, while not inherently the Dems' fault, they should have instead hammered strictly policy. Pulling in the moderate vote was crucial, and for the Dems' taking, had they not engaged in the GOP's mudslinging.

I don't think we've ever seen identity politics play a bigger role in a presidential campaign than we did in Trump's, but aside from that, much of political commentary reminds me of this:

 

[superpunch]

10 years ago, the left's candidates did not support gay marriage. Today, just 10 years later, if you don't support gay marriage then the left considers you a nazi or something. Mainstream left viewpoints from just 10 years ago -- so lots and lots of good, normal people -- are demonized as white supremacist super fascists.

I support gay marriage too and always have. I have no problem with transgenders using whatever bathrooms they want. I support legal abortion. I like most of the left's social causes. It's just the mainstream left's tendency towards radicalism that's scary. People can disagree -- and that's OK. Someone can not want gay marriage, not want transgenders using certain bathrooms in their establishment, or someone can think abortion should be illegal -- and that's OK, and it doesn't make you a nazi. But not to today's left. The left is scary today, it instills fear against any dissent like fascists do.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

The Doom of this all is the system of not having a credible third party.

Things would change so much for the better if there were 3 or 4 major parties.

 

[ChillBroBaggins]

I don't think we've ever seen identity politics play a bigger role in a presidential campaign than we did in Trump's, but aside from that, much of political commentary reminds me of this:

I enjoy this one, though you've likely already seen it:

 

[bobgeese]

Glad you don't listen to Alex Jones but it still doesn't change the fact that The Clinton Foundation got an A rating and Hillary wasn't indicted for her emails. Also doesn't change the fact that there have been far more criminal indictments in the Trump, W. Bush, HW Bush and Reagan administrations vs Obama, Clinton and Carter administrations.

You are the one who started the but but after realizing that indeed Republican Administrations have had many more criminal convictions than Democratic administrations. Why is that?
Why are Republican administrations so in love with selling weapons and giving access to America's enemies like Trump and Reagan?
Why are Republican administrations like Nixon and Reagan willing to cut deals with Americas enemies that leads to thousands of American deaths?
Why do Republican administrations like Trump's get their hands get caught in the cookie jar so much?
Most of all despite everything mentioned do Republicans still believe they have the right to question others patriotism?

You are the CLASSIC liberal poster. You’re either so uninformed, or so ignorant, it’s the reason the right doesn’t even bother talking to the left anymore. For instance,

About that “A” rating.

Are you aware that before they cleaned up their books for the 2016 run, and before that they were actually on a charity watchdog warning list, and their “accounting practices” were so shady? Read their filed documents before they cleaned up, their donation totals were disgusting.


“Cries about selling weapons”

After Obama was arming radical jihadists and contributing to the genocide of half a million Syrians.

 

[Fawlty]

Healthcare and Infrastructure will get undecided voters on board. The message should be relentless.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I enjoy this one, though you've likely already seen it:

It's good. But what I mean is that there are cycles and random events that people try to explain with bullshit narratives. Back in 2006, I think anyone could have predicted that if there were a huge financial collapse in 2008, Democrats would have won the presidency in 2008, and then that that would mean they'd likely lose seats in all races after that, and then that unless there was another big downturn, they'd probably retain the presidency and continue to lose seats, and then they'd be underdogs in 2016, and if they lost that election, we'd see big gains for them in 2018, though maybe not enough to take the Senate. The 2020 Senate map will be more favorable and Democrats will likely take the Senate then. Normally the president wins re-election unless there's a recession, but Trump is unusually corrupt and incompetent so that one's a tougher call. If he wins in 2020, we'll see further Democratic gains in other races. If not, we'll see Republicans come back. Etc. But people always want to attach narratives to it.

It applies to other things, too. After the 2020 election, it was inevitable that Republicans would fill at least two SCOTUS seats. Likewise, after Democratic wins in 2008, it was clear that we were going to get serious healthcare reform and a rational response to the downturn. In both cases, partisans blamed the losing party for losing fights ("if they just fought harder they would have won") that they were destined to lose from the start.

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Healthcare and Infrastructure will get undecided voters on board. The message should be relentless.

I'd tone down that talk and crank up talk about reducing the deficit.

Frankly, if the dems want to get some power back they should table the universal healthcare talk for a while.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Healthcare and Infrastructure will get undecided voters on board. The message should be relentless.

And "I don't take corporate money." Silly, but that seems to be an effective line.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd tone down that talk and crank up talk about reducing the deficit.

Frankly, if the dems want to get some power back they should table the universal healthcare talk for a while.

What's the point of getting power if you're not going to use it to make things better?

 

[Iceberg Slim]

What's the point of getting power if you're not going to use it to make things better?

A balanced budget would make things better, and protect our future. That's something I would vote for.

 

[Rod1]

I think I agree. Can you elaborate a bit?

Do you realize that the reason why the US doesnt has a public healthcare is because of opposition by Democratic senators?

Democrats are center-right, the left wing is the GOP equivalent of evangelicals and nationalists, they court them, but they dont actually care about them.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah, for sure the deficits are very ugly and I think Trump deserves the blame for signing those awful spending bills. But the US has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Yup, so why are you saying the economists were wrong?

They are 100% right, the current growth trend is entirely US debt funded unsustainable growth.

Anyone can appear to be doing well if they are maxing their credit cards.

 

[Fawlty]

And "I don't take corporate money." Silly, but that seems to be an effective line.

Yeah that one wore out on me a while ago. It's nice to hear and if it works, cool. Whatever tactics along those lines, and whatever message used to deliver it, the brand of the Democrats needs to be healthcare/infrastructure. Everything else is second-tier or trivial I think. Environment is like tier 1.5 (it's a given for Dems plus it doesn't fire people up like it should), and it's a great attack line considering the actions of the administration/EPA (deregulation and coverups). Healthcare is a winning wedge issue long-term that has become much better recently, and Infrastructure is something that people identify with lots of jobs and being safer (and those things happen to be true).

 

[jrams]

It applies to other things, too. After the 2020 election, it was inevitable that Republicans would fill at least two SCOTUS seats.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

I just look to the primary debates.

GOP spent 45% of the time taking about bombing the mideast, 45% about illegal immigrants, and 10% hurling insults or talking about genitals. It was so poor they had to be instructed to be mature.

The Democrats actually covered some issues. But was stained in that the party was patently bias in favor of one of their candidates that the puppet masters want.

The moral of the story about this dilapidated political time is focus on your education, and ethic. The whole GOP vs Democrat good cop versus bad cop really isn't gonna move the dial in your life nearly as much as improving yourself as an individual. Educate yourself, do well for yourself, and admire the spectacle as a source of entertainment. The power is not with the people as the puppet masters want you to believe.

 

[jrams]

I just look to the primary debates.

GOP spent 45% of the time taking about bombing the mideast, 45% about illegal immigrants, and 10% hurling insults or talking about genitals. It was so poor they had to be instructed to be mature.

The GOP debates the last two runs have been some of the best television ever. The Dems tried their hardest to make it entertaining this time around by forcing Lincoln Chaffee and Jim "I killed a man" Webb on stage, but they are always worse at political theater.



edit: I forgot how lazy Hilldawg's answer was. "The Republicans!!!!!"

 

[Jack V Savage]

A balanced budget would make things better, and protect our future. That's something I would vote for.

We want debt ratios to be falling during good economic times, and the post-tax-cut situation is clearly unsustainable. A balanced budget would be precisely the opposite of protecting our future (it would implicitly be saying that we don't expect growth and can't find any place to invest).

Do you realize that the reason why the US doesnt has a public healthcare is because of opposition by Democratic senators?

Democrats are center-right, the left wing is the GOP equivalent of evangelicals and nationalists, they court them, but they dont actually care about them.

Well, to be more accurate, because of opposition by the <5% most right-wing Democratic Senators. The thing about growing your support is that you bring in more moderates.

Obviously meant 2016.

 

[Gandhi]

I never heard of Trump Vodka so I just looked it up. It was discontinued years ago, but bottles are currently going for between $1000 and $2500. Lol. Trump fanboys paying up nicely for that Trump and Tonic. Also, apparently it was considered a great Passover vodka because it was supposed to be more kosher than other vodkas.

And they say you can't learn anything in the War Room.

But yeah, Trump was right and economists were wrong about the tax cut.

Last sentence, how are you evaluating this?

By what method are you attributing the recent economic gains to tax cuts and then offsetting those gains against the extra incurred debt ? Especially given that said debt would be about x2 effective economically if was delayed and incurred during a downturn via something other than give tax aways to corporations to prop up the stock market via share buy backs.