2018 Democrats thread

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Reddy said:

Huh. Weird. I'm pretty sure I said protecting real people and the American institutions from Trump was my priority. Confused how that jives with having a lack of principles.

Great talking points there.  Now fall back in line.

[Reddy]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Great talking points there.  Now fall back in line.

Lol. This is the closest SS gets to eating crow. But I'll take it.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Reddy said:

Lol. This is the closest SS gets to eating crow. But I'll take it.

If recognizing empty platitudes is eating crow, sure, ok.  Go with that.

[Reddy]

21 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If recognizing empty platitudes is eating crow, sure, ok.  Go with that.

Says the guy who continually defends the Bernie movement even though he doesn't believe in any of the policies that movement espouses. But principles and all that.

[southsider2k5]

41 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Says the guy who continually defends the Bernie movement even though he doesn't believe in any of the policies that movement espouses. But principles and all that.

Imagine actually being able to respect a person for what... being honest, upfront, and unafraid to stand up for what they stand for.  This above statement is every single thing that is wrong with politics in the 21st century.  Party over country.  Election over everything.

[Reddy]

15 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Imagine actually being able to respect a person for what... being honest, upfront, and unafraid to stand up for what they stand for.  This above statement is every single thing that is wrong with politics in the 21st century.  Party over country.  Election over everything.

Again, except that my priorities right now are:

- Defending the people who would be harmed by a conservative Supreme Court overturning decades of social progress that directly impacts the lives of the most marginalized Americans and
- Defending our American institutions against the degradation they're currently experiencing under this administration.

Just because MY principles don't align with yours doesn't mean I'm not standing up for them and that I don't believe in them. I believe in doing whatever it takes to help the largest number of people have a better life and better opportunity. I want the people who've been most abused throughout our history to have the justice they deserve. And right now, that means getting Democrats elected to protect the Supreme Court and Democracy. You're free to disagree with my methods, but to suggest I don't stand for anything is - again - completely disingenuous. Your issue with me is personal - it has nothing to do with my politics or what I actually believe.

[Reddy]

If you'd like, I'd be happy to give you my position on whatever issue you're interested in. I'm just not arrogant enough to put my own personal views ahead of doing what's best for the greatest number of people right now and defending our Democracy from the attack it's currently facing. There are only two options: Democrat or Republican, and Democrats give us the best chance to protect our country right now. It's not party over country. It's country over my own personal beliefs.

[Dam8610]

5 hours ago, Reddy said:

The irony is that everything you said here applies to you as well. Scroll back. You're never willing to cede any ground on an issue once you've made up your mind about it. Democrats are always wrong, always, in perpetuity, and even when they're right they're wrong because they didn't get there soon enough or they only did it because Bernie, etc, etc.

You're confusing criticism for a proclamation of wrongdoing. I pointed out three issues that I think are problematic for the Democratic party, Balta pointed out the one of those three where they'd in fact gotten it right, and said I owed the Democratic party an apology. I stated that I didn't because Bernie sponsored the bill, you called that "an impossible standard", and I said that while I appreciated the Democrats supporting the bill, it's obvious that it's not a position they'd support without the events of the 2016 election, nor does it address the other two issues I brought up. I'm not saying Democrats can't be right, I'm saying I'm not going to give them much credit for being right if they're dragged to the right position against their will. It's the same way I feel about Republicans and their "evolved" positions on same sex marriage. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Quote

I wholeheartedly believe Democrats need something different to become the party of the working class again. And I think they're on their way, thanks to the issues Bernie brought to light. I support most if not all the policies you do. But I also embrace pragmatism, because not every policy plays everywhere and the Bernie style candidate doesn't play everywhere. In PA 18 the party supported Lamb. In Alabama, Jones. In WI1 the party supports the Bernie candidate. Why? Because they're the most likely to win with their respective electorates.

I understand the strategy and actually support it, the point where I disagree with the Democratic party is that they view this strategy as an end where I view it as a means to an end. Yes, get the most progressive candidate you can get now, but keep working, keep knocking doors and changing minds, and primary those that aren't progressive enough out, and replace them with more progressive candidates. You'll recall Bernie was a firm supporter of a 50 state strategy, and it appears the Democrats have listened to that advice. That said, I believe the DNC should be more open to supporting primary challengers and getting candidates like Marie Newman to oust candidates like Dan Lipinski. 

Quote

What frustrates me about Bernie folks is it's all dogma with no wiggle room. Everything is a litmus test. You're either right on the right issues or you're no use to the movement, no use to progress, and you need to be primaried. This does nothing but widen the chasm that already exists in Congress and in politics. The polarization makes accomplishing anything in Congress impossible, and this fleeing to the wings that both parties are doing just perpetuates that. Going far left just means the pendulum swings even farther right the next time around, and all the progress gets undone. What's the point in that?

No wiggle room? For me, there's quite a bit of wiggle room. I think Conor Lamb is a perfect example of this. He's stated that he's not necessarily with the Democrats on many social issues, but he's about expanding the power of unions and taxing the wealthy to pay for public services and societal needs. I'd take a House and Senate full of Conor Lambs, even though the Republican party tried to paint him as a Republican in Democrat clothing. To me, that's a much more apt description of Manchin or Donnelly than it is of Lamb.

Quote

My philosophy is this: in this unique moment in time when we're literally in a fight to protect our institutions and Democracy, my priority is having a Democratic majority to put a check on Trump's power. End stop. Everything else is secondary. How long do you think RBG and Kennedy hold out on the SC? That's why having 51 Democratic Senators is vital no matter how moderate they are. The Senate is a hell of a tall order this cycle, I know, but we're DEFINITELY not winning it if we don't support the red state Dems. I don't think litmus test Sanders folks appreciate the gravity of the current situation in regard to the Supreme Court.

Again, the "End stop." is my problem here. That shouldn't be the "End stop" goal of the Democratic party. It should be the "Phase 1 of 6" goal. Fine, get the majorities any way you need to, but continue to educate and move people toward more progressive policies so they'll see that their conservative legislator with a (D) behind their name isn't good enough and vote them out with a quality primary challenger supported by the DNC.

Quote

I also feel that Sanders supporters don't appreciate where Dems are coming from on many of these social issues and the Supreme Court, because many of them are straight white men who aren't directly affected by Trump's policies or any of the policies the SC would overturn if Trump had one or two more vacancies to fill. LGBT, women's rights, race issues, immigration - they're secondary to the economic platform because they have the *luxury* to put those things second. Much of the base of the Democratic Party does not have that same luxury. That lack of empathy from Sanders folks frustrates the hell out of me.

You misunderstand a disagreement over what accomplishes policy goals effectively as a lack of empathy. For example, prison and law enforcement reform are very near the top of my priority list. I consider these to be economic issues, but considering that African Americans are disproportionately affected by the biases inherent in the criminal justice system today, correcting this issue would correct a HUGE social problem. This is where, rather than encouraging this divide as the Democratic party has done, they should be educating the public as to how fixing the economic issues will fix the social issues, especially considering these issues are on their party platform. That's another big problem I have with the Democrats, they seem to prefer to foster this divide to keep their corporate donors happy over doing the right thing and adopting the overwhelmingly popular progressive positions. That also supports the evidence I showed before that we're living in an oligarchy.

Quote

Anyway. I want Dems to win because I think Dems help us protect our institutions and mean fewer people get hurt in the short term. It stems the bleeding. THEN, once you've cauterized the wound, you start the repair process and push to enact policy that will bring the type of changes you and I both want to see. But you can't heal the wound until you've first stopped the bleeding. 

As I already stated, I don't disagree with the strategy, I disagree with viewing it as an endpoint as the Democratic party seems to and as you've articulated in this post. The above needs to be step one, not the end.

[Reddy]

I don't believe it's the end point either. I, too, believe it's "step 1 of 6". But focusing on the step we're currently ON makes far more sense to me than perpetuating a divide about what we do in steps 2-6.

Damn, I actually agree with much of what you wrote there. Though if you'll recall, Howard Dean STARTED the 50 state strategy in 2006  

I don't care whose ideas are whose and who had them first. All I care about is doing the best job we can right now to get as many Democrats elected period. I don't agree with everything the party does - not by a long shot. I was and am heavily critical of how the party operated during the Obama years. I also heap a lot of blame on the President's head for the position we found ourselves in. But that's literally all moot. It doesn't matter who did what badly when, what matters is doing it better NOW and moving forward, regardless of whose idea what was. Yeah?

[southsider2k5]

28 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Again, except that my priorities right now are:

- Defending the people who would be harmed by a conservative Supreme Court overturning decades of social progress that directly impacts the lives of the most marginalized Americans and
- Defending our American institutions against the degradation they're currently experiencing under this administration.

Just because MY principles don't align with yours doesn't mean I'm not standing up for them and that I don't believe in them. I believe in doing whatever it takes to help the largest number of people have a better life and better opportunity. I want the people who've been most abused throughout our history to have the justice they deserve. And right now, that means getting Democrats elected to protect the Supreme Court and Democracy. You're free to disagree with my methods, but to suggest I don't stand for anything is - again - completely disingenuous. Your issue with me is personal - it has nothing to do with my politics or what I actually believe.

Yep, back in line.

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

You're confusing criticism for a proclamation of wrongdoing. I pointed out three issues that I think are problematic for the Democratic party, Balta pointed out the one of those three where they'd in fact gotten it right, and said I owed the Democratic party an apology. I stated that I didn't because Bernie sponsored the bill, you called that "an impossible standard", and I said that while I appreciated the Democrats supporting the bill, it's obvious that it's not a position they'd support without the events of the 2016 election, nor does it address the other two issues I brought up. I'm not saying Democrats can't be right, I'm saying I'm not going to give them much credit for being right if they're dragged to the right position against their will. It's the same way I feel about Republicans and their "evolved" positions on same sex marriage. I don't think that's unreasonable.

JFC go learn what the Google is before you make your next claim.

Quote

The Senate voted on Wednesday against going ahead on a bill that would gradually increase the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, another rejection for legislation that has been a major focus of the Democrats' 2014 midterm campaign.

The final vote count was 54 to 42, with Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the legislation, taking the procedural step of voting against the bill so that he can reintroduce it at a later time.

In a news conference following the vote, top Democrats vowed to reintroduce the bill this year. 

"Soon," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, (D-N.Y.), as he ducked into an elevator following the vote. "Sometime soon."

However, it remains unclear when -- if at all -- they will reintroduce it and whether they have any path toward winning approval this year.

They needed to amass 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster of the bill, which was introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). But they were able to sway only one Republican -- Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) -- to vote in favor of proceeding. Even if the measure had passed in the Senate, the chances that  a minimum wage increase widely opposed by the GOP could make it through the Republican-run House of Representatives this year seemed improbable.
.....
Had Congress debated and then passed the minimum wage bill, it would have gradually raised the $7.25 hourly minimum wage to $10.10 over the course of 30 months. It also would have provided automatic annual increases pegged to inflation.

 

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yep, back in line.

Yeah, I'm done with your trolling and disrespect.

[StrangeSox]

Can't wait to relitigate the 2016 primaries for the rest of my life

[Reddy]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

Can't wait to relitigate the 2016 primaries for the rest of my life

Preach. Just wait for Nov. 7th if you think it's bad now.

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, Reddy said:

Yeah, I'm done with your trolling and disrespect.

If I followed your style of electability over substance I would be supporting Donald Trump right now.  I can think of no better reason to not follow your line of thinking here.  If you consider that disrespectful,  hopefully it causes you to rethink priorities a bit.

[Reddy]

36 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

If I followed your style of electability over substance I would be supporting Donald Trump right now.  I can think of no better reason to not follow your line of thinking here.  If you consider that disrespectful,  hopefully it causes you to rethink priorities a bit.

No. You making this argument is not disrespect. You repeatedly trolling me with BS get in line comments after I take time to clearly state my position is disrespect, and I'm tired of it. Especially coming from someone who pretends to support Bernieism simply because I'm against it. The hypocrisy is what gets me. 

For the record, I don't put the Democratic Party on anywhere near the level of bad for the world as Trump. You do. Thus why you can't understand why I feel the way I do. I reject your premise. 

And wait. You're telling me you thought Trump was the most electable Republican? 

Edited April 29, 2018 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

26 minutes ago, Reddy said:

No. You making this argument is not disrespect. You repeatedly trolling me with BS get in line comments after I take time to clearly state my position is disrespect, and I'm tired of it. Especially coming from someone who pretends to support Bernieism simply because I'm against it. The hypocrisy is what gets me. 

For the record, I don't put the Democratic Party on anywhere near the level of bad for the world as Trump. You do. Thus why you can't understand why I feel the way I do. I reject your premise. 

And wait. You're telling me you thought Trump was the most electable Republican? 

You come in here on a daily basis and mock people as Bernie Bros, and are complaining about a lack of respect.  

Now what was that about hypocrisy?

[Reddy]

29 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

You come in here on a daily basis and mock people as Bernie Bros, and are complaining about a lack of respect.  

Now what was that about hypocrisy?

Henceforth you shall be known as The Great White Knight for All Bernie Bros.

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure he can fight his own battles without you stepping in to defend his honor. But you know what, regardless, you're right. And I probably shouldn't use that term since I mean it in a derogatory way. That said, I also try to answer and address the points he makes. We sling shit at each other, but at least there's a conversation happening. That's not the case with you and me, is it?

[Dam8610]

21 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

JFC go learn what the Google is before you make your next claim.

 

Oh boy, you got me, $10.10 sure is $15. Also, I see that article brimming with commentary from senators about a living wage. You might try understanding what you're arguing against before arguing against it. It makes formulating the argument easier.

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

Oh boy, you got me, $10.10 sure is $15. Also, I see that article brimming with commentary from senators about a living wage. You might try understanding what you're arguing against before arguing against it. It makes formulating the argument easier.

Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation has been a Democratic goal for years. I for one actually think that $15 right now is too high for much of the country, - there's research based on the $15 rate in Seattle that suggests to me that it's right on the edge of where you can push it in that city without actually causing a measureable drop in total employment, and that's a major city with a high cost of living. Remote areas with lower costs of living would see more substantial hits from a $15 minimum wage switched to rapidly. But on top of that, $10.10 in 2014 dollars would already be $10.65 right now, and for rural areas/national minimum wage that's not a bad number if you keep the inflation adjustment. 

[Dam8610]

8 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation has been a Democratic goal for years. I for one actually think that $15 right now is too high for much of the country, - there's research based on the $15 rate in Seattle that suggests to me that it's right on the edge of where you can push it in that city without actually causing a measureable drop in total employment, and that's a major city with a high cost of living. Remote areas with lower costs of living would see more substantial hits from a $15 minimum wage switched to rapidly. But on top of that, $10.10 in 2014 dollars would already be $10.65 right now, and for rural areas/national minimum wage that's not a bad number if you keep the inflation adjustment. 

The minimum wage was originally intended to be a wage on which a full-time worker could support a family. Today, the average full-time minimum wage US worker would need to pay roughly 90% of their income to afford the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment. Further, there is no state in the union in which said worker would pay less than 50% of their income for rent on a 2 bedroom apartment. Gradual improvement that still leads to people becoming homeless and starving may seem good enough to you, but it doesn't to me.

[caulfield12]

The Democratic Party has to lay in the bed they’ve made.

People were so desperate for a change, any change, they willingly voted for a charlatan over more of the same. 

[caulfield12]

18 minutes ago, Dam8610 said:

The minimum wage was originally intended to be a wage on which a full-time worker could support a family. Today, the average full-time minimum wage US worker would need to pay roughly 90% of their income to afford the rent on a 2 bedroom apartment. Further, there is no state in the union in which said worker would pay less than 50% of their income for rent on a 2 bedroom apartment. Gradual improvement that still leads to people becoming homeless and starving may seem good enough to you, but it doesn't to me.

This is where improving education/skills/abilities (especially affordability of community college and vo tech) has to be addressed.  Even if the pay is $12-13 by legislation, 50-75% of those jobs will be wiped out in next 15-25 years anyway.

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

14 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

The Democratic Party has to lay in the bed they’ve made.

People were so desperate for a change, any change, they willingly voted for a charlatan over more of the same. 

Alternative narrative: rural white folks were terrified of a changing American culture and barely turned out enough to flip the election by 80k votes.

[caulfield12]

31 minutes ago, Reddy said:

Alternative narrative: rural white folks were terrified of a changing American culture and barely turned out enough to flip the election by 80k votes.

Yes, but all those states the campaign took for granted until it was too late...no campaigning in WI, brought the Obamas at the last minute to PA but the tide had already turned there.  Spent resources in states they really had no realistic shot at, but hubris got the best of them.  Uninspired choice of Kaine didn’t help matters much. 

Along with Gore in 2000 and Dukakis is 1988, one of the worst Democratic campaigns (that actually had a good chance to win starting out) I have ever seen, especially in terms of misallocation of resources/wasted spending.  Trump is right about that one thing, at least.