2016 Democratic Thread

[BigSqwert]

The Trump Transition

Alt-Right Founder Questions if Jews are People

 

Nothing to look at here. Pretend that this is normal.

 

[southsider2k5]

There is no hyperbole with the racism in this upcoming administration. There is no need for exaggeration. Are we supposed to turn a blind eye?

 

With this upcoming administration? No. The problem is the decades of using this as a standard tool to attack everyone. Again, it is meaningless when said now to a large portion of the population. So much so that a new label had to be made up to try to scare people with, but of course it didn't really work.

 

The Democrats aren't going to win by using the Trump game plan of name calling. They are going to win by offering a smarter alternative.

[StrangeSox]

With this upcoming administration? No. The problem is the decades of using this as a standard tool to attack everyone. Again, it is meaningless when said now to a large portion of the population. So much so that a new label had to be made up to try to scare people with, but of course it didn't really work.

 

The Democrats aren't going to win by using the Trump game plan of name calling. They are going to win by offering a smarter alternative.

 

This was basically the argument laid out by an Italian writer re: Berlusconi. His absurdity was similar to Trump's, and he'd always get his opponents to respond to every crazy little thing he does rather than offering their own message.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/...sist-trump.html

 

Don't know how much I agree with it, but I think it's right up your alley.

[bmags]

People pass that article around a lot, but I have to question how good of an analysis it is when it acts like Berlusconi was defeated for good based off of an issues based election and not more absurd scandals.

[southsider2k5]

This was basically the argument laid out by an Italian writer re: Berlusconi. His absurdity was similar to Trump's, and he'd always get his opponents to respond to every crazy little thing he does rather than offering their own message.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/opinion/...sist-trump.html

 

Don't know how much I agree with it, but I think it's right up your alley.

 

I think there is some solid logic there. I think I also agree that is why the GOP largely left themselves in a position for a Donald Trump to win. They spent 8 years of being the party of Not Obama and they never really presented a personality that was able to step into the post-Obama void. Instead the one guy who seemed to have all of the answers, as stupid as they were, was the one guy that people could largely identify with.

 

It isn't just the Democrats that can learn from this election, I just think with them being the party out of power they have the most flexibility to actually look inward and change things.

[StrangeSox]

Well I think that's actually the critical flaw in that analysis, and it's something he kinda just skirts around in parenthesis. 8 years of full obstruction and increasing radical political positions culiminating in an overtly bigoted and hateful gameshow host becoming their nominee has resulted in them being in their most powerful position in nearly a century and stealing a Supreme Court seat that should have dramatically shifted the overall stance of the court to the left.

 

Why shouldn't we take away the lesson that policies matter little and beltway political theater (obstruction etc.) matters less and that full-blown demagoguery is the best way to go? It worked for Trump, it worked for the "Leave" campaign in Britain.

[southsider2k5]

Well I think that's actually the critical flaw in that analysis, and it's something he kinda just skirts around in parenthesis. 8 years of full obstruction and increasing radical political positions culiminating in an overtly bigoted and hateful gameshow host becoming their nominee has resulted in them being in their most powerful position in nearly a century and stealing a Supreme Court seat that should have dramatically shifted the overall stance of the court to the left.

 

Why shouldn't we take away the lesson that policies matter little and beltway political theater (obstruction etc.) matters less and that full-blown demagoguery is the best way to go? It worked for Trump, it worked for the "Leave" campaign in Britain.

 

It totally misses the party in charge being out of tune with the ordinary people, and leaving the door open to this crap. Again it misses that instead of seizing what was available, and identifying with them, they mocked and lost them.

[illinilaw08]

And this is exactly the attitude that has relegated the Democratic party to a secondary role in this country as they have lost the federal stage, and the vast majority of the states as well.

 

This holier than thou, anyone who isn't with us is a racist attitude just isn't effective as a political platform. All you have to do is look at the results of where the party is right now to know that.

 

Eventually one of these two parties will become disaffected enough with lowest common denominator politics to realize that in order to be truly effective it is the high hanging fruit that will be the most productive. But if you want to keep engaging in the Trump style of politics, then you will continue to get these results. The party that campaigned against the politics of fear and hate for so long has fallen into that trap, and has this Presidential election to show for it.

 

Again, congratulations for electing our worst nightmare as President.

 

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Systematic racism is a real thing - should we not draw attention to it as a society? Denying equal protection to the LGBT community is an issue. Should we stop drawing attention to that? The Black Lives Matter movement really says "Black Lives Matter, Too." Should they stop protesting issues in law enforcement?

 

I guess I'm perplexed and can't think of examples of the "anyone who isn't with us is a racist" attitudes that you seem to attribute to the Democrats...

[Balta1701]

With this upcoming administration? No. The problem is the decades of using this as a standard tool to attack everyone. Again, it is meaningless when said now to a large portion of the population. So much so that a new label had to be made up to try to scare people with, but of course it didn't really work.

 

The Democrats aren't going to win by using the Trump game plan of name calling. They are going to win by offering a smarter alternative.

And what are we supposed to do when an entire party decides they're going to do things like figure out strategies to make sure as many african american votes are blocked as possible? What do you do when a party calls for "Self deportation"? What do you do when a party makes a key part of its campaign that there should be limits on where one religion should be able to build their facilities?

 

That it's a large portion of the population makes it worse. A large portion of the population was more than happy to turn a blind eye when their own party declared that they were going to do anything they could to keep certain groups from voting. Now it's in their face, and that same group said "this is fine".

 

"How dare you assert that our party is beholden to a bunch of racists" seems like a message that shouldn't fly anymore when Sieg Heil's are being thrown around.

[illinilaw08]

It totally misses the party in charge being out of tune with the ordinary people, and leaving the door open to this crap. Again it misses that instead of seizing what was available, and identifying with them, they mocked and lost them.

 

2K - the Dems won the popular vote by 1.5M voters. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. They lost the Presidential election because Donald Trump promised to bring jobs back to a depressed portion of the country - promises that he can't possibly keep - and flipped the Rust Belt Red.

 

Clinton didn't pay enough attention to the Rust Belt. She didn't articulate her policies to that part of the country well. She took for granted that they would vote for the party of Labor rather than the party of management. I don't see how you can say that the Dems lost the election because they mocked ordinary people. The guy that mocked ordinary people actually won the Presidency...

[StrangeSox]

They also had more votes for the Senate by a few million. I don't know if it happened in 2016, but in 2012, Democrats also had more votes for the House but walked away with fewer seats. Our federal government's structure strongly favors more rural voters at every step.

[southsider2k5]

And what are we supposed to do when an entire party decides they're going to do things like figure out strategies to make sure as many african american votes are blocked as possible? What do you do when a party calls for "Self deportation"? What do you do when a party makes a key part of its campaign that there should be limits on where one religion should be able to build their facilities?

 

That it's a large portion of the population makes it worse. A large portion of the population was more than happy to turn a blind eye when their own party declared that they were going to do anything they could to keep certain groups from voting. Now it's in their face, and that same group said "this is fine".

 

"How dare you assert that our party is beholden to a bunch of racists" seems like a message that shouldn't fly anymore when Sieg Heil's are being thrown around.

 

And yet despite all of that, that Dems lost. I am sure it isn't their fault and they have nothing to learn from it. This is fine.

[southsider2k5]

2K - the Dems won the popular vote by 1.5M voters. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. They lost the Presidential election because Donald Trump promised to bring jobs back to a depressed portion of the country - promises that he can't possibly keep - and flipped the Rust Belt Red.

 

Clinton didn't pay enough attention to the Rust Belt. She didn't articulate her policies to that part of the country well. She took for granted that they would vote for the party of Labor rather than the party of management. I don't see how you can say that the Dems lost the election because they mocked ordinary people. The guy that mocked ordinary people actually won the Presidency...

 

They are losing all over the country.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/30673...te-legislatures

[Jenksismyhero]

They are losing all over the country.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/30673...te-legislatures

 

In total, Republicans control nearly 1,000 more legislative seats than they did when Obama took office. The Republican share of state legislative seats has grown from just under 44 percent in 2009 to 56 percent after Tuesday’s election.

 

Clearly they're all just racist.

[StrangeSox]

Trump called a meeting with network executives to yell at them about how they cover him.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps...g-firing-squad/

 

Edited November 21, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

There are lots of things Democrats can look at as to why they've struggled in elections, but I gotta laugh at the continued attempts to make everything horrible about the modern GOP the fault of Democrats. Clinton may not have turned out the right number of people in the right states, but that doesn't absolve the tens of millions of people who voted for Trump or the tens of millions who didn't vote at all from their responsibility.

[illinilaw08]

They are losing all over the country.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/30673...te-legislatures

 

If your thesis is that the divide between rural and urban has never been greater, I can get behind that argument. And it's worth fleshing out why that divide continues to grow.

 

However, you still haven't provided any evidence in support of your argument that Democrats have been calling everyone racists, or that they campaigned on insulting the ordinary people in this country.

[caulfield12]

And finally the Republicans will have to come up with their own policies and pass them...replace Obamacare and Medicare with something better while not blowing up the budget? Infrastructure spending increases of $1 trillion while cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, dumping estate taxes...and that's magically going to provide GDP growth of 4-5%? Conservative predictions say that the deficit will have another $5-10 trillion added doing that. If the GOP goes down thst road adter the Bush years, they can never complain about liberals blowing up the Federal budgets again and we can finally get some realistic conversations on policy choices that are not draconian tax cuts, increases in military spending and more privatized prisons.

 

The only ones doing well so far are the 1%ers. Everyone else is just going to be more screwed in 2-4 years, they just don't know it yet.

[Jenksismyhero]

There are lots of things Democrats can look at as to why they've struggled in elections, but I gotta laugh at the continued attempts to make everything horrible about the modern GOP the fault of Democrats. Clinton may not have turned out the right number of people in the right states, but that doesn't absolve the tens of millions of people who voted for Trump or the tens of millions who didn't vote at all from their responsibility.

 

Simple question: do you think that calling all non-liberal people racists/bigots/homophobs/etc makes those people more or less likely to vote for a Democrat, even if they themselves are not racist/bigoted/homophobic, etc?

 

At some point if you keep pissing the people off that are Republican for those non-social reasons, you're still not picking up their vote, and if anything they will justify voting for someone like Trump because of that anger.

 

That is the mistake that Democrats apparently aren't learning here. While there is a minority of Republicans who are those terrible things, the vast majority are not. But continue painting with that broad brush and you won't make any of the inroads that you need to win.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

If your thesis is that the divide between rural and urban has never been greater, I can get behind that argument. And it's worth fleshing out why that divide continues to grow.

 

However, you still haven't provided any evidence in support of your argument that Democrats have been calling everyone racists, or that they campaigned on insulting the ordinary people in this country.

 

On this board alone SS calls any Trump voter a racist. Hillary called them deplorables. You really don't think that happened/happens?

[Jenksismyhero]

And finally the Republicans will have to come up with their own policies and pass them...replace Obamacare and Medicare with something better while not blowing up the budget? Infrastructure spending increases of $1 trillion while cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, dumping estate taxes...and that's magically going to provide GDP growth of 4-5%? Conservative predictions say that the deficit will have another $5-10 trillion added doing that. If the GOP goes down thst road adter the Bush years, they can never complain about liberals blowing up the Federal budgets again and we can finally get some realistic conversations on policy choices that are not draconian tax cuts, increases in military spending and more privatized prisons.

 

The only ones doing well so far are the 1%ers. Everyone else is just going to be more screwed in 2-4 years, they just don't know it yet.

 

Agreed, but the caveat is the middle class is always f***ed by both parties. I'd prefer to be f***ed a little less by having the rich pay more, but it's really a wash at the end of the day. Taxes still rise, costs/fees for everything associated with government goes up. The rich avoid those things, the poor can't afford it, so the middle is still stuck with the bill no matter who is in charge.

[caulfield12]

Agreed, but the caveat is the middle class is always f***ed by both parties. I'd prefer to be f***ed a little less by having the rich pay more, but it's really a wash at the end of the day. Taxes still rise, costs/fees for everything associated with government goes up. The rich avoid those things, the poor can't afford it, so the middle is still stuck with the bill no matter who is in charge.

 

 

Then, leaving all that aside, how can completely ignoring environmental issues and sticking our heads in the collective sand be the best course of action?

 

It's honestly not a concern at all to the GOP? How can they be so sure pushing the problem under the rug will be the lasting legacy they want to leave to their grandchildren? From living in China for 6-7 years now, I can safely say you don't want the rest of the world to be following their policies of paying lip service and running PSA campaigns but in reality doing very little that will curb economic growth.

 

 

Finally, the reason jobs will go up under Trump is the economic winds are behind him...sustaining this era of easy money and near zero interest rate expansion, though, will be next to impossible.

 

Dems will triangulate or obstruct, Trump will try to blame them and the media for standing in his way, trying to peel off GOP support for bipartisan bills which will unpalatable to the Tea Partiers and deficit hawks. Who wins is anyone's guess.

Edited November 21, 2016 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

Simple question: do you think that calling all non-liberal people racists/bigots/homophobs/etc makes those people more or less likely to vote for a Democrat, even if they themselves are not racist/bigoted/homophobic, etc?

 

At some point if you keep pissing the people off that are Republican for those non-social reasons, you're still not picking up their vote, and if anything they will justify voting for someone like Trump because of that anger.

 

That is the mistake that Democrats apparently aren't learning here. While there is a minority of Republicans who are those terrible things, the vast majority are not. But continue painting with that broad brush and you won't make any of the inroads that you need to win.

 

 

On this board alone SS calls any Trump voter a racist. Hillary called them deplorables. You really don't think thatI happened/happens?

 

These are not things that happened, no.

 

[illinilaw08]

On this board alone SS calls any Trump voter a racist. Hillary called them deplorables. You really don't think that happened/happens?

 

Forgot about the deplorables thing - got anything else?

 

Throughout the course of the campaign, Trump said racist things about Mexicans and Muslims. Trump mocked a report for having a disability. He was accused of sexual assault by a number of women. People at his rallies were chanting "Lock her Up" with respect to Trump's presidential opponent - and he encouraged that. A large part of his appeal was that he was "not PC." So "deplorables" vs. every insane thing that Trump said and did on the campaign trail...

 

I'm certain that a large number of Trump voters are not racist. Those people may not have voted for Trump because of the racist, sexist, and other terrible things that he said. But those comments were not a deal breaker for Trump's presidency to them. Meaning they didn't think that those comments and actions disqualified him from the office of the Presidency. Objectively, Trump's campaign was embraced by and endorsed by white supremacists. His election seems to have emboldened those same groups.

 

I'm sure there are Democrats that are a-holes and have called all Republicans racist. That doesn't equate to that being the Democrats national policy platform. And that doesn't excuse the election of Donald Trump.

 

ETA: I just want to re-iterate - this discussion began with SS2K stating that the Democrats "holier than thou, anyone who isn't with us is a racist attitude just isn't effective as a political platform." There's no evidence that this is, or has ever been, the Dem's political platform. And even if it was, what does it say about the country that the racist platform beat that platform...

Edited November 21, 2016 by illinilaw08

[caulfield12]

In more pertinent news, the withdrawal from NAFTA and TPP will bring back jobs how exactly?

 

We're basically turning over the world trade system to the Chinese. They weren't allowed into TPP. Now they will be able to assert even more leadership with the AIIB, One Belt/One Road, RMB added to currency reserve basket (goal to replace the USD by 2030) and another international Shanghai bank that will make Asia, Russia, Brazil and Australia more reliant on China than ever before. They're light years ahead in infrastructure spending. And environmental problems don't exist according to the EPA.

 

So the US counter is to be more isolated from the world and allow China to dictate the terms of trade after we disengage and force most of our allies into bed with China (see Philiippines, for one).