thebluefood Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 13 hours ago, Springfield said: Thats an indictment of capitalism. Now we're talking. (Need to put a "red caucus" together on ES for us Lefty posters on the boards) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 30 minutes ago, TimmySmith said: The right trotted out Bob Dole and John McCain. The left trotted out Hillary. All competent and experienced. The voters said no. Don't forget the Right with Rubio, their lone shot at the young guy. Your voters wanted the crazy old fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Springfield said: But Biden has the persona of being a no-nonsense, blue collar, everyman. and Joe did about as well as Kasich when Joe ran 5 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Don't forget the Right with Rubio, their lone shot at the young guy. Your voters wanted the crazy old fart. Cruz isn't much older, lotta younger ones in the mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 Whenever I see a headline like this it has me asking the question "What is the *new* center?" I feel like the Dems often get caught with allowing the right to define the center, and it constantly gets re-defined. On social issues I think it's the opposite, but on economic policy it feels like anything but moving more right-ward is considered "socialism" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: Whenever I see a headline like this it has me asking the question "What is the *new* center?" I feel like the Dems often get caught with allowing the right to define the center, and it constantly gets re-defined. On social issues I think it's the opposite, but on economic policy it feels like anything but moving more right-ward is considered "socialism" I think both sides like to apply unfavorable labels to things that they don't like. So the right calls ANYTHING it doesn't like socialism, even if it has nothing to do with economics. Want universal background checks to buy an AR-15? SOCIALISM! Want to protect a National Park? SOCIALISM! It's effective because our country was literally in a cold war with socialists for 50 years, and that happened during Baby Boomer's formative years. It is a term that is very negatively ingrained in their psyche. Not so much for Millenials, were their formative years were defined by the financial crisis brought upon largely by the greed of the Baby Boomers .... so they tend to view capitalism with suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Don't forget the Right with Rubio, their lone shot at the young guy. Your voters wanted the crazy old fart. Rubio would have lost. Youth is not my point, Obama didn't win because of youth, he won because he gave the voters something different. So did Trump. 2 in a row is a trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, twa said: and Joe did about as well as Kasich when Joe ran Cruz isn't much older, lotta younger ones in the mix its unapplicable... Ted Cruz was born a stodgy unlikable stinky old fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 16 minutes ago, mcsluggo said: its unapplicable... Ted Cruz was born a stodgy unlikable stinky old fart. insult it and it replicates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 4 hours ago, twa said: Cruz isn't much older, lotta younger ones in the mix Cruz comes across like an old man 2 hours ago, TimmySmith said: Rubio would have lost. Youth is not my point, Obama didn't win because of youth, he won because he gave the voters something different. So did Trump. 2 in a row is a trend. Obama was hopeful compared to McCain/Failin. After Bush II you could have run a corpse and got it elected. Trump won because he energized an angry regressive base and was opposed by one of the most controversial and despised candidates in 30 years. They successfully painted her as a liberal, and then controversied her through the entire campaign. Trump didn't win because he was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 1 hour ago, twa said: insult it and it replicates Obviously, it replicates by mitosis. Asexually. (And great find). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 8 hours ago, twa said: How can Bernie be the front runner with Hillary winning the popular vote? She is progressing each election Lost the battle vs O Won the nomination Won the popular vote Despite what many think, I do think she runs in 2020. Thing is, she won't get far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 7 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said: Despite what many think, I do think she runs in 2020. Thing is, she won't get far. I would bet against it. She's lost twice. And I doubt that her personality takes well, to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 7, 2017 Share Posted July 7, 2017 3 hours ago, TimmySmith said: Rubio would have lost. Youth is not my point, Obama didn't win because of youth, he won because he gave the voters something different. So did Trump. 2 in a row is a trend. "The Rent is Too Damn High" guy seemed to offer something different too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Am I remembering incorrectly or was the GOP actually speaking out about income inequality during the campaign season when criticizing Obama's economic recovery? I ask because I really haven't heard a peep of follow-up on that issue since Trump won. Not that I ever believed the GOP was concerned with it in the first place, it sounded more like them trying to jump on the faux-populism Trump train, but the crowds of GOP voters sure seemed to clap when they brought that issue up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 The voters don't get that the wealthy don't have ENOUGH money, so they are going to move money upward. The stupidity is astounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scruffylookin Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Complete nonsense. To me being "center" means you stand for nothing. In modern politics being "center" means lean right but not be an asshole. Democrats need to embrace "left" policies and grow a spine and fight for them. Not let the right nutters define things. There is a segment of the population who will never vote for a Democrat. Anything a Democrat proposes will be called "socialist" or "communist". Look at Obamacare as an example. These people will never be reached. They do not want society to progress. They want this country to "return" (aka regress) to some mythological past. Democrats should not be moving closer to those people's view just to get votes. They will never get them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 3 hours ago, scruffylookin said: Complete nonsense. To me being "center" means you stand for nothing. In modern politics being "center" means lean right but not be an asshole. Democrats need to embrace "left" policies and grow a spine and fight for them. Not let the right nutters define things. There is a segment of the population who will never vote for a Democrat. Anything a Democrat proposes will be called "socialist" or "communist". Look at Obamacare as an example. These people will never be reached. They do not want society to progress. They want this country to "return" (aka regress) to some mythological past. Democrats should not be moving closer to those people's view just to get votes. They will never get them. The idea that if you're in the Center means you stand for nothing is absurd. It just means that your beliefs aren't defined by Right or Left ideology. Embracing the far Left politics has lost more seats across this country than it has won. It also gave Trump's supporters an enemy to hate. Thinking that going tonthe Center is a strategy to win the far Right ideologues is again another absurd notion. You move to the Center to win the reluctant Trump voters who did so because of the platform. Going to the Left will ONLY alienate Centerist/Moderate voters. It's the same mistake that the Right is making right now in their push further right. Centerists arr leaving the party but finding a Democratic party that doesn't represent them either. Which way do you think those Centrists will go? Here's a hint they voted for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Here's the thing, in order to legislate you have to win. And the only place that the far left ideology is winning is in high density areas. However, a high density population strategy cannot win the White House, and it's obviously showing that it's not winning Senate or congressional seats either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 I remember that Hillary traveled the country and conducted listening tours, and her Democratic platform reflected those sessions. Retraining programs for displaced workers was one of those. Then Sanders interfered with his far left pie in the sky (for now) ideas, and his trashing of Clinton. Trump and his bringing back coal jobs and his outlier lies. Clinton's ideas got lost. Really, she spent the last few years listening to people. But instead of really looking at her policies, the people who would have benefited most were swayed by the huskster con and decades of witch hunts. The Democrats also need to educate the electorate on their policies, and how they will directly benefit from them, and contrast them with the Republican platform. That includes down ticket candidates too. Everyone knows about the Republican platform, it's been essentially unchanged for years. But their adherents are easily swayed by the shiny object, and the corporations and wealthy are more than happy to those anti-human policies implemented because it means more for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Is there even any ideology when it comes to "centrists" anyway? What do centrists stand for. I'm a Wobbly and I can tell you what the IWW stands for and has stood for since we were established in 1905. I don't care much for much Authoritarian Leftist ideology but any Maoist or Leninist worth their salt would tell you not only what they stand for by how their ideological stances are relevant today. Even the deepest dregs of the Right like the "Traditional Workers Party" have something solid to stand on. What compels the centrist? What makes the moderate get up and want to make the world a better place? What is the common link between a centrist 60 years ago and a centrist today? How many centrists in 1957 would stand up proudly for gay liberation or federally mandated desegregation or the rights of rank-and-file workers for flexibility on the shop floor or in their union lodges? Why should I think the modern centrist will not only take solid stances for justice but stay there, especially if the going gets tough? At best this seems strategic and short sighted. At worst it seems non-committal to anything worth taking a solid stand for. And this further proves that, while I may vote down ballot for Democrats out of necessity, I will probably never join their ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, thebluefood said: Is there even any ideology when it comes to "centrists" anyway? What do centrists stand for. I'm a Wobbly and I can tell you what the IWW stands for and has stood for since we were established in 1905. I don't care much for much Authoritarian Leftist ideology but any Maoist or Leninist worth their salt would tell you not only what they stand for by how their ideological stances are relevant today. Even the deepest dregs of the Right like the "Traditional Workers Party" have something solid to stand on. What compels the centrist? What makes the moderate get up and want to make the world a better place? What is the common link between a centrist 60 years ago and a centrist today? How many centrists in 1957 would stand up proudly for gay liberation or federally mandated desegregation or the rights of rank-and-file workers for flexibility on the shop floor or in their union lodges? Why should I think the modern centrist will not only take solid stances for justice but stay there, especially if the going gets tough? At best this seems strategic and short sighted. At worst it seems non-committal to anything worth taking a solid stand for. And this further proves that, while I may vote down ballot for Democrats out of necessity, I will probably never join their ranks. The Moderate/Centrist wants to be left alone, but also wants to make sure that their neighbors are treated fairly. I want to be able to work and know that my tax dollars aren't being wasted on hawkish spending and more Neo-Con expansionism, or Leftist rescuism. I want to help my struggling neighbors but actually help them not just give blank checks when many continue to not make decisions that are in their best interests. I'm pro-business but also not at the expense of the worker, it's a simbiosis. The Moderate/Centrists have their feet in both platforms. I think it's interesting how many liberals love the Eastern philosophies of Budhism all while pushing the extreme ecceticism that Budhism rejects. Then the Left and the Right (with its oppulence) scorn the middle way which as I understand it is where Siddartha nirvana. As for how many Centrists in 1957 would have stood proudly for gay liberation, that's an absurd question because the sheer number of people in 1957 would stood up for gay liberation was insanely small. Does that mean that their ideology then become correct across the board just because they were ahead of the game in 1957? Hardly. That's the thing that most of us Centrists recognize, we don't need to swallow the whole stew just because we like certain ingredients. Being a Centrist/Moderate is often accused of being lukewarm or passive, but that's hardly accurate either. We get fired up about things too...obviously, it's just that we recognize that we don't need to sacrifice our integrity by feeling the need to be forced to endorse aspects of an ideology that we don't agree with simply because it's part of a party platform that was determined not by true ideology and belief but by political maneuvering and electorate strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 I don't remember Hillary doing much at all on the campaign trail. Every day it was Trump rally after Trump rally. Hell, I remember Bernie rallies more than Hillary... whatevers. Aside from being a candidate that was incredibly unlikable, she was also remarkably unremarkable. She should have been out there every day hammering the point that Trump is trying to fix the election. Sure, it gets us nowhere, but it keeps the fire on Trump and it's a provocative story for the media. She knew about it and she barely touched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, Springfield said: I don't remember Hillary doing much at all on the campaign trail. Every day it was Trump rally after Trump rally. Hell, I remember Bernie rallies more than Hillary... whatevers. Aside from being a candidate that was incredibly unlikable, she was also remarkably unremarkable. She should have been out there every day hammering the point that Trump is trying to fix the election. Sure, it gets us nowhere, but it keeps the fire on Trump and it's a provocative story for the media. She knew about it and she barely touched it. You remember Trump because a train wreck is always great TV, and the media showed up to see Trump JUST so they could be there to catch the latest stupid, racist thing he'd say that would be cheered by his followers. You remember Bernie because his campaign was the underdog. What did Clinton have to offer other than being the most qualified potentially smartest most moderate candidate in the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: You remember Trump because a train wreck is always great TV, and the media showed up to see Trump JUST so they could be there to catch the latest stupid, racist thing he'd say that would be cheered by his followers. You remember Bernie because his campaign was the underdog. What did Clinton have to offer other than being the most qualified potentially smartest most moderate candidate in the field. I don't remember any of her campaign promises other than raise taxes on corporations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted July 8, 2017 Share Posted July 8, 2017 Then you didn't read the Democratic platform. It's all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.