How to fix the Democratic Party

[The Sisko]

13 hours ago, philibusters said:

 

Yeah, I think we just disagree.

 

"Your non-woker's that prefer class-based solutions seem to track pretty well with the Bernie wing which are probably the most liberal, so-called woke group in the party."

 

I like Bernie Sanders.  He is further left than me on economic issues, but I think he really believes in what he advocates for.  However, I don't think the Bernie Sanders wing of the party is woke.   Woke only has to do with you positon on social justice issues (I listed the big six).   There are certainly some politicians like AOC that are woke and that are economically part of the Bernie Sanders wing, but a lot of woke people are not part of the Bernie Sanders wing and a lot of people in the Bernie Sanders wing are not woke.  The Bernie Sanders wing is focused on economic issues, the woke wing is focused on social justice issues.  I think of Bernie Sanders personally as being woke.

 

"So for example, I agree with pulling down all the confederacy garbage and changing names that honor traitors and war criminals, but given my previous comments, I obviously believe in institutional racism as well. According to you, that would make me both woke and non-woke."

 

I am not following how that would make you woke and non-woke according to me.  If you focused on economic programs for the poor as a way to fight racial inequality like Medicaid for all, $15 minimum wage, free community college and things like that that would be a non-woke approach to racial inequality.  Focusing on taking down confederacy statutes is an example of woke behavior.  Its founded on a belief that we are still a fundamentally racist society and we need to root that racism,  with the belief that once the racism is rooted out, racial equality will follow.  Non-woke people see racial inequality primarily in class terms and think you can root out all the confederate statutes in the world, but until you even the starting line, you won't achieve it.   There are some issues where perhaps both sides could agree, like reparations, but again the main difference between wokesters and non-wokesters in my opinion is the woke belief current racism is the primary cause of racial inequality and we need to find that racism and root it out, whereas non-wokesters on the left believe past discrimination cause massive economic inequality and that until that economic inequality is remedied there will be an uneven starting line and the inequality won't go away naturally. If you are non-woke you probably think our institutions are mostly fair when it comes to race(though not perfectly fair), but simply having race neutral institutions won't get rid of racial inequality if people come from different starting lines.  The woke are sometimes accused of being neo-liberals in the sense they implicitly seem to believe that if institutions are fair to all people regardless of race, racial inequality will somewhat quickly disappear, so the fact that racial inequality is persisting means that the institutions most not be racially fair (institutionally racism).   If you are non-woke, you can believe institutions are being fair to all people regardless of race, but that won't make racial inequality disappear given the different starting positions.    Thus the non-woke are going to be more focused on helping people living in poor minority neighborhoods rather than all people of that minority and are going to be more focused on helping all poor people in general.

It's very simple. I believe much of both the kinds of things you separate into the woke/non-woke camps. Obviously it's anecdotal, but based on the people I know, I'd say most of the left is the same. The thing is, these issues are not mutually exclusive and I don't think addressing one in the absence of the other will be the solution. So, if we wave a magic wand and immediately rid the country of all racist beliefs, black and brown people would still be further back than whites economically, health-wise, etc. Moreover, the institutional structures that resulted in this condition would still be in place, e.g. interstate highways that split black communities, more environmental hazards in or near black neighborhoods, school segregation, mass incarceration and the generational effects it has had on black/brown communities, etc. With racism gone, some of these kinds of things would improve over time, but most of them wouldn't be helped much, if at all without changing socioeconomic status. Looked at the other way, if we waved that magic wand and only fixed poverty, racist policies and the power of individual racists would be employed to minimize the gains and reverse them over time. In fact, that's been the Republiklan playbook since Nixon.

Much of the reason that black people are so frustrated with Democrats is that they generally have good intentions, but they don't get a lot done due to fear of alienating whites and the resulting backlash and election loses. At some point, you've just got to do what you have to and deal with the backlash, if it even materializes at all. Title 42 is a good example of this. Depending on the policy, once facts on the ground change, it can be very difficult politically to change things. Moreover, changing demographics may make alienating whites less of a concern anyway as time goes on.

 

[ixcuincle]

better leadereship

 

acknowledging what the problem is and addressing it

 

going out to vote in elections that don't involve presidents. terry could have won if more dems had come out to vote, but they didn't. So virginia gave youngkin the governo'rs house on a silver platter

[skinsmarydu]

Just voted, it took all of 10 minutes. 

[PeterMP]

Democrats should start introducing Amendments to codify other long standing and popular Supreme Court decisions.

 

Start with Brown v. Board.  Introduce an Amendment that makes it illegal for the government to segregate based on race.

 

The argument that it is already the law just went out the window.  Make Republicans pick a side and make it clear how extreme the current GOP is.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Start with Brown v. Board.  Introduce an Amendment that makes it illegal for the government to segregate based on race.

The GOP has already spent years pushing the notion that anti-discrimination laws discriminate against whites, or Christians, or something. 
 

You think the liars they have intentionally selected won't apply the same mumbo-jumbo?  

[China]

House Democrats called ‘f***ing useless’ for singing ‘God Bless America’ by Capitol after Roe ruling

 

House Democrats sang God Bless America on the Capitol steps as the chants of protesters could be heard from the Supreme Court after the decision to strike down Roe v Wade was announced.

 

On Friday, the 1973 landmark ruling making abortion federally legal in the US was officially struck down. As the group of lawmakers gathered to bizarrely sing in response to this moment, critics quickly slammed them on Twitter for their stunt.

 

“It is almost comical how absolutely f***ing useless Democrats are at doing anything to stop the extremists bent on destroying people’s rights,” Noel Berry tweeted.

 

“Not the time for kumbaya, Dems,” Bloomberg columnist Tim O’Brien added.

 

“You performative f***s. This is fiddling while Rome burns and you are Nero,” another Twitter user said.

 

Click on the link for more

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

The GOP has already spent years pushing the notion that anti-discrimination laws discriminate against whites, or Christians, or something. 
 

You think the liars they have intentionally selected won't apply the same mumbo-jumbo?  

 

I suspect that the Amendment wouldn't easily pass, but I also think that it would call out the extremism of the Republican party and make it less likely that moderates will vote for them.

 

I think a similar thing with contraception would be important.  If I were the Democrats, I wouldn't be trying to pass a federal abortion law.  I'd first put up a federal contraception law to put the what the Supreme Court has decided into actual federal legislation.  Let people see how many Republicans won't vote for a federal contraception law.

[PeterMP]

There are a lot of young women that don't ever plan on needing an abortion.  They take birth control and have a good support system and don't worry about having major health problems during pregnancy that abortion is not a major driver for them to vote (democrat) but I suspect will vote Democrat if it becomes more clear how much at risk the right to contaception is. 

 

The democrats need to make that clear and you do that by putting up laws and Amendments on that topic and others.

[Riggo-toni]

 

[Mooka]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The democrats need to make that clear and you do that by putting up laws and Amendments on that topic and others.

 

That only makes it clear to like 5 people in this country that actually pay attention and about 5 years too late. 

 

By the time anything like that gets near anything remotely close to law the right will have already controlled the narrative on any democrat legislation via media. Contraception will already be killing babies and if you take birth control you are already a baby killer. 

 

The left should've told everyone that abortion is already overturned 4-5 years ago so that they could've gotten more people to vote during the midterms. 

[PeterMP]

22 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

That only makes it clear to like 5 people in this country that actually pay attention and about 5 years too late. 

 

By the time anything like that gets near anything remotely close to law the right will have already controlled the narrative on any democrat legislation via media. Contraception will already be killing babies and if you take birth control you are already a baby killer. 

 

The left should've told everyone that abortion is already overturned 4-5 years ago so that they could've gotten more people to vote during the midterms. 

 

There's no real reason that the Democrats can't bring up a pretty straight forward bill on contraception next week.

[Larry]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

I suspect that the Amendment wouldn't easily pass, but I also think that it would call out the extremism of the Republican party and make it less likely that moderates will vote for them.

 

 

You're describing a political party that is proud of the fact that they successfully prevented ratification of a Constitutional Amendment which simply stated that the US Government shall not discriminate against women.  40 years ago.  

 

Boy, that move really cost them the women's vote, didn't it?  

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

You're describing a political party that is proud of the fact that they successfully prevented ratification of a Constitutional Amendment which simply stated that the US Government shall not discriminate against women.  40 years ago.  

 

Boy, that move really cost them the women's vote, didn't it?  

 

First, it was more than 40 years ago now.  

 

Second, it wasnt a straight party issue. e.g. Nixon and Ford supported ERA.

 

Third. ERA was controversial among nonconservatuves because what it meant to the military, all female schools, alimony, maternity, and labor related laws, etc.

 

Lastly, yes it has hurt them.  In 1960, women favored Nixon.  In the 1970s there was essentially no difference between parties between men and women.  Then in 1980, there us a clear bias of women vs. men with women being more likely to vote Carter compared to men.  And that has followed through in pretty much evert Presidential election since.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_gender_gap_in_the_United_States

 

When people say something is costing you the X vote, people dont literally mean that nobody in that group voted for you.

 

It is a statistical generalization.  

[PeterMP]

And to be clear the Dems should NOT put up an ERA-like law on race.  That gets hard becayse of what it means to affirmative actuon programs, etc.

 

Keep it to government mandated segregation.  Nice simple and clear.

Edited June 25, 2022 by PeterMP

[Larry]

12 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

And to be clear the Dems should NOT put up an ERA-like law on race.  That gets hard becayse of what it means to affirmative actuon programs, etc.

 

Keep it to government mandated segregation.  Nice simple and clear.

I don't really see even this GOP attempting literal government mandated segregation. (At least not based on race. Against LGBT?  Probably.)

 

What you will see is a slew of actions that "just happen to have the effect" of being discriminatory. 

[China]

Click for the entire thread:

 

 

[ixcuincle]

"Do Nothing Democrats" talk about doing good for the people but

 

- didn't codify Roe v Wade in case the SC would eventually overturn it

 

- don't have interest in pursuing main instigator in 1/6 riot

 

That isn't to say Democrats are completely useless but they don't have the cojones to take real action. The Democrats are too mellow and milquetoast. They are too toned down. They lack interest in serious action and force. They are content with moderate candidates because someone progressive would "trigger too much people". They need to move away from the center, and go more to the left. Who cares if Orange man gets upset over it? Take action. That's what the people want.

 

To sum up

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" take no action on most issues including prosecuting a rioter

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" don't show up at the polls to support guys like Terry (who was bland) and now Youngkin is going to make abortion illegal.

[Spaceman Spiff]

On 6/25/2022 at 1:36 PM, Riggo-toni said:

 

 

Yep.  Bill gets a lot of **** these days because people think he isn't liberal enough.  Totally agree with him here though.

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

51 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

"Do Nothing Democrats" talk about doing good for the people but

 

- didn't codify Roe v Wade in case the SC would eventually overturn it

 

- don't have interest in pursuing main instigator in 1/6 riot

 

That isn't to say Democrats are completely useless but they don't have the cojones to take real action. The Democrats are too mellow and milquetoast. They are too toned down. They lack interest in serious action and force. They are content with moderate candidates because someone progressive would "trigger too much people". They need to move away from the center, and go more to the left. Who cares if Orange man gets upset over it? Take action. That's what the people want.

 

To sum up

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" take no action on most issues including prosecuting a rioter

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" don't show up at the polls to support guys like Terry (who was bland) and now Youngkin is going to make abortion illegal.

Now do a list of Bernie Sanders’ accomplishments during THIRTY YEARS in Congress.

[tshile]

20 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Yep.  Bill gets a lot of **** these days because people think he isn't liberal enough.  Totally agree with him here though.

 

 

Yeah it’s definitely a part of it

 

I mean think about it like this - I, and everyone’s I’ve seen comment on this part, have said this abortion thing should be a huge gift to the Dems. It should turn a midterm bloodbath into a win. 
 

and everyone follows that up with: but I’m sure they’ll find a way to squander this and screw it up

 

 

[Llevron]

41 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

"Do Nothing Democrats" talk about doing good for the people but

 

- didn't codify Roe v Wade in case the SC would eventually overturn it

 

- don't have interest in pursuing main instigator in 1/6 riot

 

That isn't to say Democrats are completely useless but they don't have the cojones to take real action. The Democrats are too mellow and milquetoast. They are too toned down. They lack interest in serious action and force. They are content with moderate candidates because someone progressive would "trigger too much people". They need to move away from the center, and go more to the left. Who cares if Orange man gets upset over it? Take action. That's what the people want.

 

To sum up

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" take no action on most issues including prosecuting a rioter

 

- "Do nothing Democrats" don't show up at the polls to support guys like Terry (who was bland) and now Youngkin is going to make abortion illegal.

 

People need to vote for better representatives. Its obviously much more complicated than that. But I bet you understand where I'm coming from when I say that at this point. You are correct, but people need to vote for Dems anyway. And they don't. Which makes it impossible for them to do any of this stuff you want.  

 

I do not like democrats and how they use power right now. But the truth is they don't have much, and they need more and people look for excuses not to vote for them which just exasperates the problem. 

 

17 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Now do a list of Bernie Sanders’ accomplishments during THIRTY YEARS in Congress.

 

I feel like hes particularly held back by the rest of his party though. They just don't agree with him on much, and he really cant do it by himself. Its the same issue. The party as a whole is not where Sanders is. If they were, they may be more effective. Maybe. But they also may not have any power cause they lose so many votes. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

40 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

People need to vote for better representatives. Its obviously much more complicated than that. But I bet you understand where I'm coming from when I say that at this point. You are correct, but people need to vote for Dems anyway. And they don't. Which makes it impossible for them to do any of this stuff you want.  

 

I do not like democrats and how they use power right now. But the truth is they don't have much, and they need more and people look for excuses not to vote for them which just exasperates the problem. 

 

 

I feel like hes particularly held back by the rest of his party though. They just don't agree with him on much, and he really cant do it by himself. Its the same issue. The party as a whole is not where Sanders is. If they were, they may be more effective. Maybe. But they also may not have any power cause they lose so many votes. 

He doesn’t have a party.  He’s a life-long independent that only gloms onto the DNC when he wants to wage war against centrists, moderates and the middle class…and how’s that been working out for us?  Aren’t we really “feeling the Bern” now?!?

 

Anyhoo, I think Bernie’s greatest accomplishment is that he graduated from University of Brooklyn AT AGE THIRTY THREE.  Nice work, Einstein!

 

Edit:  University of Chicago.  He couldn’t hack it at Brooklyn College…whatever that is.

Edited June 27, 2022 by TradeTheBeal!

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

He doesn’t have a party.  He’s a life-long independent that only gloms onto the DNC when he wants to wage war against centrists, moderates and the middle class…and how’s that been working out for us?  Aren’t we really “feeling the Bern” now?!?

 

Anyhoo, I think Bernie’s greatest accomplishment is that he graduated from University of Brooklyn AT AGE THIRTY THREE.  Nice work, Einstein!

 

Edit:  University of Chicago.  He couldn’t hack it at University of Brooklyn.

 

You are too old to act like this lol 

 

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

2 hours ago, TradeTheBeal! said:

Now do a list of Bernie Sanders’ accomplishments during THIRTY YEARS in Congress.

 

Dunno.  But empty promises and grifting on the backs of voters who've essentially given him a career as a do-nothing politician is pretty impressive.  

 

These people just fail upwards.  And I can't really blame any of our best and brightest for not wanting to run for office.  Anyone worth a **** wouldn't want to drag their family through that. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

9 minutes ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

 

Dunno.  But empty promises and grifting on the backs of voters who've essentially given him a career as a do-nothing politician is pretty impressive.  

 

These people just fail upwards.  And I can't really blame any of our best and brightest for not wanting to run for office.  Anyone worth a **** wouldn't want to drag their family through that. 

DONT INTERRUPT ME WHILE IM DROPPING TRUTH BOMBS, FARM BOY!