-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
JesseEwiak
Member
But the only people actually upset about this is the worst of the Bernie wing. I mean, even in the thread here about Perez winning, when even MIMIC sounds reasonable on something, it quickly becomes obvious who's actually rushing to the ramparts here.
I mean, I wonder how many of these committed 'activists' so upset over Perez winning were even aware the Democrat's won a vacant State Senate seat in Delaware by nearly 20 points the same week the Establishment was knifing Ellison in the back?
Or, the other way to look at it:
Sanders (still technically an Independent), has been throwing shade at establishment Dems since the Primary, and does very-little-to-nothing to draw support from across the Democrat ranks. In fact, he openly touts his lack of support - sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly - as a reason why people should follow/vote/support him or the people he proclaims as rainmakers.
Respect means a lot, I think. Sanders continued hatred of the "establishment" - whether it be correct or misplaced - just continues to further push him as an ungrateful outcast/pariah.
/rant
(Also, edited some stuff about Sanders out.
)JesseEwiak
Member
Wait, what, actually building relationships with other human beings, especially those you work with, is important?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
The understanding of Corbyn and the Labour Party's current position in this thread is pretty woeful. You do realise that Corbyn is the identity politics candidate uninterested in appealing to the working class and who instead chooses to focus on people who already consistently vote Labour, right? His problem is his dogmatism and a complete inability to understand he actually has to persuade people who voted Conservative last time; in that respect PoliGAF is significantly more akin to Corbyn than you think.
Corbyn has multiple problems, really. But if you're suggesting he is uninterested in appealing to the working class, look at his platform through the lens of US politics.
His stance on trade is one in-tune with the working class (specifically, the WWC), as he attempts to roll the UK back to a pre-global trade state of self-reliance. His lack of concern for minorities and European citizens within the UK also appeals to the WWC, as they use "economic anxiety" to remove those filthy immigrants from our "glorious streets".
His lack of care for the EU as an economic union is equivalent to Trump's lack of concern for NAFTA, or Sanders movement against TPP. In all three cases, the people involved seriously underestimate the weight that large-scale trading agreements have on economic blocks of regular people, such as farmers.
He is so driven by an ideological viewpoint that being in Opposition is wasted - to not attempt to amend A50 legislation will ruin the UK in the future. In this way, he's akin to Sanders - will not compromise.
And then, of course, you have the fact that anyone with any political sense would realise that his position within the Labour Party is untenable after the recent By-Election loss. He should hang his head in shame.
Being a Conservative voter is now like being a Trump voter - there may be some who are deluded and naive, but for the most part, the Conservatives are the party of hate and fear. Labour are certainly angling for that voter-base, but only because they're too spineless too push Left on anything but the most socialist of economic policies. The fact that the Liberal Democrats are seeing a resurgence, after the weaselly Nick Clegg sold out all their policies in the Coalition Government, should surely tell you something about how Labour have dropped the ball on progressive social issues.
Urgh.
/rant over
His stance on trade is one in-tune with the working class (specifically, the WWC), as he attempts to roll the UK back to a pre-global trade state of self-reliance. His lack of concern for minorities and European citizens within the UK also appeals to the WWC, as they use "economic anxiety" to remove those filthy immigrants from our "glorious streets".
His lack of care for the EU as an economic union is equivalent to Trump's lack of concern for NAFTA, or Sanders movement against TPP. In all three cases, the people involved seriously underestimate the weight that large-scale trading agreements have on economic blocks of regular people, such as farmers.
He is so driven by an ideological viewpoint that being in Opposition is wasted - to not attempt to amend A50 legislation will ruin the UK in the future. In this way, he's akin to Sanders - will not compromise.
And then, of course, you have the fact that anyone with any political sense would realise that his position within the Labour Party is untenable after the recent By-Election loss. He should hang his head in shame.
Being a Conservative voter is now like being a Trump voter - there may be some who are deluded and naive, but for the most part, the Conservatives are the party of hate and fear. Labour are certainly angling for that voter-base, but only because they're too spineless too push Left on anything but the most socialist of economic policies. The fact that the Liberal Democrats are seeing a resurgence, after the weaselly Nick Clegg sold out all their policies in the Coalition Government, should surely tell you something about how Labour have dropped the ball on progressive social issues.
Urgh.
/rant over
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You don't follow UK politics very closely, do you?
Poodlestrike
Banned
He gives a response like that and this is your answer?
Man, you're basically straight up shit posting at this point.
Where has Corbyn shown a lack of concern for minorities?
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If Sanders were really like Corbyn, he wouldn't have campaigned for Clinton. In that sense, Corbyn is a truly a grand master wizard egotistical ideologue. Sanders doesn't want to burn it all down over some petty bullshit.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, most of his rant is just untrue. For example, Corbyn has the single strongest stance on minority rights of any Labour leader to date. Diane Abbott is the Shadow Secretary for Health and his closest ally after McDonnell, for goodness sake. There are more shadow ministers from minority backgrounds than any Labour cabinet or shadow cabinet ever. His support base was considerably less white than Owen Smith's, who got rather famously savaged in the leadership debate by some Muslim members of the audience for backing the blatantly discriminatory Prevent. I don't even like Corbyn and I'll concede his track record on this is better than most of the rest of his party.
And that's just to take one example of something completely wrong from that rant.
I find the UK a hateful place, in no small part due to Corbyn, who has singularly failed to provide any balance to Cameron or May. His absolute dislike for the EU and indifference to the EU citizens within the UK mean that even if he was Jesus himself come to redeem mankind, I wouldn't give a monkeys about him.
I was born in the Oxford in '78. I lived through Thatcher. I lived through Blair and Brown. I lived in almost abject poverty at some points, ground down by a Jobcentre who thought I should take an overnight train from Sheffield to London for a Virgin Atlantic interview at 9am.
I think Corbyn should be ashamed of how he has let the Left down, due to his personal pride and ideologies. When Corbyn says "Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle, but I don't want that to be misinterpreted, nor do we rule it out," he is making me (and people like me) spend money to acquire an Irish passport, so I can continue enjoying the freedoms that he doesn't give one single shit about. Because if he did, he would fucking fight for the freedom of movement.
Also, your single, patronizing sentence in reply to my comment is just wank. But I wouldn't expect anything else from someone who thinks Corbyn needs the hateful Tory voters who want to fox-hunt, send spouses back to their country of origin due to not earning enough, or cut disability.
Edit: lol? You're using his Shadow Cabinet as an example of caring about minorities?
Okay. Labour and minorities. Someone tell me why, instead of fighting for the UK to Remain, he's letting the UK get taken out of the EU, when the main undercurrent of Brexit was getting foreigners out. Someone tell me why he's not fighting more for EU citizens rights within the UK.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Wait, so you're actually attacking Corbyn for not being dogmatic enough?
Wow, I mean. That's a relatively new one on me, fair play.
Wow, I mean. That's a relatively new one on me, fair play.
Can you quote where Corbyn has suggested he wanted to 'remove those filthy immigrants from our "glorious streets"'?
Meh, I'd disagree here in terms of Corbyn aims.
You are absolutely right in that he is utterly failing to appeal to the working class, at all. However, I would suggest that he honestly and really intends too, and that they are what he imagines his voting base to be. This is a guy who has been preaching the same policies and solutions since the 1970s. Identity politics and urban, liberal elites didn't even exist then as a solid voting block, and certainly not enough to make you leader of the party.
That's part of the tragic irony of Corbyn. He wants to be the champion of the working class and unions, but actually doesn't understand them anymore at all. He's still fighting the same battles from 40 years ago without realizing how much the ground has moved under his feet, but still believes that if they just reframe the arguments enough and keep at it long enough, the working class will eventually realize what's best for them and vote labour.
That is, the WWC want to remove the filthy immigrants. Corbyn is enabling them by not standing up for the 48% of people who voted Remain.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
That's fair. I'd say more precisely that he wants to appeal to the working class, but has no interest in understanding how to do that, which I think leaves us at the same point. Currently, this thread seems to have no interest in appealing to the working class at all, which actually probably makes for an even more ineffectual stance than Corbyn's, and is the main reason I find the constant comparisons to Corbyn so weird. Like, Pixie just argued that Corbyn was trying too hard to win back Conservative voters. That's more Corbyn than Corbyn is!
Not my intention.
Labour is currently standing for nothing, except economic isloationism, due to not standing up for those who voted Remain. UKIP and Conservative voters are kind-of interchangeable, at this point (broadly speaking), due to wanting immigrants out, and not caring about the poor.
You argued that:
But the people who voted Conservative last time are (again generally speaking) people who hate immigrants and are selfish sociopaths. Because it was fairly clear after 4 years of budget and council cuts, that a vote for the Conservatives was 1) a vote for more cuts, or 2) vote for an anti-EU party.
So. You say that Corbyn isn't attracting the working class. But the working class have been fed more bile about foreigners than the US electorate, so to get them (again, generally speaking) Corbyn has to undercut the Conservative and UKIP policies on immigrants and the EU. Which he is kind-of doing by selling some rights down the river, and not forcing A50 amendments. But he's not pushing that way explicitly, and neither is he pushing for those rights which the Remainers want - like free movement, EU citizens rights, etc.
In short, he's doing nothing, whilst keeping ideologically pure. Which reminds me of Sanders.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Do you know what proportion of Labour's constituencies voted Remain?
So, as I remember it, Labour constituencies voted to Leave, by a fair-ish margin. What would your point be?
Also, feel this may be rather tense. Smiley to de-escalate:
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
So, as I remember it, Labour constituencies voted to Leave, by a fair-ish margin. What would your point be?
Also, feel this may be rather tense. Smiley to de-escalate:
Over 85% of Labour's non-London constituencies voted Leave. What do you think happens if Labour becomes the party of Remain?
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/836183196249251841
New twist--Spicer himself is the one who arranged for CIA head, Nunez, and Burr to deny the Trump/Russia leaks.
New twist--Spicer himself is the one who arranged for CIA head, Nunez, and Burr to deny the Trump/Russia leaks.
To be fair, there is this issue that even in those constituencies, the majority of labour voters voted to stay. It's the conservative vote combined with the one third labour vote that wanted to leave that resulted in those places voting to leave.
It's a nightmare to untangle, and to be honest I don't actually think anyone could. Maybe someone with the charisma and power of Blair at his height, but to me it looks like we are going through a fundamental reshaping of the political landscape, and the unfortunate consequence of that is labour changing considerably and the conservatives basically having no opposition for the next decade or so.
And yet wasn't the total number of Labour voters (members) in favour of Remain 65% or so?
I mean, this kind of goes to me point about the working class and "economic anxiety". The (poorer) North is the Labour Heartlands. They voted Leave. It's hard to disentangle the shit-stirring Daily Mail/Sun hatred and wariness of foreigners from the genuine desire to leave because it was seen as "better".
But besides that point, I think if Corbyn were less ideologically driven, he would be willing to turn around and sell the proposition of being in the EU being better than out of it. His vacillating on the issue just emboldens people who think it's the immigrants fault, and who are, in turn, Labour supporters (though not entirely Labour supporters, obviously).
I think at some point, Country ought to come before Party - we argue it enough in terms of US politics, so why not here? Just like the GOP need to turn around and tell their base that the ACA is good, but not perfect, Corbyn needs to turn around to the Labour supporters in the North and say "Yes, you voted Leave. But it's the wrong choice! It won't get jobs back, it won't give you training, it won't help!"
Sure sure, political suicide. Yeah. But do you really think Labour is going to win in the next election as it stands now? Tacit admission to the base that everything the racist Right says is true won't work when their jobs still haven't materialised, and when the only holiday they can afford to the Costa Del Sol costs twice the price, and has visa entry requirements.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, and this gap between currently the Labour voters and the people who'd need to vote Labour if they want a majority is precisely why they are a minority.
You are trying to have your cake and eat it. You cannot seriously argue that Corbyn is too dogmatic and ideological, and at the same time argue that he ought to commit political suicide on a point of principle. Pick one of two: Labour being the party of Remain, Labour not being dogmatic. You can't have both.
Between this, the Bilden withdrawal fiasco and the leak about the leak investigation it's been a rough couple of days for old Spicey.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is what I mean when I say this thread is much more like Corbyn than they want to admit. You both bat for different ideologies, yes. But at the end of the day, neither you nor he is interested in understanding why your parties are losing voters that were once enormously important components of the party's support. The fact you're dogmatists for the liberal technocracy doesn't stop you being dogmatists.
You seem to think there's a cogent argument or messaging presentable to prevent the Labour party or the Democrats from "losing voters that were once enormously important components of the party's support", maybe there is (I doubt it to be honest) but I'm not sure there's one which keeps the current support intact at the same time.
Perhaps it's simply a case of picking your poison. Given the increasing effect of technology in the workplace it's only going to get worse.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I think everyone here understands why Bernie supporters can be disappointed about Ellison losing. That's a natural reaction.
But the fact of the matter is that Perez is a strong progressive chairman. If Bernie had not endorsed Ellison, I'm betting some people would have thrown their support behind Perez! But because Bernie gave his input, it became a proxy battle. The popular former president obviously wants control of the party going forward so he convinces Perez jumps into the election, receiving an explicit endorsement from Biden (who also should not have endorsed).
I should add that this is the same former president who convinced Tom Perriello to run against Northam in the VA Gov primary, so Obama's support is clearly not a matter of "being establishment."
Responding to the news that Perez won and Ellison will be his Deputy by saying "I'm never voting for Democratic candidates again" or "This party is dead to me" means that all you have a shit about at the end of the day is Bernie's endorsement. You didn't care about policies, you cared that Bernie supported that person.
If people are going to riot about that, then they frankly aren't worth having in the party because they aren't reliable votes. Donald Trump is POTUS now and the Republicans control both the House and Senate and a majority of state governments. We have work to do and people to protect.
So, we understand why people can be disappointed that Ellison lost. I am, since he was who I wanted. But Perez is a fantastic choice and will be working closely with Ellison in the future, as they're clearly both friends. It's time to move on and if people want to continue to complain about the DNC being corrupt or rigged against Bernie even when Bernie and Ellison are both OK with the results, I really don't give a shit about those people. It's not worth acquiescing to them because they'll find something new to complain about if you do.
But the fact of the matter is that Perez is a strong progressive chairman. If Bernie had not endorsed Ellison, I'm betting some people would have thrown their support behind Perez! But because Bernie gave his input, it became a proxy battle. The popular former president obviously wants control of the party going forward so he convinces Perez jumps into the election, receiving an explicit endorsement from Biden (who also should not have endorsed).
I should add that this is the same former president who convinced Tom Perriello to run against Northam in the VA Gov primary, so Obama's support is clearly not a matter of "being establishment."
Responding to the news that Perez won and Ellison will be his Deputy by saying "I'm never voting for Democratic candidates again" or "This party is dead to me" means that all you have a shit about at the end of the day is Bernie's endorsement. You didn't care about policies, you cared that Bernie supported that person.
If people are going to riot about that, then they frankly aren't worth having in the party because they aren't reliable votes. Donald Trump is POTUS now and the Republicans control both the House and Senate and a majority of state governments. We have work to do and people to protect.
So, we understand why people can be disappointed that Ellison lost. I am, since he was who I wanted. But Perez is a fantastic choice and will be working closely with Ellison in the future, as they're clearly both friends. It's time to move on and if people want to continue to complain about the DNC being corrupt or rigged against Bernie even when Bernie and Ellison are both OK with the results, I really don't give a shit about those people. It's not worth acquiescing to them because they'll find something new to complain about if you do.
eBay Huckster
Member
in this case, it's actually more that you didn't give a shit about how good the party's actually going to be at fundraising and candidate recruitment moving forward (the latter of which literally could not be tested with either frontrunner until this November at the earliest), you just gave a shit about who Bernie supported
particularly given that, yeah, both he and Ellison are 100% A-OK by all indications with the results
Poodlestrike
Banned
Heard an absolutely disgusting interview on NPR earlier. The woman they were talking to laid it out very clearly: Perez' victory meant that she and hers were taking their ball and going home, not because she believed he'd do a bad job, but SOLELY BECAUSE he was the "establishment," and that the "progressive" wing of the party would no longer be satisfied with "bones" that the "establishment" tossed them. As far as she was concerned it was all or nothing,total control of the party or no unity. Straight up said that Trump wasn't even part of her thinking. Makes me sick, and goes to show just how shallow these people are.
They're not even fucking progressives, they're just rabidly anti establishment types who invoke Warren's name like an prayer or a shield, never mind that Forma herself works with "establishment" Dems all the time. They don't give a damn about policy.
They're not even fucking progressives, they're just rabidly anti establishment types who invoke Warren's name like an prayer or a shield, never mind that Forma herself works with "establishment" Dems all the time. They don't give a damn about policy.
bangbang i'm a timpani
Banned
oh the lady who ran one of the women's caucuses right?
She had absolutely no points to make or rationale it was ridiculous. She easily could've referenced podesta emails or whatever but here we are.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Please tell me that it's not an actual group with actual influence. I don't want to think that that woman is actually running a significant chunk of people.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think there is a path forward for the Democrats, because the fault lines have taken place (mostly) between the parties. Brexit being a referendum meant that these fault lines took place across parties in the UK, which was much more damaging. I'd actually probably agree Labour's position is irreparable, regardless of leader, at least until public sentiment on Brexit shifts significantly.
Corbyn is ideologically opposed to the EU.
Labour, as the largest Opposition Party, whose members also voted in the majority to Remain, is caught between a leader who doesn't want to be part of the EU, and a working class base (that 35%) who has been fed racist lies about the EU and immigrants for... 20 years? Give or take.
So, handily, both the working class and the leader are in union, but for entirely different reasons.
Which leads us to...
this. If there were a Labour leader committed to the EU - or at least not ideologically opposed to it - it would be a matter of repositioning the party as the Party of Remain. Tell the racist base to vote UKIP, or Conservative (knowing that they could never vote Conservative), and push for a unity across class divides. It may fail. It may be political suicide.
But it would also be a stand based on principals that would mesh with the majority of your party membership's position, and create a cogent Opposition party. An Opposition party that could successfully wring concessions that would benefit the wider country, even if A50 was still triggered.
Or, more fundamentally: I am not opposed to the Labour leader having an ideological stance. I am opposed to that ideological stance being in unison with both the racist working class, and the sociopathic Conservative party, to the detriment of non-British citizens, and the economic wellbeing of the country.
(side note: A50 just makes me think of some road. "Oh, yeah, take a left off the M5, onto the A50, and we're just before the cliff."
)Edit:
Another reason why political suicide for the Labour party would be good for the country - come out and actually convince the UK public why Brexit was the wrong choice, rather than acquiescing to "the will of the people".
Roland_Gunner
Member
This thread is made up of a couple of dozen people who post a lot and various less active members. Its not a hive mind vs Crab no matter how much you like to imagine it so. Did you read any of the discussion here after the election? There were pages upon pages about why working class whites voted for Trump. It was probably half of the posts. There was not an official PoliGaf position paper because people have different view points and took away different lessons. But to say there was no introspection about what happened is completely inaccurate and pointless grandstanding.
Coriolanus
Banned
well, yes. Is why one should carry polling/market research out to decide which line of attack will produce the most result and allathat. Doesn't mean that you'll shit on your old stances, but simply that you'll refocus your priorities, since, as ukpoligaf mentions so often, you can't do shit if you don't win.
So long as you're gaining more voters than you're losing, all's good, evidently.
Not the time for that. Once the uk's economy is in full crash and burn? Sure. Until then? Nah.
(mind you, since corbo has gone beyond the call of duty to show that he cant communicate for shit, he's not ideal for that either)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
What Coriolanus says.
can you have a hive mind if it's only two people?
(Getting back to US politics, a bit
)I think it would be interesting to look at the Obama-Trump voters alongside the Labour-Brexit voters. Because, contrary your post here, there was a lot of questioning of why the Rust Belt base that has been so consistent voted the way they did. And I think the reasoning would be mostly the same - a combination of anti-trade sentiment, a lack of jobs for the untrained & non-college educated, racist dog-whistles, and actual economic anxiety.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I wonder what the Hall of Presidents will do with Donald Trump's animatronic if his pee tapes come out and his connections to Russia are revealed. Would Disney take a stance and choose to disregard it, or would they do the "historical significance" thing and include the caveat about him being a terrible and dangerous individual?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Do they have a Nixon animatron?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Obama-Trump voters and Labour-Leave voters are basically the same demographic, yes. That's why Brexit is so difficult. The Democrats can make a good start on getting back some of that vote by becoming more skeptical of globalisation - not anti-free trade, but definitely more willing to talk about the losers. Most liberals probably don't care about this too much either way. Labour can't do that because, given how the EU works, trade is not separable from things like European identity, freedom of movement, and so on, which left liberals value very deeply. So Labour doesn't have that strategic option available to the Democrats, and is probably the main reason why they're so deeply fucked for the foreseeable future, even if they manage to boot Corbyn.
But okay, back to US politics. What are you offering Trump's marginal voter in 2020?
But okay, back to US politics. What are you offering Trump's marginal voter in 2020?
eBay Huckster
Member
i, for one, am offering that voter more guns
Coriolanus
Banned
(Getting back to US politics, a bit
I think it would be interesting to look at the Obama-Trump voters alongside the Labour-Brexit voters. Because, contrary your post here, there was a lot of questioning of why the Rust Belt base that has been so consistent voted the way they did. And I think the reasoning would be mostly the same - a combination of anti-trade sentiment, a lack of jobs for the untrained & non-college educated, racist dog-whistles, and actual economic anxiety.
the bolded are all related fwiw
for realsies, i'd say that not touching gun stuff is the best path for dems in most states. Country's just too peculiar wrt death toys.
is called bfam :*
FloydtheFathead
Member
and more drugs?
Guns.
Cannabis?
Are the two - cannabis and voting Trump - mutually exclusive? What're the rates for Trump voters being pro/anti-legalisation? Considering the Rust Belt's issue with heroin, I would expect them to be anti-legalisation, but if they're pro, Dems could work on pushing drug rehab policy. Legalised heroin bars - like the Netherlands, I think? - may be pushing it, but considering how it bridges class/race, maybe not.
Dems definitely need to put guns on the back-burner, sadly.
Edit:
Yeah. How to message policy to that?
Cannabis?
Are the two - cannabis and voting Trump - mutually exclusive? What're the rates for Trump voters being pro/anti-legalisation? Considering the Rust Belt's issue with heroin, I would expect them to be anti-legalisation, but if they're pro, Dems could work on pushing drug rehab policy. Legalised heroin bars - like the Netherlands, I think? - may be pushing it, but considering how it bridges class/race, maybe not.
Dems definitely need to put guns on the back-burner, sadly.
Edit:
Yeah. How to message policy to that?
eBay Huckster
Member
only the devil's lettuce
Coriolanus
Banned
Fuckloads of infrastructure spending. They'll bring jerbs and restart the manufacturing sector, because guess what? All supplied by America! By Americans, for Americans! Yee-haw.
Oh, but congress will never go for-SHUT THE FUCK UP DONNY.jif
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They already have guns. I mean, I agree that you shouldn't campaign on a massively anti-gun platform, but that's an absence of bad message and not a presence of good message.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked