What exactly do you think our "natural coalition" is?
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
whyamihere
Banned
What exactly do you think our "natural coalition" is?
The one that actually won us a presidential election, to start with.
For fuck's sake.
We need to get more Democrats in office. Period.
We just had an entire BS thread where Bernie stans and so-called "progressives" argued that it should be OK if a Democratic candidate is pro-life in their personal views, so long as that isn't how they legislate. Now we're saying Obama (or any Democrat) can't accept speaking fees, even if those speaking fees have no bearing on how they legislate.
Which is it?
We need to get more Democrats in office. Period.
We just had an entire BS thread where Bernie stans and so-called "progressives" argued that it should be OK if a Democratic candidate is pro-life in their personal views, so long as that isn't how they legislate. Now we're saying Obama (or any Democrat) can't accept speaking fees, even if those speaking fees have no bearing on how they legislate.
Which is it?
So.....professional urban/suburban people and minorities?The one that actually won us a presidential election.
Clinton/Trump accellerated changes that were already taking place. This is the same as it's ever been. It's cities vs rural areas, except on a national level.
LostMyNarbles
Member
Isn't it kind of bad optics for the Democrats to try and sell themselves as the party that is standing up to corruption and Wall street (The opposite of what Republicans have been doing), but then perhaps have the highest ranking Democrat go around doing paid speeches on the same people who he had no problem throwing under the bus when the market crashed?
I mean, is it really too much to ask that Democrats just back down from these paid speeches? Why are we normalizing it as if it is okay for politicians to be getting paid big bucks from powerful corporations? The perception that a lot of people took with Hillary Clinton is that because she did all those speeches then Wall-street had its "Hook" in her and she was going to be dealing with favors if she was elected.
I mean, is it really too much to ask that Democrats just back down from these paid speeches? Why are we normalizing it as if it is okay for politicians to be getting paid big bucks from powerful corporations? The perception that a lot of people took with Hillary Clinton is that because she did all those speeches then Wall-street had its "Hook" in her and she was going to be dealing with favors if she was elected.
whyamihere
Banned
For fuck's sake.
We need to get more Democrats in office. Period.
We just had an entire BS thread where Bernie stans and so-called "progressives" argued that it should be OK if a Democratic candidate is pro-life in their personal views, so long as that isn't how they legislate. Now we're saying Obama (or any Democrat) can't accept speaking fees, even if those speaking fees have no bearing on how they legislate.
Which is it?
I would like for us to get more Democrats in office, period, by not allowing Republicans to paint us out of touch with working Americans when our party leader takes a $400,000 speech from the financial industry!
So.....professional urban/suburban people and minorities?
No, not 2016, 2008 and 2012.
Again, by "working Americans", do you mean the WWC? Because the other working Americans don't have a problem voting for us. And the reasons they don't vote for us have very little to do with our position on finance.I would like for us to get more Democrats in office, period, by not allowing Republicans to paint us out of touch with working Americans when our party leader takes a $400,000 speech from the financial industry!
No, not 2016, 2008 and 2012.
whyamihere
Banned
Again, by "working Americans", do you mean the WWC? Because the other working Americans don't have a problem voting for us. And the reasons they don't vote for us have very little to do with our position on finance.
You're really projecting a lot on to me, but by all means. Please read into something I've never said. Hillary also didn't turn out the poorest voters of color in key cities that we needed.
I want a winning coalition. We didn't have one in 2016. I'd like to recapture the winning coalition from 2008 and 2012.
I would like for us to get more Democrats in office, period, by not allowing Republicans to paint us out of touch with working Americans when our party leader takes a $400,000 speech from the financial industry!
No, not 2016, 2008 and 2012.
Republicans did not do that to us. They would never be able to because they're worse and they always will be.
Us Democrats? We allowed chaos agents into our process and they did that.
We tore ourselves apart. And frankly, we need to not let that happen again. People say Hillary shouldn't have been allowed to run? Bernie shouldn't have been allowed to run. You practically hate our party in the off-season, but then use our resources to get yourself elected? Fuck. That.
For me the main answer to this is because it doesn't matter anymore. Not in the age of Trump. Just can't see it, it'd be impossible to use this attack line against any potential Democratic candidate or leader when you consider the President of the United States has the former fucking CEO of Goldman Sachs on his National Security council. Would I like Obama to be selective with his paid speeches sure, but the argument against is not the strongest. He is no longer in the position to directly shape policy and when you consider his time as president, you wouldn't exactly call him Wall Street's darling.Isn't it kind of bad optics for the Democrats to try and sell themselves as the party that is standing up to corruption and Wall street (The opposite of what Republicans have been doing), but then perhaps have the highest ranking Democrat go around doing paid speeches on the same people who he had no problem throwing under the bus when the market crashed?
I mean, is it really too much to ask that Democrats just back down from these paid speeches? Why are we normalizing it as if it is okay for politicians to be getting paid big bucks from powerful corporations? The perception that a lot of people took with Hillary Clinton is that because she did all those speeches then Wall-street had its "Hook" in her and she was going to be dealing with favors if she was elected.
I don't really disagree that Obama and Clinton don't really need to take big, easy money (though if someone as insipid as Malcolm Gladwell can do it and still be loved by all, why not them?) but...
From a political perspective, in a post-Trump world I'm not really sure why Democrats should allow themselves to be held to an absurd double standard when it comes to cynical profiting off of their public lives and power.
It's not like this "purity" (not the Bernie kind, the clean politician kind) has really been something we've been able to weaponize.
Like, are we worried that people care? Or are we worried about the optics of giving people ammunition, even if who they're already pre-disposed to shit on Dems?
Because there's a difference, no?
From a political perspective, in a post-Trump world I'm not really sure why Democrats should allow themselves to be held to an absurd double standard when it comes to cynical profiting off of their public lives and power.
It's not like this "purity" (not the Bernie kind, the clean politician kind) has really been something we've been able to weaponize.
Like, are we worried that people care? Or are we worried about the optics of giving people ammunition, even if who they're already pre-disposed to shit on Dems?
Because there's a difference, no?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
There certainly can't be any negative consequences for this.As mentioned, Trump's challenges don't mean the opposition is in good shape. In March 2014, 48 percent of Americans said the Democratic Party was out of touch with the concerns of most people. Today 67 percent say so. And the biggest change has occurred chiefly among the party's own typical loyalists, with "out of touch" ratings up 33 points among liberals, 30 points among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 26 points among moderates and nonwhites alike.
whyamihere
Banned
I don't really disagree that Obama and Clinton don't really need to take big, easy money (though if someone as insipid as Malcolm Gladwell can do it and still be loved by all, why not them?) but...
From a political perspective, in a post-Trump world I'm not really sure why Democrats should allow themselves to be held to an absurd double standard when it comes to cynical profiting off of their public lives and power.
It's not like this "purity" (not the Bernie kind, the clean politician kind) has really been something we've been able to weaponize.
Because we're better than them. Also our base cares more than their base.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
You're really projecting a lot on to me, but by all means. Please read into something I've never said. Hillary also didn't turn out the poorest voters of color in key cities that we needed.
I want a winning coalition. We didn't have one in 2016. I'd like to recapture the winning coalition from 2008 and 2012.
I really don't see why a professional would ever want to be in your coalition when your position is that Dems should live terrified of ever making money. This is literally the stereotype people paint Dems with! If I'm a minority who happens to have a good job, what are you telling me? To vote Dem but not be too loud about it?
And I'm calling you a hypocrite upthread because you're being one.
And I'm saying plainly: We can't. You can't undo Fox News, you can't undo the massive economic changes that technology has wrought, you can't undo the fact that these people voted for a racist shithead. These places aren't unwinnable, but they're no longer safe, and won't ever be again.You're really projecting a lot on to me, but by all means. Please read into something I've never said.
I want a winning coalition. We didn't have one in 2016. I'd like to recapture the winning coalition from 2008 and 2012.
You have to go forwards, not backwards. You look at all those P-Clinton/House-R districts- they are all very similar. There is your future.
As Labour in the UK has shown, a simple adage stays true: Evolve or Die. Just like new heroes, new cards, new fighters change the game you're playing whether it be a MOBA, TCG or FG, so does the endless march of time.
whyamihere
Banned
I really don't see why a professional would ever want to be in your coalition when your position is that Dems should live terrified of ever making money. This is literally the stereotype people paint Dems with! If I'm a minority who happens to have a good job, what are you telling me? To vote Dem but not be too loud about it?
And I'm calling you a hypocrite upthread because you're being one.
Bless your heart.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Bless your heart.
Wow, what's gotten into you?
I really don't see why a professional would ever want to be in your coalition when your position is that Dems should live terrified of ever making money. This is literally the stereotype people paint Dems with! If I'm a minority who happens to have a good job, what are you telling me? To vote Dem but not be too loud about it?
And I'm calling you a hypocrite upthread because you're being one.
It's impossible to discuss anything with you if you're going to reduce everybody's argument to something as absurd as "Dems shouldn't make money." You're the EraserAcer of Clinton supporters when you do stuff like that.
Prof. Bathtub
Member
It seems like the discussion is going to familiar places. I will say that Da Speeches and Emailz were the perfect eternal scandals, judging from recent headlines of "actually it was a criminal investigation!" Judge Curiel will be gone from memory, and people will still be talking about optically-challenged praises of Spielberg's Lincoln.
Frankly, after his handling of the FBI business, I don't care what Obama says or does not say, do whatever.
Frankly, after his handling of the FBI business, I don't care what Obama says or does not say, do whatever.
whyamihere
Banned
Wow, what's gotten into you?
I'm being called a hypocrite because I make well below the medium income for my state and apparently want people to phonebank. Which is insulting on multiple levels.
Randolph Freelander
Member
North Carolina Republicans put water on notice
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article146734189.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article146734189.html#storylink=cpy
Environmentalists reacted with outrage after the N.C. Senate passed a bill late Monday that would eliminate the 50-foot shoreline buffer that protects the Catawba River and its lakes from runoff and stream bank erosion.
The bill also would prevent local municipalities from enacting buffer protections on streams. That could cripple local buffers in Mecklenburg, Lincoln and other counties, Catawba Riverkeeper Sam Perkins said.
Buffer protections prohibit removing trees and other vegetation close to the shoreline.
The bill also would repeal the Outer Banks plastic bag ban that protects sea turtles, said Molly Diggins, N.C. Sierra Club state director.
Senators passed the bill by a vote of 31 to 17 at about 8:45 p.m. Monday, with no Democrats voting in favor. Jeff Tarte of Cornelius and Tamara Barringer of Wake County were the lone Republicans who voted against the bill. The N.C. House would have to pass a companion bill for the measures to become law.
”It is inexplicable and indefensible not only to remove a coveted, protective buffer, but to target only the buffer for the Catawba River," Catawba Riverkeeper Sam Perkins said. He spoke against repealing the buffer rule when Senate Bill 434 was considered in a Senate Rules Committee meeting on Monday afternoon.
”The bill's most damaging provisions were proposed without documentation, studies or consultation with the Department of Environmental Quality or local governments," Diggins said. ”Concerns raised by some senators were dismissed and questions about the need for certain provisions went unanswered.
”The Senate appears to be becoming a no-science zone," Diggins said. ”... Legislation by personal opinion has no place in environmental policy."
Tarte, who lives on Lake Norman, said he gets the idea of reducing burdensome regulations. At the same time, he said, ”we also have a responsibility to protect our natural resources. I don't want salmonella in my milk, lead in my paint and pesticides in my drinking water."
The Catawba River buffer was passed in 2001. South Carolina has no state-mandated buffer, although individual counties, such as York County, are allowed to have – and have enacted – buffer protections.
Perkins said the language to eliminate the 1,000 miles of Catawba River buffer was added to the bill last Thursday by Sen. Andy Wells, a Hickory Republican and real estate developer. His district includes Catawba and Alexander counties.
,,,
Said Jamie Kritzer, spokesman for the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality: ”The only thing I can say is we do have concerns about (the bill). I just choose not to go into specifics right now."
The department's Division of Water Quality includes a fact sheet on its website citing the importance of buffers. Vegetation stabilizes river banks, prevents soil from eroding into the water and filters storm water runoff, according to the fact sheet.
”Riparian buffers are one way to protect the Catawba River and its lakes from storm water runoff pollution, particularly from development activities," the state fact sheet says
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It's impossible to discuss anything with you if you're going to reduce everybody's argument to something as absurd as "Dems shouldn't make money." You're the EraserAcer of Clinton supporters when you do stuff like that.
I'm being called a hypocrite because I make well below the medium income for my state and apparently want people to phonebank. Which is insulting on multiple levels.
But it's not that Dems shouldn't make money, it's that the ones who do shouldn't be representing the party publicly. That's why I'm saying that someone who makes more than I do in a much better more well-off state than I do should probably not be representing the party publicly by calling people, many of whom are probably poorer than they are. Talk about out of touch, huh?
whyamihere
Banned
But it's not that Dems shouldn't make money, it's that the ones who do shouldn't be representing the party publicly. That's why I'm saying that someone who makes more than I do in a much better more well-off state than I do should probably not be representing the party publicly by calling people, many of whom are probably poorer than they are. Talk about out of touch, huh?
I live paycheck to paycheck and I'm not Barack Obama.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
You're being obnoxiously obtuse about this. whyamihere is not a multimillionaire getting paid six figure checks by huge companies that he'd been in charge of legislating for the past eight years while income inequality skyrocketed and the wealthy made all of the gains of economic recoveryBut it's not that Dems shouldn't make money, it's that the ones who do shouldn't be representing the party publicly. That's why I'm saying that someone who makes more than I do in a much better more well-off state than I do should probably not be representing the party publicly by calling people, many of whom are probably poorer than they are. Talk about out of touch, huh?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
There certainly can't be any negative consequences for this.
Not sure why that's relevant, it proves nothing.
But it's not that Dems shouldn't make money, it's that the ones who do shouldn't be representing the party publicly. That's why I'm saying that someone who makes more than I do in a much better more well-off state than I do should probably not be representing the party publicly by calling people, many of whom are probably poorer than they are. Talk about out of touch, huh?
Man was poligaf always this deliberately offensive and toxic to useful discussion and I just never noticed
Maybe Bernie was right about the big banks also
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
The party base is quickly beginning to believe its party is out of touch, not sure how that isn't relevant.Not sure why that's relevant, it proves nothing.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
The party base is quickly beginning to believe its party is out of touch, not sure how that isn't relevant.
You are proving an effect and not a cause.
Man was poligaf always this deliberately offensive and toxic to useful discussion and I just never noticed
Maybe Bernie was right about the big banks also
Wow dems are fucked based on the responses to speeches by a person who was PRESIDENT FOR 8 YEARS.
The party base is quickly beginning to believe its party is out of touch, not sure how that isn't relevant.
But that's easily fixed.
The party base is quickly beginning to believe that the party is out of touch, because the largest voice in the party currently, the voice being propped up by the establishment, is telling people that the party is out of touch. And the party ain't doing anything about it.
Sirpopopop
Member
It's impossible to discuss anything with you if you're going to reduce everybody's argument to something as absurd as "Dems shouldn't make money." You're the EraserAcer of Clinton supporters when you do stuff like that.
The point is that all Obama is doing here is giving a speech.
He's not forming an oil company focused on creating chemicals for fracking here, or for "Insert whatever blatantly corrupt reason" in here.
Cantor Fitzgerald wants him to speak at a health care conference and they are willing to pay, so why not. It's easy money in the bank. It's not as if Cantor Fitzgerald is Goldman Sachs (not as if that should matter, but regardless). They are the firm who got decimated by 9/11.
Criticizing this action literally is criticizing someone for making money.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Man was poligaf always this deliberately offensive and toxic to useful discussion and I just never noticed
Maybe Bernie was right about the big banks also
Yes.
If you force public servants to live a life of aestheticism and keep them from profiting post-political office, do you think that creates some incentive structure where 1. only ultra-wealthy people can run for office and 2. good, well-intentioned people choose other career paths other than public service (i.e. the teacher brain-drain argument)?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Have you considered the possibility that the reason Bernie is popular is because the party is out of touch and he was willing to say itBut that's easily fixed.
The party base is quickly beginning to believe that the party is out of touch, because the largest voice in the party currently, the voice being propped up by the establishment, is telling people that the party is out of touch. And the party ain't doing anything about it.
The point is that all Obama is doing here is giving a speech.
He's not forming an oil company focused on creating chemicals for fracking here, or for "Insert whatever blatantly corrupt reason" in here.
Someone wants him to speak at a health care conference and they are willing to pay, so why not. It's easy money in the bank.
Criticizing this action literally is criticizing someone for making money.
You actually agree that a below-median income anonymous volunteer phonebanker is equivalent to a public figure earning a six-figure paycheck for a speech?
whyamihere
Banned
If you force public servants to live a life of aestheticism and keep them from profiting post-political office, do you think that creates some incentive structure where 1. only ultra-wealthy people can run for office and 2. good, well-intentioned people choose other career paths other than public service (i.e. the teacher brain-drain argument)?
There's probably a happy medium then. Certainly people like Biden and Carter didn't become obscenely wealthy during their time in office.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
You actually agree that a below-median income anonymous volunteer phonebanker is equivalent to a public figure earning a six-figure paycheck for a speech?
So are you saying Dems should deny endorsements by Celebrities or Successful business people like Elon Musk? Does Bill Nye make too much money to endorse the Democratic Party?
LostMyNarbles
Member
I mean, I would hope people choose to become Politicians because they want to do good in the world (Similar to people who choose to Teach), not because they are expecting fat stacks of cash down the road. Hell, the higher up positions (Senators) get paid pretty well in their own right, let alone with the benefits package. Why do they need even more on top of it?If you force public servants to live a life of aestheticism and keep them from profiting post-political office, do you think that creates some incentive structure where 1. only ultra-wealthy people can run for office and 2. good, well-intentioned people choose other career paths other than public service (i.e. the teacher brain-drain argument)?
AntraxSuicide
Banned
You're being obnoxiously obtuse about this. whyamihere is not a multimillionaire getting paid six figure checks by huge companies that he'd been in charge of legislating for the past eight years while income inequality skyrocketed and the wealthy made all of the gains of economic recovery
Neither am I! So now court my vote. Because junk like this does a pretty good job of getting me to cancel volunteering hours since apparently we're back to "what about the optics?"
edit: To be clear, I literally don't give a shit about people making more than I do. I'm happy for them! I'm also depressed when people aren't happy for them because optics.
So are you saying Dems should deny endorsements by Celebrities or Successful business people like Elon Musk? Does Bill Nye make too much money to endorse the Democratic Party?
Where did I say that? I am attacking his logic that an anonymous below-median-income phonebanker is equivalent to a public figure. You actually agree that they are equivalent?
shinra-bansho
Member
Practically the next President of the United States, Kirsten Gillibrand, is going to have large donors. Many of them either on or tied to Wall St as the Senator for NY.
Practically the "base" of the party has shifted to metropolitan areas. Practically many of the people who vote for the Democrats are not unionised traditional trades, but rather in the professional bourgeoisie.
I mean I am kind of curious what various people the coalition is meant to be now or should be. Abortion banning rural racists and college stoners as long as they want to block trade and make Medicare universal.
Practically the "base" of the party has shifted to metropolitan areas. Practically many of the people who vote for the Democrats are not unionised traditional trades, but rather in the professional bourgeoisie.
I mean I am kind of curious what various people the coalition is meant to be now or should be. Abortion banning rural racists and college stoners as long as they want to block trade and make Medicare universal.
Sirpopopop
Member
You actually agree that a below-median income anonymous volunteer phonebanker is equivalent to a public figure earning a six-figure paycheck for a speech?
I'm not talking about that part at all? I'm referring to the fact that I think this argument is literally about criticism of Obama making money in a paid speech. When you reduce the players even further, it's even harder to see a real conflict of interest beyond Obama making money.
Exactly.But that's easily fixed.
The party base is quickly beginning to believe that the party is out of touch, because the largest voice in the party currently, the voice being propped up by the establishment, is telling people that the party is out of touch. And the party ain't doing anything about it.
No one watched Game of Thrones S5/6, apparently.
whyamihere
Banned
So are you saying Dems should deny endorsements by Celebrities or Successful business people like Elon Musk? Does Bill Nye make too much money to endorse the Democratic Party?
"Real Billionaires for Hillary" was very dumb in retrospect.
Fenderputty
Banned
Because he took a speech for eight times what most Americans make in a year? Our party is already seen as out of touch with most Americans. This doesn't help!
This is silly guys. Can't me on.
He supports raising taxes that would redistribute a hearty portion of the 400k!!!
Have you considered the possibility that the reason Bernie is popular is because the party is out of touch and he was willing to say it
Not really. Nope.
Because all of the elements that exist today that make people feel that the party it out of touch existed in 2008 and 2012. But that didn't become the dominant narrative because we had other voices out there making sure it didn't.
I'm not saying that I don't think that the Democratic party is out of touch. We are. But that comes down to messaging. Getting down on the ground with people, adopting their language, and speaking to them.
Going all-in on petty, token issues like "No paid speeches!" won't make Democrats more in touch with our base. It'll just make us broke and out of touch.
whyamihere
Banned
Practically the next President of the United States, Kirsten Gillibrand, is going to have large donors. Many of them either on or tied to Wall St as the Senator for NY.
Practically the "base" of the party has shifted to metropolitan areas.
I mean I am kind of curious what various people the coalition is meant to be now or should be. Abortion banning rural racists and college stoners as long as they want to block trade and make Medicare universal.
I mean the poorest in these metropolitan areas had a huge drop off from 2012 to 2016 in the Democratic vote. We'll need them too if we want to win the EC.
There's probably a happy medium then. Certainly people like Biden and Carter didn't become obscenely wealthy during their time in office.
You should probably let this go. Obama's main source of income during his presidency was book sales and normal blind investments, on top of his salary. Biden was already wealthy and Carter was QUITE wealthy to begin with. He was forced to divest himself of a peanut farm (haha how far we've come!) but regardless your point is weak and bears no scrutiny or comparison test. Also it is not going to have ANY EFFECT on voters. None. Nada.
No, I'm not talking about that part at all?
You are replying to a post that argues against such a logic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.