Support NeoGAF

[KingK]

This is so weird to me, because as someone who entered the primaries casually pro Bernie and fairly anti Hillary (I know there are receipts on this lurking in this forum) it was precisely a vibe of authenticity that caused me to flip, and flip pretty vehemently (and a corresponding perception of disingenuousness from Bernie)

I had problems with Bernie, but it was more about his poor understanding of intersectionality and foreign policy than a lack of authenticity. Hillary felt authentic on some of the civil rights issues, particularly women's rights, but little else. Especially economic issues.

It's almost as if a lot of people on "the left" wouldn't recognize an actual liberal woman if she bit them on the ass. See also: pelosi derangement syndrome.

If that's supposed to be a dig at me, I've been on the record in this very thread as always liking Pelosi, even if I think she's a terrible public speaker and should be looking for a successor due to age. I've also been on the record with all of my favorites for 2020 being women, so I'm not sure what your point is. If it's just a general critique of sexism being present in every political faction, including the left, then I'd agree.

 

[The Technomancer]

Corporate Democrats!

To the vast majority of people this would actually matter to this will in fact be energizing and a good thing. To those for whom anything short of the revolution is not good enough I've come to the decision over the last couple days that I'm just not going to bother with those people

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Or we could wait for the entire platform to come out before declaring that one side has been sidelined. The economy and healthcare are the #1 issue for most Americans. Not surprising they're starting there first.

 

[B-Dubs]

America can make structural economic progress or it can make structural racial progress. The two together seem almost incompatible going back well over a century. The whole thing is very stupid

Which is even stupider than either of us let on because the only way to deal with either issue is to attack them as one since they're so deeply interconnected. Racism, poverty, and education are the prime example. You can't fix education without tackling racism and poverty, and you can't fix poverty without tackling education and racism, and you can't fix racism without tackling education and poverty. Hell, the whole interplay there is even more complicated than that! Issues intersect in insane ways and we aren't going to get anywhere without an approach that accounts for it.

 

[The Technomancer]

I had problems with Bernie, but it was more about his poor understanding of intersectionality and foreign policy than a lack of authenticity. Hillary felt authentic on some of the civil rights issues, particularly women's rights, but little else. Especially economic issues.

With Bernie specifically I suppose its not that I felt he was inauthentic about what he believed in but that it would require either extraordinary levels of naivete or willful disenginuity about the mechanics of politics for him to say many of the things he did. Like I get that being too wonkish and not inspiring enough was and is still a big part of the problem, as is a perception of fetishizing pragmatism, but I'm also always going to sour on someone who I think is promising easy answers

 

[Autodidact]

It's almost as if a lot of people on "the left" wouldn't recognize an actual liberal woman if she bit them on the ass. See also: pelosi derangement syndrome.

Speaking of whom, if they minimize social issues entirely and adopt this economic platform, Pelosi should probably expect a knife in her back

Not that there aren't people like that, but I think you and many in this thread are way too cynical about the left. Democrats can absolutely win back much of the left that has been disappointed in the party or otherwise discouraged from participation. I chastise people IRL for saying they won't vote, or "both sides are the same" kind of shit all the time. And it often works and I can convince them otherwise, but you have to at least be empathetic and understand why they're so disaffected by the system in the first place. I'm taking mostly about people in the under 30 category. And I promise you, we have a better chance of getting these people back into the fold/bringing them in for the first time than we do of winning over upper class suburbanites.

Why is the onus always on minorities to be empathetic?

Why can't we ask these mythical "white working class" voters to empathize with our issues for once? Why can't they acknowledge that they've had a pretty fucking easy time of things - you know, not having to fear the police and being able to get married and not worrying about being fired because they're fabulous?

Why can't they be told that any economic hardship they face, minorities face much worse?

Because they're in charge and we're just tolerated. EDIT: I meant to criticize the voters here. Like kirblar, I haven't gotten angry at the Democrats themselves... yet.

I have no desire to talk to these people, frankly.

 

[The Technomancer]

Which is even stupider than either of us let on because the only way to deal with either issue is to attack them as one since they're so deeply interconnected. Racism, poverty, and education are the prime example. You can't fix education without tackling racism and poverty, and you can't fix poverty without tackling education and racism, and you can't fix racism without tackling education and poverty. Hell, the whole interplay there is even more complicated than that! Issues intersect in insane ways and we aren't going to get anywhere without an approach that accounts for it.

We aren't, but the story of economic progress in America is that it can only be permitted if it does not threaten the fundamental relations of racism

 

[kirblar]

I do not think they will minimize minority issues w legislation whatsoever.

This is about campaign tactics and the way the gerrymandering and warped map empowers certain types of voters.

My bile here isn't directed at the Dems for playing the game.

 

[Basileus777]

Or we could wait for the entire platform to come out before declaring that one side has been sidelined. The economy and healthcare are the #1 issue for most Americans. Not surprising they're starting there first.

Yeah, I don't understand the conclusions people are leaping to here.

 

[TumblingHippo]

I know the full platform isn't out yet, but that doesn't comfort me that if minority voters don't turn out for Dems if they're pushed back for the sake of not upsetting straight white people, that we'll still be lectured at for not supporting them or going 3rd party.

 

[KingK]

Speaking of whom, if they minimize social issues entirely and adopt this economic platform, Pelosi should probably expect a knife in her back



Why is the onus always on minorities to be empathetic?

Why can't we ask these mythical "white working class" voters to empathize with our issues for once? Why can't they acknowledge that they've had a pretty fucking easy time of things - you know, not having to fear the police and being able to get married and not worrying about being fired because they're fabulous?

Why can't they be told that any economic hardship they face, minorities face much worse?

Because they're in charge and we're just tolerated, and now they've decided that we've cramped their style and won't help them win a midterm election.

I have no desire to talk to these people, frankly.

Who are you taking to? In that post, I was talking about young people under 30. Many of the specific examples I had in mind of friends that I was taking about are minorities. I never once mentioned white working class. You're attacking a straw man

 

[sc0la]

I had problems with Bernie, but it was more about his poor understanding of intersectionality and foreign policy than a lack of authenticity. Hillary felt authentic on some of the civil rights issues, particularly women's rights, but little else. Especially economic issues.


If that's supposed to be a dig at me, I've been on the record in this very thread as always liking Pelosi, even if I think she's a terrible public speaker and should be looking for a successor due to age. I've also been on the record with all of my favorites for 2020 being women, so I'm not sure what your point is. If it's just a general critique of sexism being present in every political faction, including the left, then I'd agree.

It's the latter, it's not a dig at anyone in this thread lol.

I had someone tell me they wanted Biden because of how he was way more liberal gab Hillary. Lol k man.

 

[Autodidact]

Who are you taking to? In that post, I was talking about young people under 30. Many of the specific examples I had in mind of friends that I was taking about are minorities. I never once mentioned white working class. You're attacking a straw man

I went on a bit of an angry tangent when I saw you say "the left." For that I apologize.

I reacted that way because, after the election, many on "the left" (whatever that is) advocated minimizing social issues.

Also, I've observed that people who say "both sides are the same" tend to be ones who have the privilege not to worry about voting, not understanding that, to many of us, the Democrats are demonstrably better. That ties into my rant a bit.

 

[KingK]

With Bernie specifically I suppose its not that I felt he was inauthentic about what he believed in but that it would require either extraordinary levels of naivete or willful disenginuity about the mechanics of politics for him to say many of the things he did. Like I get that being too wonkish and not inspiring enough was and is still a big part of the problem, as is a perception of fetishizing pragmatism, but I'm also always going to sour on someone who I think is promising easy answers

See, I would agree (and I think Bernie would too) that most of his policy would not be able to pass as-is in the near future. The point is that while running a campaign, you make it known what the ideal policy goals are in your mind, and what you'll be fighting for. After the election is when the pragmatism, negotiating, and accepting the best you can get comes in. I really think most people are cool with pragmatism, but you have to sell them on a long term ideal/goal/vision first.

And sorry I'm not responding to everyone. On mobile and my battery is almost dead. Almost didn't want to post because I knew I might get a bit of a dogpile haha

 

[Autodidact]

See, I would agree (and I think Bernie would too) that most of his policy would not be able to pass as-is in the near future. The point is that while running a campaign, you make it known what the ideal policy goals are in your mind, and what you'll be fighting for. After the election is when the pragmatism, negotiating, and accepting the best you can get comes in. I really think most people are cool with pragmatism, but you have to sell them on a long term ideal/goal/vision first.

I disagree. If you cater to the extremists of your party, they expect the moon. Defaulting to pragmatism and compromise after you've won the election makes them angry and intransigent, and you ultimately accomplish nothing. Have Boehner and the Tea Party and now the health care debacle taught us nothing?

And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never meant to give the impression of a dog pile.

Posted?

Russia in USA ����‏Verified account @RusEmbUSA 5h5 hours ago
More
Ambassador S.Kislyak has concluded his assignment in Washington, DC
Minister-Counselor D.Gonchar will act as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim����
Impeccable timing.

Gotta leave when the borscht gets too hot.

 

[nature boy]

Posted?

Russia in USA 🇷🇺‏Verified account @RusEmbUSA 5h5 hours ago
More
Ambassador S.Kislyak has concluded his assignment in Washington, DC
Minister-Counselor D.Gonchar will act as Chargé d'Affaires ad interim🇷🇺

Impeccable timing.

 

[KingK]

It's the latter, it's not a dig at anyone in this thread lol.

I had someone tell me they wanted Biden because of how he was way more liberal gab Hillary. Lol k man.

Ok cool. And yeah, I've seen that sentiment about Biden before too and I can only imagine it comes mostly from association with Obama and/or sexism. I can kinda see it from the foreign policy perspective though, since I do think he's legitimately more dovish than Clinton, but on everything else, ehhh...motherfucker wrote the crime bill for Christs sake

 

[Random Human]

Posted?



Impeccable timing.

His mission has been completed.

 

[Wilsongt]

Posted?



Impeccable timing.

I smell plutonium in someone's future.

 

[KingK]

I disagree. If you cater to the extremists of your party, they expect the moon. Defaulting to pragmatism and compromise after you've won the election makes them angry and intransigent, and you ultimately accomplish nothing. Have Boehner and the Tea Party and now the health care debacle taught us nothing?

And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never meant to give the impression of a dog pile.



Gotta leave when the borscht gets too hot.

It's tricky, but I think it's possible to sell a grand vision while making it clear that it's the long term goal, and not necessarily the exact form of what will be able to pass. Campaign on a bold vision, but also a willingness to accept pragmatism. It's like republicans with abortion. Their voters know they won't be able to literally outlaw abortion overnight, but they know that's the long term goal. They fucked it up with Obamacare by making it sound like the could easily repeal as soon as they got the presidency. And really, they would have if they weren't so incompetent.

And no problems, everyone's been pretty respectful today haha

I think most of us are at least hopefully realistic about the sorts of coalitions we can build going forward, but I think (in the last few days especially if you run in circles lately) there is exhaustion setting in about the sort of very loud twitter folks who define 95% of the population as neoliberal and anyone who isn't already a DSA member as a centrist sellout

See, I avoid Twitter, tumbler, and pretty much all social media like the plague lol. I've gotten on facebook a little more recently to talk with people I actually know, but that's it.

 

[sc0la]

Posted?

Impeccable timing.

Something to be said for retiring at the top of your game.

I smell plutonium in someone's future.

Polonium has no scent.

 

[JettDash]

I wonder how many Bernie Bros expected Bernie to enact his agenda if he was elected. Those that did would have been very disappointed. His presidency would not have been a significant change from the status quo.

 

[Autodidact]

I wonder how many Bernie Bros expected Bernie to enact his agenda if he was elected. Those that did would have been very disappointed. His presidency would not have been a significant change from the status quo.

They would've found some way to blame the Democrats. Strange how they and Republicans have that in common.

 

[Wilsongt]

Something to be said for retiring at the top of your game.


Polonium has no scent.

Aaaayyyyyyy

 

[Zolo]

I wonder how many Bernie Bros expected Bernie to enact his agenda if he was elected. Those that did would have been very disappointed. His presidency would not have been a significant change from the status quo.

Especially without winning both House and Senate.

 

[royalan]

BLM actively and voluntarily changed tactics in the wake of the election.

Yeah...by getting more politically involved and less focused on demonstrations. Nothing about their change on tactics signaled they were going to be ok with having their issues sidelined.

 

[sphagnum]

I find it funny that the Democrats indicate theyre going to take a progressive economic stance and you guys find a way to turn it into FUCK BERNIE

edit: more correctly fuck "the left"

 

[pigeon]

Can we just say fuck Matt Stoller? Is that still cool?

 

[Abinash117]

I read in some articles that the agenda might release in waves and that it basically going include popular Democrat policies and $15 minimum wage, but not things like single-payer. In one of the articles Schumer said it is not about moving left or right, and not about appealing to a coalition.

 

[pigeon]

I find it funny that the Democrats indicate theyre going to take a progressive economic stance and you guys find a way to turn it into FUCK BERNIE

edit: more correctly fuck "the left"

Also, I think the take is more "hey, look, the El Tiguere types who wanted the Democrats to focus on the economy and stop talking about social justice entirely won." It's the first Democratic platform paper since the election, and guess what? Zero social justice.

So much for the tolerant left!

 

[Spoiled Milk]

Also, I think the take is more "hey, look, the El Tiguere types who wanted the Democrats to focus on the economy and stop talking about social justice entirely won." It's the first Democratic platform paper since the election, and guess what? Zero social justice.

So much for the tolerant left!

Are you talking about this? https://graphics.axios.com/pdf/e-demeconomy.pdf

It's an email about economic strategy, I wouldn't expect it to talk about social justice.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Not to be a broken record, but I would argue the two-party system disincentivizes social justice as a political priority by decreasing the ability of voters to withhold their vote based on lack of sufficient social justice consideration in a national presidential candidate's platform (because, hey, the other guy sucks in ALL respects, instead of just some), thus pushing politicians to focus on issues that affect the largest number of voters (i.e. economics, healthcare, infrastructure, the military, etc.).

In short, this is absolutely the smart move, electorally, whatever one thinks of it, morally.

 

[Abinash117]

I find it funny that the Democrats indicate theyre going to take a progressive economic stance and you guys find a way to turn it into FUCK BERNIE

edit: more correctly fuck "the left"

I don't think a lot of people here are really part of what can be referred to the left-wing economic populists. That is why they are criticizing.

I think there's a difference to liberals that are more pro-capitalist and liberal economic populists. One of them is for expanding and updating the welfare system while at the same time supporting certain financial institutions and businesses, but with regulation. More open to free trade and wants federal power to make lives more fair.

The other wants to break those institutions up and are much more critical of trade. They support a heavier increase in welfare systems. The racial element comes into play because the populists are seen as mostly white guys who thinks solving economic issues will lead the end racism.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Not to be a broken record, but I would argue the two-party system disincentivizes social justice as a political priority by decreasing the ability of voters to withhold their vote based on lack of sufficient social justice consideration in a national presidential candidate's platform (because, hey, the other guy sucks in ALL respects, instead of just some), thus pushing politicians to focus on issues that affect the largest number of voters (i.e. economics, healthcare, infrastructure, the military, etc.).

In short, this is absolutely the smart move, electorally, whatever one thinks of it, morally.

I get this in a vacuum, but over time, you risk destroying our side's chances at winning elections since we rely on a minority (but still solid) base of rural white people but a majority of social justice demographics. If we keep pushing for social programs that end up not benefitting minority groups (which has happened in the past), then you may see a "straw that broke the camel's back" election where that support collapses.

Hillary fucked up her rural outreach/campaigning/GOTV stuff and lost by 70K votes spread out against her favor. If you collapse minority support, I don't see how a Dem doesn't end up looking at a worse map, to say nothing of Congressional races, and especially to say nothing of the organizational collapse if minority voters feel left out (remember most of the calls going to Congress now are women, and I'd hazard a guess that a good number of them are women of color).

And as you mention, there's the moral issue of the only political party that stands up for social justice bailing on it. If you're a social justice type, you won't vote Republican, but you might just decide not to vote.

 

[PBY]

They would've found some way to blame the Democrats. Strange how they and Republicans have that in common.

Here we go.

 

[sphagnum]

Are you talking about this? https://graphics.axios.com/pdf/e-demeconomy.pdf

It's an email about economic strategy, I wouldn't expect it to talk about social justice.

Right, there's literally nothing about this that says "let's ignore social justice issues". It's a memo detailing how polling on some economic messages turned out and at the bottom it says that it is just one important launching point, not the whole thing.

 

[Autodidact]

Not to be a broken record, but I would argue the two-party system disincentivizes social justice as a political priority by decreasing the ability of voters to withhold their vote based on lack of sufficient social justice consideration in a national presidential candidate's platform (because, hey, the other guy sucks in ALL respects, instead of just some), thus pushing politicians to focus on issues that affect the largest number of voters (i.e. economics, healthcare, infrastructure, the military, etc.).

In short, this is absolutely the smart move, electorally, whatever one thinks of it, morally.

The Democrats won the popular vote and gained Congressional seats by running a candidate who unabashedly espoused civil rights and criticized white supremacy.

Here we go.

If you want to deny that a not insignificant portion of the left spouts the "both sidez are the same Democrats are owned by corporations" shit, I won't try to disabuse you of the notion. We see Republicans pinning the BHCA's failure on Democrats, and under an ineffectual President Bernie, some of his hardcore supporters would've blamed them too.

 

[PBY]

If you want to deny that a not insignificant portion of the left spouts the "both sidez are the same Democrats are owned by corporations" shit, I won't try to disabuse you of the notion. We see Republicans pinning the BHCA's failure on Democrats, and under an ineffectual President Bernie, some of his hardcore supporters would've blamed them too.

You have no idea wtf you're talking about.

 

[pigeon]

Right, there's literally nothing about this that says "let's ignore social justice issues".

Except the fact that it's the whole of Democratic messaging since the election and it ignores social justice issues.

The Democrats could have chosen to make it a social justice agenda instead, or something more comprehensive, but they chose to make it wholly an economic agenda.

 

[pigeon]

Not to be a broken record, but I would argue the two-party system disincentivizes social justice as a political priority by decreasing the ability of voters to withhold their vote based on lack of sufficient social justice consideration in a national presidential candidate's platform (because, hey, the other guy sucks in ALL respects, instead of just some), thus pushing politicians to focus on issues that affect the largest number of voters (i.e. economics, healthcare, infrastructure, the military, etc.).

In short, this is absolutely the smart move, electorally, whatever one thinks of it, morally.

As we've discussed over and over, the question of whether it's electorally sensible to give up on social justice is not really related to the question of whether I want the Democratic Party to do it, or whether I can support a party that does it.

 

[PBY]

Except the fact that it's the whole of Democratic messaging since the election and it ignores social justice issues.

The Democrats could have chosen to make it a social justice agenda instead, or something more comprehensive, but they chose to make it wholly an economic agenda.

Agreed tbh

 

[Autodidact]

You have no idea wtf you're talking about.

Do you ever think I do?

Now, to segue to a nicer subject, have we yet discussed this Clinton-era memo from Ken Starr's investigation that says a sitting president can be indicted?

 

[jtb]

Can we just say fuck Matt Stoller? Is that still cool?

He's a sanctimonious jackass raised on daddy's money. Why wouldn't it still be cool?

 

[Basileus777]

Is the left on the internet just two sides knee jerk reacting to any message from the Democrats that doesn't prioritize economics/social justice and raging about it in the same way? If this same document was about social justice, the posters in arms now would be mocking their counterparts mad about how it didn't prioritize economics and cherry picking twitter/reddit threads to laugh at.

 

[PBY]

Do you ever think I do?

Now, to segue to a nicer subject, have we yet discussed this Clinton-era memo written by Ken Starr that says a sitting president can be indicted?

Actually I think you know a lot. Just don't think it makes sense to predict how your vision of the lefties would react to a hypothetical future.

 

[Prof. Bathtub]

When people say the center, I just don't know if they're talking about news media oriented around false-equivalence, the courageous™ moderate republicans, or the legislators who agree with 99% of policy goals but don't spam enough socialism memes.

 

[Zolo]

When people say the center, I just don't know if they're talking about news media oriented around false-equivalence, the courageous moderate republicans, or the legislators who agree with 99% of policy goals but don't spam enough socialist memes.

I'd say the center's about a mix of people like that.

 

[Chained Prometheus]

Do you ever think I do?

Now, to segue to a nicer subject, have we yet discussed this Clinton-era memo written by Ken Starr that says a sitting president can be indicted?

Ooooooh, I remember reading about this very briefly on Twitter earlier today! Very interesting possibility right there.

What do you think are the odds that Trump will be indicted, despite being a sitting president?

 

[Autodidact]

Ooooooh, I remember reading about this very briefly on Twitter earlier today! Very interesting possibility right there.

What do you think are the odds that Trump will be indicted, despite being a sitting president?

I suppose that depends squarely on Mueller and/or NY AG Schneiderman, doesn't it? Though Starr says a president can be indicted, he qualifies that statement by saying that the indictment must cover crimes committed before the president assumed office. Thankfully, Trump's probably been committing financial crimes for years, and the collusion - at least, the part about which we know - occurred last year.

Also, I should amend my other post. Ken Starr did not write this memo but thought it pertinent enough to include in his investigation.

 

[benicillin]

Or you could all wait until the Democrats actually talk about stuff this week instead of overanalyzing an internal memo about economics.