• 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 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kirblar

Member
PBY said:
I get this. And your solution to "just move" is trash.
Click to expand...
My grandparents immigrated to this country. My parents moved us around from city to city job hopping to get us a better life.

Only recently has it become abnormal to move around instead of staying in one place your own life.
 
O

Owzers

Member
Fox News host: maybe trump is attacking sessions because he wants people to defend and support sessions.

Yeahhhhhhh that's it.
 
P

PBY

Banned
kirblar said:
My grandparents immigrated to this country. My parents moved us around from city to city job hopping to get us a better life.

Only recently has it become abnormal to move around instead of staying in one place your own life.
Click to expand...

My parents also immigrated here.

But you can't disregard half of the country. And I say this as a NY urbanite who works in finance.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
jtb said:
How is any of this different from the rhetoric and messaging of every political campaign in the history of elections?

Why do we even need to define 'criticize the incumbent' as 'populism"??
Click to expand...

Because it isn't, necessarily. There are several political systems where parties represent the interests of different broad groups in society. I mean, take the UK - the Conservatives are very definitely representing a very significant part of society very adequately (the retired). What they're doing is very definitely in the material interests of that group - it's just true that older people will probably be better off under Conservative governments than Labour ones, and so it's difficult for Labour to claim they represent 'the people', because a large fraction of 'the people' do very clearly have interests that align with the elite. Corbyn tried running a populist campaign anyway, but one of the roadblocks he faced is the grey vote, precisely because their interests are aligned with the elite, and you can't really spin that any other way.

For Trump, you have a unique opportunity, because nearly every single American in the country is going to be worse off under him. He's not like the Conservatives, where, although he's fucking over the poor, if you're 65+ life is great. His healthcare policies are detrimental to everyone - your kids are sick and your economy doesn't work when there are more ailing workers. His foreign policy is detrimental to everyone - he makes the United States less safe. His economic policies are detrimental to everyone outside of the top1% or top 0.1% - he's giving big money the power to fuck you over.

Against the Conservatives, 'the people' has no meaning. The people are divided. Some people have interests that co-incide with the elite, and you can't recapture them without conceding some of the people you currently already represent. Against Trump? You can do everyone better. You just need to get them to understand that. And you're not going to do that pussy-footing around. You're going to do that by making your campaign clearly and obviously populist. You're now uninsured? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. You're now unemployed? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. You got kicked out of the military for being trans? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. Your son got the shit kicked out of him by the police? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals.

Use it. Own it. Be populist.
 
J

jtb

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
Ted Cruz is going to go on record voting for continued abortion funding

...
Click to expand...

Why would Ted Cruz be any different than any of the other 40-some Senators in the caucus who want to defund PP? He's a grandstanding liar?

Crab said:
Because it isn't, necessarily. There are several political systems where parties represent different competing elements of society. I mean, take the UK - the Conservatives are very definitely representing a very significant part of society very adequately (Baby Boomers). What they're doing is very definitely in, at the very least, the material interests of that group. It's just true that older people will probably be better off under Conservative governments than Labour ones, and so it's difficult for Labour to claim they represent 'the people', because a large fraction of the population do very clearly have interests that align with the elite. Corbyn tried running a populist campaign anyway, but one of the roadblocks he faced is the grey vote, precisely because their interests are aligned with the elite.

For Trump, you have a unique opportunity, because nearly every single American in the country is going to be worse off under him. He's not like the Conservatives, where, although he's fucking over the poor, if you're 65+ life is great. His healthcare policies are detrimental to everyone - your kids are sick, your economy doesn't work when there are more ailing workers. His foreign policy is detrimental to everyone - he makes the United States less safe. His economic policies are detrimental to everyone outside of the top1% or top 0.1%. Against the Conservatives, 'the people' has no meaning. The people are divided. Some people have interests that co-incide with the elite, and you can't recapture them without conceding some of the people you currently already represent.

Against Trump? You can do everyone better. You just need to get them to understand that. And you're not going to do that pussy-footing around. You're going to do that by making your campaign clearly and obviously populist. You're now uninsured? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. You're now unemployed? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. You got kicked out of the military for being trans? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals. Your son got the shit kicked out of him by the police? That was the Republicans and their corporate pals.

Use it. Own it. Be populist.
Click to expand...

I guess. I always thought of 'pin everything bad to the incumbent' as campaign strategy 101.

Republicans used it for eight years to great success. Obama and the Dems used it in 06 and 08. Etc.

I don't see any Dems suggesting we don't do this...
 
V

VendettaRed07

Member
Resident_UA said:
It's literally in the post you replied to. Sure, it's stupid, but I can bet at least 40% of people would vote for "Ban Wall Street" party.
Click to expand...

Reducing campaigning on basically necessary financial industry reform to "ban wall street", is really disingenuous. It's a popular stance for a justifiable reason.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Finale Fireworker said:
In my experience here, Kirblar, you take definitions and concepts extremely literally in a way that is counter-logical to the way an ordinary voter thinks and feels.

You gain nothing by telling people the things they're passionate about are called something different. "That's not socialism" and "that's not populism" is like correcting somebody's spelling. I get there's an urge to do it and there's value in specificity but you're not going to make any inroads with people who identify with certain tenets of ideologies and use the broader term in a way most people have a shared understanding of.

You so are so willing to alienate people on how they express themselves versus what they believe in and constantly trying to invalidate them based on word choice is why people are enraged by the "establishment."

I think you would be more productive if you sought to understand people rather than react in your impulse to correct them.

I'm not trying to drag you for any single post or anything and I hope you don't take offense to this post. I'm trying to be constructive.
Click to expand...
I don't talk to "ordinary voters" because I know I can't communicate with them! I'm fully aware you don't want me on the fucking front lines trying to win hearts and minds.

PoliGAF is not a place full of "ordinary voters". It is full of people interested in discussing politics. This is not "ordinary voters." And as such, if you're going to discuss something, understanding what you're talking about and what words actually mean is important so that you're on the same page!
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
Ok so to clarify next steps. If the Senate passes the "skinny repeal" then its up the House to approve it once again, and if they make any additional changes, it's back to the Senate?
 
K

kirblar

Member
PBY said:
My parents also immigrated here.

But you can't disregard half of the country. And I say this as a NY urbanite who works in finance.
Click to expand...
Half of the country doesn't live in rural areas. It's 19%.

They have outsize influence on the country, however, because of the way our system warps them, hence the confusion.
 
K

kess

Member
kirblar said:
You can't solve the problem they want fixed the way they want to fix it (a time machine back to 1950 when dropouts could get a job for life at the factory and black people knew their place)

The fix is moving to a place not going down the drain.
Click to expand...

Immigrant families are actually getting priced out of the center of the city where I live (read: getting whiter), forcing people into the suburbs.

People don't have complete control over where they live, what you are proposing is a sort of economic tribalism.
 
K

kirblar

Member
kess said:
Immigrant families are actually getting priced out of the center of the city where I live (read: getting whiter), forcing people into the suburbs.

People don't have complete control over where they live, what you are proposing is a sort of economic tribalism.
Click to expand...
Urban NIMBYISM is a bad thing as well!

This isn't economic tribalism, it's recognition that the future is coming and we have to adapt to it.
 
R

Resident_UA

Member
VendettaRed07 said:
Reducing campaigning on basically necessary financial industry reform to "ban wall street", is really disingenuous. It's a popular stance for a justifiable reason.
Click to expand...

Hey "Build the Wall!" worked no matter how insane that was. Are you really giving that much credit to American public?

And "Lock her up!"

and "Drain the swamp!"

Slogans don't mean shit. But people will vote!
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
"Why don't you just abandon all sense of family, friends, and community to meet the demands of capital or die of an opiate addiction after capitalists bought off congress to make it legal and highly profitable to prey on you. America is already great!"
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Kusagari said:
People acting like Cruz, of all people, has any principals is hilarious.
Click to expand...

He has a hard stance on abortions. Abortion funding is a non starter for Cruz and his buddies.

BoogieWoogie said:
Ok so to clarify next steps. If the Senate passes the "skinny repeal" then its up the House to approve it once again, and if they make any additional changes, it's back to the Senate?
Click to expand...

The plan is to use the skinny repeal just to pass something in the senate, and then let the bi-chamber committee make the "real" bill

So they're just trying to do what the House did and punt the responsibilities off to some other group.

They want the process to keep moving, whether they have an actual bill or not.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
jtb said:
I guess. I always thought of 'pin everything bad to the incumbent' as campaign strategy 101.
Click to expand...

It's more than just the incumbent. It's the entire swath of people who stand to benefit from the incumbent. You're not going after Trump alone. You're going after everyone who is using Trump to profit from poor people, minorities, women, even the middle class. You're not going after a member of the elite, you're going against the elite - all of them.

I think the Democrats are starting to get that. Bringing back the trust-buster rhetoric was an A++ start. That's part of the road to victory.

And yes, the Democrats used to avoid doing this because they indirectly profited. They were content to turn a blind eye on far too many opportunities. They attacked Bush, but not enough the interests behind Bush, because they shared those interests. Clinton was perceived as sharing those interests. That's one of the reasons she lost.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
"Why don't you just abandon all sense of family, friends, and community to meet the demands of capital or die of an opiate addiction after capitalists bought off congress to make it legal and highly profitable to prey on you. America is already great!"
Click to expand...
I mean, this is exactly why poor communities will try and keep their kids from going to college. They want to make sure they stay close.
 
W

wutwutwut

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
"Why don't you just abandon all sense of family, friends, and community to meet the demands of capital or die of an opiate addiction after capitalists bought off congress to make it legal and highly profitable to prey on you. America is already great!"
Click to expand...
Have people not moved for greater economic opportunities throughout history? It isn't clear to me why working class white people living in particular rural areas in 2017 should be given special treatment over, say, immigrants from Mexico.
 
F

Finale Fireworker

Member
kirblar said:
I don't talk to "ordinary voters" because I know I can't communicate with them! I'm fully aware you don't want me on the fucking front lines trying to win hearts and minds.

PoliGAF is not a place full of "ordinary voters". It is full of people interested in discussing politics. This is not "ordinary voters." And as such, if you're going to discuss something, understanding what you're talking about and what words actually mean is important so that you're on the same page!
Click to expand...

But nobody is sitting here with a textbook and I think you know as much as anybody here that the current cultural meanings of "socialism" and "populism" and even "fascism" are different than their encyclopedic meanings.

You just come across as really flippant sometimes because you hold a lot of common conceptions to an extremely literal definition. You don't have to defend or explain yourself, I get it, and far be it from me to police how conversations unfold here, but I thought it was worth mentioning how bullish and pedantic you can come across in regards to conceptions you don't personally hold.

My BA is in English. There is quite possibly nobody here more guilty of holding people to more articulate forms of expression than me. I do it all the time on Gaming side and get a lot of grief for it. But here, after all this time in a closed environment, I think even you can agree that "populism" means policies that benefit the lower and middle class.
 
N

nature boy

Member
DFrDPpbXcAEgPQr.jpg:large
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
Crab said:
I'm also sort of curious as to what you want the Democrats to do if not populism. Like, there is very clearly an established political and economic elite screwing over the vast majority of Americans. They're called the Republican Party. If you're not populist, you're either denying that the Republicans currently constitute an elite (obviously untrue), denying that they have interests opposed to the majority of Americans (also untrue), or saying that you don't intend to do anything about it (I hope very dearly this is untrue).
Click to expand...

Regarding the bolded, I think this needs to be expanded. Republican politicians may be obviously elites, but Republican voters mostly aren't. If the message is "we're standing against the elite Republicans" then I don't see a problem, but if we're saying "we're standing against Republicans, who are elites" then that's not going to work. Your traditional blue collar voters that you might be trying to win over won't agree that they were elites when they've voted Republican.

I mean, the rural South is as republican as it gets among white voters, but no one would call them elite along many axes other than social privilege, which they also don't believe in.
 
S

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
nature boy said:
DFrDPpbXcAEgPQr.jpg:large
Click to expand...

His speech yesterday was at least pointed in the right direction too, but he continues to have his cake and eat it, and votes in line with a party he currently despises. Actions speak louder than words McCain. Start the impeachment process if you want a legacy that isn't craven, shameful capitulation.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
Reuters Top News @Reuters

MORE: Pentagon has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender troops to stay in military - Senate Armed Forces Chairman McCain
 
B

BoogieWoogie

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
The plan is to use the skinny repeal just to pass something in the senate, and then let the bi-chamber committee make the "real" bill

So they're just trying to do what the House did and punt the responsibilities off to some other group.

They want the process to keep moving, whether they have an actual bill or not.
Click to expand...

Who makes up the bi-chamber committee and would that "real bill" then have to pass both the full House and Senate again?
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
wutwutwut said:
Have people not moved for greater economic opportunities throughout history? It isn't clear to me why working class white people living in particular rural areas in 2017 should be given special treatment over, say, immigrants from Mexico.
Click to expand...
I think it's bad that U.S. trade policy impoverished enough Mexicans that they felt it necessary to leave their homes to illegally cross the border in order to get horrifically low paying jobs too.

And I support open borders so this isn't an anti-immigration thing.
 
J

jtb

Banned
Crab said:
It's more than just the incumbent. It's the entire swath of people who stand to benefit from the incumbent. You're not going after Trump alone. You're going after everyone who is using Trump to profit from poor people, minorities, women, even the middle class. You're not going after a member of the elite, you're going against the elite - all of them.

I think the Democrats are starting to get that. Bringing back the trust-buster rhetoric was an A++ start. That's part of the road to victory.
Click to expand...

In a country with only two parties, that's basically a distinction without a difference.

I am amused by your earlier 'we all benefit more w/o tribalism, racism, etc' point. Some might even say...

Stronger together?
I think trust-busting is great too, glad it's in the platform.

Bonen no Max'd said:
"Why don't you just abandon all sense of family, friends, and community to meet the demands of capital or die of an opiate addiction after capitalists bought off congress to make it legal and highly profitable to prey on you. America is already great!"
Click to expand...

And your solution is?

Every other group responds and adapts to economic pressures to live within their means (though, I guess you'd say that's a bad thing too).
 
K

kirblar

Member
Finale Fireworker said:
But nobody is sitting here with a textbook and I think you know as much as anybody here that the current cultural meanings of "socialism" and "populism" and even "fascism" are different than their encyclopedic meanings.

You just come across as really flippant sometimes because you hold a lot of common conceptions to an extremely literal definition. You don't have to defend or explain yourself, I get it, and far be it from me to police how conversations unfold here, but I thought it was worth mentioning how bullish and pedantic you can come across in regards to conceptions you don't personally hold.

My BA is in English. There is quite possibly nobody here more guilty of holding people to more articulate forms of expression than me. I do it all the time on Gaming side and get a lot of grief for it. But here, after all this time in a closed environment, I think even you can agree that "populism" means policies that benefit the lower and middle class.
Click to expand...
No, that's not what "populism" means! Holy fuck. If populism was restricted only to class-base stuff, you wouldn't have "right wing populism" with all the fun racism going after lower/middle class minorities as well. You can't ignore that when talking about it, because the "Left-wing social benefits for me, but.. not for you" FDR-style stuff is both sides of populism working together at the same time, which shouldn't be our goal. (It also ignores the related rural/urban divide at play here as well!)

The reason "socialism" comes up as a flashpoint is that people conflate socialism with social democracy that's really bad. I get that. This isn't what's going on w/ "populsim"
 
O

Ogodei

Member
wutwutwut said:
Have people not moved for greater economic opportunities throughout history? It isn't clear to me why working class white people living in particular rural areas in 2017 should be given special treatment over, say, immigrants from Mexico.
Click to expand...

They should get the support they need to maintain a dignified quality of life (that is, not homeless, hungry, or sick) and the freedom to choose what to do.

The issue is that a lot of the people being left behind in the rural areas are those who are ill-suited for city life. It's not that they don't want to go, many don't have skills for more service-based jobs, and many who are left behind are older or sicker than those who do leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

your favorite racing games by year (2002-2022)
2
72
4K
marcincz replied
[GfK data] In the UK, Xbox Series S and X has now overtaken sales of the original Xbox. PS5 is now closing in on 3DS/2DS sales.
Sales-Age 2
51
5K
Thirty7ven replied
The "I survived development hell" club (7 years+) of games (2024 edition)
36
2K
Holammer replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
All Major PlayStation Franchises And Their Current Status
|OT| News Platform
44
3K
dorkimoe replied
Top Bottom