I'll just leave this here

This topic contains 125 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Andy Brown 10 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 126 total)
  • Author
  • #36809


    And let’s remember that “going to the right” in more purple/red districts doesn’t mean “agree with the Republican party on every issue.” Democrats used to find common ground on some issues, even if they different right or left on others. They need to do that again. (This is how they won control briefly in 2006 for only four years, in a year when the Iraq War had poisoned the Republican party.)



    And here we have, KSKD being the idealistic one and everyone else being pragmatic.

    Idealism won’t win elections.



    Hey, saddling up to the GOP may work.

    Will be, “the win.”


    If it does work, the human costs will continue to accumulate. Not sustainable, ineffective.

    We will see. Might be one more cycle of that possible. I doubt it.

    I will not be an advocate. Not when its equally possible to do that very same thing with progressives, who are going to force it in the end anyway.



    You are the only one saying “saddle up with the GOP”.

    Talk about fear, shame, and blame.

    Seriously, you have fallen off the turnip truck.



    Ok, let me expand:

    Without a move left, right economics remain the dominant economic policy. GOP is extreme, and does differ in a few ways. DEMS are not extreme, can be almost tepid in all of that.

    Where big business is concerned, big money?

    All one happy family. The differences are a family type fight.

    Who is left out?

    Labor, ordinary people.

    Socially, we have a reasonable right and left. Economically, we have a right, and a center right at present.

    That’s the issue.

    Continuing that is saddling up to the GOP. Dems cannot be an effective economic opposition party, put another way. We need an effective economic opposition, because the dominant policy is growing the number of people in real trouble.

    Simple as that.

    It started around the time of Bill Clinton, and “third way”, today known as “New Democrat” in that ordinary people, labor simply are not represented in a meaningful way.

    That is where the root of party reform and leadership opposition efforts grow from.

    Do you actually need them to say it regularly? Or, will actions and the occasional gaffe be enough? 😀

    Yeah, me. So what?

    See, I don’t care. Say what you want. Until we reverse a bad, 40 some year trend, I will invest to that end.

    What Dems have been doing DOES NOT WORK.



    Sorry, I don’t think in terms of “right economic policy” and “left economic policy.” I tend to think in terms of specific economic policy and try to evaluate it on its merits without labeling it.

    The Democrats since 1995 have had control of Congress only four years (two terms) – and technically, with a Democratic president, about half a term, given the delayed seating of Al Franken in 2009 and the death of Teddy Kennedy who was replaced by a Republican in early 2010 – and that was during the economic collapse. Republicans have had the presidency and Congress for about eight years (four terms) since then. Obviously Democrats have had far less time to do much economically that they want to do. So again, it all comes down to winning elections.

    I don’t agree with everything Democrats campaigning or running have proposed or have done – but I reject the idea that just because I agree with something (TPP) that you don’t that it’s therefore “rightest.” Obama wanted to do TPP to help the US compete with China; now China will have a stronger hand.

    Otherwise, Democratic economic “policy” has been to raise taxes on the wealthy – something Clinton and Obama both did. Not every Democrat is anti-business, either. I want to see big business reigned with common sense regulation that is actually enforced, not destroyed. Clearly Trump is pushing things far the other way, which is going to make the next Democratic president’s job a whole lot harder than it would have been. So many of the “Never Hillary” idiots who couldn’t abide by anyone not pure enough enabled things to get a whole lot worse for the economically disadvantaged (at least, they will in the future) by helping elect Trump.

    And I think that’s the key difference here: I’m willing to accept Democrats who are not perfect, with whom I disagree on some issues. I know that holding out for my perfect elected official with whom I agree on just about everything will only lead to Republicans getting elected again and again instead. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Nader and “Never Hillary” idiots could accept nothing less than purity and helped give us something far far worse than the alternative.



    Exactly, bam!



    Ok. Call it whatever you like.

    In specific terms, our health care policy is not serving us well at all, and that is escalating, not improving. Easy example. There are others.

    That is issue number one. You seen nothing yet, in terms of cost, and poor outcomes. That’s yet to come. We’ve got a generation aging out, pretty well taken care of under better policy, and generations aging in, left to fend for themselves, to the wolves so to speak, in terms of healthcare. It’s going to get very ugly.

    How the party is currently working the problem is unproductive.

    That will change.

    Left, right, etc. is a big dodge. Felt good didnt it?

    If I were you, I would think so. Seriously.

    But, I’m not you. So, there is that.

    Any rational discussion of possible policy will include things like medicare-for-all. The fact that it really doesn’t, has to do with the economic alignments that I’ve been careful to paint here.

    Now maybe, there is something better than Medicare for are all possible. Let’s hear it.

    Otherwise, we need to be doing what the rest of the world is doing, and not letting markets destroy our people.

    Fact is, the party’s not about that.

    That kind of thing is unacceptable. So, there’s only a few choices. I’m going to engage the process along with a lot of others to change that scenario.

    And here’s the thing, whether you agree with me, isn’t material. This is all going to happen anyway. So the job can be hard, not so hard. We can give people to vote for, or see more of the same play out as it has.

    It’s going to grow harder to win elections without actually doing things for the people.

    Fundamentally that means making investments in them the same way we do in bombs.

    All of these arguments lead to the same place, and that is gosh it could be much worse if you don’t play ball.

    Been there done that, heard enough.



    Got to win elections first. Otherwise you’re just a loud and obnoxious Cleveland Browns fan at the NFL draft.




    Piece at a time.

    Each one means a bit more ability to make news, successful machinery to clone and apply elsewhere.

    Yep. Loud. Pain in the ass. Active.

    And could give two shits what you think about all of that, unless of course, you are willing to join me in getting after the long overdue basics.



    I’m talking general elections, not primaries.






    Gettin’ sort’a confusin’.
    Democrat? Progressive? Socialist? Communist? Western Marxist? neo-Hegler? Jis’ don’t know which one you is.



    Just look for the people advancing the top issues.




    To whom do I send my money if I want to advance the top issues?

Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 126 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.