April 5, 2019 at 8:56 am #41369
Putin’s Puppet: The Democrats’ Security Story
It was an appealing security story to share with Democratic voters, who were left stunned and even afraid after the outcome.
Democrats were also faced with a base that had irreconcilable differences over how to address key issues. The Trump-Russia narrative was an easy way to avoid continuing debates the Sanders campaign forced around single-payer health care, jobs, free college tuition, taxes, the environment, and corporate welfare. (These debates, by the way, were ones Sanders Democrats were winning.)April 5, 2019 at 9:20 am #41370
“Security stories” term of the day. That is something Carlin would chop up for laughs and serve up on a pointed platter.
Just some perspective.
The way to defeat Trump is to get behind meaningful reforms aimed right at improving things for ALL Americans.
We can pay for it same as we do massive and ongoing wars of choice.
Or, perhaps we just do not need to drop so damn many bombs. Would help if we quit meddling in Venezuela too.
Lots of public good needing to be done. No need for “security stories” too.April 5, 2019 at 11:55 am #41376
Spare us. The way to beat Trump is to vote for his opponent. Not tear down his opponent because he/she is not Bernie Bros enough.
Any one of the twenty something candidates out there would be 100% better than Trump.
I will be supporting the candidate who I feel has the BEST chance at winning. Don’t care if it’s a man, woman, black, latino, gay, or whatever. The nominee must defeat Trump or else we are in a world of hurt.April 5, 2019 at 11:56 am #41377
Here’s the Bernie Bros strategy: I want to have the hottest girl in class go to prom with me, and if not I won’t go at all.April 5, 2019 at 12:42 pm #41378
Yeah, there are a bunch of them willing to do exactly that. And they will do it because making it about a minority living well has nothing in it for them.
They do not want to vote so you feel better about it all, or you see gains. They want to vote for their own improvement.
Edit: just like you, yourself, have indicated people do many, many times. “I think everyone should vote their own self interests.”
Stings, doesn’t it? 😀 I know it does. Good.
Can’t say that I blame anyone for that given the last 4 decades of non stop growth in the number of Americans, now a majority, struggling economically.
Make it about better for ALL Americans, or there will be a very high risk of loss.
I am good with making it about ALL Americans. You?April 5, 2019 at 2:45 pm #41380
Is it in your best interest to have Trump as president, or someone else? Why on earth would you not support “someone else” if they are running against Trump? That is irrational behavior. In fact, it’s a classic example of “cutting off your nose to spite your face” type logic. Loser’s logic!
Ever hear about the fact that 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing?April 5, 2019 at 10:36 pm #41391
Some of something makes sense, until it doesn’t.
You, me? Sure. I will take it, but then again, I am making it too.
People not making it see this all very differently. And the number of them who have had enough is to the point where excluding them from the policy discussion is unacceptable.
Say what you want man, that is the dynamic in play. Ignore people in real need and they just do not have to play ball.
Best not ignore them.
I am not. Best make it about ALL Americans or risk loss. Fact. Fine by me. We, the left have not performed. Time to change that.
Again, your move.April 6, 2019 at 8:37 pm #41397
I’ll work to support the candidate that has the BEST chance to defeat Trump. Not the purest opponent, the BEST opponent. I don’t know yet who that will be. If it’s Bernie, I’m on board. If it’s not, I’m NOT ON BOARD to work to defeat Trump’s opponent like you appear to be. You seem to be willing to make that play. Which is why you’re an idiot. Honestly, you write like you’re an ISIS bride.April 6, 2019 at 9:08 pm #41398April 7, 2019 at 8:29 am #41400AndrewParticipant
I’ve finally understood what Missing has been saying these last few months. He doesn’t care about Trump winning or losing. He doesn’t care about any sort of incremental improvement.
He just wants his Socialist Utopia, no matter who is running. If Sanders can give it to him, than he wants Sanders to win. If not, who cares who wins?
If the candidate running against Trump isn’t a Socialist like Sanders, then even better that Trump win again. Then maybe things will get even worse in the US and that will help people vote for the Socialist Utopia next time.April 7, 2019 at 9:06 am #41401
No you have not understood.
Incremental change would be just fine if those increments lead to decreasing numbers of Americans in economic distress. That has not happened. Left party fail. Time for reform.
You do understand the issues better. Yes, Medicare for All, Living wages, etc. are long overdue. Flat wages for decades, and health care cost escalation to the point of being embarrassing are two of the primary reform motivators. They are the two primary VOTE FOR policy visions.
Now, the part none of you actually underatand:
I personally will not vote for Trump. There are candidates who are not named Sanders, who I will vote for, should they get the nomination. There are also candidates I absolutely will not vote for, named Beto and Harris.
The vast majority of my writing here involves strong advocacy, the intent being awareness of people who are going to vote on those issues. They are not going to vote on party, nor will be motivated by “because Trump.”
Those people have had enough, and those are the people who should not be ignored anymore, as they have been for decades now.
Run the top issues and mean it = nice win.
M4A, living wages, and the rest of the progressive agenda are largely reasonable and prudent policy goals, not extreme by any global measure.
I know that, and always laugh at lame, and shallow by the way, at temps to frame it otherwise.
Finally, you should understand I completely support people voting their best interests, and have said here many times equally lame fear, shame and blame are completely ineffective when applied to VOTE FOR types.
Amazingly, you all find new and interesting ways to do that. It is a lot of fun to see.
Straight up squeeze play. Ignore progressives and likely lose. Saddle up with ROMNEY voters and likely lose. Work with progressives and likely win pretty big.
Party gets squeezed between the people and big money donors. Party base gets squeezed between Republicans and a massive indie voter base clamoring for party reform.
You all have choices. Continue fear, blame and shame politics, or back meaningful reforms aimed at ALL Americans. I have not seen anything from you that is actual left, even tepid, center left economically. That is where we differ, and there is no reconsilliation possible.
The ideas we all backed for decades failed. I am not going to be about more of the same politics that got us here and neither should you.
Being social only lefties is no longer acceptable. The product of doing that is a majority of the nation in real trouble economically.
Had the third way and new democrat ideas worked, there would be no Sanders, because there would be no majority willing to hear him due to growing, majority human pain and need.
And to be ultra clear, solid policy aimed right at that need is what wins progressive votes. And I am a solid progressive. Have been for over a decade.
This party split began a long time ago, bolstered by growing need associated by ongoing incremental failure.April 7, 2019 at 9:27 am #41402boomerSpectator
It’s not the responsibility of the government to provide “living wages” or fix prices. Doing that restricts our freedom to enter into agreements in our own “best interests,” besides distorting the economy and adding inefficiencies and increased costs.
Fine if there are programs to help the poor, so long as it doesn’t keep the poor dependent and a reliable voting block.
The Socialists today want the same thing the Socialists yesterday wanted–their own power, prestige, and wealth while using the masses as their props and stooges. If we get Bernie-Socialism, things will go better for SOME PEOPLE, namely those in power and their friends and those in the system. The masses will suffer, but might be convinced to take some solace in seeing some rich people be brought down a peg or two.
We are rich enough to provide a “safety net,” but we shouldn’t base an economy on controlling prices and handing out lots free stuff. Free college, for example, will simply be a scam for those in the education system, pushing courses and degrees that will ultimately be of little use in our economy, except for the lining the pockets of the government workers involved.
Capitalism isn’t perfect, but it’s the fairest means of rewarding labor and distributing goods and services. A coercive economy will lead to waste and corruption. We won’t be any better off with Bernie and his free lunches.April 7, 2019 at 11:52 am #41406
Actually, the reason we have and accept self-governance is to maximize personal freedom, and the role of government is to protect the citizens, and promote the general welfare.
Living under bridges, and dying because you can’t afford Healthcare, are not markers of maximize personal freedom.
All of the progressive policy agenda is solidly aligned with those things.
A pure Market based approach to employment, isn’t working. Regulation is needed, and the lack of it is hurting everyone right now in many ways. A majority the nation isn’t making it economically, we’ve got to address that. It’s unacceptable not to.
Capitalism coupled with reasonable and prudent regulations, does work well. That’s what we want to return to. That’s the core of what democratic socialism is.April 7, 2019 at 1:56 pm #41407AndrewParticipant
Missing writes: “Incremental change would be just fine if those increments lead to decreasing numbers of Americans in economic distress. That has not happened. Left party fail. Time for reform.”
and then writes something completely contradictory: ”
I personally will not vote for Trump. There are candidates who are not named Sanders, who I will vote for, should they get the nomination. There are also candidates I absolutely will not vote for, named Beto and Harris.”
So…O’Rourke or Harris would sign bills raising taxes on the wealthy pretty much for sure. Harris has already proposed a middle class tax cut, Medicare for All with no private insurance, and free college. Not sure about O’Rourke, but it would be hard to imagine him vetoing bills that make college more affordable, refinance student debt at a lower interest rate, and make health care more affordable.
Not to mention both appointing Democratic- nominated judges and Supreme Court Justices who will decide corporate and economic issues for decades…
But you would rather vote against both of them and have four more years of Trump + maybe eight years of Pence? Well, so much for supporting “incremental change” LOL!April 7, 2019 at 7:10 pm #41411
Neither of those candidates are even reasonable and prudent economic lefties. Nobody is seriously discussing extreme. Not necessary.
They are both solid neoliberals.
Neoliberal economics are the same politics that got us here, and are the politics that failed labor over 4 decades, and that did not result in those positive increments long overdue.
See the failed, middle class and labor toxic Third Way and New Democrat coalitions for more.
Now, they could, and in my view should, get after changing that perception. I welcome all of that.
Of course, should they head that direction, and do so in a meaningful way, they would begin down a road Sanders has well and convincingly traveled too. That’s rough, because Sanders has the trust they would have to garner. Tough gig. I would say I feel for them, but I really don’t.
Harris = Clinton 2.0 and not a winner. Has baggage. Beto, so far, is running a high platitude campaign and I am not convinced he actually knows what being POTUS even is.
They are both big money, weak sauce 😀
Best get behind economic ideas that are aimed right at long overdue reforms, or the risk of loss will be much higher than it needs to be.
I could tell you, no problem, blue no matter who, and it would not be representative of the political reality out there, so I just won’t.
As always, fear, blame and shame advocacy is laughable.
Tell me what people can vote for and you may have my attention.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.