Current Topics
Round Table For July 2018
by NW Ponderer
Mueller indictments
by NW Ponderer
05:58 AM
The Democratic Plan
by chunkstyle
12:26 AM
The War On Drugs
by Greger
07:24 PM
Returning rationality to public policy
by NW Ponderer
06:35 PM
Helsinki
by jgw
06:05 PM
Weep afresh, America
by Greger
02:12 AM
TrumpTrade
by jgw
07/20/18 09:08 PM
'Boy or girl?' Parents raising 'theybies' let kids decide
by pondering_it_all
07/20/18 06:25 AM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2018
by Golem
07/19/18 07:25 PM
Yes, Normal Republican Elites Are a Threat to Democracy
by Greger
07/17/18 02:15 AM
Pie Chart Fight
by chunkstyle
07/16/18 04:39 PM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by logtroll
07/16/18 12:34 AM
The Trump Precedency: the 25th Amendment
by pondering_it_all
07/14/18 10:11 PM
The End of the Independent Judiciary
by chunkstyle
07/13/18 08:40 PM
FBI Investigator
by Ujest Shurly
07/13/18 08:25 PM
Charles Oakley arrested for allegedly cheating at casino
by pondering_it_all
07/12/18 10:49 PM
The immigration thing
by NW Ponderer
07/12/18 07:05 PM
Being Uncivil to Barbarians
by Greger
07/12/18 04:48 PM
How to tell a real Trump supporter from a Russian troll
by Greger
07/12/18 04:36 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16316 Topics
280984 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3
Topic Options
#304794 - 01/02/18 09:28 PM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: chunkstyle]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13202
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
The thing is, this New Left could help inform and empower a retooled Democratic Party.
Lord knows, what they HAVE been doing has not worked, Trump getting elected is proof of that.
The New Left might not get everything they want by taking over the Democratic Party but right now they are getting crushed under the Steamroller of the Deplorables.

So the question is, will Chapo and his millennial fans ever learn arithmetic?


I'm not sure I understand your point Jeff. Millennials and Gen X'rs were a larger voting block than Boomers and the Silent Generation for the first time. That spread is only going to grow in the coming decade.

One impression I have of the 2016 election is that the two bankrupt warring factions of the right wing are fighting over the corporate donations and kick backs. This has been a demographically Boomer fight for some time now.

Gen Xrs and Millenials may raise the left wing of the political spectrum from the dead. We'll see.


Millennial voter turnout in the 2016 election?
We're going to need to a WHOLE lot better than this:




It's a sad fact that Hillary did not garner excitement among the Yutes. Bernie did. Punch up "Sanders primary rally" google image search and scroll around. Try the same thing with Hillary Clinton. Spot any differences?


No argument there but let's both admit that even had the Democratic Party NOT engaged in questionable and even borderline illegal tactics, they STILL would have done what they did, which is
PROTECT THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE.

Bernie is the one who chose NOT to JOIN the party, sorry.
You cannot expect a political party to support you when you refuse to join it. And Bernie could have REMADE the entire party if he had joined, say perhaps in 2010 or 2012.

Hillary wouldn't have stood a ghost of a chance at being nominated, or even suggested.

And yet STILL...when Bernie told his supporters to back Hillary, I WAS a good soldier and trusted his advice, because I knew the alternative was Trump.
Too many, most in the millennial camp, did NOT do that, and they have now learned what arithmetic is all about.
Some of them are attempting to justify their stupid choices (Jill Stein, writing in Bernie anyway, REVENGE voting for Trump to PUNISH DEMS) but the majority are strangely silent.

We have ONE LAST CHANCE to correct this malaise, next November. We may not get another chance in a generation.

If Gen-X and the Millennials don't get over their little
"Good is the enemy of PERFECT" obsession, it's all over.

Enter authoritarian right wing theocratic FASCISM.
It will be a very long seventy years.
_________________________
"He wakes up in the morning, ****s all over Twitter, ****s all over us, ****s all over his staff, then hits golf balls."
---Congressman Peter King

Top
#304802 - 01/03/18 01:40 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
chunkstyle Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 886
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


No argument there but let's both admit that even had the Democratic Party NOT engaged in questionable and even borderline illegal tactics, they STILL would have done what they did, which is
PROTECT THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE.

Bernie is the one who chose NOT to JOIN the party, sorry.
You cannot expect a political party to support you when you refuse to join it. And Bernie could have REMADE the entire party if he had joined, say perhaps in 2010 or 2012.

Hillary wouldn't have stood a ghost of a chance at being nominated, or even suggested.

And yet STILL...when Bernie told his supporters to back Hillary, I WAS a good soldier and trusted his advice, because I knew the alternative was Trump.
Too many, most in the millennial camp, did NOT do that, and they have now learned what arithmetic is all about.
Some of them are attempting to justify their stupid choices (Jill Stein, writing in Bernie anyway, REVENGE voting for Trump to PUNISH DEMS) but the majority are strangely silent.

We have ONE LAST CHANCE to correct this malaise, next November. We may not get another chance in a generation.

If Gen-X and the Millennials don't get over their little
"Good is the enemy of PERFECT" obsession, it's all over.

Enter authoritarian right wing theocratic FASCISM.
It will be a very long seventy years.


Ummmm....
I'm afraid you need to check your watch Jeff. It's uncomfortable to have to remind people that there was some serious rigging going on BEFORE Clinton was the official nominee. You were not only having it rigged against Sanders but against all the other candidates. A small detail but an important one. But whatever, this is old ground. Politics is a dirty game etc...
Then there's rules that are enforced on some candidates but waived for others. Those rules would be the campaign financing and sharing. But that would require an honest examination and we've got no time for that. We must rid ourselves of this GOP cabal, etc..
The strangest argument is the wayback machine argument. If only Sanders had joined the party then that would have created a set of circumstances that would have led to his being the presumptive nominee. I don't want to get into the temporal weeds with that one.
How is it Millenials fault that they lost the election for Hillary? I know several life long never trumpers that did not cast their vote for the Republican nominee. Were those numbers enough to cancel out the pouty Millenials? Dunno....
Finally, could it be possible that the Democratic nominee sucked and dragged the party down with her? Is that question even allowed yet? That maybe if she had played it like all the other Democratic candidates had to we would have gotten what we wanted and lower turnout wouldn't have played as big a role. Maybe?
No, we got the 'where ya gunna go?'. They wanted to run against Trump cause they thought they could win against such an unpalatable nominee.
You seem to want to look everywhere but at the party leadership and nominee that brought this disaster on.



Edited by chunkstyle (01/03/18 01:41 AM)

Top
#304805 - 01/03/18 01:57 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: chunkstyle]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7692
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
Sanders threw his support behind Clinton at the convention and hit the campaign trail for her PIA.


I know, and I'm not blaming Sanders for the result. I am blaming each and every one of you Sanders fans who failed to follow Sanders' endorsement and vote, or even work for Clinton. There were enough of you who didn't, to give us the abomination we have now. And all the excuses for not supporting Hillary show that loads of them fell for Republican and even Russian propaganda.

How's that hair shirt feeling?

Top
#304808 - 01/03/18 02:54 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: pondering_it_all]
chunkstyle Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 886
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Sanders threw his support behind Clinton at the convention and hit the campaign trail for her PIA.


I know, and I'm not blaming Sanders for the result. I am blaming each and every one of you Sanders fans who failed to follow Sanders' endorsement and vote, or even work for Clinton. There were enough of you who didn't, to give us the abomination we have now. And all the excuses for not supporting Hillary show that loads of them fell for Republican and even Russian propaganda.

How's that hair shirt feeling?

Top
#304809 - 01/03/18 03:19 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: jgw]
chunkstyle Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 886
That's another ridiculous projection of a candidates failed campaign onto voters that wern't buying.
She was running a crooked campaign. She couldn't be bothered to visit key states that she assumed would go to her after losing them in the primaries to sanders. Etc, etc..
Again with the Russians?
You backed a candidate that could only win a primary by rigging it. Went on and ran a crap campaign to lose the general election. This has been widely covered by reputable sources but I don't think it would do any good posting any.
This thread started with JGW's concern over a massive redistribution of wealth that is happenning with the current government. I would argue that it has been a slow walk that has just recently become a run. That it was ushered in by reagen that boomers elected and has now climaxed as the boomers political power wanes.
This carping and scapegoating is just so much wishful thinking to retain the status quo.
I believe sanders said something about that during his announcement on his intent to run.
It's not been pleasant to admit to these realities, personally speaking, and I understand it might prove impossible for others.


Edited by chunkstyle (01/03/18 03:21 AM)

Top
#304811 - 01/03/18 04:15 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: chunkstyle]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13202
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


No argument there but let's both admit that even had the Democratic Party NOT engaged in questionable and even borderline illegal tactics, they STILL would have done what they did, which is
PROTECT THE OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY CANDIDATE.

Bernie is the one who chose NOT to JOIN the party, sorry.
You cannot expect a political party to support you when you refuse to join it. And Bernie could have REMADE the entire party if he had joined, say perhaps in 2010 or 2012.

Hillary wouldn't have stood a ghost of a chance at being nominated, or even suggested.

And yet STILL...when Bernie told his supporters to back Hillary, I WAS a good soldier and trusted his advice, because I knew the alternative was Trump.
Too many, most in the millennial camp, did NOT do that, and they have now learned what arithmetic is all about.
Some of them are attempting to justify their stupid choices (Jill Stein, writing in Bernie anyway, REVENGE voting for Trump to PUNISH DEMS) but the majority are strangely silent.

We have ONE LAST CHANCE to correct this malaise, next November. We may not get another chance in a generation.

If Gen-X and the Millennials don't get over their little
"Good is the enemy of PERFECT" obsession, it's all over.

Enter authoritarian right wing theocratic FASCISM.
It will be a very long seventy years.


Ummmm....
I'm afraid you need to check your watch Jeff. It's uncomfortable to have to remind people that there was some serious rigging going on BEFORE Clinton was the official nominee. You were not only having it rigged against Sanders but against all the other candidates. A small detail but an important one. But whatever, this is old ground. Politics is a dirty game etc...
Then there's rules that are enforced on some candidates but waived for others. Those rules would be the campaign financing and sharing. But that would require an honest examination and we've got no time for that. We must rid ourselves of this GOP cabal, etc..
The strangest argument is the wayback machine argument. If only Sanders had joined the party then that would have created a set of circumstances that would have led to his being the presumptive nominee. I don't want to get into the temporal weeds with that one.
How is it Millenials fault that they lost the election for Hillary? I know several life long never trumpers that did not cast their vote for the Republican nominee. Were those numbers enough to cancel out the pouty Millenials? Dunno....
Finally, could it be possible that the Democratic nominee sucked and dragged the party down with her? Is that question even allowed yet? That maybe if she had played it like all the other Democratic candidates had to we would have gotten what we wanted and lower turnout wouldn't have played as big a role. Maybe?
No, we got the 'where ya gunna go?'. They wanted to run against Trump cause they thought they could win against such an unpalatable nominee.
You seem to want to look everywhere but at the party leadership and nominee that brought this disaster on.



No not true, I said "no argument there".
In fact, I've also said "I grant you EVERYTHING", not just to you but to several others who have posted similar thoughts.
That LEAVES ME WITH the "wayback machine" argument and your reluctance to think about it.

Why?

I have and HAD no doubts about Bernie's mojo even before he announced. And I have no doubt he could have almost singlehandedly crowdsourced the money needed to do a "Tea Party STYLE" ROUT on the Democratic leadership and that would have set the stage for everything else.
Now all we've done is kick the can down the road and we're STILL STUCK with the same moribund clowns that we had before in the DNC.
FACT: Unless we GET RID of those sad sacks of crap, there will be no winning on the Democratic side, and we have one last chance to do it.

So my "wayback machine" argument is the best damn argument there is, because it is the ONLY argument which is both "way back" AND PRESENT F****ING DAY,as in "right now", as in "we better damn well get about the business of doing exactly that if we want winning leadership for 2018 and 2020."
Just trotting out one more neoliberal Third Way appeasing ass hat isn't going to beat the GOP.

Joe Biden? Tim Kaine? Who is going to stump for the Dems this year and in 2020? Who is going to be announced as the presumptive nominee?
Are we going to haul out John Kerry again?
Fer Chrissakes, we need to do something drastic so that liberal voters everywhere can see that it's a new party, with a new vision.

So do not discount my wayback machine argument because it's not JUST about the past, it's also very much about the future.
_________________________
"He wakes up in the morning, ****s all over Twitter, ****s all over us, ****s all over his staff, then hits golf balls."
---Congressman Peter King

Top
#304910 - 01/06/18 02:42 AM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: pondering_it_all]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 13202
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
Sanders threw his support behind Clinton at the convention and hit the campaign trail for her PIA.


I know, and I'm not blaming Sanders for the result. I am blaming each and every one of you Sanders fans who failed to follow Sanders' endorsement and vote, or even work for Clinton. There were enough of you who didn't, to give us the abomination we have now. And all the excuses for not supporting Hillary show that loads of them fell for Republican and even Russian propaganda.

How's that hair shirt feeling?


I was a good soldier and followed Bernie's advice.
I wasn't thrilled about it, I was disappointed that Bernie hadn't pivoted and joined the party anyway but I was further disappointed, and angry, at the party. But I wasn't surprised, because they did what parties do, they protected their candidate. They went way too far, but the fact is, Bernie wasn't a Democrat and "she" was.

But I held my nose and pulled the D lever, because I was terrified at the R lever's outcome, which has been proven to be way worse than anything the tepid Hillary shill would ever pull.

It's simple electoral arithmetic, and we can't change the arithmetic unless we change the system that it is based upon.
_________________________
"He wakes up in the morning, ****s all over Twitter, ****s all over us, ****s all over his staff, then hits golf balls."
---Congressman Peter King

Top
#304921 - 01/06/18 07:31 PM Re: the biggest redistribution of wealth [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2033
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
I have said it before, instead of dealing with political parties voters have to decide what side the candidate is on. If, for instance, you are not right to life, but are liberal/progressive/, or even middle of the road then pick the candidate that is most closely aligned with you on the greatest number of items. I know, for instance, people who are flat against abortion, irregardless of anything else, so they vote on that issue and ignore all others. Several voted for Trump, for that reason, and they now have serious buyers remorse. The so called, liberals/progressives that voted for Trump are in the same boat. They didn't get their way so they voted in the lying jackass. That was, I think, a very real education, for many, that votes counts and tossing it because you are in a snit is not the best way to decide your voting decisions, especially given what the result of that is.

So, again, voters have to vote for them that agree most with their own system of beliefs and leave the single issues for another day. For me the issue is simple as Trump now has a track record and if a candidate is for entitlements, public schools, regulations to rein in the greedy, regulations to better the environment, a social net for the needy, etc. I would vote for that one. The other side, incidentally, believes in NONE of that stuff (which is, I think, pretty important that folks understand. I put that in as I am finding that many people don't understand, exactly, what the Republicans and the Right actually are against and they are making no bones about it. I also believe in political moderation rather than flying out in left field but that's just me.

Trump is, incidentally, incredibly good at a political shell game so its almost impossible to tell what he is going to do by relying on his mouth and twitters. Those are just obfuscations. The facts, however, do tell us just whatever he is going to do next is not gonna fill any liberal/progressive with any enthusiasm for the man. Currently the department of energy is looting the nation whilst destoying that agency, the department of education is doing all it can to destroy public education, the department of protection of the environment is doing all it can to destroy itself, any healthcare provided by gov is at serious risk, military spending is up by billions, the IRS is so short handed that they are actually collection less than 75% of what they should be, etc. I won't even go into the federal court system changes and there is much more than this stuff. I think, in other words, that its pretty simple to understand who one should vote for based on their own preferences instead of being in a snit.

The trick, of course, is how to get the American public to understand what is going on and getting off their collective butts to vote.



Edited by jgw (01/06/18 07:33 PM)

Top
Page 3 of 3 < 1 2 3

Who's Online
0 registered (), 42 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2