Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (twelve years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (twelve years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (twelve years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (twelve years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (twelve years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (twelve years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (twelve years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (twelve years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (twelve years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (twelve years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (twelve years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (twelve years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (twelve years ago) Permalink

Military spending isn’t pro war.

you're delusional and I'm done negotiating with you in good faith

you clearly represent the worst sort of liberal politics, which I reject

good luck selling millenials on this garbage

sleeve, Friday, 21 September 2018 13:58 (three days ago) Permalink

fuckin Gabbneb Mk II up in here, even the condescension is the same

sleeve, Friday, 21 September 2018 13:59 (three days ago) Permalink

You didn’t know what the Iran Deal is.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 14:14 (three days ago) Permalink

Having the appropriate knowledge or opinion of the Iran Deal surely shouldn't be a pre-requisite of getting an answer as to why its a good idea for Democrats to vote for increased military spending though?

anvil, Friday, 21 September 2018 14:27 (three days ago) Permalink

If i was pro iran deal, anti iran deal, or though the iran deal was card game, I still should be able to get a straight answer to this question!

anvil, Friday, 21 September 2018 14:29 (three days ago) Permalink

That Nerdstrom interprets "what's that got to do with it?" as "I don't know what that is" doesn't say much for their reading comprehension, frankly.

Daniel_Rf, Friday, 21 September 2018 14:29 (three days ago) Permalink

so far the only coherent defense for voting "yea" on this seems to be "jobs!". wonder if there's some other job-creating projects that might help counter the stuff that's actually way, way more likely to kill us all than anything the military-industrial complex can handle.

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Friday, 21 September 2018 14:31 (three days ago) Permalink

build ten million units of high-quality public housing in ten years, replace every lead water main in the nation, clean up a thousand superfund sites, build fifty new transit systems and address long-deferred system expansions in existing ones. build a thousand solar power plants, restore and improve ten thousand neighborhood parks, build a million new elementary schools to reduce crowding. call it the "war on everything being all worn out and shitty all the time." or the "war on three decades of pretending there is no money for any of these things."

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 21 September 2018 14:42 (three days ago) Permalink

Doc for prez

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Friday, 21 September 2018 14:42 (three days ago) Permalink

i've already secured the most critical endorsement

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 21 September 2018 14:43 (three days ago) Permalink

but convincing middle ILMerica is another ball game and if our polling model is to be trusted i face an uphill battle

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 21 September 2018 14:44 (three days ago) Permalink

shouldn't we be taking that money and giving it all away in one big megajackpot lotto drawing?

Karl Malone, Friday, 21 September 2018 15:16 (three days ago) Permalink

Doc Casino, I like your version of Infrastructure Week.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 21 September 2018 20:19 (three days ago) Permalink

sadly it is a watered down, corporate-dem shell in comparison to the earlier, more ambitious program laid out in the basic income thread some months back. the campaign trail has just been one long sellout.

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 21 September 2018 20:38 (three days ago) Permalink

love the mastery with which complexity is shell gamed into a pudding politic itt

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:16 (three days ago) Permalink

"the largest and most lethal employer on the planet is complicated, you guys, lets not raise questions about whether endlessly inflating their budget could have anything to do with 20 years of war"

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:18 (three days ago) Permalink

Military spending isn’t pro war. It’s very distinct from decisions related to intervention.

This is hilarious, did you manage to keep a straight face while typing it?

louise ck (milo z), Friday, 21 September 2018 21:19 (three days ago) Permalink

the largest and most lethal employer on the planet

new board description?

crüt, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:22 (three days ago) Permalink

by the way nerdstrom just to inoculate in advance i've been complaining about the NDAA for 15 years and built digital infrastructure enabling thousands of constituent calls to demand saving the iran deal so don't fucking try it with me

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:23 (three days ago) Permalink

Great. Glad you agree with me saying saving the deal was way more important than this spending bill.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:26 (three days ago) Permalink

v convenient that this unpleasant & condescending poster is called Nerdstrom Poindexter

crüt, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:29 (three days ago) Permalink

Woah hey that’s out of line.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:35 (three days ago) Permalink

saving the deal was way more important than this spending bill

How are they mutually exclusive, again?

louise ck (milo z), Friday, 21 September 2018 21:37 (three days ago) Permalink

Woah hey that’s out of line.

― Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, September 21, 2018 4:35 PM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you named yourself, man

nba jungboy (voodoo chili), Friday, 21 September 2018 21:41 (three days ago) Permalink

Doesn’t matter. Crut’s post was a transgression against the standards of this great community.

Xpost The “primary everyone” post about it is extremely stock ”both parties are the same”. I’ve found (anecdotally) that most people who get loudly worked up about stuff like that didnt seem to care about the Iran Deal, which is interesting imo.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 21:48 (three days ago) Permalink

Get a new shtick, this one is boring

faculty w1fe (silby), Friday, 21 September 2018 22:16 (three days ago) Permalink

fwiw i have no idea how you get from "primary everyone" to "both parties are the same." i feel like this only makes sense if you're refusing to believe posters who tell you they perceive these politicians as being "good" on some issues and "bad" on others... like if you were ignoring those posts or reading them as "i see these politicians as all-bad" then i guess you could get to "i see these politicians as indistinguishable from republicans"........... i guess. or are you saying that a democrat being primaried equals a win for a republican and so that would only make sense if someone thought both parties are the same....... i mean this is a lot of work so maybe it'd be better to start from assuming people mean the actual thing they type rather than some other position that they didn't, ymmv tho

|Restore| |Restart| |Quit| (Doctor Casino), Friday, 21 September 2018 22:27 (three days ago) Permalink

The initial “primary everyone” post and subsequent defenses of it had nothing remotely close to reasonable mentality of “these politicians are good on some things but bad on others” so no I can’t refuse to believe something no one told me.

If you’re not treating “vote out the GOP” as an imperative now with stakes as high as possible and letting one spending bill turn you into an Intercept comment section then yeah you’re helping the GOP.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 23:05 (three days ago) Permalink

I’ve found (anecdotally) that most people who get loudly worked up about stuff like that didnt seem to care about the Iran Deal, which is interesting imo.

No, you haven't.

louise ck (milo z), Friday, 21 September 2018 23:28 (three days ago) Permalink

Yes, I have. The posts by Sleeve for example (which you might have seen and are in this very thread) represent this exact type.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 21 September 2018 23:50 (three days ago) Permalink

ah, so by 'anecdotal people' you meant 'phantoms I've created in my head.'

No one posting in this thread doesn't care about the Iran Deal, it appears that you're just the only person who considers the issues mutually exclusive.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 22 September 2018 00:01 (two days ago) Permalink

Sure

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 22 September 2018 00:11 (two days ago) Permalink

Nerdlinger isn't wrong that the Jill Stein types who will readily holler about the NDAA have a myopic high volume disdain for anything related to the Obama legacy and so might not leap to defend the Iran deal.

Where Nerdlinger is wrong is in imagining these are the same people interested in primarying Democrats. If anything these people tend to think the Dems are a fool's game. The people working to shift the party have wholly separate motivations, intentions, strategies and key players. By repeatedly conflating the two Nerdy is just slipping on his own banana peel over and over.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 22 September 2018 01:16 (two days ago) Permalink

So for God's sake shut the fuck up already

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 22 September 2018 01:17 (two days ago) Permalink

hoos u clearly been spending more time on your sweet science lately than your meditation practice

: o

j., Saturday, 22 September 2018 01:31 (two days ago) Permalink

No @Hoosteen. Sleeeve’s posts in this thread exist so we can just agree that it’s extremely a thing.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 22 September 2018 01:51 (two days ago) Permalink

pugilistic hoos is one of my favorite sides of the variegated hoos

gbx, Saturday, 22 September 2018 01:55 (two days ago) Permalink

love the "one person's arguments on a message board means there's a monolith out there" approach to argumentation

wayne trotsky (Simon H.), Saturday, 22 September 2018 02:07 (two days ago) Permalink

I guess that’s better than weirdly denying his arguments were obviously indicative of that point of view.

Maybe there are odd emotional ties on here because he poured his heart out on a strokes thread fifteen years ago or something.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Saturday, 22 September 2018 02:12 (two days ago) Permalink

JFC, the drama in these political threads lately has been unbearable.

Darin, Saturday, 22 September 2018 02:31 (two days ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something
― ,,, Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:02 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something
― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:07 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

fuck the NRA (Neanderthal), Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:00 (two days ago) Permalink

I don't normally like doing this because I think people who are pro-x are better placed to make that argument than have people who are anti-x paraphrase the pro-x people's argument for them, but as I've been unable to find anyone who is willing to explain exactly why they think its a good thing the Democrats voted for this bill, can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

Actually infuriated by this now!

Not by the bill but the seemingly impossible task of having ANYONE FUCKING EXPLAIN IT PROPERLY. I feel like the butt of an elaborate joke:(

anvil, Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:03 (two days ago) Permalink

imwithherdstrom flackdexter

k3vin k., Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:11 (two days ago) Permalink

Xpost

I’m on my phone so this will be mercifully short, but I would think that it’s a combo of a) military spending not being a top-tier issue for most of the democratic base right now (as far as I can see), b) many democrats being fine with high military spending and warmongering in general as long as it doesn’t make many headlines, and c) not wanting to make a controversial big stand against it when d) the expected outcome of doing what they’re already doing is a wave election victory.

In other words, apathy and politics

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:41 (two days ago) Permalink

Keep in mind I’m just some random guy, not someone who knows things

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:42 (two days ago) Permalink

For you, Anvil.

One of the unfortunate political constants since Pearl Harbor has been that the bulk of US voters tend to view any Congressional rep voting against the military budget, no matter how principled or reasonable the argument they make for that negative vote, as evidence for a lack of patriotism in said rep. The portion of the populace which agrees with the idea that the military budget requires vigilant scrutiny and some serious trimming down may be large in raw numbers, but they are nowhere near forming a majority, except in a few places in the country.

For the above stated reasons, Democrats in all but the most progressive districts or states, do not wish to be viewed as lacking in patriotism or sound judgment by those whose votes they must win. This may not count as a "good" reason for voting for the bill, but the Democratic politicians whose jobs are on the line find it to be a sufficient reason. QED.

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:46 (two days ago) Permalink

can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

Another way of looking at is, can anyone make a good (political) argument as to why they wouldn’t vote for the spending bill (other than, you know, having a conscience) given that they won’t be punished for their vote during the elections, and the risk is pissing off all their contractor friends and wealthy donators? Unless the lowly common people put consistent political pressure on them to not vote for this shit, we end up with only Bernie Sanders + libertarians taking a stand

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:48 (two days ago) Permalink

xpost

Karl Malone, Saturday, 22 September 2018 04:48 (two days ago) Permalink

as I've been unable to find anyone who is willing to explain exactly why they think its a good thing the Democrats voted for this bill, can anyone else make as good a faith argument as possible as to why they've done this?

The defense I saw focused on other parts of the spending bill - more money for some good things, no increase for DHS, no wall, it was going to pass anyway.

That defense might have been in this thread but something keeps breaking when I try to load all 6500 messages.

louise ck (milo z), Saturday, 22 September 2018 05:10 (two days ago) Permalink

Thanks Karl/Aimless! Appreciate the efforts....I mean, I assumed something along these lines. And i think if 'some' or even 'most' had voted for it, I may not have even batted an eyelid. it was the fact that ALL of them voted for it, it just seemed a really bad look!

I think i've obviously misread the situation!

can anyone make a good (political) argument as to why they wouldn’t vote for the spending bill

Well, this is what I had (previously?) thought. Please correct where I have gone wrong

a) Timing. They might be punished. Voters that stay home in mid-terms instead of voting. and mid-terms are lower turnouts and all the numbers count. and 'we're energized and ready to fight Trump' loses some credibility in signing up to this in such large numbers.

b) Significant numbers of people across political spectrum wanting to 'bring the troops home', for a variety of reasons. Trump made it significant plank of his campaigning. Hilary/Dems seemingly damaged as 'the war party'. Seemed political mileage in this!

c) Show that they arent 'all the same', which rightly or wrongly has to be the number one active contributor to low turnout?

d) if its such a good idea, why do none of them (that ive seen) even mention it on their twitters or whatever, when they are leaving themselves open to attack/flak on it? If its such a good vote winner why aren't they trumpeting their achievement in voting for it. Its like they want to brush it under carpet - which suggests the opposite is fanfare worthy, and why not do the fanfare worthy and get the high fives?

I'm obviously completely naive about this, but it felt like the world had changed since...2014 or whenever. Like i'm actually genuinely surprised they went for it in such large numbers and right before the midterms

anvil, Saturday, 22 September 2018 05:28 (two days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.