Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan;190e the 9884
Being under Labour control (currently), free prescription is one of the few useful things the Senedd (welsh parliament) has done (though I still think it's a house of snakes built to divide and conquer)!
Bye Bye, Bernie, bye bye. One can only hope so.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...n-donald-trump
I think Bernie deserves credit for taking useful ideas that were once considered too radical for mainstream American politics and helping to popularize them. He has been at the forefront when it comes to discussing economic inequality, deficiencies in our health care system, and the need for more accessible higher education. These are things you see throughout many developed countries and the U.S. has lagged behind other countries when it comes to caring for our poor and sick, and enabling economic mobility with a progressive tax system and accessible education.
However, I think his movement has faltered because of his egotism. He seems to have disdain for many other Democrats, some who maybe deserve it, and others who would be amenable to his ideas. He is also, as the article Stavros linked, not great when it comes to social issues because they don't fit within his paradigm for understanding social problems. Bernie has made very obtuse statements about civil rights, and he seems to think class and economic status are primary causes of all social problems. We've had slavery within this country, and yes one can think of it in economic terms, but there is so much more there. There is so much more to bigotry, whether it's homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-black racism, xenophobia, transphobia and sexism than an economic relation.
My favorite candidate is still probably Elizabeth Warren. Notwithstanding her backsliding on some of her commitments she has proposed a lot of aggressive reforms to increase corporate accountability and to make our tax system more fair. I do think she is not especially charismatic and I don't think I'm saying that because I've pigeonholed women in some way. That's just always been my impression.
Anyhow, I think it's likely we end up with Joe Biden as our candidate. He would be a big improvement from Trump, but he doesn't offer anything exciting.
Apparently Micheal Bloomberg is going to run an anti-gun commercial during the Super Bowl tomorrow night. Talk about not knowing your audience.
Between that, Elizabeth Warren talking about having a high school student interview candidates for the Secretary of Education, and the anti-MTA and police rallies here in NYC, its almost like some liberals want 4 more years of Trump.
I assume he's running those ads because it's the biggest audience, and they're not all gun nuts. Do you suggest he only run ads to people who already support gun controls? Incidentally, why do you insist on referring to pro-gun control policies as anti-gun - essentially echoing the gun lobby's rhetoric?Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Are you even a Democrat supporter? You seem to be focused mainly on criticising them rather than the other side, often using the other side's talking points - eg "anti-gun", "far left". Your idea of a winning strategy seems to be that Democrats should be as inoffensive as possible and avoid taking a firm position on anything that would not go down well in Trumpland. What do you actually believe in?
I have voted Democrat in every election since 1992. I'm moderate who leans left on certain issues. I have also made my feelings clear about being pro-gun control in the past. The reason why I'm criticizing them is because some of them don't seem to have learn anything from 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I'm a realist who realizes that if that Democrats are going win in November, they're going to have win back some of the voters they lost in 2016. Its not about being inoffensive, its about knowing which issues you can win on with those voters and which ones that you're not. Gun control isn't one of them.
In other ones, yes only run ads to people who already support gun control. The Democrats have already won on that issue with their base and independents who support it.
Okay, but if now is not the right time to mention gun control, when will be the right time? If it's too risky to raise now, won't it also be too risky at any point in the future, as there's always another election coming? Your argument sounds like a recipe for perpetual inaction. Supposing Democrats won the Presidency and both houses after running quiet on gun control. Wouldn't you then be telling us that they shouldn't try to legislate because there would be too much risk of a backlash?
Also, what are you suggesting to win back the voters who switched to Trump? Presumably they voted for him because they weren't happy with the status quo; in particular, because they were being left behind economically. That suggests that the Democrats need to run on something more than just not being Trump, that they need policies to spread the gains more evenly.
I appreciate your posts but have sometimes had the same question. You often show you're a reasonable person, which is good and important, but then I wonder what in the Democratic program is indispensable to you. At what point would a concession by Democrats to win votes change the character of the party so much that we're giving up the things we're fighting for? I ask myself the same question because the Democratic party winning is so important to me but I want to know what we win.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I also think the issues Democrats run on need to be calibrated so that we're creating an impact but also pulling away the right slice of the voters to win elections. If you don't mind me asking, who do you like so far? If it's Biden I will agree that what he offers is significantly different from what Trump offers, even if it isn't bold or inspiring.
I agree with this mostly. The reason the center sometimes seems appealing is that I think to myself, aren't there a lot of people who would want assurance that we don't implement a racist immigration policy, that we don't have a dangerous and volatile foreign policy, and that we don't appoint Justices who roll back women's and lgbt rights, even without more? But voter turnout matters as well and there are people who will not vote for the Democratic party if they're not offered better social safety net or a more inspiring program that goes further than the Obama years and does more than undo damage inflicted by Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I suppose the question is whether what Bernie offers is what the people need and want. He proposes far-reaching taxes on wealth, medicare for all, free college tuition, national rent control, breaking up big banks, and more. Yes, it's more inspiring than the status quo, but I wonder if there are some people concerned about whether he would in the long-run leave room for market forces (I believe in pervasive regulation but think it should leave room for businesses to operate; I'm not certain Bernie threatens that, but he doesn't exactly make clear what he thinks the role of the state is in regulating business). Does Bernie limit himself to what is politically attainable?