Elections "Democrats' Basic Message Should Be Respect for Workers" Sherrod Brown 2020?

[HunterSdVa29]

It was actually Clinton's proposal for the minimum wage ($12) that was the most popular iirc, just for the record. But yeah the energy brought out by Bernie had a positive effect. I don't know if it was so much a reluctance to change as it was the popularity of the ideas increased, and those ideas were incorporated responsibly into the platform by the Dem establishment, and that success is part of what motivated a wide range of candidates to do well in 2018.

I don't think there's as major of a problem in the Democratic Party with feeling beholden to corporate donors (this really seems over-confidently-stated by most people), I think it's more the lack of popular interest and motivation, and now that there is interest and motivation, the changes happen. Even without that Bernie energy though, the Democrats have been fighting this right-to-work union busting for a long time, and unfortunately, that broke apart in the Supreme Court, which lawmakers can't do anything about. They fight for health and safety regulations, fight against the plot to privatize Social Security, they fight for employer-provided healthcare, and just a really long list of things.

So why would the DNC vote to ban campaign contributions from Oil/Gas companies this summer, and then vote unanimously to overturn that and take money?

Are they clearly not the party that favors climate change initiatives? Then why take money from oil and gas?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I am impressed by the indefatigable shilling you do here on behalf of the corporate donor class. You're like an NRA member but if guns were corporate lobbyists.

Very persuasive argument. Countering that is all the evidence, but you know, only us big poopyheads bother with stuff like that.

 

[Joe265]

Manipulative marketing slogans. Another tool to shape public perception.

 

[VivaRevolution]

They're not progressive if they cave to the pressure of corporate dems.

And actually, yes, the working class wants the 1% to pay their fair share of taxes and to regulate wall street/big business.

Radically increased government spending/deficit- like the current policy and the policy of the past 5+ administrations? It remains to be seen if progressives are all talk regarding this but they certainly couldn't possibly be more hyproctical than their predecessors.

I agree that increased taxes for the 0.01% needs to happen, but not to pay for things. I want that, so that it is very difficult to ever become so rich, you can afford to spend billions buying influence.

I think it is key to talk about the trip ions of dollars the Pentagon can't account for, and the trillions of dollars in fraud the bankers engage in.

We could fund Medicare for all with the theft that is going on in our government.

 

[Fawlty]

So why would the DNC vote to ban campaign contributions from Oil/Gas companies this summer, and then vote unanimously to overturn that and take money?

Are they clearly not the party that favors climate change initiatives? Then why take money from oil and gas?

Oil workers took it as an attack on labor, and that seems to be what changed the DNC's mind. It's controversial. There are differing opinions and it's an interesting debate. And this is a terrible example of being beholden. Isn't this sort of conflict of values with lots of debate and discussion pretty much the opposite of "beholden?"

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oil workers took it as an attack on labor, and that seems to be what changed the DNC's mind. It's controversial. There are differing opinions and it's an interesting debate. And this is a terrible example of being beholden. Isn't this sort of conflict of values with lots of debate and discussion pretty much the opposite of "beholden?"

One thing that stands out among a lot of the lesser posters here is that they have no understanding of the idea of intellectual struggle--that there can be different persuasive arguments that you need to examine to reach a conclusion. It's just automatically toe the party line or you're a monster.

 

[xcvbn]

Corporations wouldn't have to be doing things out of the goodness of their hearts though. Even if they're just supporting Democrats because they believe in democratic political philosophy (which is maybe the purest motive), that's not out of the goodness of their hearts, that's a preference.

And if there was a strong relationship between donations and favorable legislation, the donations would be a lot more than what they are now. Compare capital investments to political investments. Clearly the political investments are not where the action is, there isn't much return. If the return was super high, the investment would increase.

I think it's a lot more dangerous to presuppose massive conspiracies without good evidence. In general I think all of this stuff is way overstated, the hatred for (and fear of) corporations is over the top. Not that I love corporate environments, greed, etc. I don't do well playing that game and I don't feel good playing it.

The denial is fucking mindboggling and you wonder why you get a Donald Trump as president

 

[xcvbn]

Oil workers took it as an attack on labor, and that seems to be what changed the DNC's mind. It's controversial. There are differing opinions and it's an interesting debate. And this is a terrible example of being beholden. Isn't this sort of conflict of values with lots of debate and discussion pretty much the opposite of "beholden?"

Lmao you cant be serious dude

 

[Fawlty]

Lmao you cant be serious dude

Do I have the facts wrong? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. There was backlash from labor, so the DNC changed their mind, and now there's backlash from anti-oil. I'd call that a tough spot, wouldn't you?

 

[Fawlty]

The denial is fucking mindboggling and you wonder why you get a Donald Trump as president

Okay, looks like you're losing me here. To be fair, I predicted it at the start of the exchange. I tried though.

 

[xcvbn]

Do I have the facts wrong? I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened. There was backlash from labor, so the DNC changed their mind, and now there's backlash from anti-oil. I'd call that a tough spot, wouldn't you?

I'd say it's not having a backbone and caving to- ah fuck it. Just do me a favor and stop bitching about Trump. You and your lot have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Oil workers took it as an attack on labor, and that seems to be what changed the DNC's mind. It's controversial. There are differing opinions and it's an interesting debate. And this is a terrible example of being beholden. Isn't this sort of conflict of values with lots of debate and discussion pretty much the opposite of "beholden?"

it was a UNAN vote my dude, not exactly a lot of debate or discussion

 

[xcvbn]

Okay, looks like you're losing me here. To be fair, I predicted it at the start of the exchange. I tried though.

Unfortunately you're lost in more ways than one.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Absolutely lost at 'lesser posters here' like JVS is some decreer of a posters worth or something

hahahahahhaahahhaha + hahahahahahahahahahah = hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha

 

[Fawlty]

I'd say it's not having a backbone and caving to- ah fuck it. Just do me a favor and stop bitching about Trump. You and your lot have no one to blame but yourselves.

I'm obviously not going to stop criticizing bad actions or policies by Trump just because we have an irreconcilable disagreement about the DNC's controversial handling of a small but difficult situation involving conflicting values between labor and renewable energy interests. I don't have a dog in that fight, but just because you do does not give your feelings some magical transitive property of me being wrong about other things.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Very persuasive argument. Countering that is all the evidence, but you know, only us big poopyheads bother with stuff like that.

You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough.

Hmm. First let me note that this is unresponsive to the point you were responding to. Second, note that if people believed that campaign finance was really effective in swinging elections, we'd be seeing a lot more of it, as the value (even of being able to predict policy) would far outweigh the costs. Third, note that the evidence exists whether it angers you or not. And lastly, your argument implies that all products that people spend money on are effective. People pay to use magnets for performance-enhancement. The supplement and weight-loss industries are huge and largely ineffective. Etc. Bad assumption.

 

[xcvbn]

You should write the corporate concerns pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money into the election or defeat of federal political candidates and tell them they're actually having no effect on outcomes. Make sure and show them your "evidence", too. You could help save those fellas a lot of dough.

Hundreds of millions is nothing but a waste of time. Everyone knows real corruption doesn't start until you hit billions.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Hmm. First let me note that this is unresponsive to the point you were responding to. Second, note that if people believed that campaign finance was really effective in swinging elections, we'd be seeing a lot more of it, as the value (even of being able to predict policy) would far outweigh the costs. Third, note that the evidence exists whether it angers you or not. And lastly, your argument implies that all products that people spend money on are effective. People pay to use magnets for performance-enhancement. The supplement and weight-loss industries are huge and largely ineffective. Etc. Bad assumption.

Political candidates and policy items are just like cars and soda pop. The more effective and broad the marketing strategy the more likely they are to get purchased by the public. There is no great mystery involved.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Political candidates and policy items are just like cars and soda pop. The more effective and broad the marketing strategy the more likely they are to get purchased by the public. There is no great mystery involved.

Does the fact that people spend money on soda pop prove that it really makes you younger and hipper and that it really has the power to heal social divisions? I'd say at least that you have to independently evaluate those claims and not simply assume that it does.