What is the democratic message?

[Trotsky]

What impressed you most: Obama's refusal to punish Wall Street execs for tanking the economy? His refusal to advocate in any way for Card Check, a law that would have been an unbelievable boon to the labor movement? Or using the NOC to direct the aggressive police crackdown on the Occupy movement?

With perhaps the exception of positions on a few social issues, the policy differences between Mitt and Barack are indeed negligible.

Your logic is that, because he wasn't full-left on every single policy issue and is therefore susceptible to anecdotal quips, he is just as far right as a Republican. That is a stupid claim. Obama was discernibly left of GOP policy on every single issue. And was in fact left of most of his own party, including figures like Clinton, Schumer, and Booker. Like I said, just look at the recent actions of the NLRB for insights into the many, hugely important to American workers, policies Obama's administration progressively advocated.

Hell, Obama was getting flack from Democrats for being too hard on Big Finance.



And even Cory Booker, a Democrat near the center of the party's policy distribution, is a far cry from the deregulatory and shameless policies of the GOP in this area.

The same goes for immigration (redirecting enforcement away from the interior and toward the border, ending workplace raids and focusing on reviewing tax/labor records), healthcare (applying the squeeze to insurance profit margins and taxing the rich to improve coverage quality, improve amount of Americans cover, and slowing costs), environmental regulation (expanding CERCLA and imposing greater emission standards), and tons of other areas.

 

[Trotsky]

But where was the coalition when he ran for President? That's a really interesting juxtaposition- you're right that he was good at getting people to work together. But when it's his "radical" platform against the much more agreeable Hillary platform, he doesn't have the coalition that she has. He has a big chunk of the voting public, and he ran on popular, plurality rhetoric that doesn't win over independents.

What.....what election did you watch?

Hillary's platform was not "much more agreeable." Sanders, when taking into consideration unfavorablility, polled much better with independents than Clinton, and he also borrowed support from libertarians, anti-establishments, a re-invigorated labor movement that ended up largely switching to the GOP, and previously disaffected leftists. That's why Sanders routed Clinton in open primary and caucus states, while Clinton cleaned up in closed primaries and in the Deep South, where hopeful political rhetoric is only ripe if you have a foot on the neck of a black person.

Clinton's platform was tasteless, cynical, tone-deaf, and rudderless, if given the keys to the presidency, would have been doomed to gridlock by virtue of the vitriol that she inspires in GOP lawmakers. And being stuck in 2016, with a gridlocked Congress and American public captivated by fearmongering over Killary would certainly be preferable to a Trump presidency, but it would offer no realistic possibility for more effective policy making imo.

 

[Fluffernutter]

All parties need a clear message that's attractive. I'm independent. But have to admit Republicans seem to have a better message for the masses. The American dream, freedoms, etc...

Democrats seem to always seem to be very negative: the system is rigged, racism.

Democrats need a better message. What do you think?

"What makes us different is more important than what makes us similar"

 

[franklinstower]

What impressed you most: Obama's refusal to punish Wall Street execs for tanking the economy? His refusal to advocate in any way for Card Check, a law that would have been an unbelievable boon to the labor movement? Or using the NOC to direct the aggressive police crackdown on the Occupy movement?

With perhaps the exception of positions on a few social issues, the policy differences between Mitt and Barack are indeed negligible.

Deeply disappointed in Obama myself and I was a believer. All Obama was is less evil and corrupt than republicans. Fuck Obama. Noam Chomsky said if you ever did buy his bullshit you were stupid because all you had to do was look at who his donors were.....

The Democrats have utterly lost their way and no longer represent the middle class in any way that has teeth of any kind. They have been corrupted by money in politics.

 

[VivaRevolution]

I wouldn't call him a unifying voice at all. He's a discordant, radical voice within our politics. Rightly popular, but he's not building a coalition, he's leading a crowd.

I see alot of bi-partisan support for Bernie. I swear if Bernie would come out in clear support of 2A, I know 5-10 life long republicans that would vote for him.

 

[Prex32]

just watch the oscars and it should be clear

 

[machidafan99]

This is excellent.

My only hope is that it helps educate the mouth-breathers on the right who want to pretend that Obama was some sort of radical Marxist. Obama was a bought and paid for corporate shill (just like Mitt) who traded on his race to buy support and credibility with those on the real left.

There's an equal amount of "mouth-breathers" on both sides. Only independent thinkers seem to have a clue.

 

[machidafan99]

Booker is a facking joke.

 

[luckyshot]

Fawlt I think the glaring problem is the democrats don’t have “that one person” spreading their message.

You need a face people can rally behind.

I'm not sure how that would even happen before the next pres. primary. And I would be suspicious of any unifying voice right now, like if Cory Booker all of a sudden got put up as the voice of the Democrats.

This.

I mean, where was Trump in 2014? He was still filming the Celebrity Apprentice, right?

Where was Obama until he upset Hillary in the primary in 2008?

 

[luckyshot]

This is excellent.

My only hope is that it helps educate the mouth-breathers on the right who want to pretend that Obama was some sort of radical Marxist. Obama was a bought and paid for corporate shill (just like Mitt) who traded on his race to buy support and credibility with those on the real left.

This is the ludicrous both sides-ism that I would generally expect from people much dumber than you.

If you actually look at Obama's policies, it is quite clear that he was far from "bought and paid for corporate shill" and that he was much, much better for working people than Mitt or McCain would have been.

Hell, just look at the all the moves Trump's National Labor Relations Board is making in reversing all of the Obama-era protections for workers and unions.


The "Obama is a radical Marxist" crowd is really fucking stupid, but the "Republicans and Democrats are the same" crowd is even more so.

Both Democrats and Republicans serve some of the same corporatist interests.

For example:

Progressives in the Democratic Party are outraged after 13 Democrats voted against an amendment that would have allowed Americans to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada, saying it’s a sign that Big Pharma has too much power in the party.

The amendment, drafted by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, would “establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to lower prescription drug prices for Americans by importing drugs from Canada.”

Progressives vented their anger on social media, focusing particular ire on Sen. Cory Booker, who only hours earlier had positioned himself as a progressive fighter by becoming the first senator to testify against a sitting colleague at Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions’ confirmation hearing to be attorney general in the incoming Donald Trump administration.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/pharma-booker-canada

But just because there is an overarching corportist element of both parties, doesn't mean that the Democratic platform isn't different from the Republican platform in *significant* ways.

Here's the truth: the Democratic party is at a real crossroads in 2020. It has two choices:

1. Go with a business-as-usual corporatist who will appeal to the Democratic demographics and rely on the anyone-but-Trump sentiment. ie. Cory Booker.

2. Nominate a REAL progressive and generate massive enthusiasm for populist policies that-- unlike Trumpian populism-- would actually benefit people.

I clearly hope voters in primaries choose option two. And I hope Democratic super-delegates allow that to happen. But here is the other truth: even the most establishment-friendly Democrat possible would still be better than the GOP regime.

Put it this way, even if the Democratic ticket in 2020 was Corey Booker and Nancy Pelosi, Scott Pruit wouldn't be their choice for fucking head of the EPA.

Know what I mean?

 

[MMAViewer]

Citizens United has affected the message of both parties and is destroying the political discourse in the US. It is like steroids for identity political Olympics.

Here's their message but they can't say it with all the money stuffed in their mouths....
Campaign finance reform, tax loophole reform, illegal hiring issues, sensible gun control, prescription drug reform, continue the aca, reduce secondary education costs, increase teachers pay by 50%. Increase military pay by 35%. Regulate insurance profits and bank/lender risks. Cyber security focus.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

Actually very interesting...

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You obviously aren't the intended recipient of the Democratic message.

I'm a voter.

The purpose of a political party is to reach as many people as possible, in the hopes that they vote for you.

Like I said, those are areas where there are fundamental disagreements with the right.

And for the most part, I demonstrated how those disagreements are in error.

And I'm not going to get in the weeds on ten different major issues simultaneously.

Interesting.

You're willing to put your ideas forward, yet the moment you're challenged on them, you're completely unable to support them.

Perhaps putting ideas out in the Public Square isn't for you....

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Being anti-Trump is a moral necessity, and calling the Russia investigation McCarthyism is plainly absurd.

The Russian investigation will go down as the Democrats Bengazi.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Are you entitled to the services of a policeman if you are the victim of a crime? Are you entitled to the service of a fireman if your house is on fire? Are you entitled to the service of a teacher if you are a child? Are you entitled to the service of the military if our nation is under attack?

Note how all of the professions that you listed are public servants. These are individuals who have through their own choice decided to sell their services to the public at large. You're still not entitled to the services that they provide, the Supreme Court has even stated that the police have no obligation to protect you.

A doctor is a private citizen engaged in a private practice. You're no more entitled to the services of a doctor, then you are entitled to the services of a carpenter, or a car salesman, or a grocery store owner.

 

[kpt018]

Note how all of the professions that you listed are public servants. These are individuals who have through their own choice decided to sell their services to the public at large. You're still not entitled to the services that they provide, the Supreme Court has even stated that the police have no obligation to protect you.

A doctor is a private citizen engaged in a private practice. You're no more entitled to the services of a doctor, then you are entitled to the services of a carpenter, or a car salesman, or a grocery store owner.

So you'll be consistent and argue that the government should stop protecting patent rights for medications and remove the laws that govern medicine, such as the monopoly doctors have on prescribing drugs.

I don't think people are "entitled" to anyone's services but we need to paint the whole picture, not just part of it. If we have laws that require you to receive a prescription from a medical doctor it seems obvious that we should be wary that medical profession can gouge patients.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That idiot continues to repeat his "rights are nothing more than the necessary conditions of one's proper existence" non sequitur, despite everyone's constant pointing out that it makes absolutely no actual sense.

Nothing sounds more idiotic than a stupid persons trying to sound smart.

Fantastic!

Now that you've demonstrated that you're perfectly aware of the proper definition of rights, you have no excuse for feigning ignorance of it in the future.

-Cheers

 

[Jack V Savage]

What.....what election did you watch?

Hillary's platform was not "much more agreeable."

Taking the public into account. Not "more agreeable" to left-wing ideologues.

Clinton's platform was tasteless, cynical, tone-deaf, and rudderless, if given the keys to the presidency, would have been doomed to gridlock by virtue of the vitriol that she inspires in GOP lawmakers.

First part is obvious bias, but the second part IMO shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the GOP (and the Intercept left). The vitriol she inspired was solely a function of her position, and if someone else had that position, they'd inspire the same vitriol. Let's be honest: If Clinton had said in 2014 that she was retiring from public life to focus on her charitable work, she'd have 70%-plus approval from the public today, the State Department IT security protocol violation wouldn't have even been covered by Fox, and a lot of Republican voters and the far left would express sadness that we have the evil, corrupt, criminal, warmongering O'Malley or whomever instead of honorable, reasonable, peaceful Clinton. Plus, we'd have heard that, "OMG, Democrats could have nominated someone who was overqualified and super popular, but they chose X instead!"

Here's the truth: the Democratic party is at a real crossroads in 2020. It has two choices

There are any number of choices, I think. Given the direction the GOP has gone, I think it's vital that they remain reasonable. They do have a fine line to walk--on the one hand not alienating swing voters and the other, not losing their own base. But the far left is simply not a reliable bloc, and they work against their own interests (to get something like, say, single payer requires full Democratic control of gov't and a big majority in the Senate, while the far left refusing to vote Democratic both prevents that and provides them with an unreasonable basis to not vote Democratic).

 

[zebby23]

The Russian investigation will go down as the Democrats Bengazi.

Mueller probably has so much dirt on Trump right now his only dilemma is trying to figure out where to start with the indictments.

The Trump family is dirty, how can anyone dispute this? The most obvious charges will be money laundering.

Consider that Deutsche Bank was caught red-handed in a money laundering scheme that involved $10 billion in dirty money from Russian oligarchs, and in 2017 it was forced to pay fines totaling almost $700 million to New York’s Department of Financial Services.

The question is, Did Trump benefit from any illegal money that flowed through Deutsche Bank? If so does Trump have any obligations or allegiances to these banks/oligarchs? As of RIGHT NOW Donald Trump owes Deutsche Bank 300 Million. Also Jared Kushner currently owes that same bank 285 Million.

Now I know you wouldn't believe Trump did anything wrong even if he admitted it but the above FACTS sure stink and where there is smoke there is fire.

I'm surprised that such a "patriot" like yourself wouldn't be concerned that our president likely has allegiances to Russians and since Dems are butthurt you refuse to acknowledge it

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Mueller probably has so much dirt on Trump right now his only dilemma is trying to figure out where to start with the indictments.

The Trump family is dirty, how can anyone dispute this? The most obvious charges will be money laundering.

Consider that Deutsche Bank was caught red-handed in a money laundering scheme that involved $10 billion in dirty money from Russian oligarchs, and in 2017 it was forced to pay fines totaling almost $700 million to New York’s Department of Financial Services.

The question is, Did Trump benefit from any illegal money that flowed through Deutsche Bank? If so does Trump have any obligations or allegiances to these banks/oligarchs? As of RIGHT NOW Donald Trump owes Deutsche Bank 300 Million. Also Jared Kushner currently owes that same bank 285 Million.

Now I know you wouldn't believe Trump did anything wrong even if he admitted it but the above FACTS sure stink and where there is smoke there is fire.

I'm surprised that such a "patriot" like yourself wouldn't be concerned that our president likely has allegiances to Russians and since Dems are butthurt you refuse to acknowledge it

None of this has anything to do with any supposed Russian interference. Just like I said it wouldn't clear from the beginning.

If the Deutsche Bank allegations are the best you've got, Trump still has my vote in 2020.

But hey, don't let me interrupt your anti-Trump fanfiction.

Mueller isn't going to get Trump on anything. Would you like to know how I know this?