State of the Democratic Party

[CageTheBengal]

They need to follow Bernie and Warren's lead. They need to be more grassroots and find a way to identify with blue-collar workers.

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever.  There is nothing Domocrats can do about that.  Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population.  We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time.

Not all white people believe like that, but it is no coincidence that the lesser educated are more likely to buy into the argument that minorities are the problem in this country.

Of course, if all else fails, double down on the language that, at the very least, contributed to your most recent loss. Hell of a lot better than looking in the miroor.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:04 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Of course, if all else fails, double down on the language that, at the very least, contributed to your most recent loss. Hell of a lot better than looking in the miroor.

Don't know what you mean by this.

I looked in the mirror and saw a problem for the whole country.  What part of what I said was wrong?

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-17-2016, 06:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know what you mean by this.

I looked in the mirror and saw a problem for the whole country.  What part of what I said was wrong?

You didn't quote anything specifically. So I took your post as a general response to the OP, which comes off as a dismissive attitude towards white blue collar workers' grievances as "feeling threatened by minorities"

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 05:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Hey Bell,

I want your perspective on something.

Someone who I speak with in another community posted this months ago along with a prediction of a Trump Victory. She said that the democrats lost touch  with blue collar workers and they would pay the price this election. She takes it even further by claiming that the left doesn't really care about poor people:

While this may seem controversial, I swear it is absolutely the case that as a general rule people adhering to either party, or more generically Liberals and Conservatives, do not care about poor people. Poor people here means the economically distressed, the lower classes, and in general the victims of economic changes. When I say that they do not care for poor people I am not suggesting EVERY individual is careless, but that culturally both communities of political thought do not care about poor people outside of a very selective set of circumstances.

Tell me if this line would sound familiar:
Those people are in that position because of their lazy and repugnant values/culture, and they are just in general dumb and its hard to help people like that. What can you do for these people? They would rather be what they are than be reformed.

Now if you said that in the context of a discussion of urban poverty, you would most likely be approximating the position held by most Republicans about those people. And by those people we almost inevitably are talking about the Black Urban population. Obviously every pious Liberal would foam at the mouth at the mere suggestions of these words applying to the Urban Poor. It is pointed out as a gross, bigoted characterization, and rightly so one would be correct in assuming that this characterization exists to negate the more Republican loyal people from any perceived obligation to have solidarity with their fellow countryman in economic distress. One might also accuse the Republicans of applying a "I got mine jack!" mentality.

However, ask the general Liberal public about the Rural poor, or the Rust belt poor and you will inevitably hear a shrugging away of their plight. That population is mostly of White-European ethnic background and is often characterized as rednecks or hicks. Such a person will likely say more or less the same thing, perhaps in nicer words, maybe something more like "If people refuse to learn, refuse to go to school, and expect their jobs to remain static, they are deluded... I do not care if you think that is "arrogant" that is the truth." The equation remains the same, the fundamental perception of the more Democratically aligned is that THAT community of poor people deserve their fate, much as Republican aligned people will argue is the case for the Urban poor. References may also arise to the book Whats the Matter with Kansas even if the person making the reference has never read the book. In general the Democrat will say "They cling to the God and Guns!" or some other dispersing comment, but in the end he or she to is just saying "... Well we can't help them, their stupid and inferior and cannot be helped!"

Both political tribes will of course never acknowledge this. Both will pledge that they do care for the poor, but in terms of solidarity with those whom suffer economic distress their solidarity is largely contingent upon tribal loyalties or a transactional relationship with solidarity. As in "I will help you but only if you do ." Both engage in rationalizations, the exact SAME rationalization, for why they feel no obligation to do anything about poverty. Or they selectively chose to only care about poverty in the context of tribalistic political allegiances. Democrats focus almost exclusively on the Urban poor and Republicans often try and attack any attempts to help that population. Here though Democrats get more of the label of Hypocrite since in theory the Left is supposed to be IN GENERAL in Solidarity with the poor, Conservatives get a degree of a pass because they have not made it a point to campaign on such an idea.

In this, Liberals and Lefties deserve much HARSHER criticism for their slights against poor peoples because in theory they are the ones whom claim to be looking out for the poor, yet in America the political party is not interested in general in poverty and is fairly hostile to the rural poor. As are its members and individual meat space dwelling voters and adherents. Conservatives to a degree get a pass because they have never pledged solidarity with the poor, they have not made a promise and then broken it. In conclusion, both political camps engage in a critical lack of empathy but I would say it is worse when Liberals do it because it is them not living up to their claims about themselves in general.

None of this makes any sense because I have not heard a single person from either party make suggestions that just apply to one part of the country.

I have never heard a Republican support helping the rural poor any more than the urban poor, and I have never heard a democrat say we need programs to help the poor urban poor but not the rural poor.

If I am wrong please give me some examples.  Don't Republicans want to cut social programs for ALL parts of the country including the rural areas?  Don't Democrats say that ALL poor people need more help?

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-17-2016, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: None of this makes any sense because I have not heard a single person from either party make suggestions that just apply to one part of the country.

I have never heard a Republican support helping the rural poor any more than the urban poor, and I have never heard a democrat say we need programs to help the poor urban poor but not the rural poor.

If I am wrong please give me some examples.  Don't Republicans want to cut social programs for ALL parts of the country including the rural areas?  Don't Democrats say that ALL poor people need more help?

A few things:
1. This isn't my argument; it's someone elses'. Though I admit that i'm more receptive to the ideas since the author's prediction about Trump came at a time where we thought she was ***** nuts. 2. The argument is that the attitude to help the poor is selective. She cites excerpts from What's the Matter With Kansas to make the point. Since this isn't really my argument, I wouldn't be doing justice by defending it further. I just wanted perspectives (Bell's specifically since he's leaning towards some of the ideas in the argument), though others' is welcome as well.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  but all of us can take a look at what has happened to the positions touted by Democratic lawmakers and see that there is not much being pushed to help us out. This isn't blame directed at minorities, saying that is an absolute cop out when discussing the dropped ball when it comes to economic policy on the left.

Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care.  Republicans want toi repeal that.

Democrats proposed government providing more free education.  How does that not help the working class?

Democrats proposed tax cuts for the middle class while Trump proposed tax cuts for the wealthy.

So what exactly did the Republicans offer the working class that was better than the Democrats?

[*bfine32*]

(11-17-2016, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then white working class are feeling more threatened than ever. There is nothing Domocrats can do about that. Things will get even worse in a few years when whites make up less than half of the population. We will see a huge rise in neo-nazi and white supremacists type parties at that time.

Not all white people believe like that, but it is no coincidence that the lesser educated are more likely to buy into the argument that minorities are the problem in this country.

So that I understand your point: There is nothing wrong with the state of the Democratic Party. The problem lies with uneducated white-people?

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 05:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: Hey Bell,

I want your perspective on something.

So, in generalities, it is very true that a lot of lip service is given to the idea of helping out the poor, just as it is the middle class, without a ton of action being done. Both sides do this, though the left tends to favor a direct help approach and the right a more indirect approach. This is why it appears that the left courts that voting bloc harder.

Here is why nothing happens, though: money. I'm not just talking about what it costs to carry out these programs, which is a big part of it, but also the money being spent on campaigns, the money being spent on lobbyists, all of it.

Budgetary concerns: Programs to help the poor cost money. Whether it is entitlements/welfare or whether it is job training, education assistance, whatever. It all costs money, and it all costs money that has to come from somewhere. These programs are tough to get passed because they don't come with great public opinion. People receive erroneous information on them in their planning stages from the opposing side, and that turns them against them. Doesn't matter if the idea was attempted by the other side 4 years prior, they will still trash talk it. Plus, the revenue used for these programs isn't going to be coming from the people that benefit from them most (though philosophically that can be debated) making it an even harder sell. The worst is if it involves a tax increase, otherwise known as political suicide.

Campaign finance: plain and simple, poor people don't have deep enough pockets to influence policy in this arena and those that do aren't considered with them.

Lobbyists: everyone is represented by lobbyists in our government. We are all a part of interest groups whether we have formal membership in the NRA, Sierra Club, AAA, whatever, or whether we are free riders on the benefits of the lobbying efforts of those groups. The largest and most influential lobbyist in the country is the Chamber of Commerce. They have a hand in just about everything. But who isn't there a lobbyist group for? The homeless. The poor. Sure, there are groups that will raise concerns that these segments of our population would be concerned with, but they don't have the dedicated lobbyists because, you guessed it, they can't pay them. And here is a little well-known secret, money alone isn't the guarantee for getting policy passed. Campaign contributions, they give you a 50/50 shot. Having more lobbyists than the other side? 60/40. Having more lobbyists that used to work in government? 75/25. Okay, so these numbers are pulled out of my ass because I can't find my charts presently but it's not that far off. I'll step off my soap box on this for the time being.

Anyway, my point with all of this is to show more about why these segments get ignored, and they get ignored by everyone. It's a sad story but it is why we need to suck it up as a country, put on our big boy britches, and work towards a better future by looking at policies that can help them. Yeah, it's going to cost money, but it can help our economy grow and become more prosperous.

Sorry for the rant there, and I hope I responded to you in a way that made sense. I know I got a little soap-boxy but this is something that I have been talking about a lot lately.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that I understand your point: There is nothing wrong with the state of the Democratic Party. The problem lies with uneducated white-people?

They have created a division in the Republican party also.

And the same thing is happening in Europe.

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care.  Republicans want toi repeal that.

Democrats proposed government providing more free education.  How does that not help the working class?

Democrats proposed tax cuts for the middle class while Trump proposed tax cuts for the wealthy.

So what exactly did the Republicans offer the working class that was better than the Democrats?

The ACA is bad policy. It has good effects but it is overall bad policy. It gets more people insured but it doesn't address the actual issues. The Dems aren't entirely to blame for this, after all it is repackaged GOP policy from the Reagan era, but it is still bad policy. I had to say it three times for emphasis.

The free education idea is a crock. We don't need more people with college degrees, we need more people with job skills. The whole "everyone needs a degree" idea from the Bill Clinton era helped make this shift worse. It wasn't the only cause, but it is a contributing factor to the decline of the middle class. There are some genuine idiots in college that don't need to be there, and it's because of this. They are racking up debt to get a worthless degree or they would be racking up government debt to get one.

Tax cuts, another band aid solution that looks nice on the campaign trail but isn't based in reality. I'll admit to this one being something that could actually help the middle class, for a few months at least. But what are these middle class tax cuts coupled with? Reduced spending? In which areas? Tax increases? On whom?

As for the last point:

(11-17-2016, 04:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you don't think that the Democratic party getting back to focusing on the economy and policies to help the middle class would help win these voters back? I mean, don't get me wrong, the GOP is doing nothing to help them either, but that's just the thing. The Democrats have been the party for the middle class, as a whole, for a very long time. They feel abandoned by them and are now turning to the GOP in a "let's see if they will help us" move.

Do try to read a post when you respond to it.

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-17-2016, 06:24 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Democrats passed legislation to help the working class afford health care.  Republicans want toi repeal that.

Democrats proposed government providing more free education.  How does that not help the working class?

Democrats proposed tax cuts for the middle class while Trump proposed tax cuts for the wealthy.

So what exactly did the Republicans offer the working class that was better than the Democrats?

To answer your second question, not everyone has the time or capability to learn a new skill. They still have families to feed, for example. Someone who loses their job at a manufacturing plant might not be able to make the changes needed to be productive. With technology advancing at the rate that it is, does it even matter if they were able to? What do you say to the people who lost not just their job, but their town/way of life when their plant closed following trade deals like NAFTA?

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The ACA is bad policy. It has good effects but it is overall bad policy. It gets more people insured but it doesn't address the actual issues. The Dems aren't entirely to blame for this, after all it is repackaged GOP policy from the Reagan era, but it is still bad policy. I had to say it three times for emphasis.

The free education idea is a crock. We don't need more people with college degrees, with need more people with job skills. The whole "everyone needs a degree" idea from the Bill Clinton era helped make this shift worse. It wasn't the only cause, but it is a contributing factor to the decline of the middle class. There are some genuine idiots in college that don't need to be there, and it's because of this. They are racking up debt to get a worthless degree or they would be racking up government debt to get one.

Tax cuts, another band aid solution that looks nice on the campaign trail but isn't based in reality. I'll admit to this one being something that could actually help the middle class, for a few months at least. But what are these middle class tax cuts coupled with? Reduced spending? In which areas? Tax increases? On whom?

As for the last point:


Do try to read a post when you respond to it.

But your position that "both parties are bad for the working class" does not explain why the working class would shift from the Democrats to the Republicans.  If it is just a case of the balance shifting back and forth then that means there is no real problem with the Democrat party, but from what I understood you to say there actually was a policy reason for the shift.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:38 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote:  What do you say to the people who lost not just their job, but their town/way of life when their plant closed following trade deals like NAFTA?

I say that we live in a global economy and can not exist in a bubble.

Tariffs just make items cost more for Americans and American companies will lose the profits on all the items they sell overseas.

American business is not losing any money.  Instead they are making record profits.  People who think letting corporations make more money will help the working class are not paying attention to what is happening right in front of their faces.

[THE Bigzoman]

(11-17-2016, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I say that we live in a global economy and can not exist in a bubble.

Tariffs just make items cost more for Americans and American companies will lose the profits on all the items they sell overseas.

In which case, i'd direct you to my post to Bell. I agree with you at the end of the day, but it's easy to say "Everyone benefits from this sacrifice" when you're not the one being dragged to the altar.

[xxlt]

(11-16-2016, 07:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:
They are coming for your guns in California.  People mock gun owners for this opinion, but history has shown they are right to expect it.  As for gun sales dropping off now that Trump got elected, that's easy.  If you think you have the next four years, at least, to purchase that firearm you want you're liable to wait.  If you think you have four months to get it you're going to get it now.

I'm really hoping Trump gets a national firearms bill through congress that eliminates "assault weapon" ammunition and magazine bans at the federal level.  The laws that have passed here in CA are a complete train wreck for lawful gun owners.

You are absolutely right. Kennedy came for them. Johnson came for them. Carter came for them. Clinton came for them. Obama played opossum for 8 years but then he came for them. The number of guns confiscated from lawful gun owners in this country is staggering. It has to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. I wasn't kidding. Obama is coming for them right now!

For the record, I don't mock gun owners, I mock morons. And history has shown (morons) they are coming for your guns yesterday, today, tomorrow, and everyday! So, stock up now and get ready for a firefight!

[Belsnickel]

(11-17-2016, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But your position that "both parties are bad for the working class" does not explain why the working class would shift from the Democrats to the Republicans.  If it is just a case of the balance shifting back and forth then that means there is no real problem with the Democrat party, but from what I understood you to say there actually was a policy reason for the shift.

I actually did explain that in my post by saying that the Democrats, once the party of the working class, has caused them to feel abandoned. In doing so, many have shifted to the GOP in a "let's see if they will do anything for us" move. I'm not saying it is a logical shift, but it is based on the move away from policies that benefit the working class and towards more identity politics that has caused this feeling of abandonment by a party that once represented them. For the majority of the people this affects it has caused political apathy, not even necessarily an allegiance shift. But with the smaller percentage switching allegiances and the apathy affect not a problem for the GOP, it is hurting the Democrats.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:45 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote:  it's easy to say "Everyone benefits from this sacrifice" when you're not the one being dragged to the altar.

And it is even easier to try and blame foreigners when in fact American corporations are making record profits.

Our economy is booming.  The problem is not with foreign trade.  The problem is that we have policies in place that allow all of the profit to go to the people at the very top while they punish the working class.

[fredtoast]

(11-17-2016, 06:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  it is based on the move away from policies that benefit the working class

What policies that helped the working class have they moved away from?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-17-2016, 06:47 PM)xxlt Wrote: You are absolutely right. Kennedy came for them. Johnson came for them. Carter came for them. Clinton came for them. Obama played opossum for 8 years but then he came for them. The number of guns confiscated from lawful gun owners in this country is staggering. It has to be in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. I wasn't kidding. Obama is coming for them right now!

For the record, I don't mock gun owners, I mock morons. And history has shown (morons) they are coming for your guns yesterday, today, tomorrow, and everyday! So, stock up now and get ready for a firefight!

I fear your reading comprehension skills deteriorate with each passing month.  I didn't state confiscation has happened in the past, I said it is happening now as we speak.  As for the history angle, I'll use my horribly broken, in terms of the 2A, state of CA as an example.  In the eighties they passed a ban on "high capacity" magazines, any magazine that holds more than ten rounds.  They grandfathered in all such magazines already in the state.  The purpose of this was not to necessitate confiscation of citizens legally purchased property.  It was also stated at that time that this would not change.  Fast forward to today and not only are all such magazines, even the previously grandfathered ones, banned they must be surrendered or removed from the state or the owner faces criminal charges.  This is confiscation.  Thus, history has shown that gun owners should trust anti-gun politicians and people as much as pro choice people should trust pro-life people and politicians, i.e. not at all.

In addition CA has now passed two laws, one via the legislature and one via proposition that outlaws all semi-automatic rifles with a removable magazine. Any currently in the state have to now be registered as an "assault weapon" or the legally purchased firearm now becomes illegal to own.  In addition these firearms are now permanently non-transferable.  They cannot be sold or given to anyone other than the registered owner.  Not confiscation you say?  Wait for it.  This includes any registered firearm after the owner dies.  Upon the owner's death the firearm has to be rendered inoperable or surrendered to the state.  This is confiscation and it's hardly the last step that anti-gun politicians like Gavin Newsome will attempt.  I won't even get into the insane background check for ammunition crap fest portion of the current laws.

So, history has shown that the end game for anti-gun types is confiscation and gun owners are right to fear that is their aim.  So, kindly take your smarmy reply and cram it, along with any "high capacity" magazines you may own.