Maybe Democrats are starting to get it:

[Bitek]

It's a start.

Ds have to come to terms with:
they are losing (1st step too many can't get past)
why they are losing,
what Obama delivered on, and what he didn't
why Trump did so well despite himself,
what the Bernie phenom meant,
why those two intersected in their supporters so much

Most importantly, the ripe opportunity to capitalize on Trump's betrayal of his voters and the promises he made to them.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I suspect he would drop off the forum for a long while.

Point taken

 

[Jaskalas]

That will always be true of a party whose basic branding is done by the real masters of that craft, Corporate America, for the purpose of insuring that people favorable to passing legislation that serves their financial interests win elections. Once the Republicans become the brand that is emotionally tied to your own personal ethics and ethos, they know your gut will do the rest no matter how badly is damages your own class financial interests.

Our message in reply, then, needs to address this very thing and cut it to the bone.

1. Yes, there will be taxes.
2. But what you get in return will be tangible, guaranteed, and priceless.

We've got people understanding the cost, one pillar of the public rejecting us.
But if our policy is middling at best, no one will appreciate the benefit. Going bold means gaining economic appeal.
We need to share real benefits.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Point taken

However, applauded your sense of hope.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

However, applauded your sense of hope.

To me, pcgeek is just irritating. He's not vomit inducing like some of the others.

 

[senseamp]

It's good that they are working on an agenda, but I want to see commitment to do whatever it takes to pass it.

 

[ch33zw1z]

To me, pcgeek is just irritating. He's not vomit inducing like some of the others.

I hear ya. I just picture an old guy shaking his fist. Not foaming at the mouth nutter like other cons

 

[agent00f]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/23/schumer-democrats-namby-pamby-240857

Looks like a positive sign to me. Maybe Schumer will run......

If boring economics were that important to americans, democrats would never lose to the birther magnate.

 

[glenn1]

Our message in reply, then, needs to address this very thing and cut it to the bone.

1. Yes, there will be taxes.
2. But what you get in return will be tangible, guaranteed, and priceless.

We've got people understanding the cost, one pillar of the public rejecting us.
But if our policy is middling at best, no one will appreciate the benefit. Going bold means gaining economic appeal.
We need to share real benefits.

You're missing a big part of what the Democrats and liberals are missing - you need to convince the majority of people that any benefits from those policies will actually accrue to them. As of now folks like Jhhnn are the image of the party and their prime directive is to stick it to the rich and give to the poor and unworthy with the middle class getting crumbs if anything. Policies like "we covered x more people with health insurance" isn't going to register for the middle class since they're not one of those x number of people plus are probably being stuck with lots of the costs. Unless and until Dems focus on middle class problems (for the ~$30-80k income set) instead of the poor they'll probably lose.

 

[agent00f]

You're missing a big part of what the Democrats and liberals are missing - you need to convince the majority of people that any benefits from those policies will actually accrue to them. As of now folks like Jhhnn are the image of the party and their prime directive is to stick it to the rich and give to the poor and unworthy with the middle class getting crumbs if anything. Policies like "we covered x more people with health insurance" isn't going to register for the middle class since they're not one of those x number of people plus are probably being stuck with lots of the costs. Unless and until Dems focus on middle class problems (for the ~$30-80k income set) instead of the poor they'll probably lose.

It's true that trump's 72k household income crowd are mostly concerned about keeping above kenyan muslim.

 

[raildogg]

When will some of you smart people realize that no politician is going to save you or this "country"?

Has 300 years of corruption, lies and endless wars not been enough evidence of that?

But yeah, keep on believing in the D's and R's. The ruling class loves you when you do this.

 

[pcgeek11]

Can you explain how the logic is different?

Trump is a not broke and doesn't control the budget.

The DNC is broke and in debt 3.3 million dollars and are claiming to be good at economics.

 

[pcgeek11]

Whatever helps you sleep at night. Grat's on voting for a swindler. At least the pizza shop child traffic ring was busted.

What does this have to do with a pizza shop?

 

[pcgeek11]

There's no defending a Trump vote.

I don't need to defend anything. My vote is mine and if anyone doesn't like it too bad.

 

[pcgeek11]

Point taken

I may be wrong but I think geek would turn on Trump in a second if irrefutable proof came out about Russian collusion

If Trump was found guilty or they had undeniable proof that he colluded to wreck the election yes I would. Until then I would rather wait for our justice system to work as it should.

 

[pcgeek11]

I suspect he would drop off the forum for a long while.

Nope. Not happening.

 

[pcgeek11]

To me, pcgeek is just irritating. He's not vomit inducing like some of the others.

Thanks? :\

 

[ch33zw1z]

What does this have to do with a pizza shop?

Playing dumb, or just willfully ignorant. Good to be you eh?

 

[fskimospy]

Trump is a not broke and doesn't control the budget.

The DNC is broke and in debt 3.3 million dollars and are claiming to be good at economics.

Sounds like it's identical logic to saying Trump is good at economics because he is a billionaire then. If being in debt means you are bad at economics then it stands to reason having a lot of money means you are good at it.

Both of course are totally silly ideas.

 

[brycejones]

I suspect he would drop off the forum for a long while.

Nope, see the Syria intervention thread, pcgeek has no shame when it comes to intellectual dishonesty.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Fair enough.

 

[Bitek]

You're missing a big part of what the Democrats and liberals are missing - you need to convince the majority of people that any benefits from those policies will actually accrue to them. As of now folks like Jhhnn are the image of the party and their prime directive is to stick it to the rich and give to the poor and unworthy with the middle class getting crumbs if anything. Policies like "we covered x more people with health insurance" isn't going to register for the middle class since they're not one of those x number of people plus are probably being stuck with lots of the costs. Unless and until Dems focus on middle class problems (for the ~$30-80k income set) instead of the poor they'll probably lose.

I think you make a very good point.

If Ds aren't seen providing obvious benefits to the larger middle, the politics of their policies will be weak and vulnerable.

The middle class can often be employed but struggling to really keep up. Watching tax dollars flow past them will create tension and resentments, and let's face it, there poor can be an easy punching bag.

For every story of a poor single mother working a min wage job, there is one where some unemployed scumbag cashes checks and sits on his ass all day.
It then becomes a test of what you see is how you view the policy.


So I'm curious what is the #1 problem you think the lib dems need pay attention to?

 

[glenn1]

I think you make a very good point.

If Ds aren't seen providing obvious benefits to the larger middle, the politics of their policies will be weak and vulnerable.

The middle class can often be employed but struggling to really keep up. Watching tax dollars flow past them will create tension and resentments, and let's face it, there poor can be an easy punching bag.

For every story of a poor single mother working a min wage job, there is one where some unemployed scumbag cashes checks and sits on his ass all day.
It then becomes a test of what you see is how you view the policy.


So I'm curious what is the #1 problem you think the lib dems need pay attention to?

Probably wouldn't be one single thing as every family's situation is different. However a package of items like this would probably go over well:

1. Infrastructure, lots of it. The very definition of something the federal government is constitutionally supposed to do and of benefit to all from the poorest to the multi-billionaire.
2. Debt relief; federal government could engage in an outright debt jubilee. Or cap interest rates on debt at prime + x (the value of x might vary depending on the borrowers creditworthiness). And yes, I'm aware such policy may have unintended consequences and/or create some moral hazard plus the rich who are the creditors will benefit as much or more but that's the cost of doing business in this arena.
3. Bringing balance back to employment and hiring practices. Prohibit employers from inquiring about salary history or past criminal activity (unless a specific crime creates a unique and directly relevant risk such as a pedophilia conviction for working in a daycare). Prohibit employers from using college degrees as a pre-requisite or screening tool, if there is a specific educational need (e.g. physicians) you can allow testing to prove aptitude or require specific certifications or licenses.
4. Government support for parents: subsidize childcare and maternity/paternity leave.
5. Healthcare fix. The 'universal healthcare' model is a non-starter but a triple play of taxpayer funded catastrophic insurance for all, increased subsidies of HSA to handle routine care, and free clinics for the poor will lift big mental burdens.

 

[JSt0rm]

The deplorables don't want to learn a new skill. That's the whole point. Trump promised them thier old lives back.

 

[Bitek]

Probably wouldn't be one single thing as every family's situation is different. However a package of items like this would probably go over well:

1. Infrastructure, lots of it. The very definition of something the federal government is constitutionally supposed to do and of benefit to all from the poorest to the multi-billionaire.
2. Debt relief; federal government could engage in an outright debt jubilee. Or cap interest rates on debt at prime + x (the value of x might vary depending on the borrowers creditworthiness). And yes, I'm aware such policy may have unintended consequences and/or create some moral hazard plus the rich who are the creditors will benefit as much or more but that's the cost of doing business in this arena.
3. Bringing balance back to employment and hiring practices. Prohibit employers from inquiring about salary history or past criminal activity (unless a specific crime creates a unique and directly relevant risk such as a pedophilia conviction for working in a daycare). Prohibit employers from using college degrees as a pre-requisite or screening tool, if there is a specific educational need (e.g. physicians) you can allow testing to prove aptitude or require specific certifications or licenses.
4. Government support for parents: subsidize childcare and maternity/paternity leave.
5. Healthcare fix. The 'universal healthcare' model is a non-starter but a triple play of taxpayer funded catastrophic insurance for all, increased subsidies of HSA to handle routine care, and free clinics for the poor will lift big mental burdens.

Thank you for your honest reply.

I think we are actually a lot more aligned on goals and wants even if we may differ on that tactics.

I know you catch a lot of shit going your way (some I probably threw at some point....) but deep down I do think the partisan divide in attitudes is greater than actual policy differences.

I am generally concerned about the direction we've been going in for some time, across admins, and the country needs to find a way to start effectively addressing it. Being at each other's throats may be entertainment and sport, but it's pretty self destructive as a people/nation.