^^income tax itself was "unconstitutional" but the people decided to make it constitutional. Its only dangerous if you don't like the changes.

2/4/2019 7:57:02 PM

Which is how it should be done. If your argument is "fuck constitutionality, just amend the Constitution," that's fine. However, if your argument is just "fuck constitutionality," that's terrifying.

Also, a wealth tax is not unConstitutional on its face. It would depend on how it was implemented. Namely, revenues would need to be roughly proportional to state populations. And that would be very hard to accomplish, as wealth is not distributed proportionally among the states.

However, to be clear, Warren's proposal is unConstitutional on multiple levels, across multiple parts of her proposal. It's also incredibly fucking stupid.

2/4/2019 10:04:47 PM

I mentioned changing the constitution. You'd have to be pretty stupid to think I meant otherwise.

2/4/2019 10:31:10 PM

How is a wealth tax stupid?

Property taxes are wealth taxes. The majority of middle class wealth is in their property. Most Americans who own a home are paying a wealth tax far more substantial than Warrens proposal.

It’s the rich that are dodging wealth taxes now because their wealth is often in non-property vehicles.

So why is it the middle class pays a wealth tax but the upper class does not? THIS is stupid.

2/4/2019 11:36:04 PM

To be fair, I said that Warren's proposal was stupid, not that a wealth tax was stupid.

2/4/2019 11:49:13 PM

https://twitter.com/tulsigabbard/status/1092725465683542016?s=21

What even constituency is she going for? The pro-Tucker left?

At least she scored the coveted David Duke endorsement..

[Edited on February 5, 2019 at 7:18 AM. Reason : Tbf to her she did denounce immediately though]

2/5/2019 7:16:58 AM

Quote :

"What even constituency is she going for? The pro-Tucker left?"

there is a not that large, but very vocal online, part of the far left that have just absolutely dug their feet into the idea that anything russia related is fake news i guess because it hurts their narrative that clinton lost solely because of how terrible she is, (e.g. tulsigabbard or adultswim)

2/5/2019 7:38:03 AM

Quote :

"the democratic party has lost their working class labor base over the last few decades because of the kind of shit grumpy is calling for"

It's true, so far in this thread I've advocated a number of really self-destructive ideas, such as:

1) Behaving with a modicum of civility towards people in your own political party
2) Knowing what the word "populism" means
3) Trying to get a Democrat elected president

Quote :

"I could see a deal where we eliminate the estate tax, but institute the wealth tax, I think i would support this."

I think I'd prefer a more robust estate tax regime to a wealth tax, on the principle that I'd rather people keep slightly more of what they themselves have earned, rather than receive slightly more of their parents' earnings. Though it's possible that a wealth tax, properly applied, would have more or less the same result, just over a longer period of time.

2/5/2019 7:50:01 AM

hey guyz i'm a republican and you all need to be nice to people in your own party and just elect the most free-market right of center candidate because that will energize your base. listen to me guyz, i have ideas!

2/5/2019 8:00:42 AM

We’re definitely going to blow it.

2/5/2019 8:30:29 AM

lmao at people mad at Sanders for having a SOTU response, apparently its racist

2/5/2019 11:28:26 AM

These are likely the same people who referred to his supporters as "Bernie Babies."

2/5/2019 1:40:44 PM

^^ Bernie and Kamala are both racist obviously. Also, the AG from California who is doing it in Spanish.

2/5/2019 1:53:37 PM

Quote :

"he's already said yes, he'd rather have Trump"

That’s sort of an oversimplification. I have said that I would rather Trump be re-elected even if I think he’s the absolute worst, over a far-left Dem, because:

1. He’d be term limited
2. He’s too incompetent to enact most of his bad ideas
3. I want to see the Dems punished in the worst way (losing to the worst—Trump) if they go hard left.

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 7:19 AM. Reason : It’s not about “rather have.” Worst case, they’re tied at rock-bottom.]

2/6/2019 7:17:32 AM

Quote :

" I would rather Trump be re-elected"

It's not an oversimplification at all I'd said you'd rather have Trump then you corrected me and said the same thing. Your reasons have been stated repeatedly, someone asked a question and I gave a correct answer. You'd take 4 more years of children in cages to prevent free health care

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 7:28 AM. Reason : T]

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 7:36 AM. Reason : "can't enact MOST of his bad ideas" is a super privileged statement ]

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 7:36 AM. Reason : E]

2/6/2019 7:27:46 AM

I thought the "children in cages" issue was debunked months ago when it was determined that the photos were staged as part of a protest?

I want to see a competent moderate Democrat win in 2020. I want the Trumpers voted out of Congress so we can vote in some moderate Republicans. For most of you guys, that isn't going to be enough. You guys want Occasio-Cortez-like people whose only way to generate revenue for the government is to milk the teat of the rich. Sure, raise taxes on them, I don't care, but that won't fix all of the country's ills.

Are you guys ready for this circus that is going to be the Democrat Primaries? It's going to be just as comical as the Republican Primaries in 2016. Don't believe me?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/politics/warren-american-indian-texas-bar/index.html

The fact that she refuses to give up, and keep the field a little less cluttered, is beyond me. She must secretly be a Trumper.

2/6/2019 7:54:55 AM

I'm not going down the road of "defining" cages beyond "locked enclosures". Children are taken from their parents, put in unhealthy conditions, and frequently lost. The rest is just semantics.

Quote :

"@aclu BREAKING: Tonight the Trump administration filed documents that don’t dispute the recent report that there may have been thousands more separated kids. They’re arguing it would take too long to figure out where those kids are because they have no tracking system. This response is a shocking concession that the government can’t easily find thousands of children it ripped from parents, and doesn’t even think it’s worth the time to locate each of them. We will be back in court on February 21."

Also of course taxes alone won't solve all the country's problems, who the fuck said it would? However, it's a great start. Solving problems will take money.

2/6/2019 8:55:55 AM

Our government does not have a revenue problem.

2/6/2019 9:24:02 AM

Quote :

"I thought the 'children in cages' issue was debunked months ago when it was determined that the photos were staged as part of a protest?"

Link?

2/6/2019 9:32:53 AM

Quote :

"I have said that I would rather Trump be re-elected even if I think he’s the absolute worst, over a far-left Dem"

Oh for fucks sake. I was previously operating the idea that most of us were sane here, especially stripping out the Earl-type anons, but now I guess that idea is completely fucked if Duke is on this shit.

Quote :

"It’s not about “rather have.” "

Dude you just used the fucking word "rather"

2/6/2019 9:50:23 AM

Quote :

"I thought the "children in cages" issue was debunked months ago"

Are you fucking kidding me? Put down the fucking Drudge Report for one day please

Quote :

"For most of you guys, that isn't going to be enough. You guys want Occasio-Cortez-like people whose only way to generate revenue for the government is to milk the teat of the rich"

What the fuck ever man. Keep throwing stones into the void. We just want this crazy ass infant-like orangutan out of office. Most of us don't give a fuck whatever form that takes.

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 9:56 AM. Reason : sorry i'm a little ornery this morning, but this shit is crazy]

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 10:07 AM. Reason : and apologies to all the orangutans out there for equating Trump to you all]

2/6/2019 9:53:44 AM

^ hey no need to be ornery, I'm right there with you. I'm just afraid that if the dems run some far-left candidate, they're going to tank their chances of getting your orangutan out of office. I know you guys keep saying "we've tried running a moderate and and lost," "you had your moderate in Obama and you hated him," etc, but right now is not the time to try seeing if a far-left candidate can do any better than Hillary. Hillary didn't lose because she was moderate. She lost because she was Hillary.

2/6/2019 10:08:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm just afraid that if the dems run some far-left candidate, they're going to tank their chances"

Nah, Bernie would have won in 2016 if the DNC wasn't so fucking corrupt and incompetent.

Quote :

"Hillary didn't lose because she was moderate. She lost because she was Hillary."

Agreed.

Quote :

"The fact that she refuses to give up, and keep the field a little less cluttered, is beyond me."

Why do you care? She's not a viable candidate. The field will be cluttered. Why have a hard on about her? Is it because Rush/Drudge etc are always talking about her?

2/6/2019 10:12:14 AM

No, it's because I'm still butthurt over the 2016 Repub primaries. If that hadn't been a three ring circus, perhaps someone other than Trump might've come out of that mess.

Same thing's gonna happen if they let a bunch of clowns run in the Dem primary. I don't listen to Rush. The article I posted I found on WaPo, via CNN, not Drudge. Sure I read Drudge, but I read lots of other sources too.

2/6/2019 10:23:12 AM

Quote :

"^ hey no need to be ornery, I'm right there with you. I'm just afraid that if the dems run some far-left candidate, they're going to tank their chances of getting your orangutan out of office. I know you guys keep saying "we've tried running a moderate and and lost," "you had your moderate in Obama and you hated him," etc, but right now is not the time to try seeing if a far-left candidate can do any better than Hillary. Hillary didn't lose because she was moderate. She lost because she was Hillary."

So...when do you judge it the time to present a far-left candidate if not now?

Why do you think hardline Dems are any different then hardline Reps in that they'll hold their nose and vote for a far-left candidate if only because they're not a Republican (see Republicans in 2016).

A far left candidate is far more likely to be energizing to younger voters then the mostly milquetoast center-"left" candidates that are out there right now. Courting the younger vote will win this election, not chasing after fictitious Republican flips or centrist independents.

2/6/2019 10:30:53 AM

Quote :

"If that hadn't been a three ring circus, perhaps someone other than Trump might've come out of that mess. "

Nah, he would have bullied 3 opponents just as easy as he bullied 16.

Quote :

"right now is not the time to try seeing if a far-left candidate can do any better than Hillary"

That's not the logic at play here.

Quote :

"A far left candidate is far more likely to be energizing to younger voters then the mostly milquetoast center-"left" candidates that are out there right now. Courting the younger vote will win this election, not chasing after fictitious Republican flips or centrist independents."

Yup.

2/6/2019 11:23:07 AM

The GOP propaganda machine is amazing. We're one-and-a-half years from the election, we don't know who all the Democratic candidates are, and there's no one who could remotely be called a front runner. And yet, rjrumfel is already frothing about RED SCARE 2020!!!!!1!1!!

If you think the possibility of universal health care is scarier than the actuality of Trump, then vote for Trump. Stop asking Democrats to save you from a hard decision.

2/6/2019 11:44:52 AM

Quote :

"And yet, rjrumfel [and duke] is already frothing about RED SCARE 2020!!!!!1!1!!"

2/6/2019 1:04:42 PM

Yo, it would actually be pretty hilarious if an actual Maoist ran for president on the promise of leading an armed peasant uprising to institute land reform aimed at harming landlords. It'd be pretty sweet watching soap box moderates equate "medicare for all" with the "little red book."

It's a shame that General Bernie can't implement communism with American characteristics.

2/6/2019 6:18:05 PM

How are we defining far left these days?

The vast majority of Americans want green energy, and single payer esque healthcare. They want affordable college, universal pre-k, and very progressive taxes. We want a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants too.

2/6/2019 7:25:06 PM

Quote :

"I have said that I would rather Trump be re-elected even if I think he’s the absolute worst, over a far-left Dem, because: 1. He’d be term limited 2. He’s too incompetent to enact most of his bad ideas 3. I want to see the Dems punished in the worst way (losing to the worst—Trump) if they go hard left."

Deeply disappointing to see this from someone like theDuke866.

Trump's term-limited? We hope. Of course, a far-left candidate would be, too, so I don't even understand what you're driving at here.

He's enacted a hell of a lot of his bad ideas, and his incompetence has its own negative consequences aside from bad policy. His continued presence undermines not just the republic but the foundational institutions and ideas that make it possible to protect and repair that republic.

You want to see the Dems punished, but you don't want to see the Republican party burn to the fucking ground for electing someone we knew was reprehensible?

I am not aware of any plausible Democratic candidate who is so far left I wouldn't vote for them over Donald Trump.

Quote :

"So...when do you judge it the time to present a far-left candidate if not now?"

I dunno about him, but I think now would be a fine time, if you had a really good far-left candidate. I'm not convinced that you do. Warren and Sanders are both elderly whites coming into this with a lot of baggage. And even they'd be fine to run - against a weaker candidate, or one less likely to destroy the country if he wins.

Quote :

"Courting the younger vote will win this election, not chasing after fictitious Republican flips or centrist independents."

I think it is a mistake to assume that younger people will vote overwhelmingly for far-left candidates, particularly in the places where it will matter. Certainly a democratic socialist would go over well in areas with large numbers of relatively well-educated, socially conscious young people - in other words, the cities that already vote for Democrats. I'm less convinced that they get out the young vote in more rural counties and suburbs (where there are likely to be fewer young people to begin with). Meanwhile, such a candidate could energize conservative bases, which is something we've already seen here with Duke's sad capitulation.

Meanwhile, Republican flips aren't fictitious; GOP membership is shrinking. People are leaving that party, but they still get to vote. Same for the long-time independents. And here is a point not to be ignored, which is that party members vote the way they do because they think their party's policies are good, but independents vote for a given party candidate because they think the other has bad policies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/24/only-a-quarter-of-the-country-identifies-as-republican-there-are-two-reasons-the-party-keeps-winning-anyway/?utm_term=.2c31acadf492

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/30/why-political-independents-are-political-independents/?utm_term=.dc3e8da6945d

So at the very least, there's something to the notion that a radical candidate having an outsized effect scaring away independent voters.

Now we inevitably get to the part where someone construes all of the above to mean that I am strongly in favor of the blandest, most centrist candidate out there. That's not true. The truth is that at this stage in the primary, I don't really like any of the candidates. They all have significant political handicaps, and none of them have had enough time to show how they might overcome them. What seems clear to me is that none of them have the same energizing quality that led Obama to two decisive victories, flipping longtime red states along the way. If we had that, I'd be for that person pretty much regardless of their actual policies, because it is difficult for me to imagine a credible presidential candidate who could be worse for the country than Trump.

My position is that the current candidates who lean farthest left have too much net liability to outweigh the possible negative outcomes of their more (relatively) radical policy proposals.

We live in the age of social media celebrity, not policy-consciousness masses. I wish it weren't so but I'm not in a place of great optimism right now, given that Twitter Trump beat Training-to-be-President-her-Whole-Life Hillary. Sexy-ass Obama beat Robot Romney and Git-off-my-lawn McCain, Get-a-Beer-with-Bush beat Kerry and Gore (who, at that time, were too boring to even merit nicknames), and Slick Willy danced all over two drooling geezers with a lifetime of federal government experience. The last time we can even pretend a president won on his policy proposals is 1988, and HW managed it mostly on his association with literal movie star president Ronald Reagan. Before that, I'm thinking Richard Nixon. That worked out well.

[Edited on February 6, 2019 at 8:15 PM. Reason : Delenda est Trumpo]

2/6/2019 8:13:24 PM

Quote :

" I have said that I would rather Trump be re-elected even if I think he’s the absolute worst, over a far-left Dem, because: 1. He’d be term limited 2. He’s too incompetent to enact most of his bad ideas 3. I want to see the Dems punished in the worst way (losing to the worst—Trump) if they go hard left. 1. I'm white."

There really doesn't need to be any deeper analysis than this. If you are repulsed by Trump but still prefer him to a progressive challenger, it's because you're white, full stop. Comfortably middle class white people can afford to survive another term of Trump because literally none of this shit affects them negatively. It's not going to be your child separated from you and put in a cage. It's not going to be your son shot and killed by a cop for having anything in his hands. It's not your relative who will be victimized by some sort of hate crime. It won't be your daughter who is denied basic access to healthcare. It won't be you who loses your job in the event of a recession (especially if there are any minorities who can take the hit first). It won't be you or your family who can't afford to escape or rebuild in the event of a climate disaster. It won't be you who has his citizenship revoked and voting power suppressed.


Quite honestly, this entire attempt to rationalize the benefits of a second Trump term just reinforces my belief that the left should just go hard in the paint and do everything they can to re-enfranchise and expand the voter base and deliver on as many public programs as possible to keep them activated in the democratic process. Because as it stands, our country is so goddamn far to the right, that we have Bush era neo-cons up in here pretending to be moderates. These people are not to be courted. They are to be defeated.

[Edited on February 8, 2019 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/8/2019 5:55:03 PM

If I had an airplane I wouldn’t care about what happens to the country either. When things get bad just peace out somewhere, maybe Bermuda.

2/8/2019 9:59:59 PM

^^^ You merit a thoughtful response...I'll eventually get around to it.


^^ Dude...


Get fucked.



^ I started looking a year or two ago at places I might go if things keep going down the drain, and some of the considerations (legal, financial, etc).

2/9/2019 11:26:49 PM

You're not a democrat. And the democratic party would be stupid to try and win your vote, when there are millions of votes that could be had by expanding public programs and expanding the voting base.

It is both strategically and ideologically suicidal for the Democratic Party to adjust its platform to meet your narrow definition of acceptable liberalism (because you're a Republican). I'm sorry your party went full nazi and just began openly embracing fascism, white-nationalism, and evangelicalism, but it is not the responsibility of the Democratic Party to bend over backwards just to give you a new political home, especially when there are millions of votes to be had and maintained by actually embracing and implementing progressive policy.

There are no mythical moderates. There are no reasonable Republicans. There are, however, a shit ton of disengaged and disenfranchised voters who can and should be courted if the Democratic Party wants to ever act on the political urgency that currently exists.

2/10/2019 1:13:15 PM

I feel like Donald Trump's tweets about Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears diminish the political damage from Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage controversy more than they amplify it.

2/10/2019 1:43:49 PM

Nah, it keeps it in the news.

The smallest trivialities will easily harm most candidates.

Trump is Teflon though. Being blatantly racist and altogether disgustingly horrible is just “Trump being Trump.” Rules are different.

[Edited on February 10, 2019 at 1:51 PM. Reason : Genocide jokes would have NYT editorials demanding resignations in past lives]

2/10/2019 1:50:02 PM

It just seems like, if respect for indigenous peoples is truly a concern of yours, given the choice between someone who thought that she had indigenous ancestry versus someone who regularly jokes about indigenous tragedy, you would prefer the person who doesn't joke about indigenous tragedy.

2/10/2019 2:15:13 PM

That's not a choice anyone is making. Trump's comments are designed to consume the news cycle and waste coverage on his outrageousness vice discussing anything of substance. And, thanks to the power of both-sides-ism, blots on Warren's record will be covered as falsely equivalent to Trump's pathological character defects.

2/10/2019 2:35:32 PM

Right—the voters Warren is contending for art already maxed out on their loathing of Trump. He can’t make it worse.

However, Warren is competing against a slew of similar candidates. She’s a little more hard left than most, but only the absolute far-left flank will be Warren/sanders or bust. She still has to compete.

[Edited on February 11, 2019 at 6:42 AM. Reason : Whatever...any little bit of Warren self-immolation is fine by me ]

2/11/2019 6:41:53 AM

Quote :

"You're not a democrat. And the democratic party would be stupid to try and win your vote"

Isn't your whole schtick here about how the democratic party should be trying to win the votes of non-democrats?

I don't think anybody, myself included, is arguing that you should try to "win" Republican votes. It's not like you should make a bargain of "We'll ignore guns for four years if you guys will please vote for us." There are a lot of Republican or Republican-leaning independent voters who are disgusted with Trump, and it's enough that they just stay home and not vote for him. It's even better if some of them can say, "I don't really love this Democrat, but it's important to me that Trump lose, so I'll hold my nose and vote for them." A far-left candidate will be more repellent to this type of voter, and will motivate some Republicans who might otherwise sit out to go to the polls for Trump in order to defeat what they, like theDuke, wrongly see as the greater evil of "socialism."

And as I've said countless times already, that's fine - if you've got another way to pick up those votes. You evidently think that a far-left policy program will draw large numbers of disillusioned potential voters out of their houses and into the voting booth. I don't think policy by itself is going to do that, and I think history shows that popular, dynamic candidates are what boost your numbers. And with all respect due to Elizabeth Warren's career working on a number of important issues, for right or wrong, she's not that candidate. I don't even think Bernie is. If he was, he would have won.

Quote :

"I feel like Donald Trump's tweets about Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears diminish the political damage from Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage controversy more than they amplify it."

Nah. He's giving his base another simplistic refrain to chant and share amongst themselves and their circle of halfwit friends and family, which they will use to strengthen their party cohesion and possibly expand their pool of voters. The kinds of people who vote for Donald Trump aren't the type to be offended by this, and Trump is helped by anything that helps them reduce Warren to a caricature that their tiny minds can comprehend.

2/11/2019 10:04:48 AM

The only Democrat I can imagine drawing in moderate Republicans is Biden, but well, I don't trust them and doubt they'll vote for him even if they say they will. If all the moderate Republicans who said they opposed Trump actually didn't vote for him, Hillary would be President right now. It's a completely disingenuous and unreliable demographic. The folks to target are the ~1.2 million rust belt Democrats or left leaning independent voters that turned out for Obama in 2012 but stayed home in 2016. Trump voters and "moderate" Republicans are a lost cause.

[Edited on February 11, 2019 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2019 12:40:28 PM

Quote :

"Isn't your whole schtick here about how the democratic party should be trying to win the votes of non-democrats?"

Yes. But I'm not including "disillusioned Republicans" in that group because fuck them. They'll never vote for Democrats, because these are the same nitwit bozo's who went around for 8 years claiming Obama was a goddamn Maoist. They're a lost cause. Democrats would be better off trying to win a sizeable portion of the 50% of Americans who stay home every election by appealing to left-wing causes and public programs that would aid voter enfranchisement. I actually agree far more with what Shrike just posted above than what a moderate Republican thinks is the cure for the democratic party.

At best, a moderate Republican will abstain from voting for Trump. That's at best. But they're far more likely to hold their nose and vote for him and post-rationalize it with absurd rationale like theDuke just did above. These people are a minority of a minority within a minority party. Hinging your electoral hopes on them voting for the party they ideologically oppose is a strategy guaranteed to lose. A far better strategy is to try and rapidly and decisively expand your voting base. And you do that by immediately offering policy that appeals directly to the material needs (healthcare, increased minimum wage, free public college, jobs programs, prison reform, etc) of the 50% of people who are too beaten down to vote.

2/11/2019 6:06:13 PM

Quote :

"If all the moderate Republicans who said they opposed Trump actually didn't vote for him, Hillary would be President right now"

Unless they live in Utah, then they were legit all in on Evan McMullin.

2/11/2019 6:34:07 PM

Quote :

"But I'm not including "disillusioned Republicans" in that group because fuck them. They'll never vote for Democrats"

I mean, I get that it's anecdotal, but when you say "never," it gives anecdotes some breathing space...

My entire extended family is made up of "disillusioned Republicans" who vote for Democrats. And that was starting in 2012, before Trump was even on the scene. Last year most of us were straight-ticket (a few holdouts voted for Steve Troxler for Agriculture Secretary, on the grounds that he was from their hometown).

So when you tell me "Disillusioned Republicans are a lost cause who think Obama was a Maoist," it don't exactly resonate.

I voted for Hilary Clinton. I would have voted for Obama in 2012, but I was in Africa and the absentee ballot paperwork never made it. I'll vote for literally any Democrat in 2020. It's difficult for me to imagine voting for a Republican in 2024, but I suppose with enough soul-searching and purging, maybe the party could be rehabilitated.

Now, it's true: Democrats don't have to try to court me, since they could hardly put forward a policy so repugnant that I wouldn't prefer it to Trump. But if people like me exist - and at least a dozen do, to my certain knowledge, and in the swing state of NC, no less - then maybe, maybe it's worth taking them into consideration rather than dismissing them out of hand.

2/11/2019 8:57:31 PM

Chasing moderates is never going to be as productive as pushing for policy. I'm asking the Democratic party to actually put forth and promote an ideology. This requires having a solid worldview that they can articulate. If they did that, and your family keeps voting for them, then great. If that scares them away and into the hands of a white nationalist, then fuck 'em, it isn't worth holding back the party for a few holdouts when there is a sea of potential Democratic voters in North Carolina who have been disenfranchised and/or squeezed out of the democratic process. They far outweigh your family.

2/11/2019 10:54:31 PM

^^you and your family sound like democrats. If you voted for Hilary and 2nd term Obama, I think you've left your republican past behind you and/or the republican party has left you behind them.

2/11/2019 11:39:02 PM

More like Grumpy@GOP

2/12/2019 1:53:38 AM

JesusHChrist's style of debate is just to present a constantly moving target: There's no such thing as disaffected Republicans! Well, maybe there is, but fuck 'em! We need to focus on the disenfranchised! But by "disenfranchised" I apparently mean "the actually enfranchised but non-voting!"

But no matter. You continue to assert, absent any evidence, that a specific set of far-left policies will draw out large numbers of apathetic/disillusioned potential voters, and draw them to your side in numbers sufficient to win. I do not believe this is the case, for two reasons. One, I do not believe that policies will drive voter engagement; effective messaging and above all engaging candidates will do that. Two, I believe that far-left policies, absent that messaging and candidate, will push an equal or greater number of disillusioned voters (Republican or otherwise) to get out and vote for Donald Trump.

In fairness I have to grant that I don't exactly have hard evidence either, but I do have this: In 6 of the last 7 Presidential elections, a not-far-left Democrat won the popular vote. I see that and think maybe we just need some tweaked electoral college math. You see that and think we need the October Revolution. And I think that the ultimate reason is that my overriding goal is the defeat of Donald Trump, so that there will be enough of a liberal democracy left to build good policies on; and your overriding goal is to see your preferred policies represented, whether they win or not.

Quote :

"I think you've left your republican past behind you and/or the republican party has left you behind them."

Sure. But - so what? The point is that there are disaffected Republicans, people who actually do vote, and who for that reason seem to me to be more of a sure bet than a bunch of people who can't be bothered but who will supposedly be magically transformed into politically active citizens as long as we offer them free shit.

2/12/2019 7:57:34 AM

My point is you said your group would vote democratic regardless. Therefore, you are better defined as a Democrat than a disaffected Republican. Did the democratic party do anything to court your vote? If not, you stili need to provide evidence of value on courting CURRENT republicans. I know Republicans that claim to hate Trump and either didn't vote, voted 3rd party or help their nose. ANECDOTALLY, those people may hate him but they love his policies. The tax cuts and judges.

Hilary was about as conservative as you could get and still be a Democrat and lost. The way to victory is a hugely energized base that no longer thinks "Trump can't win".

2/12/2019 8:53:39 AM