General politics

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I need to see unpopular truth-tellers front and center before I vote D again. No more "rising stars" or party bosses or 28th generation Kennedy kids saying all the right things.

 

Would Joe Biden do anything for you.
I think he's the best kryptonite for Trump that the Dems currently have.

Biden - we are talking about the former VPOTUS, correct? he does nothing for me. I guess Bernie fit my description, but he does nothing for me anymore either. (to Bernies credit he has still campaigned on issues across the US - at least as of this past summer he was)

 

What do you think of Biden? How would he be kryptonite for Trump?

[Mr. Brooks]

Biden - we are talking about the former VPOTUS, correct? he does nothing for me. I guess Bernie fit my description, but he does nothing for me anymore either. (to Bernies credit he has still campaigned on issues across the US - at least as of this past summer he was)

 

What do you think of Biden? How would he be kryptonite for Trump?

I think Biden can credibly project a more sane populist type alternative to eat significantly into Trump's base.

Someone like Sanders (Who I love), or Warren, or Booker only gets votes that were never considering Trump anyway. I really think the Dems need a candidate who can swing a decent chunk of Trump's base, especially in blue collar swing states.

[gunnarthor]

I don't think the Dems have that much to worry about, frankly. Clinton was a horrible candidate but she still beat Trump by 3m votes or so. Gerrymandering has made some things more difficult but not impossible. They won Alabama. They've won a number of special elections. They are campaigning against Trump. In the last decade we've seen the Dems pass pretty progressive legislation nationally. They need to start worrying more about the state levels - and they are  - and their national bench is a bit thin but they have some rising potential stars. The last few election cycles were rough for Dems and 2018 isn't ideal but they'll probably pick up the House and maybe the Senate and that should continue through to 2020 if the GOP is still Trump-level crazy.

[TheLeviathan]

I think getting a more concise message is how they win at the lower levels.  GOP candidates talk the same talk whether they run for school board or the Senate.  

 

It's time for the Dems to start winning elections, then worry about the rest and I think Carole is right about how to do that: new voices, clear messages.  

[stringer bell]

Whether the Democrats win the House back or not, I think Pelosi needs to retire before 2020. She's been an easy target for Republicans. I don't like Hoyer much either. A new face who has some blue collar cred would be helpful.

[Mike Sixel]

$955 billion
President Trump’s tax cuts are already affecting America’s balance sheet: The U.S. Treasury projects that the government will borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, up from the $519 billion it borrowed last year. The cause: lower tax receipts.

[TheLeviathan]

Deficits only seem to matter to the minority party.

 

Funny how that works.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Deficits only seem to matter to the minority party.

 

Funny how that works.

 

The difference is that one party wants to not spend money on helping the poor and elderly, and to privatize infrastructure, while lowering taxes....causing deficits to skyrocket.

 

The other wants to help poor and elderly, and spend more on infrastructure, while not lowering taxes as much, causing the deficit to increase, though more slowly than the other plan.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The difference is that one party wants to not spend money on helping the poor and elderly, and to privatize infrastructure, while lowering taxes....causing deficits to skyrocket.

 

The other wants to help poor and elderly, and spend more on infrastructure, while not lowering taxes as much, causing the deficit to increase, though more slowly than the other plan.

 

I wasn't trying to say the two are the same in all ways, but they sure seem to be when it comes to their timing on concerns about the deficit.  

 

I'm over hypocrisy in all it's forms in politics, allowing it has lead to completely bankrupt principles.

[USAFChief]

 

I think getting a more concise message is how they win at the lower levels.  GOP candidates talk the same talk whether they run for school board or the Senate.  

 

It's time for the Dems to start winning elections, then worry about the rest and I think Carole is right about how to do that: new voices, clear messages.  

They can start by not getting on the wrong side of so many unimportant, but LOUD issues.

 

Example:  Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem.  Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes.  And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

[ashbury]

Example:  Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem.  Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes.  And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

Concur. Colin Kaepernick and his ilk are like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, 'treasonous.' I mean, Yeah, I guess why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much.

[Mike Sixel]

 

They can start by not getting on the wrong side of so many unimportant, but LOUD issues.

 

Example:  Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem.  Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes.  And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

 

It's wrong not to stand in peaceful protest, or it is wrong to make that an issue?

[Mr. Brooks]

They can start by not getting on the wrong side of so many unimportant, but LOUD issues.

 

Example: Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem. Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes. And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

Those things may or may not all be true, but I'm not willing to support a party that doesn't respect peaceful protest.

I'm hardly a one issue voter, but if I were ranking them, personal liberty would be right up near the top.

[Squirrel]

Concur. Colin Kaepernick and his ilk are like death and un-American. Un-American. Somebody said, 'treasonous.' I mean, Yeah, I guess why not? Can we call that treason? Why not? I mean they certainly didn't seem to love our country that much.

I can’t tell if you are serious or not.

[TheLeviathan]

 

They can start by not getting on the wrong side of so many unimportant, but LOUD issues.

 

Example:  Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem.  Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes.  And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

 

I agree, your attempt at saying this a few months back was a beacon of good sense.  Unpopular here, unsurprisingly, but on the money.

 

I strongly stand with the intent behind Black Lives Matter and I strongly stand with their ability to protest.  But I'm also a pragmatist.  At some point, if your message is getting lost in the weeds - get the hell out of the weeds!  The Democrats, and liberalism in general, loves to stand in the weeds and shout about how right they are....but at some point don't we want their ideas winning out?  Isn't actual, meaningful progress more important than just "being" right?

 

It's great Dems/liberals that you've taken your stand and you've shown guts.  I commend that, seriously.  Now let's be smart about it and actually accomplish some things to make people's lives better.  Principles without progress is just empty shouting.  And in the void of accomplishing anything, Republicans continue to push their ideas forward into policy making people's lives worse.  That should be the thing we stand against first and foremost.  So get out of the damn weeds.

[Mr. Brooks]

I agree, your attempt at saying this a few months back was a beacon of good sense. Unpopular here, unsurprisingly, but on the money.

 

I strongly stand with the intent behind Black Lives Matter and I strongly stand with their ability to protest. But I'm also a pragmatist. At some point, if your message is getting lost in the weeds - get the hell out of the weeds! The Democrats, and liberalism in general, loves to stand in the weeds and shout about how right they are....but at some point don't we want their ideas winning out? Isn't actual, meaningful progress more important than just "being" right?

 

It's great Dems/liberals that you've taken your stand and you've shown guts. I commend that, seriously. Now let's be smart about it and actually accomplish some things to make people's lives better. Principles without progress is just empty shouting. And in the void of accomplishing anything, Republicans continue to push their ideas forward into policy making people's lives worse. That should be the thing we stand against first and foremost. So get out of the damn weeds.

Sure, but the onus of that pragmatism needs to be on the individuals.

If the Democratic party itself ever speaks out against it, then they've lost me.

Maybe they gain two in exchange, that's their prerogative, I guess. But I wouldn't support them.

[Mr. Brooks]

I can’t tell if you are serious or not.

I can't tell if you really can't tell if he's serious or not.

[Squirrel]

They can start by not getting on the wrong side of so many unimportant, but LOUD issues.

 

Example: Don't be the party that condones not standing for the national anthem. Laugh, but it's stupid, it's actually wrong, and it costs votes. And they continually just hand these small victories to the Republican Party.

I actually don’t see this as a great example, but I do understand what you mean. They shouldn’t make it an issue on which to campaign. They don’t really need to make it an issue because it’s already protetected in the constitution, so yeah, don’t go there as a rallying cry in campaigns. But what I saw was the other side actually start to introduce bills, at the statehouse level, that make it illegal to kneel and force people to stand. That is akin to fascism and I would hope for individuals and the Dem party to stand up to that while not making it a specific platform for themselves.

[USAFChief]

 

It's wrong not to stand in peaceful protest, or it is wrong to make that an issue?

It's wrong not to stand for the national anthem.

 

And it's counterproductive, to boot.

 

I have no problem with peaceful protest, and I'm a registered Democrat.  But The Kaepernick thing?  Well, congratulations, people.  You simultaneously dis'd the very people who have fought and died for your rights, and hurt your own cause in the process.  

 

Well played.  Fox News appreciates the video.

[USAFChief]

 

I actually don’t see this as a great example, but I do understand what you mean. They shouldn’t make it an issue on which to campaign. They don’t really need to make it an issue because it’s already protetected in the constitution, so yeah, don’t go there as a rallying cry in campaigns. But what I saw was the other side actually start to introduce bills, at the statehouse level, that make it illegal to kneel and force people to stand. That is akin to fascism and I would hope for individuals and the Dem party to stand up to that while not making it a specific platform for themselves.

then make THAT case.

 

"People should stand for the anthem.  But they should do so out of respect and self discipline, not because of some right wing law.  We oppose this legislation."

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's wrong not to stand for the national anthem.

 

And it's counterproductive, to boot.

 

I have no problem with peaceful protest, and I'm a registered Democrat.  But The Kaepernick thing?  Well, congratulations, people.  You simultaneously dis'd the very people who have fought and died for your rights, and hurt your own cause in the process.  

 

Well played.  Fox News appreciates the video.

 

Military people who think the anthem is about the military, and not the nation........make me sad. Since when is the anthem about the military, and not the nation? If it is about the military, maybe it is time we move on from it as a nation.

 

And no,, it is not wrong to not stand for the anthem. It's a song. 

[ashbury]

I can’t tell if you are serious or not.

It's a direct lift from Trump's speech yesterday, if that gives you a better hint.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/trump-speech-treason/index.html

[Squirrel]

then make THAT case.

 

"People should stand for the anthem. But they should do so out of respect and self discipline, not because of some right wing law. We oppose this legislation."

There should be no shoulds or shouldn’ts on this issue, IMO, except that everyone should be allowed to worship in their own way as long as they aren’t breaking a law in the process; and others, whether they like it or not, should let them. Politicians on both sides should just stay out of it.

[Squirrel]

It's a direct lift from Trump's speech yesterday, if that gives you a better hint.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/05/politics/trump-speech-treason/index.html

Okay, well then, now I get it since I know you to be a huge, I say HUGE, Trump supporter.

[ashbury]

Okay, well then, now I get it since I know you to be a huge, I say HUGE, Trump supporter.

Yuge.

[USAFChief]

 

Military people who think the anthem is about the military, and not the nation........make me sad. Since when is the anthem about the military, and not the nation? If it is about the military, maybe it is time we move on from it as a nation.

 

And no,, it is not wrong to not stand for the anthem. It's a song. 

Have you read the words?  

 

And yes, it's wrong not to stand.  It's not "a song."  It's an idea.  

 

Meanwhile, the R's control both houses and the White House.  

 

[Mike Sixel]

Have you read the words?

 

And yes, it's wrong not to stand. It's not "a song." It's an idea.

 

Meanwhile, the R's control both houses and the White House.

If it is a military anthem, and not about the nation as a whole, then it is not the national anthem.

 

And I am not required to stand for ideas at all.

[ashbury]

Meanwhile, the R's control both houses and the White House.  

Chief has raised an important point because people vote with regard to "values" or "being one of us" as much as on the issues.

 

I'm bothered by pressure to stand for the national anthem, and resist the idea of it being a punishable offense to fail to do it, moreover I'm also less worked up than some if somebody uses the anthem as a means of protest. It's not literal free speech, but it's free expression.

 

And I don't like the idea of citizens pointing fingers at each other over things like this. I remember attending the equivalent of a city council meeting at our little village in the mountains of Nevada, where someone made an issue of another attendee (there to give a technical presentation on a controversial topic later on) not putting his hand over his heart and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the session. "I'm Canadian," the second guy growled. You might say, sure, but USians need to do it - but the finger pointing is corrosive and I think we should stay away from it.

 

But back to Chief's electoral point, short of opposing actual legislation it's not the hill I want my candidate to die on.

 

No Trumpian Satire here this time.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure, but the onus of that pragmatism needs to be on the individuals.
If the Democratic party itself ever speaks out against it, then they've lost me.
Maybe they gain two in exchange, that's their prerogative, I guess. But I wouldn't support them.

 

That's a good point worth clarifying.  I don't want the Dems to order people to stand up, that would be equally bad for the party.  

 

I'm calling on the left to be smarter in general on issues like this.  Republicans have proved time and time again over the last 20 years that the message matters a lot less than the messaging.  You can outright lie as long as your messaging is well crafted.  

 

Kneeling during the anthem is just bad messaging.  I'm not quite as adamant as Chief about standing/kneeling from my own point of view, but I do care about what those players are kneeling for.  I care about what Black Lives Matters wants to accomplish.  So when I see counterproductive messaging (time and time again) - it really irritates me. 

 

This country has shifted far too much to the right, but it's hard to see us ever moving left until those individuals on the left who dismiss the value of good messaging get out of the way for more productive methods.  Or at least embrace those of us that share their goals, but do so with a more pragmatic mindset.  Chief made these same points a few months ago and this left-leaning part of the board shouted him down for days.  And that's a small reflection of the larger problem I think we have for why the right keeps mopping the floor in elections: the left would rather be loud and feel correct in their convictions than actually move their agenda forward for the good of all.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

That's a good point worth clarifying.  I don't want the Dems to order people to stand up, that would be equally bad for the party.  

 

I'm calling on the left to be smarter in general on issues like this.  Republicans have proved time and time again over the last 20 years that the message matters a lot less than the messaging.  You can outright lie as long as your messaging is well crafted.  

 

Kneeling during the anthem is just bad messaging.  I'm not quite as adamant as Chief about standing/kneeling from my own point of view, but I do care about what those players are kneeling for.  I care about what Black Lives Matters wants to accomplish.  So when I see counterproductive messaging (time and time again) - it really irritates me.  This country has shifted far too much to the right, but we won't ever move left until those individuals on the left who dismiss the value of good messaging get out of the way for more productive methods.

 

counter productive to march and block the streets

counter productive to sit in the front of the bus, or at the counter with the whites

.....

 

if we were in teh 60s, everyone would be typing how it was counter productive to do what the civil rights movement did.