All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[numberthirty]

Just about all of the people here lean far to the left and would vote for a progressive candidate who had solid plans to accomplish all of the things you and Jdogindy and catbellysqueezer want.
IOW we all support the same issues to some degree. No one is saying that progressive legislation isn't importanmt or worth voting for. That isn't the issue or argument.
The point I and others are trying to make is that, in November strategy is more important than pushing progressive causes forward. The correct move in the next few months is to push the entire Democratic party forward and gain as much ground as possible. After that happens, and we have enough power to actually get something done, we can all vote our various consciences. In fact, I'll be pushing for universal healthcare, regulating Wall Street, campaign finance reform etc, right with you. The reality is that none of those battles can ever be won without a majority of D's in Congress. Not gonna happen without that first.

Serious question...

We are in mid-November. Dems have managed to do well during the elections.

What do you think the odds are that any of those things become a priority?

[zinderel]

And another user ignored.

Don't have time for lecturing on what an idiot I was because I didn't vote correctly and therefore I'm disqualified from engaging in discussions.

Again; go after people who didn't vote at all.

Even though I'm sure you blocked me for daring to suggest that protest votes helped cost the left in 2016, I'd like to make clear that, despite all hyperbole to the contrary, all I suggested - all ANYONE has suggeated - is that you HELPED the left lose by being so ideologically pure that you refused to vote for someone viable, and instead supported someone who had absolutely no chance of winning the election, no matter how good his policies were. And the 'good policies' of Gary Johnson were about as viable as Jill Stein's, so...how good they were is debateable. How utterly awful for someone to use reality to criticize an action. Whatever will we do...

So please go ahead and vote for whever you like, whenever you like. That is 100% your right as an American, at least while we still have voting rights, anyhow. Who knows when Trump and his minions will try to strip those from people OTHER than black people? Just don't act surprised when your lack of support for the actual candidates selected to run gets us all a net loss, again. Your vote for Gary Johnson was admirable, as I said, in that you voted for your passion. I WISH there were more passionate voters on the left! The fact that you voted at all is admirable, in an election year where something like half the electorate didn't bother.

But, and you knew this was coming, by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning, you HELPED the left lose by splitting the vote. It wasn't all you obcious. NOR can sole blame be placed on protest votes alone. They are simply a part of the equation that led to us losing in 2016. One part in a melange of splintered bases, DNC shadiness, and demands of ideological purity on one side, racism, ignorance and hatred on the other side, and utter apathy all around. The LARGEST group of people to blame for Trump are those who didn't vote, absolutely. Then, there is the people who voted for him. THEN come the people who split the left and refused to organize behind the actual candidate. Hillary is not a racist, nor a homophobe, nor was she someone who would have made it her goal to undo everything Obama had accomplished, but she was a domineering bitch who let her husband cheat on her, she had corporate ties, and of course, there was Benghazi and emails and all of that, so...

Yeah, Hillary was totally unsupportable over an anti-vaxxer whackado and a stoner with no concept of global dynamics or current events. *shakes head*

[catbellysqueezer]

62,980,160 people voted for Trump, but it's all my fault, sure.

[zinderel]

Better than calling people idiots repeatedly and telling them they're responsible for the actions of a sociopath they didn't vote for.

Hmmm...Nope. Lying about people is not in any way, shape or form better than pointing out the reality of the left's loss in 2016. Sorry.

Also, I don't recall calling anyone an idiot. I DID say that if you don't learn from the consequences of your actions - splitting the left by supporting candidates who lost the primary and/or had not a single chance to win the election - you didn't get to turn around and complain when the left lost. I DID say that supporting the candidate you WANT in the primary is exactly how primaries are supposed to work and are what we should all do, though you and others conveniently ignore that in your pursuit of internet victimhood. I DID say that, if your preferred candidate loses, you should swallow your pride and stifle your demand of perfection in all things and throw your support to the candidate who won the primary if we want to make any gains in DC. I DID say that when a hardcore progressive like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins the primary, the same message of unity applies to those who dislike her and might be tempted to protest vote for their favorite candidate - or against the candidate they dislike. I DID say that ALL of us on the left need to weight the value of our vote against the long term benefits of supporting the candidate who makes us feel good over the candidate with a chance of winning

But please, keep telling yourself that I said everyone should vote centrist and nothing else. PLEASE continue making false claims about how I and others say that progressives can't win elections. All anyone has suggested is that you stop voting selfishly and think of the repurcussions of your actions, but in this age of 'say and do anything you want, there are no rules anymore', I guess asking you to be responsible with your vote is oppressing you, huh?

62,980,160 people voted for Trump, but it's all my fault, sure.

AGAIN, if anyone was suggesting that Trump's win was all your fault, please provide reciepts. All anyone has said is that you and other ideological purity spouting protest voters HELPED him win by splitting the left. But I guess that sounds the same, to someone who needs to play the victim, huh?

[Jack Dracula]

Serious question...

We are in mid-November. Dems have managed to do well during the elections.

What do you think the odds are that any of those things become a priority?

The work won't be done after November. If the Dems in office understand that their political futures depend on it, they will give them priority. Their feet must be held to the fire.
But we must get the majority first.

[numberthirty]

Hmmm...I don't recall calling anyone an idiot. I DID say that if you don't learn from the consequences of your actions - splitting the left by supporting candidates who lost the primary and/or had not a single chance to win the election - you didn't get to turn around and complain when the left lost. I DID say that supporting the candidate you WANT in the primary is exactly how primaries are supposed to work and are what we should all do, though you and others conveniently ignore that in your pursuit of internet victimhood. I DID say that, if your preferred candidate loses, you should swallow your pride and stifle your demand of perfection in all things and throw your support to the candidate who won the primary if we want to make any gains in DC. I DID say that when a hardcore progressive like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wins the primary, the same message of unity applies to those who dislike her and might be tempted to protest vote for their favorite candidate - or against the candidate they dislike. I DID say that ALL of us on the left need to weight the value of our vote against the long term benefits of supporting the candidate who makes us feel good over the candidate with a chance of winning

But please, keep telling yourself that I said everyone should vote centrist and nothing else. PLEASE continue making false claims about how I and others say that progressives can't win elections. All anyone has suggested is that you stop voting selfishly and think of the repurcussions of your actions, but in this age of 'say and do anything you want, there are no rules anymore', I guess asking you to be responsible with your vote is oppressing you, huh?

Here's the problem with that...

If you had a candidate who was framing the primary opposition as "Not "Real" Democrats"/Saying "Let's get back to talking about real issues." after someone from Black Lives Matter! was removed/Who told a you minority woman "Why don't you run for something?", are you really comfortable with saying "They" split the left?

Sometimes you have to deal with the consequences of that you told people to shove it without going back and trying to mend those fences once you had the nomination. You only get to tell folks that they are not your backers so many times before they will decide they don't really want to back you.

[numberthirty]

The work won't be done after November. If the Dems in office understand that their political futures depend on it, they will give them priority. Their feet must be held to the fire.

On paper.

What do you think the odds are that it actually happens?

I'm always interested in where folks are coming from when it comes to this.

[catbellysqueezer]

We've tried electing people and hoping they will magically do the right thing later for a century.

Spoiler alert: Once they get elected they no longer give a **** what voters think.

[Dalak]

The work won't be done after November. If the Dems in office understand that their political futures depend on it, they will give them priority. Their feet must be held to the fire.
But we must get the majority first.

Anyone with a brain knows that without a President who will sign what they put out (Assuming they magically get a filibuster proof majority but not a Veto-Proof majority), nothing they do will get anywhere. On top of that: Demanding serious change by Mid-November when the newly elected politicians haven't even been sworn in is beyond idiocy.

[Jack Dracula]

On paper.

What do you think the odds are that it actually happens?

I'm always interested in where folks are coming from when it comes to this.

It will happen if there's any point to participating in representative democracy at all.
In my opinion the first and most important change needs to be campaign finance reform and reversing the Citizens United vs FEC decision. The less dependent our politicians are on outside funding, the more they will follow the will of their respective constituencies.

[numberthirty]

It will happen if there's any point to participating in representative democracy at all.
In my opinion the first and most important change needs to be campaign finance reform and reversing the Citizens United vs FEC decision. The less dependent our politicians are on outside funding, the more they will follow the will of their respective constituencies.

You don't have to convince me, there. I just have my doubts about if that is anywhere on the "To Do" list should they do well in the fall.

[zinderel]

We've tried electing people and hoping they will magically do the right thing later for a century.

Spoiler alert: Once they get elected they no longer give a **** what voters think.

MAN, you are so right. We haven't made any progress as a nation in a century. Not even a little.

OH WAIT...

[Dalak]

It will happen if there's any point to participating in representative democracy at all.
In my opinion the first and most important change needs to be campaign finance reform and reversing the Citizens United vs FEC decision. The less dependent our politicians are on outside funding, the more they will follow the will of their respective constituencies.

This! Without the fundamentally wrong standards of 'Money = Free Speech' and 'Corporations = People' then things stand a chance of being salvaged, but in order to get work done on this there must be primary consequences for those who fail to keep up their standards. However I'd rather not allow the opponent who plans to support the conservative effort to dismantle everything that has been built in the last several decades to promote a social safety net or curb corruption free reign to do so should the candidate I don't like win the primary in the mean time.

[Jack Dracula]

Anyone with a brain knows that without a President who will sign what they put out (Assuming they magically get a filibuster proof majority but not a Veto-Proof majority), nothing they do will get anywhere. On top of that: Demanding serious change by Mid-November when the newly elected politicians haven't even been sworn in is beyond idiocy.

The point is that change is possible if people are willing to push for it. If not, we stay stuck in this endless "one step forward two steps back" cycle.

[Dalak]

The point is that change is possible if people are willing to push for it. If not, we stay stuck in this endless "one step forward two steps back" cycle.

Oh I heartily agree, but some people demand instant and unwavering adherence to their wishes in defiance of how reality works, and that behavior grated on me when I was babysitting and hasn't gotten any better with time.