Willie71

We see a fair bit of this in Alberta, the Texas of the North. I have clients on permanent disability who vote conservative because they think conservative policies are aimed at cutting funding for deadbeats, not themselves. It’s a great con. Down east, this is less prevalent. I’m progressive because I’m economically conservative. It’s cheaper to provide free addictions services than pay for multiple emergency room visits and incarcerations. Welfare is cheaper than the cost of crime and incarcerations. Spending on infrastructure maintenance is cheaper than rebuilding neglected infrastructure. I could go on, but you get the point. Being conservative is the opposite of what conservatives sell us as a message.

Trump sent a message to the rust belt, combined with significant voter suppression in those states to take the win. American elections aren’t won on popular vote, there was no way Trump was going to win in California or New York, just like it was unlikely for Clinton to win in the south. When people say Clinton screwed up, we mean she miscalculated in the rust belt, where polling showed she was in real trouble. People were so desperate they chose to go for Trump (after voting for Obama previously), as more of what was promised for decades was no longer palatable. Going back to that message will work betterthis time? Maybe since Trump hasn’t delivered on any economic promises. It’s still a tough sell to say people should go back to believing in neoliberalism. We know that killed people’s livelihood. The american deficit is the result if two of two main problems. Massive overspending on the military, and ridiculously low real tax rates, the US has incredible per capital gdp. It’s a myth you can’t afford what every other developed nation can afford. Incremental change is what neoliberalism has promised for decades, and people are sick of the con. Reality is coal jobs jobs aren’t coming back. Oil jobs will decline in the next couple decades. Automation will replace labourers. There aren’t enough jobs for university graduates who carry massive debt, The US is becoming a service and entertainment economy for regular folk. It’s frightening for young people looking at what the future holds. These people need to be inspired, not placated with more incrementalism.

Economic justice won’t play well with staunch republicans, especially Trump’s base, but there are a lot of people who were promised a payout for sacrificing commons. Even a majority of republicans favour taxing corporations more, and expanding access to healthcare. Sanders started a massive movement on this, and newer politicians are building careerson it, such as AOC or Omar. This is the unifying message. Who is better off under Trump than they were under Obama, or BushII, or Clinton, or Reagan? Send this message home, and you will win the White House. The DNC has to let go of being republican lite, and define itself as being there for the people. Trump sold this, even though he was lying.

I’m going to offer a bit of a different perspective on the democratic primary. If broad support from the electorate is preferred, then a couple litmus tests must be met. These are the minimum standards I hear about from progressives. 1. No big money donors. Recent converts may be accepted, but the voting record will look at consistency with the public good vs. corporate benefit. 2. A national health care solution. 3. A focus on the commons. Rebuilding infrastructure, investments in education, reducing the predatory aspects of end stage capitalism. Some of these issues aren’t the main focus of people on this forum. Backing candidates who don’t embrace these ideals will likely result in a repeat of 2016. Clinton was out of touch with these issues, and the republicans had the benefit of a decades long smear campaign to build on. I left the forum when pointing these issues out was met with incredulity. Some people weren’t even aware of what a neoliberal or third way democrat was. They are moderate republicans, calling themselves liberals. I cannot see how a third way candidate will win in 2020. The promises from decades ago, saying that people can sacrifice a bit now for a big payout later, no longer hold water. Wages are stagnant, the environment is a mess, academia is being bought out by corporate interests, and slashing spending on the commons has harmed, not benefitted most people. Small tax savings have been far eclipsed by added out of pocket expenses. Kamala Harris is not favoured by any progressives I know. Beto is better than Cruz, but not seen as a strong populist. Booker sold out people for big pharma not too long ago. Sanders, Gabbard (stood up to the DNC, and Clinton), and Warren are the strongest politicians on progressive values. Look at AOC. A candidate must speak clearly about the problems, like Trump did, but offer viable solutions. Trump promised lower cost, higher quality health care. It’s a popular idea. Even republicans outside of the 30% base love the idea.

It’s been a while since I posted here. Following the newer Democratic congresspeople, I understood Omar’s comments to be solely about those who profit from the status quo, not an anti Semitic comment. Rebuking money in politics is the litmus test for young progressives. There is a lot of money funneled to Israel, and the arms industry makes a killing off of conflict in the Middle East. Many lobbyist groups side with Israel even if they aren’t inherently Jewish. The American dominionists want Israel in the hands of Jewish people so their end times fantasies of the second coming can be realized. Those people aren’t being criticized as antiemetic. As she said, it’s about the benjamins, not supporting the plight of Jewish people. Not to mention the Jewish people aren’t the oppressed group when looking at the situation in Palestine. Do Trump or Pence actually care about Jewish people? Not a chance. One thing I do know is that establishment democrats are really good at losing. This confused message regarding antisenetism is much more likely Pelosi trying to avoid an honest discussion on money in politics, a topic she would lose on.

That was my point. Even if there were no laws broken with the donations from foreign powers, or the conspiring in the primaries, it's hard to defend the actions discussed. I didn't say she should be charged, or podesta be charged, just that it takes apologetics to justify that no ethical wrongdoing happened. The world isn't a fair place. That expose confirmed many people's perceptions of poor ethics, corruption (loosely defined), and being at the beckoning of the donors, and people didn't like what they saw. I've heard many justify it as "that's the way it's always done." but that falls short for people looking for change. Not addressing this image with more than a rebranding won't work. There needs to be evidence that people, not donors, will be represented. I think I missed your point. I'm not advocating for charges if no laws were broken. What I'm saying is two fold. People don't trust that the investigation was legitimate on one hand. Secondly, if it was legitimate, and no laws were broken, the emails still stink and have ethical concerns. Neither is a favourable position.

I think citizens united is wrong. It's legal, but it's wrong. I disagree that police have a different standard for culpability when killing another person. It's legal, but it's wrong. It's legal for trump to appoint devoss to his cabinet, but it's wrong. Few people disagree with these positions. Definitely not an arbitrary standard. Podesta talked about issues that skirt legality in the USA, but in other nations would be illegal. I stand by my position. Actionable in this case is choosing not to support a party that contradicts people's ethics. The other option was worse, but that's what you get in a two party system that sold out to big money industries.

People don't believe the investigations were legitimate, or that there was any chance of her being actually charged for wrongdoings. In the same vein that police are rarely charged, let alone convicted for wrongdoing, or how the bankers responsible for the massive fraud committed against the American people weren't charged. Additionally, none of the people responsible for the war crimes in the Middle East or gapuantanamo were prosecuted. There is a lack of trust in the process. It takes pretty heroic apologetics to read the podesta e-mails and not at minimum say, damn, that's not right. Even if it was not illegal, it was pretty smelly. Much more important than Russian interference (which the report included media reports on fracking as propaganda against the USA) is the abomination called "crosscheck." Millions of people, most democrats, were prevented from having their vote counted, without any proof they were voting fraudulently. The number of actual violations is in single digits.

It really puzzles me that so many bright people have blinders on regarding the corruption in US elections, and the meddling seen around the world overthrowing other governments. The intelligence reports are not very strong in the evidence department. There is a possibility/probability that the Russians interfered, but I really doubt this is a new development. This reeks of using McCarthyism to deflect from the internal problems. I suspect much of the issue is that the people most likely to benefit from third way are the professionals who make up the top 10% of the income ladder, the same people likely to be on this board. Not a lot of blue collar workers who lost good paying manufacturing jobs after Nafta, and are now working 70h/week in the service industry to feed their kids. They have a very different experience with the Clinton and Obama presidencies, nothing you posted is really disputable. I'm surprised you have negative props for this pist.

There are conflicting reports on the role if racism in this election. It's definitely one of the major issues, but the democrats are focusing on the racism and McCarthyism and ignoring the economic motivators created by neoliberalism. I went back to posts from November because I thought I posted this video before. Apoarently I didn't, or it's in a different thread. This is the best explanation I have seen regarding the effects of third way democratic policies worldwide. Mark Blyth is well spoken, and well informed. The democrats need to address this issue if they want to regain relevance in upcoming elections, something they are doing horribly at imho.

If anyone wants a pretty good explanation of why conservatives won't be swayed by a debate, this book is a pretty good read, https://www.amazon.ca/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514 Much of the current research us discussed, and debating or arguing with conservatives tends to strengthen their beliefs, not moderate them. I struggle with this, because I tend to focus on evidence. Presenting good evidence is a losing strategy in this case though.

Trump claims climate change is a hoax while taking steps to protect his property from the effects of climate change. I think the republicans are aware of reality, excepting the true fundamentalists who think God controls the weather.

Confirmation bias is a well known effect. We naturally gravitate towards views that agree with us. We can see patterns where there aren't any. This is why research has to have so many checks and balances, combined with statistical analysis. Our "common sense" is often very innacurate. The next level up from that is motivated reasoning. In very basic terms, confirmation bias plus active dismissal of opposing information.

To discuss fascism, it might be worthwhile to look at a few definitions of fascism, and see how Trump compares to them. I hate to use wikipidia, but these definitions aren't bad: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism You can see the elements are there, but not fully formed. There is an argument that is debated vigorously, that America has become a one Party state, with the democrats moving too far right with pro corporatist and pro banking policies. One look at the police violence in North Dakota, ordered by the state, with no interference from the federal government would support this assertion, as would no prosecutions of the banking fraud from the 2008 crash. The argument that the fraud was made legal through laws passed by the government doesn't help the argument much. Is it clearly fascupist yet? Nope, but the elements are there, and it's a dangerous dance. One politician in the south is refusing to accept his loss and will not cede the election. This needs to be dealt with firmly and swiftly.

I've seen this comparison a lot, Trump/Hitler, but those more knowledgeable in history say Trump = Mussolini. I'm no expert on this, but Trump's handling of the profit driven media is giving me chills. I don't see this playing out well, regardless if the brand of fascism that nay emerge. Abortion rights to be returned to the states, defunding planned parenthood removing access to cheap/free contraception, removing contraception from Obamacare, are all concerning. Owning stock in a pipeline that the president has influence over is concerning. Having investments in Central America and Russia influencing international policy is concerning. Not using a true blind trust is illegal, as far as I understand. I could go on, but it would be pages of concerns.