U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Keeping abortion safe and legal is absolutely a priority.  However, I think that electing Pro-life democrats in more conservative areas can help protect the right to choose.  Any state legislature with democrats controlling even one house is not going to be passing abortion restrictions, even if a few of those democrats are pro-life.  The problem is that there are way too many state houses where Republicans have the trifecta and every two years they revisit the question "how can we make it harder to get an abortion?"

 

Sure, if they want to be personally anti-choice then I have no issue with it.  Politically anti-choice?  Nope.  It's a non-starter.  If a democratic candidate wants to focus on education and easy, affordable access to birth control and higher quality reproductive care rather than their personal feelings on abortion, fine.  This would be an actual pro-life stance as it serves to improve the lives of people actually living and perhaps prevent unplanned pregnancies so as to decrease the number of abortions sought.  This is a position that makes logical sense and actually serves women.  Any stance that is anti-choice is simply a non-starter.  Nope.  And we should be ashamed for asking women to simply accept "just a few" anti-choice dems in the hopes that they will take over state houses and....then what?  Protect our rights?  Nope.  Y'all are so fond of slippery slopes and this is a massive slippery slope right here.  

[aceluby]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, let's not leave women's healthcare behind just because it's inconvenient to discuss.  Whether or not Roe v Wade has been the law of the land has not changed the fact that it's been constantly and successfully attacked multiple times over - to the point that in some places it's practically illegal or impossible to receive an abortion.  When Dems are quiet about abortion, states roll out anti-women bills that require clinics that offer abortions to have ridiculous standards making all those clinics have to close down.  The only ways those laws have been challenged, or in some cases overturned, have been Dems who have stood up.  

Keeping abortion legal and available is what helps strengthen healthcare.  Refusing to talk about reproductive care while Republicans steamroll over our rights weakens healthcare.  We must never support a party that refuses to speak about 50% of the population.

I don't disagree with anything you've written.  But if democrats actually won elections these shitty laws wouldn't get passed in the first place. 

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I don't disagree with anything you've written.  But if democrats actually won elections these shitty laws wouldn't get passed in the first place. 

Oh really?  So what are you expecting these politically anti-choice dems to be doing?  If they run with anti-choice platforms, wouldn't their voters expect that they do something about it in office?

If middle class white voters start voting with their own economic interests in mind, they'd be likely to vote dem.  It would be a nightmare for women, LGBTQ, and minorities is we start letting dem candidates decide they are going to take very socially conservative and regressive stances on policies that affect these groups.  

[aceluby]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh really?  So what are you expecting these politically anti-choice dems to be doing?  If they run with anti-choice platforms, wouldn't their voters expect that they do something about it in office?

If middle class white voters start voting with their own economic interests in mind, they'd be likely to vote dem.  It would be a nightmare for women, LGBTQ, and minorities is we start letting dem candidates decide they are going to take very socially conservative and regressive stances on policies that affect these groups.  

I never said I wanted anti-choice or socially conservative dems, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, dmc515 said:

This is puerile logic.  Obama got the greatest turnout Dems can hope for.  Did he do it be veering far to the left?  Nope.  He also didn't do it by veering far to the center either.  He did it by inspiring people.  As I said, I really don't care what wing the 2020 candidate comes from.  I want that.  I want the 2004 DNC speech - which made his career and had me working for him by late 2006.

I think that's mostly true other than the plank of Healthcare Reform that he mostly ran on. It seems to me that this particular issue is probably considered to be more progressive than centrist at the end of the day. That the bill that was eventually passed was Centrist at best (hell, it might not even be Left centrist given that it's modeled after a Conservative program) doesn't change the fact that many folks voted for him hoping for a more progressive plan.

I think the Dems could successfully run a Centrist candidate if that candidate adopted at least one major progressive issue as a plank, say single payer or something equivalent.

[Dr. Pepper]

14 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I never said I wanted anti-choice or socially conservative dems, so I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. 

Really?  Because in response to this:

2 hours ago, Week said:

Abortion as an issue is a loser for democrats - it's decisive in a way that the gap is extremely difficult to bridge. Roe v Wade is the law of the land - there's no sense in relitigating that battle as it will only go backwards to the detriment of 50% of the population directly and the remainder indirectly. As I said, moving Left or Center is irrelevant - strong leaders that can articulate their views (Obama) are what is needed. Any artificial movement to expand the tent by pandering to one side or the other is a losing strategy.

...you said this:

2 hours ago, aceluby said:

Exactly.  They have no reason to discuss it and they should do everything in their power so it's not a major issue.  It's the law of the land and has been for 40 years.  They need to discuss strengthening the social safety net.  They need to discuss how their economic policies are what brought on the strongest middle class of all time.  They need to discuss how Republican policies have weakened the middle class since Reagan.  They need to talk about how they are working to strengthen healthcare, not take it away like Republicans.

It seems like you support dems no longer standing for abortion.  You want them to be silent on the issue of abortion.  You say that it's more important to get elected than it is to have politicians who are willing and able to protect the rights and wellness of all of us.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

53 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Sure, if they want to be personally anti-choice then I have no issue with it.  Politically anti-choice?  Nope.  It's a non-starter.  If a democratic candidate wants to focus on education and easy, affordable access to birth control and higher quality reproductive care rather than their personal feelings on abortion, fine.  This would be an actual pro-life stance as it serves to improve the lives of people actually living and perhaps prevent unplanned pregnancies so as to decrease the number of abortions sought.  This is a position that makes logical sense and actually serves women.  Any stance that is anti-choice is simply a non-starter.  Nope.  And we should be ashamed for asking women to simply accept "just a few" anti-choice dems in the hopes that they will take over state houses and....then what?  Protect our rights?  Nope.  Y'all are so fond of slippery slopes and this is a massive slippery slope right here.  

In general I agree with you, but with one caveat. I think individuals running for executive offices should absolutely be held to this standard, but there should be some wiggle room for people running for a seat in a legislature. They’re less likely to have any impact when it comes to abortion rights, and their votes in other areas, assuming they’re an otherwise lockstep Democrat, would be really useful.

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Ok, what's your proposed solutions?  Please, indulge.  You say there's a huge flaw in the basics of common law - please explain specifically how you counteract nazism, white supremacy, whatever through preemptive violence that will eradicate for the problem for good.  It's incredibly ironic that you think I have no argument when you haven't even clearly defined what exactly you're for.

The fuck?  So MLK and SNCC were the "establishment" reaction?  And damn right a lot of people died, and damn wrong I'm whitewashing over that legacy:

That's from my lecture notes from the Civil Rights unit of my intro American Gov't class.  Your attempt at accusing me of not understanding history solely served the purpose of demonstrating you don't understand history.

Your having lecture notes from a civil rights class doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.  My point was that claiming that the CRM was achieved strictly through nonviolence is whitewashing history.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Quite clearly "running the government like a business" is not producing the results anticipated by those who buy that model.

I believe that it's a bad plan or model to begin with, but to hold Trump up as an example as to how this doesn't work is a bit sketchy. This guy is not a good businessman.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

In general I agree with you, but with one caveat. I think individuals running for executive offices should absolutely be held to this standard, but there should be some wiggle room for people running for a seat in a legislature. They’re less likely to have any impact when it comes to abortion rights, and their votes in other areas, assuming they’re an otherwise lockstep Democrat, would be really useful.

"Less likely to have any impact" means there is still way too much room in their impact to occur.  It also makes me wonder what the point would be to run on an anti choice platform.  I would assume voters will expect the elected official to adhere to her or his campaign promises and if the candidate ran with anti-choice promises, chances are they'd keep to that and vote for anti-choice measures.  That has significant impact on thousands of women at local levels, potentially millions at state and federal levels.  You don't trade off the health and choice of women for something else.  

Switch it out with different issues and see how you feel about it.  What if this is about a Dem being politically opposed to marriage equality and running on an anti-lgbtq platform?  You might say that's a bad example because it's only bee law of the land for two years and some dems are still in the anti camp.  But I'll point out that some dems have jumped ship to the other party because it's such a big deal to them.  Will anti-choice dems start jumping ship because being opposed to women's reproductive health is so important to them and their constituents.  Switch out the issue with anything related to civil rights and desegregation and minority protections in general.  This is a very slippery slope.  

I'm fine with a Democratic candidate admitting to being personally anti choice, but only if they are willing to protect women and their health by improving health care and maybe preventing undesired pregnancies in the first place.  

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Keeping abortion safe and legal is absolutely a priority.  However, I think that electing Pro-life democrats in more conservative areas can help protect the right to choose.  Any state legislature with democrats controlling even one house is not going to be passing abortion restrictions, even if a few of those democrats are pro-life.  The problem is that there are way too many state houses where Republicans have the trifecta and every two years they revisit the question "how can we make it harder to get an abortion?"

 

That is one of the most stupid thinks I've ever read, and by now lordessa have we read super, ultimate stupid stuff!

And what part of abortion, contraceptives and reproductive health care being nearly impossible for multiples of many women in multiple of many places in this country right this minute are you not reading, heeding or comprehending? And that people who still sacrifice themselves to provide these fundamental health care services being doxed, stalked and even murdered, along with their families?"

What you wrote is the same writing give the poor hungry for chicken coyote in with the hens to keep them safe from him harming them.

Without these basic necessities of women's health care, what health care is there? how is the family strengthened? how the state? Right this minute the ranking of the US for infant mortality is about number 50, the women who die or have permanent damage from pregnancy and childbirth and NO Postpartum care is in the stratosphere.  This country is like a third world country in these matters for at least half of the population if not more.

[OldGimletEye]

42 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I believe that it's a bad plan or model to begin with, but to hold Trump up as an example as to how this doesn't work is a bit sketchy. This guy is not a good businessman.

You're right. Trump isn't a good businessman. But he fooled a lot of people that he was. I'd put Carly Fiorina  in that category. I mean it seems to me most of her shtick was something like,"My awesome business experience. You can't touch my awesome business experience. Let me tell you about my awesome business experience...blah, blah, blah." Of course her tenure at Hewlett-Packard was very controversial. And when she got fired, the stock went up something like 7% in a day.

And then she tried to tell Krugman that "everyone agrees that we need to worry about the deficit". Nope, everyone didn't back several years ago. A lot of smart people, and not just Krugman, thought austerity was a disaster and fiscal expansion was the only game in town because monetary policy was severely constrained.

But take somebody like Bernie Marcus. Successful business guy. But utterly full of shit on taxes. Tried to use his personal business experience to argue how tax cuts for people like himself would really boost the economy.

Or take people like Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein. They are utterly full of shit on equity capital requirements. If anything they should be strengthened and not reduced. In fact, if there is one thing that tends to unite left and right wing thinkers on the subject of financial stability its the issue of equity capital. Dimon and Blankfein - probably successful business  guys and smarter than Trump, but full of crap on an important issue.
 

Anyway, when any one says "trust my business experience" they really need to be looked at to see if what they are saying makes sense.

[lokisnow]

Bloomberg people? Jesus what a terrible idea. George Clooney would be a better choice if you're going for rich old white guy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I believe that it's a bad plan or model to begin with, but to hold Trump up as an example as to how this doesn't work is a bit sketchy. This guy is not a good businessman.

Oh, I agree, but, as OGE points out Trump's "Business Acumen" is what he sold during the election.

[lokisnow]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, I just acknowledged that it might be wise to run a younger candidate, but not someone who is younger than @Jaime L. 

I’m not saying that Democrats should nominate the most boring individual alive, but it would be a mistake to nominate a super liberal individual.

Brian schatz. sen from Hawaii in the news today for his smart Medicaid buy in bill. 

Get the man an inspirational speech writer and put him on planes to Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well a couple of things. Certainly, Trump will never be able to live up to his pie in the sky promises. So that needs to be pointed out.

That was one aspect of the Scott Adams breakdown of how Trump conducts himself that I found to be really interesting. He claims that Trump supporters don't consider many of these promises to be lies so much as they consider them to be negotiation strategies. Take the wall for instance. "We're going to build this big, beautiful wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it". They don't honestly think that this is going to happen, this is just Trump starting negotiations with a ridiculous demand so that when he compromises down, he is still left in a more favorable position. 

 Just to clarify, I don't really buy into this bullshit, but I thought it was an interesting take.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 hours ago, Gorn said:

 I remember a quote about him when he was talked about as an potential independent candidate: "a candidate who wants to take away your gun, your soda and your union card ".

I don't have a gun, but if he tries to take my soda and my union card I'm going to go get one.

[Week]

 

38 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I'm fine with a Democratic candidate admitting to being personally anti choice, but only if they are willing to protect women and their health by improving health care and maybe preventing undesired pregnancies in the first place.  

Yes, this absolutely. My point, which may not have been well made and is probably more aspirational for dems than is reasonable, is for the party to move on from the abortion discussion to the myriad women's health issues that still exist. Where I would like to see more crossover is in the pernicious anti-choice bills that are touted as for the safety of women (a la Texas) where studies are showing demonstrably negative outcomes for women and their health.

Women having the right to choose should be a fucking done deal in the Democratic Party

[aceluby]

49 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It seems like you support dems no longer standing for abortion.  You want them to be silent on the issue of abortion.  You say that it's more important to get elected than it is to have politicians who are willing and able to protect the rights and wellness of all of us.  

I don't know how you went from not making it a major campaign issue to 'no longer standing for it' and wanting 'them to be silent on the issue of abortion', but it is pretty clear that is not what I wrote.  I don't think it's a winning topic for them and think that time spent on it could be spent on other issues that are, which is what I wrote right after the piece you quoted.

And yes, politicians who get elected fundamentally are in a better position to protect the rights that you and I care about more than politicians who do not get elected.  

[GAROVORKIN]

5 hours ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Another thing too, is what with the 'new' Dems approach, I already forgot their exciting slogan for it, anybody remember?  Well they say that now they need a 50 state approach and no more flyover states.  Well f'n duh'h!  Howard Dean told them that they needed a 50 state approach years ago and Obama put into to action.  They need boots on the ground knocking on doors in every state. 

There are people in the state and vols' who will come to the state that will do that.  Clinton thought she the three states that surprisingly went to Trump were her 'backbone' or foundation or some such shit and she pulled vols from there.  If the Dem's want turnout they have to work for it, they have recruit the vols for it and they cannot, never, ever, think they have the election in the bag.

I think the Democratic Slogan was We can do Better .