Politics DON-TROCITIES

[jonnyboy]

It's all you do.

Mmm hmm.

 

[barfo]

They couldn't tell much difference that mattered to them.

Because the Democrats have failed that hard.

Well, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think a large number of those Trump voters voted for Trump because they (thought they) wanted Trump, not because Democrats did or didn't do x, y, or z.

Certainly there are some people who voted for Trump to 'teach the D's a lesson' (won't work), and some who really believe there's no meaningful difference (there is), and some who are one-issue voters where Trump lined up better (e.g. deportations), and some who won't consider voting for a woman, and some who are so uninformed they barely know the names of the candidates, and some who believed the lies, ...

Do the democrats deserve blame? Absolutely, they could have run a different campaign and/or candidate. Presumably there is a alternate universe where x, y, and z produced a D win. Not possible to know for sure what that looks like, though.

Is it accurate to say that Trump won because the democrats failed? I suppose in the sense that you can say that about every single election ever. The winner succeeds, and the loser fails.

barfo

 

[barfo]

You’re just angry and bitter and feel personally aggrieved you didn’t get your political way, so you choose to blame all these hypothetical doomsday scenarios that haven’t even happened on regular people who voted differently than you. People you don’t even know the first thing about. You create the division then proceed to cry about it. It’s plain to see. It’s a tantrum.

Since you did get your political way, why are you angry and bitter and feel personally aggrieved?

Maybe you aren't, but that's how it looks.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Well, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think a large number of those Trump voters voted for Trump because they (thought they) wanted Trump, not because Democrats did or didn't do x, y, or z.

Certainly there are some people who voted for Trump to 'teach the D's a lesson' (won't work), and some who really believe there's no meaningful difference (there is), and some who are one-issue voters where Trump lined up better (e.g. deportations), and some who won't consider voting for a woman, and some who are so uninformed they barely know the names of the candidates, and some who believed the lies, ...

Do the democrats deserve blame? Absolutely, they could have run a different campaign and/or candidate. Presumably there is a alternate universe where x, y, and z produced a D win. Not possible to know for sure what that looks like, though.

Is it accurate to say that Trump won because the democrats failed? I suppose in the sense that you can say that about every single election ever. The winner succeeds, and the loser fails.

barfo

The Democrats could have run a better candidate last election as well. And if the Democrats would have done a better job delivering (or at least fighting) for the people with whatever candidate they had when they did have the presidency they would have likely won this election.

There is a huge gap between what is important to The Democratic Party and what is important to the people who actually vote Democrat.

Because the Democratic party has been doing as little for the people as they could possibly get away with to eak out victory over Republicans.

Small tweaks to Obamacare don't cut it. Small tweaks to Medicare don't cut it.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

You’re just angry and bitter and feel personally aggrieved you didn’t get your political way, so you choose to blame all these hypothetical doomsday scenarios that haven’t even happened on regular people who voted differently than you. People you don’t even know the first thing about.

Well, we know one thing about them: they voted for Trump. Who is transparently unfit for, well, anything, let alone being president of the USA.

You create the division then proceed to cry about it. It’s plain to see. It’s a tantrum.

Whereas your side is so committed to Inclusion they're banning it everywhere they can.

The projection would be funny if it weren't so reminiscent of very scary moments in history.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Well, I appreciate your viewpoint, but I think a large number of those Trump voters voted for Trump because they (thought they) wanted Trump, not because Democrats did or didn't do x, y, or z.

Certainly there are some people who voted for Trump to 'teach the D's a lesson' (won't work), and some who really believe there's no meaningful difference (there is), and some who are one-issue voters where Trump lined up better (e.g. deportations), and some who won't consider voting for a woman, and some who are so uninformed they barely know the names of the candidates, and some who believed the lies, ...

Do the democrats deserve blame? Absolutely, they could have run a different campaign and/or candidate. Presumably there is a alternate universe where x, y, and z produced a D win. Not possible to know for sure what that looks like, though.

Is it accurate to say that Trump won because the democrats failed? I suppose in the sense that you can say that about every single election ever. The winner succeeds, and the loser fails.

barfo

It's really hard to take people blaming the ordinary run-of-the-mill sort-of-centrist political party for not defeating the norm-breaking blatantly lying, accused rapist, actual felon who promised massive internment camps, pardoning of violent offenders (because they were his fans) and prosecution of his political rivals (because they weren't) and who openly uses fascist terminology and sends out dogwhistles to actual Nazis. People from any other time in history, or any other place than the non-metropolitan parts of the USA just stare at Trump and think "electing him would be like getting on a plane piloted by a colicky 2-year-old".

 

[Phatguysrule]

It's really hard to take people blaming the ordinary run-of-the-mill sort-of-centrist political party for not defeating the norm-breaking blatantly lying, accused rapist, actual felon who promised massive internment camps, pardoning of violent offenders (because they were his fans) and prosecution of his political rivals (because they weren't) and who openly uses fascist terminology and sends out dogwhistles to actual Nazis. People from any other time in history, or any other place than the non-metropolitan parts of the USA just stare at Trump and think "electing him would be like getting on a plane piloted by a colicky 2-year-old".

Yet the Democrats couldn't muster enough votes to beat that. Twice.

That is a failure of monumental proportions.

 

[Chris Craig]

Yet the Democrats couldn't muster enough votes to beat that. Twice.

That is a failure of monumental proportions.

The problem is the second time around, they should have learned, pretended he didn't even exist and focused on the people.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The problem is the second time around, they should have learned, pretended he didn't even exist and focused on the people.

Focusing on the people is counter to everything the current Democrats are built for. They are built upon the idea of bringing in as much money as possible. You have to piss off the lobbies to focus on the people. And the people are fickle. The lobbyists will be there if you take care of them. Every year. Win or lose. And they will make you rich, support you in primaries, and give you countless other benefits along the way. Including writing your bills for you.

If you lose, that will just get your base fired up to give you more money. Especially if you can convince the people that it is their own fault...

 

[barfo]

The problem is the second time around, they should have learned, pretended he didn't even exist and focused on the people.

I don't see how that's a winning formula. That would have made the campaign disappear entirely. People would have thought Trump was running unopposed, as he'd be the only candidate anyone would ever hear about.

Like letting a tiger loose in a high school classroom and expecting the students to focus on the lesson on the blackboard.

barfo

 

[Strenuus]

I've never given money to a politician. Never will.

Why do people do that? It seems like a complete waste of money.

 

[Chris Craig]

I don't see how that's a winning formula. That would have made the campaign disappear entirely. People would have thought Trump was running unopposed, as he'd be the only candidate anyone would ever hear about.

Like letting a tiger loose in a high school classroom and expecting the students to focus on the lesson on the blackboard.

barfo

Focusing on Trump wasn't a winning formula either.

 

[barfo]

Focusing on Trump wasn't a winning formula either.

That is correct.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I've never given money to a politician. Never will.

Why do people do that? It seems like a complete waste of money.

Well, it got me power over billions of dollars of government contracts, an office in the White House, and I got to do a Nazi salute on national television.

Elon

 

[Phatguysrule]

I've never given money to a politician. Never will.

Why do people do that? It seems like a complete waste of money.

The system should be set up so that you can allocate money to whoever (or whatever cause) you want. But the way it is now you give money to politicians if you don't want them to have to get money from corporations. AOC, for one, doesn't accept money from lobbyists. She only accepts donations from people. Her average donation is $17.

Theoretically, that allows her to compete against corporate owned stooges while focusing on doing right the people who vote for her.

If every voting age American had $100 per person (per year) that could be allocated at any time (on the IRS website, or via a tax form) to any person or cause then politicians would actually have incentive to get things done for the common person.

So, I guess it probably is a waste of money, unless you are supporting somebody who refuses corporate money.

 

[barfo]

The system should be set up so that you can allocate money to whoever (or whatever cause) you want. But the way it is now you give money to politicians if you don't want them to have to get money from corporations. AOC, for one, doesn't accept money from lobbyists. She only accepts donations from people. Her average donation is $17.

Theoretically, that allows her to compete against corporate owned stooges while focusing on doing right the people who vote for her.

If every voting age American had $100 per person (per year) that could be allocated at any (on the IRS website, or via a tax form) time to any person or cause then politicians would actually have incentive to get things done for the common person.

So, I guess it probably is a waste of money, unless you are supporting somebody who refuses corporate money.

Counterpoint: Elon spent less than $1/US person to get Trump elected. If we'd all donated $2, we'd have outspent him 2:1.

There could be power in small donations from lots of people.

$100/person would, of course, be even better!

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Counterpoint: Elon spent less than $1/US person to get Trump elected. If we'd all donated $2, we'd have outspent him 2:1.

There could be power in small donations from lots of people.

$100/person would, of course, be even better!

barfo

Yes. But that's just for a single election. There are local and state level politics and causes which need support, and where the money could go even further than in a national election.

 

[barfo]

Yes. But that's just for a single election. There are local and state level politics and causes which need support, and where the money could go even further than in a national election.

Agree 100%. If we are going to make real progress, we need to start at the bottom, not at the top.

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Everyone here does those things, many worse than me, and usually in a pile-on fashion against me or one of the other couple posters who don’t follow leftist orthodoxy. You’re taking issue with me personally here because you don’t agree with my politics. That’s what this is.

No, everyone else actually talks about... wait for it... wait for it... THE BLAZERS.

Maybe I missed it but do you have a recent post about the Blazers? Something that isn't politics? Or sharing something, even politics, that is something you believe it instead of finding fault with other people's beliefs?

You hunt? Fish? Gone to a concert? Bought a new car? Is there anything about you besides criticizing what others post or believe?

 

[Strenuus]

The system should be set up so that you can allocate money to whoever (or whatever cause) you want. But the way it is now you give money to politicians if you don't want them to have to get money from corporations. AOC, for one, doesn't accept money from lobbyists. She only accepts donations from people. Her average donation is $17.

Theoretically, that allows her to compete against corporate owned stooges while focusing on doing right the people who vote for her.

If every voting age American had $100 per person (per year) that could be allocated at any (on the IRS website, or via a tax form) time to any person or cause then politicians would actually have incentive to get things done for the common person.

So, I guess it probably is a waste of money, unless you are supporting somebody who refuses corporate money.

Hmm that's fair. I guess that'd be my threshold too. I knew I liked AOC for a lot of reasons but I never connected that.

 

[Strenuus]

Yes. But that's just for a single election. There are local and state level politics and causes which need support, and where the money could go even further than in a national election.

100% agree. And on that note, how do we feel about Wilson so far (and no barfo, not the ball from cast away)?

 

[barfo]

100% agree. And on that note, how do we feel about Wilson so far (and no barfo, not the ball from cast away)?

Dammit, you never let me have any fun.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

100% agree. And on that note, how do we feel about Wilson so far (and no barfo, not the ball from cast away)?

I don't personally like Wilson's policies at all. Forcing 700 people to come in to work instead of allowing remote is pointless and wasteful.

His plans for dealing with homelessness are doomed to fail.

He's doing stuff that we already know doesn't work. But it plays well to get votes...

 

[Strenuus]

I don't personally like Wilson's policies at all. Forcing 700 people to come in to work instead of allowing remote is pointless and wasteful.

His plans for dealing with homelessness are doomed to fail.

He's doing stuff that we already know doesn't work. But it plays well to get votes...

Yeah when I heard rhe proposal for it I scratched my head. It's literally what we've tried before and we are putting millions of dollars into it again.

It's going to take a community and collaborative effort from non elected officials to get it done, but they don't want to do that because they want all the credit.

And the vicious cycle will continue.

I don't think it mattered who got elected, remote work was always gonna be shuttered to a point because businesses have mortgages on these places and that's the only reason they need you there. To justify.

 

[crandc]

Colombia was reported to have capitulated but not quite. They agreed to accept their citizens on military flights, which incidentally cost us taxpayers much more than civilian flights. They got concessions that citizens of other countries won't be dumped for them to deal with and that their citizens won't be handcuffed on flights.

Brazilian citizens deported report the air conditioning was shut off on plane and they were not allowed to drink water.

I guess cattle cars weren't available.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yeah when I heard rhe proposal for it I scratched my head. It's literally what we've tried before and we are putting millions of dollars into it again.

It's going to take a community and collaborative effort from non elected officials to get it done, but they don't want to do that because they want all the credit.

And the vicious cycle will continue.

I don't think it mattered who got elected, remote work was always gonna be shuttered to a point because businesses have mortgages on these places and that's the only reason they need you there. To justify.

Exactly. It's just lip service to take power and then he'll come up with excuses for why it doesn't work in an effort to get elected again.

As far as using the buildings the city has millions to address homelessness that they could have used to convert this office space to apartments.

I'm sure 500 apartments hitting the market would help take some pressure off.

But the other thing is that they want more workers downtown getting lunch every day or parking their cars, etc.

It's just another way to force people to spend more.

 

[Hoopguru]

Yes. But that's just for a single election. There are local and state level politics and causes which need support, and where the money could go even further than in a national election.

Democrats raised mega more than Trump too. When you get that bad the right message and target audience wasn't close.
There is a segmentation of voters much like consumer markets. Most people drive mid priced affordable vehicles (mid market) much lower percentage drive high end luxury cars.

 

[Strenuus]

Exactly. It's just lip service to take power and then he'll come up with excuses for why it doesn't work in an effort to get elected again.

As far as using the buildings the city has millions to address homelessness that they could have used to convert thise office space to apartments.

I'm sure 500 apartments hitting the market would help take some pressure off.

But the other thing is that they want more workers downtown getting lunch every day or parking their cars, etc.

It's just another way to force people to spend more.

Yep. I'm hoping people get as smart as us to see it, but since shitbag was elected I have my doubts.

 

[barfo]

“The Trump administration has instructed organizations in other countries to stop disbursing H.I.V. medications purchased with U.S. aid, even if the drugs have already been obtained and are sitting in local clinics,” the New York Times reports.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I don't personally like Wilson's policies at all. Forcing 700 people to come in to work instead of allowing remote is pointless and wasteful.

His plans for dealing with homelessness are doomed to fail.

He's doing stuff that we already know doesn't work. But it plays well to get votes...

I'm sorry, but bullshit.

They work for Portland they need to work IN Portland. If you want downtown Portland to come back you need people working, shopping, eating in downtown Portland.

There is a neighbor in St Helens that is almost all Portland Police. It's their little safe space and that's BS. We need our police living and being part of the communities they serve and the same goes for the City of Portland workers.

The vast majority of them had to work in Portland when they first got hired. If that is something they no longer want to do they should work elsewhere.

DT Portland is really struggling. It's hard to convince businesses to rent, buy, and/or invest in DT Portland. It's a bad message when the city's workers don't want to be there.