Is the left prepared to beat a socially liberal right?

[Rasp]

I daresay the FBI meddling right before election day probably helped, too.

That always came off like a weak scapegaot by partisan hacks - there is no evidence to suggest it would have in any way affected the result in the rustbelt. The Democrats are flummoxed by this because they cant imagine it was themselves and their own shitty policies that proved unpopular no it had to be ANYTHING else - See Russia. I mean after losing the presidency - the senate - the house - the majority of state legislators - totaling around 1,000 lost seats - clearly they are doing absolutely nothing wrong since Obama took office and The FBI or Russia or the Bernie Bros are to blame for EVERYTHING that went wrong. Their trip to Egypt must been really productive they swam in the Nile and it was SALTY.

Also this data is two years old so the numbers are probably higher but you know the FBI had jack to do with it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... latures-o/

The electoral college IS still bullshit but if the democrats don't like systems like that they should do away with their own super-delegate system otherwise they have NO room to complain. Every one of them that defended the super-delegate / closed primaries system then immediately started to criticize the college after they lost - showed that one person one vote is not a CORE BELIEF they have - it's just an excuse to trot out when its convenient. This is why I hate the democrats.

Overriding grassroots movements with super-delegates is just the sort of elitist authoritarian thinking that has been killing the democratic party. I'm all but convinced the democratic elite actually believe Corporate Lobbyists are actually "Grassroots Movements".

It's gotten so bad in the democratic party that strong progressives are infiltrating the republican party instead. because the democrats have proven to be out of control authoritarians with innumerable barriers to grass roots efforts where the republican party is far more vulnerable.

"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo, They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats"

I'd rather have a "Justice Caucus" of Insurgent Leftist RINO's than allow the current Democrats to keep running things into the ground.

Plus Insurgent Leftist RINO is really fun to say... Insurgent Leftist RINO

[Admiral X]

Admiral-X: I've always loved that King quote, and I do long for the day when things like Affirmative Action aren't necessary.

Pretty sure that day has already come to pass. Anti-discrimination laws are plenty on their own.

And yes, identity politics have a terrible potential to become toxic, because they play to our tendency to define ourselves in contrast to an "Other".

Potential? That ship has sailed.

But I also can see the argument of TRR and co. Namely, if the system is still engineered to be weighted against specific groups of people, declaring that "everyone has an equal chance" and denouncing measures intended to undo that weighing is not supporting an egalitarian outcome.

If it were weighted against specific groups of people, it wouldn't be egalitarian, would it? This is actually why I'm against things like affirmative action, because it's literally institutionalized racism and sexism. Members of the regressive left live in a fantasy world that is perpetually stuck in the 1950s. The kind of systemic prejudice they talk about is illegal, and in its place things have just flipped around - which is basically just what they want. Their ideology is based on the Marxist principal of "hate the oppressor," so they do not have egalitarianism or meritocracy as a goal. Hell, groups of them are calling for a return to segregation. Others who are biracial like myself are making slam poetry to hate on their white parents and lament the white part of their heritage.

[Bernkastel]

Pretty sure that day has already come to pass. Anti-discrimination laws are plenty on their own.

I assume you don't pay much attention to the news then. Either that or you live in a different world to the rest of us. Yeah, the world is a lot better. But that does mean we exist in an egalitarian society. There is still discrimination on a large enough scale that I understand why, for an example, there are black parents in America who tell their children to be cautious when interacting with the police.

If it were weighted against specific groups of people, it wouldn't be egalitarian, would it? This is actually why I'm against things like affirmative action, because it's literally institutionalized racism and sexism. Members of the regressive left live in a fantasy world that is perpetually stuck in the 1950s. The kind of systemic prejudice they talk about is illegal, and in its place things have just flipped around - which is basically just what they want. Their ideology is based on the Marxist principal of "hate the oppressor," so they do not have egalitarianism or meritocracy as a goal. Hell, groups of them are calling for a return to segregation. Others who are biracial like myself are making slam poetry to hate on their white parents and lament the white part of their heritage.

Again, that there is a lot less discrimination does not mean that we exist in an egalitarian society. The worst forms of discrimination are certainly gone, yes. But that does not mean discrimination does not exist in different forms from the overt systematic forms of the past and to a degree that society should actually do something about it.

Also, could you please drop it with the whole "regressive marxist leftists who totally believe in this and this". Ignoring that it's a strawman and that I don't believe in anything you attribute to me and others like TRR, it just comes off like when people scream "Nazis! Fascists!" at random members of the right.

I don't doubt that people who believe in the stupid things you mention. I'd remind you that the right has it's own crazy morons. One is in the White House. But the opinions of Trump and those like him are irrelevant in regards to you. It would be stupid to respond to anything you say with a monologue about what some other people somewhere think. So, why should what some random idiot on the left says or does matter in regards to this discussion?

[Admiral X]

I assume you don't pay much attention to the news then.

I do pay attention to the news. I see plenty of what's going on, including the "antifa" acting like brownshirts and plenty of regressives cheering them on.

Either that or you live in a different world to the rest of us.

True, I do not live in the perpetual 1950s fantasy land you seem to live in - I live in the real world.

Yeah, the world is a lot better. But that does mean we exist in an egalitarian society.

For the most part, yes, we do. There are still a few states that need to get with it when it comes to anti-discrimination laws, but that's about it.

There is still discrimination on a large enough scale that I understand why, for an example, there are black parents in America who tell their children to be cautious when interacting with the police.

Which is largely due to perception. Really, everyone should be cautious when it comes to interacting with the police. The corrupt bullies will pick on anyone they think they can get away with doing it to.

Again, that there is a lot less discrimination does not mean that we exist in an egalitarian society. The worst forms of discrimination are certainly gone, yes. But that does not mean discrimination does not exist in different forms from the overt systematic forms of the past and to a degree that society should actually do something about it.

Yeah, like all the racist stuff I just brought up in my last post which you just completely ignored.

Also, could you please drop it with the whole "regressive marxist leftists who totally believe in this and this".

Nope. It is what it is, and I base this on the actions of the regressive left. You can make any kind of argument or claim you want (including the "no true Scotsman" argument you make shortly after this), but it comes down to the actions of the people I'm talking about, especially when they hold any kind of power (as in universities).

I don't doubt that people who believe in the stupid things you mention. I'd remind you that the right has it's own crazy morons.

Yeah, and I dislike all of them. I have a strong dislike of authoritarians of any stripe. It is rather fun pointing out the similarities between them, though, as with the left it really seems to get under their skin because they don't like seeing themselves in those terms.

One is in the White House. But the opinions of Trump and those like him are irrelevant in regards to you.

Given all the ways the media provably twisted things Trump said during the campaign, and all the other instances of the regressive left lying through their teeth (GamerGate comes to mind), why should I believe any of the "he's literally Hitler" crap? I don't, incidentally. Again, it comes down to actions. I'm not saying I'm thrilled, actually I'm quite happy that the checks and balances are working properly. I am happy Clinton lost, though. I just wish there'd have been a way for both of them to lose.

It would be stupid to respond to anything you say with a monologue about what some other people somewhere think. So, why should what some random idiot on the left says or does matter in regards to this discussion?

There's plenty out there to see, and it's not just one random idiot I'm talking about. So when someone brings up anything that looks to go down that road, you're damn right I'm going to bring this stuff up.

[The Romulan Republic]

I daresay the FBI meddling right before election day probably helped, too.

That always came off like a weak scapegaot by partisan hacks - there is no evidence to suggest it would have in any way affected the result in the rustbelt. The Democrats are flummoxed by this because they cant imagine it was themselves and their own shitty policies that proved unpopular no it had to be ANYTHING else - See Russia. I mean after losing the presidency - the senate - the house - the majority of state legislators - totaling around 1,000 lost seats - clearly they are doing absolutely nothing wrong since Obama took office and The FBI or Russia or the Bernie Bros are to blame for EVERYTHING that went wrong. Their trip to Egypt must been really productive they swam in the Nile and it was SALTY.

First of all, this is a ridiculously broad generalization about Democrats. The Democratic Party covers a fairly wide spectrum, from outright conservatives all the way to socialists.

Secondly, I believe I made no claim about it affecting any of those other races- only the Presidential one. And while I can't definitively prove that, it seems fairly obvious that a major development in the hacking scandal (which turned out to be basically nothing) a week or so before election day might have an effect. And given how close the race was (a couple hundred thousand votes in three states would have swung it), even a minimal effect could have changed the result. I can't prove it definitively, but its just common sense- albeit common sense which doesn't fit the "Democrats are to blame for everything" narrative.

Remember that while Trump's EC win was fairly wide, he lost the popular vote, and won the essential states that put him over the top (presuming he did win them- full recounts were not held in all of those states) very narrowly.

I also think that this election was probably more a defeat of Hillary Clinton than the Democratic Party/platform as a whole. Remember that key states that voted for Trump also voted for Obama, who is ultimately a Centrist Democrat.

So whatever your personal feelings about the Democratic Party, I don't think you can honestly treat this election as a popular rejection of the Democratic Party.

Also this data is two years old so the numbers are probably higher but you know the FBI had jack to do with it.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/st ... latures-o/

No, I know no such thing, and its irrelevant to my argument (see above).

Besides being two years out of date, which is a long time in politics.

The electoral college IS still bullshit but if the democrats don't like systems like that they should do away with their own super-delegate system otherwise they have NO room to complain.

One shitty system does not justify another, but yes, both need to go.

Every one of them that defended the super-delegate / closed primaries system then immediately started to criticize the college after they lost - showed that one person one vote is not a CORE BELIEF they have - it's just an excuse to trot out when its convenient. This is why I hate the democrats.

Frankly, you treat the negative caricatures of Hillary Clinton as representative of the entire party, so given that, its no surprise that you hate them.

Overriding grassroots movements with super-delegates is just the sort of elitist authoritarian thinking that has been killing the democratic party. I'm all but convinced the democratic elite actually believe Corporate Lobbyists are actually "Grassroots Movements".

First of all, the super delegates, as a matter of factual accuracy, did not override the popular or pledged delegate vote. Clinton won all three.

Of course, its quite possible that had all states, for example, held primaries that were open to independents, she wouldn't have, but that's another matter.

I do think as well that the super delegates are unlikely to be so united behind one candidate next time around. 2016 was an odd year in that their was this overwhelming presumption of Clinton as the nominee from the start, and pretty much everyone against her rallied behind Bernie. It wasn't an open field.

I think that we'll probably see a more diverse competition next time around.

It's gotten so bad in the democratic party that strong progressives are infiltrating the republican party instead. because the democrats have proven to be out of control authoritarians with innumerable barriers to grass roots efforts where the republican party is far more vulnerable.

Given the Republican base, I can't imagine them getting very far in most places.

Honestly, the main reason I stick with the Democratic Party is that, as long as the odds of progressives winning through the Democratic Party might seem, they're longer everywhere else. Third partiers are doing extraordinarily well if they break five percent. Republicans have a base that resembles the Klan. At least in the Democrats progressives make up a substantial (and growing, if they don't all just quit because they hate the Democrats) chunk of the party membership.

"Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo, They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats"

I'd rather have a "Justice Caucus" of Insurgent Leftist RINO's than allow the current Democrats to keep running things into the ground.

Plus Insurgent Leftist RINO is really fun to say... Insurgent Leftist RINO

Its a lovely idea, just one that I don't think is practicable.

[Karha of Honor]

I find that conservatives and libertarians often focus too much on government oppression (especially by the Federal government), and are happy to turn a blind eye to oppression as long as its done by private organizations (or state governments, etc.).

Now, its fair to say that maybe different kinds of oppression need to be handled in different ways, but surely, the problem should be that people are being oppressed, not that its the government that's doing it? The victim still suffers, weather its a government or a corporation or a church or whatever that is persecuting them.

If you can move, switch jobs etc.. you are not oppressed.

Because people are still being persecuted on a wide scale over colour and sexual identity (among other things).

That's not to say ideological persecution doesn't matter, but again, its not conservatives who are the most oppressed here (in the contemporary US, at least, that'd be Muslims, probably followed by atheists).

How many?

[Rasp]

>The Romulan Republic

When I say "Democrats" I'm more talking about the bulk of the actual representatives and those who support and defend them unquestionably as opposed to independant voters - Also just because the superdelgate system wasn't used doesn't make it any less horrifically authoritarian and unacceptable or that the DNC didn't use underhanded tactics to put their thumb on the scale or didn't purge voter rolls or close primaries. The party leadership is horrific - made up of people who may have once been good people but have sold their integrity to Goldman Sachs decades ago - The repeal of glass-steagall was only one part of that.

It's the party leadership and their defenders that I have nothing but contempt for and their will be no unity until they all step aside. You have horrific person like Corey Booker who voted against a bill to import cheaper drugs from Canada (they have laws allowing them to negotiate drug prices) because he'd taken campaign donations from drug companies using the big pharma talking point that - they "weren't safe" despite the very real fact to be sold in Canada they often have to go through even stricter testing.

People are DYING because they cant afford their medication and you have scumbags like Booker saying - Yes you SHOULD die from not being able to afford your medication because it "might not be safe" to buy the exact same drug from Canada often from the EXACT SAME MANUFACTURING PLANTS at a cheaper rate. even though it flies in the face of ALL logic.

Clinton may not be a fair gauge of democratic voters but she is a perfect gauge of democratic representatives - damn near all of them are just as scummy as she ever was because they damn near all take the same bribes.

If you wanna fight me on Clinton SURE - She's even more of a warmonger as Obama was - and Obama at least LIED and said he'd put an end to the wars while he was running instead Clinton was out making speeches about 'american exceptionalism' like she's Dick Cheney. Oh and I didn't make that up either. Or when she went around spewing racist fucking statements in her goldwater days or the 'superpredators' comment which she could not have POSSIBLY known were not horrifically racist statements unless she was INCREDIBLY dense - no she knew what she was saying whatever excuses she gave later. Her friendly posture with Goldman Sachs wasn't made up - her pro-TPP stance which she tried to walk back wasn't made up. Her record as secretary of state going around selling american fracking technology to the world wasn't made up - hell her supporters made sure it was still in the platform. Her opposition to universal healthcare wasn't made up. Her staunch opposition to protecting LGBT rights was on record until the times FORCED her to change positions - I could go on.

Call it a caricature if you like but these things are all true.

The party leadership wanted this as their representative and in desperation pulled out every dirty trick in the book so she could win the nomination and ultimately lose the election. Tell me if she wasn't everything they wanted why did they go to such extreme lengths to make her the candidate?

and if it wasn't a rejection of the democratic party then why today are they still polling a lower favorable than the president? Despite all the Mccarthy-esque red hysteria they've been whipping up for months instead of policy they still have not pulled ahead in favorable.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... ble-rating
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -6179.html

Yeah when you factor in the unfavorable it comes very VERY close maybe even ahead by a little but that's still not a good thing. Bernie Sanders has been out there talking about policy and meeting people in states the democrats abandoned like West Virginia and he's got a massive favorable by comparison to both sides. Maybe when you take away the identity politics and fearmongering bullshit and just speak honestly about the issues of the day people will actually listen. If Sanders can consistently do well with republicans in his home state with his message there is a fair shot it'll work for Insurgent Leftist RINO's as well.

Sanders ain't perfect I got my issues with him but he's the perfect example to show how the democratic party continues to fail on every level. they cant even muster the transparent lies of hope and change that Obama put forth then immediately buried when he took office.

Living Wage? Can't do it
Universal Healthcare? Can't do it
Fixing money In politics? Can't do it
End to the wars? Can't do it
Free College? Can't do it
Affordable Drugs? Can't do it
Financial Reform or Accountability? Can't do it
Privacy Protections? Can't do it
Whistle-blowers who expose our illegal dealings? Jail em
Anyone who doesn't fall into line with all of the above? Sexist

Welcome to the Neo-Clinton Era of the Democratic Party! No we can't! No we can't!

At least Obama had the decency to at least LIE about it to our faces before he continued the Post-Reagan business as usual of interventionism and demolishing the middle class.

[The Romulan Republic]

If you can move, switch jobs etc.. you are not oppressed.

Yeah, that's definitely feasible for, say, the average minimum wage single mother.

And move, yeah. Try leaving the country you're in, and the same Rightists who say that if you don't like the way things are you can leave, will scream about dirty criminal terrorists immigrants coming to take our jobs.

You take away peoples' options systematically, and then tell them they have freedom of choice.

How many?

Don't be facetious. You and I both know that its impossible to give a single hard number (other than "everybody").

Everyone is the victim of discrimination at some point in their lives. Everyone.

Some get it worse than others, and who gets it worse varies, and to what extent, varies by local, demographics, and political/cultural climate.

[Bernkastel]

Given all the ways the media provably twisted things Trump said during the campaign, and all the other instances of the regressive left lying through their teeth (GamerGate comes to mind), why should I believe any of the "he's literally Hitler" crap? I don't, incidentally. Again, it comes down to actions. I'm not saying I'm thrilled, actually I'm quite happy that the checks and balances are working properly. I am happy Clinton lost, though. I just wish there'd have been a way for both of them to lose.

I'm limiting myself to answering this part now because the rest requires and deserves a better response than I can do right now. Now, while Gamergate depends on what you are referring to, I agree that the US news services are generally shit. I also agree that a lot of what was said about Trump was hyperbolic and the result of typical "but the other guy is so evil that you must support our side" shit that you get in a two party system.

I also don't like Clinton, though my stance is the same as Rasp's. The DNC benefits a lot from the two party system in regards to positioning itself as the left wing party. Personally, I find it hilarious how readily leading members of the Democratic Party's establishment use Republican talking points to avoid basic moves forward in policy. But I do admit it's probably easier to laugh at it all when you're non-American like myself.

[The Romulan Republic]

Back on the original topic of this thread:

If their were a socially liberal Right (or, rather, since that seems something of a contradiction, if social liberalism became so universally accepted that their no longer was a notable Left/Right divide on the issue), the Left would have to campaign primarily on economics and foreign policy, but probably most of all on economics (though economics and social justice are also interconnected).

That's actually a fight I'd be more than willing to have, as well. Their are few greater injustices known to man than the economic philosophy dominating the Right: That everyone must earn their own keep (which sounds nice if you put zero thought into it), to the point that, no matter how many roadblocks the wealthy and powerful throw in the path of the poor, the poor are underserving of even basic essentials of survival. Essentially, that one must pay for the right to live, and that those who cannot are parasites who should be punished for their misfortune. I call it the "Kicking a man when he's down school of economics".

This injustice is only going to become more apparent as more and more jobs are automated away, entire sectors of the workforce largely or completely disappearing. At some point, it will no longer be possible to pretend that the poor are simply at fault for being poor if their are no good jobs left, and the far Right will only be able to deflect blame onto immigrants and foreigners taking the jobs for so long.

I'd like to see the Left, and the more reasonable elements of the Right, rally around a strong push for Basic Income, affordable housing, Universal Medicare, and Tuition Free College. Of those, Basic Income at least would probably net considerable Right wing support as well, if only as a way of cutting red tape and cutting back on the number of social programs.