What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Dump Term 2 Part 4: Twilight of the Derps

The writer isn't saying that the Dems have to or even should walk back social issues. They're saying that the social issues won't matter to people if the economic/financial issues are being properly dealt with with aggressive enough solutions. If (working class) people don't see the party that is supposed to be on their side being on their side on economic issues, that's going to be the initial betrayal to them, and that provides the opening for the social issues wedge to work its way in. And the writer is calling out walking back in social issues to be some magical cure, saying it's wrong and also pointless to do if you haven't fixed the economic stuff, since that was always the source.

And yes, Kamala had some nice piecemeal solutions, but they were piecemeal solutions. A tax break when you're already in position to buy a house is nice, but it takes a lot to even get to that point in one's life, so solutions like that, while something, are going to ring hollow to a large portion of the working-class electorate they're trying to reach. And that's not a knock on Kamala in particular, just on the whole situation of the party.

(And this isn't me trying to be Kepler and saying we need to burn it all down. Believe me, the current system is doing well for me and it would not be in my personal interest to massively restructure it. But I also can't ignore we're reaching a "bend or break" point, and when things break, they break bad, so bend is the preferable option by far. And I also have to add on that if there's anything I've learned it's the past few years it's that I honestly don't know what most people want, so like the writer and frankly most of us here I'm reading tea leaves and trying to come up with some wisdom based on that, so take it all with a grain of salt.)
 
French Rage said:
The writer isn't saying that the Dems have to or even should walk back social issues. They're saying that the social issues won't matter to people if the economic/financial issues are being properly dealt with with aggressive enough solutions. If (working class) people don't see the party that is supposed to be on their side being on their side on economic issues, that's going to be the initial betrayal to them, and that provides the opening for the social issues wedge to work its way in. And the writer is calling out walking back in social issues to be some magical cure, saying it's wrong and also pointless to do if you haven't fixed the economic stuff, since that was always the source.

And yes, Kamala had some nice piecemeal solutions, but they were piecemeal solutions. A tax break when you're already in position to buy a house is nice, but it takes a lot to even get to that point in one's life, so solutions like that, while something, are going to ring hollow to a large portion of the working-class electorate they're trying to reach. And that's not a knock on Kamala in particular, just on the whole situation of the party.

(And this isn't me trying to be Kepler and saying we need to burn it all down. Believe me, the current system is doing well for me and it would not be in my personal interest to massively restructure it. But I also can't ignore we're reaching a "bend or break" point, and when things break, they break bad, so bend is the preferable option by far. And I also have to add on that if there's anything I've learned it's the past few years it's that I honestly don't know what most people want, so like the writer and frankly most of us here I'm reading tea leaves and trying to come up with some wisdom based on that, so take it all with a grain of salt.)
Click to expand...
I know what’s he saying. And he left the Democratic Party. As flawed as the party is, no other party will beat the fascists right now. This guy leaving and whining like the straight white man he is…go fuck yourself.
 
psych said:
I know what’s he saying. And he left the Democratic Party. As flawed as the party is, no other party will beat the fascists right now. This guy leaving and whining like the straight white man he is…go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...
Yep. That is a dynamic going on right now and everyone involved in that dynamic can go fuck themselves.
 
psych said:
I know what’s he saying. And he left the Democratic Party. As flawed as the party is, no other party will beat the fascists right now.
Click to expand...
That's what they said in the UK about Labour. Now both the Tories and Labour are statistically dead and the two main parties are the Greens and Reform (Nazis). At the 2028 or 2029 election, the country is going to either swing far to the left or far to the right.

We could do that here too. We could make both major parties irrelevant, but it isn't going to be easy.
 
psych said:
I know what’s he saying. And he left the Democratic Party. As flawed as the party is, no other party will beat the fascists right now. This guy leaving and whining like the straight white man he is…go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...
He's saying the party needs to stop this moderate claptrap trying to appeal to the magical undecided voter by being Republican lite, and actualkly nominate candidates who will aggressively fight for the policies that will make regular American citizens lives better. Figured that would be something you'd be for?

I think you misunderstood the entire piece. Go back and read it again. He isn't leaving the Democratic party, because he was never in it, except for those few occasions when the party did offer the message he wants to see from them.
 
rufus said:
He's saying the party needs to stop this moderate claptrap trying to appeal to the magical undecided voter by being Republican lite, and actualkly nominate candidates who will aggressively fight for the policies that will make regular American citizens lives better. Figured that would be something you'd be for?

I think you misunderstood the entire piece. Go back and read it again. He isn't leaving the Democratic party, because he was never in it, except for those few occasions when the party did offer the message he wants to see from them.
Click to expand...

I read it again. Same problem. I don't see Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton on the list of people he voted for, which means this privileged dumbfuck actively allowed Trump to win two of those three elections. And for what, because Democrats suck too? You don't vote, especially as a privileged fucking white man, and you can shut the fuck up and sit the fuck down. I'm as far left politically as Kepler, but I'm apparently far more of a pragmatist than this fucking asshole who gets a spot in The Atlantic. Yeah, I want what Bernie wants too. That's why I also voted for Bernie Sanders twice. But I also voted for Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris once Biden was forced out, because you know why??? FASCISM, THAT'S WHY!!

I get the point. I'm just not so selfish as this asshole. Change the party from within. You're piss in the wind outside of it.

Also, dude said "what drove me away from the Democratic Party" so I guess technically you're right he was never in it, but my overall point still stands.
 
So Trump won't say who in the regime they're negotiating with, because they don't want to get them killed, which means they're not actually in the regime, which means they're not negotiating with anyone.
 
French Rage said:
So Trump won't say who in the regime they're negotiating with, because they don't want to get them killed, which means they're not actually in the regime, which means they're not negotiating with anyone.
Click to expand...
Which means he's talking to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the exiled Shah of Iran, who has *checks notes* zero power to do anything.

Also, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO who should be doing his fucking job and leading these discussions. Not John Barron. Not Steve Witkoff. And sure as fuck not Jared Kushner.
 
aparch said:
Which means he's talking to Reza Pahlavi, the son of the exiled Shah of Iran, who has *checks notes* zero power to do anything.

Also, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO who should be doing his fucking job and leading these discussions. Not John Barron. Not Steve Witkoff. And sure as fuck not Jared Kushner.
Click to expand...
Wait you think Rubio was ever there for anything other than show?
 
French Rage said:
Wait you think Rubio was ever there for anything other than show?
Click to expand...
Exactly. And shit, after wearing clown shoes to appease Trump, I doubt his credibility is better with anyone than someone like Kushner anyways - which, even in today's world, is an incredibly fucking pathetic thing to say out loud.
 
Dem Emily Gregory beats trump endorsed Jon Maples in Mar -a lago's state congressional district. Trump +`11 in 24

better get some chicken nuggies with extra ketchup and a happy meal toy tonight for diaper don
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Dem Emily Gregory beats trump endorsed Jon Maples in Mar -a lago's state congressional district. Trump +`11 in 24
Click to expand...

Jungle primary and there will be a runoff in November? Or filling a vacancy and an actual election?

Edit: it was an actual flip. :ROFLMAO: But I assume the FL state house majority is well out of reach, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top