The Democratic Party in Trump's Fascist 2nd Term. Commentary, Ideas & Strategy (+ non Woketicism)

He definitely loves the sound of his voice...

 

I think some of these discussions we could have a 'highlights' reel of previous discussions where we could all relive our successes and failures.

We could call it 'Bigsoccer Classic'.

 

Everybody has to go through these steps. We’re just trying to save you some time. As you’re relatively new, entirely forgivable. It’s much more annoying when long timers do it.

 

You and I both know Casc was not going to read that link.

He still makes stupid Mormon jokes that don’t even make sense despite posting regularly over the years why they aren’t funny or applicable.

 

Politics is fundamental to both policy and vibes. Win first. Win ruthlessly and always. Policy and vibes follow winning.

 

You're patient. "So no proof" would have immediately ended the posting relationship with anyone who wasn't Black.

BTW, an engineer would have cut his emotional losses and been happy to finish his life with most of the damage affecting someone else. He knows he can't control the future for his offspring. They play the odds.

 

I kinda think you're full of shit here. In October of 2020, President Donald Trump was widely viewed by nearly every smart human as one of, if not the, worst president in the history of the nation. The coronavirus pandemic was raging and the USA was handling it about as poorly as possible. And yet on election day, he got 49.8% of the vote.

I see no reason whatsoever to delude ourselves in to thinking that Trump wouldn't walk to an easy win if there were an election today.

And I am begging you not to respond with something about "polls" which are less reliable and scientific than using goat entrails.

 

OMG you guys are adorable.

Look, it doesn't matter if you guys hate on old Quakes, the fact remains, we can't have the Democrats fighting against both the fascist crowd and the progressive/socialist crowd, and expect much success in November.

Unite the left! Mine is a message of love and unity.

Carry on kids.

 

I speak as a child of university professors who grew up in a city full of engineers. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, what I posted was sound reasoning. It's the decision most of y'all would reach eventually. I'll stay on the other side, doing good. With nothing to lose, I am firmly in the camp of defending every oppressed minority until they themselves tell you they no longer need defending.

 

Excellent, thanks for the tutorial bro.

 

That's the whole thing. And yet the left in this country would rather fight with each other than unite. Makes me think we might just be doomed and its pointless to even bother.

 

Yes regulation got us here.

We can not build transmission lines because regulation.

We can't build high-speed raillines because of registration.

We can't build the houses we need because regulation.

Learning from our mistakes is a good thing.

California high speed rail realized that way too late, that is why they have spent 20 billion dollars in a train to nowhere. Why because they had to fight all kinds of lawsuits created by our well intentioned regulations.


Even if the country goes the socialist way.

The new deal type of construction could never happen again because all the money would be tied out in contract regulations and lawsuits before anything gets built.

 

I took that to mean that his support hasn't waned much, if at all. There are plenty of Americans who are cheering this. That's why our only hope is...

...well, you know.

 

And lawsuits, deregulation is a scary word in this place, I wonder what word scares Democrats more, socialism or deregulation.

They have debated libertarians and yes a big difference between Democratic deregulation and Republican deregulation is that the state has a place in the liberal deregulation world.

They know many environmental projects will need government investment. They don't care who builds the houses, private or government, they just talk about how our rules to build houses have made it so expensive that even if government took over building houses it would still tied out in red tape, contract law regulation and NIMBY lawsuit.

One example they used in the book was the infrastructure bill passed under Biden and how complicate the application process was, at the end very few dollars were actually spent building anything. Trump cancelled the program after he won.

They do take in the woke groups that have lobbied for some of those regulations and how Democrats have to choose between trying to satisfy everyone and therefore making shit expensive and time consuming and having the backbone to say no to some of those groups.

 

Should be socialism but not because of utopian socialist fantasies, but because we need to be adding votes.

 

I have a whole section of my Ignore List which is quality posters who just say the same damned thing over and over. So you'll be in good company in just a few minutes.

But before I block you, I just want to say that your whole "Vote Blue No Matter Who Unless I Personally Disagree With Them" schtick is just about the most tiresome goddamned hypocrisy I've ever fücking seen.

 

Abundance is critical about some of the social equity that governments have put in place in terms of awarding contracts.

He would throw many of the groups that lobby for those under the bus.

He does say we can vary from project to project and have some social progressive clauses in contracts, but just the amount of them that exist is a problem.

But that last part is the problem, throwing more money at something is not the right thing when the whole process is tied up in red tape that slows it down and makes everything multiple times more expensive than it should be.

They have a chapter on scientific research, the amount of paperwork needed to get access to grants and how that has slowed down the speed of scientific advances, they explain how that much paperwork came about, why some of it is necessary (we didn't want government money just being stolen/wasted) but they argue for a balance, it is easy to pile requirements over more and more requirements, we need cost benefit analysis on all the beurocratic process.

Democrats can do it smartly or lose and watch Republicans go DOGE style in the government.

 

It's not hypocrisy. I'm a Democrat (blue candidates for me are Democrats, not socialists or marxists or democratic socialists) and I've been around long enough to see what happens when our leftist flank doesn't support our candidates. The enthusiasm for Hillary and Kamala wasn't where it needed to be. Yes, Hillary won the popular vote, but it wasn't enough. Then, despite Trump I and everything that came along with that, we were even more fractured in the last general, and so here we are with Trump again.

We're our own worst enemy sometimes.

In any case, hope I don't end up on your ignore list, that would be a shame. We go back a very long way and mostly I find your contributions here interesting and amusing.

 

He did say running pro life candidate in red states may have been a good idea.

That was probably the worse example.

But his idea is in the basis that liberals in large cities are not the best at picking candidates to run and win in North Dakota.

If we want to have a chance of a 60 seat Senate we are going to need conservative Democrats running, and Democrats should relax the purity test in some of those states.

Immigration, gun rights, trans women in sports, Gaza-Israel can be some topics where a Senate candidate in Mississippi should be allowed to disagree with National Democrat priorities.

They are right, and while their argument has taken to national level they do argue that blue states and blue cities need to do most of the heavy lifting in deregulation.

Otherwise we will continue to struggle to build houses and we will continue to lose population to red states, if that trend continues, the path to win the presidency becomes more and more difficult after each census.