Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:57 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,624

How is the Democratic Party's Platform Destructive?


In a thread in Great Debates, HurricaneDitka posted this:

Quote:
I consider the dems' agenda generally destructive to the country.

I posted this in response:

Quote:
I hesitated to ask this, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me. How is the Democratic Party's platform (not "agenda"; it's a party platform) "generally destructive to the country"?

Be specific and, as this is Great Debates, feel free to actually bolster your specifics with some kind of substantiation.

And that post was moderated by Bone thus:

Quote:
No. This is a hijack so please drop it. If you're interested feel free to start a different thread.

I've no problem with that moderation, and so here's the thread.
______________________________________

'Ditka, please explain what the "Democratic Party's agenda" is and how it is "destructive to the country". Be sure to bolster your answer with reputable sources, please.
  #2  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:48 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
I don't see this going well.
We all know the answer is just going to be "So-and-so policy will bankrupt us, just like Venezuela" and the cite will be some right-wing dude's opinion.

Although, I suppose there could be some hilarity if HurricaneDitka has a good imagination, and really runs with the various talking points e.g. "You'll have to use 50 different genders to refer to people!"

Last edited by Mijin; 10-18-2019 at 05:50 AM.
  #3  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
I foresee the imminent return of the dastard Strawman Liberal and his plan to destroy America via an agenda of Socialism, Political Correctness, Atheism, Veganism and Climate Change.

Tbh, I'm not sure that the "Democrats" have much of a coherent agenda. Various Democrats have various agendas, many of which have some degree of overlap, but I'm not seeing much in the way of central planning and certainly not from the DNC.

Last edited by Gyrate; 10-18-2019 at 07:27 AM.
  #4  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:57 AM
nate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 931
The first thing that comes to mind is wanting to give advantages to minorities. Not equality, but advantages, that may stifle non-minorities in an unfair way. Which, in turn, leads to frustration by the majorities and therefore they are annoyed and vote against this AND their economic interests and start voting for batshit crazy conservatives or a president that can't spell and confuses life insurance with health insurance. This is clearly being destructive. See what you made them do?
  #5  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:33 AM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 23,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate View Post
The first thing that comes to mind is wanting to give advantages to minorities. Not equality, but advantages, that may stifle non-minorities in an unfair way.

Care to substantiate this?
  #6  
Old 10-18-2019, 09:21 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monty View Post
In a thread in Great Debates, HurricaneDitka posted this:




I posted this in response:




And that post was moderated by Bone thus:




I've no problem with that moderation, and so here's the thread.
______________________________________

'Ditka, please explain what the "Democratic Party's agenda" is and how it is "destructive to the country". Be sure to bolster your answer with reputable sources, please.
Most likely he's talking about specific, vertical programs from specific Dems he thinks might be elected. Things like 'free' healthcare or 'free' college, or someone actually taking the New Green Deal seriously enough and having the political capital to make it a real thing. Then you have the fear that several of the Progressives might push through a Socialist agenda which could be harmful to the country.

There is a lot of fear on the Republican side wrt what the Dems MIGHT do if they regain the White House in the current climate. From my perspective, though many of the things I listed up there would be, for me, sub-optimal, I don't see any of them being more destructive than what we currently have. Even if the Dems completely roll back everything happening with China, which I feel would be a mistake, the net positive for the rest of their presumed foreign policy would outweigh that, at least from what I've seen of the various candidates.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #7  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:02 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
... Then you have the fear that several of the Progressives might push through a Socialist agenda which could be harmful to the country.

...
OK, but, harmful how?
(Also, I believe the original term was "destructive".)
  #8  
Old 10-18-2019, 10:23 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,585
Way to sealion HD there, Monty. /sarcasm

I am at the point of challenging righties to Describe even a single Democratic policy proposal, along with the reasoning behind it. Bec a use, if you haven't noticed, most arguments against the Dems (it is usually framed as The Left or Liberals because those are scarier) consist of rants that don't really analyze policy at all, but tap into preexisting anxiety or anger in the listener. Too poor? That is the fault of Liberals, just wait until they take all of your money to give healthcare to illegals. Climate change? A hoax and Trojan horse leveraged by The Left for a socialist governement takeover, and yanno, Pol Pot caused a lot of deaths, Stalin had the gulags, there used to be terrible famines, and The Left did that and will do it again!!

I don't want to detail your thread, but I think this is an appropriate response. Righties with a clear conception of Any Dem policy are rare, and rarer still one that project it into the future. The propaganda tells them it is Doom Itself, and that's what they think. Details just screw it up.

A good example: the corporate world fears Warren. I will try to find the quote later, but she talks about inequality and tax policy, things "they don't want the public thinking about". It is misdirection and misinformation from that team.
  #9  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:04 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I am at the point of challenging righties to Describe even a single Democratic policy proposal, along with the reasoning behind it.
As I noted above, I'm not sure "lefties" could describe a Democratic policy proposal that has widespread acceptance across the party. There are lots of policies proposed by Democrats but ones that most of them will endorse are much fewer.
  #10  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:25 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,585
That's fair enough but still, I have never met a single person who says they are motivated by Liberalism or Hating America. There are a few socialists, but never one promoting Radical Agrarian Reform or a communist land grab. Even former conservative staples like balancing the budget now put you in the Big Government camp if it involves raising even a dollar of revenue from the wealthy, and, viewed through the conservative fun house mirror, that puts you right back at gulags and the end of civilization.
  #11  
Old 10-18-2019, 11:59 AM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Who besides the activists pay attention to platforms?

Frontrunner Elizabeth Warren is running with a policy to destroy property rights in every major corporation in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hest-companies

"Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates."

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 10-18-2019 at 11:59 AM.
  #12  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:01 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Who besides the activists pay attention to platforms?

Frontrunner Elizabeth Warren is running with a policy to destroy property rights in every major corporation in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...hest-companies

"Employees at large corporations would be able to elect at least 40% of the board of directors. An estimated 3,500 public US companies and hundreds of other private companies would be covered by the mandates."
That may or may not be a good idea (I think Germany does something similar) but how would it "destroy property rights." A board member elected by employees has the same fiduciary duty to the corporation as any other board member.
  #13  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:04 PM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
That may or may not be a good idea (I think Germany does something similar) but how would it "destroy property rights." A board member elected by employees has the same fiduciary duty to the corporation as any other board member.
Employees are being given control that typically rests with the owners of the corporation. Thus, destruction on an enormous scale. This is a >100 year old syndicalist throwback policy.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 10-18-2019 at 12:06 PM.
  #14  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:06 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Employees are being given control that typically rests with the owners of the corporation. Thus, destruction on an enormous scale.
The owners are the shareholders. Under Warren's proposal they get to elect 60% of the board, which is sufficient to appoint managment and set policies. They'll just have to listen to the other 40% now and then before they make a decision. As I said, maybe good and maybe not, but hardly earth shattering.
  #15  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:16 PM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
rants that don't really analyze policy at all, but tap into preexisting anxiety or anger in the listener. .
That's where political processes are nowadays.

It's hardly new to say that you can have all the policies in the world, but if you haven't got a framing narrative that chimes with what is important to people, you're on a hiding to nothing. The trouble is that this effect is enormously amplified by social media, especially if someone's manipulating it (I've just been reading Peter Pomerantsev's This Is Not Propaganda, which is very good on this). Rational argument about policies just won't work against it - you just get a harsher, cruder version of Reagan's "There you go again" in response.
  #16  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:28 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
A board member elected by employees has the same fiduciary duty to the corporation as any other board member.
Then what is the point of Warren's proposal? If board members elected by shareholders and board members elected by non-shareholders are compelled to act the same, then forcing them to be elected by non-shareholders achieves nothing.

I expect that Warren's proposal is based on the idea that board members elected by employees will push to act for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders when the two are in conflict.

Raising profits is good for the corporation. Firing employees is bad for employees. It is entirely possible that the two goals are in conflict.

It's rather similar to requiring unions to put management on their boards. The two groups have similar but not identical interests.

Regards,
Shodan
  #17  
Old 10-18-2019, 12:45 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then what is the point of Warren's proposal? If board members elected by shareholders and board members elected by non-shareholders are compelled to act the same, then forcing them to be elected by non-shareholders achieves nothing.

I expect that Warren's proposal is based on the idea that board members elected by employees will push to act for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders when the two are in conflict.

Raising profits is good for the corporation. Firing employees is bad for employees. It is entirely possible that the two goals are in conflict.

It's rather similar to requiring unions to put management on their boards. The two groups have similar but not identical interests.

Regards,
Shodan
I feel like this is a platform that Trump supporters should fully endorse, if keeping and bringing back manufacturing to the US is the desired outcome.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #18  
Old 10-18-2019, 01:49 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Do you feel that it really will bring back manufacturing? If so, could you explain how?

If not, if you don't think it will, then I wouldn't expect anyone to support it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #19  
Old 10-18-2019, 02:07 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Then what is the point of Warren's proposal? If board members elected by shareholders and board members elected by non-shareholders are compelled to act the same, then forcing them to be elected by non-shareholders achieves nothing.

I expect that Warren's proposal is based on the idea that board members elected by employees will push to act for the benefit of employees rather than shareholders when the two are in conflict.

Raising profits is good for the corporation. Firing employees is bad for employees. It is entirely possible that the two goals are in conflict.

It's rather similar to requiring unions to put management on their boards. The two groups have similar but not identical interests.

Regards,
Shodan
Different people have different ideas about what would help the company the most. A board member who better understands the employees perspective might have some better ideas.
Certainly, adding those voices to the meetings can't hurt.
  #20  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:02 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Do you feel that it really will bring back manufacturing? If so, could you explain how?

If not, if you don't think it will, then I wouldn't expect anyone to support it.

Regards,
Shodan
I think it would lend credibility to the claim that manufacturing in the USA can be "brought back". I also think a well structured TPP is necessary to help stem the flight of manufacturing jobs by making foreign workforce options less financially attractive to US companies. So multiple things would have to happen to improve the odds of saving, or perhaps re-invigorating US manufacturing. Democratizing publicly held companies with 40% employee voting share seems like an idea that merits serious consideration.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #21  
Old 10-18-2019, 03:58 PM
racepug is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,161
I hardly think that people who voted for a know-nothing, cruel, spiteful narcissist with the manners and tact of a moody teenager for Prez 3 years ago are in a position to tell anybody else in this country how they should vote.
  #22  
Old 10-18-2019, 04:42 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Way to sealion HD there, Monty. /sarcasm

I am at the point of challenging righties to Describe even a single Democratic policy proposal, along with the reasoning behind it. Bec a use, if you haven't noticed, most arguments against the Dems (it is usually framed as The Left or Liberals because those are scarier) consist of rants that don't really analyze policy at all, but tap into preexisting anxiety or anger in the listener. Too poor? That is the fault of Liberals, just wait until they take all of your money to give healthcare to illegals. Climate change? A hoax and Trojan horse leveraged by The Left for a socialist governement takeover, and yanno, Pol Pot caused a lot of deaths, Stalin had the gulags, there used to be terrible famines, and The Left did that and will do it again!!

I don't want to detail your thread, but I think this is an appropriate response. Righties with a clear conception of Any Dem policy are rare, and rarer still one that project it into the future. The propaganda tells them it is Doom Itself, and that's what they think. Details just screw it up.

A good example: the corporate world fears Warren. I will try to find the quote later, but she talks about inequality and tax policy, things "they don't want the public thinking about". It is misdirection and misinformation from that team.
We did this not too long ago, but in IMHO: What was the worst thing you expected from a Hillary Presidency?

I also wanted to hear the worst things which would happen if we open the borders.

I will say that I found even the worst-case scenarios posted in the above to be far less than "destructive", but perhaps this thread may enlighten me as well.
  #23  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:16 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
Different people have different ideas about what would help the company the most. A board member who better understands the employees perspective might have some better ideas.
Certainly, adding those voices to the meetings can't hurt.
One thing that I have noticed is that once you start getting people making decisions that have never experienced how those decisions will affect those who have to carry them out, the company starts going downhill pretty fast.

Having those voices may just not hurt, they may in fact be what keeps the company viable and relevant.
  #24  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:47 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,206
Free everything. Wealth taxes. Ridiculous minimum wage. Increased union power. Open borders. Anti freedom of speech...

Might as well just wrap up the remaining factories and ship them to China and hope printed fiat money holds some value over the next few decades.
  #25  
Old 10-18-2019, 05:54 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. •
Posts: 12,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Free everything. Wealth taxes. Ridiculous minimum wage. Increased union power. Open borders. Anti freedom of speech...

Might as well just wrap up the remaining factories and ship them to China and hope printed fiat money holds some value over the next few decades.
Are you referring to the Democratic Party Platform? The one that is in the United States? I see a $15/hour minimum wage proposal. (which I don't find "ridiculous" but you might) I didn't see the rest of what you listed.

ETA: I'd be especially interested in "free everything."

Last edited by Procrustus; 10-18-2019 at 05:55 PM.
  #26  
Old 10-18-2019, 07:51 PM
pool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Inside
Posts: 4,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Free everything. Wealth taxes. Ridiculous minimum wage. Increased union power. Open borders. Anti freedom of speech...

Might as well just wrap up the remaining factories and ship them to China and hope printed fiat money holds some value over the next few decades.
I don't like the idea of open borders or immigration laws that aren't enforced, I don't feel like those people belong in this country.

However, do you realize how much it costs nowadays just to survive, minimum wage hasn't gone up in at least 10 years, but even wages higher than that you can't really make it in the United States nowadays even making say $20/hour, maybe if you have absolutely no debt and you live with no luxuries at all. The price on everything keeps going up but American wages buy less and less every year.

I don't get what's wrong with Unionization either, if Unions aren't American I don't know what is, corporations are about making money, more money, more profits, and that's it, if they have all the power they will exploit it and cripple their employees from having any kind of quality of life, how many corporations really treat their employees like they are anything more than a disposable cog in the machine, not too many.
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps"
  #27  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:53 PM
WillFarnaby is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Procrustus View Post
The owners are the shareholders. Under Warren's proposal they get to elect 60% of the board, which is sufficient to appoint managment and set policies. They'll just have to listen to the other 40% now and then before they make a decision. As I said, maybe good and maybe not, but hardly earth shattering.
It amounts to a destruction of property rights on an enormous scale. 3500 of the biggest American corporations are going to be severely crippled by a syndicalist takeover. This is the kind of thing that hasnít happened in industrialized nations for over 50 years.
  #28  
Old 10-18-2019, 08:55 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,753
In the United States, the political party platforms are written by the activists who are sent over to a corner while the party players plan the convention. At best, the platform reads like a decent essay from a political science student at a good university.

They’re completely irrelevant. Does anyone think Trump even knows that there was a Republican Party platform?

In recent US history, it was only the Contract for America that a political party actually tried to get passed once the Republicans took control of Congress in 1995.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42

Last edited by dalej42; 10-18-2019 at 08:55 PM.
  #29  
Old 10-19-2019, 12:03 AM
slash2k is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
It amounts to a destruction of property rights on an enormous scale. 3500 of the biggest American corporations are going to be severely crippled by a syndicalist takeover. This is the kind of thing that hasnít happened in industrialized nations for over 50 years.
How, exactly, are the corporations going to be "severely crippled" by having to listen to (not necessarily implement, or even give lip service to, but merely listen to) opinions voiced by representatives of their employees? (I'm not sure what definition of syndicalism this meets, either.)
  #30  
Old 10-19-2019, 11:25 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Who besides the activists pay attention to platforms?
Why aren't you directing your ire towards Hurricane Ditka?
  #31  
Old 10-19-2019, 12:16 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,585
Ok, here's the quote I referenced earlier:
Quote:
I think if she can show that the tax code of 2017 was basically nonsense and only helped corporations, Wall Street would not like the public thinking about that
We have a corrupt administration that has been bought and paid for to represent the interests of big corporations over the public's interests. I am not so naive as to think those interests are not intertwined, but when we're running trillion dollar deficits and sacrificing the future for the short term profits of fossil fuel interests, we have to acknowledge that the "destruction" they want you to fear in Democratic policies is that billionaires will have to cut back to being jerked off by teenage prostitutes three times a day instead of four while the public lives in poverty and dies of treatable diseases.

They "don't want the public thinking about that," and they have their ways of making that happen. Stoking fear of a socialist nightmare that is found nowhere in any actual proposal. Fear of an economic collapse if inequality is mediated when greater wealth for the masses can only goose a consumer economy like ours. They're going to eliminate Jeusus and, more importantly, take your guns!!!!

It is all bullshit. The GOP does not represent the public, but only their wealthy donors. The Dems are not perfect by a long shot, but what the public "needs to be thinking about" is that the GOP wants to fuck the public right in the ass (literally if you are a teen prostitute).

It is a binary choice and we can't talk about the Dems in a vacuum. Prove me wrong.

Last edited by Try2B Comprehensive; 10-19-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #32  
Old 10-19-2019, 04:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,086
I don't think the Dems platform is destructive, but I do question whether or not the country is ready to embrace some of their ideas.
  #33  
Old 10-19-2019, 05:35 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 436
It's difficult to critique a party 'agenda' or platform that doesn't yet exist. But we can expect certain corporate players to benefit, and others not so much, from whatever Dems put together.

Consider: EVERY politician works to advance their own interests, which MIGHT coincide with some public interests, but CERTAINLY benefits their contributors. A pol who doesn't deliver for their constituents, whether voters or donors, soon must find an honest job.

Presidential candidates may proclaim whatever programs they think will grab votes. But a party will likely continue its habits for its old supporters unless/until reformed. I hold not my breath.

How will an upcoming Dem platform hurt America? By continuing its corporatism.
  #34  
Old 10-19-2019, 07:16 PM
dontbesojumpy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't think the Dems platform is destructive, but I do question whether or not the country is ready to embrace some of their ideas.
I wonder the same thing, but then I look at how enthusiastic people were in 2016 about Bernie's somewhat radical ideas. Also, AOC is more on the radical left side of things (I think we should just call it "progressive," which is what I identify as--a progressive independent) and she's like Elvis-popular.

But there's also the problem with actually passing or implementing such progressive ideas, so in practice some might have to be tempered with more moderate concessions. I find it at least interesting just how radical some of these proposals are--no holds barred--and how excited the base is about it all. I feel like Bernie proved we want major changes, and I think the reduction to the status quo that HRC represented really de-motivated and turned off practically everyone.

I think the trend of the nation is obviously Progressivism, regardless of how Trump and the current political climate makes it seem. In fact, I see the GOP in the desperate throes of a dying ideology (actually I don't think they even have a unified ideology anymore, other than keeping the fat cats fat and general control over the poor, minorities and women, Hell, they accepted Trump as the GOP Messiah and he's not even an actual republican). I see each generation growing up more thoughtful and concerned for one another (i.e. "too politically correct" which is just complaining we can't openly call those different from us racial or sexual epithets anymore).

I don't know how the GOP can continue, or gain more young people. It seems to be dying off at the same velocity as baby boomers are dying off, without much of a younger generation buying-in.

Something that gives me hope, as an example, is marijuana legislation. I live in a very red state where even the backwards folk from my small hometown leapt at the chance to pass very progressive MM laws.

All that said, I'm politically aghast and somewhat pessimistic that we were able to get to where we are now, so my optimism is mitigated by, you know, current reality.
  #35  
Old 10-19-2019, 10:00 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
Consider: EVERY politician works to advance their own interests, which MIGHT coincide with some public interests, but CERTAINLY benefits their contributors. A pol who doesn't deliver for their constituents, whether voters or donors, soon must find an honest job.

Presidential candidates may proclaim whatever programs they think will grab votes. But a party will likely continue its habits for its old supporters unless/until reformed. I hold not my breath.

How will an upcoming Dem platform hurt America? By continuing its corporatism.
In terms of donations, the difference this time is several candidates are refusing large donations from corporations, and pushing for reform to the system such that big donations from lobbying groups become illegal.

So if you're saying politicians serve their donors, then that's a reason to think there will be change this time around, not the opposite.

And it's also why serving their voters is not business as usual.
Democrats in the past threw a few table scraps to their base but largely served corporate interests.
Republicans don't even bother with the scraps; they just tell their voters what they want them to believe.
Trying to do what is in the interest of your voters would be a radical shift.
  #36  
Old 10-19-2019, 10:05 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,090
As I recall, giving including a place at the corporate meeting table for a representative of the "shop" was a cornerstone of a successful corporation in all the management bestsellers during the Clinton years, when corporations made oodles of money. Have conservatives forgotten when and how they got rich in the first place?
  #37  
Old 10-20-2019, 11:40 AM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
AIUI, the alleged problem with Obama/AOC/Tlaib/Omar etc. is that they will remove the White People of Jesus from America and replace God's Own People with brown aliens like Middle Eastern People & American Indians. Or something.

At least, if you ask my more racist relatives.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 10-20-2019 at 11:44 AM. Reason: "alleged"
  #38  
Old 10-20-2019, 11:47 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
In terms of donations, the difference this time is several candidates are refusing large donations from corporations, and pushing for reform to the system such that big donations from lobbying groups become illegal.

So if you're saying politicians serve their donors, then that's a reason to think there will be change this time around, not the opposite.

And it's also why serving their voters is not business as usual.
Democrats in the past threw a few table scraps to their base but largely served corporate interests.
Republicans don't even bother with the scraps; they just tell their voters what they want them to believe.
Trying to do what is in the interest of your voters would be a radical shift.
Assuming, of course, that those who have refused those donations get elected.

If they lose, not only does the candidate that is beholden to large donors win, but also that just reinforces that accepting those donations is necessary to win.
  #39  
Old 10-20-2019, 01:07 PM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 9,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Assuming, of course, that those who have refused those donations get elected.

If they lose, not only does the candidate that is beholden to large donors win, but also that just reinforces that accepting those donations is necessary to win.
Yeah, but right now the momentum is with progressives. Biden is still in the mix, but has been in a shallow decline from the start. Other corporate democrats are in the last chance saloon (or whatever the idiom is).
Warren, Sanders and yes, Yang, seem to have the wind behind them.

But, I'm basically just arguing against the cynical line rather than making any concrete predictions. I've run into a few people recently who have said words to the effect of "It's all business as usual whoever gets elected" (and a particularly politically clueless friend described Warren as a watered-down Clinton )

This could not be a more inappropriate time for that cynicism. The republicans have basically thrown away the constitution, rule of law, and any attempt to respect the voters or the truth to rally around their man. Trump's impetuous decisions have shown to have real, terrible consequences.
Meanwhile democrats are for the first time promising policies that are genuinely progressive; not progressive by american standards but progressive, period. And also, for the first time, pledging to *really* clean the swamp by taking the money out of politics.

Right now the country is on a knife edge. I'll concede that one of the directions the country could land is the status quo.
But two other directions are 1: A lunatic authoritarian regime free of any checks on its power, and 2: A government that largely does what it was elected to do: serve the interests of its constituents instead of the highest bidder.
  #40  
Old 10-20-2019, 04:04 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Yeah, but right now the momentum is with progressives. Biden is still in the mix, but has been in a shallow decline from the start. Other corporate democrats are in the last chance saloon (or whatever the idiom is).
Warren, Sanders and yes, Yang, seem to have the wind behind them.

But, I'm basically just arguing against the cynical line rather than making any concrete predictions. I've run into a few people recently who have said words to the effect of "It's all business as usual whoever gets elected" (and a particularly politically clueless friend described Warren as a watered-down Clinton )

This could not be a more inappropriate time for that cynicism. The republicans have basically thrown away the constitution, rule of law, and any attempt to respect the voters or the truth to rally around their man. Trump's impetuous decisions have shown to have real, terrible consequences.
Meanwhile democrats are for the first time promising policies that are genuinely progressive; not progressive by american standards but progressive, period. And also, for the first time, pledging to *really* clean the swamp by taking the money out of politics.

Right now the country is on a knife edge. I'll concede that one of the directions the country could land is the status quo.
But two other directions are 1: A lunatic authoritarian regime free of any checks on its power, and 2: A government that largely does what it was elected to do: serve the interests of its constituents instead of the highest bidder.
Ah, optimism.

I agree, that if we all band together, and vote for the candidates who are not beholden to donors, then that destroys the donor's power. I'm on board, I just am not sure that a large enough percentage of the population is.

Money buys ads, and ads influence less engaged voters. If only highly engaged voters voted, then ads would have very little influence.

I do what I can to push us onto option 2, but I fear that it may not be enough.
  #41  
Old 10-20-2019, 04:33 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
I don't know how the GOP can continue, or gain more young people. It seems to be dying off at the same velocity as baby boomers are dying off, without much of a younger generation buying-in.
They're dying...and they're going to take democracy with them - or die trying.
  #42  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:00 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 1,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontbesojumpy View Post
I don't know how the GOP can continue, or gain more young people. It seems to be dying off at the same velocity as baby boomers are dying off, without much of a younger generation buying-in.

Something that gives me hope, as an example, is marijuana legislation. I live in a very red state where even the backwards folk from my small hometown leapt at the chance to pass very progressive MM laws.
Surprisingly enough I'm a relatively young republican yet I'm slightly against the legalization of Marijuana for recreational purposes. Medical marijuana for cancer patients who need the munchies to eat, that's fine by me (with a prescription). But in my opinion, that's not up to the states. Maybe it should be but it isn't right now. But mostly I don't like the smell, at least not in schools and public places!

On topic, a quick read through the 2016 DNC Platform tells me that I have no strong opinion on most issues. I'm not sure if I agree with the minimum wage proposal going all the way up to $15. I'll disagree with "closing the racial wealth gap" as a goal distinguishable from closing the wealth gap in general, and I think race-targeted programs might run afoul of the fourteenth amendment. I have some national security concerns about "modern" voting systems that I know next to nothing about. While I think there are problems with the campaign finance system, I'm not sure how to address them and would need to see an amendment proposal. I would also need a lot more details on how they plan on effecting "universal health care" and cutting drug costs.

But perhaps most importantly of all, I cannot wrap my head around the Democratic platform's budgetary factor. This also happens to be what I consider the most important factor of a platform. I see all of these expenditures - we're going to invest in rural, in urban, in clean energy, in healthcare, in technology, in the poor, in minorities, in women, in workers, in infrastructure, in immigration, in criminal justice, in our allies, in international institutions, in education, heck, we're going to bankroll everything under the sun it seems. Where on earth is all of this money coming from? What I can tell, Democrats fund this by cutting waste in defense spending, closing tax loopholes, a "financial transactions tax" on Wall Street, and... is that it? There's no way this balances out.

~Max
  #43  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:18 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by pool View Post
However, do you realize how much it costs nowadays just to survive, minimum wage hasn't gone up in at least 10 years, but even wages higher than that you can't really make it in the United States nowadays even making say $20/hour, maybe if you have absolutely no debt and you live with no luxuries at all.
$20 an hour is $40K a year. Median personal income was $31K in 2017 (cite). I don't think your definition of "making it" is useful.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 10-21-2019 at 12:18 PM.
  #44  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:48 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
But perhaps most importantly of all, I cannot wrap my head around the Democratic platform's budgetary factor. This also happens to be what I consider the most important factor of a platform. I see all of these expenditures - we're going to invest in rural, in urban, in clean energy, in healthcare, in technology, in the poor, in minorities, in women, in workers, in infrastructure, in immigration, in criminal justice, in our allies, in international institutions, in education, heck, we're going to bankroll everything under the sun it seems. Where on earth is all of this money coming from? What I can tell, Democrats fund this by cutting waste in defense spending, closing tax loopholes, a "financial transactions tax" on Wall Street, and... is that it? There's no way this balances out.

~Max
Don't forget taxing the rich more. Apparently that's where all the money in the country is.

And I suspect that many of them are calling for more dramatic spending cuts in the DoD beyond just cutting waste.
  #45  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:17 PM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,975
You have to factor in not appointing openly corrupt people looting the public purse for private gain. There are a lot of savings there over current practice.
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #46  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:37 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
$20 an hour is $40K a year. Median personal income was $31K in 2017 (cite). I don't think your definition of "making it" is useful.
Median weekly income for FULL TIME workers is about $930 a week, or $47k a year. Including part-time or unemployed people yields a different median income, as I'm sure you'll readily agree.
  #47  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:38 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
You have to factor in not appointing openly corrupt people looting the public purse for private gain. There are a lot of savings there over current practice.
Can you be more specific? What are the instances, and how much money would that free up?

Otherwise it sounds like the "waste, fraud, and abuse" we are always going to cut out of Medicare. Politicians of all stripes say that, but it tends not to amount to anything much. Cite.
Quote:
The Justice Department has used the False Claims Act to recover more than $7.7 billion from January 2009 to June 2012 in cases involving fraud against federal health care programs.
Which ain't chicken feed, but three billion a year doesn't cover a lot of new spending.

If you mean military spending, that runs into the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez problem with math, where you need to cut trillions from a military budget of $800B or less.

Regards,
Shodan
  #48  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:44 PM
Emily Litella is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The swamps of Jersey
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Don't forget taxing the rich more. Apparently that's where all the money in the country is.

And I suspect that many of them are calling for more dramatic spending cuts in the DoD beyond just cutting waste.
We're spending more money on defense than the next 7 countries combined. Chart

Why wasn't the GOP asking where the money would come from to pay for their tax cut for the wealthy, who are now paying 23% tax while the poor are paying 24% tax.
They didn't ask where the money was going to come from for Trump's wall after realizing Mexico wasn't going to pay for it.

Hey, next time someone on the right asks where the money is coming from to pay for stuff we can say Mexico is going to pay for it.
__________________
NM
  #49  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:53 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Median weekly income for FULL TIME workers is about $930 a week, or $47k a year. Including part-time or unemployed people yields a different median income, as I'm sure you'll readily agree.
Yes, if you slice the numbers differently, you get different numbers. That has rather little to do with pool's allegation.

Real personal income in the US has been trending upwards for decades and is currently at an all-time high. It tracks the economy generally, of course, but overall, it's never been better.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by Shodan; 10-21-2019 at 01:54 PM.
  #50  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:03 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily Litella View Post
Why wasn't the GOP asking where the money would come from to pay for their tax cut for the wealthy, who are now paying 23% tax while the poor are paying 24% tax.
I assume you don't mean "poor" the same way as the federal government does.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017