Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I don't think so, but then again, I don't buy into the Hitler metaphor. I don't think it's particularly helpful or historically apt. The United States in 2025 is nothing like Germany in 1933.

Other than being ripe for the taking, with a population pleased as punch to go along, no, not much alike in any anological perspective 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I'm not joking at all. I like Pete, but his past in management consulting gives me pause. I probably wouldn't vote for him in a primary. I'd 100% vote for him if he won the nomination, though.

How long will this pogrom last?  He ditched McKinsey long ago.  The grudge and grievance line is over yonder.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, nbmishoid said:

How long will this pogrom last?  He ditched McKinsey long ago.  The grudge and grievance line is over yonder.

For as long as he's in politics. He'll never be my first choice among Democratic candidates.

But is it really a pogrom if you'll vote for the man after he wins the nomination?

 

Posted
5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I will always believe the embrace of neoliberalism by Democrats is one of the main reasons we lost the working class.

 

The largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party is working class.

Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What on earth? I didn’t say anything about the *white* working class or BLM.  They abandoned the entire American working class, which is to say that Democrats have abandoned the class interests of minorities disproportionately. That’s quite a projection, though- curious how to got there. 

Anyway, do you disagree with the point that progressives have essentially substituted social issues for the working class economic interests that used to be at the center of the party coalition? 

Well the problem I have had with the Democrats is that we do have this core of corporate Democrats and a depressing amount of just straight traitors who get elected saying they are going to help the poor and advance progressive causes just to betray us. Obviously Obama is the main example of this with how he bailed out the big banks instead of the people back in 2009. The social issues are a great way to obscure this. Which is frustrating to me because I do care a lot about those issues, and they get hijacked by big business to distract us from their regressive actions. Even Elon Musk pretended to be leftwing this way.

I disagree that progressives have necessarily done this, but rather that is the corporate and moderate game to pretend they are still allies to the left.

But despite all of this Joe Biden did do more pro-union and pro-labor things than any President in a long time and things like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were good for the working class. So despite everything the Democrats are still better so I vote for them.

But yeah they have largely been bad on working class economic interests. The party is loaded with traitors, turncoats, and false friends.

Posted
Just now, Satchel said:

The largest voting bloc in the Democratic Party is working class.

But not as large as it used to be, and that's one of the reasons we have a second Donald Trump administration. It's also one of the reasons we had the first Donald Trump administration. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But not as large as it used to be, and that's one of the reasons we have a second Donald Trump administration. It's also one of the reasons we had the first Donald Trump administration. 

 

That’s not why we have a second Trump administration, or a first one, for that matter.

Posted
16 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's absolutely one of the reasons why. Those votes matter in tight elections.

The working class people who voted for Trump don’t care about the price of eggs as much as they support Trump’s ability to make them feel secure.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

But not as large as it used to be, and that's one of the reasons we have a second Donald Trump administration. It's also one of the reasons we had the first Donald Trump administration. 

 

Yeah. Well...the working class support for the Democrats has been shaky ever since 1968. Nixon drew them all away. As you say, Reagan drew tons of workers by promising them that success for the rich and corporations would mean prosperity for them. 

And ultimately the Democrats have only had mixed success at getting them back. It doesn't help that many of them just adopted Reagan's line instead of fighting back against it.

But with all the money and thus power concentrated into such a small group of corporations and individuals that I have a hard time seeing the Democrats really become a Union first working class party again, though I do want to give Joe Biden some credit for at least doing a little bit of that for all the good it did him.

But I also don't really see any other party being able to do that for that reason. A political party would have to just refuse all large donations and live off peanuts to do that.

Edited by Valmy77
Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't think there is a better image to sum up this admin
 

SEI_240367151-50eb.webp

At first I thought "this isn't Trump's America, that's in Toronto". I keep forgetting Canada is the 51st State.

Posted
6 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

At first I thought "this isn't Trump's America, that's in Toronto". I keep forgetting Canada is the 51st State.

yeah, but i'm blaming everything shitty on these guys bc why not. also, american company, so yeah, it's his fault

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yeah. Well...the working class support for the Democrats has been shaky ever since 1968. Nixon drew them all away. As you say, Reagan drew tons of workers by promising them that success for the rich and corporations would mean prosperity for them. 

And ultimately the Democrats have only had mixed success at getting them back. It doesn't help that many of them just adopted Reagan's line instead of fighting back against it.

But with all the money and thus power concentrated into such a small group of corporations and individuals that I have a hard time seeing the Democrats really become a Union first working class party again, though I do want to give Joe Biden some credit for at least doing a little bit of that for all the good it did him.

But I also don't really see any other party being able to do that for that reason. A political party would have to just refuse all large donations and live off peanuts to do that.

Man, we really swallowed trickle down whole, didn't we.

Furk.

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Bill Clinton, the man who gave us welfare to work and the crime bill, was "generally progressive" on social issues?

Relative to the coalition that elected him? Absolutely. And his wife even more so. 
 

and for what it’s worth- you’re looking at the crime bill from the perspective of a white progressive in 2025, not the resident of a high crime neighborhood in 1994. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't think there is a better image to sum up this admin
 

SEI_240367151-50eb.webp

What kind of dei was this? Black? Brown? Blind and armless? 

Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Relative to the coalition that elected him? Absolutely. And his wife even more so. 
 

and for what it’s worth- you’re looking at the crime bill from the perspective of a white progressive in 2025, not the resident of a high crime neighborhood in 1994. 

He promised gays in the military and got us "don't ask, don't tell." Weird for a guy that publicly ran on, and was elected with the expectation of, gays being allowed to serve in the military and delivering DADT and being considered ahead of his voters. I was there, I remember the gays in the military discussion.

I seem to recall lots of progressives in 1994 being against the crime bill, but I cannot vouch for their skin color.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Relative to the coalition that elected him? Absolutely. And his wife even more so. 
 

and for what it’s worth- you’re looking at the crime bill from the perspective of a white progressive in 2025, not the resident of a high crime neighborhood in 1994. 

Yeah, we're never going to agree on this. Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat from a southern state and he governed that way. Both of those bills were disasters, but what probably did more political damage in the long run was the fact that he signed NAFTA.

Posted
18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, we're never going to agree on this. Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat from a southern state and he governed that way. Both of those bills were disasters, but what probably did more political damage in the long run was the fact that he signed NAFTA.

I agree with the impact of the policy,  but thats completely different from how he was perceived at the time. 
Second, however, I think we agree fundamentally that Bill (and Hillary) Clinton were fundamentally oriented to serve corporate interests and affluent college grads, and to the extent that they were interested in the middle class non-college graduate skilled labor force, it was in the form of expanded government services and job training. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I seem to recall lots of progressives in 1994 being against the crime bill, but I cannot vouch for their skin color.

Some were, but working class people in high crime neighborhoods were broadly in favor of it. The bill was a disaster, but that and DADT were more in line with legacy Democrat coalition social politics than NAFTA or the repeal of Glass Steagall.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, DaysOff said:


I'm always confused when our debt does, and doesn't matter.

It only matters when they want to cut your benefits.  Not the ones that enrich them.  

Posted
24 minutes ago, DaysOff said:


I'm always confused when our debt does, and doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter:

1980-1992

2000-2008

2016-2020

Also, college football only matters 1939, 1984-1994 ya stupid sip!

YARN | that includes the Chiclets but not the erasers. | The Jerk (1979) |  Video gifs by quotes | a7265b3b | 紗

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Do you think most people who oppose Donald Trump are willing to get arrested for it?

We may not realize it yet, but we might need an American Navalny to galvanize around and save the country.

Posted

This probably should be in the LGBTQ thread, but I'm putting it here instead because it has much wider implications. It's not only a pathetic display of punching down on a vulnerable group that the regime doesn't approve of, but it's also a demonstration of the lengths these people will go to manipulate/mold our history by erasing parts of it.

 

Quote

 

US Park Service erases the word ‘transgender’ from website commemorating Stonewall riot
References to transgender people were removed Thursday from a National Park Service website for the Stonewall National Monument, a park and visitor center in New York that commemorates a 1969 riot that became a pivotal moment for the LGBTQ+ rights movement.

The changes were made in the wake of an executive order President Donald Trump signed on his first day in office calling for the federal government to define sex as only male or female.

“This is just cruel and petty,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, posted on X. “Transgender people play a critical role in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights — and New York will never allow their contributions to be erased.”

The monument in Manhattan’s Greenwich Village section is based in a tiny park across the street from the Stonewall Inn, a bar that became ground zero for the gay rights movement on June 28, 1969, when gay and transgender patrons and neighborhood residents fought back against a police raid.

The park service website on Friday was still filled with information about the uprising, including photographs of noted transgender activists.

But the words “transgender” and “queer” had been deleted from text that had been on the site.

Also, the letters T and Q were cut from various references to the acronym LGBTQ and replaced with phrases like the “LGB rights movement” or “LGB civil rights.”

Representatives of the present-day Stonewall Inn, which is part of the national monument, and The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative, a nonprofit organization associated with the historic bar, expressed anger and outrage over the changes.

“This blatant act of erasure not only distorts the truth of our history, but it also dishonors the immense contributions of transgender individuals — especially transgender women of color — who were at the forefront of the Stonewall Riots and the broader fight for LGBTQ+ rights,” said organizers of the two entities in a statement.

“They’re trying to literally cis-wash, if you will, LGBTQ history by taking trans folks and saying they didn’t exist then and don’t exist now,” said Stacy Lentz, CEO of The Stonewall Inn Gives Back Initiative and a co-owner of The Stonewall Inn. “It is very alarming.”

Angelica Christina, who is board director of the initiative and a transgender woman, said the changes to the website are not surprising given “the constant executive orders the Trump administration has been leveling against the trans community.”

But she said it is shocking and unnerving to see the Stonewall National Monument in particular targeted: “The West Village, and especially the Stonewall Inn, has always been a safe haven for the LGBT community.”

Earlier this week, the homepage for the national monument said that “Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person was illegal.”

On Thursday, it said: “Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal.”

The National Park Service did not respond to a message left Thursday seeking comment on the changes. The service previously did not respond to questions about whether Trump’s executive order would mean changes for the monument.

Timothy Leonard, Northeast program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association, a 1.6 million-member nonprofit group that advocates on behalf of national parks and helped push for the Stonewall monument, said “erasing letters or webpages” does not change history or the contributions of the transgender community at Stonewall or elsewhere.

“The National Park Service exists to not only protect and preserve our most cherished places but to educate its millions of annual national park visitors about the inclusive, full history of America,” Leonard said.

Then President Barack Obama designated the Stonewall National Monument in 2016.

Last year, a $3.2 million visitor center run by the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Pride Live opened at the site, in partnership with the park service, to tell the Stonewall story in more depth. The center was financed mostly with private donations, except for $450,000 from the park service’s charitable arm.

Trump’s order declared the federal government would recognize only two immutable sexes: male and female, based on whether people are born with eggs or sperm, rather than on their chromosomes. The change is being pitched as a way to protect women from “gender extremism.”

Conservative groups such as the American Family Association have praised the change as one that acknowledges the truth. But experts including the American Medical Association and American Psychiatric Association hold that gender is a spectrum, not a binary structure consisting only of males and females.

 

 

  • Rage+1 8
Posted
19 minutes ago, bolverk said:

This probably should be in the LGBTQ thread, but I'm putting it here instead because it has much wider implications. It's not only a pathetic display of punching down on a vulnerable group that the regime doesn't approve of, but it's also a demonstration of the lengths these people will go to manipulate/mold our history by erasing parts of it.

 

 

Was planning on hitting that place up next month when im in town. Fucking infuriating

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think at last half of our entire economy is scam based. That is the only way I can figure out how Elon Musk, who is the CEO of a middling car company that he did not even found, is the world's richest man. At least Henry Ford built lots of cars.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Some were, but working class people in high crime neighborhoods were broadly in favor of it. The bill was a disaster, but that and DADT were more in line with legacy Democrat coalition social politics than NAFTA or the repeal of Glass Steagall.

Huh? Clinton was a direct response to the Dems getting mollywhopped in 3 straight elections. They decided to run the most conservative Dem they could. Had shit to do with progressives and everything to do with countering the R's to pull their base over. Clinton is the reason for the shift to the right across the spectrum.

We secretly have a LOT of racists in this country. Clinton's "tough on crime" stance, and southern beginnings comforted them. Biden also won for a lot of the same reasons. The olds remembered the 94 crime bill fondly and how he spoke about minorities back in the old days so they were okay with him.

Clinton signed NAFTA. Glass-Steagal Reform. Brokered the WTO Treaty with China. Pushed Fanny and Freddy. For all the righting the budget in the 90's, they shift to the right and penning of some awful bills wasn't worth it.

Edited by Thatguy
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, we're never going to agree on this. Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat from a southern state and he governed that way. Both of those bills were disasters, but what probably did more political damage in the long run was the fact that he signed NAFTA.

I don't think I have seen a Democratic President so ruthlessly attacked by Democrats and the Democratic Party supporting media as during the NAFTA bill. That was something.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I think at last half of our entire economy is scam based. That is the only way I can figure out how Elon Musk, who is the CEO of a middling car company that he did not even found, is the world's richest man. At least Henry Ford built lots of cars.

Tesla is a carbon credit company. That’s their scam.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Bojack said:

This right here. Some of the more chilling things I've heard from the new oligarchs are when they acknowledge there will be "temporary hardship" or that things will be painful during their process of destroying everything before they rebuild it. It certainly doesn't sound like people that are willing to lose power in midterms next year or in 2028. They're also not seeing themselves in sharing those hardships or willing to give away their fortunes. 

It’s a cultural revolution so to speak

Posted
5 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

I don't think I have seen a Democratic President so ruthlessly attacked by Democrats and the Democratic Party supporting media as during the NAFTA bill. That was something.

Most Democrats in the House voted against it. He had political cover to veto it.

Posted
22 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

Huh? Clinton was a direct response to the Dems getting mollywhopped in 3 straight elections. They decided to run the most conservative Dem they could. Had shit to do with progressives and everything to do with countering the R's to pull their base over. Clinton is the reason for the shift to the right across the spectrum.

We secretly have a LOT of racists in this country. Clinton's "tough on crime" stance, and southern beginnings comforted them. Biden also won for a lot of the same reasons. The olds remembered the 94 crime bill fondly and how he spoke about minorities back in the old days so they were okay with him.

Clinton signed NAFTA. Glass-Steagal Reform. Brokered the WTO Treaty with China. Pushed Fanny and Freddy. For all the righting the budget in the 90's, they shift to the right and penning of some awful bills wasn't worth it.

There are still blue dog Democrats in Washington. I can't think of a single liberal Republican.

Posted
1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

There are still blue dog Democrats in Washington. I can't think of a single liberal Republican.

There used to be a right and left wing of both parties. But there haven't been any left wing Republicans since the 1980s I don't think.



×
×
  • Create New...