There’s No Simple Way to Unite the Democratic Party

>>170834
Nice opinion piece. Too bad the /news/ sticky prohibits them.

>>170836
The news is the democrats as a party are dead. They are too divided.
The Sanders people will never rally behind a mainstream neolib. And the party leadership will never support another Sanders. On top of that they have no message.

They are dead.

>Leftists who dismiss “identity politics” as an irrelevant distraction need to be sidelined, as they are not dependable allies of the Democratic Party’s true base.
>Center-leftists who eschew economic populism and worker empowerment in defense of the Wall Street-dependent donor class in the dream of an identity-blind faux meritocracy of oppression must also be sidelined.
>...
Is that all we need to do? Just go with what these crybaby college students want and abandon the source of nearly all of our funding? Of course its easy when your solution is getting people to just not disagree with you with no concessions on your end. Identity politics doesnt suddenly reign itself in just because you quit telling them to knock it off. The mega donors on wall st are the bulk of DNC funding despite what bernouts want to believe, we NEED them (its why breitfart and faux always talk about getting rid of Pelosi, that hag pulls in half the budget). Its like someone with the most basic, surface level understanding of politics wrote about shit a college professor told them while preaching about utopian ideals

>>170839
You retards created this monster of the hardcore communist college student. And now you are crying they destroyed your party?

>>170838
They're gonna either have to make concessions, or make a choice.

But I guess fuck me for wanting to be represented in representative politics. What am I even doing, just follow the donkey and all will be well! I guess I should just go back to groupthink to spite republicans out of office so some other useless dipshit can take their place as walking slander to my political beliefs.

For chrissake, I'm not even far-left. How brain dead do you have to be to equate anything left of Clinton to be an actual Marxist?

>>170841
Yeah you know us old dems we just marched up and demanded that schools everywhere start raising the little faggots to dye their hair and cry about microassaults. Fixing the DNC is just a return to workers rights, fighting for the little guy, giving people a safety net and a fair shake at success. At what point did I vote for men dressed as women demanding a primetime block of the news to explain why they should piss wherever they want over whats going on in the middle east or the south china sea?

I'm seriously sick and tired of wall street Hillary and the rest of the lying dem leadership.
I want free healthcare.
I want free education.
I want basic income that's high enough to live a middle class lifestyle, for everyone.
I want Bernie or nothing.

>>170845
You enabled them. You purged all conservative and moderate voices from campus. Leaving only the radical left.

It would be easy to beat President Trump in 2020, but Establishment Democrats aren't willing to do it.

1-Care about white people to.
2-Care about unemployment and go after getting more jobs in America.
3-Have a stance on illegal immigration, and not just call who being the subject up "racist".
4-RUN ON LEGALIZING CANNABIS!!!

Reminder that Democrats are largely still quite right wing by the standards of most of the First World.

WE WANT SOCIALISM
WE WANT BERNIE

>>170848
>1-Care about white people to.
You fucking Nazi. Black lives matter. Saying "all lives matter" is a hate crime.

>>170847
Its academics, we didnt vote for shit you mong. This was a move that a small handful of people decided on college boards. Last I checked when I vote it doesnt include "who is going to head the new Humanities department? (R)(D)"

That's the sad reality of it. Today when you mention the Democrats everyone immediately thinks of Communism.
Sad to see the once proud party of the klan turn into a complete joke.

>>170854
>everyone
It's a good thing "everyone" isn't to the right of Ronald Reagan like you are.

>>170855
I'm just a race realist.

>>170845
Why not take this and bring it to the party level. If voices like this don't speak up and put those little neo-marxist social justice obsessed snots in their place things aren't going to get better for this country, much less the party.

>>170843
There is nothing to the left of Clinton. She is the maximum. She is literally Stalin.

>>170889
Honestly, it's just the same thing that happened to Democrats in the South over the last 30 years. There's a reason they have the saying "We didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left us."

The DNC didn't come back courting for them, and they won't for the current groups dissatisfied with them either.

>>170904
So they really are the BLM party now and it will get worse from here? My god.

>>170889
It gets to, at most, county level polititions and just dissapates at any regional/state level groups. >>170904 is describing a sentiment in the northeast and the rust belt over the last 5 years or so. Especially with the opiod epidemic getting almost totally ignored in favor of masked hoodlums fighting the klan or whatever some Trump family member did to offend everyone today. There are swaths of the rust belt becoming ghost towns due to drugs and jobs getting exported but todays Dems are just too concerned that another thug got shot fighting a cop or that nobody but mexicans will pick fruit for $3/hr. You know what the solution to that was in the 90s? Deport the mexicans and tell the farmers to pay an actual wage.

"You fucking Nazi. Black lives matter. Saying "all lives matter" is a hate crime."

Isn't that how white slave owners felt, only the opposite?

YES, that is EXACTLY how White Supremacists feel, only in reverse.

Hate=Hate

>>170909
>"You fucking Nazi. Black lives matter. Saying "all lives matter" is a hate crime."
You're intentionally being obtuse.
Nobody ever disagreed that all lives matter. The entire point of singling out black lives is the disproportionate targeting of them by police. And you can argue "well black people are more violent according to science". But that's cold comfort to black people who aren't violent and who have been the target of brutality.
Saying "all lives matter" is a weaker statement when you're trying to protest police brutality against a specific group.

>>170895
Clinton was one of the furthest right candidates the Dems have run in decades. For that matter, Trump is the definition of a RINO and could pretty easily have fit into the Dem platform on the mid to late 1990s

>>170895
clinton is center-right

>>170917
Reagan was center right. Clinton is a textbook Stalinist.

>>170916

Trump a RINO, LOLOLOLOL!!!

>>170916
Trump is a libertarian. He hates the republicans more then the democrats.

>>170920
no

>>170922
>Trump is a libertarian.
What happened to populism and economic nationalism?
Now he's just a far-right but conventional republican
In any case, I'm liberitarian in some respects and socialist in others. Is anyone really retarded enough to believe an ideological one-size-fits-all approach is optimal for society with respect to policy decisions and government intervention in the economy?

Why is our government allocating funds for the wall right now? I was promised that Mexico would pay for it. Where's the contract from Mexico? I guess some kind of border barrier would be OK and maybe I'd be OK with paying for it. But I'm left feeling a bit cheated out of what I was sold by Trump. Just on principle I don't want to pay for this unless he can convincingly explain himself, he shouldn't feel free to just brush such a big and expensive detail of our initial agreement under the rug. If he or other folks who don't mind paying will pay for the wall themselves, I'd be OK with that too.

>>170846
> I want Bernie or nothing.

Therein lies your problem my friend.

The establishment will never galvanize behind Bernie. The e-mail scandal revealed that much.

The DNC doesn't want him, he's too polarizing.

i dont know why we cant agree that in a perfect, corrupt free world without greed for a corrupt monetary system and world powers that complete socialism doesnt sounds amazing.

we the people shouldnt have to be okay with who the dnc picks. bernie had a lot of followers and was simply shoved out. take the power back people.

>>170848
> Care about white people to.

You think President Trump LLC, who for all intents and purposes, is a corporation, gives a flying fuck about blue collar white people.

It's the biggest lie since WMD in 2004.

Corporations exist to serve themselves.

>>170915
dude don't even bother, people are completely unreasonable, why are you using nuanced logic?

As if Clinton didn't have initiatives for rust belt communities. They just decided not to listen since Trump promised quick fix solutions and gave them an easy scapegoat.

>>170935
I'm sorry. But "all white people are evil" is not a good initiative for the rust belt.

>>170936
When did Clinton say that?

>>170935
>As if Clinton didn't have initiatives for rust belt communities
She literally ignored them until the last week of the race when internal polling found out what had happened. Rumor has it Bill told her quite a few times not to take them for granted.

>>170937
Are you serious. During the campaign not five minutes went by when she didn't blame everything on white males and whites in general. It was her entire campaign.

>>170938
A politician campaigning in a certain area doesn't imply that someone is actually going to help them once elected.

But yes you are right she shouldn't have taken them for granted. The way this election worked, Trump won by making ridiculous promises and people voted for them if they "felt" like he was on their side.

>>170939
No that was right-wingers strawmanning liberals.

>>170940
Your right, its been 6 months and the rust belt isnt even mining mars for more iron for all that industry that was supposed to return overnight. Clearly this means Trump has bamboozled those poor, stupid white people

But seriously, let the effects of the fleeing illegals take hold (the denser population centers like cali and texas for them have already seen massive wage hikes in farming and construction respectively) and wait for a Trump tax plan to take hold. If he keeps his promise about creating an enticing environment for manufacturing then we could see a second coming of the Middle America created by the auto industry

>>170944
Trump promised many times that he alone could fix it and that he would do it quickly.

Source on that wages claim? In California there is a shortage of agricultural labor which led to crops not being harvested.

>Trump tax plan
Manufacturing is increasingly being automated regardless of taxes. Unless you mean he'll put tariffs on imports. I think that will have a mixed effect at best.

>>170949
>Sources
https://www.dallasnews.com/business/business/2017/04/21/one-reason-dallas-soaring-home-prices-labor-shortage-immigrants-coming-time

>http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/
>inb4 it started in the Obama Era, thats not the point. The point is wages are steadily on the rise for the first time in decades due to the lack of cheap brown labor without human rights

"Quickly" is something that does not happen in American politics. "Quickly" is something that doesnt happen in any Corporate environment on a major project. "Quickly" as you are thinking of it is for proposals and risk assessments. "Quickly" when it comes to changing tax codes and physically moving places to work would still be a year away from the first man hour of work if Trump had a dictatorship. If he has a single factory built by his second term that would be light speed considering nobody but /pol/ the LA Times and Bill Clinton thought he would win.

>>170953
The articles you cited both say that this is part of a larger trend of Mexicans going back to Mexico, from Mexico's improving economy and Obama and Trump's policies.

As you said, things don't happen quickly in American politics. I was pointing out that Trump said that and it was unrealistic. So who's to say it's not a residual effect from what Obama did?

But yes I agree it's good that big agriculture and other firms are being held accountable. At the same time this will lead to higher prices so it's mixed bag.

>>170958
The Construction and Agriculture industries raising wages is the first of a few trends. We have companies returning manufacturing (more IBM/Apple type companies than the Ford/Chrysler of yesteryear) under the assumption that a populist cares more for people getting work than he cares for pulling in taxes. Mexicans leaving of their own volition spiked under Trump for a variety of reasons (good or bad is irrelevant) and are leaving behind industries forced to pay actual, livable wages. The steady growth since the Bush era came alongside a steady departure of Illegal and legal migrant labor, so a sudden dip in labor implies a sudden spike in wages. If Trumps tax plan is anything like he claims it would be you would see industry return in an environment where $25/hr is a starting wage in places where thats middle class. The conditions are right, Trumps tax plan could be a catalyst for a total revival of the rust belt. If he sticks to his guns. Thats the big If here.

I wouldnt worry about food prices across the board. Staple foods are largely automated throughout the midwest. The migrant labor was for luxuries like wine, almonds, avacado and some hand fruits. The big three meats, grains and root vegetables will go almost untouched.

>>170962
>Trumps Tax Plan
You mean his napkin policy of 'cut all taxes' because the voters will like hearing it. Nigga grow up, this shit will never pass congress.and for good reason

>>170962
Since we're already at full employment, cheap produce and construction actually benefits the working class if they're not the ones being forced to accept the jobs that pay what undocumented immigrants are being paid. Second, the only thing we've had since the Bush era was the crashing and burning of the economy until Obama revived it. Real wages for working class Americans have remained stagnant despite massive gains in corporate profit for decades now.
https://tcf.org/assets/images/blog_images/20120314-graph-the-1-percents-jobless-recovery-01.png
We've been forcing trickle down economics for decades, and we've had record CEO earnings for decades and not much else. If the goal is to empower social mobility, why not actually try redistributing income to them? The more protections they have, they more disposable income they have, the more business our corporations will have in the US. Enabling the wealthiest control over the living conditions of the working class hasn't worked, the working class spend a much larger portion of their paycheck and they're much more likely to spend it domestically. And we already have mechanisms built into our tax code to enable small businesses to evade taxes.

We can make comparisons between states, with other modern economies, and across history, and the conclusion will always be that tax rate is one variable among many with relevance to the level of economic development of a society.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/3/kansas-tax-cut-failure-an-economic-warning-to-repu/
>As President Trump and congressional Republicans ponder big tax cuts to boost the U.S. economy, Kansas has become a cautionary tale.
>Prodded by Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican, Kansas embarked on a major tax overhaul in 2012, reducing the top income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent and eliminating income tax on some businesses altogether.
>Convinced they could turn the state into a heartland magnet for businesses seeking to flee high-tax states on the coasts, Republican lawmakers instead punched a huge hole in their budget. Facing mounting bills and shrinking revenue, the Legislature last month defied Mr. Brownback’s veto and moved to reverse some of its cuts.
>Whether the Kansas experiment is a referendum on conservative, low-tax policies is an open question. Obsession with tax rates often obscures other factors in businesses’ decision-making, such as the availability of a good workforce, quality of life for employees, and proximity to airports and other infrastructure, analysts say.
>“You can’t just have the tax issue in isolation,” said Richard C. Auxier, a tax policy researcher at the Urban Institute. “There’s no clear link between tax cuts and growth.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-07/a-reverse-trump-tax-plan-delivers-an-economic-miracle-in-sweden
>The numbers are compelling. Sweden has one of the world’s highest tax burdens, with tax revenue about 43 percent of GDP, according to OECD data. The equivalent figure for the U.S. is about 26 percent. Sweden’s economy has grown almost twice as fast as America’s, expanding 3.1 percent last year, compared with 1.6 percent in the U.S.

>>170995
The voters are all convinced by bumper stickers and econ101-isms.
They keep voting for the same shit and when it doesn't work they keep being told it was all the fault of socialism so the solution is to move further right next election cycle. That's why republican presidents seem to be getting progressively more corrupt and retarded, admittedly Hillary was corrupt too.
I guess there's a shred of truth to that since private industry has become so ensconced within government that it's sometimes hard to tell the two apart. That needs to go but there are intelligent ways of going about that, right now voters are being sold the line that government is the problem from the same politicians making the corrupt deals. Many voters would prefer to scrap all government involvement and regulation even when it can be argued to be sensible, just to hand executives of multinational conglomerates complete power, because then at least they'll know who's calling the shots. Better to feel powerless than powerless and unaware whose fault it is. But there is an alternative, and that is to try intelligent and nuanced solutions. Why not try campaign finance reform and undo citizen's united? Maybe, before we become a single-party state, we can refuse ideology and try moderation.

>>171013
Yeah we should try something else. Destroy the 70 years of liberal world order. Send a real outsider to Washington to destroy them.
Maybe a business man from New York.

>>171013
My comment did not deserve a reply that intelligent. But thanks, I agree

>>170995
Right, I forgot, his failure of a tax plan was leaked last week. It looked terrible, not at all what was implied the entire campaign where his only positive point was that he had a firm grasp of economic policy. Guess I better go #offthereservation with Warren or whoever is coming up.

>>171000
>Employers are literally being forced to raise wages and you talk about trickle down economics
>Totally ignore sectors raising wages despite bush era buffoonery
>California wine getting more expensive will hurt the working class in any way
Not even getting into that commie shit that ignores an economy of scale.

Anyone that thinks President Trump is part of the Obama/Bush/Clinton Establishment is delusional beyond repair.

A person NOT part of the Establishment was elected, and idiots are listening to the Establishment Propaganda CNN and Company, and without giving the thought any scrutiny, believing it.

Wow

Anyone that thinks President Trump is part of the Establishment shouldn't have children.

>>171029
Trump is absolutely on their team. That's why all Congress/CIA/Media work 24/7 to destroy him. Because he is one of them.

>>170852
Saying all lives matter is a completely redundant statement in response to black lives matter. >>170915 This guy has it.

Your breath is finite. Language is deliberate. Those two things are crucial to rhetoric, because your efficacy lies within people's attention spans. The phrase is three very specific words for a reason.

Black is an adjective. Its use presumes that there are other adjectives to be distinguished from.

Lives is the noun being modified here. Black lives are distinguished from an implied plurality of lives.

Matter is the verb at hand, completing the statement. It's a declaration of affairs, that black lives matter. And as a declaration or statement, another kind of plurality is implied: A different state of affairs is both present and juxtaposed against this statement. So when we consider that, among several "types" of lives, black ones mattering is a statement distinct from the current state of society; we can assume that the current state is where black lives matter relatively less compared to other categories. And that's the thing: It's relative. This is the exact opposite of the racial preference "all lives matter" implies. It's a plea for solidarity. If white lives end up mattering more while black lives are valued just as much, that is still a win for BLM.

The phrase exists with a -context- and is defined by that. It's targeted at an audience who is familiar enough with that context to outline the unstated premises I just have. It would be worthless to say in Uzbekistan. But in modern America, it has purpose.

>>170928
The DNC polarized him because they're either dumb as fuck, paid for, or both. They chose to disingenuously play up how far left he is. When really, he's just an FDR-esque reformer. That was a major piece of rhetoric when it came to Obama and now we forgot whoops.

But they backed Hillary. And they didn't realize just how much the conservatives she was supposed to appeal to, hated the shit out of her.

>>171034
As I said. There is nothing more racist than saying "All Lives Matter"

>>171038
IMO, a better takeaway is that saying "All Lives Matter" implies you either don't understand or don't accept the major premises that make up the context of "Black Lives Matter" But I can definitely admit that in adding exception, you leave a lot of room for the kind of dishonesty /pol/ loves so much.

There's a distinction between genuine hate, willful ignorance, and unchallenged ignorance that I think there's some benefit in addressing. You can save arbitrary treatment for arbitrary hate. If a guy can aggree to these contexts and still be a white nationalist, has a king's maze of compartmentalization if they're actually being honest. That Minotaur isn't worth patience unless they show a lot of good faith in moving away from an incompatible belief. And you can talk to the willfully ignorant about -why- they choose their beliefs. I want to believe that you can deconstruct those choices in a way that's palatable to them. And you can talk to somebody who just hasn't been challenged about a lot of things if they don't let their ego stand in for their belief structure.

But this is coming from a person who's awareness of all this spans maybe 8 years tops, with a fuzzy middlish area beforehand. So it's not a topic that I've lost patience with yet. If there's any implication of just how effective Dixie flavored Kool-Aid is: My 12 year old self believed that the 50's were some golden age of morality. It came up once, at dinner, so my parents asked me how much I actually knew about that decade. And when I took a minute to think about it, I realized, not much. Somehow though, that belief was there without any real foundations. I'd gotten it through some cultural osmosis outside of my immediate family. And to this day, I can't pin a source on where that came from.

>>170846
DNC leadership, for all their ills, aren't communist. You should join the communist party if those are your goals.

>>170915
there is no real statistic that demonstrates that blacks are killed by police more than average.

in fact it's the opposite, whites die to police originated violence far more often per capita.

>>170834
>leftists
>acting in good faith

Ha, holy shit this guy must not have seen any leftists for thirty years or so

>>171059
>There's a distinction between genuine hate, willful ignorance, and unchallenged ignorance...
You left out the possibility that you are actually the one who is wrong. That's essential to a genuine debate. If you can't even consider the possibility that you might be wrong, you are lecturing, not debating. You can't claim to take someone's concerns seriously if you can't even consider the possibility that they might have something worthwhile to say. The Democrats will never stem their losses if they operate under the tacit assumption that they're infallible.

At this point I'm just waiting for the boomers to die of

>>171082

Back to Daily Caller, Breitbart, /pol/ and Fox News with you.

>>171128
>wah how dare you have different political views

>>171132

You are more than welcome to have different political views. I enjoy a genuine conversation in good faith.

>Ha, holy shit this guy must not have seen any leftists for thirty years or so

THIS open denial to anyone with differing political views. You've already made up your mind about anyone that you appear to disagree with.

>>170836
>he thinks /news/ has rules
there are no mods here

>>170834
Identity politics have killed the Democrats. I stopped voting Dem after supporting them all my life. Democrats have said that only women matter and have told me and other males to fuck off, so why should I support them?
>Unite the Democratic Party
They either keep hating men, in which case they will keep losing male votes. Or the Dems start supporting gender equality, in which case they lose the feminist vote. The only silver lining is that Trump is dividing Republicans too so maybe the Dems have a chance, but I hope they make the choice to abandon misandry.

>>171146
First link meant for
>>171122

>>170834
>There’s No Simple Way to Unite the Republican Party

>>170834
>leftists who dismiss identity politics need to be sidelined
Oh fuck you. This is why you're going to lose the rust belt again because you think the Dem Base is minorities who never show up to fucking vote.

>>171212
The GOP has been fractured for decades now with the freedom caucus, practical libertarians, RINOS, neocons, constitutional conservatives, people who really fucking hate the ACA (Obama lost his majority in the house and senate almost entirely to people whose only promise was cockblocking Obama at every turn and repealing the ACA) the various single issue voters, mostly guns rights followed by pro lifers. That Trump could win shows that the citizens in all of these catagories can come together sometimes.

On the other side the DNC is currently being split into 3 unequal pieces. Progressives, Blue Dogs and Establishment. Blue Dogs are the smallest group and have been turning red over the last few years. If money were no object and Jim Webb ran literally nobody would have held a candle to him. Progressives are those people progressing for the sake of progressiveness towards whatever Bernie and Warren had envisioned. Establishment is Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer and the normalfags on facebook tweeting low grade memes about how Trump doesnt like pizza or whatever retarded shit the shills were cranking out.

>>171238
>for the sake of progressiveness

For the sake of the efficiency, balanced with concerns for the well-being of my countrymen, inherent in a single-payer risk management system that spans a country. For the sake of congruence with past action and political rhetoric. For the sake of repealing Citizens United. And for the sake of policy reform on the sacred beast that is the financial sector.

Your assumption that we don't have specific policy interests is the same kind of disenfranchisement that we have to tolerate from our own establishment. And in a sense, we're sort of cornered in a position where we have to. It's not in our interest to vote against coalition, because of the relative likelihood of progressive candidates appearing from red or blue stock. If some RINO by any chance does a better job of this, sure. But in the current climate, they run the risk of alienating themselves from their own support base.

It's annoying. But I'd rather a long-term solution over voting against coalition sheerly out of spite.

>>170834
So you're telling me that as a member of the party you claim to be environmentalist, you want to double the consumption power of everyone middle class and below, in a country where we contribute more to man-propagated carbon dioxide and methane production than many other continents (as a whole) can contend with? You're telling me you want to increase the spending power of people with a reputation for poor decision-making who blindly rely on the wealthy to make all of their ethical consumption choices for them? You want to empower people who blame factories, refineries, and plants for pumping out greenhouse gases but never blame themselves for consumption of the consumables created there at a rate beyond their station in life, such that the poor are so often obese?

I want everyone in this thread saying they want every single American to live a middle class lifestyle to acknowledge that they are not only complicit with Global Warming, but also ignorant of the cause of global warming. If you want a "basic income," get married. Then you can afford all that shit you demand for free and your offspring won't grow up to be brainwashed irresponsible faggot communists who think the deodorant and toothpaste they buy materializes out of thin air.

>>171382
There is no global warming you retard.

>>171382
That's actually an interesting take. And it outlines something of a compartmentalization that I hadn't thought about before.

But it also doesn't excuse the elites who take part in massive excess themselves. Nor does it promote fiscally conservative capitalism as a counterpoint on global warming.

What's your alternative to a left-leaning voter?

>>171396
The elites do not take part in massive excess, at least when compared to per capita consumption of poor people adjusted for income.

The wealthy eat the same number of meals that we do. Those meals are often smaller and responsibly sourced. They typically spend more on services than goods. They have them same amount of clothing as we do, sometimes less. A man making 100 times as much as me doesn't live in 100 houses, own 100 cars, eat 100 angus burgers for dinner, or buy 100 bars of soap a week, etc. There is an emphasis on quality over quantity among the wealthy and I'd take that any day over a more "absorbent" working class.

Conservative capitalism is a valid solution because it limits consumption with a minimum wage that is generous in light of resource availability. Fresh water, rare earth elements, phosphorus, coal, fossil fuels... All of these are running low. If you consider warnings about 2050 and 2100 worth listening to, the last thing you want to do is have Americans living even better than Americans.

>>170931
They don't, but they pretend they do. When they're against the democrats who won't even pretend to care, it's all that is need to do to gain the support of the masses.

>>171424
The man who makes 100 times as much may sell 100 times as many goods though. If your argument is about being individually complicit, then why excuse him from it? Conservative policy, that is trickle-down taxation, only enables him to fund this train wreck.

And that's the thing. Maybe your ideal of conservative politics would have an edge here. But you are one of a massive coalition. And climate change denial continues to be a massive pillar of that coalition. How do you justify voting with that block, when their representatives appeal to them through that pillar?

>>171450
>How do you justify voting with that block
There's the problem. I don't vote for Republicans either. I would take them over democrats, but the argument only favors them up to the point of raw per capita consumption. The corporations they represent are in an awkward position where waste disposal and emission control are very difficult/expensive when providing goods for hundreds of millions of people. They have a responsibility to cooperate with and even finance solutions but don't. So it's a two-pronged issue that both parties exacerbate. And even though there are two parties, there are really four.

The Libertarian party magnifies the issues of the Republican party's environmental policies many fold. The Green party exacerbates the rising wage issue and on the social side of things, they endorse the idea that a single person should be able to afford the amenities of a two-person household, as well as have the finances to raise as much offspring as they want as a single parent. Subsidized overpopulation.

There is no party for people who prioritize sustainable living. Not yet, anyway. Maybe when the entire Gulf of Mexico is a dead zone, we'll get a party specifically engineered to keep Earth habitable.

>>171467
That's pretty reasonable. But the endgame requires asking people to act voluntarily, collectively, and altruistically, in a way that no faction or regime has ever managed. Not without becoming authoritarian, anyways.

So
>Hope for a democratic miracle
>Live in the AU where monarchists/authoritarians were right all along
>Try to grassroots it while praying that nobody says "fuck you, got mine"
>Join the cult of Elon when he reveals himself as Moses and or Noah #2, Martian Boogaloo.
>Realize that we're actually a couple millenia behind on the whole flood prophesy thing.
Not looking super promising, as avid as I am about the concept of grandchildren.

We live in strange times. The democrats are dead at the moment, except for Sanders who is literally the most popular politician in America right now.

Meanwhile the Republicans are completely melting down as the President keeps throwing other republicans under the bus yet he also has a solid 30% of the voting base still backing him so he really can down other republicans with him if they ever turn against him. He also threatened to not pass a budget if the wall doesn't get funded.

>>171534
>The democrats are dead at the moment
Oh no, I hadn't heard! When's Hilary's funeral?

Bernie will be the fucking death of the dems. Democrats (and a few Republican senators who are the last of their kind thanks to the tea party) are currently the only ones practicing sound economic policy. And Bernie wants to throw that all away for feel-good populism.

>>171549

Your acting like people liked Hillery. And besides, her career as a politician is over.

>>170846
>I want basic income that's high enough to live a middle class lifestyle, for everyone.
never gonna happen.

>>170944
>second coming
More Factories popping up in the us certainly won't be a bad thing but they'll only employ a fraction of what the factories of old did.

>Leftists who dismiss “identity politics” as an irrelevant distraction need to be sidelined, as they are not dependable allies of the Democratic Party’s true base.

And what is why so many of us are seriously considering not voting in the next two elections. If they refuse to listen to us and at least address our concerns, then they don't deserve our help. I'm a liberal leaning centrist, voted for Obama, voted for Hillary. I'm not sure I want to vote for the next person the Democrats put up to try and win. Your "true base" is a small percentage of voters. Your "true base" has only their mouths, their Tumblr and twitter accounts as power. But they aren't a large block of voters.

>Center-leftists who eschew economic populism and worker empowerment in defense of the Wall Street-dependent donor class in the dream of an identity-blind faux meritocracy of oppression must also be sidelined.

And if you do listen to her, you will never get back in power again. You desperately want to cling to identity politics because it's the only thing you see you have left. You are quickly pushing those of us in the middle towards people 2 years ago we wanted little or nothing to do with as far as politics are concerned.

>If the answer is to boot everyone like this out of the Democratic Party, it’s going to be a pretty small party that’s left over.

It's getting to the point that if a real third party that started and stayed in the center game out, we'd happily go with them instead of these identity politics spewing assholes. This identify politics shit show is the opposite of what a lot of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s learned from all over. That we aren't to judge someone by the color of their skin or what's going on in their pants. Now you are telling us that we should do that and should give them extra points in life? Fuck you and fuck your politics.

You will never get back into power without those of us in the middle.

The democratic party will have to split into the donor-class center right party and the progressive/working class party. I sincerely believe that these coming midterms will be the nail in the coffin for the Democratic Party as it is now. Expect many Democrats and Republicans alike to lose seats to "surprise" Grassroots candidates that align more with Bernie and Trump.

The truth is there is no democrat or republican party. There is an establishment party, and they have 1 agenda, grow the government, put Americans into poverty through debt.

Notice neither party can "get anything done" while in power, BUT a Establishment issue goes through without a hitch.

Anyone who thinks there are 2 parties really need to study more.

42779