What did Democrats do wrong?

[Donal]

Yeah, let's totally not deal with an issue that affects 50% of the population.

I am trying to address issues that deal with more than <1% of the population. Not some bigoted do whistle.

 

[Donal]

What's funny about this is you think it's a counter-argument. But it's not a counter-argument, because it's true. The Secret Service wasn't created to protect the president, that was only a duty tacked on later. And there is absolutely no reason that duty couldn't be taken over by a different agency. You could easily have the FBI or the Federal Marshals take over those duties.

not really. Just because you don't understand the role an entity plays does not mean the entity is useless. "You could easily have someone else take that duty" is a take from someone who doesn't do that job.

But if you want a better analogy, the Department of Defense. We had a full-time Navy and a standing Army (of sorts) well before we even had a War Department. I guess the department of Agriculture can do it in your world.

 

[Ziggurat]

not really. Just because you don't understand the role an entity plays does not mean the entity is useless.

Oh, I never said it was useless. But there is a difference between being useful and being necessary. The idea that no one would protect the president without the secret service is stupid and wrong. The idea that title IX can't be enforced without the dept. of Ed. is stupid and wrong. You have to go deeper than that if you want to argue for its continued existence.

 

[Donal]

Not really, because I know you aren't discussing this in good faith. Nobody carrying water for the rapist-in-chief has an opinion worth hearing. Especially about the safety of women.

Now, please take that bigotry to the thread dedicated to it.

 

[johnny karate]

Echoing Donal and bringing this back around to the thread topic in terms of what voters wanted that Democrats didn’t deliver, the idea that the Trump voters give a single ◊◊◊◊ about the safety of women remains laughable.

 

[theprestige]

Echoing Donal and bringing this back around to the thread topic in terms of what voters wanted that Democrats didn’t deliver, the idea that the Trump voters give a single ◊◊◊◊ about the safety of women remains laughable.

And yet he did the right thing, when Democrats wouldn't. Something Democrats did wrong.

 

[Thermal]

Echoing Donal and bringing this back around to the thread topic in terms of what voters wanted that Democrats didn’t deliver, the idea that the Trump voters give a single ◊◊◊◊ about the safety of women remains laughable.

Bringing it back laboriously to the thread topic: what did democrats do wrong? Nothing. They were what they were, and were outnumbered.

I mean, Biden kicked ass in 2020. What was his message? "I'm not Trump and I'm kinda business as usual". And he kicked wholesale ass with that message. It didn't work this time. Why not? The eligible voters didn't show again. Are they inspired to get out and vote because of a slick partisan platform and presentation, or by watching the news? I think the latter. People react to the economy more than anything else (die hard party line voters excepted, of course). So I don't think democrats need to beat themselves up too much. When it comes down to it, people resoundingly didn't like Trump.in 2020, with a record turnout. But when inflation and groceries and gas prices have been high for a long time, voters care about that more and a party switch is almost guaranteed. Which isn't fair, because Biden actually did a great job at keeping it under control.

 

[Donal]

And yet he did the right thing, when Democrats wouldn't. Something Democrats did wrong.

he's hurting the right people this time

 

[Donal]

Bringing it back laboriously to the thread topic: what did democrats do wrong? Nothing. They were what they were, and were outnumbered.

I mean, Biden kicked ass in 2020. What was his message? "I'm not Trump and I'm kinda business as usual". And he kicked wholesale ass with that message. It didn't work this time. Why not? The eligible voters didn't show again. Are they inspired to get out and vote because of a slick partisan platform and presentation, or by watching the news? I think the latter. People react to the economy more than anything else (die hard party line voters excepted, of course). So I don't think democrats need to beat themselves up too much. When it comes down to it, people resoundingly didn't like Trump.in 2020, with a record turnout. But when inflation and groceries and gas prices have been high for a long time, voters care about that more and a party switch is almost guaranteed. Which isn't fair, because Biden actually did a great job at keeping it under control.

I still say they should have been more aggressive when they had power. Also, screaming "best economy ever!" when wealth inequality was still acceleratingly huge was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. They should have been way more active in promoting the good they did and what they were working on. They haven't figured out that politics is about crafting a narrative and flooding the news cycle with it now.

 

[Resume]

The maga-republick party was much, much more media savvy overall this election cycle. With all the absolute bull ◊◊◊◊ the Trump campaign spewed, I wish Biden and the Dems could have plastered the media with "We have the best economy in the world post-COVID, and we're gonna make it even better."

 

[Thermal]

The maga-republick party was much, much more media savvy overall this election cycle. With all the absolute bull ◊◊◊◊ the Trump campaign spewed, I wish Biden and the Dems could have plastered the media with "We have the best economy in the world post-COVID, and we're ganna make it even better."

That's a really good point, if voters were world-economy savvy enough to see the truth in it. The Trump campaign pandered to darker desires, taking things away from 'the unworthy' and all that bleak ◊◊◊◊. It struck a chord with more than it should have.

 

[johnny karate]

And yet he did the right thing, when Democrats wouldn't. Something Democrats did wrong.

Even allowing for your premise, tanking the economy and putting an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health greatly outweighs any benefits of “the right thing”.

No one choosing the greatest net harm ever cared about protecting people. Quite the contrary, in fact.

 

[dirtywick]

I still say they should have been more aggressive when they had power. Also, screaming "best economy ever!" when wealth inequality was still acceleratingly huge was rubbing a lot of people the wrong way. They should have been way more active in promoting the good they did and what they were working on. They haven't figured out that politics is about crafting a narrative and flooding the news cycle with it now.

i agree that message wasn’t very good. economically, the dems are a center right party and by macro economic metrics important to them they did really well and were probably quite surprised many people didn’t agree.

i think the “soft landing” from covid was pretty impressive though. but their goals are simply not aligned with closing wealth inequity. they’re unashamedly capitalists.

 

[plague311]

Yes. Approximately 50% of the population is female. Not exactly, but close enough for this discussion.

Well, I'm generously rounding down. I suppose if you want to consider half a percent to be hyperbole, I guess you can. Seems a bit extreme to me, but whatever.

Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.

 

[Thermal]

Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.

It's not who you would know personally; it's the stranger you might find yourself in an intimate public place with, like a rest room or locker room. I know I'm in such a multi occupant 'private' space with enough regularity to be statistically guaranteed to be sharing the space with a trans person every year.

{Eta: estimates I've heard are around half a percent self ID as trans. That's 1 in every 200 people. I'm pretty sure I've been in public restrooms with 200 strangers over the course of the year, bars and Depot and stores and all}

But the anti-trans brigade is not so much worried about trans people, but trans posers. They worry about that 1 in 100 (or whatever) perv that wants to get his jollies walking around a women's locker room, and even the Beavis and Butthead creeps who would do so simply because they could get away with it.

That's a legit concern. I know a couple weirdos who might take advantage of self-ID laws to get their rocks off like that.

 

[plague311]

It's not who you would know personally; it's the stranger you might find yourself in an intimate public place with, like a rest room or locker room. I know I'm in such a multi occupant 'private' space with enough regularity to be statistically guaranteed to be sharing the space with a trans person every year.

{Eta: estimates I've heard are around half a percent self ID as trans. That's 1 in every 200 people. I'm pretty sure I've been in public restrooms with 200 strangers over the course of the year, bars and Depot and stores and all}

But the anti-trans brigade is not so much worried about trans people, but trans posers. They worry about that 1 in 100 (or whatever) perv that wants to get his jollies walking around a women's locker room, and even the Beavis and Butthead creeps who would do so simply because they could get away with it.

That's a legit concern. I know a couple weirdos who might take advantage of self-ID laws to get their rocks off like that.

That might be entirely possible where you live. I live in North Dakota. My chances are less than a fraction of a percent. I could say the same about a ton of Republican states like Iowa, Utah, etc. where it just doesn't happen.

Again, while anecdotal to you I doubt that your same situation is similar the bulk of the US. I bet we could take a poll here of how many people routinely notice a trans person in either bathroom, or are even aware of it happening, and I'd bet it would be minuscule.

 

[Ziggurat]

Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

We've been talking about a lot more than just sports. And the number of people affected is a lot larger than the number of trans people.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊

Your own math is bull ◊◊◊◊, and your appeal to math in the first place is dishonest and an excuse to ignore concerns.

and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense.

I've heard a lot more made up bull ◊◊◊◊ from the trans advocates than I ever have from the gender critical folk.

Take it to the appropriate thread.

You first.

 

[Ziggurat]

they’re unashamedly capitalists.

No. They are unashamedly corporatist. There is a difference.

 

[Thermal]

That might be entirely possible where you live. I live in North Dakota. My chances are less than a fraction of a percent. I could say the same about a ton of Republican states like Iowa, Utah, etc. where it just doesn't happen.

Again, while anecdotal to you I doubt that your same situation is similar the bulk of the US. I bet we could take a poll here of how many people routinely notice a trans person in either bathroom, or are even aware of it happening, and I'd bet it would be minuscule.

Oh hell yeah, I'd agree (with the caveat that you might not know they were trans if 'passing' well).

But again, it's not the legit trans people. It's the pervs that could so easily exploit this. That's what the people in That Thread are digging into.

Do you think pervs and Beavis are a real threat under self ID rules? I do, and can't see a way around it.

But for sure this belongs on That Thread, not this one.

 

[Donal]

Others addressed it but you people know the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ trans population is like a fraction of the overall population, right? Like a very, very small amount. In fact, I would bet that 60+% of the population never, ever run into a trans person ever. I think I read that there were a total of 10 trans athletes in all of college sports.

So yeah, you're math is bull ◊◊◊◊ and you guys are, again, just ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ making ◊◊◊◊ up to justify your ignorant nonsense. Take it to the appropriate thread.

They can't. Because when they aren't running around blowing their dog whistles, there might be serious conversations about real problems. Since they are either too morally or intellectually bankrupt to be productive members of those conversations and such conversations move people away fro their cult, they have to do everything they can to disrupt those conversations.