What did Democrats do wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

The debt spending did reduce inflation, that's a fact. How is it a stupid idea to do something that works?

 

[Thermal]

The debt spending did reduce inflation, that's a fact. How is it a stupid idea to do something that works?

Short term, yeah, but ultimately debt fuels inflation later, like living off a credit line makes things great now, but that compounding debt is a bitch in time.

But I've heard it argued that trading off debt actually benefits us in net, counterintuitive though that seems.

 

[johnny karate]

Are you talking about RFK Jr. or the guy who presided over Operation Warp Speed^WP?

Your rebuttal seems to be based on not understanding that time is linear. But please continue. Please expand on your position that the candidate who said he would put an anti-vaxxer in charge of public health was somehow not the anti-vax candidate. I would love to see that.

 

[johnny karate]

There wasn't a choice to vote for a candidate that wouldn't run up the debt. So, your argument is that nobody should actually vote because there are no candidates that don't have some policy they disagree with.

I have made no such argument. My argument is and always has been that regardless of how you feel about about a candidate's clearly stated policies, if you vote for that candidate, you are voting for those clearly stated policies.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have made no such argument. My argument is and always has been that regardless of how you feel about about a candidate's clearly stated policies, if you vote for that candidate, you are voting for those clearly stated policies.

That definition of what you "vote for" is not particularly useful. Under this definition, everyone who voted for Harris voted for giving sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison. But I doubt they all want that. I'm skeptical that even a majority of her voters want that. But you can't vote for candidate positions a la mode.

 

[johnny karate]

That definition of what you "vote for" is not particularly useful. Under this definition, everyone who voted for Harris voted for giving sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison. But I doubt they all want that. I'm skeptical that even a majority of her voters want that. But you can't vote for candidate positions a la mode.

Here, let me help you:
"I have made no such argument. My argument is and always has been that regardless of how you feel about a candidate's clearly stated policies, if you vote for that candidate, you are voting for those clearly stated policies."

Your argument only works if Harris repeatedly said "I'm going to give sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison" during the campaign. She didn't. She never said anything about it.

Trump on the other hand, repeatedly trotted out anti-vaxxer RFK Jr and told everyone that he was going to put him in charge of healthcare. He actively campaigned on this.

Nice try, though.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Debt is just Debt - it depends on what you spend it on.
Tax cuts for the rich are worse than a waste of money - it's actively making things worse for the future.
Investing in energy technology, infrastructure and education will pay off the cost of debt plus interest easily.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument only works if Harris repeatedly said "I'm going to give sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison" during the campaign.

She very clearly stated it. Not sure why repetition is needed. Not sure why it has to be during this campaign, when she never indicated that she changed her view. These seem to be rather arbitrary criteria.

 

[ahhell]

I have made no such argument. My argument is and always has been that regardless of how you feel about a candidate's clearly stated policies, if you vote for that candidate, you are voting for those clearly stated policies.

I say that is nonsense. I you have two candidates that have clearly stated polices that you disagree with, you vote for someone you disagree with or not at all. In your mind, African Americans voted for Woodrow Wilson were voting for racism and segregation. Anyone who voted for Obama the second was voting for record numbers of deportations. I was apparently voting for student debt forgiveness, rent control, and price controls.

I think I was voting against a narcissistic manchild, I guess I'm wrong about that.

 

[johnny karate]

She very clearly stated it. Not sure why repetition is needed. Not sure why it has to be during this campaign, when she never indicated that she changed her view. These seem to be rather arbitrary criteria.

You're only crying that it's arbitrary because it robs you of your weak counter argument. You don't get to ignore the parameters of my argument and then cry foul when I point out that you're ignoring the parameters of my argument.

However, to demonstrate what a fair-minded person I am, I'll allow this for the sake of argument. If you want to say that anyone who voted for Harris voted to give sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison in exchange for admitting that anyone who voted for Trump voted to have an anti-vaxxer put in charge of healthcare, fine with me. Agree?

 

[bruto]

She very clearly stated it. Not sure why repetition is needed. Not sure why it has to be during this campaign, when she never indicated that she changed her view. These seem to be rather arbitrary criteria.

It seems to be true that Harris voted to maintain the existing rule that is not specific to those people but does not exclude them. A rule that appears to have had considerable support, and which existed during Trump's first term as well. So yes, I suppose voting for Harris implied at least a vote for that policy. If that is the only reason one chose one's vote, then I would regard that as stupid, but that's nothing new.

 

[johnny karate]

I say that is nonsense. I you have two candidates that have clearly stated polices that you disagree with, you vote for someone you disagree with or not at all. In your mind, African Americans voted for Woodrow Wilson were voting for racism and segregation. Anyone who voted for Obama the second was voting for record numbers of deportations. I was apparently voting for student debt forgiveness, rent control, and price controls.

Yes, it's nonsense to say that when you vote for a candidate, you are voting for their clearly stated polices. Well argued.

If Woodrow Wilson ran on racism and segregation, then yes, anyone who voted for him voted for that. If Obama ran on a record number of deportations, then yes, anyone who voted for him voted for that. If Harris ran on student debt forgiveness, rent control, and price controls and you voted for her, then yes, you voted for that. This is how voting works.

The contortions people are twisting themselves into to excuse Trump voters is just mind-blowing.

I think I was voting against a narcissistic manchild, I guess I'm wrong about that.

Your reasons for voting for Harris remain independent of the fact that voting for a candidate is voting for their policies.

 

[theprestige]

"They didn't campaign for it" isn't an answer. We know how Democrats are viewed. We know what people think they stand for. At this point, it's not sufficient that Harris didn't campaign for it. She needed to campaign against it. If only to correct the misconception among voters that she and the party are in favor of it.

She was trying to win a goddamn presidential election. If that wasn't incentive enough, she was trying to save the world from Donald ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Immorality Kaiju Trump. She needed to do a lot more than be coy about her policies, and hope the electorate wouldn't notice she was trying to avoid saying unpopular truths.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Democrats would rather lose than go against the will of their donor class - and those donors would rather have Trump than a Bernie/AOC type in the White House.

 

[johnny karate]

"They didn't campaign for it" isn't an answer. We know how Democrats are viewed. We know what people think they stand for. At this point, it's not sufficient that Harris didn't campaign for it. She needed to campaign against it. If only to correct the misconception among voters that she and the party are in favor of it.

She was trying to win a goddamn presidential election. If that wasn't incentive enough, she was trying to save the world from Donald ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Immorality Kaiju Trump. She needed to do a lot more than be coy about her policies, and hope the electorate wouldn't notice she was trying to avoid saying unpopular truths.

I already said I was willing to concede that a vote for Harris is a vote for sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison.

By that same standard, I'm still waiting for anyone to concede that a vote for Trump is a vote for anti-vaxxersim.

ETA: And by the way, l love the bit about "unpopular truths" as if assigning some sense of nobility and intellectual rigor to the people who voted to endanger the lives of children with anti-science quackery.

 

[ahhell]

Yes, it's nonsense to say that when you vote for a candidate, you are voting for their clearly stated polices. Well argued.

If Woodrow Wilson ran on racism and segregation, then yes, anyone who voted for him voted for that. If Obama ran on a record number of deportations, then yes, anyone who voted for him voted for that. If Harris ran on student debt forgiveness, rent control, and price controls and you voted for her, then yes, you voted for that. This is how voting works.

The contortions people are twisting themselves into to excuse Trump voters is just mind-blowing.



Your reasons for voting for Harris remain independent of the fact that voting for a candidate is voting for their policies.

If so, then voting for something doesn't mean I support it. I will not judge a voter as having voting for a particular policy because they voted for a candidate that supports that policy along with many other policies. You keep saying that Trump voters voted to put an anti-vaxer in charge of HSS. Almost nobody voted for Trump for that purpose, I'm sure someone did, some die hard RFK fans sure, but almost nobody did for that reason.

I'll end here though. In the Us, we have a binary choice, which means any vote we make will necessarily result in us voting for someone who has policies we don't like. Picking one of those policies and saying, you voted for this is misleading at the least. Most countries have a half dozen at most parties to choose from, I'm guessing they have the same dilemma. Anyrate, voting for the least bad option is not an endorsement of everything the least bad option has to offer.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The contortions people are twisting themselves into to excuse Trump voters is just mind-blowing.

Nah, they're entirely expected. It's not very socially acceptable to admit to voting for and supporting fascism, so they need to keep desperately making excuses and reaching analogies. It's like how they can't just come right out and say Dump incited an attempted coup on January 6th. Supporting fascism and violent insurrection against democracy isn't exactly socially acceptable.

At least not yet.

 

[johnny karate]

If so, then voting for something doesn't mean I support it. I will not judge a voter as having voting for a particular policy because they voted for a candidate that supports that policy along with many other policies. You keep saying that Trump voters voted to put an anti-vaxer in charge of HSS. Almost nobody voted for Trump for that purpose, I'm sure someone did, some die hard RFK fans sure, but almost nobody did for that reason.

I'll end here though. In the Us, we have a binary choice, which means any vote we make will necessarily result in us voting for someone who has policies we don't like. Picking one of those policies and saying, you voted for this is misleading at the least. Most countries have a half dozen at most parties to choose from, I'm guessing they have the same dilemma. Anyrate, voting for the least bad option is not an endorsement of everything the least bad option has to offer.

You keep repeating the same refuted argument. It does not matter if you support the policy positions of the candidate you voted for, because if you voted for that candidate, you voted for those policy positions. Your disagreement with them is immaterial to fact that you participated in their facilitation.

 

[Ziggurat]

I already said I was willing to concede that a vote for Harris is a vote for sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison.

By that same standard, I'm still waiting for anyone to concede that a vote for Trump is a vote for anti-vaxxersim.

It is, if that's the standard. I thought I made that clear already.

Pick a different standard, though, and a vote for Trump isn't necessarily a vote for anti-vaxxerism, and a vote for Harris isn't necessarily a vote for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison.

Given what voters actually care about, I don't think your standard is useful.

 

[johnny karate]

It is, if that's the standard. I thought I made that clear already.

Pick a different standard, though, and a vote for Trump isn't necessarily a vote for anti-vaxxerism, and a vote for Harris isn't necessarily a vote for sex change operations for illegal immigrants in prison.

Given what voters actually care about, I don't think your standard is useful.

Here's you arguing quite passionately that trans issues were an important reason why Harris lost:

A lot of the ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up stuff happening with gender transitions is quite real, it's not a conspiracy theory. You can argue that it's not very important compared to other issues, but I think you're making a mistake to dismiss concerns about it so trivially. The thing is, a lot of times we interpret things as being indicators of more than just the thing itself. For example, if someone doesn't look you in the eyes when talking to you but keeps looking away, we interpret that as meaning something about their trustworthiness. Sometimes we're wrong, there may be other issues at play, but as a rule of thumb, that's a useful indicator. People aren't wrong to take stuff like that into account, even when the act itself of looking someone in they eye doesn't really matter.

And a lot of voters take the trans issue as an indicator. It's an issue where the activists are in denial about what reality is, and are running roughshod over very legitimate concerns about the harm they are doing. You can claim that very few people are affected by the issue, but so what? If a politician is siding with activists engaged in such a fundamental denial of reality on this issue, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they're willing to deny reality on more important stuff as well. So you don't have to think the issue is important in and of itself to care about it. It's perfectly logical to interpret it as an indicator of broader propensities.

Now suddenly this argument has apparently been abandoned to spare yourself an uncomfortable admission.

Who ever said conservatives didn't have integrity?