What did Democrats do wrong?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So far it seems mostly the 21st century version of sabre-rattling. I note that the proposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico come with an "unless."


Until such time is the unless. Now don't get me wrong, the actual imposition of 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada would be incredibly stupid. Which is why it won't happen. Mexico and Canada will take some visible steps to reduce the flow of illegal aliens and redouble their efforts to interdict drugs. Trump will declare victory.

That said, if you are planning on guacamole for your Super Bowl party, you might want to stock up on avocados now and freeze them. If he's really serious about this tariff crap this is where he will show it.

Trump IS really stupid.
And Canada and Mexico cannot lessen a made up spectre by the GOP propaganda.

 

[dirtywick]

idk he seems pretty stuck on the tariff stuff. are the mass deportations all talk too? that's his entire platform, was it all a lie and he's actually a pretty reasonable and prudent president?

 

[dirtywick]

what's he going to do when he gets into office? idk, nothing he said he was going to do i guess. he was elected to be better on the economy, but he'll do none of his agenda because the deep state won't allow it and the deep state will actually run the country. so what the dems did wrong is not have a zany platform full of contradictions and incoherency with the belief that his cabinet full of lunatics and the deep state will stop him from enacting any of it and they'll actually fix everything, although how is still a mystery. because that's what worked for trump.

it's hard to take any of this seriously. besides the seething about how they don't like being made fun of and if we were all a little nicer they would have voted for harris.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

No they aren't. When have you ever heard of a government employee being fired for bad customer service? It doesn't happen.

Answered by Donal.

Politicians have some accountability, but most government workers? They have almost none.

No performance reviews? Really? And they are not accountable to the various heads of the government departments either?

Again, you seem to think I'm arguing for no government.

Yet you continue not to say what you're actually arguing for.

Just look at the most recent hurricane disaster relief mess.

I'll add my voice to those of the others asking for some elaboration of this claim.

Government is necessary, I never suggested otherwise. The essence of government is the monopoly on legitimate violence to solve disputes, which manifests most importantly as law enforcement and the military. But in a well-functioning society, most of the time you don't have to deal with law enforcement or the military. Its role in your day to day life should be pretty small.

That is only one part of the function of a government.

No it doesn't. And none of what you mention in the US truly has central planning. They all have distributed planning.

Again, as others here have said, that is dissembling. Are you saying there are no centrally-created and enforced standards for anything? Does every state have different speed limits? Different currents and voltages? No nationally-acccepted educational standards? If not, what are you saying?

 

[3point14]

Government is necessary, I never suggested otherwise. The essence of government is the monopoly on legitimate violence to solve disputes, which manifests most importantly as law enforcement and the military.

Not building roads, bridges, tunnels?

Not ensuring consumer safety and security?

Not providing a social safety net?

Not providing assistance in times of national disaster?

Not ensuring regulating consumer activities?

Not managing the economy?

 

[Tero]

Failed at capturing immigrant haters that only post in Truth Social.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Again, as others here have said, that is dissembling. Are you saying there are no centrally-created and enforced standards for anything? Does every state have different speed limits? Different currents and voltages? No nationally-acccepted educational standards? If not, what are you saying?

Not a bad response overall, but since you're not from around here you should know: Yes, states *do* set their own speed limits. And education standards, as well.

Texas probably would like to have its own currents and voltages.

 

[Donal]

And we see how great and wodnerful 50+ standards works out.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Trump IS really stupid.
And Canada and Mexico cannot lessen a made up spectre by the GOP propaganda.

True. However, the GOP can declare that they did. Since they wrote the fiction, they can edit that fiction as they feel free. The grand Orweilian party is good at this.

 

[The Don]

True. However, the GOP can declare that they did. Since they wrote the fiction, they can edit that fiction as they feel free. The grand Orweilian party is good at this.

They can but likely they won't because fear is their only campaigning strategy. Actually fixing something (whether real or not) removes one of their key messages.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

And we see how great and wonderful 50+ standards works out.

Well, indeed:

In response to the 1973 oil crisis, Congress enacted the National Maximum Speed Law that created the universal 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) speed limit. States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The federal government enforced the national maximum speed limit by withholding federal funding for projects whose speed limits exceeded 55 miles per hour (89 km/h)....
In 1984, a comprehensive study by the National Research Council found that the lower speed limits contributed to saving 3,000 to 5,000 lives in 1974 and from 2,000 to 4,000 lives each year thereafter, due to slower and more uniform speeds on American highways.
In 1995, the law was repealed by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, returning the choice of speed limit to each state.

Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, OK, I was wrong about there being national speed limits in the US. However, it looks like having them saves lives. In other words, central decision-making trumps 'muh freedumz'. Not for our resident Mad Max, though.

 

[dirtywick]

well, being willing to sacrifice thousands of people each year that probably aren't you for the freedom to be able to be told how fast you can drive on the highway by the state and not the federal government is the kind of irrational values you the dems are just going to have to account for. the dems need to be able to figure out how to reach these voters without slightly offending them in any way, and everyone else is going to have to stop telling them they're wrong. or they'll vote for a bunch of fringe right wing ultra christian billionaires to tell them what to do and what's left of all the money and leave them with the bill. which when they do that will also be the dems fault.

 

[Brainster]

Well, indeed:

Speed limits in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, OK, I was wrong about there being national speed limits in the US. However, it looks like having them saves lives. In other words, central decision-making trumps 'muh freedumz'. Not for our resident Mad Max, though.

In case you missed it in your post, the national speed limit was removed under Bill Clinton. Those of us who live in the western United States appreciated it greatly. Our highways were made for higher speeds and if you've ever taken Route 8 between Gila Bend and San Diego, you'll know why.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

In case you missed it in your post, the national speed limit was removed under Bill Clinton. Those of us who live in the western United States appreciated it greatly. Our highways were made for higher speeds and if you've ever taken Route 8 between Gila Bend and San Diego, you'll know why.

I'm sure the extra deaths were a small price to pay for this greater convenience.

 

[The Don]

I'm sure the extra deaths were a small price to pay for this greater convenience.

Mah freeeeedumzzzz !!!11!!!11!!!!1!!!

It's not something uniquely American though. The outcry and opposition to the introduction of a default 20mph urban speed limit here in Wales - despite all the evidence showing how deaths and injuries have dropped significantly as a result and that journey times are largely unchanged - is similar.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Think of how many lives we'd save if only we made 20 mph the national highway speed limit, eh?

 

[The Don]

Think of how many lives we'd save if only we made 20 mph the national highway speed limit, eh?

A lot, but the knock on effects in terms of journey times would be unacceptable whereas in urban situations, the increase in journey times has been small (and in some high density areas the journey times have come down) and there have been significant reductions in deaths and injuries especially to pedestrians and cyclists.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Not building roads, bridges, tunnels?

Not ensuring consumer safety and security?

Not providing a social safety net?

Not providing assistance in times of national disaster?

Not ensuring regulating consumer activities?

Not managing the economy?

No, that's all government overreach. Roads and bridges can be built more efficiently with private funds, then tolls charged for their use (better than paying taxes, right?). Social safety net = communism. Disasters like earthquake, flood, fire? Serves you right for living in the wrong place. Why should we pay for your stupidity? Consumers should have the right to consume whatever they want. The invisible hand manages the economy just fine (promise). Say no to the Nanny state!

 

[arthwollipot]

I've said it before. Libertarianism is premised on the demonstrably false idea that when left to their own devices, people will generally act in ways that benefit society as a whole.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

what's he going to do when he gets into office? idk, nothing he said he was going to do i guess. he was elected to be better on the economy, but he'll do none of his agenda because the deep state won't allow it and the deep state will actually run the country.

Yes. When Trump fails to do what he said he would, it will be because of the Deep State. It won't stop him applying tariffs or deporting 'illegals', but it will increase inflation and prevent the crime rate from going down. That's the Deep State's specialty you see - adhering to reality.

so what the dems did wrong is not have a zany platform full of contradictions and incoherency with the belief that his cabinet full of lunatics and the deep state will stop him from enacting any of it and they'll actually fix everything, although how is still a mystery. because that's what worked for trump.

Yes. It's about time Democrats woke up and smelt the roses. Politics is all about winning hearts and minds, not having coherent policies and realistic gaols. Once they get into power, then they can do that stuff. But if they aren't in power those policies are all useless. Remember how Obama promised us 'hope' and 'change', then became just another 'establishment' president? There's someone who knows how to do it.

Mind you, having an absolute majority isn't the only way to operate the levers of power. Democrats have plenty of influence if they use it wisely. For example they could egg Trump on to make sure the economy crashes, just in time to roar back in 2028.

it's hard to take any of this seriously. besides the seething about how they don't like being made fun of and if we were all a little nicer they would have voted for harris.

Seriously? That word doesn't have any meaning in today's world. At least 5% only voted Trump in for the LOLs. If Democrats were more outrageous they'd have gotten those votes! Nobody likes being belittled, but that's what Deomcrats did to conservatives. If they had shown some empathy instead they could have gotten even more votes.