NationStates

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:47 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Northern Davincia wrote:Concussions start to settle in at that point, but regardless, at least Sanders tried something new and didn't patronize everyone who wasn't totally loyal.

That's the thing: Sanders didn't try something new. He tried something old, for the most part. His platform was pre-New Dem with a touch of social justice.

Revitalizing a forgotten platform to contrast against the neoliberal standard may as well be considered new at this point.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:55 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:I'm just saying this is a bad idea and I don't know why you seem to like it given you're normally a pretty smart person.

Bitterness.

That's understandable for many reasons, but I feel like a lot of Dems are letting it take over too much. The party just seems like it's setting itself up for failure in 2018 and 2020 and while I might disagree with them on a great many things I do like to have an at least working opposition party around.

Find someone charismatic, someone who isn't overly divisive (no talk of sweeping gun control or putting people out of business etc) and doesn't have too awful a record and you guys can win easy.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 6:56 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:Many of us are in higher education and infrastructure,

Could've fooled me the way you lot vote.
and are involved in international affairs.

Then you obviously don't care about the continuation of your jobs, or the welfare of your country.

Or, more likely, the majority of you are dependent on a rapidly dying industry, at least insofar as employment is concerned, and vote in accordance with sustaining these dying industries as best you can.
And, again, what have we done to actually harm your economic sectors?

"What have we done to harm higher education, skilled labor, unskilled labor unionization, tourism, health care services, government employees, etc?"

Really? Really? Come back when you've paid attention to US politics for a few years.

Still not giving a reason why we should vote to be unemployed.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:10 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Ima need some sauce

What exactly would you prefer? I can give you types complaining about how big gubmint is attacking their religious/economic/personal freedom, anything, really. I just need a topic.
You could win by 40 million votes nationally and it still wouldn't mean a damn thing if you can't win enough states.

Which is a blatant violation of the principles that this country is supposed to abide by.
Lets go with your ideas and start attacking Rust Belt voters, what states can the Dems win to make up for the losses in the Midwest? There's no real path to 270 for the Dems (barring a complete blowout if they get the greatest candidate ever of course) if the Midwest becomes nice and red.

You're kidding, right? Illinois is the only part of the Midwest we'd need to keep, and Chicago basically guarantees that since Chicago is both:

A. Huge

B. Not dependent on dying industries

The industries are dying because we are sitting by while workers are shafted by people who stand to make more profits by eliminating jobs and replacing them with automation.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:13 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Sanctissima wrote:Then like I said, your party will continue to fare poorly during elections.

If what you're offering is eliminating their jobs with no immediate alternative for employment, you evidently cannot expect them to vote for you. So good luck ever beating the Republican domination of Congress.

We already can't expect them to vote for us. So what's the difference?

The only difference I'm proposing in political realities is breaking the economic and political power of those who've proven they've no intention of voting for sense time and time again.

There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08. It is extremely alarming and amoral to try to bring poverty upon your political opponents. Many of the workers that you want to grind into submission have voted Democrat all their lives. If you truly want to starve the Midwest of economic prosperity, you will kill millions of democrats along with it. Really, it is obvious that your radical position has no place in national policy. You can disagree with a person, but you can't purposely ruin the lives of people because they disagree with you. Thanks for proving your ignorant elitism. Thanks for proving to everyone why modern liberalism has gone down hill.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:34 pm**

Hakons wrote:There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08.

Because not all of the Midwest is dependent on a dying way of life.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:36 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Hakons wrote:There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08.

Because not all of the Midwest is dependent on a dying way of life.

And what do you propose be done to help those dependent on a "dying way of life"?

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:51 pm**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:And what do you propose be done to help those dependent on a "dying way of life"?

Are you asking bitter me or helpful me?

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:54 pm**

I am bitter. But for other reasons. And I've always been like this.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:58 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Hakons wrote:There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08.

Because not all of the Midwest is dependent on a dying way of life.

Union workers have been Democrat for a long time, and their way of live is dying. You're proving your ignorance of the region. It's not just poor people that have abandoned the Democrats. Rich suburban people are a large part of the conservative coalition in the area. They are social conservatives and the nonstop race-baiting and thinly veiled hatred of organized religion given by liberals has been turning them away. Once again, it is incredibly unethical to target a group simply because they disagree with you. I'm glad the vast majority of Americans will never support your radicalism and hatred.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:58 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
United Muscovite Nations wrote:And what do you propose be done to help those dependent on a "dying way of life"?

Are you asking bitter me or helpful me?

There's only one you. Make the most of it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 7:59 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:Because not all of the Midwest is dependent on a dying way of life.

Union workers have been Democrat for a long time, and their way of live is dying. You're proving your ignorance of the region. It's not just poor people that have abandoned the Democrats. Rich suburban people are a large part of the conservative coalition in the area. They are social conservatives and the nonstop race-baiting and thinly veiled hatred of organized religion given by liberals has been turning them away. Once again, it is incredibly unethical to target a group simply because they disagree with you. I'm glad the vast majority of Americans will never support your radicalism and hatred.

Most rich suburban social conservatives have long been Republican.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:04 pm**

Hakons wrote:Union workers have been Democrat for a long time, and their way of live is dying.

Union workers barely lean Dem, and yes, their way of life is dying.

You're proving your ignorance of the region. It's not just poor people that have abandoned the Democrats.

Who said I was going after the poor? You think the rich don't react when their wallets are threatened?

Rich suburban people are a large part of the conservative coalition in the area.

Rich suburban people have always been part of the conservative coalition. I don't remember the last time rich suburbanites were considered majority liberal.

They are social conservatives and the nonstop race-baiting and thinly veiled hatred of organized religion given by liberals has been turning them away.

lol

Do you really believe that?

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:05 pm**

Hakons wrote:There's only one you. Make the most of it.

There are as many mes as I want there to be. People who restrict themselves to being one person all the time simply lack the creativity or drive to explore the human condition or lack the bravery to delve into their own psyche.

Posted: **Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:19 pm**

Geilinor wrote:Most rich suburban social conservatives have long been Republican.

And identity politics employed by the left has made sure they stay Republican, and even more entrenched.

Conserative Morality wrote:
They are social conservatives and the nonstop race-baiting and thinly veiled hatred of organized religion given by liberals has been turning them away.

lol

Do you really believe that?

Yes, it's why I'm a conservative now. Both my parents are straight ticket Democrat voters. MSNBC is on every night. Yet, I'm far more conservative than they are (they're moderate Democrats). Why? Simply because the left gives off a sense that I'm just going to be barely tolerated for who I am. It's good when a women succeeds. It's good when a Muslim succeeds. It's good when a black person succeeds. But if I, a white Christian male, would succeed? Meh, he had everything given to him, no accomplishment. Liberalism in its modern form places people into boxes and forms judgement about people before they even say hello. People should be judged by their actions, and not by identity politics. We are known by our fruits, and this is why I'm conservative.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 3:36 am**

Napkiraly wrote:
Old Tyrannia wrote:Assad is a Ba'athist. Ba'athism is a left-wing ideology. The bizarre thing is that right-wingers support him, not leftists.

Well some see him as being better than the fanatics that would take over, especially as it pertains to Syria's Christian population.

Of course I understand why many regard him as the least bad option. That doesn't explain why some right-wingers go out of their way to praise and defend him, however.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 4:01 am**

Baathism has been dead a long time, and Assad is today the head of a superior minority keeping the proles in line.

He is not doing a good job, but he does not have much to work with, and in most countries inferior majorities are turning superior minorities into serfs or soylent.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:18 am**

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:09 pm**

The V O I D wrote:
(Image)

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:11 pm**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The V O I D wrote:
(Image)

Seems to be so, from everyone I know who's taken it.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:54 pm**

Hakons wrote:
Conserative Morality wrote:We already can't expect them to vote for us. So what's the difference?

The only difference I'm proposing in political realities is breaking the economic and political power of those who've proven they've no intention of voting for sense time and time again.

There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08. It is extremely alarming and amoral to try to bring poverty upon your political opponents. Many of the workers that you want to grind into submission have voted Democrat all their lives. If you truly want to starve the Midwest of economic prosperity, you will kill millions of democrats along with it. Really, it is obvious that your radical position has no place in national policy. You can disagree with a person, but you can't purposely ruin the lives of people because they disagree with you. Thanks for proving your ignorant elitism. Thanks for proving to everyone why modern liberalism has gone down hill.

The midwest is anti modern liberalism. For a while, it was a bastion of populism and Democrats, especially in MN, WI, MI, and IA. Because they're white, working class, populists. The neoliberal liberals made them feel disenfranchised, hence their massive swing for Trump, even in counties that have voted Democratic straight ticket since the 1910s.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 12:59 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
Hakons wrote:
There are millions of democratic voters in the Midwest...

If the Midwest is so anti-Liberal, why did Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Ohio all vote Obama for two times. Even Indiana went for Obama in 08. It is extremely alarming and amoral to try to bring poverty upon your political opponents. Many of the workers that you want to grind into submission have voted Democrat all their lives. If you truly want to starve the Midwest of economic prosperity, you will kill millions of democrats along with it. Really, it is obvious that your radical position has no place in national policy. You can disagree with a person, but you can't purposely ruin the lives of people because they disagree with you. Thanks for proving your ignorant elitism. Thanks for proving to everyone why modern liberalism has gone down hill.

The midwest is anti modern liberalism. For a while, it was a bastion of populism and Democrats, especially in MN, WI, MI, and IA. Because they're white, working class, populists. The neoliberal liberals made them feel disenfranchised, hence their massive swing for Trump, even in counties that have voted Democratic straight ticket since the 1910s.

This is generally true in other regions as well, such as the region of Pennsylvania where I live (Northeastern PA is part of the "Rust Belt").

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:06 pm**

The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:

The midwest is anti modern liberalism. For a while, it was a bastion of populism and Democrats, especially in MN, WI, MI, and IA. Because they're white, working class, populists. The neoliberal liberals made them feel disenfranchised, hence their massive swing for Trump, even in counties that have voted Democratic straight ticket since the 1910s.

This is generally true in other regions as well, such as the region of Pennsylvania where I live (Northeastern PA is part of the "Rust Belt").

If the Dems want to retain their seats in red states and also pick up House Seats in 2018, they too have to strike a populist image. Otherwise we'll see the GOP continue to destroy this fucking country.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:13 pm**

Major-Tom wrote:
The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord wrote:
This is generally true in other regions as well, such as the region of Pennsylvania where I live (Northeastern PA is part of the "Rust Belt").

If the Dems want to retain their seats in red states and also pick up House Seats in 2018, they too have to strike a populist image. Otherwise we'll see the GOP continue to destroy this fucking country.

Well, there certainly is an elite we should be denouncing and not collaborating with like the neocolonial liberals of Latin America. And I imagine said elite might need to be prodded back into line as well.

Posted: **Sat Apr 29, 2017 1:45 pm**

United Muscovite Nations wrote:
The V O I D wrote:
(Image)

The fact you didn't crop it out on the exact lines makes my eye twitch.

NationStates

Right Wing Discussion Thread IX: The Right Man's Burden