This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul If we elect another centrist Liberal, who isn't going to drastically change the system, then the following president will be a Republican. That's why Trump won both times. Obama and Biden were much better than the alternatives, but they didn't change things enough that the working-class was won over.
The only way we're truly going to beat back Fascism is with real change. I know we're not going to get Socialism, but we can at least have Social Democracy.
The only way we're truly going to beat back Fascism is with real change. I know we're not going to get Socialism, but we can at least have Social Democracy.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe You are literally already getting social democracy with pedophile enthusiast Cry-Baby-trump where the government is running businesses that are free-enterprise in labeling only. Ocasio-Cortez has the chops to talk up a big game; she doesn't have the experience or the skills to deliver anything. Even if she did win (which she wouldn't be able to do) she would become such a lightning rod for Republicans that her one-term would crash and burn and be a layup shot for Republicans to effortlessly come back to power.
This is no time to be impulsive to feel good in the moment and recklessly leave the future to settle itself. She would be the very worst choice as a candidate and ensure one more Democrat lock-out. It's time for the Democrats to focus on winning instead of making social statements. Newsom, Pritzker, or possibly Wes Moore for the win.
This is no time to be impulsive to feel good in the moment and recklessly leave the future to settle itself. She would be the very worst choice as a candidate and ensure one more Democrat lock-out. It's time for the Democrats to focus on winning instead of making social statements. Newsom, Pritzker, or possibly Wes Moore for the win.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul So just to be clear, Social Democracy isn't Socialism. It's the kind of Liberalism they have in the Nordic countries. It's still capitalist, but with much more social programs, like single payer healthcare. I'd prefer Socialism, but I'm under no illusion that any country is going to become socialist any time soon.
Socialism requires democracy because without democracy, nationalizing industry doesn't give the workers control over the means of production. That's why we call what the Soviet Union had, "State Capitalism." This is what MAGA is going for.
You might be right, AOC might become president and then fail to make any meaningful change. So then yes, the threat of Fascism would still be here, the next president would be another fascist Republican.
But if the next president is a centrist Liberal, we KNOW there won't be any meaningful change. I rather take a chance with AOC. Though obvi, I'll vote for anyone who gets the nomination.
Socialism requires democracy because without democracy, nationalizing industry doesn't give the workers control over the means of production. That's why we call what the Soviet Union had, "State Capitalism." This is what MAGA is going for.
You might be right, AOC might become president and then fail to make any meaningful change. So then yes, the threat of Fascism would still be here, the next president would be another fascist Republican.
But if the next president is a centrist Liberal, we KNOW there won't be any meaningful change. I rather take a chance with AOC. Though obvi, I'll vote for anyone who gets the nomination.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe Social democracy as espoused by Social Democrats (like Mandami in New York City and even Bernie Sanders but to a somewhat lesser extent) promote government control over day-to-day business operations the same way many Republicans are now sitting back and letting that happen by White House fiat. Yes, Social Democrats do promote social programs but literally putting businesses on notice of what to do based on government mandates rather than the open marketplace. That's an economic disaster in the making.
There are elements of socialism that have a place in a democracy (social security, some form of health care, etc.) in the way that Obama and Biden have delivered on that you casually dismiss. What the Democrats need the most now is a moderate (centrist) with the skills and the fortitude to win. Harris is a genuinely nice person but lacks the skills. Ocasio-Cortez is obnoxious AF and while she does have useful voice, she's not suited for a presidential run. And... she can't win.
While I get the sentiment that anyone will do, that's really a losing attitude. The focus needs to be on winning by appealing to the broadest cross-section of Americans as productively possible. With that, the rest will fall into place. Right now, the maga-Republicans are literally parting the seas for the Democrats to take power... if the Democrats can navigate that win without self-sabotaging as they seem to like to do with their purity tests, social statement candidate selection, and getting caught up on their own petty in-fighting that they love to put out for public display.
There are elements of socialism that have a place in a democracy (social security, some form of health care, etc.) in the way that Obama and Biden have delivered on that you casually dismiss. What the Democrats need the most now is a moderate (centrist) with the skills and the fortitude to win. Harris is a genuinely nice person but lacks the skills. Ocasio-Cortez is obnoxious AF and while she does have useful voice, she's not suited for a presidential run. And... she can't win.
While I get the sentiment that anyone will do, that's really a losing attitude. The focus needs to be on winning by appealing to the broadest cross-section of Americans as productively possible. With that, the rest will fall into place. Right now, the maga-Republicans are literally parting the seas for the Democrats to take power... if the Democrats can navigate that win without self-sabotaging as they seem to like to do with their purity tests, social statement candidate selection, and getting caught up on their own petty in-fighting that they love to put out for public display.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul
Can you give examples of Social Democrats doing this? Social Democrats generally want regulations that restrict harmful practices, like not allowing corporations to pollute drinking water. But as for putting mandates over the market, I think it depends on the specific mandates.
We tried that twice. Obama and Biden were both centrist Liberals. Yes, they passed lots of good policy, Biden is the best president of my lifetime. But the change wasn't enough that average people no longer felt they were struggling. We still had so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
If America has free and fair elections going forward, literally any Democrat will win. That's how bad the Trump-Vance presidency is going. I'm more concerned about what comes next. Do the Democrats win people over by addressing their materials needs? Or is the next president a Republican, thus continuing the cycle?
Considering that one of the reasons Harris lost is her stance on Israel, I think a lot of those centrist Democrats would have a harder time than a Democrat who has been condemning the genocide. AOC has a better chance than Wes Moore.
Yes, Social Democrats do promote social programs but literally putting businesses on notice of what to do based on government mandates rather than the open marketplace. That's an economic disaster in the making.
Can you give examples of Social Democrats doing this? Social Democrats generally want regulations that restrict harmful practices, like not allowing corporations to pollute drinking water. But as for putting mandates over the market, I think it depends on the specific mandates.
What the Democrats need the most now is a moderate (centrist) with the skills and the fortitude to win.
We tried that twice. Obama and Biden were both centrist Liberals. Yes, they passed lots of good policy, Biden is the best president of my lifetime. But the change wasn't enough that average people no longer felt they were struggling. We still had so many Americans living paycheck to paycheck.
Ocasio-Cortez is obnoxious AF and while she does have useful voice, she's not suited for a presidential run. And... she can't win.
If America has free and fair elections going forward, literally any Democrat will win. That's how bad the Trump-Vance presidency is going. I'm more concerned about what comes next. Do the Democrats win people over by addressing their materials needs? Or is the next president a Republican, thus continuing the cycle?
The focus needs to be on winning by appealing to the broadest cross-section of Americans as productively possible.
Considering that one of the reasons Harris lost is her stance on Israel, I think a lot of those centrist Democrats would have a harder time than a Democrat who has been condemning the genocide. AOC has a better chance than Wes Moore.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe Just listen to Mandami's plans for New York City. He wants the city to own and operate grocery stores. That's going to happen either by taking over a free-market business or building one from the ground up to compete with free market ones. He wants to tell landlords what they can charge for rent beyond current policies for rent control.
Is New York City unaffordable? Are there social problems there? Yes. But taking over business operations with full government control with political sensibilities is not a viable solution. It will turn into a taxpayer drain.
Here is something you might not know. Both Obama and Biden won. Harris, Maryann Williamson, Bernie Sanders didn't. That's how bad a left-leaning candidate who strikes the "right" chords in statements would be once again. This is no time to make another social statement at the expense of winning an election. Don't confuse passing a purity test of words with actually winning an election.
What troubles me the most is the Democrat attitude that you express regarding Democrats will win by default. That attitude is what literally is killing the Democrat party. They convince themselves they don't have to do anything (they can "roll over and play dead") and the masses will come running to them like Dick Cheney once claimed the Iraq population would come to USA soldiers lauding them as saviours. In case you don't know, the biggest threat for Democrats is that voters will simply not vote rather than view them as the default. The Democrats need to actively pursue votes like Charlie Kirk did, but with their own ideology that is designed (DESIGNED) to appeal to a broad audience instead of focusing on the "purity crowd" who wants to "own the Red Hats" with the same passion that they want to "own the libs." That's a no-win approach.
After the Democrats win, they must exercise self-discipline and focus on governing instead of getting even. They need to be able to re-build from the destruction left behind with governance. And that is going to require someone with governance skills. That's not loudmouth Ocasio-Cortez. There is a place and a role for a loudmouth; that behaviour is not enough to be President though.
Is New York City unaffordable? Are there social problems there? Yes. But taking over business operations with full government control with political sensibilities is not a viable solution. It will turn into a taxpayer drain.
Here is something you might not know. Both Obama and Biden won. Harris, Maryann Williamson, Bernie Sanders didn't. That's how bad a left-leaning candidate who strikes the "right" chords in statements would be once again. This is no time to make another social statement at the expense of winning an election. Don't confuse passing a purity test of words with actually winning an election.
What troubles me the most is the Democrat attitude that you express regarding Democrats will win by default. That attitude is what literally is killing the Democrat party. They convince themselves they don't have to do anything (they can "roll over and play dead") and the masses will come running to them like Dick Cheney once claimed the Iraq population would come to USA soldiers lauding them as saviours. In case you don't know, the biggest threat for Democrats is that voters will simply not vote rather than view them as the default. The Democrats need to actively pursue votes like Charlie Kirk did, but with their own ideology that is designed (DESIGNED) to appeal to a broad audience instead of focusing on the "purity crowd" who wants to "own the Red Hats" with the same passion that they want to "own the libs." That's a no-win approach.
After the Democrats win, they must exercise self-discipline and focus on governing instead of getting even. They need to be able to re-build from the destruction left behind with governance. And that is going to require someone with governance skills. That's not loudmouth Ocasio-Cortez. There is a place and a role for a loudmouth; that behaviour is not enough to be President though.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul NYC has food deserts and the free market has failed to address this. Which makes sense, why would someone open a grocery story in a poor rural neighborhood? The return on investment isn't worth it. So yeah, having city-run grocery stores in those places is a good idea. It's like how there are certain regions where delivery services won't go to because they take a loss by operating there, so we need the post office to serve the needs of the people who live there.
He wants to freeze the rent, which I think is fair. He's not saying landlords must cut the rent by whatever amount, just that they can't keep raising it.
Also, Mamdani isn't even a Social Democrat, he's an actual Socialist like me. So if this is the worst of it, we definitely shouldn't be worried about government mandates. These mandates are good and they don't involve full government control of business operations. Just a government alternative, like Obamacare.
Harris lost because she shifted Right on a bunch of issues. Sanders lost because the Democrat establishment screwed him in the primaries. If Sanders got the nomination in 2016, he would have clapped Trump's cheeks. Same for 2020.
Yes, Obama and Biden won, which I'm sure plenty of centrist Liberals can do again. But like I said, if there isn't major change, then the cycle will continue and the next president will be another Fash.
We need both someone who has a good chance of winning a general election, and someone who would create major change after they win. Marianne Williamson would be a bad candidate. Gavin Newsom would be a good candidate, but he wouldn't create the anti-fascist change we need.
So I need to add some context here. I think the Trump-Vance presidency will be so bad, that the next president will easily be a Democrat. But I agree that it's not enough to just be the lesser evil, because then people will just vote Republican in the following election. That's why I said we need real change, we need progressive Democrats that will drastically improve the living standards. If Democrats do the Chuck Schumer, then they won't win voters over. And that's why I don't want the next Democrat president to be a centrist Liberal.
If you think AOC shouldn't be the nominee because you think she's just a bad candidate, she can't win over the normies, then that's a fair take. But nominating someone like Moore or Newsom, that's doing the "roll over and play dead" strategy. It's saying, we won't do much, but we're better than the other guys.
He wants to freeze the rent, which I think is fair. He's not saying landlords must cut the rent by whatever amount, just that they can't keep raising it.
Also, Mamdani isn't even a Social Democrat, he's an actual Socialist like me. So if this is the worst of it, we definitely shouldn't be worried about government mandates. These mandates are good and they don't involve full government control of business operations. Just a government alternative, like Obamacare.
Harris lost because she shifted Right on a bunch of issues. Sanders lost because the Democrat establishment screwed him in the primaries. If Sanders got the nomination in 2016, he would have clapped Trump's cheeks. Same for 2020.
Yes, Obama and Biden won, which I'm sure plenty of centrist Liberals can do again. But like I said, if there isn't major change, then the cycle will continue and the next president will be another Fash.
We need both someone who has a good chance of winning a general election, and someone who would create major change after they win. Marianne Williamson would be a bad candidate. Gavin Newsom would be a good candidate, but he wouldn't create the anti-fascist change we need.
What troubles me the most is the Democrat attitude that you express regarding Democrats will win by default. That attitude is what literally is killing the Democrat party. They convince themselves they don't have to do anything (they can "roll over and play dead")
So I need to add some context here. I think the Trump-Vance presidency will be so bad, that the next president will easily be a Democrat. But I agree that it's not enough to just be the lesser evil, because then people will just vote Republican in the following election. That's why I said we need real change, we need progressive Democrats that will drastically improve the living standards. If Democrats do the Chuck Schumer, then they won't win voters over. And that's why I don't want the next Democrat president to be a centrist Liberal.
If you think AOC shouldn't be the nominee because you think she's just a bad candidate, she can't win over the normies, then that's a fair take. But nominating someone like Moore or Newsom, that's doing the "roll over and play dead" strategy. It's saying, we won't do much, but we're better than the other guys.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe Since Mandami is running under the label of Social-Democrat, it's kind of arrogant, weird, and beyond reasonable that you are claiming he's not a Social Democrat. But, maybe as a close confident you know that he is being deceptive for public purposes only.
You asked for examples of a Social Democrat wanting to mandate how businesses should operate on a day-to-day business. I provided you 2 examples and you went on about how Mandami who is running as a Social Democrat isn't a Social Democrat. That's interesting... someone (perhaps you) should tell Mandami. Although you suddenly no longer seem interested in examples, here is another one: pedophile enthusiast & snowflake Cry-Baby-trump wants to tell media companies what programming NOT to run, what tech companies should manufacture, and what auto companies should charge. These type of mandates from both candidates are promoting serious change that will be disastrous to the overall economy. If businesses can't make a profit serving a market, putting an unprofitable burden on taxpayers so the government can run the business into the ground with the arrogant fantasy of unlimited funds is a fool's game.
Harris lost because she was a rotten candidate. A super-nice person? Absolutely. A candidate with potential? Yes. Were there contributing factors? No question. But, she lost because she made bad decisions when, despite all the contributing negative factors, a better skilled candidate could have pushed through to a win. As a reminder, Cry-Baby-trump was a known quantity and it was her candidacy that encouraged people to either vote for him anyway or those who couldn't bring themselves to do that to stay at home. The last... the very last... thing Democrats need is to be saddled with another rotten candidate.
The winning candidate will neither take a left-leaning approach with "purity rhetoric" or govern to achieve massive and drastic change. Instead, the winning centrist candidate will be moderate in his/her approach, govern to recalibrate America back to being America, and design a path that is governable through legislation not executive orders It will be someone who can appeal to a broad range of voters that brings an end to the mentality of "I hate my opponent. I wish the worse for them."
Once again, Newsom, Pritzker, possibly Wes Moore for the win... and beyond. If Ocasio-Cortez does have genuine interest in being president, she needs to build up her resume as a first in a series of steps. Otherwise she's just another egomaniac with loudmouth ideas and there are already plenty of those implementing change: see what Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, JD Vance, etc. are doing. The world doesn't need more of that.
You asked for examples of a Social Democrat wanting to mandate how businesses should operate on a day-to-day business. I provided you 2 examples and you went on about how Mandami who is running as a Social Democrat isn't a Social Democrat. That's interesting... someone (perhaps you) should tell Mandami. Although you suddenly no longer seem interested in examples, here is another one: pedophile enthusiast & snowflake Cry-Baby-trump wants to tell media companies what programming NOT to run, what tech companies should manufacture, and what auto companies should charge. These type of mandates from both candidates are promoting serious change that will be disastrous to the overall economy. If businesses can't make a profit serving a market, putting an unprofitable burden on taxpayers so the government can run the business into the ground with the arrogant fantasy of unlimited funds is a fool's game.
Harris lost because she was a rotten candidate. A super-nice person? Absolutely. A candidate with potential? Yes. Were there contributing factors? No question. But, she lost because she made bad decisions when, despite all the contributing negative factors, a better skilled candidate could have pushed through to a win. As a reminder, Cry-Baby-trump was a known quantity and it was her candidacy that encouraged people to either vote for him anyway or those who couldn't bring themselves to do that to stay at home. The last... the very last... thing Democrats need is to be saddled with another rotten candidate.
The winning candidate will neither take a left-leaning approach with "purity rhetoric" or govern to achieve massive and drastic change. Instead, the winning centrist candidate will be moderate in his/her approach, govern to recalibrate America back to being America, and design a path that is governable through legislation not executive orders It will be someone who can appeal to a broad range of voters that brings an end to the mentality of "I hate my opponent. I wish the worse for them."
Once again, Newsom, Pritzker, possibly Wes Moore for the win... and beyond. If Ocasio-Cortez does have genuine interest in being president, she needs to build up her resume as a first in a series of steps. Otherwise she's just another egomaniac with loudmouth ideas and there are already plenty of those implementing change: see what Pete Hegseth, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, JD Vance, etc. are doing. The world doesn't need more of that.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul Mamdani actually calls himself a "Democratic Socialist."
When it comes to mandates, I asked for examples, but I also said it depends on what the mandates are. Some mandates, I think are reasonable. When it comes to city-run grocery stores in food deserts, I agree with that. Especially because Mamdani just wants to provide a government option, not nationalize the entire food industry.
I agree that purity testing is bad. As I said earlier, I'll vote for any Democrat because the most important thing right now is stopping Fascism. But part of stopping Fascism is creating the change that will keep Americans voting Democrat, not just going back to the Fascists like they did after Obama and then again after Biden. Maybe AOC isn't that person, but Newsom is definitely not that person.
When it comes to mandates, I asked for examples, but I also said it depends on what the mandates are. Some mandates, I think are reasonable. When it comes to city-run grocery stores in food deserts, I agree with that. Especially because Mamdani just wants to provide a government option, not nationalize the entire food industry.
I agree that purity testing is bad. As I said earlier, I'll vote for any Democrat because the most important thing right now is stopping Fascism. But part of stopping Fascism is creating the change that will keep Americans voting Democrat, not just going back to the Fascists like they did after Obama and then again after Biden. Maybe AOC isn't that person, but Newsom is definitely not that person.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe He's not a Social Democrat; he's a Socialist. He's not a Social Democrat, he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Choose a lane. Government operating a business is not an option. It's a doomed path to failure at high taxpayer cost. The government would do better to prop up a real business with incentives if that is truly what is needed. Politicians, especially those with 0.0 business experience, have no chance of success.
Anyone can be a fascist or grow up to be one. There was a time when Republicans were against that. There was a time when Democrats favoured slavery. Voting for anyone who wears a designated label on his/her sleeve or lapel is how the Republicans and the rest of the world wound up with pedophile enthusiast & snowflake Cry-Baby-trump. Stop following the crowd to continue the problem.
Right now, Newsom and Pritzker are the best suited candidates to lead the Democrat party to a victory, but more important to navigate America back to normal because both are centrist stable without an axe to grind other than to return America back to America. In the end that is what most is needed no matter what label the candidate aligns with.
People who continue to clutch to labels are not really interested in moving forward in productive ways; they might as well cry out for more of the same. When revealed for their true motivations they are more interested in getting even than anything else. The next election should not be about that. The future of the Democrat Party just might depend on finally learning that lesson.
Anyone can be a fascist or grow up to be one. There was a time when Republicans were against that. There was a time when Democrats favoured slavery. Voting for anyone who wears a designated label on his/her sleeve or lapel is how the Republicans and the rest of the world wound up with pedophile enthusiast & snowflake Cry-Baby-trump. Stop following the crowd to continue the problem.
Right now, Newsom and Pritzker are the best suited candidates to lead the Democrat party to a victory, but more important to navigate America back to normal because both are centrist stable without an axe to grind other than to return America back to America. In the end that is what most is needed no matter what label the candidate aligns with.
People who continue to clutch to labels are not really interested in moving forward in productive ways; they might as well cry out for more of the same. When revealed for their true motivations they are more interested in getting even than anything else. The next election should not be about that. The future of the Democrat Party just might depend on finally learning that lesson.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul
A Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. That was my take from the beginning.
All Socialists are democratic, some of them just add "democratic" to differentiate ourselves from Tankies.
Look at Obamacare and the Post Office. Both government options, both improved their respective industry.
Some Socialists do want total government control over all industries. I don't, I think we can have government options that give power to the people, which is what city-run grocery stores would be.
Sure, but people are way more likely to fall for fascist propaganda when they're suffering and desperate for change. That's why Germany's current Nazis do much better in East Germany than West Germany.
Americans became willing to vote for Fascism because they're suffering and want a "strongman" to just fix everything. The way we stop people from wanting that is by providing for their material needs.
This is why I say that another centrist Liberal won't fix the problem. Newsom could easily beat Vance, but what comes next? Would Newsom radically change life for the millions of suffering Americans? Or would he be another Obama or Biden? Presidents who did good things, but not enough that the working-class felt better.
He's not a Social Democrat; he's a Socialist. He's not a Social Democrat, he calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Choose a lane
A Democratic Socialist is a Socialist. That was my take from the beginning.
All Socialists are democratic, some of them just add "democratic" to differentiate ourselves from Tankies.
Government operating a business is not an option. It's a doomed path to failure at high taxpayer cost.
Look at Obamacare and the Post Office. Both government options, both improved their respective industry.
Some Socialists do want total government control over all industries. I don't, I think we can have government options that give power to the people, which is what city-run grocery stores would be.
Anyone can be a fascist or grow up to be one.
Sure, but people are way more likely to fall for fascist propaganda when they're suffering and desperate for change. That's why Germany's current Nazis do much better in East Germany than West Germany.
Americans became willing to vote for Fascism because they're suffering and want a "strongman" to just fix everything. The way we stop people from wanting that is by providing for their material needs.
This is why I say that another centrist Liberal won't fix the problem. Newsom could easily beat Vance, but what comes next? Would Newsom radically change life for the millions of suffering Americans? Or would he be another Obama or Biden? Presidents who did good things, but not enough that the working-class felt better.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe Obamacare and the US Post Office are not examples of government operating as a business. As I have already established, there are elements of socialism that have a place in a democracy (social security, some form of health care, etc.) in the way that Obama and Biden have delivered on that, in past posts you have casually dismiss. Maybe now we are saying the same thing, but for goodness sake make up your mind. You are literally all over the place.
Being desperate for a change is strictly your biased personal opinion that you are projecting on the entire population. If you take a close look at reliable polls, what the majority of Americans most seem to want is to see America returning back to its American roots. That does include social programs like the interstate highway system, social security, Medicare, etc. It doesn't include things like Mandami and Cry-Baby-trump are promoting in government take-over of businesses and direct control over the way they conduct their business. It is as offensive when someone running on the Democrat ticket promotes as one who claims to be a Republican.
I am impressed that you have been able to convince yourself without any evidence that any skilled centrist with an action orientation won't be able to enact change while fantasizing someone with limited governing experience will be able to make the working class feel better whether they can govern in a way that leads to legislation or not. Fantasies like that are a set-up for propping up yet another unelectable candidate so Democrats can cry how unfair life is that their selection never had a chance because of: unforeseen conditions, a rigged election, skin colour, negative advertising, etc.
Right now, a real election win is far better than a fantasy fetish for a change its not clear even the working class across the entire country wants. Newsom, Pritzker, or possibly Wes Moore represent the win. Others still have time to come to the forefront. It won't be a left-leaning loudmouth who offers a good speech as a substitute for a promise to end inflation on Day-1.
Being desperate for a change is strictly your biased personal opinion that you are projecting on the entire population. If you take a close look at reliable polls, what the majority of Americans most seem to want is to see America returning back to its American roots. That does include social programs like the interstate highway system, social security, Medicare, etc. It doesn't include things like Mandami and Cry-Baby-trump are promoting in government take-over of businesses and direct control over the way they conduct their business. It is as offensive when someone running on the Democrat ticket promotes as one who claims to be a Republican.
I am impressed that you have been able to convince yourself without any evidence that any skilled centrist with an action orientation won't be able to enact change while fantasizing someone with limited governing experience will be able to make the working class feel better whether they can govern in a way that leads to legislation or not. Fantasies like that are a set-up for propping up yet another unelectable candidate so Democrats can cry how unfair life is that their selection never had a chance because of: unforeseen conditions, a rigged election, skin colour, negative advertising, etc.
Right now, a real election win is far better than a fantasy fetish for a change its not clear even the working class across the entire country wants. Newsom, Pritzker, or possibly Wes Moore represent the win. Others still have time to come to the forefront. It won't be a left-leaning loudmouth who offers a good speech as a substitute for a promise to end inflation on Day-1.
MommyLucy · 36-40, F
@BohoBabe I want Social Democracy sooooooooo much because I believe Social Democracy is the best political place to be at least for me anyway! 😇😇😇 I want Universal Healthcare, generous welfare for the elderly, poor and disabled, guaranteed housing for the homeless, free tax paid college education courses and jobs that MUST guarantee by law a few days sick pay and vacation pay and for union's to make working conditions fair for everyone! 😇😇😇 I wouldn't want Socialism to go any further than that to be honest but because my precious son is disabled the welfare state is a passion of mine! 😇😇😇
MommyLucy · 36-40, F
@BohoBabe I read though some of this conversation and I want with all my heart for AOC or Bernie Sandars to be president because I'm a Social Democrat and they are my two favourite politicians so I agree I rather AOC and Bernie Sandars instead of another moderate Democrat! 😇😇😇 BUT I realistically have to agree AOC and Bernie Sandars probably wouldn't win in the swing states! 😭😭😭 It is easy for AOC to win in solid blue states but the swing states win the vote my daddy tells me and at this point Trump and fascism MUST be stopped at all cost! 😤😤😤
BohoBabe · M
@MommyLucy As much as I like and admire Sanders, I agree that he shouldn't run for president again. He's too old and the public wants someone younger.
As for AOC, I'm going to reserve my judgement until I see how she does in the primaries. I still think any Democrat can win in 2028, but I also want to nominate the best possible choice.
As for AOC, I'm going to reserve my judgement until I see how she does in the primaries. I still think any Democrat can win in 2028, but I also want to nominate the best possible choice.
BohoBabe · M
@MarkPaul
City grocery stores wouldn't be government operating as a business either. Like with the Post Office, these stores would lose money because of where they are, in food deserts. The point would be to provide affordable access to an essential service, regardless of profit. That's the opposite of government operating as a business.
Oh no, it's not that they won't be able to. It's that they don't want to. Centrist Liberals are against things like universal healthcare. We're at that point where Medicare for All and the opposition to Israel's genocide have become the bare minimum. Someone like Cory Booker probably wouldn't make it through the primaries, and if somehow he became president, he'd be very unpopular with the public.
I agree. But again, Trump was elected after Obama, and then again after Biden because neither truly addressed the material needs of the public.
Serious question, say Newsom becomes president. How different do you think his presidency would be to Obama or Biden? My guess is when it comes to policy, it would be about the same.
Obamacare and the US Post Office are not examples of government operating as a business.
City grocery stores wouldn't be government operating as a business either. Like with the Post Office, these stores would lose money because of where they are, in food deserts. The point would be to provide affordable access to an essential service, regardless of profit. That's the opposite of government operating as a business.
I am impressed that you have been able to convince yourself without any evidence that any skilled centrist with an action orientation won't be able to enact change
Oh no, it's not that they won't be able to. It's that they don't want to. Centrist Liberals are against things like universal healthcare. We're at that point where Medicare for All and the opposition to Israel's genocide have become the bare minimum. Someone like Cory Booker probably wouldn't make it through the primaries, and if somehow he became president, he'd be very unpopular with the public.
Right now, a real election win is far better than a fantasy fetish for a change its not clear even the working class across the entire country wants. Newsom, Pritzker, or possibly Wes Moore represent the win.
I agree. But again, Trump was elected after Obama, and then again after Biden because neither truly addressed the material needs of the public.
Serious question, say Newsom becomes president. How different do you think his presidency would be to Obama or Biden? My guess is when it comes to policy, it would be about the same.
MarkPaul · 26-30, M
@BohoBabe You seem to (keep) thinking a pedophile enthusiast, convicted felon, and 79-year-old man on the edge of full scale dementia is the outcome. Instead... Obama, a centrist won (twice). After a taste of incompetent and petty leadership, Biden (promoting a centrist agenda... at least at first) won. Those are the outcomes. Cry-Baby-trump won a second time because Harris was, right or wrong, viewed as left-leaning despite trying to present herself as a centrist and she was a rotten candidate to boot (a super-nice person though).
The problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that Harris lost. Instead you are mesmerized that a fat slob won. The dirty little secret is no matter how much you want to believe that America has changed, under the surface, it's the same as before and all it takes to bring it back to full capacity is someone to tip it back to the center. You think massive, drastic, and colossal change is what people are clamoring for. Like before with Bush leading the way to Obama and Cry-Baby-trump leading the way to Biden, the voting public is exhausted and low on attention. The public is literally crying out for stability... and rest, not more turmoil.
Newsom has already distinguished himself as different from Obama and Biden to the consternation of purity-testing Democrats for sitting down with rightists and challenging some leftist ideology. And he's shown an aggressive fight-back attitude to get back to normal in an entertaining way. That's a winning combination. For all of Obama's skill and legacy, he's mostly all talk. Pritzker has also demonstrated the fortitude to fight from the center and that's refreshing. His biggest weakness is he's more serious, a little less entertaining, but has shown an energy that is charismatic.
It's a centrist attitude that is going to win over the most people that will allow iterative change. For the time being, I don't think anyone has the legislative skills that a TR, FDR or LBJ had to push through transformative change and not for such programs as universal healthcare, 100% forgiveness of student debt, and guaranteed minimum incomes that are a feeding frenzy for the minority who want that no matter the implications. A win is more about restoring vaccines, NOT hating opponents and wishing the worse for them, charging crimes to people on a feeling, and pretending there was a good historical side to slavery. And sadly that is not going to be a slam-dunk point of order. It most likely will take a full first term.
In case you don't know, New York City is not representative of the entire USA. Mandami most likely will win his election and won't have an easy time of implementing government-owned grocery stores, however you want to describe them (he calls them businesses, he wants to open in each section of New York City). If they are losing money and unconcerned with profit, taxpayers will be on the hook. That is literally insane and while it is not necessarily unique (other cities have gone down this route), it is not something national voters will rally around. It is no wonder he is light on details when questioned about "the concept" of it.
Finally, your desire to secure a Democrat stranglehold on all future elections reminds me of George W. Bush, as president, saying to a private audience he (arrogantly) wanted to end the Democrat Party. As you know, Obama (again, a centrist) followed him. If Democrats think they are the default party or that any Democrat will be good enough or that massive change can be shoved down the throats of voters, then they have lost the next election already. The focus needs to be on the next election and that one alone and bringing things back to normal. We call this centrism.
The problem here is you refuse to acknowledge that Harris lost. Instead you are mesmerized that a fat slob won. The dirty little secret is no matter how much you want to believe that America has changed, under the surface, it's the same as before and all it takes to bring it back to full capacity is someone to tip it back to the center. You think massive, drastic, and colossal change is what people are clamoring for. Like before with Bush leading the way to Obama and Cry-Baby-trump leading the way to Biden, the voting public is exhausted and low on attention. The public is literally crying out for stability... and rest, not more turmoil.
Newsom has already distinguished himself as different from Obama and Biden to the consternation of purity-testing Democrats for sitting down with rightists and challenging some leftist ideology. And he's shown an aggressive fight-back attitude to get back to normal in an entertaining way. That's a winning combination. For all of Obama's skill and legacy, he's mostly all talk. Pritzker has also demonstrated the fortitude to fight from the center and that's refreshing. His biggest weakness is he's more serious, a little less entertaining, but has shown an energy that is charismatic.
It's a centrist attitude that is going to win over the most people that will allow iterative change. For the time being, I don't think anyone has the legislative skills that a TR, FDR or LBJ had to push through transformative change and not for such programs as universal healthcare, 100% forgiveness of student debt, and guaranteed minimum incomes that are a feeding frenzy for the minority who want that no matter the implications. A win is more about restoring vaccines, NOT hating opponents and wishing the worse for them, charging crimes to people on a feeling, and pretending there was a good historical side to slavery. And sadly that is not going to be a slam-dunk point of order. It most likely will take a full first term.
In case you don't know, New York City is not representative of the entire USA. Mandami most likely will win his election and won't have an easy time of implementing government-owned grocery stores, however you want to describe them (he calls them businesses, he wants to open in each section of New York City). If they are losing money and unconcerned with profit, taxpayers will be on the hook. That is literally insane and while it is not necessarily unique (other cities have gone down this route), it is not something national voters will rally around. It is no wonder he is light on details when questioned about "the concept" of it.
Finally, your desire to secure a Democrat stranglehold on all future elections reminds me of George W. Bush, as president, saying to a private audience he (arrogantly) wanted to end the Democrat Party. As you know, Obama (again, a centrist) followed him. If Democrats think they are the default party or that any Democrat will be good enough or that massive change can be shoved down the throats of voters, then they have lost the next election already. The focus needs to be on the next election and that one alone and bringing things back to normal. We call this centrism.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment