"and this is why the Dems losing the next election"

[MegaManX]

What wing is this

What "radical" Dem policies are they pushing

These cats always equate random fukking tranny trolls on twitter with elected officials.

"the radical left" doesn't even exists. AOC and Bernie are so got damn moderate socially. They are extremely liberal fiscally, but so is most of american workers.

When is the last time you seen them push for gender neutral bathrooms? That is a twitter issue. Republicacs though want to ban books through legislation, even on the federal level. Our crazies never get in office. Theirs do.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

And the electorate is CENTER LEFT to CENTER RIGHT at BEST.

Bullshyt, that's totally meaningless as a summary. Most of the "radical" plans pushed by people like AOC have 60-70% support.

So yes, even flirting with Loan forgiveness, massive infrastructure plans or green energy is RADICAL by comparison of the past I don't know 80 some odd years of national politics.

Not only are all those policies supported by a clear majority of Americans, but they're not even close to as liberal as the policies that were pushed in the 1940s-1970s.

US economic policy became insanely conservative in the 1980s compared to everything else after the Great Depression, and it's given some people amnesia.

 

[Black Magisterialness]

Not only are all those policies supported by a clear majority of Americans, but they're not even close to as liberal as the policies that were pushed in the 1940s-1970s.

US economic policy became insanely conservative in the 1980s compared to everything else after the Great Depression, and it's given some people amnesia.

This proves my point. Post 1940's the political climate was pushed centrally and really to the right. Especially post Civil Rights era. So, ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORATE that has no waking memories of that massively liberal/socialist era of America. These curent policies are "radical".

All that MATTERS is that people think it's radical. I agree with you that in actuality its not really, but that's not how people frame it in the voting booth.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This proves my point. Post 1940's the political climate was pushed centrally and really to the right. Especially post Civil Rights era. So, ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORATE that has no waking memories of that massively liberal/socialist era of America. These curent policies are "radical".

All that MATTERS is that people think it's radical. I agree with you that in actuality its not really, but that's not how people frame it in the voting booth.

But ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORATE all of those policies have majority support and in many cases 60-70% support.

It's true for the Green New Deal (and what was actually passed was far weaker), same goes for infrastructure, same goes for taxing the rich, same goes for reasonable gun laws, same goes for loan forgiveness, same goes for justice reform. and all the other majority Democratic priorities. MOST Americans support all that shyt.



In fact the only thing that even keeps it close is partisan hate - when they poll people before the issue becomes a partisan battleground you usually see 70-80% support from the population, and it takes a few months of Republicans screaming, "OPPOSE THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IT!" just to get that support level down to 55-65%.


Case in point:

 

[Black Magisterialness]

But ACCORDING TO THE ELECTORATE all of those policies have majority support and in many cases 60-70% support.

It's true for the Green New Deal (and what was actually passed was far weaker), same goes for infrastructure, same goes for taxing the rich, same goes for reasonable gun laws, same goes for loan forgiveness, same goes for justice reform. and all the other majority Democratic priorities. MOST Americans support all that shyt.



In fact the only thing that even keeps it close is partisan hate - when they poll people before the issue becomes a partisan battleground you usually see 70-80% support from the population, and it takes a few months of Republicans screaming, "OPPOSE THIS BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IT!" just to get that support level down to 55-65%.


Case in point:

We are arguing for the same point. Very few people were going for the green new deal AS IS. Look for registered voters, that's around 40% strongly support. If you "somewhat support" then you don't really go for the deal as written. Which means its not the same bill anymore. Even still, COMPARED TO THE POLICIES OF THE PAST 80 YEARS, that's radical. Even if it is supported.

We can't remove partisan rhetoric from the equation. It's what forms the discourse doesn't matter if "people support it". Did is pass (as it was written), or not? If it didn't then it ain't have the support from the people that it should have. If it was a TRULY mobilizing bill, then the people who voted against it would have lost their mandate/seats.

We literally just saw this last week with abortion/election deniers. The electorate WHOLLY rejected the GOP on those issues. So much so, that they LOST a senate seat and only barely made gains in the House. And most of those gains were from gerrymandering.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the country is moving left. My point is that, such a phenomenon is contrary to the past few generations in America.

 

[Dre God]

We’ll be back in 24


Dem shills got this round.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

We are arguing for the same point. Very few people were going for the green new deal AS IS. Look for registered voters, that's around 40% strongly support. If you "somewhat support" then you don't really go for the deal as written.

lol at 40% "strongly support" and another 41% "somewhat support" somehow equating to "very few people".

And the Green New Deal is far MORE radical than what the Democrats actually passed, so your point is killed.

Even still, COMPARED TO THE POLICIES OF THE PAST 80 YEARS, that's radical. Even if it is supported.

Except it's not. Even Nixon's administration was more radical. Wage and Price Controls, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, founding the EPA, all of that was far more restrictive on corporate actions than the minor environmental shyt passed by the Dems this year.

The conservative stretch of American politics was only around for 40 years, not 80 years, and the "policies" during that time on economic shyt were the fault of rich-ass corporate lawmakers, not what the people actually wanted. Calling something "radical" just because bought-off legislators weren't doing it is weak shyt.

We can't remove partisan rhetoric from the equation. It's what forms the discourse doesn't matter if "people support it".

That's absolute nonsense - you're rewriting reality into "it's radical if the Republicans say it's radical", regardless of what policies the people actually support.

Did is pass (as it was written), or not? If it didn't then it ain't have the support from the people that it should have. If it was a TRULY mobilizing bill, then the people who voted against it would have lost their mandate/seats.

lol - you're moving the goalposts. Wouldn't the more reasonable claim be that if the Democrats were TRULY radical, they would have been rejected by the populace and lost far more seats?

We literally just saw this last week with abortion/election deniers. The electorate WHOLLY rejected the GOP on those issues. So much so, that they LOST a senate seat and only barely made gains in the House.

So "WHOLLY rejected" is now 50-50? Whereas a moment ago 80% agreement was unsupported?

And it's weird as hell that you claim everything the Democrats were doing was too radical then turn around and show the people supporting them.

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Bro republicans waste so much time and money talking about shyt like transgender kids in hs sports when a vast majority of the population don’t know any trans people or even give a fukk about that goofy shyt. When’s the last time they’ve done or even just proposed something meant to make the lives better for a majority of Americans? It is absolutely absurd that there is even a threat of those people coming into power. It is bizarre

The last two Republicans to win a majority of the popular vote in a presidential contest were father and son: George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2004. At no other point since the elder Bush’s first term came to a sudden end with the 1992 contest has a Republican won the popular vote at all, much less with a majority of votes cast. While Republicans have controlled the White House for 12 of the past 20 years, only four of those years have resulted from a Republican having gotten more votes than his Democratic opponent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/04/remarkable-gop-admission-undermining-electoral-college-threatens-our-best-path-white-house/

They don't have anything. They would get absolutely stomped if election day was a national holiday, there were federal laws prohibiting gerrymandering, and those laws were enforced by armed FBI agents. In an actually free and fair election, they lose every single time and as anyone should know by now, Republican accusations are admissions. They accuse democrats of grooming and molesting children while they themselves protect pedophiles and rapists like Dennis hastert who was speaker of the house for years. Or people like Matt Goetz or Donald Trump. They accuse democrats of stealing the election whilst they're literally doing voter intimidation and gerrymandering.

If you aren't a millionaire this party offers you NOTHING. And if you're anything other than a white man they are actively trying to claw back any rights or protections you've gained.

 

[Shadow King]

Most of that isn't on the Democrats

Republicans have figured out how to rule despite being the minority party. Even if they have an advantage Dems still have people in their own party they have to worry about blocking shyt
We'll see how good Dems can govern if there is no hurdles

The unfortunate truth

 

[Wild self]

Cmon hoe ass magats and white supremacist c00ns or cacs
BOTHSIDERS WHERE THA fukk YALL AT
EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED CUH!!!

"Where the Killing AT!???!!!!???! Where the KILLING AT!???!!!!?"

 

[shopthatwrecks]

Cmon hoe ass magats and white supremacist c00ns or cacs
BOTHSIDERS WHERE THA fukk YALL AT
EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED CUH!!!

Both side checkin in red money gang .. fukk a pandering preposterous picklerick face punk who push promises to peons on purpose :::

 

[Wild self]

They've been too embarrassed to address the GOP's Ls this midterm so they had to pivot to shytting on Stacey Abrams.

They thought that the alphabet gang gonna make them "real nikka" traditionalists lose their way of life. Stacey Abrams. Living in the ATL Metro area, at that.

 

[Wild self]

It’s going to take time for MAGAts to realize they are not the majority anymore.

Their “don’t vote” c00n homies are loud but have never and will never be a factor.

The "tangibles" had a candidate in Louisiana by the name of Gary Chambers, running for Senate. They never even game him a shoutout on social media, much less turned up in the polls. That destroyed their credibility by huge margins.

 

[Wild self]

We’ll be back in 24


Dem shills got this round.

What does the GOP offer you, that makes you excited?

 

[feelosofer]

Low key these younger more liberal Democrats are way more on code than the moderates. I think we forget a lof of these teenagers and early 20s from the Trump years learned something.