So basically Kamalas campaign lied to the country

[Formerly Black Trash]

By hard left I mean the Democrats moving towards more Collectivist policies. They started embracing group identity over individual liberty at an increasing pace.

They do it to divide and stop left policies from being implemented

 

[CHICAGO]

Biden approval rating was 38% the last thing they should of done was to agree with everything he's done. Harris should have told Biden that she was going to take shots at him and not to be surprised by it in order to better suit her campaign.

DID YOU NOT LISTEN TO THE VIDEO?

IF SHE TOOK THAT APPROACH PPL
WOULD HAVE LEAKED THAT SHE AGREED
WITH EVERYTHING BIDEN DID
AND ACTUALLY HAD A SAY IN IT.



​

 

[Scipio]

You mad because her internal polling said she was behind and she didn’t immediately go out and correct the polls that said she was winning?



It’s called INTERNAL polling for a reason.

The funny thing is I suspect Trump's internal polling had the same results. The guy who was driving the betting markets with his bets said he did that because he financed his own polls that indicated Trump was ahead. He said instead of asking people who they would vote for, they asked who people thought their neighbors were voting for. That gets around the Shy Trump problem. All the internal polls probably do something like this and show the same thing.

 

[DonB90]

The election has been weeks ago, kamala and her supporters have conceded the election and accepted the verdict of the people yet you this topics always are brought up for distraction and both sides bs. Trump is filling his cabinet with charlatans, con men and grifters with no experience what so ever yet there is no post on that, the man plans to use the department of justice as a weapon to go after his opponents yet no outrage behind that, he is surgically going to dismantle any affirmative action or pro black initiative across all institutions yet not a word on that, stop this phony outrage, the republicans hold all levels of power and the supreme court yet you want to bring up the opponents that have no leverage.

I negged you back pus-e-ho

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

DID YOU NOT LISTEN TO THE VIDEO?

IF SHE TOOK THAT APPROACH PPL
WOULD HAVE LEAKED THAT SHE AGREED
WITH EVERYTHING BIDEN DID
AND ACTUALLY HAD A SAY IN IT.



​

And it's crazy that they would have done that...Biden over and she going against Trump, why try to sabotage her

These ppl are evil

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

Obama and Biden didn't have 3 months to spin up a campaign. For all the things working against her, I think she did the best with the hand she was dealt (outside of the Cheney bullshyt). Biden and his advisors/team shouldn't have pushed for another term knowing what shape he was in. Her campaign being ran by Biden's team doomed her too, especially given they didn't really even like her. Every last one of them needs to go. They shouldn't be allowed on any campaign team going forward. They need to take all the Obama people with them. And whatever Clinton remnants remain. It's time to start fresh.

When I see comments like this, I think folks miss the big picture (no offense). Prior to Kalama entering the race, Biden was not campaigning much just like he did in the last election. He was going against a candidate that that was literally on his third campaign in a row. There are no excuses, Dems fycked up on epic proportions. Listening to interviews, they still don't seem to get it.

 

[OperationNumbNutts]

Kamala distancing herself from Biden wouldnt have been believable. One because she was Bidens VP, two because she was chosen for VP and backed for President by the party because she's in line with the Democratic Party policies and going to follow their agenda, like Biden did.

She couldn't throw Biden under the bus and it would've looked stupid if she tried.

That's the narrative which isn't true. She could have highlighted what worked thus far and what can be improved without throwing Biden under the bus. It's like she was surrounded with a bunch of campaign rookies. The strategy just flat out sucked.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

This isn't a welcomed take on this website. You can point out how the Democratic party has shifted hard-left and is no longer the same party from 20 years ago, even 10. But people will fight you tooth and nail because tribalism requires them to defend The Party even if it is clearly not the same. Look how many people are clamoring for us to fight Russia when 20 years ago you would have been damn near banned from the party for being pro-war.

In what universe is this true? The idea that the Dems have shifted "hard-left" doesn't align with our current political reality. Policies like healthcare expansion, climate action, and civil rights protections are not radical. A "hard-left" party would be calling for things like abolishing capitalism, full wealth redistribution, worker-controlled industries, total abolition of the carceral state, and so on, and that's not what's happening. Yes, the party has evolved over 20 years as societal priorities have shifted, but adaptation isn't tantamount to extremism. Democrats today still largely advocate for moderate, incremental reforms.

As far as Russia and Ukraine, supporting them isn't about being "pro-war." It's about honoring commitments like the Budapest Memorandum, where they gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances.

Further, dismissing disagreements as "tribalism" ignores that many people oppose some of these arguments only because they misrepresents facts, not because they're blindly defending a party. Calling this "tribalism" is an oversimplification of complex issues.

I have tended to be a centrist, akin to Clinton. I do NOT like where the dems went and I hate how EVERY facet of politics have been polarized. Diversity used to be our strength but look at the Dems now

Where did they go? Can y'all be specific on which issues you are talking about exactly that gives you the impression that they're "hard-left"?

Is it policies like expanding healthcare? Addressing climate change? Protecting civil rights? And diversity was never the strength of this country.

 

[Formerly Black Trash]

In what universe is this true? The idea that the Dems have shifted "hard-left" doesn't align with our current political reality. Policies like healthcare expansion, climate action, and civil rights protections are not radical. A "hard-left" party would be calling for things like abolishing capitalism, full wealth redistribution, worker-controlled industries, total abolition of the carceral state, and so on, and that's not what's happening. Yes, the party has evolved over 20 years as societal priorities have shifted, but adaptation isn't tantamount to extremism. Democrats today still largely advocate for moderate, incremental reforms.

As far as Russia and Ukraine, supporting them isn't about being "pro-war." It's about honoring commitments like the Budapest Memorandum, where they gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances.

Further, dismissing disagreements as "tribalism" ignores that many people oppose some of these arguments only because they misrepresents facts, not because they're blindly defending a party. Calling this "tribalism" is an oversimplification of complex issues.


Where did they go? Can y'all be specific on which issues you are talking about exactly that gives you the impression that they're "hard-left"?

Is it policies like expanding healthcare? Addressing climate change? Protecting civil rights? And diversity was never the strength of this country.

Agreed

 

[LV Koopa]

The funny thing is I suspect Trump's internal polling had the same results. The guy who was driving the betting markets with his bets said he did that because he financed his own polls that indicated Trump was ahead. He said instead of asking people who they would vote for, they asked who people thought their neighbors were voting for. That gets around the Shy Trump problem. All the internal polls probably do something like this and show the same thing.

I forgot his name but if it's the same account on Twitter, that guy was $$. Them and Rasmussen were catching flak for showing Trump ahead.
It wasn't until the Iowa poll scandal came out that the public realized the Kamala campaign was way off.

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

By hard left I mean the Democrats moving towards more Collectivist policies. They started embracing group identity over individual liberty at an increasing pace.

Is this an "identity politics" complaint? You have a problem with things like equity initiatives and such, right? You do understand that it isn't about rejecting so-called individual liberty, but about making sure EVERYONE has a fair shot? Policies that consider group identities are aimed at fixing systemic inequalities, not to erase individuality. Balancing personal freedoms with collective responsibility isn't "hard left"; it's the only way we can build a more functional society.

 

[Child_Of_God]

I tried telling folks that Kamala was actually way behind in the polls and that she will do worse then both Biden and Hilary on election night but nikkas accuse me of being MAGA.

 

[LV Koopa]

In what universe is this true? The idea that the Dems have shifted "hard-left" doesn't align with our current political reality. Policies like healthcare expansion, climate action, and civil rights protections are not radical. A "hard-left" party would be calling for things like abolishing capitalism, full wealth redistribution, worker-controlled industries, total abolition of the carceral state, and so on, and that's not what's happening. Yes, the party has evolved over 20 years as societal priorities have shifted, but adaptation isn't tantamount to extremism. Democrats today still largely advocate for moderate, incremental reforms.

As far as Russia and Ukraine, supporting them isn't about being "pro-war." It's about honoring commitments like the Budapest Memorandum, where they gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances.

Further, dismissing disagreements as "tribalism" ignores that many people oppose some of these arguments only because they misrepresents facts, not because they're blindly defending a party. Calling this "tribalism" is an oversimplification of complex issues.


Where did they go? Can y'all be specific on which issues you are talking about exactly that gives you the impression that they're "hard-left"?

Is it policies like expanding healthcare? Addressing climate change? Protecting civil rights? And diversity was never the strength of this country.

I disagree with some of this. Abolishing capitalism was definitely a stance of the hard-leftists in the party. It was hidden behind ideas like the tax on unrealized gains that are just Marxist to the core. Wealth distribution has been in the discourse of the Democrats for years now. When Occupy Wallstreet occurred in 2008, this was one of the moments we started to see a shift in the Democratic party.

Likewise, the entire climate change agenda adopted by the party is rhetoric that while there is a legitimate discussion underlying it, has become a rallying cry that was not present 20 years ago. Civil Rights protections are not radical indeed, but I also don't think they were a bigger issue than Abortion which is a more established leftist debating point.

So, while the Democrat do not embody all of the characteristics of the hard-left as you describe it, they display enough of them with such a magnitude that it cannot be mistaken for anything else imo. A subset of the party are loud activists that spout ideas that unfortunately were a reason that cost Kamala Harris this election.

As far as Russia and Ukraine, supporting them isn't about being "pro-war." It's about honoring commitments like the Budapest Memorandum, where they gave up their nukes in exchange for security assurances.

I don't agree. The United States has no direct public stake in their relationship. Ukraine is not an ally nor a NATO country. Similar to the Iraq War, neocons and warmongers are spinning up any justification they can to constantly involve the country in a war. In 2014 after the coup and after Ukraine was named one of the most corrupt countries in the world by our State Department, American citizens could not bother to care about the country. Ukraine became a polarized topic the moment Trump was Pro-Putin. As I've stated many times, the US and Russia are more like rivals and not enemy countries. This should have never been a political hill to die over, as most of the country does not support it.

Further, dismissing disagreements as "tribalism" ignores that many people oppose some of these arguments only because they misrepresents facts, not because they're blindly defending a party. Calling this "tribalism" is an oversimplification of complex issues.

Fair. I refer to it as tribalism in short-hand because I do not want to spend a lot of time discussing the nuances of a greater issue that I'm assuming you're familiar with. But that isn't an outright dismissal of the arguments. I refer to it that way because what evolved from arguments of intersectionality a decade ago is what this has become. You are either for all of the issues of the party, or you are a Republican/anti-Democrat. You cannot agree with just some of the political objectives. There are times people DO argue the misrepresentation of issues that Republicans/conservatives do. But rarely is that the case because discussions get sidetracked by ad-hominem attacks before the real fundamentals can be spoken about.

 

[LV Koopa]

Is this an "identity politics" complaint? You have a problem with things like equity initiatives and such, right? You do understand that it isn't about rejecting so-called individual liberty, but about making sure EVERYONE has a fair shot? Policies that consider group identities are aimed at fixing systemic inequalities, not to erase individuality. Balancing personal freedoms with collective responsibility isn't "hard left"; it's the only way we can build a more functional society.

What exactly are you asking me? You asked a question and then answered it.

I don't agree with equity initiatives because equity is not what the government should be trying to achieve. It is difficult to do so naturally on its own, and near impossible for people with their own biases to come close to successfully pulling off. Even the notion of "fixing systemic inequalities" is disingenuous. Think tanks and governments have spent billions of dollars trying and not one has come close. Possibly because it is a waste of time trying to dictate complex interactions we do not fully understand.

Now as to this specifically:

You do understand that it isn't about rejecting so-called individual liberty, but about making sure EVERYONE has a fair shot?

This is where you will find agreement amongst most people. I do agree we should be aiming for a way to give everyone a "fair shot". However - this is not equity. This is equality of opportunity. Equity is synonymous with equality of outcome. The problem with equitable policies is they ignore the underlying forces that drive outcomes and instead try to fix the pie so everyone has an equal share. Unfortunately, this tends to ignore real social and economic dynamics and results in a disaster for all involved.

As an example, ask the typical person if minimum wage is a good idea. Most would say sure, everyone deserves minimum earning amount. This of course ignores that implementing price floors tends to hurt the people that do not have the ability to earn a wage at or above the price floor. A free market would allow them to underbid other wages and most importantly enter the market. But they can't. Minimum wage isn't addressing the real issue (they do not have an opportunity or skills to get into the market) and instead just tries to put a band-aid on the issue. This is the core problem with "equity" ideas. Instead of trying to fix the pie at a certain preconceived percentage, we should find ways to grow the pie for everyone.

 

[Diunx]

@Roger king trump is in office because of kamala

Nop, Trump is in office because most Americans are functional retards.