|
Ninjasaurus posted:Which Republican would you prefer to see as President? Goddamn you centrists will never miss a chance to call the left wing of the party traitors will you?  E: drat you Apple autocorrect Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Sep 16, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Neo conservative refers to a set of policies but is most defined by foreign policies (nigh synonymous with colonialism + "democracy"). Neo liberal is completely economic. Neo-liberal economic policy is almost always designed around a global free market with the free flow of capital and goods worldwide (as well as a 'free' labor market, which usually translates to no unions and limited labor regulation), and is thus also a force in foreign policy since it drives the opening of markets, signing of free trade agreements, and coercion of non-cooperative governments and economies to fall in line with the global economic order. The ultimate goal of Neoliberalism would be one borderless world of economic production, resources and capital flowing freely worldwide and without impediment. Hypothetically this would make everyone really rich and be extremely productive and creative. In practice it probably means a few untouchable megacorporate overlords more powerful than empires and a vast, worldwide underclass dedicated to servicing it. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism often go together when planning interventions abroad in order to serve both sets of interests. From the perspective of the conquered it's all basically the same, whether it's a neoconservative push to topple a hostile regime and install a friendly client government or a neoliberal push to oust an uncooperative government and get economic liberalization passed. Edit: As an addendum, the way neoliberalism mutates out of liberalism is that classical liberalism was very concerned with defining the rights of man as an individual, rational being. These rights included property rights, and the concept of a free market was very compatible to the enlightenment view of an individual as independent and participating in the economy of their own free will. Neoliberalism picks up on these themes and sees the creation of a global market as a way to realize every human being's individual rights via free participation in said market. That it happens to serve the interests of the wealthy and tear down regulations and social safety nets seen as obstacles to achieving this free market is why it's so popular. Dolash fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Which Republican would you prefer to see as President? If Clinton gets the nomination then I don't really care. The country deserves a president Ted Cruz and Vice President Rick Santorum if Democrats can't help but nominate the party's most Republican woman they can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Are you claiming that conservatives care about evidence? The squabble isn't over whether there is a care for evidence, the squabble is over whose evidence to trust. Hence the meteoric rise of the think-tank industrial processess since the mid-70s E: Evil Fluffy posted:If Clinton gets the nomination then I don't really care. The country deserves a president Ted Cruz and Vice President Rick Santorum if Democrats can't help but nominate the party's most Republican woman they can. Clinton, Biden, Emmanuel: President, Vice-President, Chief of Staff Pick one for each. Emmanuel won't accept CoS, Biden is a maybe on second Veep, Clinton is a hell naws on doing what she'd need to do for Veep My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 06:52 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Goddamn you centrists will never miss a chance to call the left wing of the party traitors will you? Yes, pointing out that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and loses, a Republican will be President and who would you like to see in that office? is exactly the same thing as what you just wrote. Evil Fluffy posted:If Clinton gets the nomination then I don't really care. The country deserves a president Ted Cruz and Vice President Rick Santorum if Democrats can't help but nominate the party's most Republican woman they can. So basically you'd rather see the country be destroyed if your choice for the Democratic nominee isn't selected. Ninjasaurus fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Clinton, Biden, Emmanuel: President, Vice-President, Chief of Staff Hmmm this is tough but I'm going to have to go with Biden, Biden and Biden.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
Does Rahm Emanuel have a future in DC anymore?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Goddamn you centrists will never miss a chance to call the left wing of the party traitors will you? And you will never in a million years miss a chance to make a scathing lol ur all counterrevolutionaries  post.As I said before, let's just vote for a Republican and save ourselves the trouble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:So basically you'd rather see the country be destroyed if your choice for the Democratic nominee isn't selected. If Clinton wins the election all she'll do is spend 4-8 years kowtowing to the far right like Obama did. What the Democratic party desperately needs is a left-wing firebreather, like Bernie Sanders but younger. Warren may fit the bill but she still ain't running, so gently caress it, I'm voting SPUSA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
A Hillary Clinton victory would mean at least four more years with an administration more right-wing than I'd like. Join me in throwing the election to Ted Cruz to stop such an awful turn of events from coming to pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:If Clinton wins the election all she'll do is spend 4-8 years kowtowing to the far right like Obama did. What the Democratic party desperately needs is a left-wing firebreather, like Bernie Sanders but younger. Warren may fit the bill but she still ain't running, so gently caress it, I'm voting SPUSA. You call it kowtowing, and yet the far right calls it "impeachable socialism".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Does Rahm Emanuel have a future in DC anymore?  Potentially, more of one than in ChicagoE: heres the thing with policies you like, one time when Rahm was CoS he came to Obama's office and offered to get PPACA through Congress with single-payer in 1 day, if Obama let him not hold back. Obama proceeded to call Reid on the issue and chat-chat. TrickyDicky D didn't like the idea of unleashing Rahm in the WH and letting Obama realize how independent the executive branch could be from the legislative, and Reid poo-poo'd the idea. So Rahm GTFO to become Mayor the first chance he got. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:If Clinton wins the election all she'll do is spend 4-8 years kowtowing to the far right like Obama did. What the Democratic party desperately needs is a left-wing firebreather, like Bernie Sanders but younger. Warren may fit the bill but she still ain't running, so gently caress it, I'm voting SPUSA. You're organizing locally though right? Centrists and leftists alike in this country forget you can't just vote and call it a day. The reason the right wing and DLC types can do that is because rich people do all the organizing and fund raising for them, you don't have that option. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Ninjasaurus posted:Which Republican would you prefer to see as President? Which unapologetic Capitalist do you want? The one who really hates gays/women/racial minorities or the one who doesn't give a gently caress about them as long as they vote the party line?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Which unapologetic Capitalist do you want? The one who really hates gays/women/racial minorities or the one who doesn't give a gently caress about them as long as they vote the party line? You are a liberal, you are not a socialist, because if you were, you should be sitting in San Quentin traitor. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/04/in-defense-of-empire/358645/
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Which unapologetic Capitalist do you want? The one who really hates gays/women/racial minorities or the one who doesn't give a gently caress about them as long as they vote the party line? #of non-Capitalists with infuence in America: 0.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
This is the strangest conspiracy. Still voting Cruz though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Which unapologetic Capitalist do you want? The one who really hates gays/women/racial minorities or the one who doesn't give a gently caress about them as long as they vote the party line? Is this a trick question? The one who doesn't think it should be legal to burn me at the stake, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:Which unapologetic Capitalist do you want? The one who really hates gays/women/racial minorities or the one who doesn't give a gently caress about them as long as they vote the party line? I'm liberal on pretty much everything. I also realize there won't be a leftist President in my lifetime and the best I can hope for is "somewhat less terrible than the other person".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:This is the strangest conspiracy. not a conspiracy when you're in the room as Rahm explains why he's running for mayor 2 days before the announcement revenge leaks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:not a conspiracy when you're in the room as Rahm explains why he's running for mayor 2 days before the announcement revenge leaks. I believe every word that comes out of a politician's mouth like it's loving gospel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
GROVER CURES HOUSE posted:I believe every word that comes out of a politician's mouth like it's loving gospel. I believe an angry Rahm Emmanuel about Obama's inexperience on House leadership issues and his willingness to defer executive roles to Senate leadership
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I believe an angry Rahm Emmanuel about Obama's inexperience on House leadership issues and his willingness to defer executive roles to Senate leadership That's not what you initially claimed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:E: heres the thing with policies you like, one time when Rahm was CoS he came to Obama's office and offered to get PPACA through Congress with single-payer in 1 day, if Obama let him not hold back. Obama proceeded to call Reid on the issue and chat-chat. TrickyDicky D didn't like the idea of unleashing Rahm in the WH and letting Obama realize how independent the executive branch could be from the legislative, and Reid poo-poo'd the idea. So Rahm GTFO to become Mayor the first chance he got. Rahm Emmanuel is a real life verison of Malcolm tucker isn't he
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I would love to vote for left-wing candidates, on local, state, and national levels. There are no such realistic options on any of those levels where I am. As such, I make do with the least-bad choice available to me. You could run yourself?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:57
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Can't believe I'm typing these words, but anything is better than hot dog chat. Nope, hot dog chat owns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
E2: Simple answer is, who do you think wanted Washington dead?
My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
[in the Lil B voice] I'm Milton Friedman, I am neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:#of non-Capitalists with infuence in America: 0. 1. 2 if things go right in November. 3 If Bernie runs as an independent (although he isn't perfect). Edit: it floors me when I see this kind of attitude towards electoral politics. You think we got the New Deal because FDR was more sympathetic to the work class than Hillary is? You think we got labor protection s because people rolled over and voted for Democrats? You think we got $15/hour in Seattle because we decided that the current status quo was a - OK as long as Republicans didn't win? AShamefulDisplay fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Is this a trick question? Which is a rather wide field of candidates that, hell, includes Republicans!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
Fair enough. If the Republicans nominate someone more left-wing than Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for them. The Ghost of Teddy Roosevelt, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fair enough. If the Republicans nominate someone more left-wing than Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for them. VitalSigns Calls On GOP to Return To Ideals of Reagan
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:VitalSigns Calls On GOP to Return To Ideals of Reagan Massive Keynsian spending program? Yes, that'd be nice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:not a conspiracy when you're in the room as Rahm explains why he's running for mayor 2 days before the announcement revenge leaks. This is some variety of bullshit, it's just a question from whom, because there is no way in hell anybody could have gotten single-payer out of congress. And I say that as someone who thinks Obama could have gotten a bigger stimulus bill and an ACA with a public option. But then again Rahm always kind of seemed like a self-aggrandizing rear end in a top hat. ErIog posted:It's the Rockefeller Republican wing of the Democratic Party that rose to prominence with Bill Clinton's presidential victory, and policy positions include accepting the right wing framing of budget issues by cutting welfare, cutting social security, cutting taxes, and increasing handouts to Wall Street/big business in the name of being "serious adults in the room" and "bipartisan." Also bullshit. Go back and look at the Dukakis or Mondale campaign platforms, or all the way back to Carter's policy. Both establishments in D.C. have an incentive to paint them as wild-eyed socialists, but neo-liberalism in the Democratic Party didn't start with Clinton. But Carter introduced austerity budgets, deregulated the energy and travel industry(most notably the airlines) and slashed the top carried-interest tax rate. This gets obscured by Carter's post-presidency activism, but he was a supply sider and a neoliberal as much as Obama is. The self-serving DLC bullshit about how voters flocked to Clinton when he promised to ship their jobs to Mexico is bullshit. Clinton's economic strategy was all about government intervention and industrial planning to bolster American industries and create high-paying jobs. He was pro-market, but it's tough to see his platform as being far to the right of Carter's. If anything Clinton ran on a more progressive economic policy than Carter had run. Clinton won because of Ricky Ray Rector and Sister Souljah and by convincing Reagan Democrats that he was gonna' git tough on those lazy shiftless coloreds, not by telling them their job would wind up in Guangdong or Ciudad Juarez. The Insect Court fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Fair enough. If the Republicans nominate someone more left-wing than Hillary Clinton, I'll vote for them. LOL if you think Dems give a poo poo about gay rights outside of securing another voting block. You might as vote for a Republican as well, since no candidate that makes it through the primary is going to want to legalize the death penalty for gay people. Economic policy is going to be the same. All that changes is the rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
AShamefulDisplay posted:LOL if you think Dems give a poo poo about gay rights outside of securing another voting block. Dems give a huge poo poo about gay rights. Who do you think Hillary's best fundraisers were recruited from? You can joke about a gay mafis in DC all you want, just don't do so too openly. E: The Insect Court posted:This is some variety of bullshit, it's just a question from whom, because there is no way in hell anybody could have gotten single-payer out of congress. And I say that as someone who thinks Obama could have gotten a bigger stimulus bill and an ACA with a public option. But then again Rahm always kind of seemed like a self-aggrandizing rear end in a top hat. No doubt thats the question, however, I do believe Rahm could've gotten what he wanted through the House if he was allowed to use his way. Rahm was operating under '16 logic at the time. He wanted a bill that would be immediately noticable and successful. He didn't want a version which ALL the consultants were saying "holy gently caress no no nonononononono nono you will lose the house for a decade if you pass it without this, this, and this." Those being, the pre-public original draft of the House bill. E: One could say Rahm wanted the healthcare issue in America dead. When Rahm wants something dead, it dies, and he don't believe in resurrection. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Oh is it that time of the month where we all wring our hands about how terrible Democrats are?
KIM JONG TRILL fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Sep 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:VitalSigns Calls On GOP to Return To Ideals of Reagan Well Iran could probably use some weapons right about now... AShamefulDisplay posted:LOL if you think Dems give a poo poo about gay rights outside of securing another voting block. They obviously don't, but the alternative is people who are actively trying to gently caress over gays regardless of whether it helps them achieve their other political goals or not. It's also not really true that both parties are capitalist. The Democrats are capitalist, in that they want to liberalize trade, favor big business, and make "sensible" cuts to welfare just this side of stopping open revolt. That obviously sucks but by the time the general election rolls around it's either that or the party that wants to burn it all down and return to feudalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
This argument about voting or not voting for a mainstream candidate that isn't liberal enough for you is something that you guys can chase each other around in circles forever with and you will never get anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Wabbit posted:This argument about voting or not voting for a mainstream candidate that isn't liberal enough for you is something that you guys can chase each other around in circles forever with and you will never get anywhere. Sounds like the path to relevancy for American leftism! Quick, someone give this idea to the Marxist thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 09:14
|
|