|
Pohl posted:I want to remind everyone that social change is a process and it happens far faster than economic change. Social change is the gift horse, if you will, that the elites allow us so we don't rebel. You want to know something funny? It used to be economic change that was "inevitable". The grave-digger theory of capitalism, historical progressivism and a thousand academics touting the End Of History all once believed that by hook or by crook we'd achieve economic equality and evolution. You (and the rest of the western world) have disabused yourself of the notion that economic progress is guaranteed but you've gone and done the same thing to civil liberties, rights for women and minorities, acceptance of homosexuals, protection and education of children, reduction of the security state, reining in of police brutality and everything else that has to be fought for every step of the way. Social issues are critical to bringing about change on economic issues, because you can't raise a society that's fair economically if you allow people to be unfair to each other. Social and economic issues are interlaced, and improvement in either condition cannot be taken for granted. After thousands of years of human history, equal rights for all under the law has only started being practiced within living memory - we must not be so careless as to assume that this ground couldn't be lost. Dolash fucked around with this message at 04:35 on May 26, 2015 |
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Newsflash genius: Bernie Sanders can't institute democratic socialism from the Presidency outside of a clancy-level scenario. Welp, I'd better pack it all in then, my naive utopian dreams will never come true. loving duh, dude. That doesn't change the fact that Bernie would be better than the party elite's designated heir in virtually every policy area. Will pushing for Bernie swing the party to the Left? Better question: will sitting on our hands have any better outcome? Bringing a significant portion of potential voters together to demand change has to matter for something. Mordiceius posted:Everyone is so fatalistic in this thread. QFT
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Jesus loving Christ there's a load of shittastic "embrace the inevitability of Our Lord and Saviour HRC" in this thread. I can't tell if McAlister is a gimmick poster or just autistic—it's like Deteriorata's schilling for Obama but somehow manages to be worse. How 'bout you guys actually push for a candidate that will defend your interests rather than a lifeless brand that's been honed by a million focus groups? Cugel the Clever posted:Welp, I'd better pack it all in then, my naive utopian dreams will never come true. Being caustic and condescending towards the thread obviously isn't going to persuade anyone to your side. Most members here already support Bernie as a primary candidate, but are simply mature enough to appreciate that he has no chance of winning and, in turn, are looking at the positives of the presumptive nominee. Clearly you're just here as an exercise in masturbation, living out some childish fantasy of how you're a hero for going on forums to bitch about HRC and possibly doing some menial legwork for the Sanders campaign. How did that strategy work out for Ron Paul supporters again?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Bringing a significant portion of potential voters together to demand change has to matter for something. I suppose this depends on how you're using "has to."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I suppose this depends on how you're using "has to." I'd replace it with "should", in this case. Considering that report that came out about the US barely being a democracy, with voter opinion having no correlation to policy results, popularity of a candidate and their proposals is a symbolic gesture.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:there's no practical difference between hil-dawg and bernin honestly because the presidency itself doesn't matter that much as opposed to control over scotus nominations and the administrative state, of which there is likely not to be any real difference between anyone who would have a D after their name That is complete horseshit.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Cliff Racer posted:Be glad you didn't post this eight years ago, there would have been a wall of angry replies. The problem in 2008 was that the forum was mistaking rhetoric for experience/competence and wanted to push obama into the big chair before he was ready. I said then what I say now. He was to green/naive. He lacked not just leadership experience but experience period. He would be a great 2016 candidate if he spent the 8 years between working on those problems. Pointing out Clinton's solid achievements and amazing track record then would not have gotten me anywhere because she was being evaluated against what everyone in their hearts imagined that Obama could be. That's like competing with the ghost of a former lover. Your mundane, flawed, reality against a perfect mental image. Obama was a nearly blank slate that you could write your fondest dreams in. Even if I'd gotten people to acknowledge what she's done they would still believe that Obama could do even better. So that line of rhetoric simply wasn't worth following. Watching those predictions come true far beyond even what I predicted ( the senate blocking so many routine appointments for example would not have happened to Hillary due to her years of establishing a working relation with the senate ) has taught the forums that a president can't just wave a magic speech around and fix things. You guys now temper enthusiasm for pretty words and grand proclamations with skepticism for the ability to deliver on them. This is good. But the forum collectively is taking it to far. You have gone from manic to depressive. The base line of support for bernie is resting on a wave of despair. With an opposition legislature the potus will just be a veto pen + justice appointer so vote for bernie because he will use the bully pulpit to spread ideas we like while being just a veto pen + justice appointer. Bullshit. The office of the president is neither all powerful nor helpless. Even with an opposition legislature. But Bernie is not the kind of person that can face solid opposition and find ways to wedge off support to get things done. Hillary is. She has done so consistently in the past and will do so in the future. Part of the reason she is able to do so is that she does not throw red meat at the left wing base about how the other guys are stupid idiots clinging to guns and God because reality scares them. And she doesn't begin the negotiating process by telling a wall of cameras repeatedly that the folks in Washington are squabbling children that she is going to set straight if you elect her. That kind of grandstanding rouses the base but is toxic to your ability to actually lead and Hillary knows this. She stoops to conquer. She tends and befriends. She puts the word "charm" before the word "offense". She's the kind of person that can turn a lame duck/token board appointment at Walmart into a company wide initiative on energy efficiency. It's not getting the company to do a 180 on their treatment of labor ... but imagining that any one board member could accomplish that is a mastabatory fantasy. Never mind one minority board member who was appointed purely as a or gimic and wasn't even their first choice to be the token woman ( they tried to poach a lady on the Nordstrom board first ). So the trick now is in two parts. First to kick the forum out of its depression and get you to realize that a more experienced and diplomatic leader like clinton can get poo poo done even in the face of opposition. And secondly to call out slander about her motives to demonstrate that she will lead in an agreeable direction. These things should be easy because her track record is consistent and impressive. However facts matter little in the face of a compelling narrative and the forum crafted a very negative internal narrative - cherry picking bits of spin from the right wing hate machine even - when other-izing Clinton in Obama's name. So it's an uphill battle. McAlister fucked around with this message at 16:15 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I'm impressed by the gymnastics people will go through to discredit Hillary, while they're cool with Bernie supporting Israel and the NRA. I like them both. Because they're both very smart and capable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Because that's loving amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'm impressed by the gymnastics people will go through to discredit Hillary, while they're cool with Bernie supporting Israel and the NRA. It's possible to have preference of one over the other without it asserting that the selected candidate is therefore flawless. It's political reality that there isn't a perfect candidate for everyone, but you have to find one that is close enough to one's ideals and look at their history of how they govern or make decisions. Saying Bernie is better than Clinton does not saint him nor condemn her. I think people look at the company she and her husband have kept as advisors and staff, and extrapolate from there whether or not they feel her bids to the left overall feel true rather than triangulation for the primary.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
That's fine, but the anti-Hillary crowd is relying on conservatives to do their oppo research instead of constructing arguments that are less factually vacant. I like Bernie Sanders a lot. He's not going to be the nominee, though. I don't think he would be able to win the general even if he did have a real shot at the nomination. The hand-wringing over Hillary sounds mostly like circle-jerking about leftist purity. I don't see what function it serves.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:16
|
|
|
ErIog posted:That's fine, but the anti-Hillary crowd is relying on conservatives to do their oppo research instead of constructing arguments that are less factually vacant. It is the desperate prayer of the democrat who still doesn't want to vote for Hilary.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Charlie Rose POV
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Charlie Rose POV Haha... 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
For what it's worth, the pro-Hillary posts contain some persuasive material and I already feel better about the inevitability of voting for her. Still happily voting for Bernie in the primary, though. 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
ErIog posted:That's fine, but the anti-Hillary crowd is relying on conservatives to do their oppo research instead of constructing arguments that are less factually vacant. On the other hand the historical revisionism and spin on her past activities from the pro-Hillary crowd has reached Hannity and O'Reilly levels of ridiculous. The woman has been a leader for social change on women's rights her whole life and, briefly once on healthcare. She pretty quickly gave up on the latter, relative to the duration of her political career. At every other point in her political career she has taken the Path of Most Opportunistically Beneficial. "Leftist purity" and "troll right-winger" are canards tossed out by apparatchiks who don't like the Anointed One having her record examined or questioned. This is all the same poo poo from 2007/2008 rehashed except now there isn't an Obama to counter it. I've seen arguments that Hillary is actually to the left of Sanders FFS. The contortions the DLC/third-way types will go through to twist the meaning of "liberal" or "progressive" are amazing, but predictable and sad.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:If Hillary Clinton isn't opportunistic, how are we meant to take her '08 primary campaign helping kick-start birtherism? I really think birtherism came from the right wing and while Hillary's campaign did some hosed poo poo during that time (loving Geraldine Ferraro calling Obama a gimmick candidate) that's something I wouldn't tie to her. I don't know the patient zero for birtherism, but I think it's intrinsically tied to the sentiment Sarah Palin was trying to stir up when she'd be in the south or mid-west and talk about "real Americans."
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:I really think birtherism came from the right wing and while Hillary's campaign did some hosed poo poo during that time (loving Geraldine Ferraro calling Obama a gimmick candidate) that's something I wouldn't tie to her. I don't know the patient zero for birtherism, but I think it's intrinsically tied to the sentiment Sarah Palin was trying to stir up when she'd be in the south or mid-west and talk about "real Americans." The birther poo poo was established during the primaries. That was months well ahead of the nation being exposed to Palin's insanity and "Hilary has devastating dirt on Obama... apparently about his birth" was getting fished out there when the primaries were looking to go either way.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
I don't even actually think opportunism is a strong negative in the current political climate. It makes someone predictable.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:Jesus loving Christ there's a load of shittastic "embrace the inevitability of Our Lord and Saviour HRC" in this thread. I can't tell if McAlister is a gimmick poster or just autistic—it's like Deteriorata's schilling for Obama but somehow manages to be worse. How 'bout you guys actually push for a candidate that will defend your interests rather than a lifeless brand that's been honed by a million focus groups? I'd be more supportive of Sanders if he even pretended to run a real campaign. Obviously he's not going to win (barring some catastrophic Clinton revelation late in the primaries) but he's only going to get the sort of media attention for his platform that he seems to want if he makes something resembling a real effort, like actually hiring a campaign team for a presidential run. Besides, the difference between a Sanders who ends up pulling single digits and one who gets close to 30% is the difference between one who has no effect on the race and one who can force Clinton to the left on economic issues.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:39
|
|
|
Oh hey, is it that point in the thread where everyone basically says the same thing while willfully misconstruing each other in the most patronising way possible? Cos that's always my favourite part.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
I'll be voting Democrat come hell or high water, but I'm definitely in favor of Bernie, or anyone, keeping Clinton on her toes. So far she seems to be running the same campaign as in 2008. I mean, it's early still, but worrying.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
ElrondHubbard posted:How did that strategy work out for Ron Paul supporters again? Got his son elected as an influential Senator.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:51
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I'd be more supportive of Sanders if he even pretended to run a real campaign. Obviously he's not going to win (barring some catastrophic Clinton revelation late in the primaries) but he's only going to get the sort of media attention for his platform that he seems to want if he makes something resembling a real effort, like actually hiring a campaign team for a presidential run. I could have sworn I saw articles about Sanders getting staff from previous Obama campaigns.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 09:53
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Oh hey, is it that point in the thread where everyone basically says the same thing while willfully misconstruing each other in the most patronising way possible? Cos that's always my favourite part. And the actual voting is still most of a year away.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Oh hey, is it that point in the thread where everyone basically says the same thing while willfully misconstruing each other in the most patronising way possible? Cos that's always my favourite part. Yep and Hilary is either satan incarnate or the messiah reborn this poo poo happens everytime there's a slow news day but let's not pretend it isn't poo poo posting.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 11:43
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:I don't even actually think opportunism is a strong negative in the current political climate. It makes someone predictable. Doesn't have the same ring as "HOPE" but you can fit it in a bumper sticker if the font is small enough I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:Before that point, however, I hope others throw their weight behind Bernie as well, as that gives more freedom to Hillary and makes her a more powerful candidate in the end. How exactly does forcing any candidate further from the middle make them more powerful in a general? I mean it's Hillary so she'll either ignore or sandbag most of her leftish primary positions, but still.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Got his son elected as an influential Senator. I may be wrong, but isn't Rand Paul fairly different from Ron Paul? Here's a quick resource: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/rand-paul-vs-ron-paul-introducing-the-paul-o-meter-20150306 Part of the reason he's so influential is that Rand Paul walks more in lockstep with the party. It'd be like crusading for Bernie and getting Hillary.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I want to remind everyone that social change is a process and it happens far faster than economic change. Social change is the gift horse, if you will, that the elites allow us so we don't rebel. It really isn't. It takes decades of effort and organization and constant fighting with the people in charge to make social change happen. The status quo is quite capable of maintaining itself in perpetuity if we allow it to. That you think otherwise indicates either a tragic lack of historical perspective or deliberate ignorance. As for the rest of your 'beliefs', (they certainly aren't ideas, that would require you to have examined them critically at some point) geeze. Social change doesn't affect the elites economically? That is literally what social change does! Surprise, you can't keep these people as slaves anymore. Surprise, even though it's super easy to marginalize these people and ignore them economically we're not going to let you. Build those handicap access ramps, shut up about the costs. Nope, turns out you can't charge black people different prices just because they're black. (We've got a long ways to go on that one obviously.) As we speak we're having a social/economic battle over whether or not women should be paid as much as men for doing the same work. Economic changes happen because of social changes happen because of economic changes. They're inextricably linked, and the idea that Leftists or the Democratic party as a whole isn't vastly superior on them (assuming you're not an elite) is risible. That 'vastly superior' in this case means that there are still people who believe in trickle-down in the party means we've got our work cut out for us, not that we should focus solely on economic issues, because it's just as easy to convince people by tugging on their heart strings as it is by tugging on their purse strings. Peztopiary fucked around with this message at 14:04 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Pohl posted:I want to remind everyone that social change is a process and it happens far faster than economic change. Social change is the gift horse, if you will, that the elites allow us so we don't rebel. That's why Racism is over.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Social change is a given. We don't need to stop thinking about it, but our goal should be economic change. .. Social change is going to happen regardless. I''m kind of curious about the reasoning that''s led you to believe this. Because from where I''m standing I see a tremendous amount of money and effort and time spent effecting social change across multiple levels of society and government and then constantly working to keep from getting it rolled back. edit: just one example: would you say "women will have reliable and practical access to abortion providers" is a given? Sharkie fucked around with this message at 14:41 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Got his son elected as an influential Senator. But the Ron Paul faithful don't really like him. All the ones I talked to after Ran announced he was running weren't very happy about it, but they were still pissed about 2008.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:edit: just one example: would you say "women will have reliable and practical access to abortion providers" is a given? That's a complicated example because providing reliable access to health care of any kind involves Paying For Things.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's a complicated example because providing reliable access to health care of any kind involves Paying For Things. Yes but state legislatures aren't shutting down, say, ophthalmologists and trying to mandate unnecessary procedures for them. At any rate, I don't think it's an issue where you can say "it's a given" or put social factors on the back burner when trying to address it. Especially things like ultrasound laws or this: quote:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121536729 Sharkie fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
The Hillary store is now open, features a shirt named the 'Think Tank', tote bags, and throw pillows.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Bernie was among his people yesterday in the smallest city (pop. 2,588). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gWzIRUlhlI
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I''m kind of curious about the reasoning that''s led you to believe this. Because from where I''m standing I see a tremendous amount of money and effort and time spent effecting social change across multiple levels of society and government and then constantly working to keep from getting it rolled back. It's a common belief among leftists that identity politics like gay rights or marijuana legalization or whatever take energy away from more meaningful reform movements, primarily FULL COMMUNISM NOW. A lot of your most famous communists from the early 20th century were vehemently opposed to the suffrage movement, including lots of feminists like Helen Keller. I can't remember if it was her or someone else that asked "what has voting rights done for the negro?" I kind of agree. That's not to say the civil rights era wasn't worth fighting tooth and nail for, but I'll be a little upset if I look back on my twenties and say the biggest political accomplishment was letting white people smoke weed with a little less hassle.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:
A lot of those same communists were also opposed to gays because they felt it was bougie decadence so that doesn't mean they were right.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 07:32 |
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:I'm impressed by the gymnastics people will go through to discredit Hillary, while they're cool with Bernie supporting Israel and the NRA. I don't think he likes the NRA, but he somewhat likes guns, which is good.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 15:34
|
|