|
I was under the impression that "leftist" was specifically designed to cover a sliver of the electorate, like why invent a new term if you just mean Democrat?
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
twodot posted:I was under the impression that "leftist" was specifically designed to cover a sliver of the electorate, like why invent a new term if you just mean Democrat? Honestly you start getting to "leftist" the second you get to Social Democrats in the US. "Leftist" covers a wide variety of ideologies here in the US which are sadly underrepresented imo. For all the hee hawing about Bernie being a socialist he wasn't any more left than the Social Democrat parties you see in Europe that seem to enjoy a wide swathe of support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Motto posted:The GOP never went after Bernie aside from vague references to "that socialist running against Clinton". Based on his primary performance, I doubt his campaign would've been able to clown on Trump as effectively, especially on the debate stage where his main strategy is reciting his stump speech and diverting every question back to Wall Street. NewForumSoftware posted:Honestly you start getting to "leftist" the second you get to Social Democrats in the US. "Leftist" covers a wide variety of ideologies here in the US which are sadly underrepresented imo. For all the hee hawing about Bernie being a socialist he wasn't any more left than the Social Democrat parties you
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Honestly you start getting to "leftist" the second you get to Social Democrats in the US. "Leftist" covers a wide variety of ideologies here in the US which are sadly underrepresented imo. For all the hee hawing about Bernie being a socialist he wasn't any more left than the Social Democrat parties you see in Europe that seem to enjoy a wide swathe of support. Bernie is a social democrat, but he is actually more to the left than the European "social democrat" parties because these days those are just run-of-the-mill neoliberals. I think people who don't think Bernie would have had a chance don't really understand the game that's being played between liberals, the far-right, and working class politics. Fascists like Trump historically get support in part by parroting left-wing positions (for example the whole "party of the working class" thing), calling out the abuses and the hypocrisy of establishment liberal politics, etc. They cater to disaffected working class voters who understand that "business as usual" just means they're getting lied to and screwed over. This is a space that an actual left-wing socialist party could occupy, and without the racism, misogyny, and business-owner-worship, were it permitted to exist; but liberals are actually quite happy to have a far-righter like Trump take the place of their official opposition rather than risk their hold on power being challenged from the left at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:If you don't think there was significant evidence of illegal conduct that was swept under the rug in the interest of preserving the stability of the financial system and taking the easy to collect fines on financial firms I don't really know what to tell you. I don't think this is entirely on Obama or the Democrats but it's pretty clear the DoJ was not going to risk damaging some of the larger institutions by pursuing criminal charges. That article, which mentions some successful prosecutions and points out others that failed to obtain a conviction even though they were in front of a jury, as well as mentioning the hundreds of billions of dollars of fines obtained by civil cases and settlements, and repeating DOJ statements that there simply isn't evidence to support a criminal prosecution in many of these cases, is indeed an excellent place to start. Criminal prosecutions are for dealing with people who broke laws, and running your company into the ground isn't illegal. Look at how much trouble Obama had, despite his high approval ratings. Do you expect Sanders, a habitual outsider well to the left of basically all of Congress, is going to do better at dealing with Republicans in Congress? We need a LBJ right now, not a Carter. SurgicalOntologist posted:Leftist != liberal. Thinking of Hillary Clinton as a leftist is just a manifestation of another conservative talking point that's permeated our politics. The one where they claim anyone to the left of Nixon is a secret Marxist/socialist. Actually she's pretty leftist and holds a number of leftist positions. She's just not charismatic enough to avoid the circularfiring squad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually she's pretty leftist and holds a number of leftist positions. She's just not charismatic enough to avoid the circularfiring squad. Look I'm sorry but in the rest of the world "leftist" means an opposition to capitalism in some way or another
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yeah we realize that the Democratic Party was unwilling to support Bernie even if he got the nomination, Really? You think the Dems would throw away their chance at keeping the presidency and possibly retaking Congress if Bernie won the nomination? Really? This is straight up batshit conspiracy theory nonsense. The fact that you seemingly believe it is baffling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Look I'm sorry but in the rest of the world "leftist" means an opposition to capitalism in some way or another This thread is talking about American politics, so the rest of the world's definition doesn't matter. In America "left" and "liberal" both mean the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Look I'm sorry but in the rest of the world "leftist" means an opposition to capitalism in some way or another Hillarycare.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:In America "left" and "liberal" both mean the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This thread is talking about American politics, so the rest of the world's definition doesn't matter. In America "left" and "liberal" both mean the same thing. Except the thing is that there used to be strong and active leftist political organizations in America, and there are leftists in the US today, they just don't get a platform in the media. I'm sure you can understand why these leftists might be a bit pissed off that liberals have managed to erase their existence and claim the term for themselves, and would like to see that changed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Really? You think the Dems would throw away their chance at keeping the presidency and possibly retaking Congress if Bernie won the nomination? Really? It's about batshit conspiracy theory nonsense as the idea that Bernie Sanders couldn't accomplish anything in Washington even if he was the President because of *reasons*. Which was the post I was responding to. Context and all that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
I will say I do think there are major flaws in the "Bernie would have trounced Trump" argument. Clinton has a strong political apparatus and her team is doing a ton of work. Barring Sanders getting the Clinton team and managing them as effectively as Clinton and her leadership does, I don't think it's fair to assume or default that he'd be doing as well as Clinton. I absolutely can say that Bernie wouldn't have been able to bait Trump as hard as Clinton did because that just isn't the way he politics. Clinton is extremely good at a lot of elements of political play. I think Sanders would have won knowing what I do now but at very least not in the same way as Clinton is. I really think a lot of people should stop devaluing Clinton's actual political capabilities and treating it like she's winning by default through no effort or part of her own. You can certainly point out her flaws but in doing so you shouldn't assume a flawess campaign from Sanders either. I think Sanders has a stronger message and is more likable but Clinton is extremely good at playing the political game. You can argue if that is just overcoming her flaws in a way Sanders wouldn't have to but there's a lot of assumptions there. In general I just find it weird that people are going "Well, of course she's winning, ANYONE could win" as if Clinton's team wasn't kicking rear end on GOTV and ad production and fundraising and if she hadn't effectively won both her debates. In some ways it feels like Trump's lowered expectations are tainting Clinton too and allowing for the argument of "Well, of course SHE won, anyone could win."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:It's about batshit conspiracy theory nonsense as the idea that Bernie Sanders couldn't accomplish anything in Washington even if he was the President because of *reasons*. Which was the post I was responding to. Context and all that. There is no context where the claim that the Dems hate Bernie so much they'd give up all power isn't straight-up retarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There is no context where the claim that the Dems hate Bernie so much they'd give up all power isn't straight-up retarded. How else can you take statements like these? Main Paineframe posted:The difference is that Hillary would actually be capable of carrying out a populist and progressive platform, while a Bernie presidency would accomplish so little that the Obama years would look good by comparison. What about Bernie would set him up to "accomplish so little" as opposed to Hillary being the only candidate who even can carry out a progressive platform. It's a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:What about Bernie would set him up to "accomplish so little" as opposed to Hillary being the only candidate who even can carry out a progressive platform. It's a joke. Senator Clinton has one of the, if not the, most impressive resumes in politics, a frankly absurd amount of experience in a ton of different positions. There are extremely few candidates on any side who are more capable and experienced than she is. That includes Obama (who I voted for knowing straight-up that he is less experienced but whose messaging and ideals I preferred) and Sanders (who is experienced but not as widely so as Clinton.) Anyone who is going into the current political situation is going to have to fight for every inch. Even if we get lucky and it is a democratic wave this election that will last until about 2018. And while I love Sanders, I have less faith in his ability to work around obstructionist Republicans than I do Clinton. That isn't a flaw on Sanders part. It is that I think there are precious few Democrats in general who can do it. I'm not even sure Clinton can but I don't think it's objectionable to say that her chances of doing it are better than Sanders without making that a failure on Sanders part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's important to acknowledge and even celebrate that US passports work this way. I don't think Clinton deserves any real credit for managing to be the first non-trash (on this specific metric, possibly still trash on other metrics) Secretary of State. Acknowledging people's basic identity isn't a thing people should get praise for. Jesus Christ shut the gently caress up. Do you have ANY idea how huge this was for trans people everywhere? Their lovely state government couldn't deny who they were anymore. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-2016-transgender-rights-passport-policy-state-department-lgbt-equality-214007
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This thread is talking about American politics, so the rest of the world's definition doesn't matter. In America "left" and "liberal" both mean the same thing. Maybe if we held a poll we would discover that most Americans think Clinton is leftist, and you'd win the argument of whether Americans think Clinton is leftist, but who cares? edit: BiohazrD posted:Jesus Christ shut the gently caress up. edit2: ImpAtom posted:Senator Clinton has one of the, if not the, most impressive resumes in politics, a frankly absurd amount of experience in a ton of different positions. twodot fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:I like to call myself a descriptivist, but let's get a little prescriptivist for a bit. Let's suppose you're right and that, in America, there's broad, even overwhelming agreement that "leftist" (I'll assume you writing down "left" here is a typo and not an intentional distraction from the conversation) and "liberal" both mean the same thing. Even in that case why in the world should we accept that for the purposes of this thread? A thread that's specifically about third parties, and a thread that has a specific need to talk about people further left of the left-most major party. What's the utility of "leftist" and "liberal" meaning the same thing? We've already got the word "liberal". The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism. Someone else piped up and said "No, leftism to the rest of the world means being anti-capitalism" which I thought was irrelevant given that the thread topic is about American politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism. SSNeoman posted:She is the best, only chance to get a leftist candidate into the oval office and everyone here is acting like we're spoiled for choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:03
|
|
|
I don't see a problem with SSNeoman's statement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Yeah it's really hard not to see this kind of thing as just a desperate attempt to shut down any discussion of actual leftism as an alternative
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, are you literally saying that there are no sexist Democrats who refused to support Hillary (and therefore supported Bernie instead) because of her gender? I don't think all or even most of Bernie supporters were sexist, but I'm absolutely sure there were sexists who chose Bernie because he was a man, just like I'm sure there were racists who chose Hillary in 2008 because she was white. I stated the exact opposite. They exist, but are a small fraction of the base to the point of being irrelevant. Like "I'm voting for Hillary because she's a woman" types.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism. SSNeoman posted:She is the best, only chance to get a leftist candidate into the oval office
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Yeah it's really hard not to see this kind of thing as just a desperate attempt to shut down any discussion of actual leftism as an alternative "Actual" leftism by your definition is such a small part of the American population as to be irrelevant. That may suck, but it's true. Very few Americans would describe themselves as being anti-capitalism. twodot posted:But again, for the purposes of this thread, what is the value in using the American version of leftism, even if I concede your understanding of the American version of leftism is correct? We're not writing a document that intended for the American people here. I think, in a thread about third parties, any definition of "leftist" such that Clinton is a leftist candidate is extremely un-useful. What term do you suggest we use in this thread for what the rest of the world calls leftist? I dunno, socialist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is very good for trans people. Clinton failing to treat trans people like trash is not laudable. Like me giving a starving person food is very good for the starving person, but it's not particularly laudable, it's just a thing you should do. By this metric, nothing anyone has done ever would be considered laudable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Actual" leftism by your definition is such a small part of the American population as to be irrelevant. That may suck, but it's true. quote:I dunno, socialist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:This just seems factually wrong. She's a 1.3 term Senator and Secretary of State for four years. That's plenty of experience to be President, but I'd say any two term Governor has a similar amount of experience and more relevant experience than her. Literally no political experience or involvement on a national level before 2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Actual" leftism by your definition is such a small part of the American population as to be irrelevant. That may suck, but it's true. A majority of millennials now reject capitalism, poll shows https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:By this metric, nothing anyone has done ever would be considered laudable. I'm gonna get on the phone with Malala Yousafzai and let her know she has to return her Nobel. Because standing up for education for women isn't laudable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:A majority of millennials now reject capitalism, poll shows 50% of millennials is "very few" Americans when discussing politics and particularly voting given their turnout rate. Just because they said "Yea I hate capitalism" in a poll doesn't mean they're full on socialists. They just like Bernie, do any of them support seizing the means of production?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:50% of millennials is "very few" Americans when discussing politics and particularly voting given their turnout rate. This is a thread about third parties. Talking about demographics with low turnout rates is kind of almost the entire point
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Actual" leftism by your definition is such a small part of the American population as to be irrelevant. That may suck, but it's true. Wow you couldn't be more wrong, as usual quote:The public’s take on capitalism remains mixed, with only slightly more people saying they have a positive (50%) than a negative (40%) reaction to the term. That is largely unchanged from a 52% to 37% balance of opinion in April 2010. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Literally no political experience or involvement on a national level before 2000. BiohazrD posted:By this metric, nothing anyone has done ever would be considered laudable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The original argument was "Hillary Clinton holds leftist positions" which I find to be accurate when you consider the American version of leftism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
What do people who think that third party voters are "throwing their vote away" think of third parties themselves? Like, should third parties just pack up and go home instead of continuing to exist and thus making people throw their votes away?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is very good for trans people. Clinton failing to treat trans people like trash is not laudable. Like me giving a starving person food is very good for the starving person, but it's not particularly laudable, it's just a thing you should do. That's a weak reason to write off the passage of good policy. A mere lack of bigotry isn't worthy of praise, but fighting and suceeding in assisting people who face enough hate for it to be ingrained in one of the major party platforms is. Motto fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Oct 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What do people who think that third party voters are "throwing their vote away" think of third parties themselves. Like, should third parties just pack up and go home instead of continuing to exist and thus making people throw their votes away? I think they should be focusing on small local races, like the Socialist Alternative party did with Seattle and Kshama Sawant. Not just running a publicity campaign every 4 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:I'm gonna get on the phone with Malala Yousafzai and let her know she has to return her Nobel. Because standing up for education for women isn't laudable. Malala Yousafzai, incidentally, a leftist 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:10 |
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:What do people who think that third party voters are "throwing their vote away" think of third parties themselves? Like, should third parties just pack up and go home instead of continuing to exist and thus making people throw their votes away? Third parties should focus on getting elected to city and state level positions and Congress to build an actual party base instead of only cropping up once every four years to give "both parties are literally the same" dipshits the ability to say "don't look at me, I voted Green  "
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:19
|
|