|
Rated PG-34 posted:Whoa, that's heresy. Only America is allowed that privilege. The point, dogg, is that under a genuinely left-wing foreign policy, the US is still going to come into conflict with Russia, China, etc. in addition to conflicting with Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. It's only some sort of political realism, a fundamentally conservative-reactionary political ideology, that whining about a "second Cold War" makes any kind of sense.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't like this Roosevelt guy who keeps saying Hitler is a bad dude, some "progressive". Hahahah yeah, because the slow erosion of the executive powers is what you prefer, are you literally suggesting he would start a coup? And that the US population would go for that? To be fair America is already a soft empire. Policy doesn't give a gently caress about you or your vote. So why oppose change?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Hahahah yeah, because the slow erosion of the executive powers is what you prefer, are you literally suggesting he would start a coup? And that the US population would go for that? What are you on about? Sober up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:What are you on about? Sober up. He compared lindbergh to Trump, Trump could not pull off a coup, America is so armed that a coup wouldn't work. Hope that answers what you're looking for, if not, add effort to your posts, or you know keep cheerleadering lol idk
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Sethex posted:He is compared lindbergh to Trump, Trump could not pull off a coup. He's not talking about a coup by Lindbergh. You're not in contact with this reality yet you persist in vomiting the writhing maggots that pass for your thoughts all over everything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Democracy was largely meant to be a system to protect the majority from the powerful, now it is just about the continuation of stability? A retention of status quo? That's a bit defeatist. Presidential elections aren't where that change takes place. Like, it's not electing Kennedy/Johnson that creates the civil rights act, it's the pressure that activists put on politicians that creates it. The presidency is an elite institution, the most elite. Democracy isn't going to be felt most strongly there, democracy is felt most strongly when politicians are ideologically dragged from elite opinion where they are comfortable to something closer to the public or popular activists. The change you can make on a presidential ballot relative to elite opinion is limited, the most limited, due to qualities inherent in the system. Recognizing that is not defeatism, because a radical activist agenda failing to be elected is not defeat - it's the starting point, until those views are no longer radical, and a new goal is set. Periodiko fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Democracy was largely meant to be a system to protect the majority from the powerful, now it is just about the continuation of stability? A retention of status quo? That's a bit defeatist. Democracy is clearly overrated, too many people are willing to vote for a donald trump. But good news! Now the GOP will fracture into two actual, different parties, and the new one will take 20-30% of all the babbling crazies, people unworthy of democracy, with it. Then relatively sane people can run the country, without their input.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:Presidential elections aren't where that change takes place. Like, it's not electing Kennedy/Johnson that creates the civil rights act, it's the pressure that activists put on politicians that creates it. The presidency is an elite institution, the most elite. Democracy isn't going to be felt most strongly there, democracy is felt most strongly when politicians are ideologically dragged from elite opinion where they are comfortable to something closer to the public or popular activists. The change you can make on a presidential ballot relative to elite opinion is limited, the most limited, due to qualities inherent in the system. Sounds a lot like 2005 Adbuster, Hillary is elite opinion in the worst possible way, she will likely keep people comfortable enough to continue the slow destruction of civil rights an the continued path that projects the present system. As it stands the president can execute citizens without judicial oversight, what exactly are you saving here? America is a loving mess and you're option is to support the factions that made it this way, that to me seems like good mass politik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUiqaFIONPQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Sounds a lot like 2005 Adbuster, I was joking about the xanax earlier, but uhhh Please take your medication, friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Sounds a lot like 2005 Adbuster, Trump would just make things far, far worse, though. And there is no rational reason to believe that he'll 'shake things up" in a way that will cause any positive changes in the future. Accelerationism is dumb. Even on the off-chance that Trump triggers some long slide into fascism that ultimately somehow results in a better country (which is unlikely to begin with), it woud take a very long time and countless people would suffer in the process (which is why people criticize accelerationism proponents as usually being privileged white males who are unlikely to face the downsides to such a future).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:And there is no rational reason to believe that he'll 'shake things up" in a way that will cause any positive changes in the future. Accelerationism is dumb. Even on the off-chance that Trump triggers some long slide into fascism that ultimately somehow results in a better country (which is unlikely to begin with), it woud take a very long time and countless people would suffer in the process (which is why people criticize accelerationism proponents as usually being privileged white males who are unlikely to face the downsides to such a future). Except that's how reform worked in the past, ie the outcome of Watergate. The strain from the depression led to the new deal. The Cuban missile crisis led to a cooling of the cold war. trump would be in for 4 years, the demographics of America will continue to change until the Republican party as it is now is unviable. giving trump to the Republican legacy will be a gift to the left of the future, especially as America becomes more diverse. That said hillary is actually dangerous, her policies of interventionism are terrible an imposing no fly regions over areas like Syria as she's suggested could start a war. An the cold war America has already lost most of its important restrictions on the executive branch. The president can declare war without congressional approval and kill it's citizens without judicial oversight, you've already sort of lost in the long run. The status quo you've decided is best is already on a path that will continue to destroy the middle class an leave America an even more undemocratic plutocracy. But i get that you're afraid. Sethex fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Sethex posted:trump would be in for 4 years, the demographics of America will continue to change until the Republican party as it is now is unviable. giving trump to the Republican legacy will be a gift to the left of the future, especially as America becomes more diverse. We have 8 Supreme Court Justices right now, you loving moron. "He'd only get 4 years" is a terrible argument when we finally have the chance to have a liberal Supreme Court for the first time in decades. It's moot arguing with you anyway, since it's clear at this point that Trump will lose, but holy gently caress is accelerationism the most bullshit of ideologies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We have 8 Supreme Court Justices right now, you loving moron. "He'd only get 4 years" is a terrible argument when we finally have the chance to have a liberal Supreme Court for the first time in decades.  if you think that position will ever be filled. We're stuck with Scalia's ghost for eternity. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:We have 8 Supreme Court Justices right now, you loving moron. "He'd only get 4 years" is a terrible argument when we finally have the chance to have a liberal Supreme Court for the first time in decades. So what do you think that will change with Hillary ' s choice for supreme court, assuming the Republican Congress goes along with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Sethex posted:So what do you think that will change with Hillary ' s choice for supreme court, assuming the Republican Congress goes along with it. Challenges on labor laws and social protections that could really overturn some bad legislature that is enshrined on the state level? Supreme court rulings got us outcomes like Roe vs. Wade protecting choice in women's rights and overturning anti-miscegenation laws in Loving vs. Virginia. Congress can suck it if the proper legal challenge can overturn some lovely state legislature.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Sethex posted:So what do you think that will change with Hillary ' s choice for supreme court, assuming the Republican Congress goes along with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Democrats have a 70% chance of retaking the Senate according to multiple poll aggregators and they will nuke the filibuster if Republicans try to obstruct nominations for four years so it's likely a waste of time to spitball ways that Hillary could convince the Supreme Court to ignore the constitution. On the other hand this is the third party voting thread so "waste of time" is clearly not an obstacle to contemplating anything here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Except that's how reform worked in the past, ie the outcome of Watergate. Yes, you can cherry pick examples, but the vast majority of times countries have ended up with terrible right-wing authoritarian leaders, it hasn't somehow lead to the country becoming a left-wing paradise afterwards. It usually just causes a bunch of suffering with no benefits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
I think we should give accelerationists exactly what they want and accelerate them down a flight of stairs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
Why do third-party voters take such a sceptical view of Hitlery KKKlinton and democrat progressive credentials but implicitly accept that La Riva, Stein, and co would somehow not be corrupt or misleading if they stood an outside chance Joke parties can espouse radical progressive and leftist positions because they know they will have no chance and face no scrutiny- irl ideological perfection needs to consider things like "popular support" and "money is necessary" Ain't great but small change is better than none And lol at any "progressive" who wants to let Russia run rampant
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I didn't think that my vote in CO for Stein was a vote for an incorruptible goddess, she is just closer to what I believe than anyone else so I voted for her (nuclear, vaccine, and GMO stances notwithstanding)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
call to action posted:(nuclear, vaccine, and GMO stances notwithstanding) So the important ones, then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So the important ones, then. A voter for Jill Stein doesn't actually care about these things unless they are trying to convince other people that their vote for her actually took these things into account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
I'd personally be OK with a world where we fight fewer pointless wars and GMO food is labelled (even though it clearly doesn't need to be) Like, being anti-nuclear is also bad, but I'd be OK with less nuclear power if it meant fewer drone bombed weddings You being an idiot apparently thought these were things I thought were positive, so I don't expect too much deep thinking in response
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
"Well the global warming has killed all but us handful of survivors, but at least nobody died because of drone strikes!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Can you cite Clinton's pro-nuclear position please
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
call to action posted:Can you cite Clinton's pro-nuclear position please I, too, have difficulty in this day and age finding out the policy positions of the most vetted presidential candidate in our lifetimes who is also a ginormous policy-wonk. Please send help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Except that's how reform worked in the past, ie the outcome of Watergate. Your understanding of the flow of political events is garbled at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I, too, have difficulty in this day and age finding out the policy positions of the most vetted presidential candidate in our lifetimes who is also a ginormous policy-wonk. Please send help. I couldn't find anything about her recent pro-nuclear positions. Again, if it exists, feel free to link it. Or keep whining, whichever. (I get it, you confused being pro-nuclear with having a climate change policy, it's OK to admit when you're wrong)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Just type in "Hillary pro nuclear power" and you'll find plenty of articles. Do you need me to generate a Let Me Google That For You link?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
More importantly, what and how would Jill Stein change for the better that Killary wouldn't, given things like "congress exists", "things cost money", and "syria is being bombed a lot regardless of anything the US does, and mostly in areas that don't even boast a plurality of ISIS casualties"
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
call to action posted:Like, being anti-nuclear is also bad, but I'd be OK with less nuclear power if it meant fewer drone bombed weddings What the gently caress does this sentence mean? What the hell does the US nuclear policy, on nuclear power at that, have to do with drone bombings?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
quote:CLEVELAND—Noting how important it is for him to find a campaign that stirs genuine optimism and enthusiasm in its supporters, sources confirmed Tuesday that precious little voter Adam Higgins needs to feel inspired by a candidate. “To be perfectly honest, I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone I’m not excited about,” said the delicate little flower, who simply has to experience an authentic and personal connection to a candidate and believe in his wittle-bitty heart that the candidate’s message will legitimately move the country forward in meaningful and significant ways. “Policies and experience are certainly important, but a candidate has to have a vision I truly believe in. I’m only going to cast a ballot for someone who actually provides real hope for the future of this country [because I need to feel all snuggly-wuggly and special].” Sources further confirmed the fragile, dainty buttercup feels he absolutely must vote for someone who is trustworthy and competent. The way to effect main-party candidates is during the primary process. If you live in a battleground state and you don't vote for Hillary, by definition you have helped to elect Trump. If you want to feel special by casting your protest vote elsewhere, be my guest. Just remember that this election is a choice between two possible executives, and your vote will do nothing whatsoever to change that. There's also the fact that Johnson and Stein are either legitimately stupid or cater to stupid people purposefully. If you'd like a full takedown, look on the internet but their opinions are pretty much poo poo. If you're a leftist, Bernie was your man. And honestly I think a vote for Bernie DID serve your cause in the primary. However, he lost, endorsed Hillary, and because of his successes Hillary felt politically safer to move to the left. And honestly, to Bernie voters, I think Hillary will surprise you. She's not a revolutionary but she will go left if politics allows. In any case, the whole Bernie thing is a primary example of how you can accomplish change. Voting for a third party is more masturbatory than masturbation and more useless than a soggy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Yeah, like, Bernie made it clear that progressives have a place in the Democratic party can be heard, which is a big deal even if the party didn't reinvent itself overnight because of him. If you have leftist positions, joining the Democrats and continuing to pressure them to move left is the best way to advance them. (Until the Republican party dies and the Democrats split in two, but that's at least a decade or two away probably.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:"Well the global warming has killed all but us handful of survivors, but at least nobody died because of drone strikes!" Moral superiority requires sacrifices. Roland Jones posted:Yeah, like, Bernie made it clear that progressives have a place in the Democratic party can be heard, which is a big deal even if the party didn't reinvent itself overnight because of him. If you have leftist positions, joining the Democrats and continuing to pressure them to move left is the best way to advance them. (Until the Republican party dies and the Democrats split in two, but that's at least a decade or two away probably.) The Democrats have been, for a long time, a "place for progressives", but much like any other party there are people with very specific requirements on what it actually MEANS to be progressive or conservative or Hitler, and meeting/failing to meet these requirements results in upturned noses and 'protest votes', maybe lengthy congratulatory back-patting sessions. Like, there ARE things that I wanted out of a Sanders presidency that he could have promised outright, but the reality is he would have had to deal with the rest of the government that existed alongside of him. Promises are one thing, but reality is reality, and the sooner that any "progressive" or "conservative" learns to cope with political reality, the better off everyone will be. I doubt the Republicans will be able to do so any time soon, though. fivegears4reverse fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Oct 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:What the gently caress does this sentence mean? What the hell does the US nuclear policy, on nuclear power at that, have to do with drone bombings? It's not that hard, he's trading one for the other. The US unilaterally pulls out of the Middle East, so anything that happens afterwards isn't our fault. Meanwhile an unworkable energy policy dooms us to global warming. Everybody wins!
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:It's not that hard, he's trading one for the other. ah a crypto-accelerationist. I get it now. Thanx for the back-up, dude 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Play posted:She's not a revolutionary but she will go left if politics allows. In any case, the whole Bernie thing is a primary example of how you can accomplish change. Voting for a third party is more masturbatory than masturbation and more useless than a soggy poo poo. What are the progressive shifts she's made specifically?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 12:02
|
|
|
fivegears4reverse posted:Moral superiority requires sacrifices. It also requires being, you know, morally superior, which neither of the major third parties are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:It also requires being, you know, morally superior, which neither of the major third parties are. That doesn't matter to the people who are voting for them, they believe the act alone makes them above it all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 17:12
|
|