|
thechosenone posted:And also Hillary. I don't hate obama , just wish he hadn't focused on mccain. Would have been cool to have vice-president Hillary, but I can understand not having your running mate be your former opponent. This is how stupid your line of reasoning is, FYI.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
stone cold posted:This is how stupid your line of reasoning is, FYI. But Obama didn't focus on miccain? Honestly people focused more on that alaskan person who shot a moose who ran as his vp. I actually can't remember her name (miraculously enough), and I'm not going to give her the dignity of looking her up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
stone cold posted:This is how stupid your line of reasoning is, FYI. this is what happened tho? Obama had a message other than McCain is a lunatic unfit to president and won
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:But Obama didn't focus on miccain? Honestly people focused more on that alaskan person who shot a moose who ran as his vp. I actually can't remember her name, and I'm not going to give her the dignity of looking her up. The point, that you're comically missing, is that presidential candidates do not typically pick their rivals as their running mates, which I guess is hard to understand when you're a literal sea sponge. Now I know you've just reassembled yourself, after going through the blender, but maybe you can just try real hard to comprehend that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:this is what happened tho? Obama had a message other than McCain is a lunatic unfit to president and won Hillary: had zero messaging beyond boy that trump guy sure is nuts, huh? It's almost like the media didn't cover anything she did beyond emails?!, hmmm 🤔 But Bernie would've won, yeah, whatever 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
her message's focal point was trump tho. Every single ad I saw was about trump, the debates were about trump and the stump speeches, while policy heavy, also included a good helping of trump
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:this is what happened tho? Obama had a message other than McCain is a lunatic unfit to president and won Because he wasn't. But again, thats a substantively different arguement from "she didnt run on a platform if leftist ideas, and thats why she lost!" She lost because they made a decision to make the race about his basic fitness to hold office. People decided they didn't care because he promised them racist puppies and rainbows, but again immaterial to the DNC chair race.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:her message's focal point was trump tho. Every single ad I saw was about trump, the debates were about trump and the stump speeches, while policy heavy, also included a good helping of trump Thank you for your anecdotal jerking-off, now what does this have to do with the DNC chair race, like at all? How do you feel about Ellison or Perez?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Thank you for your anecdotal jerking-off, now what does this have to do with the DNC chair race, like at all? sorry your analogy was terribly flawed I guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:sorry your analogy was terribly flawed I guess "sorry that in my big ol smart boy brain, the only evidence that matters is my own anecdotal life experience, not facts. also, Bernie should've been vp, because i'm not a moron, i'm a very smart boy. also I have zero opinions on the dnc election, and i'm just here to faaaaaaaart"
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
It is pretty funny how the three relevant candidates in the DNC race are all people on the left of the party, which sorta contradicts this idea that we're all doomed and the Democrats are solid like a rock on being the Devil Triangulator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Because he wasn't. nope this apparently never happened I guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It is pretty funny how the three relevant candidates in the DNC race are all people on the left of the party, which sorta contradicts this idea that we're all doomed and the Democrats are solid like a rock on being the Devil Triangulator. It's almost like, bernouts are complete morons who don't know the first thing about party politics? Like, I don't get this triangulation narrative from them. It would make sense if we were in the nineties? I dunno. I'm pretty hype for Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:That's also not true. The email poo poo was out of her control dude. Like it was being driven by outside factors. No amount of "but I want to give you free child care" was going to make BUT HER EMAILS go away. Her only hope of dodging those types of useless slander would be to focus on a platform of systemic change. People know the current system exists more and more for the benefit of the international capitalist elite at the cost of a diminishing middle class, some small reformist measures on the welfare state aint gonna cut it and people know this. That's why some of the less idiotic people who were offended by disguting remarks of Trump ignored them for his incongruous promisse os systemic change. People wanted and still want populism REALLY BAD because they understand that the moderate center exists mostly because of their corporate overlords, and it is effectively dead as a platform for the common guy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, the point I made does not require voting to be zero sum... (goes on to elaborate a point which implicitly relies upon an assumption of zero-sum) I also think you implicitly assume that the politically disengaged necessarily start from a point of neutrality (i.e. centrism) once they become politically aware and active. I do not. I enter as evidence the leftist tilt of most policy polls which poll all Americans, compared to the present-day voting electorate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Fados posted:Her only hope of dodging those types of useless slander would be to focus on a platform of systemic change. People know the current system exists more and more for the benefit of the international capitalist elite at the cost of a diminishing middle class, some small reformist measures on the welfare state aint gonna cut it and people know this. The use of phrases like "populism" and "middle class" in conjunction with "international capitalist elite" suggests that a socialist platform would not be welcomed by these supposed socialists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The use of phrases like "populism" and "middle class" in conjunction with "international capitalist elite" suggests that a socialist platform would not be welcomed by these supposed socialists. Who said international capitalism elite? One that's a mouthful. Secondly financier lets people decide who the evil they want to get rid of is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Who said international capitalism elite? One that's a mouthful. Secondly financier lets people decide who the evil they want to get rid of is. Fados posted:Her only hope of dodging those types of useless slander would be to focus on a platform of systemic change. People know the current system exists more and more for the benefit of the international capitalist elite at the cost of a diminishing middle class, some small reformist measures on the welfare state aint gonna cut it and people know this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It is pretty funny how the three relevant candidates in the DNC race are all people on the left of the party, which sorta contradicts this idea that we're all doomed and the Democrats are solid like a rock on being the Devil Triangulator. I assume the third is Buttigieg, and he is relevant by virtue of A) going on some shows and B) having a funny name. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Yeah well he should not financiers works better. No need to explain yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I assume the third is Buttigieg, and he is relevant by virtue of A) going on some shows and B) having a funny name. People are still talking about him more than the, uh, the New Hampshire guy who dropped out. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah well he should not financiers works better. No need to explain yourself. This is a pretty good example of why the Crowsbeak Voter would reject actual socialism, since instead of attacking people who work in banks and in the entertainment industry it would emphasize class relationships and the ownership of capital.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Wait, the New Hampshire party head dropped out? Was it cause of Ellisson backroom dealing? Or did he simply realise it's cause he had Buckleys?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Wait you think voters like Banks? Hey Fulchrum ever going to explain how you have a better vision or how the referendums that were pro worker and anti coruption actually were not?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
You mean the ones Republican lawmakers gutted and suffered no consequences for whatsoever, rather than wasting any time trying to fight them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Wait, the New Hampshire party head dropped out? Was it cause of Ellisson backroom dealing? Or did he simply realise it's cause he had Buckleys? He dropped and endorsed Ellison, so 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean the ones Republican lawmakers gutted and suffered no consequences for whatsoever, rather than wasting any time trying to fight them? Which pissed off alot of the their constituents? I mean yeah it means the dems then need to work to turn that anger into flipping that legislator. But to pretend that the GOP overiding the will of the people actually means that no change ever can be accomplished shows an extreme hatered of even attempting change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
I'm just discussing it from the attitude displayed not the actual outcome. They didn't even bother with the job creators class warfare horseshit, they just directly overrode the voters and figured they wouldn't see any repercussions. Whether that's true or not, the point was that they didn't bother to use the talking points to suppress these initiatives so I don't see what's it's proving other than the only way to get these passed in red states is for Republicans to do nothing to try and rework the messaging on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'm just discussing it from the attitude displayed not the actual outcome. They didn't even bother with the job creators class warfare horseshit, they just directly overrode the voters and figured they wouldn't see any repercussions. Whether that's true or not, the point was that they didn't bother to use the talking points to suppress these initiatives so I don't see what's it's proving other than the only way to get these passed in red states is for Republicans to do nothing to try and rework the messaging on it. The messaging worked. It means you get the people to dump their legislators. You know rather then doing nothing and just throwing up your hands and saying that republicans are just too good at everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that social issues are the way Dems get elected in order to get economic issues passed, since that's the area that Republicans lose messaging wars, and the people saying Dems need to dump identity politics to try and capitalise on all the no really it's totally there love America has for higher taxes and more regulation are idiots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What I'm saying is that social issues are the way Dems get elected in order to get economic issues passed, since that's the area that Republicans lose messaging wars, and the people saying Dems need to dump identity politics to try and capitalise on all the no really it's totally there love America has for higher taxes and more regulation are idiots. Also if my side are idiots than why is it pro worker stuff passes in red states? Why is it that I see my conservative family member not share poo poo about job killing regs but about bathrooms and some anceint baker who got fined in Washington State or some poo poo like that? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What I'm saying is that social issues are the way Dems get elected in order to get economic issues passed, since that's the area that Republicans lose messaging wars, and the people saying Dems need to dump identity politics to try and capitalise on all the no really it's totally there love America has for higher taxes and more regulation are idiots. Do you have data to support that idea? I ask because all the polls I can find say otherwise. Here's an oppo research poll from a republican PAC. The majority of Democrats explicitly support socialism in general and socialized healthcare specifically. Here's a YouGov poll. Majority of Dems under 30 support socialism over capitalism, and in aggregate it's 50/50. Here's another YouGov, this time commissioned by the SCARE QUOTES "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation". Two thirds agree with generalized "marxist philosophy" statements. 4 in 10 call for complete change of economic system to correct income imbalance. That poor foundation must be making GBS threads its made-in-thailand pants. Democrats need to stand up and say "Capitalism is broken and not in your favor. We plan to fix it." It is no longer a controversial statement. In fact, it's exactly what the Republicans are saying, except they're holding a pistol behind their back when they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Wait you think voters like Banks? Well, if voters just want to exterminate the cosmopolitan effete bankers and actors, then they don't want socialism and would probably react badly to socialist ideas that suggest it's not about punishing Otherized people but about the material factors of economic production. Dr. Fishopolis posted:Do you have data to support that idea? I ask because all the polls I can find say otherwise. Wait, if voters support socialism why wouldn't we push for socialism? Like, you seem to recognize that those polls don't definitively prove support for socialism because you're endorsing "fixing capitalism" and reforming it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Do you have data to support that idea? I ask because all the polls I can find say otherwise. I for one appreciate your impulse to ground your strategy in some kind of data, regardless of its quality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
There's a big difference between the popularity of general ideas vs the popularity of specific policies, and the Clinton campaign should have taught us a thing or two about overreliance on polls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, if voters just want to exterminate the cosmopolitan effete bankers and actors, then they don't want socialism and would probably react badly to socialist ideas that suggest it's not about punishing Otherized people but about the material factors of economic production. They want to punish those they see as having caused many to lose their homes. They could care less about said bankers temperament. Whether the bankers pal around with duck commander or if they pal around in 500 dollar restaurants that serve squid risoto the people want a feeling of satisfaction.People like the idea that those they see as crooks be made to fear. I suggest that be delivered upon. Best of all this can be part of a greater plan of socialism. It helps that people like enemies and what better enemy than the people who actually are the enemy? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's a big difference between the popularity of general ideas vs the popularity of specific policies, and the Clinton campaign should have taught us a thing or two about overreliance on polls.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
One kind of important point regarding people who talk about the need for compromise: It's true that compromise is important, but the people who need to make such compromises are politicians, not voters. There is literally nothing to be gained from a voter saying "I think a $12 minimum wage is good because $15 might not be politically pragmatic." There is no reason not to advocate for a $15 minimum wage so that you contribute to overall support for it, and then politicians can start from that position and compromise if necessary. Basically the fundamental dumb thing about people with such viewpoints is that they talk about there not being enough support for (insert more left-wing policy) while simultaneously not contributing any support (or, at best, just contributing tepid "well maybe in a perfect world it'd be good" support) towards those policies. There is nothing wrong with advocating for something that might not currently be politically viable. As a voter - not a politician - the best thing you can do is act as a data point pushing things in the direction you want them to go. It is not your role to compromise with the right. If compromise is necessary, that is something for politicians to do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:One kind of important point regarding people who talk about the need for compromise: It's true that compromise is important, but the people who need to make such compromises are politicians, not voters. There is literally nothing to be gained from a voter saying "I think a $12 minimum wage is good because $15 might not be politically pragmatic." There is no reason not to advocate for a $15 minimum wage so that you contribute to overall support for it, and then politicians can start from that position and compromise if necessary. Exactly this. And I think a big part contributing to this sort of perspective is media reporting on "the polls indicate" and "the Democrats' strategy is" and whatnot. It only serves to reinforce the sort of Very Serious Person who eats that up and concludes that they need to share their politicians' positions for maximum success. It's self-undermining. Push for full socialism now. If your representatives don't do a good enough job of fulfilling your expectations, replace them. Don't pre-emptively own yourself by going "Well, maybe not, we can settle for less," that just leads to a feedback loop where you end up running shrieking towards the center while President Trump institutes labor camps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
I was going to post this in the effective leftism thread but the current conversation seems less relevant to the things I wanted to ask about, which happened to be brought up in this thread. This post is definitely a few pages late. Im not politically active. The most active thing I've done is donate money to the Bernie campaign in 2015(?)-2016, which was about the time I started actually following politics because the whole Bernie thing was very exciting. I live in a overwhelmingly liberal college town, but I grew up in Central California which D&D seems to know a lot about. In the few years i've been in this town, I briefly forgot how the rest of the country thinks and feels about things. So when Trump won, it was a pretty shocking reminder about how the rest of the country votes. My little idealist reality bubble got popped. I'm combating a lot of apathy towards voting right now, and it's really tempting to fall into the "lol nothing matters" mentality because it certainly feels that way. But as a LGBT hispanic, I feel like I have more to lose, so I don't think I have the pleasure of joining the doomsayers (which seem to be in a more privileged demographic than I). A few pages back, there were discussions about replacing apathy with activism. It felt like a breath of fresh air after coming from C-SPAMs doom-and-gloom death camps style posting. Then there were other discussions about actually engaging with Trump voters with constructive conversations.Now that the election shock is over, Im curious about how I can effectively vote and have a conversation with "the other side". Is it worth attempting to try? It seems this thread is split on the answer. It seems not attempting at all is simply giving up. But where do you begin? As tempting as it is for me to generalize Trump voters as irredeemable bigots, or conversely uneducated children unable of logical reasoning, both generalizations seem wrong. And I know theres a rational way of presenting an argument (which some people in my college town seem incapable of doing, unfortunately). I feel that sitting down and having a discussion with those willing can have a beneficial effect. As far as the "full communism NOW" option, how do demands without compromise work in America? I had the idea that politics is more about incremental change rather than sweeping changes overnight. But then it seems like Trump won on this "100 or nothing" zeal, which might give the Left some motivation to do the same, now that they saw it work for the opposite party. What about the idea that, if you go too extreme on one end of the spectrum, you risk leaving out moderates? Does the left benefit from having more bernielikes then, if Hillary was seen as too status-quo? Does Bernie's far-left stances work better in general, even if he lost the primaries? Sorry for the barrage of random ideas. But I feel like the Trump victory made me realize how little I understand centrist/moderate and conservative voters outside of my hugbox college town and my incredibly racist hometown. Again, sorry for the wall of politics 101. buglord fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
buglord posted:Then there were other discussions about actually engaging with Trump voters with constructive conversations.Now that the election shock is over, Im curious about how I can effectively vote and have a conversation with "the other side". Is it worth attempting to try? I'll leave your other questions to others, but as someone who lives in a conservative district of Wisconsin, I can tell you that I meet a lot of people with conservative pro-Trump views, and even the young liberals around here will randomly say poo poo like "but what about black people being racist against white people?" in the midst of political discussion, and I think it's all down to how much patience you have. I'll talk about politics and history all loving day to anyone who will listen, so I don't mind talking to Trump supporters and arguing with them. But I generally can tell at the outset of meeting somebody and hearing their opinions whether they're nice people awash in privilege or actively malicious and how much effort to devote to dealing with them. If you're not the type who is good at debating things in person, coming up with arguments on the fly, remembering facts and stats, etc., then it may not be worth your time. But don't burn out on fighting with people who are clearly just assholes. As to the internet? gently caress 'em. Trump supporters on the internet that you don't know personally aren't worth your time and can go gently caress off and die.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 07:38
|
|
