|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The system that makes the demographic that works hardest yet has the least capital must not be directly addressed because economic justice is social justice. And of course increasing the minimum wage wouldn't contribute for reasons (reasons being they simultaneously work and don't work) Also I guess gently caress them if they're natives who want drinkable water.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Did you give a poo poo about ODs in the 90s? Did you not? Seems like reforming drug policy has been a pretty strong plank of the left for as long as I can remember
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:Did you give a poo poo about ODs in the 90s? did you give a poo poo about poor people on welfare then
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:People don't think $15/hour will solve everything, but it would help a fuckload of poor people, so let's do it and then we can work on the next thing to help more people. Sorry, but the democrats aren't interested in pragmatic compromise. It's 100% purity or bust.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
The True Pragmatists actually think 15$ is too salty for them and would rather poo poo like 9 bucks in Baltimore and maybe 12 in the Bronx.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Did you not? Seems like reforming drug policy has been a pretty strong plank of the left for as long as I can remember Fiction posted:did you give a poo poo about poor people on welfare then
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:The demographic being effected by the ODs has changed whether that reform has been punishment or treatment based. By who? Ronald Reagan? You realize not all white people are Ronald Reagan, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Did you not? Seems like reforming drug policy has been a pretty strong plank of the left for as long as I can remember Eh...yes and no...Legalizing pot has been a strong plank...The rest of the ball of nastiness most middle to well heeled whites will just start whistling and trying to look innocent. Not for nothing, but I've watched this OD issue play out along the race lines twice now. Back in the 90's, the central Florida area had a horrible problem with heroin and opiates, to the point where it was running neck and neck with Los Angeles as being the heroin death capital of the US. This wasn't a problem when runaways and other undesirables (mostly latino) were dying from the poo poo...until some very high profile white kids from the better part of town started having problems with both heroin and other opioid derivatives. I think it was 1996 or 1995, can't remember, when a kid that was either valedictorian or salutatorian of one of the great area high schools died while speedballing in a motel in the area known for teens throwing parties. Then, all of a sudden, it was a problem. Then, along with a few more...all of a sudden...the Orlando Sentinel is running the portrait parade of all the dead white kids that succumbed to the scourge of heroin. Then, all of a sudden, the state and local government took steps to set up a treatment system, which turned out quite good, i might add. You guys can continue arguing about this stuff, but there's a pretty strong case to be made that it doesn't matter until it starts directly hurting white people in good enough numbers. It's also not really that surprising that a lot of people of color are really sore right now with white people on the left...because for most of them this poo poo isn't surprising..it's Tuesday. TyroneGoldstein fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Eh...yes and no...Legalizing pot has been a strong plank...The rest of the ball of nastiness most middle to well heeled whites will just start whistling and trying to look innocent. This is a real good post with a lot of real good points, though I don't think it absolves Submarine of his idiocy of acting like anything that doesn't ONLY help minorities doesn't help them at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:You guys can continue arguing about this stuff, but there's a pretty strong case to be made that it doesn't matter until it starts directly hurting white people in good enough numbers. To who? Nobody here is trying to make excuses for the establishment's handling of drug policy over the past 20 years. Again, not all white people are Nancy Reagan and there are plenty of us that have opposed drug laws since the 90s Nobody is denying there was a racial component to drug policy over the past fifty years but I don't really see how that's relevant when it comes to calling leftist posters "bernouts" because they weren't fighting against heroin overdoses 20 years ago. Raising the minimum wage (or any other economic justice for that matter) is not about helping the white man continue to subjugate the black man. Economic justice goes hand in hand with social justice and trying to do either without the other is pointless. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left seems to have been pretty consistently opposed to the drug war for as long as I can recall. I don't see how the failure of society in general to give two shits about problems until white people start to suffer is something that should be put at the feet of the left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Eh...yes and no...Legalizing pot has been a strong plank...The rest of the ball of nastiness most middle to well heeled whites will just start whistling and trying to look innocent. This is generally a good post but "middle to well heeled" doesn't really describe the left. It does describe a fairly comfortable portion of liberal whites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Eh...yes and no...Legalizing pot has been a strong plank...The rest of the ball of nastiness most middle to well heeled whites will just start whistling and trying to look innocent. Which part of the left had power to do anything about this though? I've been for addiction treatment instead of criminalization for a long long time, but it's never been "possible" for the dem party. I'd like the dems to actually pursue policy like this though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
It's not really a shock at all that people only start caring about things when it happens to someone close to them or someone in their social circle. Until then the brain pushes uncomfortable thoughts, like people dying of overdoses, as out of sight out of mind. "It can't happen to me/my loved ones and it happened to that person because x,y,z. This isn't a white people thing, this is a basic human psychology thing, "just-world" and things like that is a primary driver in how most people view the world. I've noticed that how people on the left view racism and how it manifests tends to be very much at odds with how social scientists and academics understand it lately. While they were much more aligned 10 years ago, there's been a strong push among activists to take the 'twirling mustache evil-person' point of view and that's simply not how things actually work in the real world. Probably because nuance has also fallen out of style.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Correct me if I'm wrong, but the left seems to have been pretty consistently opposed to the drug war for as long as I can recall. I don't see how the failure of society in general to give two shits about problems until white people start to suffer is something that should be put at the feet of the left. Sure, probably but being anti-drug was an extremely fringe position during the height of the crack epidemic in the 90's. The actual left at that point was pretty much just a sliver though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:This is only true if you tautologically define leftism as being against the drug war really. At any rate most posters here were too young to actually remember it but being anti-drug was an extremely fringe position during the height of the crack epidemic in the 90's. To be fair, I imagine, like myself, most of us were in our late teens and early 20s and fringe positions are pretty popular for that age group. There are also probably a shitload of people here who opposed (the response to)9/11 even though that was also a fringe position 15 years ago. vvv you bastard NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:To be fair, I imagine, like myself, most of us were in our late teens and early 20s and fringe positions are pretty popular for that age group. There are also probably a shitload of people here who opposed 9/11 even though that was also a fringe position 15 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
axeil posted:I believe JC is referring to how people throw around terms like ~*neo-liberal*~ ~*centrist*~ ~*DLC*~ and *~third wayism*~ as a boogyman for anyone who doesn't believe in Full Communism Now in this forum. Most people here aren't actually pushing for Full Communism Now, at least in the immediate term. Also "DLC" probably should be a dirty word, even for centrists, because holy poo poo they were terrible, how are you not clear on that by now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
honestly, strategy for 2020:
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:No, alleviating the suffering of PoC is what the democrats should be working towards. No one here disagrees with you. quote:White people already have the system so heavily stacked in their favor that if they're unable to use the resources that have been explicitly given to them and withheld from others for relocation/retraining and a bias in the private sector charity, they can indeed go gently caress themselves. Shame on you. This is a disgusting thing to say, when this type of poverty exists in the U.S. e: Submarine Sandpaper posted:The system that makes the demographic that works hardest yet has the least capital must not be directly addressed No one is arguing this, either. Stop it. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
I think the real question is "does plasma give more value to society than selling derivatives" and the answer is "no"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Depending on the time frame you are looking at different people took different positions and are included in different communities. In the 90s, many black and other minority leaders favored an aggressive drug war (embodied in the Clinton crime bill) since drug crime was affecting their communities disproportionately. It took some time for it to become clear to many of these national leaders that the cure was worse than the disease. That's an accountability issue for those communities and those leaders, and it forces the rest of us to consider sharpening the historical distinction between liberals and leftists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Depending on the time frame you are looking at different people took different positions and are included in different communities. In the 90s, many black and other minority leaders favored an aggressive drug war (embodied in the Clinton crime bill) since drug crime was affecting their communities disproportionately. It took some time for it to become clear to many of these national leaders that the cure was worse than the disease. That's an accountability issue for those communities and those leaders, and it forces the rest of us to consider sharpening the historical distinction between liberals and leftists. Plus if you're president or otherwise in a position in authority, and your crime bill/drug bill/whatever is causing more misery than it's solving, it's your responsibility to renounce it and halt enforcement of it. It was kind of good that Bill Clinton renounced it, but he did so years after he was out of office. Hillary Clinton's renunciation of it was totally mealy-mouthed and couldn't have felt like less of an apology.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You know the New Democrats and Third Wayism (which was larger than the Clinton's, they just gave it a local flavour) are actually coherent political philosophies, and pushed as such, and pushed by a rather clear central circle of individuals. Yes I am aware that third way democrats have a set of policy preferences. The point that you cut off is in bold. JeffersonClay posted:Third way Clintonism, whatever that might mean, does not proscribe how campaigns should be run. If the goal is to get third way democrats to realize their policies are responsible for Democrats losing elections, focusing on the disfunction of Hillary's campaign is counterproductive, because third way democrats don't advocate running inept campaigns. If the objection to the focus on Russian interference is that centrist democrats will blame Russia for the loss and not centrist policy, it seems like that objection is equally applicable to focusing on the incompetence of the Clinton campaign. centrists will blame her lovely campaign apparatus instead of the centrist policies the left thinks are ultimately responsible for the democratic party's decline. I dont understand how people can view the Russia investigation as a distraction while simultaneously gleefully discussing Hillary's campaign's non-policy failings. Both have the effect of exonerating centrist policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes I am aware that third way democrats have a set of policy preferences. The point that you cut off is in bold. Bullshit. Campaigns aren't lost just because of one thing. 2016's failure had many causes. Part of it was the Democrats' inability to loudly and proudly espouse economic populism; part of it was the Clinton campaign's incompetence; part of it was the cyclical nature of two-term presidents' parties being at a disadvantage; and part of it genuinely was racial resentment among white people, although again, this ties in closely with economic anxiety.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If the goal is to get third way democrats to realize their policies are responsible for Democrats losing elections, focusing on the disfunction of Hillary's campaign is counterproductive, because third way democrats don't advocate running inept campaigns. Sure they do, u advocated for HRCs campaign for the past 2 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
I don't disagree with you. We could add Russian interference to that list, too. But some people think Russian interference is a distraction from the failures of centrist policy, and it seems like those people should think the same thing about the competence of Hillary's campaign. both issues allow the defenders of centrist policy to deflect blame, either by blaming putin or Mook instead of third way policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:But some people think Russian interference is a distraction from the failures of centrist policy, and it seems like those people should think the same thing about the competence of Hillary's campaign Nah, Hillary is a fine stand in for you and your ilk. The more toxicity we attach to scum like her the better. It's fitting that the centrists chose the most hated politician in America to represent them for this election cycle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
Ok thanks for the dumb leftist explanation but I was hoping for a smart one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok thanks for the dumb leftist explanation but I was hoping for a smart one. Again, you voted for and supported Hillary in 2016, your ability to discern "smart explanations" is questionable at best.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ok thanks for the dumb leftist explanation but I was hoping for a smart one. Part of the competence of her campaign being bad is the way she failed to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner. They are not separate issues and it's not a way to deflect blame for her policies, it's showing exactly how those policies came from a very bad and broken way of political thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree with you. We could add Russian interference to that list, too. But some people think Russian interference is a distraction from the failures of centrist policy, Who cares what they think? The investigation is ongoing. This isn't an issue that's subject to a vote among Americans, or Democrats, or leftists. The FBI and SSCI are investigating, I expect they'll find enough evidence to put someone like Carter Page in jail, and Trump will probably remain in power but will be hamstrung for the rest of his single term. At this point, it's out of any of our hands. quote:and it seems like those people should think the same thing about the competence of Hillary's campaign. I don't think anyone is focusing on the competence of Hillary's campaign beyond snickering at it. No one here is saying, "Objective number 1 needs to be having a campaign that understands data better in 2020." Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren certainly aren't focusing on it; they're saying, "Objective number 1 is a return to economic populism." Plus what WampaLord said, which was spot-on. You can't disentangle her campaign's incompetence from her inability to come up with a clear economic message.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Part of the competence of her campaign being bad is the way she failed to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner. They are not separate issues and it's not a way to deflect blame for her policies, it's showing exactly how those policies came from a very bad and broken way of political thinking. It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though. I agree that policy advocacy is part of campaign strategy, but Robbie Mook listening to his computer algorithm instead of activists doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Staffing a campaign with yes men doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Misallocating campaign resources and ignoring important geographic and demographic groups doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes. To whom? Do you think we're playing some kind of zero sum game where caring is like a pizza or something? What a centrist way to view reality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though. I agree that policy advocacy is part of campaign strategy, but Robbie Mook listening to his computer algorithm instead of activists doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Staffing a campaign with yes men doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. Misallocating campaign resources and ignoring important geographic and demographic groups doesn't have anything to do with policy advocacy. The more important those issues are in explaining the loss, the less important "failure to advocate for leftist policy in an honest and believable manner" becomes. But all of those mistakes come from the same place, which is a failure to understand what the electorate wants, which all ties back to having poo poo policies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:But all of those mistakes come from the same place, which is a failure to understand what the electorate wants, which all ties back to having poo poo policies. They really don't. Third way centrism doesn't suggest Robbie Mook listen to his computer algorithm over people on the ground. Nor does it proscribe misallocating campaign funds. Bill Clinton did not run inept campaigns, despite advocating third way policies. The Clinton campaign was inept therefore her policies were bad does not follow logically. Majorian posted:I don't think anyone is focusing on the competence of Hillary's campaign beyond snickering at it. No one here is saying, "Objective number 1 needs to be having a campaign that understands data better in 2020." Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren certainly aren't focusing on it; they're saying, "Objective number 1 is a return to economic populism." Yes, and my point is that focusing on the failures of the campaign's management, structure and implementation make it easier for centrist democrats to focus on "understand data better" than "economic populism". Just like Russia makes it easier for centrist democrats to focus on "he cheated" than "economic populism". JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They really don't. Third way centrism doesn't suggest Robbie Mook listen to his computer algorithm over people on the ground. Nor does it proscribe misallocating campaign funds. Bill Clinton did not run inept campaigns, despite advocating third way policies. The Clinton campaign was inept therefore her policies were bad does not follow logically. Por que no los dos
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:They really don't. Third way centrism doesn't suggest Robbie Mook listen to his computer algorithm over people on the ground. Nor does it proscribe misallocating campaign funds. Bill Clinton did not run inept campaigns, despite advocating third way policies. The Clinton campaign was inept therefore her policies were bad does not follow logically. You're not wrong actually. Unfortunately she was pretty bad on both fronts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Por que no los dos Seriously, though, the feedback loop is exciting to watch. Hillary's policies don't excite people, so her sycophants tell her to campaign on anything but policy, so she actively avoids taking any progressive stances, so she continues to fail to inspire her base, so her sycophants tell her to double down on the empty platitudes harder, repeat for twelve months and we arrive at lost, broken creatures claiming that if only the Hillary campaign had been a little more racist with its empty platitudes they'd have won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though Stop pretending you and your ilk have anything worthwhile at all to say on topics of strategy and campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 19:03
|
|
