|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Rodatose posted:Without getting into the absurdity of the latter part in how leftism is made of a coalition of different disadvantaged people, and isn't just a stereotype of a hippie around a drum circle, You are weird and gross. The centrist troll is not violencing you here on these dead gay comedy forums. Take it to TGRS.
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean my solution is "desegregate neighborhoods" but whatever And how do we do this. Do you have an answer that isn't low-effort "this doesn't go far enough" concern trolling while voting for the status quo forever.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Where as progressives have some sort of internal logic/morals so even if you disagree with their actions (or even think they're actively causing harm), you can kind of understand how they reached the end conclusion. That's why shrike/JC's attempts to brand me or third party voters with a scarlet letter don't stick because when you read the posts explaining how we reached our conclusions, you can see there's some sort of thought behind it. We're not contrarian trolls or people trying to twist reality so we win the argument. Please stop speaking for progressives. You voted for Trump in Florida.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
feminists, the black power movement, people who live beneath the poverty line, millenials unable to find jobs while swamped in debt, lgbtq folks: some of them may be leftists, sure. but the ones who are leftists aren't really disadvantaged if you think about it. if they were they'd go along with our plan (which hadn't gotten around to them yet)Nevvy Z posted:You are weird and gross. The centrist troll is not violencing you here on these dead gay comedy forums. Take it to TGRS. you didn't answer how saying a dogwhistle phrase was problematic was misusing the term.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Yup, it's hard to put forth a coherent argument for leftism when at the end of the day you voted for Trump in Florida.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:feminists, the black power movement, people who live beneath the poverty line, millenials unable to find jobs while swamped in debt, lgbtq folks: some of them may be leftists, sure. but the ones who are leftists aren't really disadvantaged if you think about it. if they were they'd go along with our plan (which hadn't gotten around to them yet) Coopting the language of people who have actually suffered is gross. Edit to add- it is nice there but too quiet.i Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 03:45 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Incrementalism, at least the way liberals are using it in this thread, seems to be another figleaf to disguise their ideology and portray themselves as Serious Adult People doing the only sensible thing so they can claim they have no ideological aims of their own or share the ideological aims of leftists but are just being practical. Compare their defense of the status quo "slow and steady wins the race" liberal candidate to their reaction to school integration. They can't plausibly argue that integrating schools is too far too fast, because it's the smallest conceivable step toward reducing institutional racism and systematic inequality in the next generation. So they flip and claim it doesn't go far enough and it's not worth doing anything if we can't fix everything right now. Big steps no matter how popular are always attacked as too much too fast, small steps that nevertheless affect the liberal are attacked as not going far enough and countered with a proposal that the liberal knows is unpopular (and which the liberal will of course fight against if any politician seriously proposed it, because anyone who doesn't want poor children in their schools definitely doesn't want them in their neighborhoods). It reminds me of last week's discussion about public opinion, and the liberals' shameless selective concern for polling. Popular measures that the liberal doesn't like just aren't popular enough so we can't risk it unless all Republicans agree too. But when it comes to catastrophically unpopular proposals across the political spectrum that liberals nevertheless like, oh well the public is too stupid to really understand the speaking circuit or trade deals so just ignore what the voters think and ram all that through without thinking about any consequences beyond the adulation from CEOs that we'll get for doing it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:20 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm saying your dumb poo poo where you pretend you are persecuted on this forum by JC would get you banned more quickly there. i never was talking about jefferson clay specifically, i was talking about anyone who uses the term "purity tests" which is the same thing as the right wing meme of "virtue signaling" and is used for the same purpose e: Nevvy Z posted:Coopting the language of people who have actually suffered is gross. lol jesus
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Mmmmm, nope. The public didn't know that "ending welfare as we know it" meant that he would slash the hell out of the social safety net, and he certainly wasn't elected on an austerity platform. Here's his "end welfare as we know it ad" from 1992. https://www.washingtonpost.com/vide...9820_video.html quote:Bill speaking: To save this thread some embarrassment, the part where he's talking about education, job training and child care is what makes it nefarious third way triangulation. The public knew exactly what he was saying, and they voted for it in 1992. Neither piece of evidence you've provided rebuts this. And you don't even attempt to explain 1996, where everyone was well aware of Clinton's third way policies and he won re-election by a landslide. Your narrative just doesn't fit the facts. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:i never was talking about jefferson clay specifically, i was talking about anyone who uses the term "purity tests" which is the same thing as the right wing meme of "virtue signaling" and is used for the same purpose Oh the inhumanity of it all! Rodatose posted:lol jesus You're the one who said you were being persecuted because some people think your lines in the sand are stupider than theirs. No one is persecuting you.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The public knew exactly what he was saying, and they voted for it in 1992. Bill won 43% of the popular vote. Not exactly a sweeping mandate.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And how do we do this. step 1: build more affordable housing
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh the inhumanity of it all! no, I said that the people who use phrases like that help contribute to perpetuating suffering caused by people in power, since they dismiss the complaints of those who are persecuted and turn the other way to valid criticisms of those who do the persecuting.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Bill won 43% of the popular vote. Not exactly a sweeping mandate. I like how leftists alternate between "Obama and Clinton won sweeping mandates because they promised true leftism to the people and consequently failed them" and "actually Obama and Clinton did poorly because they didn't do enough for leftists".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:no, I said that the people who use phrases like that help contribute to perpetuating suffering caused by people in power, since they dismiss the complaints of those who are persecuted and turn the other way to valid criticisms of those who do the persecuting. Is there a way people get to disagree with you without blood on their hands. Is it only certain words that are murdering our citizens?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:i never was talking about jefferson clay specifically, i was talking about anyone who uses the term "purity tests" which is the same thing as the right wing meme of "virtue signaling" and is used for the same purpose In either case it's just a lazy way to defend the indefensible without addressing the substance of the issue. The upper-crust elite are superior humans in culture, breeding, intelligence, and sophistication, so if they are bribing politicians to do what they want it must be good, whatever it is. The idea that the rich are anything but a benign and uplifting influence is so inconceivable to them, that those concerned about corruption must lying, it's got to be some kind of low-class trick because who doesn't worship our natural betters?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I like how leftists alternate between "Obama and Clinton won sweeping mandates because they promised true leftism to the people and consequently failed them" and "actually Obama and Clinton did poorly because they didn't do enough for leftists". Feel free to quote me "alternating" between my points.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:step 1: build more affordable housing How do you overcome opposition to putting housing projects in ritzy neighborhoods, keep in mind these are the same people who didn't want the poor in their schools because their PTA donations would be shared with all students, and who also didn't want their school district to include poor people because their property values derived in part from rich schools without poor kids pooring them up.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Is there a way people get to disagree with you without blood on their hands. Is it only certain words that are murdering our citizens? it makes you sound like an unconcerned, out-of-touch prick at best (or it's gaslighting people's real problems at worst). if the democrats' problem is only their messaging, you should relish the chance to not sound like a prick to enthusiastic people who can serve as useful idiots for democratic party campaigning.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Bill won 43% of the popular vote. Not exactly a sweeping mandate. It is in an election where a third party gets 19% of the vote. And he still won 370 electoral votes. And again, everybody knew Clinton was a third way triangulator in 1996 and he won 379 electoral votes with 49% of the vote, despite Perot winning 8%. They were both sweeping mandates.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
I have to say looking at the totality of the thread, posters like VitalSign and Majorian are pretty much accelerationists playing at revolution. White privilege lets them minimize the poo poo the Trump administration is pulling on minorities whether gender or race, while playing at woke activist by spending time berating TV comedians about how they want to re-segregate schools. Instead of France where the educated left still "held their noses" to vote for Macron, we have these "leftists" go out to the voting booth and vote for Trump or Stein, knowing that they have nothing to fear under a Trump administration.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
^^^^ Go away. I voted for Clinton in November, you voted Trump for lolololz you dumb rear end in a top hat. JeffersonClay posted:It is in an election where a third party gets 19% of the vote. And he still won 370 electoral votes. And again, everybody knew Clinton was a third way triangulator in 1996 and he won 379 electoral votes with 49% of the vote, despite Perot winning 8%. They were both sweeping mandates. Winning the electoral vote without a majority of popular support is a public mandate now?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It is in an election where a third party gets 19% of the vote. And he still won 370 electoral votes. And again, everybody knew Clinton was a third way triangulator in 1996 and he won 379 electoral votes with 49% of the vote, despite Perot winning 8%. They were both sweeping mandates. 57% of the electorate wanted a different President.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Winning the electoral vote without a majority of popular support is a public mandate now? trump's got a mandate, you heard it here folks
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
And you have to give these folks credit in terms of being able to sit on the fence and snipe at everyone, without actually having to do anything meaningful. If Corey Booker wins in 2020, they get to snipe at "neoliberals" (queue the duck comic), and if he loses, they get to poo poo on them. Instead of actually acting to move the party in a direction they want, which would require time and effort, they vote for the GOP or 3rd party which gives them some kind of purity for not voting for the Dem taint.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How do you overcome opposition to putting housing projects in ritzy neighborhoods, keep in mind these are the same people who didn't want the poor in their schools because their PTA donations would be shared with all students, and who also didn't want their school district to include poor people because their property values derived in part from rich schools without poor kids pooring them up. let's see what bernie sanders has to say about this topic also more stringent requirements for affordable housing construction in new construction; the old developer tax credit system wasn't strong enough
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
That's an interesting article, but I don't see how this solves the problem of convincing the NIMBYs who also killed school integration because their property values depend on buying into a rich exclusive neighborhood that keeps out the poor so their PTA donations aren't diluted among the poor minorities that affordable housing programs seek to import into those neighborhoods. If you're arguing that we should respect property values more than desegregation, then this is a nonstarter according to the argument you put forth earlier. There's also the question of how this works in areas where property values are already high and HUD funds aren't plentiful after 30 years of cuts. From what I understand it worked in Burlington because the trust bought land in the 80s with HUD money and thus can continue to charge a rent proportional to the 1980s market value of the land instead of what it would sell for on the open market today. If you're buying the land at 2017 Upper West Side prices, how do you stay solvent if you don't charge market land rents, and if you are then how is it affordable housing?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I like how leftists alternate between "Obama and Clinton won sweeping mandates because they promised true leftism to the people and consequently failed them" and "actually Obama and Clinton did poorly because they didn't do enough for leftists". These aren't actually contradictory arguments. That's why we're seeing the "Bill and Obama campaigned far left, then veered to the right" narrative. Advocates of a radical leftward shift in the democratic party want to prove that centrist appeals can't win elections and that centrist governance causes voters to flee the party. Inconveniently, Obama and Bill were both centrists and able to win national elections with substantial margins. So for the narrative to make sense, they need to have campaigned as leftists, as leftism is electorally advantageous and centrism can't win elections. Then, both need to have become centrists to explain the backlash in 2000 and 2016. Of course, both Obama and Bill had significant centrist appeal in their first election, and both had proven in their first term that they would govern with significant centrist appeal, and were re-elected with substantial majorities nonetheless. So the narrative doesn't actually make sense, but not because it's self-contradictory. Raskolnikov38 posted:trump's got a mandate, you heard it here folks VitalSigns posted:Winning the electoral vote without a majority of popular support is a public mandate now? When there's a third party candidate who wins a significant part of the electorate? Sure. When you beat the runner up by 9 points? Absolutely. There's a big difference between winning a plurality of the vote while winning the electoral college and losing the popular vote while winning the electoral college, which I think you are both smart enough to realize. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 04:58 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you're buying the land at 2017 Upper West Side prices, how do you stay solvent if you don't charge market land rents, and if you are then how is it affordable housing? Sell a couple of condos to speculators to fund affordable housing for everyone else
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
JC: important corrective take btw https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/861596068240293888
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's an interesting article, but I don't see how this solves the problem of convincing the NIMBYs who also killed school integration because their property values depend on buying into a rich exclusive neighborhood that keeps out the poor so their PTA donations aren't diluted among the poor minorities that affordable housing programs seek to import into those neighborhoods. amazing how he goes for these complex, painstaking solutions to integration that are so much harder to reach they're practically impossible today. it's almost as if he doesn't care about integration and is ok with ny schools staying segregated
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
reminder that white people get angry if they find out better qualified black people got into medical school instead of their rich asses. how much are they gonna bitch when they find out they didn't make the list for some ritzy ultra-swank neighborhood, but some black family "which totally doesn't deserve it" gets to move in? cause that's what neighborhood desegregation is going to look like, some white people are going to be replaced by persons of color, and white people are not gonna like it at all
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
it's also completely hilarious that whiskeyjuvenile's argument has grown entirely out of a need to protect sam bee and jason jones from their racist actions. so integration is worthless, and it was ok for sam bee and jason jones to be against it cause neighborhood integration is where we really need to be focusing our efforts. forget that sam bee and jason jones are gonna be way less supportive of integration that makes them give up their home to a minority. by pushing integration off to some policy that will never come to pass, we never have to address sam bee's racism, and her already expressed racism becomes moot and WJ gets to keep liking a comedienne he likes. everyone wins but people of color!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
I mean, I don't think land trusts are a bad idea at all. If it were properly funded, it could buy property in high value areas for market price and then just rent the land portion to homebuyers at a loss. I just don't understand how that proposal jells with the proscription that we must never do anything to hurt the ~*~property values~*~ of affluent white liberals. The whole reason that real estate costs so much in that neighborhood is because it was an intentionally crafted rich-people enclave where they can all pool their wealth donations to fund superior schools for little Aiden and Becky without any  neighborhood character diluting their resources. Replacing rich white people with poor black people is going to hurt property values by definition, because the property values are a reflection of its exclusive rich They are going to fight affordable housing in their exclusive nieghborhood just as hard as they are going to fight poor children pooring up their schools, and for the same reason, so insisting that we never disturb white people's property values is essentially committing to eternal segregation no matter how lofty your talk about needing a full and complete solution to everything one day, someday, might sound. E: And this isn't theoretical either, from the original Slate article quote:A group backed by real estate interests called Homeowners Against the Land Trust began picketing City Hall. They red-baited Sanders and other democratic-socialist officials, claiming they were seizing land and betraying sacrosanct property rights. When a developer offered to build 40 new homes on a vacant parcel in the North End and donate them to the trust, HALT showed up in force at Planning Commission hearings. The group retooled the lyrics to “Home on the Range” (“Give us a home/ on land that we own…”) and marched into public hearings singing loudly. The group’s heated protests eventually forced the developer to only give seven of the homes to the trust, even though all 40 were built. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:58 on May 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I mean, I don't think land trusts are a bad idea at all. If it were properly funded, it could buy property in high value areas for market price and then just rent the land portion to homebuyers at a loss. exactly. integrating neighborhoods isn't a bad idea at all, but when's that's supposed to happen? considering how the fight for civil rights has gone these many years, it's still a long way off, so shooting down school integration in favor of it in the meantime is akin to asking children of color to wait another 20+ years for us to try to do anything about institutional racism. when you realize that the same reason school integration is a no-go for whiskeyjuvenile is still a problem with his proposed solution, it makes it doubtful that he proposed neighborhood integration as a real solution and did it instead to sink the idea of the necessity of school integration. note that this is an actual tactic parents being rezoned into 191 were trying: quote:After a student choir sang a song about brotherhood, and an education-department official explained the logistics of the plan, parents lined up behind microphone stands to attack it. They came prepared: A flyer posted in one of the rezoned apartment buildings, a co-op called Lincoln Guild, had urged residents to “Show up in force to show our mass displeasure” and provided detailed talking points. Some speakers called for a single 191-199 zone, which they said would make both schools more diverse. (That proposal may have been more strategic than civic-minded: The flyer said that one way to block the rezoning was to “provide as many viable alternatives and rationales as possible”—including a “shared zone.”)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:forget that sam bee and jason jones are gonna be way less supportive of integration that makes them give up their home to a minority. Right? "Hey good news, poor kids from the bad neighborhood aren't going to attend your schools because of desegregation after all! Instead they'll live in your building and attend your schools because of that, while those nice well-to-do up-and-comers you met at the last social mixer will be bumped from the waiting list to make room!" I'm sure they'll love it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:06
|
|
|
Great job guys. You've shown two comedians to be bad politicians? Can you do the same for Jon Stewart and his rally for sanity bs? I like that the leftism is less about actually pushing for change and engaging on idpol with comedians.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Great job guys. You've shown two comedians to be bad politicians? actually, you'll find that sam bee and jason jones were fighting against change (cause they're pro-segregation) and we were actually lambasting them for being anti-change. i guess you want leftists to push for the status quo?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
I didn't realize they were politicians driving the Democrat party but I guess we live in an era where Chapo Trap House is a bastion for the leftist "resistance".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 21:14 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:I didn't realize they were politicians driving the Democrat party but I guess we live in an era where Chapo Trap House is a bastion for the leftist "resistance". they don't have to be poltiicians when they band together with other racists to try to stop desegregation plans for their school. likewise, it is not a bad thing we are against them trying to put the brakes on desegregation. segregation is bad, and those who protect it are racist. maybe you want us to stop resisting racism? sounds p racist shrike
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 09:45
|
|