|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
steinrokkan posted:Prison labor is not slavery It absolutely is. While it's not chattel slavery, the way it's implemented in the US is obviously a form of slave labour. Why are you even trying to whitewash this? Is the worlds strongest economy so dependent on forced labour that you have to defend it at all costs out of some existential reason? In any civilized society these kinds of reports would be met with disgust and immediate demands for dismantling that horrid institution. But, welp, if we criticise gross human right violations we might give the republicans ammo, so better just support the indefensible. quote:it is is a dumb hill to die on  Nosfereefer fucked around with this message at 11:28 on Jun 16, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 11:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
OK, I should have written "as a concept, prison labor is not slavery", which it needn't be if the qualifiers in the following sentences are true. In absence of any safeguards it is obvious that practically it becomes at best academically distinct from slavery or legalized people trafficking. What I was trying to say is that even if prisoners working at a governor's mansion "had it easy" and were hardly slaves as some libs have claimed, the Clinton approach to their use was still repugnant and anathema to the idea of therapeutic and rehabilitative goals, which should be the only goals of any prison activity.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:OK, I should have written "as a concept, prison labor is not slavery", which it needn't be if the qualifiers in the following sentences are true. In absence of any safeguards it is obvious that practically it becomes at best academically distinct from slavery or legalized people trafficking. What I was trying to say is that even if prisoners working at a governor's mansion "had it easy" and were hardly slaves as some libs have claimed, the Clinton approach to their use was still repugnant and anathema to the idea of therapeutic and rehabilitative goals, which should be the only goals of any prison activity. Okay, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:OK, I should have written "as a concept, prison labor is not slavery", which it needn't be if the qualifiers in the following sentences are true. In absence of any safeguards it is obvious that practically it becomes at best academically distinct from slavery or legalized people trafficking. What I was trying to say is that even if prisoners working at a governor's mansion "had it easy" and were hardly slaves as some libs have claimed, the Clinton approach to their use was still repugnant and anathema to the idea of therapeutic and rehabilitative goals, which should be the only goals of any prison activity. How is any of that relevant to America? Prison labor in America is slave labor. This thread is about America.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
I think it matters in convincing all the people who dismissed the controversy (and really posting here should be about convincing others). They will never accept calling prison labor projects slavery because "They are paying off their debt to society" or in this case specifically "It's a trustee system, I've heard it's very good and innovative". They are convinced the prison system is great and fair because it's part of glorious national institutions. So it may be more productive to focus on the purpose of a justice system and basic ethics to demonstrate why those projects and attitudes also suck and are purposefully are designed squeeze people dry. Also contrasting the current state with better variants is good for conceptualizing reforms, no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
I have a hard time buying "well it's not slavery" when the 13th amendment literally writes "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."steinrokkan posted:They are convinced the prison system is great and fair because it's part of glorious national institutions. I don't think they are, they are just grasping at straws to justify their Abuela' latest failing. Even JC has fallen back to "well, it's bad but it's not chattel slavery!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
If you have to have a "well it's not TECHNICALLY slavery" conversation about your candidate then maybe uh that candidate wasn't that great in retrospect. Like we had to wring our hands that Sanders made some leftist pro Iran comments years ago but somehow Clinton and her multitudes of gaffs and blattant flip flopping depending on the current political winds weren't an issue that mattered at all. I bought into the Clinton is actually Electable stuff as much as a lot of people since she had so much party support while preferring Sanders in the primaries. However 2016 (and 2008 frankly) should be a lesson that Clintonian smears and worrying about some centrist optics are a waste of time since the country doesn't give a poo poo and what matters is charisma and if it looks like the person cares about accomplishing something. Lesser of two evilism has hosed us pretty bad since you can only shame people for so long and it doesn't even work at all on the people that aren't leftists which you need in order to win elections. Like you don't have this absurd poo poo on the Republican side where they yell at their voters and blame them for not believing in the candidates enough. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense in a once in a while dire situation, but when you make it the soul of your party, that you are only going to put up lame or actively bad candidates and point at how much worse the other guys are it's just going to lead to failure in the long term as we are clearly seeing now. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He lost, and by a significant margin. By that standard Hillary had a double plus great election result. He performed significantly higher than expectations, with Labour gaining a significant number of seats (enough to actually have practical implications). Hillary performed much worse than expectations and Democrats only gained a very small number of seats in both houses of Congress. Like, I can't see any reason for you to make this argument other than stubborn contrarianism. This is entirely the mainstream interpretation of the UK elections, this isn't some leftist fringe interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Also the US system is different, it has constitutionally mandated elections, you're not getting snap elections and confidence votes. It's extremely rarely had to deal with multipartisan democracy, and congressional elections have significantly less impact on the executive than legislative elections have in parliamentary systems. If Ryan loses the confidence of his party in the end Trump is still president and a republican is still going to be warming the speaker's seat, and nobody other than congressmen will have gone to the urns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:He performed significantly higher than expectations, with Labour gaining a significant number of seats (enough to actually have practical implications). Hillary performed much worse than expectations and Democrats only gained a very small number of seats in both houses of Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:good thing though we don't have to vote for him and he's not the future of the democratic party. unlike what one unrepentant slaveholder believes herself to be Uh, if you leave this thread once in a while you'll find that, in fact, she already lost the election. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Uh, if you leave this thread once in a while you'll find that, in fact, she already lost the election. Chelsea
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:He performed significantly higher than expectations, with Labour gaining a significant number of seats (enough to actually have practical implications). Hillary performed much worse than expectations and Democrats only gained a very small number of seats in both houses of Congress. This is a guy who claims to work in money laundering forensics for a living, but gladly feigns ignorance as to the difference between "gross" and "net" when it advances his vacuous cheap shot arguments against UBI/GMI. He's not exactly a paragon of good faith posting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Chelsea If she runs and you bring up poo poo that was going on when she was ages 0-12 it's not gonna sink her campaign guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
I wasn't serious There is a non zero number of people who still cheerlead for Hillary, though, and they think she should decide the future of Dem politics, even if she may not be running in any future elections. And even more people who think Dems should re-embrace Hillary just to spite Bernie bros.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I wasn't serious steinrokkan posted:There is a non zero number of people who still cheerlead for Hillary, though, and they think she should decide the future of Dem politics, even if she may not be running in any future elections. Well, she did lose on a lovely technicality after a ton of shady poo poo, so some people are gonna think she should be in charge now. Personally, I think the mistake was not changing the order of succession when we put POTUS and veep on the same ticket. The founding fathers intended that, if somehow an idiot/criminal/traitor got elected, the next in line would be his opposition, not his bff. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You weren't, but someone itt would make that argument and mean it. Afterall, they are still pursuing this "hilary clinton owned slaves" idiocy with a straight face. That system literally died within the founding fathers' lifetime. Also the idea that the US system would be so much better if we could just go back to pretending that a bunch of mostly rich white dudes are apolitical wise men devoid of class interests is like a big part of the problem with modern liberalism. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You weren't, but someone itt would make that argument and mean it. Afterall, they are still pursuing this "hilary clinton owned slaves" idiocy with a straight face. Since when is the electoral college a technicality?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well, she did lose on a lovely technicality lol that centrists believe poo poo like this
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Since always. Agnosticnixie posted:That system literally died within the founding fathers' lifetime. Not exactly. quote:The practice of a presidential candidate having a running mate was solidified during the American Civil War. In 1864, in the interest of fostering national unity, Abraham Lincoln from the Republican Party (popular in the North) and Andrew Johnson of the Democratic Party (popular in the South), were co-endorsed and run together for President and Vice-President as candidates of the National Union Party. Notwithstanding this party disbanded after the war ended, with the result that Republican Lincoln was succeeded by Democrat Johnson; the states began to place candidates for President and Vice-President together on the same ballot ticket - thus making it impossible to vote for a presidential candidate from one party and a vice-presidential candidate from another party, as had previously been possible. Anyway, they hosed it up and we need a new Amendment where Clinton, Kaine, or possibly Bernie is next in line before Pence. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
I agree that Romney should've been next in line after Obama so that Republicans would have constant impeachment proceedings going.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Also for those saying that prison labor is academically distinct from slavery, I point you to the plain text of the 13th amendment which states "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States." Prison labor is clearly an exception to the constitutional ban on slavery and it isn't a stretch to legally classify it as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I agree that Romney should've been next in line after Obama so that Republicans would have constant impeachment proceedings going. What was preventing them from just doing the same to Obama AND Biden, if at any point they had the numbers to do it to Obama? Purely partisan fuckery like this is absolutely possible anyway, since to do it you have the 3rd spot in line all locked up. MooselanderII posted:Also for those saying that prison labor is academically distinct from slavery, I point you to the plain text of the 13th amendment which states "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States." Prison labor is clearly an exception to the constitutional ban on slavery and it isn't a stretch to legally classify it as such. This is an incredibly strong argument. I'm glad our collective social understanding of this is, albeit slowly, approaching the point where we can put an end to it. But I'm not sure if it is productive for today's collectively woke society to castigate every single moral failing committed by people in the 70's and 80's, if only because one day we could be accused of being unfit for public office for the evils of having eaten meat or engaged in capitalism. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Ah back to the forced labor is okay as long as nobody says "slavery" argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:But I'm not sure if it is productive for today's collectively woke society to castigate every single moral failing committed by people in the 70's and 80's, if only because one day we could be accused of being unfit for public office for the evils of having eaten meat or engaged in capitalism. here's a better idea, why don't we just nominate people who haven't had slaves as domestic servants. Seems like an easier thing to do as opposed to constantly try to tell people "well it's not really slavery" lol at equating eating meat with slavery, real  here, enjoy this idiot's time being right once in a blue moon stone cold posted:hey here's a thought: maybe we can be leftist and espouse leftist and progressive policy ideals like ubi or gmi, indexing minimum wages to inflation or median wages, justice and penal system reform, single payer, etc. AND not be racist NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well, she did lose on a lovely technicality after a ton of shady poo poo, so some people are gonna think she should be in charge now. Can you define your exact reasons you believe Hillary Clinton lost to the Orange Clown man? It feel repetitive to go over the same ground again, but answering the question if Hillary failed, or was failed is kinda what this thread is for so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Can you define your exact reasons you believe Hillary Clinton lost to the Orange Clown man? It feel repetitive to go over the same ground again, but answering the question if Hillary failed, or was failed is kinda what this thread is for so. Nah. There's like 30. I already know you all have individual ones you are mad at her about. The 'which reason matters most' derail is a tedious slapfight I just don't care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nah. There's like 30. I already know you all have individual ones you are mad at her about. The 'which reason matters most' derail is a tedious slapfight I just don't care about. What's the specific "technicality" that caused her to lose. I mean, you used the singular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nah. There's like 30. I already know you all have individual ones you are mad at her about. The 'which reason matters most' derail is a tedious slapfight I just don't care about. Is any of them "Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate" or "The policies Hillary Clinton supported and pushed fails to resonate with the American People"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Uh, if you leave this thread once in a while you'll find that, in fact, she already lost the election. you'll find that hillary still believes she should be a leader of the dem party (and is quite miffed that she isn't seen as a central #resistance figure), and there are a good number of dems who will happily give her power despite her issues. therefore, worrying about her policies is pretty relevant. hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you'll find that hillary still believes she should be a leader of the dem party (and is quite miffed that she isn't seen as a central #resistance figure), and there are a good number of dems who will happily give her power despite her issues. therefore, worrying about her policies is pretty relevant. hth Now that she's started to piss off DNC members by adding them to the list of traitors I'm less worried about her influence specifically. She should still be the poster child for how to lose an election though so I think it's important to examine her campaign for what not to do in 2018 and 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Now that she's started to piss off DNC members by adding them to the list of traitors I'm less worried about her influence specifically. She should still be the poster child for how to lose an election though so I think it's important to examine her campaign for what not to do in 2018 and 2020. This is what makes the Ossoff election so spooky. He is basically on course to more or less emulate Hillary's campaign messaging strategy, which may very well work in his strange "Never Trump" district. I don't think this model would be very successful in other districts, so it may send the wrong message for candidates in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
White Rock posted:The fact that you believe that the Obama years was something to hang in the Christmas tree really shows that there is a division between the center and the left. Obama had great charisma, and that's about it. Obamacare didn't turn out the way it did because the democrats lacked power, they had the entire US government for quite some time, power enough to make any decision they wanted, but chose not to. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Is any of them "Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate" or "The policies Hillary Clinton supported and pushed fails to resonate with the American People"? Yeah, I'm not engaging in a slapfight over whether or not I'm critical enough of HRC with you. Sorry bro. MooselanderII posted:This is what makes the Ossoff election so spooky. He is basically on course to more or less emulate Hillary's campaign messaging strategy, which may very well work in his strange "Never Trump" district. I don't think this model would be very successful in other districts, so it may send the wrong message for candidates in 2018. Trump being in power is probably providing a lot of people a reason to get back out there and vote, even if they sat 2016 out, because it turns out that they weren't the same after all. And of course, the things that cost HRC the election aren't necessarily the things that cost her that district. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Engaging with criticism is, after all, exactly what those fiendish right-wing monsters would like us to do. Better to ignore all weaknesses, and just assume that those problems we're ignoring won't become an issue in the long term. By the way the president's currently a Dem, right
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
If the Dem playbook currently consists of plans that are basically "Let the Republicans run wild loving over everyone and then pick up the pieces but not really fix anything major every 4-8 years until they get back into power and do it again" I think we can do better as a party. The whole idea of criticism being a way of weakening the party only makes sense if the party is just that pathetic that any sort of negativity is enough to topple it. Clintonites saying that Bernie even running was a fundamental threat to her presidency was admitting she was a bad candidate that couldn't stand up to the most tepid of opposition. The point of a political party is to do what the voters want, not to set a Serious platform that your financial backers and friends want and then complain when people aren't sufficiently excited about it and are the real traitors for not being faithful. At least the Republicans throw red meat to their base while they are loving them over. They are so hosed as a party right now they should be desperately trying to find what voters want and how to related to them, not singing songs about how the Republicans are screwing themselves and that they'll win by default. If they get in on some anti-Trump wave they will have to actually do something or we will be in exactly this same spot but without the benefit of a fascist idiot who can't help but self-own himself every day. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Dead person defending slavery on top of hill: "Trust me you don't want to die on this hill!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Carter's governor's mansion also exploited prison labor, but the relationship was a little more complicated than it was with the Clintons. They were very moved by the plight of Marc Rich as he languished in Switzerland though. True humanitarians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm glad our collective social understanding of this is, albeit slowly, approaching the point where we can put an end to it. But I'm not sure if it is productive for today's collectively woke society to castigate every single moral failing committed by people in the 70's and 80's, if only because one day we could be accused of being unfit for public office for the evils of having eaten meat or engaged in capitalism. If Clinton had disavowed the prison labor system in Arkansas that she and her husband exploited, then you'd have a point here. But she didn't do that. She tried to justify it by talking about the inherent emotional intelligence of criminals which, given the racial makeup of prison populations in the U.S., has some rather ugly implications. Then Mrs. Superpredators decided to publish her thoughts on the matter in a book, for the whole world to see. If that's not doubling down, I dunno what is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
The thing about blaming society for your bigotry is that there are always people who are actually, for real, more woke than you. Those woke people who are ahead of the curve on recognizing injustice are who we should ideally be electing because they are more likely to be able to see the errors we are making right now in the present. Hillary Clinton is not one of those people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 19:26
|
|