|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're confident that Corbyn will win an election that must occur soon, I dont have any reason to doubt you. I was confident that democrats were positioned to win an upcoming election eight months ago, and conventional wisdom turned out to be wrong. The """conventional wisdom""" was that the Tories had a serious person at the helm set to take them to victory in an historic landslide because she was advised by serious US Democratic party operatives and was willing to make the tough decisions to impose austerity, kill the poor, keep too many immigrants from getting in, sell off the country to the rich and start a bunch of wars. Whereas her opponent was a prancing pie-in-the-sky dreamer who thinks bombing other countries forever is bad, nuclear war should be avoided, public services shouldn't be a graft machine for the top 1%, education is a human right, and it's wrong to house the poor in matchstick deathtraps to save a buck, so obviously no one would ever vote for such unrealistic and frankly suspiciously subversive ideas. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jun 18, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:It's not that complicated. Obama was elected on a campaign of charge. 8 years of compromise and triangulation led to the most extremist republican party in history controlling all branches of government, while being an 80 year old heartbeat away from controlling the supreme Court for a generation. So don't lose hope, and more importantly don't lower your expectations. Don't let any Democratic politician tell you that, well golly they'd really like to do some good things, but those darned Republican appointees on the courts won't let them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:she was advised by serious US Democratic party operatives to be specific, we're talking about the fact that Theresa May's campaign strategist was Jim Messina, who also managed Obama's 2012 campaign and was his deputy chief of staff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:to be specific, we're talking about the fact that Theresa May's campaign strategist was Jim Messina, who also managed Obama's 2012 campaign and was his deputy chief of staff. And is the current chairman of OFA, so he can't be dismissed just as a gun for hire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:And is the current chairman of OFA, so he can't be dismissed just as a gun for hire. I'm increasingly convinced that the best hope for leftism in the US lay outside the Democratic party. And I don't mean changing from the outside, either - I mean giving up on it altogether and doing something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
The sooner labor abandons the Ivy League Democrats, the better. You can't heal thyself until you realize you're sick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Are there any of these orgs that haven't been infiltrated by centrist blowhards and ineffectual hacks? "infiltrated"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Are there any of these orgs that haven't been infiltrated by centrist blowhards and ineffectual hacks? uh, listen son I don't know what the boys at school have been telling you about the Obama administration but we have to have a talk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:The sooner labor abandons the Ivy League Democrats, the better. In a way they already have. Trump flanking the Democrats on trade peeled off enough votes to win key rust belt states and the Presidency. The problem is the same people are still in charge of the Democratic party things are not going to change. The real danger is not Trump but someone that can use his strategy and is not incompetent at using the power of the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Yeah that was a poor choice of words. The orgs themselves are founded by centrists politicians and their strategists, serve to advance the careers of centrist politicians and their strategists, and funded by the rich assholes those politicians and strategists ultimately serve. That's public record. They are a way for the amoral core of the Democratic party to co-opt progressive activism - infiltrate it, if you will. And they have a mission statement that amounts to "We're grassroots! And we think things shouldn't suck all the time for people who Work Hard Enough! And so on!" Now that I say this, I notice I'm immediately suspicious of anyone who utters the term "grassroots". I guess they're easy enough to spot, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Best example of this is Obama's administration deciding to shine light and promote Deray McKesson and Brittany Packnett as the leaders of Ferguson and of BLM. 2 upper middle class graduates of elite colleges with little to no connection to Ferguson but lot's of connections to TFA, and who have gone on to promote TFA in one way or another and provide cover for the school privatization movement. Packnett is now VP at TFA, McKesson chief human resources office of Baltimore schools. And both now can provide cover for a process that largely fucks over minority school districts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Something something salary depends on it. "The Democrats: When his salary depends upon his not understanding it" fits the title box
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Best example of this is Obama's administration deciding to shine light and promote Deray McKesson and Brittany Packnett as the leaders of Ferguson and of BLM. 2 upper middle class graduates of elite colleges with little to no connection to Ferguson but lot's of connections to TFA, and who have gone on to promote TFA in one way or another and provide cover for the school privatization movement. Packnett is now VP at TFA, McKesson chief human resources office of Baltimore schools. And both now can provide cover for a process that largely fucks over minority school districts. Furthermore, McKesson commands very little respect within Baltimore orgs and his rep as has percolated down this far south is mostly as a dude who shows up infrequently, says a bunch of poo poo nobody gives a gently caress about, and then bounces as real organizers get back to work slightly confused. There is very interesting conversation along the lines of "wait, what the gently caress did/does deray actually DO again?" that has provided some fascinating linkage of racial and class issues, and they're not the conversations you have online and definitely especially not the kind you'll have in Deray and The Scream Team's preferred 140 character medium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ossoff/status/872575682462830594 https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/876274970636292098
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Deray's inclusion in the Pod Save America empire as host of "Pod Save the People" is one of the things that annoys me the most about that franchise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
I wish the polling for the Ossoff race wasn't so loving terrible. It would be nice to have some actual idea of where things are two days away from the vote, but all we have is early voting numbers afaik.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I wish the polling for the Ossoff race wasn't so loving terrible. It would be nice to have some actual idea of where things are two days away from the vote, but all we have is early voting numbers afaik.  I'm going with number 10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
kenner116 posted:
I'm going with 12 and this thread needing a couple days off afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
So this might seem like a weird and random question but i dunno where else to ask. As I am trying to get in touch with my teenage Marxist again but with more thought put into it than "communism sounds cool", I realize I'm falling pretty short in a critical area. Namely economics. I don't get economics. There are so many "schools of thought" and while reading some of the works of this Hoppe fellow makes me fairly certain that the Austrian school is not for me, that doesn't narrow it down too much. Does anyone have any recommendations for reading on how to understand economics from a "Leftist" perspective? There's this Mark Blyth guy I have seen on YT who seems to make sense and I was thinking of getting his book Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So this might seem like a weird and random question but i dunno where else to ask. As I am trying to get in touch with my teenage Marxist again but with more thought put into it than "communism sounds cool", I realize I'm falling pretty short in a critical area. Namely economics. I don't get economics. There are so many "schools of thought" and while reading some of the works of this Hoppe fellow makes me fairly certain that the Austrian school is not for me, that doesn't narrow it down too much. read capital. it's daunting so if you want a primer you can start with the shorter wage labor and capital and value, price and profit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Also there's a 'let's read capital' thread in cspam I'd encourage you to check out/post in if you need help
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:So this might seem like a weird and random question but i dunno where else to ask. As I am trying to get in touch with my teenage Marxist again but with more thought put into it than "communism sounds cool", I realize I'm falling pretty short in a critical area. Namely economics. I don't get economics. There are so many "schools of thought" and while reading some of the works of this Hoppe fellow makes me fairly certain that the Austrian school is not for me, that doesn't narrow it down too much. It depends on what you mean about understanding economics. If you are talking about economics as a discipline, and the impact of schools of thought on the way economists see policy, either of Mark Blyth's books are good. If you are talking about understanding the economy, Thomas Piketty's book is really popular. But I am still partial to Karl Polanyi's the Great Transformation as the quintessential explanation for modern economic phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
I'd suggest Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Piketty over Kapital by Marx. At least if you want an understanding of modern left-wing economic theory. If you want to understand Marxism, sure, Kapital is the better choice. edit: evidence-based Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Piketty isn't giving a modern left wing theory, he's presenting a limited empirical result with data, and then some half assed answers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Marx is a lot more insightful, and a lot of the bashing is by people who've never actually read him. It still holds up today. Having said that, don't be afraid to reach for more accessible works like Harvey's lecture series - verbosity is unfortunately a bad habit of the left in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Furthermore, McKesson commands very little respect within Baltimore orgs and his rep as has percolated down this far south is mostly as a dude who shows up infrequently, says a bunch of poo poo nobody gives a gently caress about, and then bounces as real organizers get back to work slightly confused. I'd love to read more about this but you're suggesting it's the sort of thing you only get through direct engagement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:If they're not arguing in good faith, or are selectively ignoring posts/calls to back up or rebut claims, then they're trolling. He's no Amergin or Fishmech though. No, JC isn't a troll; he's the Hillary-equivalent of the aggressively stupid Trump supporter that backs his man no matter what reality poses otherwise, his mouth a vice-grip on the proverbial cock until the end of time. Also someone who will never, ever concede the point even on pain of death a la Fishmech. He's been at it for years now, he's the real deal. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 10:00 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 09:56
|
|
|
Skex posted:
Hmm so by that logic, since Bernie would have won, anyone who backed Hillary in the primaries are complicit in making Trump president and thus don't deserve to be called progressives, yeah? I guess everybody who in any way didn't fight trump hard enough is complicit . Which then means everybody, since Trump won. Neat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
White Rock posted:Hmm so by that logic, since Bernie would have won, anyone who backed Hillary in the primaries are complicit in making Trump president and thus don't deserve to be called progressives, yeah? "If I completely change your argument, it ceases to make sense! Ha! Owned, idiot."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:"If I completely change your argument, it ceases to make sense! Ha! Owned, idiot." No he actually makes a good point. No true progressive voted Hillbot in the primary
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:"If I completely change your argument, it ceases to make sense! Ha! Owned, idiot." I think "ceases" is the wrong word to use here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think "ceases" is the wrong word to use here. It's not a good argument but pointing out that you need to vote strategically in our FPTP system is valid, even if it's only being used in an effort to find someone to blame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:It's not a good argument but pointing out that you need to vote strategically in our FPTP system is valid, even if it's only being used in an effort to find someone to blame. voting with bad strategy is bad also, not progressive voting strategically in the primary is the same logic that leads bad dems like Obama to start the ACA negotiations from a point of compromise... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:voting with bad strategy is bad I wasn't talking about the primary. The post being discussed wasn't talking about the primary. In the general election you need to vote strategically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:I wasn't talking about the primary. The post being discussed wasn't talking about the primary. In the general election you need to vote strategically. what a shocker that the dingus sirtommygunn can't read the post sirtommygun failed to read posted:Hmm so by that logic, since Bernie would have won, anyone who backed Hillary in the primaries are complicit in making Trump president and thus don't deserve to be called progressives, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:what a shocker that the dingus sirtommygunn can't read That's the post I specifically called out for misrepresenting the post actually being discussed. I wasn't clear enough which post I was talking about, so calm down for a second on the personal attacks. Here's the quote I'm talking about. Skex posted:Yes centrists can be dumb and buy into a conventional wisdom that is not necessarily wisdom. But any "progressive" who either voted for a third party, voted for Trump, or didn't vote at all in the last election is not a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:That's the post I specifically called out for misrepresenting the post actually being discussed. I wasn't clear enough which post I was talking about, so calm down for a second on the personal attacks. so you agree that people who voted for HIllary in the primary aren't progressives, glad we could have this chat also Skex is an idiot who is pro prison slavery, I'd take his posts with a grain of salt especially when he's implying that people who didn't vote for the pro-baby murder candidate actually aren't progressives, whereas his pragmatic pro-slavery ideals are NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:so you agree that people who voted for HIllary in the primary aren't progressives, glad we could have this chat I think people can change but I also don't think anyone who voted for Hillary in the primary could be considered a progressive at the time. NewForumSoftware posted:also Skex is an idiot who is pro prison slavery, I'd take his posts with a grain of salt I'm not defending all of Skex's argument; hell, sirtommygunn fucked around with this message at 14:06 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:I'm not defending all of Skex's argument; hell, I'm not defending any of it, all I did was point out that White Rock's post was attacking a strawman version of Skex's post. thanks for your contribution but White Rock's post makes perfect sense in the context of Skex's "if you didn't make the right vote you are clearly not a progressive" (it's a stupid one) why you are defending (bad) posters (badly) you don't agree with is beyond me
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 21:08 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:1) "emotional intelligence" isn't phrenology, that's laughable. It's been in the heart of educational and psychological research for two decades. Both the concept and the ways we attempt to measure it have many problems, and it isn't nearly as widely accepted as you're trying to portray it here. It is, at best, controversial (particularly the book in question that she read). I don't really blame Hillary for finding the idea interesting (since it was relatively new at the time and she was a layperson), but evaluating other people based upon some stuff you read in a popsci book and not acknowledging it's just your own vague, uninformed impression is pretty hosed up. And, as others have mentioned, it's really obvious from the way she addresses the topic that she is minimizing (or, more accurately, flat out ignoring) the influence of environment and circumstances. And of course there are other disturbing things, like the way she talks about "enforcing rules strictly" and dismissing them if they make many errors. It comes off like she feels really comfortable with the idea of having power of these people. edit: the "inquisitive" part was even worse than I remembered, jeez. "They seemed to have active and inquisitive minds." Did she expect their minds to be inactive or something? edit2: One thing I feel is worth saying, though, is that I don't think Hillary was any more racist than just about any other random well-off white person. Her attitudes seem pretty bog standard for privileged white baby boomers. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2017 17:08
|
|
