|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Great Metal Jesus posted:I don't have much to add aside from saying that this is a good article and people should read it (including the Democrats but, well, whatcha gonna do?). How do you get the voters from labor and the donors from capital? What else does liberalism have to achieve? Unions have disintegrated, taxes are historic lows, brazenly audacious and publicly acknowledged crimes in the finance industry are condoned, our sub-first world health coverage has incrementally advanced solely via government pick pocketing for insurance companies. Civil rights laws were passed, integration in the elite institutions and the lower ends of society as far as legally enforceable aspects has been "achieved", gay marriage was legalized, even trans rights are on the cusp of federal protection. Virtually every social and market policy has been liberalized to such an extent that the internet has an infestation of libertarians born out of this mutation that see society as literally nothing more than a market place with no public role or social obligations that exists solely to maintain shipping addresses and systems for companies to mail products to. I'm glad society has embraced human rights, but prejudice is an inherent cost of the social expectations of a community and its wider society. With no mechanisms of conformity, or concept of a public good beyond facilitating participation in the market, how can community exist, and without community, how does a society exist? What form does it take? How do you establish a welfare state in a society with obligations to the individual when the individuals obligation to society is limited to purchasing consumer goods and paying taxes to maintain the distribution chain for Amazon and Wal-Mart? Social and market liberalism undermines tribalism, which inherently leads to the erasure of race and religion as a form of identity because the only valid identity is consumer. The inherent contradiction must be ignored or minimized because it can't be rationalized in any intellectually honest way that doesn't emphasize relations to the means of production that would undermine market liberalism. [This is absolutely not about the plight of white people ever since Obama instituted white slavery] The liberal identity can only be justified within this narrative. A virtual constant of everything liberals argue is the subtext of the erasure of the white poor and the non-white middle class. The existence of white poverty and minority middle class fundamentally contradicts the social basis of liberalism, while implicating the white middle class for its role in the ills of society. The majority of the poor are white. The racialization of the concept of poverty itself allows largely white middle class liberals to indulge in a narrative that reduces poverty to a consequence of race. This conveniently absolves them of any particular guilt, and renders poverty a fatalistic product of forces beyond human intervention, very much akin the manner conservatives don't necessarily want to destroy the environment, but holding anybody in their coalition accountable would be inconvenient, so you know, nothing humans can do about it. Gods will, meritocracy, don't think about too hard. By no means am I denying the obvious caste system. I'm more comfortable in a black ghetto than I am around the white middle class. The white middle class is more comfortable with the black middle class than around the white poor, and to varying extent, the same applies to the black middle class and the black poor. The racialization of poverty, is embraced by largely white middle class liberals, not because they aren't tribalistic, or care about power relations and intersectionality, but because they do not care. At any point a middle class liberals views will be the the most morally acceptable defense of their share of capital. The black middle class doesn't have nearly the amount of guilt, but regardless of race, the gentry fundamentally only understand things from the most self-serving view of the gentry. No amount of appeals to diversity can change that people want to feel like they deserve what they have, and that extends to those who do not have. "The white working class" or "the white poor" is a code word, it denotes specific kind of poverty, which betrays the speakers alienation from poverty and subconscious desire to marginalize it. Its pathetically deluded when conservatives pretend racism doesn't exist, or that it could be solved by pretending everyone is white. Its shockingly ignorant when liberals pretend poverty is a race thing, or that solving racism would solve poverty, despite whites being the majority of the poor despite the white supremacist power structure. Here's the problem: Society is breaking down. Social cohesion is breaking down. I hate the boomers, I pray that if medicaid and medicare are destroyed, the boomers are hit the worst. I wouldn't advocate for that, because that's suicidally stupid, but my contempt for a vast portion of society is strong enough to take some enjoyment from awful things, greater good be damned. This is a society on the edge with the bottom about to fall out from automation. Violence is the inevitable result. Look at the Democratic party, at the liberals. The liberals won the culture war, good, but they refuse to acknowledge the class war. What do they have to offer? Who are they trying to sell to? Look at the Republican party, at the conservatives. They won the class war, but they refuse to accept the culture war. What do they have to offer? Who are they trying to sell to? The old guard is dead. The old political spectrum is irrelevant. The liberals beat the conservatives and achieved everything. The liberals no longer have a platform, not-Trump, as we know, is not a platform. Sanders had a platform: socialism. Trump had a platform: fascism. 2016 was a referendum on liberalism by socialists and fascists. Liberalism is the playing field, the conservative norm that will inevitably crumble with the social upheaval we're currently going through, but we are currently in an ideological civil war between socialism and fascism. Much to the liberals dismay, the state is not neutral, for all behaviors it supports, allows, facilitates, bans, prohibits, and or condones. Collective bargaining is either allowed, and thus supported by the state, or its not supported, and thus not allowed. Without legal protections, unions have no power, without contract law, capital has no power. For instance, gay marriage is allowed by the state, thus supported, this siphons power from religions and cults. I support gay marriage, but religious assholes can make the terrible argument that the state has no business legitimizing gay/human rights because it undermines their morality. Workers rights are no more real than any other human right: something people have successfully lobbied to be a responsibility of the state to protect that undermines the agenda/power of a private institution or interest that was not willing/able to protect without state intervention. There is no center on any of these things. Either the state supports one side, or the other. It is binary. The Democratic party has no issues left to advocate for, and become a conservative party dedicated to maintaining the status quo. The Republican party has only explicitly white capital left to advocate for, and become a radicalized reactionary party dedicated to dismantling the state. There is no going back to normal. Trump isn't bungling his appointments or simply staffing cronies, he's circumventing the law and simply dismantling and looting agencies. This isn't being obfuscated, it's his openly stated agenda, openly endorsed by his supporters. These agencies aren't going to go back to the way they were, and with the clear maneuvering to dismantle elections, there's decreasing reason to expect there to be people to repair and reconstruct them. The Democrats have nothing to fight for. The Republicans have nothing to lose. Because they've achieved their agenda, the Democratic party fundamentally represents the state, and the Republicans sole agenda is to destroy the state. Liberalism has destroyed social cohesion via dismantling legal mechanisms of social discrimination. The evangelicals that were against legalizing gay marriage will now just support destroying the state because they no longer have vested interest in it. We are literally in an ideological civil war. The state as a functioning body that we recognize is not going to survive the Trump administration. Less than 6 months in, Trump is testing whether or not he's officially above the law. The socialists are organized along class. The fascists are organized along race. The liberals hold the state as of now, the big question is: who are the liberals going to cede the state to? WampaLord posted:Hahahahahaha the dems are hosed. Are you certain shut down is going to be avoided at this rate? How comfortable are you with that happening under Trump?
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
i agree grab your guns and start firing them wildly in the street it's the only way forward imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Long list of things. So in other words, "The Democrats are a waste". People need to either bow to fascism or fight for a better future for the people at large. And not with the Democrats who as you say, are for the unacceptable Status Quo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
The "new platform" comes out on Monday, so let's hold off on making any sweeping proclamations until then. But I'm definitely not as optimistic as I first was. Hopefully they surprise me somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:So in other words, "The Democrats are a waste". People need to either bow to fascism or fight for a better future for the people at large. And not with the Democrats who as you say, are for the unacceptable Status Quo. Dictators aren't necessarily cunning Cincinnatus or iron fisted military men. They can be oafish crooks that could never get into power in a first world country, I'm sure its not that hard to find traitors or war criminals from the executive of the military to support him. If Trump cancels fake news and fake elections I'm sure MadDog and Flynn would too be principled to let that happen. What I'm saying is that we've already lost.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Maybe with that attitude, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:What I'm saying is that we've already lost. Oh please. Our country has weathered worse than this and recovered, nothing is hopeless. If you want to be a D&D "nothing matters" nihilist, go to the Trump thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The "new platform" comes out on Monday, so let's hold off on making any sweeping proclamations until then 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
The new platform will be an embarrassing milquetoast compromise. It will be further left than Clinton pushed, but still unpalatable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Anything less than single payer will be entirely unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I don't think anyone has meaningfully 'lost' yet, but i'd put good money on things getting worse, and long odds on the good guys winning anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Anything less than single payer will be entirely unacceptable. Pretty much this. Anything less that medicare for all single payer and an end to large corporate donations is going to be frowned on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
The thing you gotta watch out for is language that isn't specific. Democrats often like to talk about how big of a problem they think (for example) income inequality is, and younger/uninformed voters can hear that and mistakenly assume that means they're going to do something to fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing you gotta watch out for is language that isn't specific. Democrats often like to talk about how big of a problem they think (for example) income inequality is, and younger/uninformed voters can hear that and mistakenly assume that means they're going to do something to fix the problem. Every goddamn primary argument last year was "well actually, Obamacare IS Universal Healthcare" and I wanted to shoot myself
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing you gotta watch out for is language that isn't specific. Democrats often like to talk about how big of a problem they think (for example) income inequality is, and younger/uninformed voters can hear that and mistakenly assume that means they're going to do something to fix the problem. Yeah I'm seeing UBI as a fix for income inequality pop up a lot. I'd like to see the explicit acknowledgment of a wage ceiling, even if it is elevenity billion trillion dollars, because conceptually I think the party as a whole is A-OK with infinite inequality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Millennials of color snubbed Hillary Clinton — and have no regrets: “They” are millennials of color who either didn’t vote or voted third party. And for Cornell Belcher, the president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies, who was the pollster for the Democratic National Committee under then-Chairman Howard Dean and for both of Barack Obama’s campaigns for the White House, this makes them the new swing voters the Democratic Party should be trying to win over. “We spend a lot of time talking about blue-collar white voters and Reagan Democrats. Reagan Democrats are dead,”
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Millennials of color snubbed Hillary Clinton — and have no regrets: “They” are millennials of color who either didn’t vote or voted third party. And for Cornell Belcher, the president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies, who was the pollster for the Democratic National Committee under then-Chairman Howard Dean and for both of Barack Obama’s campaigns for the White House, this makes them the new swing voters the Democratic Party should be trying to win over. Well those Millenials of color are the working class. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing you gotta watch out for is language that isn't specific. Democrats often like to talk about how big of a problem they think (for example) income inequality is, and younger/uninformed voters can hear that and mistakenly assume that means they're going to do something to fix the problem. "Village Voice circa 1996" posted:“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program — the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics, as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway.” "Obama is a date rapist circa 2008" posted:
I remember all expectation fading when outline of healthcare reform came out and thinking "this is completely useless unless medicaid is expanded to such a degree that it becomes de facto UHC. " Kokoro Wish posted:Pretty much this. Anything less that medicare for all single payer and an end to large corporate donations is going to be frowned on. rudatron posted:I don't think anyone has meaningfully 'lost' yet, but i'd put good money on things getting worse, and long odds on the good guys winning anytime soon. The Kingfish posted:Anything less than single payer will be entirely unacceptable. WampaLord posted:Oh please. Our country has weathered worse than this and recovered, nothing is hopeless. If you want to be a D&D "nothing matters" nihilist, go to the Trump thread. Willie Tomg posted:Maybe with that attitude, sure. I think it might be presumptuous to consider myself part of the start of a brain drain, but I don't think anyone with experience with American poverty, a modicum of ambition, and the opportunity to pay extraordinarily higher taxes to live in a less barbaric culture can look at whats going on think "this country is my first choice". You keep on the fight, if I have the cash, I'll donate to your gofundme for basic medical services.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
I am going to stay. Why? I want to be alive to see the purges of the subhumans running the country. I want to be there to see something terrible and new created I want to see thenpyre of the bonfire of liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I am going to stay. Why? I want to be alive to see the purges of the subhumans running the country. I want to be there to see something terrible and new created I want to see thenpyre of the bonfire of liberalism. I'll still be in America in spirit. By which I mean shielding all my assets in phony legal-minimum charitable foundation that reduces my taxable income by half and allow capital gains free investment in high risk international ventures that are transparent respectable-people laundering schemes that tax accountants literally advertise as the most blatant somehow legal yet clearly fraudulent tax dodge imaginable. I'll even donate to the national association of hetero-flexible coke addled Manhattan bankers, I want America to be a successful business, a lean, mean, union-free socially inclusive machine. I'll even get my friends to donate and offer investment opportunities. Don't you worry about where the party funds come from, let me worry about blank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 07:30
|
|
|
All joking aside, you understand that what you're posting sounds very "FYGM later losers, maybe I'll throw some money at you poor dears sometime". That doesn't exactly engender any pity for your former situation. There are going to be people stuck in you former situation and worse, and they're actually going to have to fight the battles you've escaped from and work towards a solution you've given up on. Maybe don't rub it in their faces because they're actually going to have to get bloody handed, either politically or physically, locally, nationally and both inside and outside the system. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:I'll still be in America in spirit. By which I mean shielding all my assets in phony legal-minimum charitable foundation that reduces my taxable income by half and allow capital gains free investment in high risk international ventures that are transparent respectable-people laundering schemes that tax accountants literally advertise as the most blatant somehow legal yet clearly fraudulent tax dodge imaginable. No one will be safe the bon fire of liberalism will engulf all the occidental culture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Yeah I'm seeing UBI as a fix for income inequality pop up a lot. I'd like to see the explicit acknowledgment of a wage ceiling, even if it is elevenity billion trillion dollars, because conceptually I think the party as a whole is A-OK with infinite inequality. Well, I think just having a very, very high tax rate (that also covers capital gains tax and avoids loopholes, etc) + a wealth tax is a better way to accomplish that. The latter is important, because wealth inequality is ultimately far higher (and more important/relevant) than income inequality. Income taxes aren't as useful because the rich are making most of their money through capital gains, and even with a higher capital gains tax they can still keep accruing wealth indefinitely, so it's useful to have some way to siphon away wealth from the rich regardless of what they do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 10:18
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:All joking aside, you understand that what you're posting sounds very "FYGM later losers, maybe I'll throw some money at you poor dears sometime". That doesn't exactly engender any pity for your former situation. These are going to sound disconnected, but its to illustrate a social tapestry. A friend is kind of a spoiled sociopath who's family is basically aristocracy. Her family visited Pakistani hometown recently, her dad remembers why he left, sectarian violence that killed family among the reasons, and its nothing but a bunch of villagers, though he feels bad for the beggars. I saw a frat boy who looked like he was dressed for a yacht club talking about how much he likes young thug and complaining about the people who waste his dads tax money. Mind you this is at a university that is literally the basis of the market for local prison slave labor goods. I was introduced to Dungeons & Dragons, and played a game, where I was told Trump was elected through "kek magic", of which I can guess the meaning of, but have no desire for further investigation. I drank with some wealthy Euro foreign exchange students. They seemed very confused by the idea that international travel is prohibitively expensive: "Like, seriously, do you have any idea outside of you're loving bubble most people can't afford that? Moscow is one of the most expensive cities in the world" "All I know is that's been relatively one of the cheapest places I've traveled to" When canvassing for Obama the rednecks were responding with slurs. When canvassing for Sanders black people were using slurs. Slurs usually accompanied accusations of being Muslim or variations of blood libel. I wouldn't canvas for a Bush, but Jeb! being married to a Mexican lady did palpable damage to his campaign. The only people I canvassed that came off as human were the kids who steal cellphones for a living. I liked them. Local congressman's office people had canned lines slandering kid who died from a tooth infection prepared in case anyone asked why he was betraying the opportunity to endorse UHC. I went to rally where people were giving speeches about experiences with police brutality. As a lady was choking up talking about the insanity of her family being killed, some girl two feet from her with an out of town protest group was taking selfies. Nothing can redeem this society. In the words of a counselor who's the poster child of inclusive diversity and such. "If you're a white male without children or addicted to drugs, there are no social services available. " What are my options? My survival is dependent on paying tuition to an institution that specifically helped engineer the welfare cuts that destroyed my family. I'm supposed to accept this? Cast my lot in a with political party that did these things? Ally with "human beings" like Fulcrum that actually engage in apologetic for it? Die in gutter? Achieve material success and become an enlightened middle class anti-racist ally in all white neighborhood? Under capitalism, there can be no solidarity. I feel about these people (liberals), roughly the same way I imagine people feel about their neighbors and community after a civil war when people go crazy with machetes. I think I understand my friend's dad's view more than I thought. I was talking to a friendly Norwegian girl about some books, and criminal schemes came up. Her first reaction was to emphasize the importance of taxes to support the welfare systems. Liberalism must be stopped. America must be destroyed. Feeding off its corpse is to quarantine it. It'll be like a sky burial, those who are eaten alive can be reborn as vultures. Kokoro Wish posted:There are going to be people stuck in you former situation and worse, and they're actually going to have to fight the battles you've escaped from and work towards a solution you've given up on. Maybe don't rub it in their faces because they're actually going to have to get bloody handed, either politically or physically, locally, nationally and both inside and outside the system. They're hosed, it can't be fixed, the physical sparsity alone is an inevitable and virtually unsolvable catastrophe, much less a lack of social cohesion entwined with that making collective organizing less than effective with the backwards parts holding 70 senators. America is a continent sized company town, not a country, there's no "people" or culture, just a labor pool and sleazy investments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't think anyone has meaningfully 'lost' yet, but i'd put good money on things getting worse, and long odds on the good guys winning anytime soon. Well yeah. On matters of economics and military conflicts especially, centrists have been ignoring, aiding, or actively perpetrating horror after horror. This has been going on since the establishment of capitalism, and the centrists have usually been the liberals of their time periods. Any real progress has variously been the result of massive union actions, acts of civil disobedience, or just too many bread riots to keep the national ledger in the black, usually at the cost of many lives. A centrist president is more or less the best anyone could hope for, because right-wing governments stomp everyone into the mud without mercy and left-wingers are the avowed enemies of moneyed interests. Centrists are deeply concerned not with what's right or wrong, but what people think, and this is the only real thing to recommend them by. However, if doing something obviously stupid and horrible seems popular at the time, the centrist will do it or step aside for it, even if they know better. Here is pretty much the realest thing Obama has ever said: quote:Former President Barack Obama, speaking to an audience in Italy on Tuesday, urged citizens to participate in democracy and warned that “you get the politicians you deserve.” http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150 The implicit argument being made is that the agenda of leaders is set by the public, not by visionary leadership looking for a Better Way. We got RomneyCare and not Gay Socialist Health Care because that's what Obama determined he could get away with. That's why brown people continue to get droned and Guantanamo Bay is still open. Because Obama is an administrator, not a revolutionary, and there hasn't been a serious enough public outcry to end these things. The next Democrat president will probably give us Single Payer because a majority of people have figured out that health care is a human right. But if no one complains about Forever War, it will continue and if anything just get worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/09/obama-you-get-the-politicians-you-deserve-238150 cept people voted overwhelmingly for public option and got republican healthcare instead. theory disproven obama you shitlord
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
gently caress obama, blaming his failures on voters. he's scum edit: oh i see, it's our fault for voting for him because we didn't pay enough attention to realize he was self-serving scum peddling lies
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:32
|
|
|
reminder that people voted in dems claiming to support singlepayer, only for that scum to go and block it with procedural fuckery this is those voters' faults because they were not paying enough attention
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
fricken bern down the whole got drat democratic party to the dang ol ground full communism now single payer today basic minimum income five minutes ago
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:In the Trump thread they mentioned Kamala Harris as possible, something about supporting slavery and being against UHC despite being the only way to fix healthcare. HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Aaaaahahahahaha, the most qualified woman in the country ran last year and most of the baggage everyone complained about with her was pure bullshit. Good grief, the Bernouts on twitter are already ripping Kamala Harris a new one because she's a possible maybe candidate for 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:reminder that people voted in dems claiming to support singlepayer, only for that scum to go and block it with procedural fuckery By early 2008 Obama was saying he wouldn't do single payer and taking heat for it, and using the reasoning that effectively too much money and infrastructure was wrapped up in health care to do single payer. Basically, he feared getting outflanked by the industry like Bill Clinton did, and presumably thought he could box in Republicans and win their support. Instead of revolting on the issue, left-wing voters largely clung to the idea that Obama's hands were tied and were appeased by a solidly good-but-not-great law, as opposed to More Nothing. Compare with gay marriage, which Obama didn't support at all and shifted to equivocating endlessly on it, while other forces normalized it. After years of doing really nothing about it, the administration then re-framed the issue as if they drove it. The stance only changed because public opinion underwent a dramatic swing. Don't trust presidents to do good things for the country by themselves, ever. The president of the United States has never been a leftist and rarely even a good person. Agitate relentlessly for everything you want by attacking the power structure's bottom line, or expect to not receive it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Also Iran and North Korea. It's not even that - after all, the Iran deal (which will almost certainly derail even further thanks to these new sanctions) was the product of a Dem administration. I really think it's just plain old stupidity for the sake of political posturing. Since Trump and a growing portion of his administration is so tied to suspicious pro-Russia activity, they want to look Tough on Russia to seem like they're really sticking it to the president. But without the numbers to actually do anything themselves, all they could do was tack it on to a GOP Axis of Evil sanctions bill and count on the media to reframe it for them - and that's what they did, and drat the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:By early 2008 Obama was saying he wouldn't do single payer and taking heat for it, and using the reasoning that effectively too much money and infrastructure was wrapped up in health care to do single payer. Basically, he feared getting outflanked by the industry like Bill Clinton did, and presumably thought he could box in Republicans and win their support. yeah i remember pointing out that it was not the dems who brought us same sex marriage, but outside groups doing all the legwork, and having bad dems jump all over me for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:What I'm saying is more dire than that. The status quo is actively collapsing with this administration. The liberal wing of the democrats can't rally the popular support needed to maintain the state because they have no platform. The GOP has a platform of dismantling the state, the level of support needed to pursue that, both chambers, the supreme court, and an executive that's on the precipice of openly embracing a criminal persona, at which point a fascist dictatorship is a description, rather than a slander, that will be embraced by 75% of the Republican party. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah i remember pointing out that it was not the dems who brought us same sex marriage, but outside groups doing all the legwork, and having bad dems jump all over me for it. That hasn't happened to me but I think bad dems are less likely to jump gay posters saying it (apologies if condiv is gay) I don't support them and they are exactly the type of rich minority that disappears from the movement the moment their pet issue is settled, but the Log Cabin Republicans went through a lot of bullshit from both sides for their stances and while doing the majority of the legal work behind the fight against prop 8. It was really gross when on photoshoot later Obama and Biden were plastered all over the SC decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Off topic, but in terms of trying to take credit for same sex marriage nothing will ever beat the shamelessness of Andrew Sullivan, who for years attacked the legal strategy in every way possible, and then when it worked had a full on meltdown whenever he wasn't credited with its passage because he had written about same sex marriage earlier. And to bring it back to the topic of the thread, it is incredibly telling about current democrat pundits that they are far more comfortable with David Frum and Andrew Sullivan because they are "reasonable", despite being people who support or supported horrific policies and wars that have harmed millions of people, then with anyone to the left.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Off topic, but in terms of trying to take credit for same sex marriage nothing will ever beat the shamelessness of Andrew Sullivan, who for years attacked the legal strategy in every way possible, and then when it worked had a full on meltdown whenever he wasn't credited with its passage because he had written about same sex marriage earlier. Holy crap, this, so much. That Obama and other liberal luminaires were so quick to embrace Sullivan despite him being poo poo on so many fronts and existing to be a handbrake on anything remotely progressive was what sealed it in my mind that Obama was a joke, after his appointment of Timothy freaking Geithner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Nothing can redeem this society. Wow, you turned into a loving gibbering idiot in record time. No one cares about your crazy ideas about how America is doomed and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. You literally sound like a Metal Gear villain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmWQd8zhEg4
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:All joking aside, you understand that what you're posting sounds very "FYGM later losers, maybe I'll throw some money at you poor dears sometime". That doesn't exactly engender any pity for your former situation. I wouldn't worry too much about this Sneakster fellow, he's not even American. He makes too many mistakes with his articles that a native English speaker would never make.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
quote:Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Sunday promised a bolder economic message for the Democratic Party, including the potential for single-payer health care. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/23/schumer-democrats-namby-pamby-240857 Sounds promising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 16:56
|
|
