|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Dirk Pitt posted:People who drink PBR and Coors Light are Republicans. And people don’t vote with their wallets. Two things I learned from Liberal commentator Joy Ann Reid. Part of third way is dumping econokic concerns for racial concerns. Hillary's campaign was every bit as racially coded as Reagan's. Dems are always a few steps behind so they're finally dipping their toes into racially tinged appeals and codewords instead of just taking the African and Hispanic American votes for granted. Capitalism accelerates things and creates it's own opposition so Trump was able to even more effectively pander directly to the hardcore white racist vote that had long been accessed through dog whistles and appeals to related areas like Christianity. Third way has no ideas, that's why there is so much emphasis on "data" and not on "ideology".
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:2) Despite what many people here think, Antifa does way more harm than good. Using physical violence to silence others is validating the fascists' tactics. That's something that could easily be turned against you or the causes you support in a country where your side isn't in control. And by lumping in bog standard republicans with white supremacists (let me make it clear, this wasn't the case in Charlottesville but the definition is already starting to slide) or trying to pretend that this is the fourth reich rising instead of nazis being the same stupid shitheads they've always been in modern history, you're risking normalizing them in the eyes of the right. People need to know that Richard Spencer and Vanguard America are literal white supremacists that advocate genocide and not alt-right free speech provocateurs/grifters like Milo. There is a difference. Buddy if the fascists win they aren't going to care if we were nonviolent or not or if they were validated or whatever, they're going to kill us just as good. I think you're being hypernormalized if you think we aren't experiencing a very dangerous shift in politics right now. Trump is appointing, literally, almost all the worst possible people to the government and their policies are going to lead to some very dark poo poo. "Bog-standard Republicans" consist of people like this: https://twitter.com/HarrellKirstein/status/902939064860585988 The Democrats still see the Republicans as fellow administrators and not the rictus on the face of the white supremacist movement in America. This is because liberals are more comfortable with fascists than leftists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
But if I vacate the public space and act like a total boot licking coward, the scary nazis won't have a reason to hurt me 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:But if I vacate the public space and act like a total boot licking coward, the scary nazis won't have a reason to hurt me  Please label Lisa as "Columbia" and Milhouse "debt".
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
relevant to this thread: https://twitter.com/_grendan/status/903282190070493185
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Part of third way is dumping econokic concerns for racial concerns. https://mobile.twitter.com/newyorker/status/804731891706462208
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Harrow posted:That's fair, and I didn't mean it that way. From what (little) I knew, my perspective was: turning left certainly can't hurt, and I definitely like progressive policies, so I'm far from opposed to it. I just wanted to know whether, should a leftist turn actually happen (and I realize the whole point of this thread is "it won't unless we loving force them to"), I should feel a bit more optimistic about electoral chances as well. First, keep in mind that when talking about moving left we are not even talking about moving hard left. The problem is that even mildly left wing politics make Joy Ann Reid, Daily Kos guy, and most of the DNC establishment freak out. As for evidence that it would help: Democrat approval rating: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-party-favorable-rating Approval of democrats is cratering even as Trump is deeply unpopular. Meanwhille, a plurality support single payer and a majority support expanding government involvement in health care: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/ A majority supports raising the minimum wage to $15: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2477 Free tuition is overwhelmingly positive: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/01/over-60-of-americans-back-tuition-free-college-survey-says.html Now, mouthpieces for the democratic establishment, like Joy Ann Reid and the Daily Kos crew, insist that the reason Clinton lost was because of the racist berniebros. However, a lot of the data actually shows democrats particularly weak among PoC millennials: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...m=.6d8d229aa21b As for why these policies haven't become a reality where dems do win, well, that may explain part of their unpopularity. After all, you have the CA single payer debacle, you have the mayor of Baltimore vetoing a $15 minimum wage after campaigning on it...
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Harrow posted:It's like she's never met a grad student. Honestly, what alternative do we have? Moving past just winning elections, the status quo is not sustainable. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans live paycheck to paycheck and that number is increasing. This is while the economy is "doing great". Not to mention it has no answer to climate change, health care, or a host of other issues. It's not just an electorally failing strategy but one that will only lead to systemic failure. It is a failed system. The Republicans have already presented an alternative that they are openly adopting, white nationalism. If we can't provide an alternative then the only path forward is letting the dumbest, cruelest fuckers on Earth deciding who and who does not count as a person.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/transscribe/status/903271770223980547
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
It's always time for this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You (clap) can't (clap) read  it's a given you're going to dispute that the plain reading of your posts is what it is - you wouldn't be JeffersonClay if you weren't trying to gaslight entire threads at a time. Shame you're so terrible at it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Just a reminder that Tulsi 'hates Muslims' because she's friends with someone that Obama is also friends with
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
call to action posted:Just a reminder that Tulsi 'hates Muslims' because she's friends with someone that Obama is also friends with Rahm Emanuel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
call to action posted:Just a reminder that Tulsi 'hates Muslims' because she's friends with someone that Obama is also friends with This article disagrees. https://socialistworker.org/2016/12/08/an-islamophobic-progressive posted:Breaking ranks with the Obama administration and most Democrats, Gabbard endorsed Donald Trump's claim that Islam itself is the source of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS. She ranted that Obama "is completely missing the point of this radical Islamic ideology that's fueling these people."
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
It is never enough what Edit: confused the bad dem thread with the good dem thread. 😄 Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 19:08 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:relevant to this thread: watching this right now.... jesus loving christ the nazis surrounding a small group, them macing people at random, the cops just loving standing there as a large group of nazis attacks a much smaller group of people the reporter goes up to them and asks why they aren't intervening and they just stand there like statues
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
if any of this poo poo happened at a left-wing protest the cops would be cracking skulls in seconds
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:relevant to this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpDiM0M610&t=802s
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:the biggest one is the time Democrats tacked left and ruled as loving emperors for thirty years *until they tried to include black people. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
i'm still working my way through that video. gonna go to bed for now though. still, it's really sickening to watch this disgusting scum. if you feel the need to defend fascists, and feel the need to pretend they're non-violent, watch this video 100 times and then watch it 100 more
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Jonah Goldberg was right. Liberalism is fascism with a smile. this is the real poo poo, liberals think the fascists will protect them, and they are right
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:They came amazingly close to having a legendary thing occur at 13 minutes and 37 seconds - a guy runs up dual-wielding sticks, beating on this bewildered looking guy in a tank top and backpack. Could you clarify what you mean? Because what I saw was the "bewildered looking guy in a tank top and backpack" had just tackled a counter protestor and was about to start beating on them. As soon as he got off the counter protestor the guy with sticks stops and tank-top backpack nazi jumps back behind the white supremacist shield wall. Your comment is so vague about how you feel about the action that it seems like you're trying to get someone to misinterpret you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:watching this right now.... They're jealous they're not the ones beating the protesters and glad that they won't be held legally responsible for protesters being beaten. Real catch-22 for them, as long as you ignore that their primary objective should be stopping all assaults but hey, America is only for white people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Could you clarify what you mean? Because what I saw was the "bewildered looking guy in a tank top and backpack" had just tackled a counter protestor and was about to start beating on them. As soon as he got off the counter protestor the guy with sticks stops and tank-top backpack nazi jumps back behind the white supremacist shield wall. Your comment is so vague about how you feel about the action that it seems like you're trying to get someone to misinterpret you. Why do people keep using PVC pipes as bludgeons anyway? They're likely to shatter and end up cutting someone badly like bamboo will, and they aren't going to hurt if you smack someone with one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Weren't the republicans in the exact same situation the Dems are in right now back in 2009 before the rise of the Tea Party?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Weren't the republicans in the exact same situation the Dems are in right now back in 2009 before the rise of the Tea Party? Nah, they had a future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:1) 2018 is a year where a bunch of Dem seats are on the line. Most of them refuse to stand for anything (or are making moves far too late in the game) and the Republicans have been regularly branding the Dems as obstructionists since November. So their base will be motivated and the dems (usually) have trouble showing up for midterms. Plus the GOP is still destroying the DNC when it comes to fundraising. this is loving insane. if you aren't willing to fight to live why are you even here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Weren't the republicans in the exact same situation the Dems are in right now back in 2009 before the rise of the Tea Party? The Tea Party was an astroturf campaign with infinite money behind it post-CU and the Republicans enjoyed the combination of structural electoral advantages and the off-year gap to take over redistricting in 2010. The real mistake was ever believing that 2006-08 Democratic gains represented a trend rather than a fluke.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight. Every Communist and revolutionary should take up this weapon. But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, Philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifests itself in various ways. To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type of liberalism. To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting forward one's suggestions to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs, or to say nothing at a meeting but to gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type. To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while knowing perfectly well what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid blame. This is a third type. Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's own opinions. To demand special consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type. To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels, vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type. To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened. This is a sixth type. To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings or conduct investigations and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Communist and behaving as if one were an ordinary non-Communist. This is a seventh type. To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type. To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to work perfunctorily and muddle along--"So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the bell." This is a ninth type. To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type. To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself. This is an eleventh type. We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive which eats away unity, undermines cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party leads. It is an extremely bad tendency. Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and organizational liberalism. People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they have their liberalism as well--they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use for each. This is how the minds of certain people work. Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution. We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A Communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a Communist. All loyal, honest, active and upright Communists must unite to oppose the liberal tendencies shown by certain people among us, and set them on the right path. This is one of the tasks on our ideological front.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
marx already solved this problem edit:this was mao not marx Rodiel fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Aug 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Any position other than "antifa is good and just and they protect you" is bad. Really bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
we must go further than that. these people really do want us to die, and we should fight them on every front. anything less is unacceptable
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
i mean anti-antifa just to clarify
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Agreed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
the lack of actually leftist views in here is disturbing, i assume i will be banned but w/e
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
I don't know what you guys expected from the police, though. it looks like they were simply following procedures. I found a hefty 110 page PFD about (theoretical?) approaches to managing mass demonstrations, which suggests the idea that their procedures for riots leave them to be quite limited. from viewing the video, I believe this PDF is accurate to their approach. I didn't read the whole thing but a lot of it is focused more on media relations and less so on public safety. the only thing I've found focused more on public safety is something from the ACLU:Q.Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights? posted:Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their displeasure. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one another. to disperse the initial protest would be violating their rights until something explicitly illegal was done. which on the very first night, it seems like it did escalate to that point, but as far as the frequent questions go about why the police were doing nothing or making no arrests, this is what the PDF has to say about mass arrests: Mass Arrests, Pg.55 posted:We have seen from police after-action reports and third-party reviews of police practices that the mass detention of protestors not actively engaged in violence can create significant problems for law enforcement agencies (New York Civil Liberties Union 2004). Mass arrests during demonstrations in Washington, D.C., New York City and other major locales have been criticized. In some cases, the protest activity, while unlawful, was not necessarily violent. Complaints included that law-abiding protestors and passersby were rounded up and detained along with violators in overly broad sweeps. I doubt the efficacy of the police officers breaking formations to make singular arrests to people perpetuating violence. I don't know the size off-hand of the Charlottesville PD, but from the video it's certainly safe to guess that it is significantly smaller than the hundreds of people organized, so they also had to wait for the state police to show up and organize. later in the video it's asked why the state police don't do anything, but the chain of command was for CPD to give the orders. the PDF speaks on that too, but I feel that's easy enough to accept as-is. having two differing police organizations not on the same page and not following the same chain of command has the serious potential of leading to more chaos. why VSPD did not have the right of command is beyond me, though. keep in mind this is also why individual officers did or said nothing - they had to wait until order from the chain of command. perhaps more interestingly (and more damning) is this tidbit on "Use of Force," which would include extreme physical violence and use of firearms (but not gasses or tasers - those fall under 'Less-Lethal Devices'): Use of Force, Pg.56 posted:The use-of-force by police against the public, no matter the need or justification, usually conveys a disturbing appearance. The prospect of capturing such confrontations is part of the reason the media covers mass demonstration events. Needless to say, it is the goal of some protesting factions to provoke the official use-of-force, knowing full well that the incident will be broadcast around the world. Every police agency is governed by policies regulating use-of-force. The agency’s use-of-force continuum or model should not be adjusted or modified for mass demonstration events. The rules of engagement need to be consistent among participating agencies. The theory of a graduated use-of-force in response to escalating disorder is based on what is both reasonable and proportionate to the threat. An appropriate response must be stressed at all times, especially given the amount of media attention that focuses on police when disorder erupts during mass demonstrations, and how this attention affects the public perception of the department. lmao sure thing guys
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Rodiel posted:i mean anti-antifa just to clarify Anti-antifa is a real thing. We just to joke about it. Because this was Germany, everything gets an official organization so we filed for an anti anti-antifa to see if they would respond by creating an anti-anti anti-antifa. However, the filing fee some was something like DM30 and we decided to prioritize spending out money on beer. I recommend someone start it up again. I might even still have the logo somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
a cat on an apple posted:I don't know what you guys expected from the police, though. it looks like they were simply following procedures. I found a hefty 110 page PFD about (theoretical?) approaches to managing mass demonstrations, which suggests the idea that their procedures for riots leave them to be quite limited. from viewing the video, I believe this PDF is accurate to their approach. I didn't read the whole thing but a lot of it is focused more on media relations and less so on public safety. the only thing I've found focused more on public safety is something from the ACLU: no one cares about the loving process, please abandon this
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Anti-antifa is a real thing. We just to joke about it. this was cool and good
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Rodiel posted:no one cares about the loving process, please abandon this what would you have rathered them do? go in guns blazing to take down the gun-wielding nazis and create a real bloody battlefield? they surrounded, contained, moved in, and worked to disperse a high-threat civilian area. I know we hate blue pigs here but their standing around wasn't in support of white supremacy, it was a controlled process to limit damages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2017 21:13
|
|