|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:"~Obama apologia~*
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Poor Chocolate Jesus. Thwarted at every turn by the evil monster Kon-Gress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:The public option was in the ACA and Obama fought to keep it in, but ultimately it was killed by the conservative democrats in Congress because they were afraid they'd lose their seats if they voted for big gubmint socialism. Those conservative dems were subsequently massacred in the midterms by Tea Party Republicans. Agreed on Guantanamo. I'll say that there were a few venues he could have tried, but they would have costed 'political capital' and made him 'open to attack'. I'd argue that when you are already being attacked for the sin of liking grey poupon mustard, you might as well not bother play that foolish game, but eh. About the ACA, though? No. No way. He gave up all the good parts quickly, included tons of pork to please some of the sleaziest pols outside of a Scorcese movie, and then when Kennedy croaked and he came up short anyway he did nothing to improve the bill once reconciliation was inevitable. He didn't even wind back all the loony changes republicans made to the bill in exchange for the grand total of 0 votes in return. Hell, he is on the record during the campaign joking about the idea of an individual mandate being absurd, saying that we might as well pass a law mandating homeless people to buy a house if that was a thing. That, and him offering to sign away half of the surviving welfare state for a budget that was likely going to be overturned in a few years, show that Obama's endless compromises are not strategic. They are part of his values, aiming to shore up the consensus instead of actually solving issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Agreed on Guantanamo. I'll say that there were a few venues he could have tried, but they would have costed 'political capital' and made him 'open to attack'. I'd argue that when you are already being attacked for the sin of liking grey poupon mustard, you might as well not bother play that foolish game, but eh. An individual mandate is literally required for the ACA to work as written. The insurance market will collapse if it is repealed. A public option would have been better, but if you are removing pre-existing conditions as a thing insurance companies can discriminate against, you need low-risk people to balance out the high-risk people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:An individual mandate is literally required for the ACA to work as written. The insurance market will collapse if it is repealed. Yup. Turns out putting his support behind the Baucus bill was really loving stupid who could have guessed
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's bizarre how you guys will sulk about everything. So progressive pressure got Harris, a front-runner for 2020 Dem candidate, to endorse single payer and this is a bad thing because? FYI Kamala Harris just gave a speech against DACA and her rationale was "these people have jobs, they work." No moral component at all, merely economic. She's basically Top Cop that's ok with gay marriage, this is not something to be enthusiastic about. Also my prediction is Kamala doesn't run in 2020 because Hillary is going to poison her donor pool like she did with Warren. Edit: Oh and also the small business owner that I wrote about in my very first post in this thread is closing his store. Mostly due to being squeezed by his mall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Obama's proposed solution to Guantanamo was to basically keep doing the same thing, except move the detainees to US prisons. It was a proposal where literally nobody won. The Left/human rights groups hated it because it solved none of the real issues they had with Guantanamo Bay (indefinite detention, etc). The ghouls on the right hated it because they imagined that maybe a detainee could escape a prison in the US and claim amnesty or something. By proposing to continue the illegal detention of Guantanamo's prisoners, Obama ceded the moral argument to the right and went back on his own election promises. He essentially conceded that the detainees were too dangerous to be granted basic human rights, even though we now know that most of them were innocent. gently caress Obama. The failure to close Guantanamo is 100% his own fault. He deserves no slack.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/ I thought this article did a good job of articulating the issues with the narrative that Trump's presidency is the result of a downtrodden working class and that identity politics are the real problem, when we should be focusing purely on economics and class struggle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/ This is a good article but it flies in the face of this entire thread so it won't be received well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:This is a good article but it flies in the face of this entire thread so it won't be received well. How does it fly in the face of the thread?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:How does it fly in the face of the thread? Read it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Read it. I did, it was good
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/ It's a great article and Coates is a phenomenal writer, the problem is that it stops short of coming to the full conclusion, which is that White Privilege is fully ingrained in American society like a tumor in the brain; pulling it out may be fatal while leaving it there is certain to be fatal. Of course, considering we have leftists tripping over themselves to be the first to say that punching Nazis is actually bad, coming in with a correct message of "White Privilege needs to be eradicated at the source" would have pearls being clutched across the board.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I did, it was good These claims of origin and fidelity are not merely elite defenses of an aggrieved class but also a sweeping dismissal of the concerns of those who don’t share kinship with white men. “You can’t eat equality,” asserts Joe Biden—a statement worthy of someone unthreatened by the loss of wages brought on by an unwanted pregnancy, a background-check box at the bottom of a job application, or the deportation of a breadwinner. Within a week of Sanders lambasting Democrats for not speaking to “the people” where he “came from,” he was making an example of a woman who dreamed of representing the people where she came from. Confronted with a young woman who hoped to become the second Latina senator in American history, Sanders responded with a parody of the Clinton campaign: “It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ No, that’s not good enough … One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.” The upshot—attacking one specimen of identity politics after having invoked another—was unfortunate. Hey, if this thread likes the article, great! Consider me pleasantly surprised since I see a lot of posters honestly invoke 'IDpol' and 'Virtue Signaling'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Coates is brilliant and a great writer but he has no praxis
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:These claims of origin and fidelity are not merely elite defenses of an aggrieved class but also a sweeping dismissal of the concerns of those who don’t share kinship with white men. “You can’t eat equality,” asserts Joe Biden—a statement worthy of someone unthreatened by the loss of wages brought on by an unwanted pregnancy, a background-check box at the bottom of a job application, or the deportation of a breadwinner. Within a week of Sanders lambasting Democrats for not speaking to “the people” where he “came from,” he was making an example of a woman who dreamed of representing the people where she came from. Confronted with a young woman who hoped to become the second Latina senator in American history, Sanders responded with a parody of the Clinton campaign: “It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman! Vote for me!’ No, that’s not good enough … One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics.” The upshot—attacking one specimen of identity politics after having invoked another—was unfortunate. again, how does this fly in the face of the thread? ps bernie was right quote:“It is not good enough for someone to say, ‘I’m a woman, vote for me.’ No, that’s not good enough. What we need is a woman who has the guts to stand up to Wall Street, to the insurance companies, to the drug companies, to the fossil fuel industry.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Read it. Yeah, it utilizes classic misdirection of citing Trump voters as wealthier than Hillary voters but largely sidesteps the issue that Trump won not just the white working class to a greater extent but the working class as a whole than Romney. Then goes into how this is the result of the history of race relation in America. It neglects the issue of trade for the most part. Basically, it is both well-written on a technical level and ultimately hollow since it dances around the subject there actually might be something else going on. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
everyone knows trump won because he appealed to white supremacists, the question is why did the democrats lose and how can they prevent it in the future? hint: move left on economics
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:everyone knows trump won because he appealed to white supremacists, the question is why did the democrats lose and how can they prevent it in the future? hint: move left on economics The white supremacists were already in the bag, he won because he appealed to elements of the working class on trade (as well to the white working class on immigration).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:everyone knows trump won because he appealed to white supremacists, the question is why did the democrats lose and how can they prevent it in the future? hint: move left on economics also don't run slaveowners you shouldn't have to actually say that out loud in TYOOL 2017 but goddamn
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The white supremacists were already in the bag, he won because he appealed to elements of the working class on trade (as well to the white working class on immigration).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
It only "flies in the face" of people who think that any modern left wing political position in the US starts and ends with the 2016 Bernie campaign. Additionally, one has to be incredibly, incredibly dishonest to read the criticism of Bernie's campaign and think that that is in any way an endorsement of the current democratic establishment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:one has to be incredibly, incredibly dishonest to read the criticism of Bernie's campaign and think that that is in any way an endorsement of the current democratic establishment. Welcome to the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Additionally, one has to be incredibly, incredibly dishonest to read the criticism of Bernie's campaign and think that that is in any way an endorsement of the current democratic establishment. Nobody is saying it is...
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It only "flies in the face" of people who think that any modern left wing political position in the US starts and ends with the 2016 Bernie campaign. It effectively is in a sense, because it allows the Democrats to focus away from the issues of trade and class politics to go back to pretending they care about race. Also, I have no idea how you create a campaign about "defeating whiteness" when so many people would rather have some type of economic stability (many regardless of race). Of course, his general point seems to be that the white working class will always be defined by their skin, and thus are worthless to ever consider. Something that works well with establishment Democrats, since they can ignore both the white and non-white working class (who are automatically expected to vote Democrat). Of course this is also, why Democrats are so hungry for white Republican upper-class votes. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
It's odd that many of the same people concern-trolling about antifa (i.e. confronting white supremacy head on) also can't seem to grasp the complexity of hating the bigot while seeking to address the conditions that lead to bigotry. If there is any hope of ever eliminating racism in America it is going to include building cross-racial solidarity among the working class and the only way to make that happen is to have a concrete goal for such a coalition to work toward. It won't just conjure itself into existence from some shared moral imperative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Nobody is saying it is... Peachfart clearly is insinuating that Coates criticizing Bernie "flies in the face" of people here, the "democrats are a waste thread" (not the "i love bernie" thread).
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
real shocking that a concern troll who's been posting for 100 pages actually doesn't even understand what the thread is about next think you'll be telling me JeffersonClay is an upper middle class white member of the professional class
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
dont speak ill of the dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Coates is brilliant and a great writer but he has no praxis sure, you may be a great writer, mr. coates, but have you seen our Emmett Rinsing Von Richington IV, now that's a real standard-bearer
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:dont speak ill of the dead. Yes, enough about Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Afro-pessimists like Coates can go to hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Afro-pessimists like Coates can go to hell. quote:Interviewer: So you've outlined a situation in which there don't seem to be any saviors. No existing party or movement that gets us out of this situation to rescue us, essentially, from the racial divides that seem to be deepening. That is a sad indictment. How do you — because it is human nature to try to look towards some kind of light — where do you see the light? Where do you see a moment, or a way out. Like he's not wrong, but it doesn't do anything to inform us on how to create change.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Yes, enough about Hillary. Given her ill-advised book tour, I think I'd bump her up to undead right now, unfortunately. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
man's supremely pessimistic, and I don't blame him for it one bit move left on economics. take Lee Atwater's advice in reverse if it makes you feel a little better about it: if you're so sure that running against racism is a vote-loser, backfires, then start talking about increasing the minimum wage, expanding vote accessibility, and improving labor laws, and a happy side effect of all that is absent explicit cutouts to gently caress them over, blacks benefit more than whites.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
TNC's refusal to prescribe a way forward frustrates me too, but that's on me, not him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:TNC's refusal to prescribe a way forward frustrates me too, but that's on me, not him. Ehhhhh...but it becomes more problematic in his case, when his lack of a solution is kind of baked into his worldview from the get-go. Racism is portrayed as a moral, spiritual failing, a non-religious version of Original Sin. R.L. Stephens had a really good piece about this in Jacobin: quote:The problem is, the whole of capitalist enterprise, both past and present, cannot be reduced to race as Original Sin. Left out of Coates’s mythology is the fact that colonial enterprise, in what would become the United States, relied first on European indentured servants, most of whom died within a handful of years after arriving on the continent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/ Nobody in this thread* is denying the main thrust of the article. The point we've been making is not that economics is why Trump had support. The point is that economics is why Democrats didn't have enough support to beat him. Also that moving left on economics is the only good way to change the status quo position in a big way because it's that or moving right on social issues which is poo poo. * I dunno if that's entirely true, the couple Trump voters might have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:The public option was in the ACA and Obama fought to keep it in, but ultimately it was killed by the conservative democrats in Congress because they were afraid they'd lose their seats if they voted for big gubmint socialism. Those conservative dems were subsequently massacred in the midterms by Tea Party Republicans. The ACA was supposed to be debated and discussed over months but instead turned into basically what the Republican Healthcare reform did earlier this year, closed door deals with a select few people. The only difference is the ACA got passed but we don't really have a good idea of who did what with what except for hearsay when it comes to the negotiations on the ACA. On top of that the end result of what we got was a prior bill that had been, surprise, passed in the House but expected to be revised in the Senate (got to love those patterns) because no one was really happy with it but the Democrat's wanted to move forward expecting they'd get changes made under the filibuster proof majority they had in the Senate. Then Kennedy died, Brown won his seat, and they were forced to pass the House bill through budget reconciliation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:TNC's refusal to prescribe a way forward frustrates me too, but that's on me, not him. Agreed. I enjoy his writing and insight a lot. Some people can both point out the disease AND prescribe the right treatment. But that doesn't mean you can just ignore someone who can give you an amazingly clear X-ray of the affected area. Yeah, I'm in med school. My analogies have no creativity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:06
|
|