|
Trabisnikof posted:You see when Americans want to take over another country but they can present a really really good business case for doing it, that's leftist! They didn't wt to take it over though. They wanted a canal. Prove they wanted all of Panama. You have made this claim that they wanted all of Panama. I need proof.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They didn't wt to take it over though. They wanted a canal. Prove they wanted all of Panama. Yeah guys it isn't imperialism if we only took over the canal zone and not the entire country!
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah guys it isn't imperialism if we only took over the canal zone and not the entire country! Did they actually want to take over a zone, oir did they want to promote the building of a canal? I need you to offer proof they wanted to do this Trab. It seems like you're unwilling to provide proof at this time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Did they actually want to take over a zone, oir did they want to promote the building of a canal? I need you to offer proof they wanted to do this Trab. It seems like you're unwilling to provide proof at this time. Why don't you provide proof they opposed taking over the canal zone if you're the one claiming they opposed it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If it tkaes a decade then why is Corbyn in Charge of the Labour party. Why did the liberal peacenicks dominate by 1974, when the dems of 1968 had been a bunch of Pro working class warmongers? No it can happen faster but only if the crises are advanced and enough of the internal enemies are silenced through constant unrelenting bullying and mean spiritedness, that forces out the internal enemies, or makes them go quiet. It is funny because Corbyn was more or less an accident. Miliband changed the rules for the leadership to allow the public to vote, and everyone thought it would go to some new Labour candidate when Corbyn was considered a leftie joke candidate. When Corbyn started to go in the polls, new Labour lost its mind and hasn't gotten it back since. It would be great if the DNC somehow allowed an opening like that, but it is very unlikely. Also, the Democratic leadership turned on the war when it was somehow else's problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why don't you provide proof they opposed taking over the canal zone if you're the one claiming they opposed it? YOu're the first to suggest they wanted the annexation of Panama. So it'sup to you. I will not be surprised if you do not as you've lied before. Also please explain to me how they were to the right of the democrats who were for annexing parts of the caribbean in the 1850s. Ardennes posted:It is funny because Corbyn was more or less an accident. Miliband changed the rules for the leadership to allow the public to vote, and everyone thought it would go to some new Labour candidate when Corbyn was considered a leftie joke candidate. When Corbyn started to go in the polls, new Labour lost its mind and hasn't gotten it back since. You are right, right up till the end/ THe dems in 72 were not happy with the public's choice of Mcgovern and sank his canidacy, hoping that they could in the process go back to the way things were, as it turned out that was not the case as 74 would show. Also the labour leadership wouldn't have been purged if the SOcialists hadn't fought like tooth and nail. If they had not been as vicious as possible, Corbyn would not control the entirety of the party's appuratus now. Viciousness will be needed in this fgight to purify the dems. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:YOu're the first to suggest they wanted the annexation of Panama. So it'sup to you. I will not be surprised if you do not as you've lied before. Also please explain to me how they were to the right of the democrats who were for annexing parts of the caribbean in the 1850s. lol of course anyone who disagrees with you is a liar. Also called your entire idiotic line of posts Trabisnikof posted:I'm sure you're going to ignore the key point that this was before the parties split between liberals/conservatives completely, but that won't change the reality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Us: Please vote for the (D) Candidate that doesn't want to round us up, deport our families, electroshock us, take away women's agency and autonomy, lynch, purge, or put us on concentration camps. All of these things happened under Obama and would have continued to happen under Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Was the communist MAnifisto in 1854 a document of world renown? No it wasn't it was a document that was rthaer obscure and was only read by a few intellectuals. Socialism was practiced by only a few remaining communes in America. Was there a left though before communism? Yes. THe term left goes back to the french revolution and the left the Jacobins, supported a stronger state and an abolition of slavery. What did the Republicans support? That. Women's suffrage? On the panama Canal front, it was very popular in circles around the world to support such a canal at the time, but hardly for imperalist reasons. Canals were advocated because people wnated to connect the world, and promote commerce,=. I also see you couldn't deny they opposed the democratic led efforts to annex parts of the Caribbean. Or that they were indeed much more pro government intervention in the economy then the democrats. The Republican party was founded as a party for business and it always has been one and you are a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:I can no longer accept the idea that I should somehow be grateful for the scraps that have yet to be taken from me because of the incomprehensible cruelty that the status quo treats people that it deems different than me. If anything it makes the Democrats defense of that status quo and refusal to present real change to it utterly indefensible. You shouldn't be grateful, that's not what I'm saying. You should be angry, because you have a raw deal and you should make sure everyone knows. But sarcastic quips that deny your privilege ("Mr. Privilege right here") are dumb, because yes it could be worse and that's worth acknowledging. "Could be worse" is a different thing entirely from "good enough" or even "remotely acceptable."
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Well being that you didn't offer any proof and you lied before, you may as well be lying. The truth is you are a sociopath, the day will come when this nation will allow your kind to be properly cured it will be a wonderful day. Ogmius815 posted:The Republican party was founded as a party for business and it always has been one and you are a loving moron. If it had been a party of business why not back the whigs? The whigs had part of the republicans platform. They wanted expanded tarriffs and expanded railroads? I mean if the only reason for the republicans formation was that a bunch of rich bourgeois wanted to make money then why not have backed the whigs? Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There already is an insurgency on the state level to take over the DNC. Leftist groups all over the country are pushing leftist candidates in both government elections and party elections, with some success. What you don't seem to understand is that the power of the DNC is limited to pushing things a couple percent one way or the other. If a real majority is against them, they have little choice but to give in; they can push back a bit, but the tide will inevitably turn against them. You vastly exaggerate their power. They can do a lot to thwart a top-down attack focused on taking key leadership positions (such as the presidency or the DNC chairmanship), because that's not where the real power is; they're largely vulnerable to bottom-up attacks because rigging a race or changing the rules typically requires the agreement of the next level down. To rig a national race, you need a majority of the DNC membership, most of whom are from the states. To rig a state race in California, for example, you need a majority of county committee delegates As for the California DNC chair election shows, when it starts to get close, the DNC starts to get increasingly sketchy and they can because it is completely legal. If it comes to an issue of them being completely outnumbered, they aren't going to dig in and instead they would absolutely use more extreme measures to keep the party under their control. You expect them to fight a fair fight, why is there any reason to believe this? quote:And if the left really does have that much of a majority and really is that popular, then there wouldn't be a problem even if the Dems did flat-out steal the election, because the leftist could just run as an independent and steal all the Dems' votes. No need to worry about splitting the vote if the Dem is closer ideologically to the GOP than to the leftist candidate. That independent would be completely shitted on for "giving the election to the GOP", and it doesn't matter if the Democrat is just a couple inches to the left of that GOP candidate (also it would be pretty easy for a GOP candidate to win in a three-way race). Anyway, you are proving my point in that case, that the left-wing would have to work outside the framework of the Democratic party. As for the debate over American history, I wouldn't say the Republicans were leftists even in the 1850s but that there was certainly a radical section to it that faded away by the 1870s. Grant is still shitted on by southern US historians because he was still pushing for reconstruction. By that point, both parties were regional right-liberal parties. The rise of the labor movement and left-wing organizations in the 1880s/1890s eventually forced the Republicans to start agreeing to some progress principals by the turn of the century. Crowsbeak posted:If it had been a party of business why not back the whigs? The whigs had part of the republicans platform. They wanted expanded tarriffs and expanded railroads? I mean if the only reason for the republicans formation was that a bunch of rich bourgeois wanted to make money then why not have backed the whigs? The answer is: A bunch of the Northern elite wasn't interested in keeping around slavery any longer. it doesn't mean they were leftist. The Whigs couldn't hold together over the issue of slavery in the first place. Anyway, even if you equate abolition with leftism (I wouldn't be honest looking at European politics) but even by the 1870s it was clear the Republican Party had moved on and was happy to turn its back to African-Americans in order to bicker over spoils. Btw, I am a firm believe in the idea that there is more than a "left" and a "right" wing during that period, and you have the equivalent of moderates/centrists who wanted some type of modification of slavery without getting rid of it completely. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:THat is complete horseshit and you know it. To slay slavery and imperialistic expansion was not a conservative/ right wing position in the pre civil war America is a lie and you knowit. You have a point with slavery, but imperialistic expansion has always been a bipartisan issue. Even while Lincoln was fighting the civil war, he was equipping militias to claim land and blood from indigenous groups, because nobody wanted a little thing like a civil war to get in the way of manifest destiny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:You have a point with slavery, but imperialistic expansion has always been a bipartisan issue. Even while Lincoln was fighting the civil war, he was equipping militias to claim land and blood from indigenous groups, because nobody wanted a little thing like a civil war to get in the way of manifest destiny. You do have me there. I should have said, Imperialist expansion not related to the Lewis and Clark territories or the land that we and Mexico fought the colonial war over in 1847. (Which belonged neither to Mexico or America). You see I am quite willing to deal with people if they are honest. Thankyou flastaff for being an example so many in this thread delibratley fail to be. Ardennes posted:
Perhaps a better term would have been conservative, moderate and radical. The Democrats were a mix of moderates, and conservative, but were mostly dominated by the most firebrand of conservatives, who aimed for the expansion of slavery, as well as working for the expansion of American territory, to expand slavery as well as their own internal narratives about America as a new Rome. The Whigs were a moderate party of capitalists, their main concern was reinforcing the capitalist system, while they were not exactly fond of slavery, they also didn't move against it. Plus at the time it provided a cheap means of getting material for the expanding textile mills coming to dominate both the Northeast and increasingly the mid west. A alot were getting annoyed though at having to pair any attempts by the governemnt to promote economic expansion had to be paired with slavery's expansion. At the time there was also a moral movement of radicals who predominantly were concerned about slavery, many for moral reasons. Others because they were segregationists who thought that whites and blacks could never live together. These ideas lead to abolitionism, and would create the Republican party, along with moderates who were so annoyed by the Conservatives in the Democrats intransigence that they wanted to contain slavery. It was the radicals choice to align with some of the moderates that would allow them to seize power in 1860, only six short years after creating a party. Of course the problem in the long run was that the radicals beyond some moves on education and some increase in regulatory power, as well as the end of slavery made their changes they soon got complacent and the moderates took over the party. Although certainly America was changed for the better. l actually argue that any party aiming to make America work for the majority of it's citizens will like the early republican party make some sort of deal with part of the establishment. The Republican party made deals with railroads and some of the emerging factory owner class, any successful radical movement now, will have to make an alliance with some part of the system. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
I think it was a good thing the US supported Mexico during the French occupation, but let's be honest it was more for US interests than anti-colonialism itself. We wanted to make it clear that North America was solely in our sphere of influence and we should continue to press our influence across the rest of the 19th century. After 1898, we just started kicking in the door of any country we felt like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think it was a good thing the US supported Mexico during the French occupation, but let's be honest it was more for US interests than anti-colonialism itself. We wanted to make it clear that North America was solely in our sphere of influence and we should continue to press our influence across the rest of the 19th century. After 1898, we just started kicking in the door of any country we felt like. No history is a story about good guys and bad guys. The good guys are called "leftists" and the bad guys are everybody else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:All of these things happened under Obama and would have continued to happen under Clinton. and yet they would get worse. We don't want worse. The status quo is still better than worse for us. This is what people don't seem to understand. Because when you throw votes away, split the vote, go for accelerationism etc, poc, women, lgbt people, the poor and other minorities are the ones who get hurt the most. We are already vulnerable and oppressed. You (general 'you') are making things worse for us just because you want to throw a temper tantrum and get your way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No history is a story about good guys and bad guys. The good guys are called "leftists" and the bad guys are everybody else. It's interesting how it is almost Manichean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Liberals: Infighting and purity tests will only result in our collective loss Also liberals: you dumbass loving leftists need to just shut up and we will fight you to the death to keep you out of the party and if that results in you not wanting to vote for us that's actually your fault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No history is a story about good guys and bad guys. The good guys are called "leftists" and the bad guys are everybody else. Your persecution complex is showing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:and yet they would get worse. We don't want worse. The status quo is still better than worse for us. This is what people don't seem to understand. Because when you throw votes away, split the vote, go for accelerationism etc, poc, women, lgbt people, the poor and other minorities are the ones who get hurt the most. We are already vulnerable and oppressed. You (general 'you') are making things worse for us just because you want to throw a temper tantrum and get your way. imo, the status quo of dems losing power continually because they refuse to do anything but slide to the right is untenable and will make things worse on its own, and i don't think voting for lovely dems like rahm emmanuel or DWS helps that at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Liberals: Infighting and purity tests will only result in our collective loss
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:and yet they would get worse. We don't want worse. The status quo is still better than worse for us. This is what people don't seem to understand. Because when you throw votes away, split the vote, go for accelerationism etc, poc, women, lgbt people, the poor and other minorities are the ones who get hurt the most. We are already vulnerable and oppressed. You (general 'you') are making things worse for us just because you want to throw a temper tantrum and get your way. Koalas, the status quo is Rahm Emmanuel. It's Manchin of West Virginia, it is poo poo birds like Carce-I mean O'malley, who got Baltimore tearing itself apart. It's democrats wanting us to get involved in a war with Iran. This status quo will only end in tears.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Liberals: Infighting and purity tests will only result in our collective loss i dont see anyone itt saying the second thing tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
I think this whole dilemma could go away real fast if around ~1000 high profile democratic politicians and other influentials stopped being poo poo and started being good
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:and yet they would get worse. We don't want worse. The status quo is still better than worse for us. This is what people don't seem to understand. Because when you throw votes away, split the vote, go for accelerationism etc, poc, women, lgbt people, the poor and other minorities are the ones who get hurt the most. We are already vulnerable and oppressed. You (general 'you') are making things worse for us just because you want to throw a temper tantrum and get your way. It actually got substantially worse for some people. Yes, overall it is certainly worse under republicans. But Obama deported more people than Republicans, supported a coup that helped make Honduras a narco-state which used gang rapes as a weapon against the feminist movements that led the resistance to the coup (while at the same time adopting rules to send minors from Honduras back in an expedited manner), supported a war that has transformed Yemen in the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. In fact, I would say that it is the most extreme form of privilege to not care about these things because people know that at the end of the day it's not going to be their loved one gang raped by a death squad in Tegucigalpa. The funny thing is that Hillary would have run to the right of Obama (just see her positioning herself in her Hard Choices book) if not for Bernie's challenge. Which brings me to the ultimate question: if 12 months before the next election, when the party is out of power, is not the time to challenge the party establishment, when is the appropriate time? Or are we supposed to feel comforted by the fact that democrats merely arm and encourage the countries transforming a nation into a dystopian hellscape like in Yemen as opposed to doing it directly like in Iraq? (Nevermind that the current crop of democrats were only too happy to help throw the Iran deal under the bus in the name of making Trump pay a small political price). joepinetree fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:and yet they would get worse. We don't want worse. The status quo is still better than worse for us. This is what people don't seem to understand. Because when you throw votes away, split the vote, go for accelerationism etc, poc, women, lgbt people, the poor and other minorities are the ones who get hurt the most. We are already vulnerable and oppressed. You (general 'you') are making things worse for us just because you want to throw a temper tantrum and get your way. I have three digits of cash available to me, a monthly income of roughly $800, and a net worth in the negative dozen thousands. I have a for real disability and speak a language that 99% of the country doesn't. I was hurt by the past nine months and I'm going to be hurt by the next 39. I begrudgingly voted for Clinton last year despite knowing how bad she and her ilk have been for this country in the name of the Lesser Evil. It was crap. I'm not going to vote for anyone anymore who isn't at least an actual for-real progressive. If the Democrats regurgitate another Obama or Clinton or Ossoff clone then that signals to me that they absolutely do not want my vote. I'm sick of watching the Democrats manipulate the system and pull strings so that their opponents are the worst loving possible people so they can parade around their deceitful "lesser evil" bullshit. I'm sick of supporting mass death at home and abroad and being told that it's the lesser evil because it helps some people or even myself. I won't do it anymore. I'm still going to vote for Russ Feingold and Tammy Baldwin, but I am completely done with the Obama-Clinton wing and their two-faced lies. If that means the Democrats are going to lose, then, well, that's no different than the status quo where they lose repeatedly year after year. gently caress off with the "temper tantrum" bullshit. That's a garbage accusation and you're participating in a garbage narrative that was concocted and designed to shut down outrage and unrest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Look, I'm not saying not to vote for leftist candidates. I voted for Bernie in the MI primaries and I wanted him to win. I'm saying when the only choices you have you are Generic Dem and GOP of any stripe, please for the love of God pick the lesser of two evils.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
that will never happen because we can all just write in Calibanibal
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Look, I'm not saying not to vote for leftist candidates. I voted for Bernie in the MI primaries and I wanted him to win. I'm saying when the only choices you have you are Generic Dem and GOP of any stripe, please for the love of God pick the lesser of two evils. i think merely voting the lesser of two evils always is allowing the dems to become more evil over time. i would like that to stop, and i imagine a lot of people would too. the stuff rahm emmanuel has pulled should not be considered behavior that's ok in the dem party at all, and yet no-one in the party apparatus raises a hand against him and his hosed up poo poo. there's a lot of options open to us, but i do not believe withholding your vote should be taken off the table ever. if the dem is garbage like rahm emmanuel, threaten him. write to him and tell him why you're not voting for him the way he is now. if he changes, he considered your vote and the vote of other dems like you worthwhile. if he refuses to, make it clear that there are consequences for hosed up behavior like sitting on evidence of police killing black people
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Look, I'm not saying not to vote for leftist candidates. I voted for Bernie in the MI primaries and I wanted him to win. I'm saying when the only choices you have you are Generic Dem and GOP of any stripe, please for the love of God pick the lesser of two evils. No. Not anymore. The generic will be like Feinsten and just vote with the Republican every chance they get. Either the party changes or dies. I know the arguemnt then is that the GOP will make America one party state, and to that I say, not happening, too many disparate factions within that organization trying to tear each other down. I will voted for those who are capable of actual good, those who are just fairweather people, they can go lose the election. The world is better without them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Us: Please vote for the (D) Candidate that doesn't want to round us up, deport our families, electroshock us, take away women's agency and autonomy, lynch, purge, or put us on concentration camps. Putting forward a candidate who doesn't want to do those things and ALSO doesn't want to bomb my family would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
i mean, stuff like this is totally unacceptable https://twitter.com/StarLord35/status/921658237333725184 these are people who would rather dictate what voters should want than listen to them. and they are not going to be helpful fighting for anything but large donors
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
In 2017 it isn't worth bothering to pretend to engage you people. If you are paying attention to the news right now, and have concluded that there is no important difference between republicans and democrats, you aren't really interested in helping anyone or doing anything, you just want to feel morally superior to other people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think merely voting the lesser of two evils always is allowing the dems to become more evil over time. i would like that to stop, and i imagine a lot of people would too. Aren't you living in Europe?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:imo, the status quo of dems losing power continually because they refuse to do anything but slide to the right is untenable and will make things worse on its own, and i don't think voting for lovely dems like rahm emmanuel or DWS helps that at all Where have they been sliding to the right? The 2016 platform was the farthest left it's been in decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In 2017 it isn't worth bothering to pretend to engage you people. If you are paying attention to the news right now, and have concluded that there is no important difference between republicans and democrats, you aren't really interested in helping anyone or doing anything, you just want to feel morally superior to other people. Well then be happy with Trump in 2020. And maybe be happy with Pence in 2024. Hey, you think we shouldn't have a debate on whether the dems should be concerned on the issue of proper representation, of whether some sort of actual federal involvement of healthcare for all Americans, is something we should talk about, about whether regualting the banks whose recklessness got un into 2008 which is also supported by all Americans should be talked aobut. If rejecting money from PACs and special interests should be rejeected despite most Americans supporting this. You tell us to shut up over bringing that up, and well maybe you really want Trump in office for eight years. maybe you want the GOP to dominate from 2016-2032 because you're mad that we don't give you whatever deference you feel your due. I guess we will find out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Where have they been sliding to the right? The 2016 platform was the farthest left it's been in decades. None of that counts because the DNC didn't thwart the will of a clear majority of primary voters so that my preferred candidate could win. Therefore everything they did after the contests ended to try and be conciliatory was actually just counterrevolutionary subversion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In 2017 it isn't worth bothering to pretend to engage you people. If you are paying attention to the news right now, and have concluded that there is no important difference between republicans and democrats, you aren't really interested in helping anyone or doing anything, you just want to feel morally superior to other people. don't think anyone has said that at all ogmius BrandorKP posted:Aren't you living in Europe? yes, and my family lives in america (oklahoma in fact) i would like the dems to start winning and fighting everywhere so that oklahoma dems have a better state and not one run by oil lobbyists also, i get to see the fruits of lesser evilism over here, where a guy elected to avoid a fascist candidate is now doing his best to gut labor protections to be more like america, cut taxes for the rich, and all sorts of other lovely things. and because of his shittyness, it becomes more likely fascists will win next election Condiv fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In 2017 it isn't worth bothering to pretend to engage you people. Cool, you should stop posting here
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:34
|
|
