|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I agree with condiv pretty much. Oh, yeah, I definitely agree that endorsements like that should be easily tracked to the organization that made them. It's a problem that it's not immediately obvious where those stickers came from. I thought that it was either determined these stickers were from some non-DNC group (or that we don't know where they're from), though, so I'm not sure if this is an issue with this specific situation. My one potential concern about completely banning endorsements from national party-affiliated groups is that it could give unchallenged incumbents an advantage over challenged ones (since they'd effectively give extra advertising relative to their opponents). That being said, the benefits to having a more fair primary probably outweigh this downside, and you could make this same argument about simply having a primary for an incumbent in the first place. vvv Yeah, that's why I think it makes more sense to oppose supporting Manchin like this just because Manchin is a bad politician, rather than on the basis of some sort of party bias (at least in this specific case). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Nov 11, 2017 |
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
I'm sympathetic to the idea that a political party might want to favour one candidate over another (or even block candidates entirely) on ideological grounds. If you're the pro-choice party and that's a super important plan that gets to the very core of what your party is about, then it makes sense to me to show the door to a pro-lifer who wants to run under your label. Doing otherwise can do long-term damage to your brand, to the point where you can't say your party really stands for anything. But that's definitely not what's going on in Manchin's case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:I'm sympathetic to the idea that a political party might want to favour one candidate over another (or even block candidates entirely) on ideological grounds. If you're the pro-choice party and that's a super important plan that gets to the very core of what your party is about, then it makes sense to me to show the door to a pro-lifer who wants to run under your label. Doing otherwise can do long-term damage to your brand, to the point where you can't say your party really stands for anything. Yeah, the DNC's ideology seems to be "enforce an outdated focus group's idea of electability on the state parties", if that can be called an ideology at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
If the party is upfront with "if you're prolife you can't run in our primaries" that would be a different story. The party obviously doesn't want to say "if you want to break up the banking oligarchy you can't run in our primaries" because they know it would hurt them so they soft-rig it thinking it will give them plausible deniability "well I guess the voters don't want this".
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Yeah, the DNC's ideology seems to be "enforce an outdated focus group's idea of electability on the state parties", if that can be called an ideology at all. Our candidates have a .003% greater chance of winning if they have POSITION on ISSUE. I'm sorry, CANDIDATE, but that's the way the aggregate data goes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It’s a remarkably similar mindset to the establishment Dems’ argument during the DNC chair election: “Oh come on, it doesn’t matter if Perez or Ellison gets the job! It doesn’t MEAN anything! ...wait, what? If it’s meaningless, just give it to Ellison? What are you, CRAZY?!” Yes and it makes me cautiously optimistic because that's always the last line of defense for someone who has realized their position is indefensible. Once they get to the point where they can't support their argument and have to resort to "ugh why won't you just stop caring and let me win" it's only a matter of time. It was particularly prominent in D&D around 2013 in the gay marriage debate. People knew it was wrong to discriminate against gays but still had emotional hangups about gay people existing so you saw a lot of "why do you care about gay marriage so much, it doesn't MATTER, just stop caring already like me... what's that? If it doesn't matter and I don't care anyway why not let you get married? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT, NEVER!" And well it wasn't long before resistance to progress collapsed. So I'm optimistic we'll get reforms if the biggest cheerleaders are no longer even defending it and just asking everyone to stop caring. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Nov 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol get the gently caress out. i mean hes not wrong but you should punch nazis so he's still wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:i mean hes not wrong but you should punch nazis so he's still wrong Punch Nazis first, discuss the systemic problems that cause Nazis later. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
This was not meant for this thread. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Nov 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The accused says she was 15-16 at the time of the incident. Moore was a DA at the time, and she claims she didn't come out because of fear of retribution. The alleged events happened in the late 70's. I tried to look up Moore's wife - I figured maybe he was robbing the cradle again. But you literally can't tell how old she was. She says she was 24 when they got married in 1985 (Moore was ~38), but apparently she also won a Miss Alabama Teen USA - even though the pageant didn't start until 1983 and wouldn't allow anyone over 19 to compete. Then I realized I was splitting hairs about whether a 38 year old married a 24 year old or a 21 year old... because having molested a 14 year old is no longer damning enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Baculus posted:
Not in Alabama. I feel this goes a few ways. 1. Moore drops out (least likely) 2. They find a way to delay the election and run a write in or something (This given #1 and if Doug Jones polls really well) 3. Moore wins, they expel him immediately, start the whole thing over. Moore probably sues to tie it up for 6+ months though. I think this is also a time to just ask your senator would you expel Moore if he wins. I cannot imagine this losing steam, its just too juicy and insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes and it makes me cautiously optimistic because that's always the last line of defense for someone who has realized their position is indefensible. Once they get to the point where they can't support their argument and have to resort to "ugh why won't you just stop caring and let me win" it's only a matter of time. D&D in particular has gotten a lot better with regards to homophobia, racism, etc. We can do better (and I try to help as much as I can) and I believe we will. I feel like there are more good faith posters who are more willing to learn than in the past, and that goes a long way. I mean now if I call someone out on a dogwhistling or microaggression some jerk will show up and be a dick but it's usually not even the person I was trying to talk to. Before I'd get dogpiled by a lot more posters. Although I will admit I have had a lot less patience lately, but that's more related to my chronic pain disorder. It flared up bad the last 2 weeks or so and it makes me irritable and more flippant, which I am not exactly proud of. I'll cop to that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes and it makes me cautiously optimistic because that's always the last line of defense for someone who has realized their position is indefensible. Once they get to the point where they can't support their argument and have to resort to "ugh why won't you just stop caring and let me win" it's only a matter of time. Yeah, what gets me about a lot of these "left vs liberal*" debates is that the latter virtually never argue along ideological or policy lines. At least the leftists have a concrete gripe about things they want that the Democrats aren't doing, but the other side of those arguments never argue why they think leftist ideas/policies are bad (probably because they realize the left has the clear and obvious moral high ground there). Their arguments always either involve them insinuating bad things about the left or making arguments based on the pragmatism of winning elections. I would actually understand the latter of these two arguments if it had evidence to support it, but the evidence against politicians moving left is inherently shaky (and, even if true, still wouldn't make the existence of the radical left harmful). I say "inherently shaky" because evidence along the lines of "Americans generally have X beliefs" is highly biased by the fact that Americans base their opinions heavily off of what they see and hear from politicians and the media, so it stands to reason that mainstream politicians supporting an idea automatically makes it be perceived as less "radical" by the public (see opinions towards single-payer/MfA). * As I've mentioned before, it's important to distinguish between liberals in general and the specific type of liberal who is aware of the left/liberal divide and chooses to place themselves in opposition to the left/socialists; most liberals probably have a limited understanding of left-wing politics and just choose to be liberal because it's the only other position given mainstream validity and is obviously morally superior to conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Maybe the people who largely agree with you on policy aren't actually liberals at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Maybe the people who largely agree with you on policy aren't actually liberals at all. Since you brought it up, what is your self selected political identification?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
You coddled liberals in your ivory basements have done nothing to ease our ongoing mental health and facility security crisis. Whether it's victims of poor hotel security, poor school security, poor church security, poor concert security, poor mother's bedroom security, poor mental health treatment accessibility or just poor general public security, you obviously are not focused on the key issues that could save lives. For shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, what gets me about a lot of these "left vs liberal*" debates is that the latter virtually never argue along ideological or policy lines. Some of this is insincerity (like with our resident quants) but I think for many others they're sincere in agreeing with leftist policy and their hostility to leftists is mostly just a defense mechanism to avoid having to admit they were wrong. We're talking about people who spent all last year/8 years/their lives smugly patting themselves on the back for unquestioningly swallowing the conventional wisdom that jobs and healthcare and education and civil rights are just impractical wishes and unicorns for children, but Serious Adults know that to win you need to put childish dreams away and be ready to deregulate financial markets, cut social programs to balance budgets, oppose gay rights, pass Republican legislation, and definitely ignore everything economists say about what to do in an economic crisis because too much government action will make suburban republicans sad. In this way, the American voter will reward us for our devotion to compromise and decorum because they abhor all this extremism that's taking over the Republican Party. If it turns out leftists were right all along and we could have had all those great things if only we had demanded them, then it means they were wrong and stupid this entire time and all their mockery of the left was coming from a place of foolishness and gullibility. This is unacceptable, therefore anything leftists agree with must now be opposed out of sheer spite so they can continue to gloat that leftists can't win something as small as a DNC chairmanship regardless of which candidate is actually the better choice. Another example is the special elections: all the money and staffing and GOTV must be showered on another stuffshirt New Democrat clone trying to win over the FYGM suburbs with balanced budgets and shrinking government through efficiency because if his overwhelming funding advantage can push him over the line while more progressive candidates running on jobs and healthcare in poorer districts die on the vine without support, it will 'prove' they were right all along even if it means losing winnable seats. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Maybe the people who largely agree with you on policy aren't actually liberals at all. I think most liberals agree with the broader goals non-socialist leftists have, but they often seem to disagree about the urgency and feasibility of those goals. As VitalSigns said, a big part of this is a desire to defend the status quo and wanting to avoid the discomfort of having to admit the political party you've supported for many years isn't actually good (and it certainly doesn't help that the radical left is generally smeared by American media/politics, so there's an innate desire to not identify with them). The reason I mentioned urgency is that most liberals would probably agree that stuff like poverty or wealth inequality is a big problem and genuinely care about addressing it, but some are okay with waiting decades for any potential serious change. This is because, probably not coincidentally, the type of liberal who is aggravated with the left is usually pretty financially secure themselves, so this is mostly just an intellectual problem for them and it doesn't really matter when these problems are solved, as long as there's some sense that progress is being made towards solving them, no matter how small. People always quote that MLK Jr thing about white moderates, but I think it's actually a good analogy for what I believe is a problem with some liberals; the issue isn't that their opinions are wrong, but that they just don't take the issues as seriously as they should. When I initially mentioned the "anti-leftist liberals are usually financially comfortable" thing in a post, I meant it as an exaggeration and kept expecting someone to say "btw I'm poor, heh gotcha," but it never ended up happening. At this point I'm no longer convinced it's a coincidence; it seems like there's something specific to a particular type of social circle that values a particular form of "seriousness" that really dislikes the sort of "emotional" politics that the left represents. I'm sure there are exceptions - I could see how someone could adopt these views despite not being well off themselves if they were somehow exposed to those ideas through their social circles or something - but I definitely think there's a big disconnect where many of the people arguing against leftists in these discussions don't appreciate the gravity of the topics being discussed. Like, if they spoke of people urgently concerned about issues like race or gender bigotry with the same tone they speak of people urgently concerned with poverty/inequality, they'd rightfully be treated like shitheads (I mean seriously - try to come up with an analogue to these discussions where someone is making fun of someone else for wanting "Full Racial Equality Now" and tell me they wouldn't come off like a bigoted rear end in a top hat). Regardless of what their stated values are, the specific way they choose to address these issues reveals how much they really care. Speaking more generally about liberals who aren't the folks arguing with leftists on the internet, however, I think they don't associate with the radical left primarily due to a genuine belief that the Democratic Party is accomplishing as much as possible and that it truly isn't possible to achieve much more. The media also heavily encourages liberals/Democrats to hyperfocus on how bad the Republicans are, rather than the accomplishments of Democrats or what their long-term goals should be. A lot of liberals also have internalized the belief that the ideal type of economic system is "well-regulated capitalism" or have weird ideas like "the 90s were good because they were guided by Bill Clinton's skilled governance." edit: As a side note, I want to mention that anti-leftist liberals are hardly the only ones guilty of "politics just being an intellectual problem due to privilege." The best litmus test for whether a leftist is genuine in their views, in my opinion, is their opinions towards voting for Democrats. While I always disagree with not voting for the Democrat in a remotely contested election (where a more left-leaning candidate doesn't have a chance, anyways), I find some reasons more odious than others. Particularly, people who say "they're both just as bad" are obviously completely callous towards the people who would be uniquely affected by Republicans, and it is transparently obvious that Republicans are worse than Democrats. I sympathize more with "If I vote for them, it's the same as showing I support what they're currently doing"; I think it's wrong, but I can understand why someone who isn't a bad person might think that (the idea that politicians might respond to a drop-off in votes sorta makes sense in a "common sense" kinda way, until you think more deeply about the issue and realize that the politician has no way of knowing the reasons people didn't vote). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Like, if they spoke of people urgently concerned about issues like race or gender bigotry with the same tone they speak of people urgently concerned with poverty/inequality Liberals do this all the time though, the instant a Democratic candidate decides to go racist or anti-gay to win. Pre-2010 they were all about telling gay people to shut up and wait, pre-2015 they were doing it to trans people, pre-2017 they were doing it to the Latino community as Obama stepped up deportations to please Republicans, and now in 2017 itself they're telling Latinos to stop whining about Democrats like Northam going racist to win because if you don't accept it politely well Republicans will win and they know how to deal with ungrateful minorities like you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Liberals do this all the time though, the instant a Democratic candidate decides to go racist or anti-gay to win. Oh, I was referring to most of the liberals in D&D who always argue with the radical left, not Democrats in general or politicians. Most of the D&D liberals, with a few exceptions, at least seem to genuinely care about social issues (I imagine this is largely something unique to younger liberals), though I believe their solutions are inherently limited by the fact most seem unwilling to seriously consider options that require the large amount of government spending necessary to truly address issues like racial inequality. edit: But yeah, the whole framing of "liberals are best on social justice while the radical left is bad on social justice" is extremely bizarre and seems to be entirely the result of people internalizing the narrative of the 2016 election, because it makes no sense to anyone who has a memory extending beyond the past 5-10 years or so. It probably doesn't help that some of these people may not have been old enough to be politically aware during the relatively recent history when most Democrats stood in opposition to gay marriage, etc. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
I was talking about D&D liberals too. It was very, very revealing to see the loudest voices in USPol who never ever shut the gently caress up about racist sexist BernieBros and the dirtbag left and horseshoe theory and how they know just know that the left is just itching to throw women and minorities under the bus in order to win, you know all those "but will breaking up the banks solve racism" types, turn on a dime and "well actually" and "hey what's the harm if we win" Ralph Northam's eleventh hour racist turn against sanctuary cities and his dogwhistling on gangsters. And then you remember those same people were defending Obama's inhumane deportation policies too. It's all projection from them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 09:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was very, very revealing to see the loudest voices in USPol who never ever shut the gently caress up about racist sexist BernieBros and the dirtbag left and horseshoe theory and how they know just know that the left is just itching to throw women and minorities under the bus in order to win, you know all those "but will breaking up the banks solve racism" types, turn on a dime and "well actually" and "hey what's the harm if we win" Ralph Northam's eleventh hour racist turn against sanctuary cities and his dogwhistling on gangsters. And then you remember those same people were defending Obama's inhumane deportation policies too. It's all projection from them. Yeah, though if I try to assume the best intentions (on their part) I interpret their arguments more as them confusing criticism with a choice to not vote. Like, when they see someone on the left say how Northram is bad for the sanctuary cities thing, they interpret it as "and therefore you shouldn't vote for Northram against the Republican candidate." Granted, the whole "deliberately confusing criticism with a choice to not vote" thing is dishonest in its own way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Yeah, though if I try to assume the best intentions (on their part) I interpret their arguments more as them confusing criticism with a choice to not vote. Like, when they see someone on the left say how Northram is bad for the sanctuary cities thing, they interpret it as "and therefore you shouldn't vote for Northram against the Republican candidate." Granted, the whole "deliberately confusing criticism with a choice to not vote" thing is dishonest in its own way. I do cut Your Boy Fancy some slack because he did appear genuinely pleased about the protests of Northam's victory speech, but he was still an insufferable dickhead during the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
He put in work and effort for that campaign. Have you ever worked on a campaign or for a candidate, kilroy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I have. gently caress off. E: Seriously, gently caress off. Using that to shut down discussion like you're doing and like YBF did is anti-democratic and heinous as hell and gently caress both of you for doing it. I have given my time when able, and these days I tend to have more money than time so I tend to give that instead. And I don't lord it over people and pretend it makes my opinion more important than theirs like some aristocratic douchebag. Kilroy fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Nov 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
The idea that the amount of time you've put into political work somehow determines the value of your opinions is a pretty dumb take. It becomes even dumber when it's used as a cudgel towards a group that's among the most politically engaged of all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Grapplejack posted:He put in work and effort for that campaign. Have you ever worked on a campaign or for a candidate, kilroy? of course he hasn't, guy's an overpaid computer programmer in deep blue washington state he gets really tetchy when called out about it since the real reason he's into politics these days is because reciting leftist shibboleths gets him more applause than screeching about video games like he's done for years and years before and a big double lol at the loving Swede pretending he's "politically engaged" when this country's goings-on are little more than daytime tv for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Thanks for proving my point, I guess?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
kilroy i demand you post proof of your participation in a political campaign, and that you provide both w-2 and a 1040 forms for the year 2016, so we may evaluate the worth of your internet opinions
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
of course, as a certified virginia opossum, oxxidation's stakes in US politics are of the highest magnititude and i require no additional documentation from said poster
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:of course, as a certified virginia opossum, oxxidation's stakes in US politics are of the highest magnititude and i require no additional documentation from said poster jersey you mother fucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:of course he hasn't, guy's an overpaid computer programmer in deep blue washington state this is pretty sad oxxidation. are you lying about other posters like you lie about me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Come to think of it, the idea that the internal politics of the global hegemonic power is just "daytime tv" for the rest of the world is also a pretty darn dumb take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
a virginia opossum from jersey, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Come to think of it, the idea that the internal politics of the global hegemonic power is just "daytime tv" for the rest of the world is also a pretty darn dumb take. stay in your lane til the seas rise up and drown you in it
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:stay in your lane til the seas rise up and drown you in it why are you constantly throwing a fit like this oxxidation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Maybe he was traumatized by the Swedish Chef as a kid or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
democrats are a-bad, a bork bork bork!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
i'm guessing that oxxidation's insistence that everyone is super rich and disconnected from any consequences of the political system is projection. i base this off the fact that he's from new jersey, where the average household income is well above the us average
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Oxxidation's sole contribution to the forums is and has always been a deep knowledge of everyone's posting history going back years, and an inability to ever talk about anything else. But he's wrong that I don't contribute time and money to political campaigns. Also he's creepy as poo poo, seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 21:49
|
|