|
I just want you to ask yourself this - has there ever been a time historically when the people acting as apologists for the status quo political party (against the radical left) were on the right side? People like you have always been arguing that those demanding action against injustice are unrealistic, obsessed with purity, etc. If you believe that the obscene material inequality and bigotry in our society isn't a big deal, you should be making that argument instead, because your arguments simply aren't consistent with someone who actually recognizes the magnitude and severity of these problems. Someone whose primary concern is to address the variety of unacceptable issues plaguing our society would primarily be concerned with why those issues aren't being dealt with, even if they disagreed with others about the specific reasons. But people like you do nothing but insult and belittle those who are angry with the Democratic Party for making negligible progress towards addressing these issues. If you actually cared, you wouldn't dislike the radical left even if you happened to disagree with them. But instead your actions are far more consistent with someone who has a heavy emotional investment in the Democratic Party that takes precedence over actual material outcomes. One of the most telling things indicating this is the fact that folks like yourself seem to genuinely dislike the radical left more than you dislike the center or "moderate" conservatives. This attitude simply makes no sense for someone who purportedly cares about left-wing politics. It implies that the person cares more about tone than they care about outcomes.
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It sounds like you should be mad at the three people that voted against it and working to primary them instead of just constantly being mad on the internet at a lot of people who supported it. Hall Pass Not being a racist should be a litmus test to be a Democrat. If the Party isn't whipping all its members to pass a DACA bill that Republicans are crossing the aisle to support, then I'm sorry you had to find out this way but the Party will never ever do anything for DREAMers until it is taken over and changed, that is just a fact. The party is already supporting one of those racists (Manchin) against a primary challenge. Even if we capture 67 Senate seats next November it still won't be enough to pass DREAM over Trump's veto because Manchin and Tester won't ever support it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
Trump also attacked the DNC from the left after Bernie lost and the DNC emails were leaked. The lesson here isn't "we must do the opposite of everything the Bad Men say". If you object to what Vitalsigns is saying, argue against his argument, stop thesr halfassed attempts to equate actual criticism with conservatism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
The Democratic Party lost shitloads of seats in 1966 after pushing through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Democratic Party today is so afraid of losing seats and losing power that they don't bother trying to do anything bold that would actually help people when they are in the majority, just watered down half-measures that only barely make things better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:The Democratic Party lost shitloads of seats in 1966 after pushing through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. Which, ironically, has resulted in them losing obscene amounts of seats. Meanwhile all of the above programs continue to be used to defend Democrats and earn votes. It's almost like....you should plan for the long term
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Also, ironically, the 60s Democratic Party created the filibuster in its modern form by introducing the double-track system which removed any political cost for filibustering by no longer making the filibuster stop all Senate business. They did this because they were tired of their own members derailing the agenda by filibustering every piece of Civil Rights legislation so rather than outlasting the filibusters and forcing through the legislation like they had been doing, they would now allow filibusters to quietly kill all civil rights bills while the Senate moved on to other stuff. And it was so successful* that they continue to let the filibuster be their excuse to not pass crucial legislation to this day *At disillusioning their supporters and making all of America hate congress
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If you actually cared, you wouldn't dislike the radical left I don't dislike the radical left, I dislike people that hate democrats more than they hate republicans or try to put on any sort of show of not being able to distinguish the two. Anyone who tries to pull any "I'm so far left I won't vote or help either of them" is not nearly as leftist as they tell themselves. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you supporting the republican party. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you retweeting the latest republican talking point about hillary clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't dislike the radical left, I dislike people that hate democrats more than they hate republicans or try to put on any sort of show of not being able to distinguish the two. Anyone who tries to pull any "I'm so far left I won't vote or help either of them" is not nearly as leftist as they tell themselves. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you supporting the republican party. A better leftist party is not going to come out of you retweeting the latest republican talking point about hillary clinton.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
I can't imagine why a leftist would have reservations about supporting somebody who did far more than anybody else to move the Democratic Party to the right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Universal healthcare and single payer aren't synonyms. Lots of countries provide universal healthcare that isn't single payer, lots of countries provide extremely world class universal healthcare through a system of mandatory insurance, a public option and a system to get it to people that can't pay. I see this lazy argument all the time coming from disingenuous dems, who ignore the facts that the governments in those countries set premium pricing & provider rates & pharma costs, and that private insurers in those countries merely adminster health insurance, much as we do here for Medicare and Medicaid programs. Show me another country that allows "balance billing" for in-network facilities in which the patient is responsible for paying any bills for ED docs or labs or anesthesiologists who are out-of-network in that facility. Show me another country that calls for families spending $40,000/year in premiums + deductibles before insurance coverage fully kicks in. Show me another country that allows pharma manufacturers to charge whatever they want for their drugs, with no cost oversight or regulation by its government. Show me another country in which non-emergency medical care is limited to one's county lines by private insurers. Show me another country that has "narrow networks" that require one to be treated at only one hospital in the entire country. Show me another country in which people making the equivalent of US$20,000/year are forced to spend half of their net income on deductibles and out-of-pocket costs before their insurance coverage fully covers them (except, of course, when it comes to balance billing or being treated beyond one's county lines, in which case the sky's the limit). I'm totally ok with a "private" system that is highly regulated with all costs determined by the government, and with a social safety net that provides basic standards of care without bankruptcy (eg: the Medicaid model; the vast majority of Medicaid recipients are now bucketed into private managed-care plans). What I'm not ok with is the regulatory capture that was writ large in the ACA, and the Dems' inability or refusal to see that the ACA leaves too many people lacking affordable healthcare, avoiding treatment because they can't afford it, and having to declare bankruptcy when they are treated. If you're emotionally vested in seeing Democratic majorities, then you should be doing everything you can to sway elected Dems to see where the ACA has left people in the dust, and working to change our system to one that's more humane and less corporate-donor-driven. Because the longer Dems claim that the ACA "just needs a few tweaks," and propose that it's nothing that can't be fixed by a more draconian mandate penalty or by shoveling more money to private insurers, the more voters start believing their lying eyes and stop believing Democrats. And lest you lazily fall back on BUT A PUBLIC OPTION SOMEDAY, here's why that won't work, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
Like, this is what an actual criticism of a democratic policy looks like. It has specific complaints, actionable issues. It lists out what is between the ACA and an actually good plan. It is something other than "I read single payer is the most left so because I'm most left that is the only thing I could ever support despite other countries having a variety of enviable models"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
McCloud posted:The best way to fight republicans is to vote for D. The best way to fight democrats is to primary them, get involves in the process, and oust them. If that fails, try again next year. Not voting helps no one but the GOP. I'm sure this will go over well and in the pre 11/9 world I would have 100% agreed with you, but I don't think that logic makes sense from where we are sitting now. The DCCC has been brick walling hard to keep anyone who can't pass their rolodex test from getting the nomination and as we know from the Democrats coming out prefolded in the DACA fight, these people don't even buy us a speed bump against Republicans. I'm starting to be of the mind that if some chamber of commerce rear end in a top hat gets coronated in the Democratic primary and his or her only plan to help you is that "If the peasants have no bread, then let them eat poo poo" then don't vote for them. Hear me out. HRC ate poo poo so hard that no one wants to give money to the DNC and they are effectively bankrupt. If these empty receptacles for big money keep getting elected, then it makes it easier for the next aspiring empty suit to raise funds from people actively working against your interests and muscle anyone that would actually help you out of the race. All it does is solidify their power base in the Democratic party. If it hits the point that they can't raise money as a Democrat, then they will stop running as a Democrat. Again we've seen at this point that these people won't even pay lip service to protecting you in the face of real threats presented by Republicans. All that voting for these people in general does is provide material support to your enemies. I mean I'm not a purist so if one of these aspiring lobbyists gets scared of their base enough to actually offer something that helps you, then vote for them. Otherwise, gently caress'em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, this is what an actual criticism of a democratic policy looks like. It has specific complaints, actionable issues. It lists out what is between the ACA and an actually good plan. It is something other than "I read single payer is the most left so because I'm most left that is the only thing I could ever support despite other countries having a variety of enviable models" Your argument is disingenuous from the start because what the Democrats proposed is not anything like the enviable models of those other countries you're touting. Also if you've reached the point where you're alleging that support for a superior system that saves lives can only be Virtue Signalling, then you have some sort of severe mental or moral deficiency.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
It's the people that liked and retweeted this stuff https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/964561472746672129
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, this is what an actual criticism of a democratic policy looks like. It has specific complaints, actionable issues. It lists out what is between the ACA and an actually good plan. It is something other than "I read single payer is the most left so because I'm most left that is the only thing I could ever support despite other countries having a variety of enviable models" I wasn't critiquing the Democrats; I was critquing your & other lazy dems' argument that "other countries" have private, unregulated insurance, provider, and drug costs that mimic an ACA model, when that's not the case at all and our healthcare system in America stands alone globally in bankrupting people in exchange for medical care, or in making costs a litmus test as to whether people receive any medical care at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also if you've reached the point where you're alleging that support for a superior system that saves lives can only be Virtue Signalling, If your support includes helping republicans win then yes, your claims to be on the left was only skin deep and any claims you made about being the real left was false. (even if you whine the whole time that it's not fair that what you are doing is helping the republicans win as you help them)
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I wasn't critiquing the Democrats; I was critquing your & other lazy dems' argument that "other countries" have private, unregulated insurance, provider, and drug costs that mimic an ACA model, when that's not the case at all and our healthcare system in America stands alone globally in bankrupting people in exchange for medical care, or in making costs a litmus test as to whether people receive any medical care at all. So you were critiquing policy, like he actually said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If your support includes helping republicans win then yes, your claims to be on the left was only skin deep and any claims you made about being the real left was false. (even if you whine the whole time that it's not fair that what you are doing is helping the republicans win as you help them) Look man I get where you're coming from: you're afraid that criticizing the Democrats will hurt their chances in the election and then Republicans will win and be terrible. And there's some argument for that, after primaries are over, the week before the election with no other context we should push for a Democrat even if they are terrible. And I did. But that is not the case now. Consider: refusing to hold Democrats accountable, refusing to honestly evaluate their failures, and defending them no matter what they do means they have no incentive not to sell you out for money. And we know from social experiments that real people react badly to being sold out and almost everyone has a threshold beyond which they will punish anti-social behavior even at a cost to themselves. This hurts Democratic electoral chances in the long run, and therefore hurts real people. Take DREAM, Dems said they had to sell out DREAMers in 2010 in order to keep the Senate (it was the Lame Duck so they had already lost the House and knew this was their last chance to pass DREAM), but they eventually lost the Senate anyway and now because of their treachery Republicans will deport a million people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I wasn't critiquing the Democrats; I was critquing your & other lazy dems' argument that "other countries" have private, unregulated insurance, provider, and drug costs that mimic an ACA model, when that's not the case at all and our healthcare system in America stands alone globally in bankrupting people in exchange for medical care, or in making costs a litmus test as to whether people receive any medical care at all. I said I liked your sort of criticism? Since it had meaningful criticism about specific things in actual presented policies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
so why should a leftist support a political party that actively sabotages the campaigns of its own leftist members when they run against the favored sons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:so why should a leftist support a political party that actively sabotages the campaigns of its own leftist members when they run against the favored sons? gay marriage? abortion rights? expanded medicare? All that stuff
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Gay rights is one of the reasons I'm in favor of holding Democrats accountable for their betrayals, because when we do not, voters see that there is no accountability in the party and no political will to follow through on campaign promises or even basic human morality like "don't break up families and deport a million people" and become discouraged, therefore putting me at a greater risk of being electrocuted into hating dick by Republican-controlled governments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:gay marriage? abortion rights? expanded medicare? All that stuff The democrats were able to campaign on gay rights because groups like Code Pink held their feet to the fire on it. And in case you forgot, they were late as hell to the party on it. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. In 2008 his campaign position was that marriage was between a man and a woman. In 2007 Barney Frank stabbed trans people in the back on ENDA and the democratic congress still wouldn't pass it when they had a majority. So I say this as a lesbian woman who has fought for the right to get married to be afforded basic dignity. And abortion rights have PP and NARAL to hold their feet to the fire on the issue, or else you'd bet they would backslide on abortion if it could get them votes, and in conservative districts they have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Vote Dems for abortion rights *Dems cross the aisle to vote against abortion rights*
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Vote Dems for abortion rights the honorable dem senator from west virginia: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I said I liked your sort of criticism? Since it had meaningful criticism about specific things in actual presented policies? Do you have any response to said criticism? Do you have a defense for the argument that is being attacked, or are you conceding the point? You can't just say "I like this kind of criticism" as your only response and expect me to take you seriously when you say that you're only attacking leftists because the discourse isn't good enough. Be the change you want to see and have this great argument that you were mourning the loss of in this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Do you have any response to said criticism? Do you have a defense for the argument that is being attacked, or are you conceding the point? You can't just say "I like this kind of criticism" as your only response and expect me to take you seriously when you say that you're only attacking leftists because the discourse isn't good enough. Be the change you want to see and have this great argument that you were mourning the loss of in this very thread. I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:The democrats were able to campaign on gay rights because groups like Code Pink held their feet to the fire on it. And in case you forgot, they were late as hell to the party on it. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012. In 2008 his campaign position was that marriage was between a man and a woman. In 2007 Barney Frank stabbed trans people in the back on ENDA and the democratic congress still wouldn't pass it when they had a majority. The funny thing about Obama is that he ONLY started supported gay marriage because Joe Biden accidentally came out supporting it in an interview, then Obama and a bunch of other Dems had to scramble and get on the same page. One of the few times Joe putting his foot in his mouth actually helped with soemthing. But yeah, Obama probably would have ended his presidency not supporting gay marriage if it wasn't for Biden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people. So you agree with Willa?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people. So what are your THOUGHTS on the criticism, beyond liking it or not? Do you agree with it, and if so how does your argument change in response? If you don't, how will you address the issues brought up within the criticism? Saying "This is good criticism" and then just barreling on through with the same argument makes the criticism meaningless. Do you want an actual argument with intelligent back and forth, or do you just want to admire someone actually using paragraphs in an argument?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So you agree with Willa? Yes? If you think I don't you haven't understood any of what I've said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally said that is the good sort of criticism and the guy going single payer or nothing is the bad and dumb kind that hurts people. Getting Luxembourg's system would be a perfectly acceptable compromise, the problem is the Democrats aren't even proposing that, the public option they offer is already inadequate and due to the immense amount of power the filibuster gives to Republicans and to small numbers of bribable Democratic Senators it at best will only be bargained down from there, which is exactly what happened with the ACA back when Democrats were in an even stronger position than they are likely to be for a long time. "But game theory" no, real human beings do not reason that way. If our health care plan kills people unnecessarily we will lose gettable votes, that is just a cold hard fact borne from the biological fact that dead people cannot vote and the results of sociological research that show humans will punish those who make the choice to treat them unjustly. We will lose votes, the only argument for losing votes by letting people die is the sociopath's argument "we can win without them  " which (a) is horrible and will only lose you more votes from real human beings, and (b) is demonstrably false.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
I still want to know why there were democrats helping Theresa May in the UK over Corbyn, if they're supposed to be secret pragmatic leftists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Getting Luxembourg's system would be a perfectly acceptable compromise Look who the centrist is now. DIdn't you say "[not] supporting the literal best version of universal health care for Americans, an illogical, evil, and insane position to have"
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I still want to know why there were democrats helping Theresa May in the UK over Corbyn, if they're supposed to be secret pragmatic leftists. Because not all Democrats
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yes? If you think I don't you haven't understood any of what I've said. Okay, well Willa is a "fake leftist" according to you because she criticizes the Democratic party, so you're either a "fake leftist" yourself or you need to realize that your stupid view of criticism is wildly off base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Look who the centrist is now. DIdn't you say "[not] supporting the literal best version of universal health care for Americans, an illogical, evil, and insane position to have" Yes, both these things can be true at the same time. A system can be a good enough compromise for someone who wants something better, and also being actively against something better can be (and is) illogical, evil, and insane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Look who the centrist is now. DIdn't you say "[not] supporting the literal best version of universal health care for Americans, an illogical, evil, and insane position to have" Leftists are so dumb, let me show them how dumb they are by willingly failing to understand what a compromise is for a cheap own while i whine about the loss of good discourse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
The fight for gay rights is one of the biggest reasons I don't trust congressional democrats anymore lol. Its a perfect example of what being a lesser evil truly means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:50 |
|
|
Coalition building means offering different groups with different but compatible agendas what they want in order to get them to come together in solidarity to achieve common aims. "Hey non-rich people, even if you personally might not be gay or personally know or care about any gay people, if you help us fight for gay rights they'll help us fight for your right to health care, and if you are gay even better, it's a win-win, join us!" "Hey gay people, even if you personally might not be struggling financially or personally know or care about anyone who is, if you help us fight for their right to health care they'll help us fight for gay rights, and if you do need health care even better, it's a win-win, join us!" And that's how coalitions are made and elections are won. "Hey non-rich people, gently caress your health care, we're selling you out for money, but if you don't help us then gay people are gonna get shanked so you pretty much have to and gently caress you!" That's not. If you're using one part of your 'coalition' to bludgeon another part into shutting up and giving up, you're wrong both morally and ~  *pragmatically*~
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2018 21:17
|
|