|
VitalSigns posted:It's not a "rule", the minimum wage debate is a proxy for the ideological debate: do workers have a right to a living wage to provide for their families. That's why the question is so contentious. As an example, California recently passed a gently caress off uselessly incremental $15 minimum wage. I say it's gently caress off useless because it's so gradual that by the time it actually reaches $15/hour, inflation will have completely eaten those gains and we're back to square one. We have a supermajority of democrats in our legislature, and this is the kind of uselessly incremental minimum wage increases we get.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So your super hyper left answer is states rights and that the government should set a minimum wage lower than the living wage because local state governments MIGHT raise it? I mean, that's kinda the position you were professing mr left man. When you've got people across the country wanting $15 an hour there's a difference between saying "sure let's help them out" and saying "hmm no actually $12 would be better now vote for your liberator you proley bastards" OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
If the options are two check boxes that say 15 and 12 you should vote 15 and are evil if you vote 12. But the way you get to a world where they two check boxes are "progress vs progress but even faster" is not sitting out elections and letting republicans run the country. It just isn't. Every state making leftward progress of any kind is a state democrats are the majority and people get voted from the left, not hard right states flipping into sudden socialist paradises. intentional incrementalism is dumb but everything is incrementalism towards where you should want things to be. Neither 12 or 15 or any of these numbers is anything like the "right" answers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Intentional incrementalism is dumb says the person advocating for voting literally for the party that intentionally said 12 in response to 15 because they thought 15 was asking too much for labour, and failed even to achieve that because they lost the election to a loving idiot, with a loving idiot. At some point it becomes obvious that the democratic party does not represent the interests of labour and cannot convincingly command support as a result, why, then, should labour vote for or support a party that doesn't represent them and can't win? If they start voting for them do you think they're going to change as a result? Or do you think they're going to decide "well they're voting for us and that's what matters, they'd better keep doing it if they don't want things to get worse." Your attitude suggests the latter. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Intentional incrementalism is dumb says the person advocating for voting literally for the party that intentionally said 12 in response to 15 because they thought 15 was asking too much for labour. Yeah okay? now trump is president and the whole country has moved to the right and odds are the next democratic platform is going to have to fight to get minimum wage back to 7.25. Instead of the next election being a minimum wage of 12 and someone being able to campaign in the primaries on 17.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If the options are two check boxes that say 15 and 12 you should vote 15 and are evil if you vote 12. But the way you get to a world where they two check boxes are "progress vs progress but even faster" is not sitting out elections and letting republicans run the country. It just isn't. Every state making leftward progress of any kind is a state democrats are the majority and people get voted from the left, not hard right states flipping into sudden socialist paradises. intentional incrementalism is dumb but everything is incrementalism towards where you should want things to be. Neither 12 or 15 or any of these numbers is anything like the "right" answers. Name a minimum wage you would support. Give an exact number and not a long, idiotic argument about semantics and TRMUP
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah okay? now trump is president and the whole country has moved to the right and odds are the next democratic platform is going to have to fight to get minimum wage back to 7.25. Instead of the next election being a minimum wage of 12 and someone being able to campaign in the primaries on 17. Or, alternatively, the abject failure of the democrats to do anything useful for anyone can be a catalyst for the destruction of either the entire party, if necessary, or at the very least its leadership, thus paving the way for it to become a party for the workers or to be supplanted by one. What does not elicit radical change in parties is them winning elections, o sensible realist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah okay? now trump is president and the whole country has moved to the right and odds are the next democratic platform is going to have to fight to get minimum wage back to 7.25. Instead of the next election being a minimum wage of 12 and someone being able to campaign in the primaries on 17. The main reason why Trump is president literally because people like you and your manifest avatar Hillary Clinton wouldn't fight for good policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 20:58
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The main reason why Trump is president literally because people like you and your manifest avatar Hillary Clinton wouldn't fight for good policies. And what have you gotten us exactly? Where is this savior that is supposed to show up if we just keep our hands pure and let conservatives win every election forever?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Lol this guy dodges every single post that asks him to commit to a position. What a waste of time
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
The reason $12 an hour is bad is because the people (you know, the folks who are supposedly supposed to lead the charge) wanted $15 an hour. The movement's called "Fight For 15", not "Fight for whatever the Dems feel like offering us". That number didn't come from a think tank or a policy analyst, it came from the mouths of low-wage workers who risked their jobs to engage in repeated national-scale strikes. And yet, after four years of protests and activism by minimum wage workers all over the country, the best that Dems are willing to commit to is just a bit over half what these workers are risking their jobs over? That's downright insulting, and the people are under no obligation to be satisfied with that. The Dems keep trying to bargain labor down to less ambitious positions in the name of "incrementalism" (actually, it's because they don't want to spook their wealthy supporters), and then wonder why they're losing support among ordinary laborers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:28
|
|
|
The idea that the democratic party is owed support by people for just not being the republicans is really farcical. Perhaps it is their job to command that support through policy and if they cannot they ought to get off the pot and make way for someone who can?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The idea that the democratic party is owed support by people for just not being the republicans is really farcical I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever Who is saying this other than you, you loving idiot? The solution isn't "let republicans win forever and ever" it's "make the Dems into an actual good party that can win elections"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own) OwlFancier posted:Perhaps it is their job to command that support through policy and if they cannot they ought to get off the pot and make way for someone who can? Or to spell it out more clearly, an alternative is unlikely to emerge as long as a) the democratic party continues to take up space on the political landscape advocating for worthless centrist rubbish, and b) people like you advocate that there can be no alternative, only forever service to the whims of the democratic leadership.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own) Too bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And what have you gotten us exactly? Where is this savior that is supposed to show up if we just keep our hands pure and let conservatives win every election forever? I see you're not big on owning up to your own personal culpabilty in getting Donald Trump elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Who is saying this other than you, you loving idiot? They hold elections, one side wins or the other side wins. There isn't a secret box you check that makes them lock her up and bring out bernie sanders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They hold elections, one side wins or the other side wins. There isn't a secret box you check that makes them lock her up and bring out bernie sanders. What does this even mean
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They hold elections, one side wins or the other side wins. There isn't a secret box you check that makes them lock her up and bring out bernie sanders. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU I VOTED FOR loving  HILLARY You're blaming voters who did their job, why do you prefer to do that instead of admit that the Democratic party has some problems that need fixing? Why don't you go yell at the 6 million Obama voters who didn't vote for her? Oh wait you can't because people like that aren't political junkies that post on a political forum. You're yelling at the wrong loving crowd. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Feb 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They hold elections, one side wins or the other side wins. There isn't a secret box you check that makes them lock her up and bring out bernie sanders. Yeah, so when are you going to own up to the fact that your irrational purity tests led to the good guys having an unelectable candidate in 2016?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU I VOTED FOR loving If you also vote in local elections and not just presidential elections (and primaries if that is feasible for you) then you are on my list of cool and good people that are doing it exactly right and if I have continued to argue with you it's only because I constantly forget who anyone is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own) That literally happened though, the GOP nominated their craziest idiot with the most out-there plans which even made the other ghouls in the GOP go "whoa dude that's messed up" and they won. When they nominated Mister Pro-Choice I-Passed-Obamacare-in-Massachusetts Assault-Weapons-Ban Romney they got blown away despite a falloff in Democratic voter turnout from 2008. Republicans had their "let's nominate a sensible moderate" discussion, did it, and the base went Owlofcreamcheese posted:heh, no thanks centrist Winning is about getting out your base. The moderates are irrelevant, they (a) mostly don't exist and (b) will come home anyway out of partisan loyalty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Turns out that the predominant effect of centrist nothing politics is to make people turn out for anybody who seems insane enough to do something different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That literally happened though, the GOP nominated their craziest idiot with the most out-there plans which even made the other ghouls in the GOP go "whoa dude that's messed up" and they won. Because they planted their tree and watered it every day happily. They got republican in congress then primaried the least conservative ones with tea party members then gerrymandered maps and changed voting laws until they got the trump they wanted from the start. They were able to work on step by step progress towards goals without throwing their hands up that each step wasn't a jump right to trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
That's certainly a conception of how it went...
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because they planted their tree and watered it every day happily. They got republican in congress then primaried the least conservative ones with tea party members then gerrymandered maps and changed voting laws until they got the trump they wanted from the start. They were able to work on step by step progress towards goals without throwing their hands up that each step wasn't a jump right to trump. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's certainly a conception of how it went... no, you are right, they all stayed home and called bush a centrist because he only wanted a partial border wall not a full border wall and then hillary won and then trump sprung fully formed to reward their faith
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Guess who would not be president in 2016 if Romney had won in 2012
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
I think the idea that Donald Trump is a secret ploy laid decades in the making by the republican leadership is a bit far fetched. Like did you... not notice the response to him during the election campaign? What they got was absolutely not what they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Even if Trump was Republicans' secret goal all along, the way they accomplished it was by deliberately throwing 2012 sooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:in that when they win elections, they attempt to implement policy to be fair both the republicans and the democrats have this problem, see the failure of Obamacare repeal or the fact that the republican congress getting a fraction of the legislation you would expect from them considering they hold all 3 branches of government and have the Koch brothers barking at them to repeal social security or medicare or the white nationalists yelling at them to pass deport browns now act the fundamental issue is that both parties are actually quite divided internally, you can see this manifest in multi-party parliamentary systems where the politics is dysfunctional due to inter-party fighting (i.e merkel) in the two party US system means the fighting is done internally within the parties instead
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:no, you are right, they all stayed home and called bush a centrist because he only wanted a partial border wall not a full border wall and then hillary won and then trump sprung fully formed to reward their faith they literally did this in 2006 over bush's attempt at immigration reform because it wasn't a draconian mass deportation program. and that, among other factors, depressed turnout from the right enough to cause a democratic wave in 2006.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". Guess you haven't been paying attention to the entire House Freedom Caucus, then? Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because they planted their tree and watered it every day happily. They got republican in congress then primaried the least conservative ones with tea party members then gerrymandered maps and changed voting laws until they got the trump they wanted from the start. They were able to work on step by step progress towards goals without throwing their hands up that each step wasn't a jump right to trump. Actually, what happened is that the GOP constantly nominated centrist morons, and then watched them constantly lose because the ideological right had no interest in voting for empty-suit centrist nobodies. Then a radical ran and easily overwhelmed all the party's carefully-groomed moderates, even as the party flailed helplessly to stop him, all because he told his base what they actually wanted to hear while everyone else tiptoed nervously around it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:they literally did this in 2006 over bush's attempt at immigration reform because it wasn't a draconian mass deportation program. And what they got out of that was obama and dreamers and now horrible man trump has had to spend a whole year just getting that element of immigration just back to the baseline it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Actually, what happened is that the GOP constantly nominated centrist morons, and then watched them constantly lose because the ideological right had no interest in voting for empty-suit centrist nobodies. Then a radical ran and easily overwhelmed all the party's carefully-groomed moderates, even as the party flailed helplessly to stop him, all because he told his base what they actually wanted to hear while everyone else tiptoed nervously around it. Exactly. Radicalism engages people, moderation does not. Even Obama ran on a platform of radical rhetoric even if his performance was shite. Of course the issue with not delivering on it means he also tanked the credibility of the democratic party even further. The message should be to promise the moon and work like hell to deliver it, not pander to the center. The only people who are engaged by "more of the same, please" are people whose lives are already good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The message should be to promise the moon and work like hell to deliver it, not pander to the center. The only people who are engaged by "more of the same, please" are people whose lives are already good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own)  Owlofcreamcheese posted:And what they got out of that was obama and dreamers and now horrible man trump has had to spend a whole year just getting that element of immigration just back to the baseline it was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Consider that the destruction of the 1994-2006 GOP Congressional majority, and the obliteration of McCain and Romney, followed by Trump's victory has shoved the GOP's immigration position far to the right of not just GW Bush, but of Reagan. A major party has not been this hostile to immigration since before the Civil Rights Era. If you're a racist MAGA chud, feeding Boehner, McCain, and Romney to the wolves was absolutely worth it because now a million people are going to get deported and that would never have happened otherwise, ever, in a million years of Romneys. Not even Reagan wanted to do that. You have to go back to Eisenhower and Operation Wetback for that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2018 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 09:38 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I literally can not imagine a conservative that wanted minimum wage to be zero seeing a candidate that promised to cut it by 65% saying "heh, no thanks centrist". This idea that we need to let republicans just win forever and ever to charge up the battery that will totally any second now bring forth the savior to save us all is a uniquely false "leftist" meme. (that I choose to think that republicans paid to spread because it's more comforting than the alternative that people really thought it on their own) If a conservative that wanted minimum wage of 0 saw their opponent move to cut it by 65%, they'd probably go "gently caress you, you have to PAY people for the privilege of working for them" just to better distinguish themselves from the other side. The primary campaign strategy of conservatives is calling their opponent a leftist radical, if they're almost identical the conservative needs to actively make space between them so that they can call their opponent a leftist radical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 00:00
|
|