|
Potato Salad posted:
ahh yes the unthinkable crime of being unilaterally opposed to the us military being used to murder children overseas the idea that you think Bernie Sanders is some sort of untouchable paragon of the left tells anyone all they need to know about your political ideas, I'm sure MSNBC is real entertaining
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Winning it for the capacity to eliminate superdelegates, get a progressive into the chair. I'd like to see a chair to prioritizes support for local footsoldiering, which more than anything in the last year has turned people out. how is turning out for centrists that are against all of these things going to help with any of this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
Potato Salad, taking the popular "murdering foreign children is good, I mean are Arabs and Pashtuns actually people" position
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
i'm not sure how you consider "vote for the guy who wants to prevent reform" a pragmatic approach to reforming the dem party potato salad
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Reform by who, the guys who didn't turn out? Yes. If you feel that people who haven't put in the time and energy that you have don't deserve to have as much of a say in how the party is supposed to be run then you aren't trying to build anything, you are trying to justify time to yourself. Functionally if people don't engage with the democrats because they have lost hope, that isn't on them it's on the systematic failure of the party itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Yeah this movement is hosed when we can't pull in one of the few socialists in American public office.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Yes. If you feel that people who haven't put in the time and energy that you have don't deserve to have as much of a say in how the party is supposed to be run I'm wondering if reading this aloud would help you out. For the dumb: you're not getting progressive representation in the party by refusing to put progressive representation in the party. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm wondering if reading this aloud would help you out. makes sense to me. if you wanna pull people into the party you can't just say "vote for us for 10 years and then you'll be rewarded!". you have to actually offer them something up front too bad you've decided the only thing you'll offer up front is scorn
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:There has to be a point in the Ultimatum Game where you say "no, this deal is unacceptable, cut a better one next time, no money for either of us". As illogical as it seems in the short term, spite and a moral position of fairness are integral to maintaining an equal system. I think I replied with something similar to this before, but the really big and important differences here are that 1. the other player has goals other than winning and would possibly rather lose than fulfill your demands and 2. the other player doesn't necessarily know why you rejected the deal (and in the case of the Democratic Party, they're likely to interpret it as "because we weren't racist enough" or something). Your argument is valid as an explanation of why lesser evil-ism is a bad strategy for the Democratic Party if it wants to win, though (i.e. that people will disengage if they feel they aren't being treated fairly/adequately).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think I replied with something similar to this before, but the really big and important differences here are that 1. the other player has goals other than winning and would possibly rather lose than fulfill your demands and 2. the other player doesn't necessarily know why you rejected the deal (and in the case of the Democratic Party, they're likely to interpret it as "because we weren't racist enough" or something). in number 1, you've already reached a bad point in the game and you can't recover by acquiescing for number 2, that's why you vote, just for a candidate you like
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
^^^ Your argument against 2 doesn't work, because the Democrats don't necessarily know if a vote for X candidate is a vote that would have otherwise been for them and what would be necessary to get those people to switch their votes (any more than someone who didn't vote at all, at least).VitalSigns posted:Counterpoint: prominent Dems cosponsoring M4A which they definitely loving wouldn't have if "better ideas will never ever happen" had won The longer-term results of Trump's election have the potential to change my opinion regarding whether it's always objectively best for the Democrat to win. It's still far too early to actually come to any conclusions, but if this somehow results in the next Democratic administration embracing ideas like M4A and Trump doesn't start a war with North Korea, one could actually argue that it worked out better in the long run than Hillary winning (I feel pretty confident saying that Sanders and his brand of politics wouldn't have nearly as much influence had Hillary won). But this involves a lot of ifs, and I'm not remotely confident that we'll actually see any genuine efforts to pass stuff like M4A once Democrats regain power. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm wondering if reading this aloud would help you out. Your arguing this from the point of view of a member of the democrats, you want to get more people into the party in order to push it more towards what you want, and that is admirable, but ultimately the best way of appealing outside of what you already have is going to have to rely on people in elections. People who are not part of the democratic party. You want progressives to do the hard work, to get in place and run candidates and so on, and absolve the larger structure of the democrats of problems through this method. Unfortunately the frequently undemocratic nature of the primaries and the obvious bias in some sections of the party apparatus discourages people from taking part and I can't blame people for doing so. Ultimately the argument is whether the democrats deserve to have people try and help them. Can you make that argument, and can you make it convincingly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The longer-term results of Trump's election have the potential to change my opinion regarding whether it's always objectively best for the Democrat to win. It's still far too early to actually come to any conclusions, but if this somehow results in the next Democratic administration embracing ideas like M4A and Trump doesn't start a war with North Korea, one could actually argue that it worked out better in the long run than Hillary winning (I feel pretty confident saying that Sanders and his brand of politics wouldn't have nearly as much influence had Hillary won). The long term hindsight on this administration aside, it's with unforseeable fortune that we're still on the ACA, that Medicare is still kinda funded, that we haven't funded the wall, and that stays on the Muslim Ban were eventually respected. It's hard to provide these wins as positive given that CHIP barely made it out of the executive hostage standoff, and that DACA immigrants are hosed provided there's a nonzero chance of SCOTUS seeing this before June.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But this involves a lot of ifs, and I'm not remotely confident that we'll actually see any genuine efforts to pass stuff like M4A once Democrats regain power. If anything this seems like it bolsters the case of the "don't vote for Dems if you want single payer" people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Your arguing this from the point of view of a member of the democrats, you want to get more people into the party in order to push it more towards what you want, and that is admirable, but ultimately the best way of appealing outside of what you already have is going to have to rely on people in elections. People who are not part of the democratic party. You want progressives to do the hard work, to get in place and run candidates and so on, and absolve the larger structure of the democrats of problems through this method. Unfortunately the frequently undemocratic nature of the primaries and the obvious bias in some sections of the party apparatus discourages people from taking part and I can't blame people for doing so. You're talking about Dems deserving stuff....or something. I'm talking about mowing them over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
i too hope you mow yourself over and take the party with you
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If anything this seems like it bolsters the case of the "don't vote for Dems if you want single payer" people. I'm the 2036 M4A bill supported by all 4 Dem senators in Disengagement Future. Progress! (I'm bolstered by this year's turnout rates and spike in offices contested by progressives and first-timers, so I'm actually not this pessimistic)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You're talking about Dems deserving stuff....or something. I'm talking about mowing them over. What I am trying to argue, as best I can, is that you want to reform the democratic establishment. What a lot of people, not unjustifiably, want to do is to knock it down. Why is one better than the other on a moral and practical level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm the 2036 M4A bill supported by all 4 Dem senators in Disengagement Future. I'm glad they decided to vote symbolically with the socialist party to win some brownie points. It's a shame you guys are down to four senators though. Just think, if only you had turned left maybe you'd at least have a seat at the table of political relevancy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:What I am trying to argue, as best I can, is that you want to Well Destroy the establishment majority. We're not far off, given how small the 2017 DNC chair vote gap was. A ton of Perez voters were feeling the Bern, but cowered into submission. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:07
|
|
|
What are you arguing my dude? Your calling out people like Vital who are doing exactly what you do with more cynicism about it? Like, what the heck are you even arguing, can you lay out terms of some sort?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
I still voted for Hillary, but it's worth considering whether losing will encourage entrenched politicians to change their stances on their own or give people with different stances more credibility within the party after the establishment loses, and whether that's a more effective method of moving the party than by trying to win intraparty elections which are dominated by insiders who put up barriers to being ousted by radical nobodies without insider connections. Would the Republican Party be rounding up DACA immigrants right now if McCain and Romney hadn't gone down in flames, totally discrediting the moderate wing of the party in the minds of pragmatic-minded voters and giving a radical the opportunity to claim he can win? Would people like Beto and Gillibrand be swearing not to take superPAC donations if Hillary's billion dollar megadonor campaign had succeeded and vindicated the party wonks who insisted we needed to outgraft the Republicans to win? Would any prominent Democrats be signing on to M4A instead of being headbent in negotiations with Republicans in congress on how to cripple ACA even more in order to keep the government from shutting down?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I'm the 2036 M4A bill supported by all 4 Dem senators in Disengagement Future. As Condiv pointed out, this is still sooner than 2016's "it will never ever happen" so it actually is progress for people who want single payer, and the fact that they had to stay home and let Trump win in order to get even that is at best an unforced tactical error on the part of the Democrats who could have had those votes in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
You tell me, I'm a lot more interested in how someone with a disengagement knee-jerk reaction responds to the war plans of the DSA and social democratic movement: -Contest offices, no matter how red or small. We have a socialist in a Trump VA area as a result of this. -Register progressives D for later participation -Primary hard, as in feet on pavement. Ground games have been winning elections, go figure. -Overcome the DNC establishment vs progressive vote with these fruits. This is already narrow. -Open primaries, gently caress superdelegates, per Ellison. You get that last step and it's all up to finding a qualified, willing far left candidate for the general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You tell me, I'm a lot more interested in how someone with a disengagement knee-jerk reaction responds to the war plans of the DSA and social democratic movement: These aren't arguments against refusing to vote for Bad Dems though, because a person could do all these things and also decide not to vote for someone like Hillary after doing all this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
Voting for the caucus diminishes human suffering. You can do all these things and also keep the ethnonationalism party away from supermajorities. Fortunately, enough people held noses and showed up in Nov 2016 to prevent this. Please don't let that slip in 2020, we don't need constitutional amendments for religious freedom. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Voting for the caucus diminishes human suffering. lmao if the Democrats were interested in minimizing human suffering they would be unrecognizable as a party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
In the immediate term, however it is arguably counterproductive to the goal of overthrowing the democrats and replacing them with a better alternative, so it is at best questionable as to whether it does so in the long run. Also obviously there's the implicit suggestion that human only includes Americans in that instance given the democrats are just as fond of blowing up people overseas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In the immediate term, however it is arguably counterproductive to the goal of overthrowing the democrats and replacing them with a better alternative Why? Do we need to scare the poo poo out of people during periods of R majority to motivate people to turn out for progressive candidates? Why is it necessary to endanger people in order to reform the party, given the ground game plan above?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
Beause supporting the status quo and looking to overthrow the status quo are mutually exclusive goals. You either strengthen it or weaken it, to overthrow it you need to weaken it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmao if the Democrats were interested in minimizing human suffering they would be unrecognizable as a party. Guess we better just let them carry on carrying on? C'mon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Beause supporting the status quo and looking to overthrow the status quo are mutually exclusive goals. Not in a two party system. I really like your post, it brings this full circle to the issues with our electorate and whether to support half-assed liberalism, the modern conservative movement, or hold out for storm reform. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:You can do all these things and also keep the ethnonationalism party away from supermajorities. Yes you can, you can also do all those things and not vote for Bad Dems at the end of the day. So "well you should be doing all these things" is not actually an argument against what Condiv et al is saying. Now you are making a different argument "but Republicans are horrible" but this is just the Ultimatum Game and again social research has shown that humans will turn down deals that they judge to be too unfair in order to punish antisocial behavior even if it costs them something to do so, sorry you have to get humans to vote for you maybe you could do something about that insidious demos in democracy
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Not in a two party system. What about that magically breaks basic logic? If your goal is to get rid of Clinton et al. Then voting for them is counterproductive to that goal, because if they win elections they're going to keep getting support and keep running and keep doing nothing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
as this conversation drags on you're becoming less and less intelligible potato salad
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Why? Given your own arguments ITT your game plan makes no loving sense if you think about it even medium-hard. As in, it cannot possibly work if people behave like you want them to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:sorry you have to get humans to vote for you maybe you could do something about that insidious demos in democracy Like, say, wrest for control of the Dems?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Like, say, wrest for control of the Dems? you still haven't explained how voting for bad dems helps this goal
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What about that magically breaks basic logic? In the US, I can't vote far left within a coalition that will ultimately lock horns to protect the poor , discriminated, and disenfranchised. Coalition building in the US takes place, sorta-kinda-not-really in the primaries, and the constraints of two parties are so hosed up that you can't refuse participation without ceding power to the right. Even ranked voting won't help us much without going multiparty first or at the same time. This isn't the "multiple parties now" thread, so 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:11 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Given your own arguments ITT your game plan makes no loving sense if you think about it even medium-hard. As in, it cannot possibly work if people behave like you want them to. Yes, progress doesn't come from activism, it comes from internet thoughts and prayers
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:53
|
|