|
Lightning Knight posted:I feel like giving credit here to "the population" absolves Americans in general for being aggressively homophobic and bigoted and ignores that it was in practice the work of a number of LGBT activists and lawyers that brought us to where we are now. Americans in general didn't wake up one day and decide "you know, gay people? Pretty alright!" on a whim, after all. Gay rights were largely won in the courts, which is why Obama dropping the ball with pre-compromised Merrick Garland and then the Democrats not even bothering to coordinate on blocking Kavanaugh is so egregious. And now we have even more judges being rammed through because Chuck Schumer is a waste of oxygen and the Dems in general are a joke of an opposition party.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Not a Step posted:Gay rights were largely won in the courts, which is why Obama dropping the ball with pre-compromised Merrick Garland and then the Democrats not even bothering to coordinate on blocking Kavanaugh is so egregious. And now we have even more judges being rammed through because Chuck Schumer is a waste of oxygen and the Dems in general are a joke of an opposition party. I do not disagree with you or the spirit of the post he made, just that, that phrasing distorts who was actually doing the work of getting the Democrats to get better on the issue and obtain rights for LGBT issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
E: ^^^ I vaguely knew a person involved in one of the cases in Oklahoma. I hate when people credit the Democrats with doing literally anything on gay rights and overlook the enormous amount of work and personal risk taken on by the real fighters in the courts.Ytlaya posted:The chart itself is basically correct as a way of showing that politics has in some ways become more "polarized"; people are just interpreting it incorrectly. From what I've read about the methodology, it seems to be measuring the extent to which Democratic politicians adhere to whatever is considered "liberal" at a particular time. So it doesn't really care whether what is considered "liberal" is actually left-wing; just the extent to which Democratic politicians adhere to it. So I'm pretty sure it would actually consider a congress where half of Democrats were communists and half were "regular" liberals to be "less liberal" than our current one, lol. Thanks. I was reading through the methodology and suspected as much. So basically the zero point has shifted over time, such that today's 'liberal' policies are 50 years ago's 'conservative' positions? Lightning Knight posted:Note: Fulchrum, for it to count, you have to post the text with the So it this going anywhere? Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:26
|
|
emote, to show that you are committing to it.
|
Not a Step posted:So it this going anywhere? He did, he edited one of his prior posts with the text as requested. I quoted it in another thread for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I do not disagree with you or the spirit of the post he made, just that, that phrasing distorts who was actually doing the work of getting the Democrats to get better on the issue and obtain rights for LGBT issues. Yeah, saying "the population" is a bit to broad in hindsight, but I think we're on the same page in terms of what I was trying to get at.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:29
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:You realize that there are Billionaires and corporations that favor Democrats right? Silicon Valley sticks out the most to me but there are others as well (though most throw money at both parties to play it safe). Also, Silicon Valley gives money to the alt-right - where the hell are you getting the idea they fund the Dems? You need to get into the hyperspecific area of moneyed interests who back the Democrats exclusively but vehemently oppose the left. Who exactly are these groups? quote:If all your solutions are hyper-focused on Republicans then whats to stop the next generation of corrupt capitalists from simply buying Democratic candidates and running them as "liberals"? Like, transcribe this over to Apartheid South Africa, and ask what would happen if a particularly wealthy black person were to try to buy off white politicians. quote:And with them, the practises they were using. Remember, you haven't actually banned campaign contributions or banned the practices that allow people to hoard immense wealth in the first place. You've simply banished a certain subset of the capitalist class that you personally don't like. And who are the ones who actively do those things and prevent measures to stop those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Right, so if one side goes away, they'll either just save their money and keep it out of politics entirely, or continue to give money to both sides as before, thus not really changing anything. The problems will rise again because the core of capitalism is fundamentally broken and you don't seem at all interested in replacing it with a better system (or even fixing capitalism itself now that I think about it). For the sake of argument let's assume that literally every capitalist is a Republican and with a snap of your infinity gauntlet they vanish. You don't have to be a genius to corner a market and charge people ridiculous prices for things. Nor do you have to be a genius to realize that by screwing workers you will make more money. Both practices, I should add, are actively encouraged in the current system. Unless you give workers and minorities actual power and proactively put a stop to the type of money shenanigans practiced by the ownership class the cycle will just repeat in 50 years or so. I think what your saying is that once the Republicans are gone the Democrats will rush into the power void and do all those cool things I mentioned above, but I'm genuinely not so sure that would be the case. Remember it was Bill Clinton that killed welfare, outsourced most union jobs, and deregulated the banks. He was going to kill SS too but it got derailed by the Lewinski thing. Why would the Democrats change anything of substance when the whole party is full of cops, millionaires, and former CIA spooks who have a vested interest in stopping these kinds of reforms? quote:Like, transcribe this over to Apartheid South Africa, and ask what would happen if a particularly wealthy black person were to try to buy off white politicians. By the way I find it fascinating that the first place you went when asked to create a political system was Apartheid. You could have just said "full communism now" but instead you chose this weird police state where half the country lives under brutal repression. To answer your question though the corruption would come from ostensibly "left" sources. quote:And who are the ones who actively do those things and prevent measures to stop those things. Democrats engage in a ton of shady bullshit too when it's convenient for them. In fact most of them aren't even against money in politics at all. It's just the dark money aspect that came with CU that they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:The problems will rise again because the core of capitalism is fundamentally broken and you don't seem at all interested in replacing it with a better system (or even fixing capitalism itself now that I think about it). quote:I think what your saying is that once the Republicans are gone the Democrats will rush into the power void and do all those cool things I mentioned above, but I'm genuinely not so sure that would be the case. Remember it was Bill Clinton that killed welfare, outsourced most union jobs, and deregulated the banks. He was going to kill SS too but it got derailed by the Lewinski thing. Why would the Democrats change anything of substance when the whole party is full of cops, millionaires, and former CIA spooks who have a vested interest in stopping these kinds of reforms? quote:By the way I find it fascinating that the first place you went when asked to create a political system was Apartheid. You could have just said "full communism now" but instead you chose this weird police state where half the country lives under brutal repression. And you still didn't answer my question of who these sources who overwhelmingly support liberals exclusively and despise leftists are. quote:Democrats engage in a ton of shady bullshit too when it's convenient for them. In fact most of them aren't even against money in politics at all. It's just the dark money aspect that came with CU that they don't like. 
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
I think most of us would feel a lot less negativity towards the Dems if they focused that shady poo poo on Republicans and not exclusively the left. As it stands, people like you, Fulchrum, seem completely uninterested in stopping the Trumps of the world, and only fixated on stopping the Bernies and Cynthia Nixons and Ben Jealouses of the moment. It would be one thing if your advocates strategy had a good record of winning, but well, it just doesn’t. You don’t get to act like you’re the sober adult in the room when your instincts are so manifestly terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think most of us would feel a lot less negativity towards the Dems if they focused that shady poo poo on Republicans and not exclusively the left. As it stands, people like you, Fulchrum, seem completely uninterested in stopping the Trumps of the world, and only fixated on stopping the Bernies and Cynthia Nixons and Ben Jealouses of the moment. It would be one thing if your advocates strategy had a good record of winning, but well, it just doesn’t. You don’t get to act like you’re the sober adult in the room when your instincts are so manifestly terrible. Unless you'd care to admit it doesn't exist, and the so called shady tactics are just leftists blaming Democrats for their own failure. Oh and, it really doesmt help your case that one of the three things you put forward was a celebrity vanity campaign. Gee, how could it have possibly failed, there truly is no explanation. And Ben Jealous won and ran with a former DNC Vice Chair, what in the hell are you talking about? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 07:42 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Have you considered the possibility that actually voters are not completely retarded and might actually have paid attention to the news? I'm not going to probe you for it now, but in the future:  I am going to start probing for ableist slurs. This is D&D, not GBS or C-SPAM. Shape the gently caress up, people, and find words to call your political opponents that aren't hateful to marginalized people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Its good you brought up attacking leftists again, because I asked about her and no-one has actually given me an answer - where are all of Joe Crowleys negative ads against Occasio-Cortez? Leftists assured me he was planning to deviously attack her savagely. Well, please, show me the proof of this theory, the tiniest thing to support your paranoid persecution complex about the Democrats suppressing you. Go on, show me the ads. The Joe Lieberman "vote for crowley" op-ed seemed like a trial balloon to me and still does.  . I still think Crowley was considering a spoiler run but the pressure from AOC and the failure of the Lieberman trial balloon probably convinced him it was a bad idea. I'm not going to count any chickens until AOC is actually seated though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Joe Lieberman "vote for crowley" op-ed seemed like a trial balloon to me and still does. I don't think he expected her to so straight forwardly and publicly call him out. The original plan was more than likely along the lines of assuming she would eventually make some big slip up, the media would aggressively "fact check" her (which they tried) and then he would swoop in to say "I was supportive of Alexandria but this election is too important to lose so l will step up as a proven winner" or something along those lines. AOC very wisely made it clear what was possible so any future attempt would look like the back stabbing it was. His arguments for why he HAD to stay in even after he was requested not to by the workers party show were so tortured there was clearly ill intent. It just turns out that he didnt really have the opportunity for a true rat loving. I'm also not going to feel relief until she wins though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
Crowley's got a big fundraiser scheduled with his supporters just a few days from now, too. It certainly seems like he's kept his options open.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
I'm only 75% convinced that AOC can win which means that I haven't been able to fully revel in everybody's enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
lol at anyone defending cowardly backbiter crowley
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Frankly if Crowley somehow costs her the election I'm pretty much done voting for that party. I'm already basically only doing it to vote against Republicans and if they are willing to risk a blue seat just to protect some rear end in a top hat's job why the hell should I care about supporting them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Radish posted:Frankly if Crowley somehow costs her the election I'm pretty much done voting for that party. I'm already basically only doing it to vote against Republicans and if they are willing to risk a blue seat just to protect some rear end in a top hat's job why the hell should I care about supporting them? Because not doing so harms people and they know it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cbsnews/status/1054004406063116293?s=21
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
That the leadership of the dems is just now figuring out that the repubs might be bad guys explains why they suck so much at resisting trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:12
|
|
|
Joe Biden is giving an award to George Bush the guy that just used his name to help put Kavanaugh on the bench. Also lol my father's Republican party were the people opposing civil rights and starting the push to the neo-gilded age we are facing so gently caress Biden. They are literally the same drat people that worked for Nixon and Reagan. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Joe Lieberman "vote for crowley" op-ed seemed like a trial balloon to me and still does. Other things to keep in mind about Crowley, and him staying on the ticket as WFP candidate:
He might not make the attempt to split the vote this time around, but he's certainly keeping a stranglehold on the local party and I'll bet that party won't be supportive of AOC in two years time. The reason I'm fairly confident Crowley is up to no good is that last point - if he was doing something that could stand up to daylight he'd recruit more of his supporters as candidates for those seats rather than using random olds as placeholders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:
Yeah this is another good point, his reasoning that running for some random seat to get off the ballot for his House seat would offend his personal morality is obviously bullshit because running spoilers without their knowledge in local party elections is unambiguously fraud and possibly illegal. Also he originally got appointed to his house seat the first time around in a backroom deal followed by a vote in a secret meeting that wasn't announced to other potential candidates until after it was over. But I'm sure he would never have entertained the thought of ratfucking AOC if she hadn't called him out on it, because he's such a stand-up guy as shown by his history of
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Because not doing so harms people and they know it. A better analogy is something like a situation where 100 people are hurt under Democrats and 110 people are hurt under Republicans, and you have the option of taking a risk that has a chance of decreasing the number hurt to 50 (which would otherwise have a 0% chance of happening) but also increases the chances of the Republicans winning and 110 being hurt. Obviously these numbers are completely pulled out of my rear end, but my point is that the "but Republicans will harm people" framing ignores the fact that the vast majority of people being harmed are being harmed under both political parties, and it's not strange for someone to think that it's worth slightly increasing the chance of harming marginally more people in order to try and break out of that cycle. I think many liberals view the situation as a choice between "hurting people" and "not hurting people," rather than "hurting people" and "also hurting people, but a fraction less." It's like if the main political parties gave you a choice between "slavery" and "also slavery, but with 5% of slaves freed" and someone chose to reject both options because they wanted to actually end slavery (and then people attacked them for not caring about the 5% who would suffer less under the latter option).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
The Democrats know they can hold an entire segment of the population hostage indefinitely and actively campaign on it, even though their track record shows they will throw their hostages to the wolves at the slightest pressure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
People in my neighborhood who don't know Congress is two chambers, and not just one big Thing, know Chuck Schumer's name and know he sold out the DREAMers to the republicans in exchange for nothing. Its astonishing how thoroughly he hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:People in my neighborhood who don't know Congress is two chambers, and not just one big Thing, know Chuck Schumer's name and know he sold out the DREAMers to the republicans in exchange for nothing. Its astonishing how thoroughly he hosed up. Last I heard it was a masterful example of 110th-dimensional chess. Are you sure your clearly ignorant and foolish neighbors just lack the brainpower and PhDs to appreciate the subtleties of his strategies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
If Chuck did literally nothing he probably would have at least not drawn attention to the fact he had an empty hand and ultimately didn't really care about the dreamers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:People in my neighborhood who don't know Congress is two chambers, and not just one big Thing, know Chuck Schumer's name and know he sold out the DREAMers to the republicans in exchange for nothing. Its astonishing how thoroughly he hosed up. Clinton wanted someone easy to control and kept anyone else from power. Sadly taking control of an internal party structure and getting people to vote for you are not the same thing. So now the party is run by a bunch of worthless suck ups campaigning to their imaginary friends, and using their influence to keep anyone from threatening them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
The DACA fiasco was the incompetent leaders of the Democrats smugly thinking they could out negotiate Trump then go home early since he was an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The Joe Lieberman "vote for crowley" op-ed seemed like a trial balloon to me and still does. So, you are using the exact same excuse that Freep uses. "Obama didn't declare himself god emperor of the US and cancel all elections because WE SCARED HIM OFF!" Let me guess, the lack of any evidence for this BS is just more evidence that its true.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So, you are using the exact same excuse that Freep uses. "Obama didn't declare himself god emperor of the US and cancel all elections because WE SCARED HIM OFF!" You are incredibly insecure over having one of your leadership figures called out for their bad decisions. It's just days and days of meltdowns from you about this topic. I can imagine why you feel that way though, after all game does know game. And you're a person whose judgement is so morally compromised that you unironically support Joe Manchin- to the point that you are willing to devote considerable energy to propping up a bigot who happily enables serial rape. So of course you don't want the decisions of powerful individuals criticized, because that's how you avoid any form of introspection that would ever allow you to grow beyond the conceptual blinders that your privilege life has encumbered you with. You'd be a figure worthy of pity- except that innocent people get hurt because of your hubris*. *And you don't care in the slightest. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Oct 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:!" Why are people on this forum so obsessed with declaring a lack of "any" evidence when it has already been established that there is some evidence Crowley remaining on the ballot and the Lieberman op ed are both evidence. We can argue over what they're evidence *of* but the existence of both remains factual and not subject to debate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So, you are using the exact same excuse that Freep uses. "Obama didn't declare himself god emperor of the US and cancel all elections because WE SCARED HIM OFF!" why's joe crowley still in the race when he said he'd support aoc, she asked him to exit the race, the party he's running under asked him to exit the race, and he was given a frequently used out with which to exit the race?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
the man who is certain uppity gays cost Kerry 2004 has some interesting standards for evidence
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why's joe crowley still in the race when he said he'd support aoc, she asked him to exit the race, the party he's running under asked him to exit the race, and he was given a frequently used out with which to exit the race? My favorite detail is dude already owns a house in Alexandria, Virginia where the rest of his family lives all year anyway, he's only a token NYC resident to begin with, so he could just . . . declare his residence to be in Virginia . . . and he'd be off the ballot instantly Literally no effort required other than filing a form, because dude already has a whole extra house
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the man who is certain uppity gays cost Kerry 2004 has some interesting standards for evidence His support of Manchin makes so much sense with this in mind. Bigots of a feather flock together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Crowley is not actively trying to run as a spoiler because he was instantly called out. The fact that he's still holding a fundraiser during the election season and on the ballot remains, at BEST, an extremely disrespectful and lovely move. Like, your best case answer for why he's still doing this can't be any better than 'he's just a selfish prick who wants to ride the gravy train until it dies'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Radish posted:The DACA fiasco was the incompetent leaders of the Democrats smugly thinking they could out negotiate Trump then go home early since he was an idiot. *In the Chrono Trigger bad ending theme.* Sadly, they were also idiots.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:*In the Chrono Trigger bad ending theme.* Sadly, they were also idiots. remember when Schumer literally begged Trump to let them fund the wall and cut legal immigration routes brutally
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:40
|
|