|
Dad Jokes posted:Speaking of GOP ratfucking: remember how the North Carolina GOP did a power-grab after losing the governorship in 2016? It's happening again in Wisconsin. Governor still controls the state police and guard, right?
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
Huh. https://twitter.com/NYTnickc/status/1074090962438246400
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
As much of a filthy socialist liberal that I am, I dont want any poltical party in chsrge of redistricting
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:As much of a filthy socialist liberal that I am, I dont want any poltical party in chsrge of redistricting
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
You can't win the House without gerrymandering blue states, because Republicans will never give it up - never mind their whole bag of dirty tricks. The Republican SC has refused to strike it down even though it's blatantly racial. This was an historic victory in terms of popular vote, but it only netted 235 seats. They wouldn't even have a majority without gerrymanders in blue states. Never mind that New Jersey was gerrymandered by Republicans and it backfired, Washington still uses the map districts set by Republicans many years ago, and California used an independent commission (admittedly one gamed by Democrats but it was all above board and Republicans could have stopped it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
It's not even really gerrymandering. https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/1073822375093907456
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
andrew cuomo may have hit on the only way to get people to stop thinking he's garbage: by getting them high https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1074708442387046400
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:As much of a filthy socialist liberal that I am, I dont want any poltical party in chsrge of redistricting Socialist and liberal are contradictory, I've been told
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:23
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Socialist and liberal are contradictory, I've been told Depends on which definition of "liberal" you're using. In the US it's often just used to mean anything/anyone left-ish of center (by US standards) basically, but there's also various ideologies and schools of political thought and such where the name is something like "Liberalism", often with an adjective before it, but varying amounts of the ideas behind them are not leftist in the slightist. These schools of thought have also shifted over time, as have what people called different things; for example, according to something I happened to read recently, "neoliberalism" used to have a different meaning but is currently a hyper-capitalist form of liberalism. (Which in this case at least makes sense since what's "new" is relative.) Different countries also use the term somewhat differently, and some people like to quibble about things or insist that their particular definition is the correct one. Anyway, many forms of liberalism are not particularly in favor of socialist ideas, (almost?) all of them are explicitly capitalist, and some are even opposed to things like unions, welfare, regulating industries, and so on. Thatcher and Reagan could both accurately be described as neoliberals, for example. People also like to do this sort of thing for "progressive" and whether or not certain things are "socialist" and such. Even, or perhaps especially, if what someone actually means is clear from context, because some people can't resist the urge to be pedantic or technically correct. (The above was all written based on what I could remember off the top of my head and a little Googling, so, some of the particulars might be wrong. I think the overall point is there though.) Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Vox's Massively Oversimplified But Still Inappropriately Wordy Summary of Liberalism: At root, Liberalism refers to a philosophical grounding in human rights, usually natural/god-given moral rights. Liberalism as a philosophy and originating political ideology was important because it stated human rights were inherent in existence and not derived from the will of the monarchy. This made it a major prerequisite for modern republican revolutionary ideas. Liberalism, in that very broad, abstracted sense, embraces the idea of human equality and dignity, and is a Good Thing and important. The notion of Equal Rights is, in history and in many of its origins an expression of the Liberal ideal. Like all good important things, Liberalism is effortlessly hosed up by us hairless apes. Equal Rights? Great. Fantastic. Which rights, though, and who gets them, and what do you do when they conflict? The answers to these questions varies massively, and of course terrible people have their own opinions about this. Many expressed forms of Liberalism (including the OG historical ones) placed a particular emphasis on individual property rights as absolutely sacrosanct. They also may specifically frame rights as being individual rights against the state. This is where you get the free market anti-government capitalism stuff; libertarianism, for instance, is entirely a form of liberalism. But it's also true that liberalism reflects other, better, more important values; the idea of absolute human equality is also a Liberal belief. The distinction between different definitions and framings of liberalism stems from these different interpretations. At least part of why Liberalism is a Republican smear word is because Those loving Liberals wanted black people to have equal rights to education, employment, property, the vote, etc. Because it's used as a political identifier by both fans and enemies, what liberalism actually is has shifted in a variety of ways over time and in different places. Outside the US (and painting with an irresponsibly broad brush), in a lot of countries, a party that characterizes itself as Liberal often isn't the super omega frothing racist group (because equal rights), but such parties are/were often dominant political power blocs that, due to their centralization of power (and latent corruption, because they were a successful political party) also identified themselves in opposition to more leftist or communist movements. This desire to preserve power would make the Liberal group more firmly embrace lovely property rights-based capitalist ideologies. Remember, a lot of the OG historical philosophy of Liberalism was, indeed, incoherent and crappy about other rights, because the focus was "I don't want the king to keep seizing my land and killing everyone at random." As this is SA, a good case study from this might be Japan: when setting up political parties for the postwar government, wikipedia tells me all the horrible industrialist types that had previously controlled the government apparently formed the Liberal Party. This party and some similar groups that eventually morphed into the modern LDP. In forming a new political order, Liberalism was their ideological bulwark against leftist ideas that would involve a greater loss of power. On top of this, over the past couple generations, jackasses like Murdoch and the Kochs have actively invested tons in fabricating and reinforcing the legitimacy of libertarian forms of liberalism in public discourse. In a lot of settings, if you're not talking about specific policies or rights, you should just think of Liberal as a brand or team name; people aren't using it to refer to the content of policies or philosophies, but to identify group alignment- like "Democrat" or "Republican". I know less about econ theory, but (and wikipedia backs me up on this) "neoliberalism" was originally "hey, free market crazy deregulatory Classical Liberalism was terrible, let's come up with a way to tightly regulate markets". It disappeared into infighting and WW2, then reemerged afterward as a gossamer-thin cover over free market crazy deregulatory Classical Liberalism, wielded as a bludgeon by conservatives for poo poo like trickle-down economics. This rhetorical use by conservatives meant the term was also available as a general term of abuse by people on the left (including liberals) to describe anything they didn't like. My understanding (and I was too young to have paid attention back then) is that even in the 90s, Clinton wasn't calling NAFTA neoliberal; it was purely an attack term even then. No one really calls themselves a neoliberal anymore, it's just a diss. If you want to get into the abstract, messy philosophical/moral underpinnings of these big abstracted concepts, Liberalism is best understood as a Deontological or Rule Moralist ethical philosophy. These ethical forms emphasize the means, not the ends. By talking about rights, Liberalism dictates really broad, abstract rules about what is Good, but it has very little ability to articulate how these rules operate or interact with reality. This means that strict, blind Liberalism can lead to absurd, crazy ideological results and framings, like Libertarianism. Ethical systems that state rules, but don't account for or amend themselves for the consequences, tend to be like that. At the opposite end of the spectrum from Deontological or Rule Moralist ethics is Consequentialism, where the ends justify the means no matter what. Consequentialism is great at achieving specific outcomes, but is poor at explaining or justifying why those outcomes are good. In reality, all ethical and political philosophies have a mixture of both kinds, it's just a matter of what's explicit and what's assumed or hidden in the ethical reasoning. Because Liberalism is so focused on rules and not outcomes, it's easily rearticulated and abused as a concept. Liberalism is arguably a necessary, but absolutely not a sufficient, component of a comprehensively good political or ethical philosophy. I should note, having spent all these  on this, that Conservatism as a political philosophy is no less incoherent and politicized, but it's a lot harder to find stuff in it that's worth defending. Conservatism is usually seen as a reaction against the British, French and American republican revolutions, so, y'know. Not so hot. In practice conservative political theory's been pretty lovely and disingenuous from the start. "More power for us/gently caress you" has been the dominant through line, with some tiny exceptions.Sorry, I know this is super duper broad. Feel free to correct me on all of this (that terrible attempt to summarize JP political history is just asking for it), and for the love of god don't ask about Republicanism. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Socialist and liberal are contradictory, I've been told they're separate concepts that arose in response to totally different social and political conditions
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
Nice Democracy ya got there Arizona. Didn't want to vote for McSally for Senate in November? Tough poo poo, you get her anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:We may also potentially see a return of meme candidate Allison Lundergan Grimes, though some people might run just to get their name out into the public sphere in preparation for 2020 when Mitch is up for re-election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Sorry, can you remind me again what rhymes with Allison Lundergan Grimes? What rhymes with Mitch?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 19:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KFILE/status/1075109126139727872 Probably a goon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
You'd think that by 2018 politicians would have realized that more people than the intended recipient can read their twitter
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:You'd think that by 2018 politicians would have realized that more people than the intended recipient can read their twitter It amazes me we've had the internet for a quarter century and social media for a decade, but so many people are so bad at it
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Nice Democracy ya got there Arizona. Didn't want to vote for McSally for Senate in November? Tough poo poo, you get her anyway. From an FPTP perspective, okay, but if I look at it from a quasi-proportional representation perspective, I can't have a problem with this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Matt Bevin reminding everyone what happens when you elect Republicans. https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1075156385661358082
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
"Liberal" is the 2018 political equivalent of "hipster"
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:Matt Bevin reminding everyone what happens when you elect Republicans. Those are good numbers, but I will be god damned if I allow myself even a shred of hope, even after the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
I choose to see McSally's appointment as a sign that Ducey smells Trump's blood in the water. McSally's campaign's electoral post-mortem all but laid her defeat entirely at Trump's feet for turning independents against her and not breaking the 80% overall approval threshold among GOP base voters. Putting her in the seat after that is all but an openly thrown gauntlet. This isn't to say McSally will be anything but a rubber stamp for neonazi bullshit, as McCain pretty much was, but the more Republicans who are positioning themselves to stick knives in Trump's back when/if the moment comes the better I say. We've long been worried about what happens if Trump gets to the point of Nixon but the party refuses to turn on him, so less to-the-hilt Trumpians and more political hack opportunists, particularly in the Senate, is in the aggregate a good thing I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:This isn't to say McSally will be anything but a rubber stamp for neonazi bullshit, as McCain pretty much was, but the more Republicans who are positioning themselves to stick knives in Trump's back when/if the moment comes the better I say. We've long been worried about what happens if Trump gets to the point of Nixon but the party refuses to turn on him, so less to-the-hilt Trumpians and more political hack opportunists, particularly in the Senate, is in the aggregate a good thing I think. lol get a load of this dumb horseshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:Matt Bevin reminding everyone what happens when you elect Republicans. I have very little doubt that the GOP in this state will rush to slam through a set of 'greatly restrict the excessive power of the governor' bills should Bevin lose. They've already demonstrated a callous disregard for the rules as is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I choose to see McSally's appointment as a sign that Ducey smells Trump's blood in the water. McSally's campaign's electoral post-mortem all but laid her defeat entirely at Trump's feet for turning independents against her and not breaking the 80% overall approval threshold among GOP base voters. Putting her in the seat after that is all but an openly thrown gauntlet. No, an openly thrown gauntlet would be appointing someone who was critical of Trump, or at the very least not endorsed by him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I choose to see McSally's appointment as a sign that Ducey smells Trump's blood in the water. McSally's campaign's electoral post-mortem all but laid her defeat entirely at Trump's feet for turning independents against her and not breaking the 80% overall approval threshold among GOP base voters. Putting her in the seat after that is all but an openly thrown gauntlet. McSally was appointed because she's unoffensive to both the trump wing and the anti-trump wing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I choose to see McSally's appointment as a sign that Ducey smells Trump's blood in the water. McSally's campaign's electoral post-mortem all but laid her defeat entirely at Trump's feet for turning independents against her and not breaking the 80% overall approval threshold among GOP base voters. Putting her in the seat after that is all but an openly thrown gauntlet. Arizona is fond of electing  Republican senators like Jeff (the) Flake and John "Deeply Concerned" McCain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
Ego-bot posted:Matt Bevin reminding everyone what happens when you elect Republicans. Fortunately for Matt Bevin all he has to do is remind Kentucky that gay dudes are touching penises and black men are roaming the state unlynched and the state will vote to kill themselves by 50 points
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1077399792429486080 Fleeing the sinking ship
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1077399792429486080 I recall an op-ed about a million years ago about how self-proclaimed centrists and former republicans who can't stomach what their party has become and are considering voting for democrats better understand that democratic candidates aren't going to compromise core party values, such as being Pro-Choice for instance, to make it easy for them. Either get on board or sit the elections out, because Democrats are (in his view anyway) finally recognizing that being Democrats instead of Diet Republicans is what's winning them elections. These handful of party-swappers that keep popping up make me wonder what values they're bringing with them, and how they expect to survive future elections and primaries if they don't believe in core planks of the Democratic Party Platform. It's an even more prescient question for them to consider given the fact that Blue Dogs got put down all over the electoral map in 2018. The Party is moving left at a decent clip, and if you can't swim fast enough to catch it you're only going to drown anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 04:38
|
|
|
I remember when Arlen Specter defected and then 2010 happened
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:I recall an op-ed about a million years ago about how self-proclaimed centrists and former republicans who can't stomach what their party has become and are considering voting for democrats better understand that democratic candidates aren't going to compromise core party values, such as being Pro-Choice for instance, to make it easy for them. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion quote:Democrats will not withhold financial support for candidates who oppose abortion rights, the chairman of the party’s campaign arm in the House said in an interview with The Hill. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 05:46
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion Can we just stop punching ourselves in the dick over and over? Goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
friendbot2000 posted:Can we just stop punching ourselves in the dick over and over? Goddamn. I heard that if we punch our dick five more times, the Republicans will work with us on comprehensive immigration reform. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Goons: The democratc party needs to stop involving itself in recruiting candidates and let the best people win according to the localityThe Muppets On PCP posted:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/344196-dem-campaign-chief-vows-no-litmus-test-on-abortion Goons: No, not like that
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Democrat McDemerson - Blueplace, NY: Anti-miscegenation laws are vital to the preservation of those qualities unique to each race. Extremely Democratic Voter: Heh, GEWNS 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Goons: The democratc party needs to stop involving itself in recruiting candidates and let the best people win according to the locality Who said this though
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
I'm willing to be flexible with politicians based on the industries in the area. Nobody is going to expect a representative from West Virginia to be an environmental champion. But unless there are districts out there that are with no women, I don't think I'm comfortable with representatives throwing a huge chunk of their constituency under the bus to win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Who said this though People constantly get angry about perceived favoritism by the Democratic Party apparatus, with the implication that they shouldn't 'put their thumb on the scale'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:08 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:People constantly get angry about perceived favoritism by the Democratic Party apparatus, with the implication that they shouldn't 'put their thumb on the scale'. But it's inevitably putting their thumbs on the scale for a primary contestant who they feel is likely to win, and that feeling is steeped in "well, in this district only a pro-lifer can win, so we must support the pro-lifer". You haven't found a "gotcha", these are two sides of the same coin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 18:17
|
|