|
Phenotype posted:What would I call myself if I generally believe that anyone with over $10m should have almost all their money taken away and, depending on crimes, should be ground into a nutrient-rich paste to feed needy children? 10 million?? Call yourself a coward who doesn't go far enough.  These days "lib" or "liberal" is being used more to describe centrists or right-leaning Dems. Terms you might want to use would be leftist or progressive, though I think a lot of the language is in flux because it feels like we're in a bit of a realignment period.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
Phenotype posted:C'mon, I'm not gonna buy and read a $12 book. Can someone run over this stuff real quick? It's a genuine question, I always thought the party was moderates and liberals, and from context the liberals are not the progressives anymore? What would I call myself if I generally believe that anyone with over $10m should have almost all their money taken away and, depending on crimes, should be ground into a nutrient-rich paste to feed needy children? Liberal is not the same thing as left wing. In most other countries, there will be a liberal party and a left wing party. Lib-dems versus labour in the UK, liberal versus NDP in Canada, etc. Liberals believe in markets but think that regulations are important to maintain fairness and efficiency, but opposed massive redistribution of wealth and strong unions. When Obama made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent and didn't try to pass card check, it was an eminently liberal thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:50
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:C'mon, I'm not gonna buy and read a $12 book. Can someone run over this stuff real quick? It's a genuine question, I always thought the party was moderates and liberals, and from context the liberals are not the progressives anymore? What would I call myself if I generally believe that anyone with over $10m should have almost all their money taken away and, depending on crimes, should be ground into a nutrient-rich paste to feed needy children? Some defining features of liberals: They really like market based solutions to public goods problems. They support things like the ACA over things like M4A, they like charter schools, they think privatizing social security is a great idea, they support deregulation of industries and privatization in general. They are wholeheartedly free market advocates. They really like means testing and generally debating whether people "deserve" public assistance. They are the sort who complain about not wanting to pay for rich kids to go to college, or worry about the wrong people getting food stamps. These arguments are never made from a practical perspective, it's always about "deserving". They generally believe the wealthy deserve their money, so long as they "pay their share" the power imbalance is inherently good and right, because it helps 'the economy' if nothing else. They support free trade deals that let exploitation of foreign countries benefit local citizens. They are generally imperialist and in favour of foreign adventurism because of their paternal instincts - liberals overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq, for example, while leftists largely opposed it. They also have a security mindset - they tend to be the most strongly anti-gun because they find guns scary, they don't want any policies that involve unknowns or unfamiliar risks implemented, they desperately want stability when it doesn't conflict with any of their above ideals, they generally support things like antiracism but are uncomfortable with lots of minorities moving in and "changing the nature of" the place they live, so on and so forth. Essentially, they are conservatives, not radical regressive maniacs like current Republicans but personally opposed to change within their own sphere even if they support the change in general principle. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism "Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom." I think a lot of people use 'lib' as a derogative term to describes centrist dems who think free markets can fix everything, and that's how we end up with bullshit like Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
The correct thing to be is a full-blown sickle and hammer carrying communist. The hammer to crush the capitalists, the sickle to harvest their bones of which to build a strong foundation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:53
|
|
|
For a summary by song as to what leftists see as the problem with liberals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nFvhhCulaw Wicked Them Beats posted:10 million?? Call yourself a coward who doesn't go far enough. As the song demonstrates, this particular split is hardly new and hasn't really changed in decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 15:55
|
|
|
The American Democrat party has actively silenced its leftist wing since the 70s and only now are they finally getting a voice again. The liberals used to this status quo aren't taking it well, but they have no real rhetorical tools to deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:C'mon, I'm not gonna buy and read a $12 book. Can someone run over this stuff real quick? It's a genuine question, I always thought the party was moderates and liberals, and from context the liberals are not the progressives anymore? What would I call myself if I generally believe that anyone with over $10m should have almost all their money taken away and, depending on crimes, should be ground into a nutrient-rich paste to feed needy children? Leftists use liberal to mean conservative even though 90% of the population uses liberal to mean left, because leftists hate when people understand what they're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:02
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:The American Democrat party has actively silenced its leftist wing since the 70s and only now are they finally getting a voice again. The liberals used to this status quo aren't taking it well, but they have no real rhetorical tools to deal with it. One of the best things to come out of the Obama presidency is the absolute hatred for establishment Dems taking billionaire and corporate money. The established Dems have absolutely nothing to counter the "why are you taking billionaire money" other than "Billionaires and corporations are people too!" and it makes me quite happy. 16+ years ago nobody gave a poo poo. Now it's becoming a Scarlett letter and it's good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Leftists use liberal to mean conservative even though 90% of the population uses liberal to mean left, because leftists hate when people understand what they're talking about. Or maybe the American liberal party, the democrats, would be the right wing party in most of the developed world. Theresa May and Obama were super cozy with each other and people who worked in the 2012 Obama campaign worked on the May campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:04
|
|
|
Unsurprisingly, when the democratic party silenced its left wing, right wing propaganda went after the center left. The Dems compromised again and liberal became a slur.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:If it started with a Warren internal document that spieled, "most of Sanders supporters are younger voters who do not have high turnout in elections", would you oppose Bernie responding in the same way? Bernie got screwed by the media here, but at least let's not hold double standards with this "Just Matter Of Factly Stating" bullshit. If you think Bernie ought to take it on the chin too, then fine, but I have suspicions you wouldn't. What are you talking about. Bernie gets hit for who his supporters are all the time. He gets criticized constantly because they were too white in 2016, because they're too young and don't vote, and he doesn't bitch and moan that he's being trashed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:06
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Essentially, they are conservatives, not radical regressive maniacs like current Republicans but personally opposed to change within their own sphere even if they support the change in general principle. Yeah, I was reading this response and mainly thinking "I can't tell the difference between this and conservatives" until I got to the anti-gun bit. It seems ridiculous for the right to rally around "owning the libs" then. So if I believe that most of capitalism should be torn down and wealth redistributed, and health care and education should be free for everyone, then I'm not a lib, I'm a progressive? A radical socialist? Thanks for all the responses, by the way! I donated $27 to AOC's new PAC last night in lieu of late night Amazon purchases, so I guess that's a good start. (They really get you with that ActBlue site, it makes it way too easy to make a donation. It's just as bad as Amazon for the speed that you can go from "maybe I want to buy that" to the money being extracted from your account.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:15
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:C'mon, I'm not gonna buy and read a $12 book. Can someone run over this stuff real quick? It's a genuine question, I always thought the party was moderates and liberals, and from context the liberals are not the progressives anymore? What would I call myself if I generally believe that anyone with over $10m should have almost all their money taken away and, depending on crimes, should be ground into a nutrient-rich paste to feed needy children? Most the thread is rightly pointing out the general definition of liberal as used everywhere in the world except the US. In the US, the word liberal generally includes people who believe in social democracy as well as straight-up market individualists. Whether or not you want to call social democracy left wing is up to you, I guess. But either way, I think US liberalism includes groups that wouldn't be called liberal in the rest of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:16
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Or maybe the American liberal party, the democrats, would be the right wing party in most of the developed world. Theresa May and Obama were super cozy with each other and people who worked in the 2012 Obama campaign worked on the May campaign. Yeah, there's a reason why Obama's campaign manager works for the conservative party in the U.K., where there is an actual left-wing party. It's because the Democrats are pretty fuckin' conservative, it turns out!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:20
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:So if I believe that most of capitalism should be torn down and wealth redistributed, and health care and education should be free for everyone, then I'm not a lib, I'm a progressive? A radical socialist? Thanks for all the responses, by the way! A progressive, a leftist. Probably not a socialist since that's got a whole bunch more stuff going on with it. I think the defining feature for liberals, though, and this is NOT true of conservatives who are more about tradition and inherent status, is "meritocracy". They want a just world where people get what they "deserve" and what they "earn", whether good or bad, and their beliefs fall out from that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216743062543663105 Well, it doesn't seem like scriptghazi is going away any time soon lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
To summarize part of the book; The reason why the term liberal is so confused in the US is because the dems destroyed their own left wing with the rise of the Clintons' political generation and then Rush Limbaugh and Sean hannity types spent the next 50 years whining that they weren't winning hard enough because of the libs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
B B posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216743062543663105 Yeah but maybe this will make everyone shut up about it. Nothing like a Trump tweet to make you realize how dumb something is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:40
|
|
|
B B posted:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216743062543663105 It's a perfect Warren play that her coordinated attempt to siphon people from Bernie not only has increased her rejection among Bernie supporters by an incredible amount, but will frame the discourse as her campaign being dead in the water.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:43
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It's a perfect Warren play that her coordinated attempt to siphon people from Bernie not only has increased her rejection among Bernie supporters by an incredible amount, but will frame the discourse as her campaign being dead in the water. I share an office with a former fundraiser for her, I really want to ask what the hell she's thinking, but he's a former fund raiser for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:44
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:This is a dumb question, but why do you badmouth libs? I thought we were all libs. I have identified as a "liberal" since the mid-70s. Which meant:  etc., etc. When Democrats started softening on labor/citizen's rights/power, I was somewhat confused & chagrined, so began identifying myself as a "liberal progressive" by the late 90s. I really thought of it as redundant at the time. The meaning has surely shifted, or narrowed, so I appreciate the clarification: Shbobdb posted:Unsurprisingly, when the democratic party silenced its left wing, right wing propaganda went after the center left. The Dems compromised again and liberal became a slur. ...so as not to continue to make a fool of myself. I am a leftist/progressive. I supported Bernie in 2016, and am all-in again. PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Jan 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
Aside from hardcore pendants nobody cares. There was a big push during W to rebrand the opposition as progressive not liberal because the right wing had successfully smeared liberal so a new word was needed. It's gotten more involved since then but anyone who cares is focusing on the wrong stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 16:52
|
|
|
NYT interview transcripts are up from Steyer and Sanders. Pretty good stuff here https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/tom-steyer-nytimes-interview.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
bye bye booker https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1216751771701469186
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It's a perfect Warren play that her coordinated attempt to siphon people from Bernie not only has increased her rejection among Bernie supporters by an incredible amount, but will frame the discourse as her campaign being dead in the water. It's also exactly what Jon, Jon, and Jon of Pod Save America and/or Vox would do, which means it's exactly something Warren would hurriedly rush to do. Like that stupid DNA test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
I'm really concerned guys. Really! I am! I'm very very very concerned! https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1216679553210421250?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:bye bye booker
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Phenotype posted:This is a dumb question, but why do you badmouth libs? I thought we were all libs. "Liberal" has increasingly become identified with the moderate wing of the party, as well as the political machine they built under Clintonite rule and the network of centrist consultants and technocrats they've built up. Meanwhile, the left has begun to openly reject that label and instead claim "leftist" and "progressive" for themselves, while spurning "liberal" as an identifier for center-left machine figures. To some extent, this is a legitimate difference of political philosophy (for example, liberals really like free trade and capitalism, while the left generally doesn't), and to some extent it's just groups trying to redefine political terms to clearly distinguish themselves. Not that the latter is unusual or uncommon, though; some fairly major political movements have done the same thing. For example, the moderate New Democrats who took over the party in the 90s put a lot of effort into claiming "progressive" (despite being pretty much the opposite) because they realized that "centrist" was generally unpopular and needed a suitably uplifting-sounding name for their Third Way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It's a perfect Warren play that her coordinated attempt to siphon people from Bernie not only has increased her rejection among Bernie supporters by an incredible amount, but will frame the discourse as her campaign being dead in the water. Warren is definitely getting her money’s worth with the entire Clinton 2016 campaign apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:17
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:I'm really concerned guys. Really! I am! I'm very very very concerned! It's funny how changing "Democrats" with "rich people" would probably still be the exact same story with a different slant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:A lib is telling me that it's impossible for a candidate to have majority support going into the convention if there are more than two candidates but this doesn't make sense if you need 15% to get delegates right? I'm deeply confused by this tbh. They are both dumb and wrong. In order to absolutely assure no candidate got a majority you'd need a cluster of candidates relatively close in popularity who all refuse to drop out while maintaining that popularity. The structure of our primary system makes it unlikely for a convention where no candidate holds a majority of delegates and we go past the first ballot. Especially this year where Pete can't win anything after February and Warren is fading fast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:bye bye booker Who? E: there goes our chance at VP T-Bone
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:29
|
|
|
Gyges posted:They are both dumb and wrong. In order to absolutely assure no candidate got a majority you'd need a cluster of candidates relatively close in popularity who all refuse to drop out while maintaining that popularity. Yeah. Like, it's incredibly dumb. All you need is a candidate to win 50%+1 of delegates. If the other 49.9999% are split between 2 or 5 or whatever candidates it doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Between the fake volunteer script thing and that obviously hostile editorial board interview in the NYT it does seem like everyone has their sights on Bernie. I think he'll be fine but if people really come with the knives out at the debate then it could be some rough going for him I'm slammed with school and kid stuff but I'm going to try and find time to do some texting or phonebanking for the campaign in addition to donating, gently caress this obvious attempt to bring down the only good candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
It's pretty funny when MAGAs assume the Australian Liberal party is left-wing - it's the equivalent of the Republican party and possibly even more racist.B B posted:Yeah, there's a reason why Obama's campaign manager works for the conservative party in the U.K., where there is an actual left-wing party. It's because the Democrats are pretty fuckin' conservative, it turns out! Not disagreeing with you about Messina, but David Axelrod also worked on the opposite side in 2015 for Ed Miliband's Labour party. Messina really is a hilarious figure, I don't understand why people still care what that Tory has to say. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
Hmm. Not super thrilled about this, as I think most of Booker's like 2% of support will go towards Biden.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:A lib is telling me that it's impossible for a candidate to have majority support going into the convention if there are more than two candidates but this doesn't make sense if you need 15% to get delegates right? I'm deeply confused by this tbh. The threshold is at the state and district level, right? Like, you could have 50+ candidates winning one state each and they'd each have delegates. Or one candidate winning 25 states and 25 candidates splitting the remainder. (Pretending states have equal delegates to avoid doing math.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Hmm. Not super thrilled about this, as I think most of Booker's like 2% of support will go towards Biden. voters are dumb, I wouldn't make that assumption
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:00 |
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:The threshold is at the state and district level, right? Like, you could have 50+ candidates winning one state each and they'd each have delegates. Or one candidate winning 25 states and 25 candidates splitting the remainder. every primary in the past 50 years has seen a snowball effect after the first few states, no reason to think this year will be different
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 17:45
|
|