|
And getting out of the way is often done by choosing the lesser evil. Keep choosing the lesser evil, keep preserving the status quo, and eventually you're arguing between two evils who are both fascist. To be clear I don't think Biden's a fascist (though he loves himself an authoritarian government) but that is the road. If nothing major changes we're on the path to the lesser evil being the more charismatic fascist.
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think I can put in words something I’ve been thinking finally. That's not the choice we face. Fascism isn't on the ropes to the point where handing Biden and his Democrats the keys to the Presidency is going to eliminate it as a threat. That would be true even if liberals were morally or mentally equipped to fight fascism, which they aren't. Likewise, as dire as things are, and as dire as they will be if Trump gets a second term, it's not going to usher in 1000 years of fascist rule in America. It might be the end of the American experiment, but that experiment is a failure and needs to come to an end anyway. We see that liberals will ally with the fash to put down any attempt to improve the circumstances of working people - or perhaps more accurately will try to use the fash as a weapon to that end, thinking that fascism can never be a real threat (to them, anyway). And they will continue thinking that right up until they are marched to the ovens. If you doubt me ask yourself which threat the liberals in the Democratic party took more seriously and expended more effort to defeat: fascism as represented by Trump, or democratic socialism (or really, mild social-democratic reforms) as represented by Bernie Sanders. I don't think there is really a question there as to which establishment Dems feel more personally threatened by (in terms of their careers) and unfortunately much of the Democratic electorate takes their cues from them. My hope is that for most of them it's a matter of trust where they trust establishment Dems to do their best to win elections, and that they believe them capable of winning elections. Shaking this faith in the Democratic establishment is the only way to loose their hold on power, and I can think of no other way to do that than by denying them victories. Capitalism is done. It's not working. It's not just that it doesn't distribute resources fairly: it is consuming our planet and keeping it around will mean the end of advanced human civilization and possibly the end of human life. We on the left are not just facing a choice this election between ideologies. We much choose whether to continue to call ourselves part of a coalition of people most of whom clearly do not value us as allies and will not accept sharing power with us. As we face this choice we must acknowledge that, if the left turns out for the Democrats again, and if they win, we will not receive any of the spoils of that win. Likewise, if we turn out and they lose anyway, we will be blamed for that loss. And, we don't have time for incrementalism, nor to accept the "managed capitalism" that Democrats claim to offer (and it is a lie). That is the reality. Advancing the interests of a coalition like that isn't going to lead to the left acquiring political power. MSDOS KAPITAL fucked around with this message at 00:02 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Advancing the interests of a coalition like that isn't going to lead to the left acquiring political power. Why will the Democrats ever be pulled left if the left will turn out for them before they do so? Why should the left help the Democrats if they get nothing from the work? In what universe is that unequal exchange sustainable?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Why will the Democrats ever be pulled left if the left will turn out for them before they do so? I think the left particularly in the US has a lot of baggage where they have accepted the liberal framing of politics. It's not a surprise considering so many leftists in America (myself included of course) are recovering liberals. One example is gun control: yeah there is the SRA or whatever but even so most people who calls themselves socialist in this country will support efforts to disarm the working class. Another is the process-driven approach to politics where results don't really matter that much as long as you follow the rules. Of course liberals are pretty hypocritical about this actually: they will accept the result of democratic processes when they align with the interests of the ruling class, but if things go in a direction that threatens entrenched power structures they will side with the oppressors over the oppressed, every time. That's when you get talk about expert opinion and technocratic rule and so on. And it goes without saying that if those democratic processes are manipulated to favor the ruling class, well that's no concern of theirs, either. The American left I think is still pretty process-focused, but I think where you see us break with the liberals a lot is on that last hypocritical bit, with the last few months bringing that in to sharp relief. You can tell a liberal by what they think of the primary process: "well Bernie lost, so Biden must by the stronger candidate with the better chance to win, and more representative of what Democratic voters want" and ignore the manipulation and outright fraud that went in to Biden's win, along with the fact that even now Democratic voters, when you poll them, claim to align to Bernie Sander's platform a hell of a lot more than whatever Biden is pushing. So they're not going to get what they want. Nothing to see there, for a liberal. Socialism means egalitarian empowerment. Socialists need to start seeing democracy as a (very important, to be sure) means to that end, but not the end in and of itself. Particularly, if the American implementation of democracy is not leading to that empowerment, then socialists should work to undermine and destroy it, and replace it with something better. Liberals want to preserve that broken implementation because it grants them legitimacy, and because it serves the interests of the ruling class. I don't think there is much fodder for an alliance there if you are actually interested in acquiring and wielding political power.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think I can put in words something I’ve been thinking finally. Fascism is more the nephew of Liberalism than the twin. One is very much the natural evolution the other other. This is most obvious in the assumptions that the two ideologies take. Liberalism is prefaced with the concept of humans as rational, self-interested actors. It continues that rational, self-interested actors will necessarily blah blah blah the cream rises to the top and controls capital. So through a series of hoops and boot-strap loops, it ends in "Wealth accumulates in those who deserve it." So, Liberalism basically concludes with a Just World fallacy. If your life sucks, it's your fault. The problem is, most people get the poo poo end of the capitalism stick. They think, "Well, I'm working so hard all the time, and this economy isn't working for me. It can't be my fault!" And Fascism responds "It's the Jews. It's the immigrants. It is the other who steals your jobs, your food, your women. The world is just, the world rewards those who deserve what they have, SO GO OUT AND TAKE IT!" In other words, Fascism takes the natural conclusions of Liberalism and assumes them to be true. The obvious extension of "those who have better things deserve better things" is that those people must be naturally, genetically superior.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:39
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Advancing the interests of a coalition like that isn't going to lead to the left acquiring political power. The left didn’t seem to have the votes in our democracy to get power on its own. Increasingly people in the left will pick authoritarianism over democracy if that continues to be the case. The alternative is finding a coalition that can win in our democracy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The left didn’t seem to have the votes in our democracy to get power on its own. The left, by definition, rejects any form of authoritarianism. Economic or political. I don't think the left, as a whole, would toss out democracy. But, remember, we do not have a democracy. What we have is a republic, which is essentially an elected oligarchy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:In a head to head match up Ventura beat Trump, wouldn't he? He is a kind of "I march to the beat of my own drum" politician. Here's some notes I could find/remember about when he was Governor: Note: He was Governor from '99 to '02 so some of these stances, as a politician, were pretty much ahead of everyone else - He's been good on gay rights. - He also claimed to be "fiscally conservative, but socially liberal" as well but at least on the socially liberal parts actually was? - He vetoed a bunch of bills he thought were bad (which ones I couldn't find specifics on right now), but those got overruled - He did a rebate on sales tax which also allowed Minnesotans to receive a tax-free check from the state gov't. - He's anti-war for the most part, having been a member of UDT (a variant/precursor to the SEALS) - He was pro-funding public schools, but also not a big fan of the teacher's unions - Pro medical marijuana - Big on land use reform & improving public transportation - Against the embargo on Cuba - According to an appearance on Joe Rogan's Podcast, is big on solar energy and thinks its super important to use. Also drives electric cars. Now for the not so great things: - Allegedly was a big fan of prostitutes during his time in SEA - Was a member of the Mongols motorcycle gang after he got back from Vietnam - In 2016 said he wouldn't mind being Trumps running mate, supported Gary Johnson but also voted for Jill Stein (he's big on third parties) - In 2003 (1 year after he finished bieng Gov of MN) Trump allegedly wanted Ventura to be on the presidential ticket - Accused of mismanaging the MN budget - Is a bit of a conspiracy theory guy but the details of which i'm not super familiar on. It's not Alex Jones bad, but its also not the most endearing. There's obviously more and this is likely an unintentionally biased list. Mekchu fucked around with this message at 01:13 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 01:11
|
|
|
Ventura is crazy and would make for a powerful president
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think I can put in words something I’ve been thinking finally. It is genuinely unclear to me what is fundamentally different between the Democratic and Republican parties to the extent that the latter would be considered "fascist" and not the former. The latter might be worse on some issues (though generally not to an extent that is beyond what the Democratic Party was like just 15-20 years ago), but both perpetuate the systemic bigotry in our society. MSDOS KAPITAL posted:It's important to distinguish between ideologies, and the people that adhere to them. No, fascism and liberalism are not the same thing. And yeah, what the liberals want is preferable to what the fascists want. If the choice were between giving the fascists absolute power, and giving the libs absolute power, with literally no other options, then yeah as rough as that would be for most people you can make a strong argument for doing the latter. I disagree, because I think that in practice if liberals had "absolute power" you would end up seeing things like eugenics. There's a lot of really nasty stuff liberals would support if they knew it wouldn't look bad. It is not even remotely uncommon to see liberals advocating things like "tests to be able to vote" or "poor people or people addicted to drugs* should be sterilized." Similar to Republicans, there are a lot of things like this that they know they can't speak openly, but will come out if they're around people who they know agree with them. * This specifically is a big thing that taught me that the core ideology of liberals and conservatives in the US is essentially the same. The minute a topic falls outside of the current zeitgeist of "the things liberals believe to distinguish themselves from conservatives," liberals default to the exact same awful opinions as conservatives. We're seeing this in real-time now with the Tara Reade situation. Bar Ran Dun posted:The left didn’t seem to have the votes in our democracy to get power on its own. We don't have a democracy in any meaningful way, and the sort of coalition you describe would include most contemporary Democratic Party ideology/policy (which is absolutely a net evil and bane on the world). I would also argue that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that capitalism results in capitalists having near-absolute control over the media (and thus peoples' opinions and ideology). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:53 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
I've said as much in the Green party thread, but, either way you slice it the greens have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the presidency. That being said, they're still a fine place to put your protest vote if you (correctly) can't bring yourself to vote for a rapist. I prefer Howie's policies, but if Jesse can get the 5% necessary to legitimize the party, I will happily give him my vote, because absolutely nothing would infuriate the succdems and the ghouls more than a 3rd party becoming a "real" party.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emilyngo/status/1257108349327417355
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
TrixR4kids posted:Exactly, when the party does everything in their power to ensure that the absolute worst most likely to be “both sides’d” to death candidate wins, while also assuring that the process isn’t even remotely democratic, that they kill their own voters, and that they care more about Bernie losing than Trump winning, it should be obvious that the party doesn’t actually care about winning. And I almost put winning in “” because winning to them mean team blue wins and that’s literally it. I have to agree with you. I am really sick of helping a party that doesn't like me. If they wanted my vote they would have actually tried to compromise with the left. They just expect me to get poo poo on by both dems and republicans alike and then vote because you can't vote for anyone else. Im pretty close to the point of just not being invested in politics. Things are looking bad and the people that should be working to help the climate and the workers really just don't care/
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Is this where they choose who to sacrifice to old grabby hands Joe?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:05
|
|
|
Yeah, she learned her lesson: Turn on the party, and the party turns on you. There's no reason that Amy Klobochur survived as long as she did while Gillibrand sank other than Gillibrand's public rebuking of Al Franken. So gently caress her and her bullshit #metoo nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I disagree, because I think that in practice if liberals had "absolute power" you would end up seeing things like eugenics. There's a lot of really nasty stuff liberals would support if they knew it wouldn't look bad. It is not even remotely uncommon to see liberals advocating things like "tests to be able to vote" or "poor people or people addicted to drugs* should be sterilized." Similar to Republicans, there are a lot of things like this that they know they can't speak openly, but will come out if they're around people who they know agree with them.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:07
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Yeah, she learned her lesson: Turn on the party, and the party turns on you. Okay but have you considered how goddamn hilarious it would be to watch KHive and Warren stans grapple with the announcement of Gillibrand joining the ticket.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
When Jesse was governer the state dems and repubs got together to block him a bunch. And then after him was Pawlenty and boy did he suck. Uncle Wemus fucked around with this message at 02:26 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonbernhardt/status/1257115872898043905
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Eminai posted:Okay but have you considered how goddamn hilarious it would be to watch KHive and Warren stans grapple with the announcement of Gillibrand joining the ticket. Why? Is there some internal enmity I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Why? Is there some internal enmity I'm missing? There's definitely going to be some resentment spilling over from people in those groups who blame her for Franken's resignation, but the bigger reason is just that either group will host some truly spectacular meltdowns when their candidate gets passed up, and there will be even more if the person who gets nominated is someone unexpected like Gillibrand or Tulsi.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
If there was just the one allegation I think Biden would weather it a lot better, but women over years have complained about him and there's how many videos/pictures of him uncomfortably touching women? Biden staying out of it allows Trump to control that narrative, and his saving grace is Trump loving everything up with Covid-19.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
SorePotato posted:Ventura is crazy and would make for a powerful president I suddenly realize that I have total confidence in sending him to foreign countries to represent us, it would be the best way to restore our brand after this whole embarrassment
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:49
|
|
|
Joe Biden is at his best when he's not talking and hiding from the press. How can anyone with a straight face state that as a strength?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
I want to vote for this man. https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1257125266721091585?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 03:11
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:This is most obvious in the assumptions that the two ideologies take. Liberalism is prefaced with the concept of humans as rational, self-interested actors. It continues that rational, self-interested actors will necessarily blah blah blah the cream rises to the top and controls capital. So through a series of hoops and boot-strap loops, it ends in "Wealth accumulates in those who deserve it." I'm confused here. I've self-identified as a liberal/Democrat my whole adult life, and I've never heard this kind of stuff (beyond the "humans are rational actors" bit) from anyone I've considered liberal. Have I just been using the term "liberal" because (before 2016) I wasn't aware of further-left labels? On a separate question, what is the best way to try to convince the DNC to disown Biden at this point?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 03:32
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think I can put in words something I’ve been thinking finally. We’re talking about liberalism in the 21st century, which currently is administered by concentrated capital in practice - which is definitely loving fascist. And what do you know, it was the communists who warned us about the origins of this type of fascism back in the 30s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_fascism
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
hooah posted:I'm confused here. I've self-identified as a liberal/Democrat my whole adult life, and I've never heard this kind of stuff (beyond the "humans are rational actors" bit) from anyone I've considered liberal. Have I just been using the term "liberal" because (before 2016) I wasn't aware of further-left labels? The word liberalism gets used in two different ways. There's big L Liberalism, which refers to the political ideology of Liberalism, which can be briefly summed up as the marriage of capitalism to democracy, and little l liberalism which is the American colloquial term for the left side of Liberalism. The right side of Liberalism is generally called conservatives.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 03:56
|
|
|
hooah posted:On a separate question, what is the best way to try to convince the DNC to disown Biden at this point? Write it on the memo line of a check with at least nine zeroes.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:01
|
|
|
hooah posted:I'm confused here. I've self-identified as a liberal/Democrat my whole adult life, and I've never heard this kind of stuff (beyond the "humans are rational actors" bit) from anyone I've considered liberal. Have I just been using the term "liberal" because (before 2016) I wasn't aware of further-left labels? I think ordinary people who call themselves liberals mostly get past this by not thinking about it too much, and when confronted with it mostly finding some way to dismiss the person confronting them with it as a crank. After 2016 happened that didn't work anymore for a great number of people, many of whom turned into socialists to some degree or another, or who doubled down by going full bore into the Russiagate poo poo (which is kind of a turbo-charged version of dismissing everyone you disagree with as a crank). But, Democratic politicians pretty much all accept this framing of society, except for maybe some of the ones who are far to the left of the party - I'll leave it as an exercise how much influence that handful of Good People have on the Democrats. By and large the Democratic party accepts what Cpt_Obvious is getting at, completely.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:18
|
|
|
hooah posted:I'm confused here. I've self-identified as a liberal/Democrat my whole adult life, and I've never heard this kind of stuff (beyond the "humans are rational actors" bit) from anyone I've considered liberal. Have I just been using the term "liberal" because (before 2016) I wasn't aware of further-left labels? The main trick that the United States pulled was to convince everyone, from a very young age, that politics stops at the edges of liberal and conservative, both of which are well within the hard right-wing big-L Liberal framework. Meanwhile the rest of the world looks at American politics and can't actually see a difference between the two parties because they're both complete loving monsters as far as basically every other country is concerned, even if they do argue around the fringes on specific minor issues like precisely how illegal weed should be or whether the planet should die in ten years versus eight.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:20
|
|
|
hooah posted:I'm confused here. I've self-identified as a liberal/Democrat my whole adult life, and I've never heard this kind of stuff (beyond the "humans are rational actors" bit) from anyone I've considered liberal. Have I just been using the term "liberal" because (before 2016) I wasn't aware of further-left labels? For example, take the American revolution. The liberal explanation was, basically, the colonies wanted democracy and freedom so bad that they declared a war for it. "No taxation without representation." Further leftist schools include historical materialism, which you may know best by the men Marx and Engels. Historical materialism rejects the idea that anything ephemeral like "logic" controls our actions. Instead, it is the material conditions of our world that drives history: resources, diseases, technology, violence. People aren't driven by ideologies, they are driven by money, food, tangible things that actually exist. All of these political ideologies are just excuses to justify their desire for material concerns. So, a historical materialist might explain the American revolution as a power struggle between two powerful groups: The British crown and the American colonial government. The crown wanted taxes, and the colonies didn't want to pay. Democracy had nothing to do with it. poo poo, the colonies wanted to make Washington king after they won. So they screamed "Democracy now!" but what they actually wanted was money and power. Or consider the #metoo movement. To a liberal, the democrats might seem hypocritical in their criticisms of Tara Reade. If they were driven by an ideology (feminism), they would believe women. They would believe Tara Reade's accusations. However, a historical materialist believes that the Democrats are just using ideology (feminism) as a cudgel to attack their political opponents. They scream "believe women!" but what they want is power over the supreme court. hooah posted:On a separate question, what is the best way to try to convince the DNC to disown Biden at this point? A stroke.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:21
|
|
|
Let me preface this by saying I think it's possible or maybe probable that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade. But apparently he wasn't at those dinners with Christine O'Donnell's niece unless there is witchcraft involved. https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1257012312088743941
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
Early on in this horrible Trump administration it was so easy for me to say "I will vote for anyone who runs against him because Trump and the GOP are loving evil." I did not think that the Democrats were going to make it so hard. I did not think that they were going to make me feel like I will be part of the evil if I vote for their candidate. So many people are suffering and dying because of Trump and the GOP I have to vote against them, but in order to do that I have to vote for a stupid old white man who should not ever be allowed in a position of authority, let along the goddamn Presidency. I am angry and depressed that what should be the easiest vote in my life feels like I am being forced to go against my principles in order to support my principles. I don't know how to reconcile this. The next six months are going to be so loving exhausting.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
3rdEyeDeuteranopia posted:Let me preface this by saying I think it's possible or maybe probable that Joe Biden raped Tara Reade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4OYPiV1GsY
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:Early on in this horrible Trump administration it was so easy for me to say "I will vote for anyone who runs against him because Trump and the GOP are loving evil." I did not think that the Democrats were going to make it so hard. I did not think that they were going to make me feel like I will be part of the evil if I vote for their candidate. vote third party
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:27
|
|
|
3rdEyeDeuteranopia posted:But apparently he wasn't at those dinners with Christine O'Donnell's niece unless there is witchcraft involved. I can't wait for this to lead to a lot of people asking a whole lot more "reasonable questions" about the Reade event as if one person lying or misremembering one thing makes another thing not true
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:28
|
|
|
Somfin posted:I can't wait for this to lead to a lot of people asking a whole lot more "reasonable questions" about the Reade event as if one person lying or misremembering one thing makes another thing not true Now, in your previous answer, you said that you believed the ketchup on the table was Heinz 57. However, we have discovered that it was actually Hunts brand ketchup. So really, doesn't this discredit everything you've ever said, you lying trollop?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Did this also not happen? No that happened.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 04:35
|
|