|
Epic High Five posted:what, pray tell, have they moved left on since Carter. Keep in mind before answering that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept gay marriage (Biden stood staunchly opposed to it in the 2008 VP debates!) and even then it wasn't them that delivered, but a conservative SCOTUS your example pretty much spells it out as a nice neat template for many other examples. (Gay marriage shouldn't "count" because they didn't accept it quickly enough.)
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
They say good stuff about gay people, sometimes That's leftism, baby!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades, with a few momentary rightward blips here and there. They are not moving left quickly enough to suit most of the posters on this dead comedy message board. Please enumerate the (slowly) moving left accomplishments. I can provide a list of the few momentary rightward blips here and there. e: Rigel posted:your example pretty much spells it out as a nice neat template for many other examples. (Gay marriage shouldn't "count" because they didn't accept it quickly enough.) Many other examples that I hope you won't mind going through. Phone fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
anybody voting for Biden will look back on it like their votes for Kerry or, for some, their votes for Obama. You'll feel like a sucker who got duped once again by a party that proudly brands itself as Reagan RepublicansRigel posted:your example pretty much spells it out as a nice neat template for many other examples. (Gay marriage shouldn't "count" because they didn't accept it quickly enough.) very cool non-answer, sorry I'm not willing to give them credit for something they didn't do and in fact actively opposed. The template here is that they'll stand in opposition to liberation, but for different reasons than the Republicans do, because it's just not practical at the moment to do this, only to take credit for it if it ends up happening anyway For a current example, see the official party line re: ICE and closing the camps
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:They say good stuff about gay people, sometimes And it only took 40 years! Think about where we can go from here! In another 40 years, they might say nice things about poor people!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:your example pretty much spells it out as a nice neat template for many other examples. (Gay marriage shouldn't "count" because they didn't accept it quickly enough.)  Any leftward progress has happened in spite of the Democrats and their best efforts. You're right, this is a nice neat template for many other examples of incremental leftward progress!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:The only reason for that is the liberals will go back to ignoring politics if Trump loses, which obviously lowers the reactionary shift to the left. As far as policies themselves they're a wash The confidence with which people claim that a trump presidency will lead to more leftism is actually insane. It’s like the most contorted logic. Like pretzel based tea leaves readings. It’s almost as bad as when liberals and chuds talk about how ultra capitalism really is the only system that has been proven to work, because socialism has been shown to fail in Cuba and the CCCP and furthermore... Anyway, the solution to the 999 vs 1000 dead infinite trolley problem is obviously to vote for the 999 track, shrug and use your energy to get actual leftist elected locally and focus on grassroots politics, which has always been where the left got its legitimacy anyway, from the soviets to sanders early campaign. Rooted in making the material conditions of actual people’s lives better, not just grandiose ideological pretense like neoliberalism and conservatives appeal to capitalisms/authoritarianism amazing benefits (though the left obviously has its ideological grand pretense as well).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:13
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:The confidence with which people claim that a trump presidency will lead to more leftism is actually insane. It’s like the most contorted logic. Like pretzel based tea leaves readings. It’s almost as bad as when liberals and chuds talk about how ultra capitalism really is the only system that has been proven to work, because socialism has been shown to fail in Cuba and the CCCP and furthermore... If the argument was so "insane" shouldn't you be able to directly refute rather than just rely on name calling and mocking it while ignoring the effort posts people make in reply to you?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Anyway, the solution to the 999 vs 1000 dead infinite trolley problem is obviously to vote for the 999 track, shrug and use your energy to get actual leftist elected locally and focus on grassroots politics, which has always been where the left got its legitimacy anyway, from the soviets to sanders early campaign. Rooted in making the material conditions of actual people’s lives better, not just grandiose ideological pretense like neoliberalism and conservatives appeal to capitalisms/authoritarianism amazing benefits (though the left obviously has its ideological grand pretense as well). It sounds like you're admitting the only effective part is getting leftists elected locally and focusing on grassroots politics (both of which the Democratic establishment opposes), so why can't I do that and not do the part where I vote to kill 999 people and empower those who want to ensure that I am forced to vote to kill 999 people infinitely forever
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
So either Biden's team is misleading the public to silence a victim or after all those years in the senate, Biden doesn't have a single advisor who knows the law. You decide: https://twitter.com/seungminkim/status/1257310807928406018
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:The confidence with which people claim that a trump presidency will lead to more leftism is actually insane. It’s like the most contorted logic. Like pretzel based tea leaves readings. It’s almost as bad as when liberals and chuds talk about how ultra capitalism really is the only system that has been proven to work, because socialism has been shown to fail in Cuba and the CCCP and furthermore... the left continuing to strengthen under Trump is by no means assured and nobody here would argue that. We only know that it HAS under Trump and that it suffered under Obama, due largely to the fact that Trump isn't a cold war era crazy and, being totally unchallenged from his left in all policy and deed, does not focus his attention of subverting and destroying the left. Biden, like Obama and Clinton before him, would absolutely make it a priority of his administration to undermine and weaken the left. the literal stated goal of the New Democrats/DLC/Third Way is to destroy the labor-friendly New Deal coalition and essentially erase it from every level of the party, to be replaced with an unwieldy structure stuffed full of millionaires and harvard grads who will instead use their monopoly on expertise to shepherd the party forward without any input from the unruly masses who don't know what good for them. This is also why they hand-wring about "illiberal democracy" everybody talks about being practical and utilitarian, but why can't the most sensible path forward for a committed socialist or progressive to be to just go with the guy who isn't laser focused on destroying us like Obama was and Biden will be? You aren't just pulling the lever to kill 999 people, you're pulling it for the 10th time in 40 years and the recipient of this vote has promised not to change a thing going forward Trabisnikof posted:So either Biden's team is misleading the public to silence a victim or after all those years in the senate, Biden doesn't have a single advisor who knows the law. You decide: the person running his response on this is the same one who did it for Weinstein so I'm leaning toward they know what they're doing by focusing all of this on a records stash that they know doesn't have anything, and would take a ton of time and legal effort to even confirm that much
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
i'm sorry for all the times i posted the toast EHF
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:23
|
|
|
Pomp posted:i'm sorry for all the times i posted the toast EHF I stand by that monstrosity, and anyway I was a liberal then and thus deserving of scorn and mockery
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
If there were no records wouldn’t you want that released? Why would you go “actually we don’t have to do that”, which makes it sound way worse.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:The thought that your vote is not the deciding vote is a harmful one because depending on where you live your vote is extremely important. Enough people subscribe to this dogma and that is what swings elections, especially in unexpected ways. Epic High Five posted:the left continuing to strengthen under Trump is by no means assured and nobody here would argue that
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:32
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:If it's down to the wire, election meddling will make far more of a difference than your individual vote. If it is to be, it is up to me
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:38
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If there were no records wouldn’t you want that released? Why would you go “actually we don’t have to do that”, which makes it sound way worse. Nope! The goal is to stonewall everything while looking like you're making a good faith effort, to give even more time for your team to go over everything the accuser has ever said and done to smear and slander her and reduce her credibility so that when you do release a "well we looked into it and found nothing #MeToo #BelieveWomen" nobody with a platform is willing to second guess you It's a well worn playbook, Dems have been doing it for decades
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:46
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:If it's down to the wire, election meddling will make far more of a difference than your individual vote. Election meddling is certainly a thing but that doesn't mean that you suddenly don't participate. We need more participation not less to soften the blow of election meddling, it will disproportionately affect close elections than anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:The thought that your vote is not the deciding vote is a harmful one because depending on where you live your vote is extremely important It's not a thought. It's a mathematical fact. Yuzenn posted:because depending on where you live your vote is extremely important Untrue. quote:In summary, we estimate the probability of a single vote being decisive as, at most, about 1 in 10 million in a few states near the national median. 1-in-10-Million is the absolute best odds you can get for a meaningful vote, by living in New Mexico. For other states, it's closer to 1 in 100 million, 1 in 1 billion, etc. http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/probdecisive2.pdf Yuzenn posted:You are the only person who will remember your vote in an idealistic way, history will only remember the victor. I also disagree here. It's nonsense that history only remembers the victor; we take long looks at why the losers lost. If Joe Biden loses because he was unable to secure the enthusiastic support of left-wing and young voters, that's something that his successors will remember, and it may influence them to work to secure those voters by offering meaningful policy concessions. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:54 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades, with a few momentary rightward blips here and there. They are not moving left quickly enough to suit most of the posters on this dead comedy message board. "The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:52
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:It's not a thought. It's a mathematical fact. If you live in a swing state your vote completely matters more than mine in a solid blue state, that's an irrefutable fact. Hilary lost Michigan by less than 10,000 votes, and yes while no ONE individual vote decided the election it's the sum of a bunch of individual decisions that helped swing an election. Don't be pedantic because no election has come down to a singular vote, the picture you're trying to make since you don't get to be the sole decider of an election directly through your vote then you shouldn't even participate. That's utterly ridiculous, we need more participation not less. Civilized Fishbot posted:
This certainly did not happen with the 2016 election. Pomp posted:Far more folks CAN'T participate in the system and both parties a are dead set on keeping it that way Yes my post literally says we need more participation not less. That work is largely state by state work and is going better some places than others, I'm not sure how much of it can be corrected before the general but some work is being done. Yuzenn fucked around with this message at 18:00 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:If you live in a swing state your vote completely matters more than mine in a solid blue state, that's an irrefutable fact. Hilary lost Michigan by less than 10,000 votes, and yes while no ONE individual vote decided the election it's the sum of a bunch of individual decisions that helped swing an election. Don't be pedantic because no election has come down to a singular vote, the picture you're trying to make since you don't get to be the sole decider of an election directly through your vote then you shouldn't even participate and that's utterly ridiculous, we need more participation not less. Far more folks CAN'T participate in the system and both parties a are dead set on keeping it that way
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Rigel posted:your example pretty much spells it out as a nice neat template for many other examples. (Gay marriage shouldn't "count" because they didn't accept it quickly enough.) So your silver bullet rebuttal is literally you complaining that the rest of us aren't willing to give the Dems credit for things that they didn't do?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Broadly speaking, your premise is not correct. The Democratic party has been (slowly) moving left for decades, with a few momentary rightward blips here and there. They are not moving left quickly enough to suit most of the posters on this dead comedy message board. No, the Democrats have been moving right for decades with a few momentary blips leftwards like gay rights. In terms of healthcare, foreign policy, fiscal policy, and xenophobia, it's been a sprint towards fascism as fast as they can.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
The idea that voters aren't contributing to this perpetual cycle of two infinitely bad options by participating in the show is insane. If we truly expected our candidates to be better, we wouldn't support them as they are. Supporting them and expecting to nudge them into being better is actually a thought pattern that trends more with abuse than anything. Any excuse for why now, at this half-year-to-the-election juncture, Joe Biden is the inevitable choice is just an excuse. It's a compromise in advance - something quintessentially liberal - steeped in the nihilistic concept that better things aren't possible and nothing you do matters unless you win. That is only the case if you keep repeating the same actions. Your individual vote is meaningless but votes plural are huge and the only way you get to the latter is by convincing the former. If your vote didn't matter to them, they wouldn't be so desperate to drive narratives that their are ways to waste votes and ways to vote for someone you didn't mean to. They're using intimidation and fear instead of appeal, but make no mistake - they do want your vote and if you prove to them that abuse works, it's all you'll ever get ever again. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don't have a negavote, only a positive vote of support, so their only goal this election cycle was to give me someone to vote for and they failed as of right now. They could still fix that if they wanted to, but I think they'd rather abuse me into falling in line by using Trump as a cudgel and I don't know what else I'm supposed to do except say "actually, I'll pass". Halloween Jack posted:People have done this and it's pretty annoying. The if X, then Y in four years arguments are uniformly deluded. Anyone arguing that there's any sort of tangible or long-term benefit of a Trump presidency is actually insane and I'll go on the record with that one. I'll also spring off of that and say anyone arguing that Trump is better specifically on climate change than Biden is also dying on a strange hill. I also think asking climate scientists "Trump or Biden?" is disingenuous and leading and essentially sets their endorsement as valueless. An actively leaking oil pipeline would get a climate endorsement over Donald Trump. I digress. I find a lot of merit in discussions about how, in a sense, Trump being president puts everything the White House does under a magnifying glass in a way that is never applied to any Democrat. I find this particularly salient when the Democratic Presidential Candidate is an accused rapist and sexual harasser and liberal media immediately jettisons any principle they could claim to have to ignore it. That's as far as I'll go towards "Trump accelerationism" - I can't tell you what's going to happen next week let alone four years from now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:05
|
|
|
When was the last time Democrats tried to push for an ERA in a meaningful way beyond just lip service?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:06
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I also disagree here. It's nonsense that history only remembers the victor; we take long looks at why the losers lost. If Joe Biden loses because he was unable to secure the enthusiastic support of left-wing and young voters, that's something that his successors will remember, and it may influence them to work to secure those voters by offering meaningful policy concessions. How are they going to come to any conclusion other than he lost because he is a rapist, and that a centrist who isn’t a rapist is clearly the answer. The time for the left to show its strength was in the primary. The fact that Biden, even in his mush brain state, was winning so overwhelmingly is not going to lead to any introspection over whether they did a good enough job on policy. Unless there is some huge number of progressives turning out to vote for down ballot races, but not the president - enough to make a substantive difference in the outcome of control of the House/Senate, the reason leftists didn’t vote for Biden wouldn’t even matter to the party.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:08
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:How are they going to come to any conclusion other than he lost because he is a rapist, and that a centrist who isn’t a rapist is clearly the answer. That still sounds better than Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When was the last time Democrats tried to push for an ERA in a meaningful way beyond just lip service? February. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/79
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:How are they going to come to any conclusion other than he lost because he is a rapist, and that a centrist who isn’t a rapist is clearly the answer. They don't believe he is a rapist so they won't come to that conclusion. For my entire life the one and only thing they have ever taken away from any loss is "we weren't conservative enough" and I really don't expect this to change it. The time for the left to show its strength remains, the threat to withhold our votes is the biggest tool we have and it's never going to be stronger than it is right now. Voting for Biden and hoping he does stuff we like is a fool's game we tried with Obama. Never again.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:17
|
|
|
Sorry, a House Resolution with no hope of doing anything is exactly what I meant by "lip service".
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:No, the Democrats have been moving right for decades with a few momentary blips leftwards like gay rights. In terms of healthcare, foreign policy, fiscal policy, and xenophobia, it's been a sprint towards fascism as fast as they can. It also obfuscates that the left-right axis can, politically, be roughly boiled down to "pro-labor" vs. "pro-corporation", and the democrats have been barreling down the latter road at breakneck speed for at least 20 years if not longer. Social issues align on a different axis entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:The time for the left to show its strength remains, the threat to withhold our votes is the biggest tool we have and it's never going to be stronger than it is right now. Voting for Biden and hoping he does stuff we like is a fool's game we tried with Obama. Never again. The left showed its strength by winning the first three primaries in a row - an incredible feat - to which centrist Democrats responded with unprecedented levels of ratfuckery. They're not interested in shows of strength, except as a guide to how much mask they must remove to maintain power.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:30
|
|
|
When people say the Democratic party has moved left over the past 40 years, they mean on issues of culture and representation which is seemingly all that matters to liberals (whether it's a liberal variant of feminism, a liberal variant of racial justice, or a liberal variant of LGBT rights). It never relates to economics or material conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
moths posted:The left showed its strength by winning the first three primaries in a row - an incredible feat - to which centrist Democrats responded with unprecedented levels of ratfuckery. I wouldn't call Iowa and New Hampshire "shows of strength" dude. Bernie barely won in Iowa. And scared centrists who just want to beat Trump and fervently believe that the guy who calls himself a Socialist can't do it even if his plans sound great coalescing around the one safe centrist they know and trust isn't ratfuckery. It's just A Shame.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
i am the bird posted:When people say the Democratic party has moved left over the past 40 years, they mean on issues of culture and representation which is seemingly all that matters to liberals (whether it's a liberal variant of feminism, a liberal variant of racial justice, or a liberal variant of LGBT rights).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
moths posted:The left showed its strength by winning the first three primaries in a row, to which centrist Democrats responded by unprecedented levels of ratfuckery. Old black people voting = rat-fuckery? And of those 3 primaries only NV saw a big win for Bernie. He was 1% ahead of Pete in NH, and roughly that amount in IA. Not exactly a showing of strength. Pete and Amy combine for more of the vote in NH than Bernie and Warren, so even without her in the race, the centrists were still far ahead in combined strength.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:37
|
|
|
Gee, I wonder if there's a reason that the first primary is one of the oldest, richest, whitest, and least populated states, all measurements by which you'd expect any actually leftist candidate to crater and fizzle out.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:41
|
|
|
Yuzenn posted:If you live in a swing state your vote completely matters more than mine in a solid blue state, that's an irrefutable fact. Hilary lost Michigan by less than 10,000 votes, and yes while no ONE individual vote decided the election it's the sum of a bunch of individual decisions that helped swing an election. Don't be pedantic because no election has come down to a singular vote, the picture you're trying to make since you don't get to be the sole decider of an election directly through your vote then you shouldn't even participate. That's utterly ridiculous, we need more participation not less. So for everyone in Michigan, it objectively would not have mattered whether or not they voted. They might've changed the margin to 9,999 or 10,001 - who cares? Voting is an irrational activity because your probability of affecting the election outcome is so infinitesimally small that it's not worth your time. It's like cheering along with your favorite sports team; you don't change who wins, it's just fun. You seem to reflexively disagree because you recognize that voting is an important social good. Of course it is. We want everyone to vote. Getting people to vote starts with the reality of why they don't vote - because it's not rational for them to do so. It's a collective action problem and the solution is making voting mandatory, not pretending you can't do math so you can delude yourself into thinking your individual vote will be meaningful TyrantWD posted:How are they going to come to any conclusion other than he lost because he is a rapist, and that a centrist who isn’t a rapist is clearly the answer. You're saying that by refusing to vote for Joe Biden, voters like me are forcing Democrats to take rape seriously. I'm proud of that. Thank you. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 18:45 on May 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:16 |
|
|
i am the bird posted:When people say the Democratic party has moved left over the past 40 years, they mean on issues of culture and representation which is seemingly all that matters to liberals (whether it's a liberal variant of feminism, a liberal variant of racial justice, or a liberal variant of LGBT rights). Oh but didn't you know? Watching A Wrinkle in Time is a political act. Hell, watching Black Panther is a revolutionary act!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 18:44
|
|