|
Ytlaya posted:It's genuinely kind of spooky how "vote to fix the fact that our system is undemocratic" is a common talking point that most people think is reasonable and not completely insane and self-contradictory. https://twitter.com/cenkuygur/status/1463920477072597020?s=20
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Blarghalt posted:it's kind of funny when you realize that when trump wins in 2024 he's gonna find new and exciting ways to gently caress things up. like the DNC is obviously turbofucked in the shorter run but it's not like the GOP isn't chained to the same boat I don’t know. I think him wing a second time especially against the only people the dnc can actually think are their future (Kopmala,and Butt) would probably cause a full civil war in the demon rats to take place. Trump could still gently caress things up. But I don’t know if it will be the party that profits. Things are legitimately fraying across the country. The old institutions including the parties are dying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
BitcoinRockefeller posted:I remember the heady days of late 2008 when people, including myself, thought the republicans were on their way to being a rump southern region party. Amazing how bad the democrat party is to completely reverse that trend in barely more then a decade. That's happened several times now and the most the Democrats have gotten is two terms before they manage to lose everything again
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Since the minimum wage was created, only 2 democratic presidents have not increased it: Barack Obama and Joe Biden
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 06:18
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:IIRC on his own recognizance Obama was a college communist until he learned that you can't pick up chicks by quoting theory at them and he just sort of went whole-hog on being the most cynical opportunistic piece of poo poo he could be
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Lol, Biden won't give out any Nu checks and will be disemboweled at the polls in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 15:49
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:That's happened several times now and the most the Democrats have gotten is two terms before they manage to lose everything again The last time a Democratic president was elected to succeed a Democratic president (i.e., not somebody dying in office) was Buchanan elected to succeed Pierce in 1856. A Democrat has only replaced a Democrat twice in the intervening 165 years, and both times it's because the first one died (FDR and Kennedy). Put another way, since the creation of the Republican Party in the 1850s the Democrats have never succeeded with an intentional transition of power from one Democratic president to another.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 15:57
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Lol, Biden won't give out any Nu checks and will be disemboweled at the polls in 2024. capital is still in deep shock by how incredibly popular the trump checks were
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The last time a Democratic president was elected to succeed a Democratic president (i.e., not somebody dying in office) was Buchanan elected to succeed Pierce in 1856. A Democrat has only replaced a Democrat twice in the intervening 165 years, and both times it's because the first one died (FDR and Kennedy). Hopefully they now die as a party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Palladium posted:capital is still in deep shock by how incredibly popular the trump checks were capital loves the checks. the SLABS market has liked forebearance. I’m starting to think politicians are in it for the misery at this point
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
Vomik posted:capital loves the checks. the SLABS market has liked forebearance. Yes and no. It allows workers a bit more flexibility which is bad for those who operate businesses in service, construction and manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The last time a Democratic president was elected to succeed a Democratic president (i.e., not somebody dying in office) was Buchanan elected to succeed Pierce in 1856. A Democrat has only replaced a Democrat twice in the intervening 165 years, and both times it's because the first one died (FDR and Kennedy). working as intended
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Capital is definitely alarmed that the labor market is actually functioning efficiently for once as workers are, broadly, not as willing to stay in bad jobs or apply for bad jobs out of desperation. Many blame the checks for that even though it makes zero loving sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Capital is definitely alarmed that the labor market is actually functioning efficiently for once as workers are, broadly, not as willing to stay in bad jobs or apply for bad jobs out of desperation. Many blame the checks for that even though it makes zero loving sense. The idea that we have a rational capitalist system in place can be easily dispelled when you see how many people in finance are involved in Bitcoins and nfts. The system is entirely now run on pure belief. No attempts at production are being made in a grand scale anymore. Fordism would be a good place for capitalism to go in a time of crisis the reason Henry Ford pushed it was to create a class collaborative labor aristocracy. There is no desire for that from the modern capitalist. Despite the system in a deeper crisis then the one Ford and his fellow capitalists faced.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The idea that we have a rational capitalist system in place can be easily dispelled when you see how many people in finance are involved in Bitcoins and nfts. The system is entirely now run on pure belief. No attempts at production are being made in a grand scale anymore. Pure belief and denial. They go together like chocolate and peanut butter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
I feel like the details of how the dems will get creamed in 2022 aren't worth studying, all you need is the cold math that the dems only ever organize around presidents and their current president passed into "people are embarrassed to admit they voted for him" popularity in record time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:30
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OkButStill/status/1456699682047074311
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
Remember all those times Trumo got photographed resting his mighty paunch on the podium at a speaking event? Good times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
It would suck if you came into possession of the lament configuration, what if you just like puzzles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:Capital is definitely alarmed that the labor market is actually functioning efficiently for once as workers are, broadly, not as willing to stay in bad jobs or apply for bad jobs out of desperation. Many blame the checks for that even though it makes zero loving sense. It makes sense when you realize they truly believed what they were saying when they claimed the checks would cover 6 months of expenses for the average family.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
Shady Amish Terror posted:IIRC on his own recognizance Obama was a college communist until he learned that you can't pick up chicks by quoting theory at them and he just sort of went whole-hog on being the most cynical opportunistic piece of poo poo he could be 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The idea that we have a rational capitalist system in place can be easily dispelled when you see how many people in finance are involved in Bitcoins and nfts. The system is entirely now run on pure belief. No attempts at production are being made in a grand scale anymore. Almost as if everybody knows poo poo is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
petit choux posted:Almost as if everybody knows poo poo is hosed. What's worse, that, or they don't care to fix it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:The last time a Democratic president was elected to succeed a Democratic president (i.e., not somebody dying in office) was Buchanan elected to succeed Pierce in 1856. A Democrat has only replaced a Democrat twice in the intervening 165 years, and both times it's because the first one died (FDR and Kennedy). Republicans haven't won a popular vote in the presidential election since 2004. Yet scotus is 7-2. lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:Republicans haven't won a popular vote in the presidential election since 2004. This has to be my favorite lib argument. It's like yeah no poo poo it's because republicans know how to win elections. It's specifically designed not to be the popular vote to prevent exactly what the democrats have done which is to write off everyone who isn't an urban elite. It's set up to ensure that a party can't govern nationally from an urban enclave it's the entire point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:Republicans haven't won a popular vote in the presidential election since 2004. Yet scotus is 7-2. lmao. scotus is 9-0, capital to people
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:Republicans haven't won a popular vote in the presidential election since 2004. Yet scotus is 7-2. lmao. Hence my previous take that the Dems died in 2000 when they let Bush declare himself president despite controlling the government.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
CaptainACAB posted:Hence my previous take that the Dems died in 2000 when they let Bush declare himself president despite controlling the government. the dems died a lot earlier than that
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:40
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:This has to be my favorite lib argument. It's like yeah no poo poo it's because republicans know how to win elections. It's specifically designed not to be the popular vote to prevent exactly what the democrats have done which is to write off everyone who isn't an urban elite. It's set up to ensure that a party can't govern nationally from an urban enclave it's the entire point. dems cant even pass a basic voting rights bill when republicans have been actively rigging elections for years lol. lmao. the dems are going to get destroyed in 2022. rofl.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:45
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:Republicans haven't won a popular vote in the presidential election since 2004. Yet scotus is 7-2. lmao. It sounds as though the Democratic strategy of 'tell the rural poor to gently caress off while kissing the segregationists and telling them how awesome they are, then 20 years later tell the segregationists to gently caress off' created the timing for Republicans, who are clearly dumb and stupid unlike Democrats, to make an alliance that is both very difficult to defeat in the system they agreed to work under and hates Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
the democrats are a more embedded version of the Lincoln project I’m not sure why anyone thinks dems want to pass voting rights bill or any voting rights bill proposed by them would actually improve “voting rights” (the most useless right)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Vomik posted:the democrats are a more embedded version of the Lincoln project I’m not sure why anyone thinks dems want to pass voting rights bill or any voting rights bill proposed by them would actually improve “voting rights” (the most useless right) that goes without saying. I never expected them to pass it but it was in bidens slate of things to do with BBB and green new deal etc. and dems raise funds on that message in some places
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:that goes without saying. yeah that’s true. it is kind of funny that they won’t even throw a useless bone to people. I honestly think dems explicitly have decided a strategy of always being out of power so they can fundraise. weren’t the dems dead broke right after 2016? I seem to remember that being discussed
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Vomik posted:the democrats are a more embedded version of the Lincoln project I’m not sure why anyone thinks dems want to pass voting rights bill or any voting rights bill proposed by them would actually improve “voting rights” (the most useless right) The democrats have two primary messages:
And they wonder why they keep losing voters
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Vomik posted:I honestly think dems explicitly have decided a strategy of always being out of power so they can fundraise. From my understanding the business of fundraising/consulting in order to lose elections which helps the next round of fundraising and consulting is pretty much the only reason the democratic party exists. It's the one area where there simply isn't a counterpart in the gop. Not that there aren't republican fundraising emails and marketing, but that the roving bands of consultants who are paid to lose big and then explain to the party why in a way that never puts blame where it belongs, those consultants don't exist on the right. Again, the difference between a set of people for whom its a grift and those for whom its a political project
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:This has to be my favorite lib argument. It's like yeah no poo poo it's because republicans know how to win elections. It's specifically designed not to be the popular vote to prevent exactly what the democrats have done which is to write off everyone who isn't an urban elite. It's set up to ensure that a party can't govern nationally from an urban enclave it's the entire point. This is my favorite dummy argument: The electoral college means that only a small handful of states effectively matter, it's not set up to "ensure that a party can't govern nationally from an urban enclave" at all and it doesn't do that, either. Plenty of rural people don't matter because they don't live in the right states. It's just an outdated system that is highly undemocratic and means empty landmass is more relevant than the will of the people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
LastInLine posted:From my understanding the business of fundraising/consulting in order to lose elections which helps the next round of fundraising and consulting is pretty much the only reason the democratic party exists. It's the one area where there simply isn't a counterpart in the gop. Not that there aren't republican fundraising emails and marketing, but that the roving bands of consultants who are paid to lose big and then explain to the party why in a way that never puts blame where it belongs, those consultants don't exist on the right. Those exist for the GOP but the structure is different. The GOP guys do a bunch of direct donor outreach ripping off their organizations directly while the Dem model has the organization itself ripping itself off on consultant fees. So the GOP consultants make a deal with some Koch funded advocacy group that they’ll do fundraising and keep 90% to cover costs and the Koch org gets the other 10% versus the Dem consultants who instead just run the orgs and give their own consulting firms big paychecks but don’t do the same massive cut of donations. So because the GOP grifters aren’t also running the cover orgs they don’t have to explain away losses, they just disappear into the night. While the Dems get to practice explaining why actually losing is good. Like a good example of that on the GOP side was everyone fundraising for the CA recall effort. Same getting paid to lose as Dems do. Trabisnikof has issued a correction as of 20:06 on Nov 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Those exist for the GOP but the structure is different. The GOP guys do a bunch of direct donor outreach ripping off their organizations directly while the Dem model has the organization itself ripping itself off on consultant fees. I'd love to read more about this if you have handy sources. I've read a lot about election grift on the dem side but I always assumed the gop was strictly massive amounts of dark money in exchange for quid pro quo. I'll readily admit that I'm working backward from if you're winning five times as many elections as your opponent nationally, the money is made in the governance, not the lost election. You make an interesting point that when I see astroturfing on the gop side its for causes or referendums (and I have no idea the effectiveness of their efforts nationally) but with the dems it's usually for a candidate (who loses) and usually to suppress a progressive rather than to beat a republican. In the end I mean to say that it makes sense that the dems would learn to monetize losing elections since they were doing that anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
Fame Douglas posted:This is my favorite dummy argument: The electoral college means that only a small handful of states effectively matter, it's not set up to "ensure that a party can't govern nationally from an urban enclave" at all and it doesn't do that, either. Plenty of rural people don't matter because they don't live in the right states. Yeah I love screaming at people who make the claim that the electoral college is somehow good because it "protects the hard working farmers from urban coastal elites" because that's not what it does at all. Like the farmers vs coastal urban elites w/e argument is dumb as poo poo on its own, but that has NOTHING to do with the electoral college, where your vote only matters in terms of flipping your state, and your state only matters in terms of its population and since there's set minimum and maximum electors, it has the effect of massively amplifying or minimizing the weight of your vote depending on which side of a series of arbitrary lines you happen to live on. It's dumb as poo poo, the founders were stupid assholes, destroy the electoral college. And also the Democrats. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
LastInLine posted:I'd love to read more about this if you have handy sources. I've read a lot about election grift on the dem side but I always assumed the gop was strictly massive amounts of dark money in exchange for quid pro quo. I'll readily admit that I'm working backward from if you're winning five times as many elections as your opponent nationally, the money is made in the governance, not the lost election. I think you're right to consider that because capital backs the gop completely (while sometime the dems pick minor fights with specific elements of capital) that the mainline from massive dark money to protecting the interests of capital is a lot more straightforward (and you don't even need quid pro quo, like no one needs to demand that Ted Cruz back whatever capital wants, he already wants to do it). And that's part of why at the end of the day the right-wing grifts are still useful even if they are grifts. Someone sending mail to old people talking about the "democrats are going to force your kids to try gay sex" still benefits the gop even if its a scam. https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-long-con quote:The history of that movement echoes with the sonorous names of long-dead Austrian economists, of indefatigable door-knocking cadres, of soaring perorations on a nation finally poised to realize its rendezvous with destiny. Search high and low, however, and there’s no mention of oilfields in the placenta. Nor anything about, say, the massive intersection between the culture of “network” or “multilevel” marketing—where ordinary folks try to get rich via pyramid schemes that leave their neighbors holding the bag—and the institutions of both evangelical Christianity and Mitt Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. https://www.salon.com/2010/08/04/freedoms_defense_fund_base_connect/ quote:Thousands of grassroots conservative donors around the country who believe they are contributing to the fight to reclaim Congress in the fall have actually poured millions of dollars into a group of political action committees whose primary function appears to be enriching a notorious Washington direct mail fundraising firm, Salon's review of the groups' FEC filings shows. The grift is structured in a way for the GOP that you keep fundraising off the scary democrats forcing your kids to not pray in schools, win or lose. Versus the dems that institutionalize the grift and Emily's List and MoveOn have to justify their continued existence to the public, while Base Connect just has to send a check for $50,000 to a random republican every so often. And this is just one class of grifter, the fundraising consultant. There is an equally important grifter to the story we can't ignore, the media consultant. See media consultants get kickbacks on ad sales. Industry standard is 15%. So for ever "million dollar ad buy", the media consultant makes a sweet $150,000 on the back end, in addition to their actual fees charged to the campaign. https://www.salon.com/2006/05/09/campaign_consultants/ quote:
So that firm that's hired to sell the idea of placing TV ads will get paid $$$$ if the campaign places a lot of TV ads. So guess what they do? They argue and poll and make presentations about how we must buy a bunch of TV ads, its the only way to win! And all those ads cost a lot of money. Now if you're a 100% capital aligned candidate (the GOP and many Dems) this is no problem after all, you can just get the credit card companies to write you a check to buy a bunch of ads. But if you aren't the most ardently pro-capital campaign imaginable (say you're an otherwise pro-capital dem, but you hate gun violence or want to pretend to care about climate change), well good luck getting the corporations to open your pocket book to buy *enough* ads, where "enough" is defined as buying your media consultants the place in the Hamptons they always wanted. So you turn to the fundraising consultants, to raise that cash. Which they can do, if you just stop talking about improving healthcare and instead start talking about how eager you were to kill Americans on 9/11. So now you have one set of consultants saying the only way to win is TV ads, another set saying we can fundraising all the money you want if you just do what we say. But there's a third kind of consultant that's important here too, the field consultants. Those are the ones whose job it is to make sure you get voters to the polls to vote for you. Except those guys don't get kickbacks and don't raise $$$. So they can't make lavish presentations about how we need to GOTV to win. Instead only the media consultants have the money to woo the campaign principles. So the media consultants and the fundraising consultants take over campaigning, and that's how we get an environment where losing but raising a bunch of money counts as winning. Not just because all the consultants got paid, but because everyone believes you need to do massive fundraising to win, since you have to do massive ad buys to win, since that's what the dazzling presentations from the media consultants said. It doesn't matter how many voters you mobilize, doesn't matter how good your ground game is, because the media consultants have convinced everyone with power in the party that first you must buy a bunch of TV ads before you even have a chance at winning. So getting voters to the polls is an afterthought compared to fundraising, which is seen as a prerequisite to winning. Trabisnikof has issued a correction as of 21:25 on Nov 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2021 21:21
|
|