US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

«‹›140 »

Wang Commander: Dec 27, 2003; by sebmojo

I don't even care about democracy, anything other than fascist/theocratic rule at this point would be worth any price

# ? Dec 2, 2021 05:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 13:39

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

socialsecurity posted:

How many bills per day of senate do you consider competent?

Don�t you think the number of bills passed is a silly metric? Nobody else has proposed its use, unless I missed something.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 05:41

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

icantfindaname posted:

You could even argue if you were inclined that there's a cyclical dynamic between liberals who will not tolerate division within their ranks and conservatives who see all Democrats as a homogenous block of satanic baby-eaters

I'd argue that, in the context of this thread, "liberals" and "leftists" don't have anything approaching a commonly accepted definition

# ? Dec 2, 2021 05:45

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

socialsecurity posted:

How many bills per day of senate do you consider competent?

I'm going to define competence at this point as ending the filibuster, because that's basically required now to do anything, as the Democrats themselves say over and over. They can end it with 51 votes, in one bill, passed in one day. Haven't done it yet, don't look like they will before Republicans sweep back into power and effectively end electoral democracy in this country

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I'd argue that, in the context of this thread, "liberals" and "leftists" don't have anything approaching a commonly accepted definition

Liberals being the entire Congressional Democratic party, yes including Bernie and the squad, and the mainstream political media including NPR, the NYT, WaPo, big three networks. I haven't mentioned leftists at all

# ? Dec 2, 2021 05:50

selec: Sep 6, 2003

DeadlyMuffin posted:

If you've got something where Joe Biden opposes Medicare for all because chuds would get it, I'm all ears.

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html

Oh it�s far worse than that. Headline by sucks but here we go:

"I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now,"

What do you think that means?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 06:00

Gumball Gumption: Jan 7, 2012

We do recognize the party, if the leadership wanted to, could pull support from those who don't pull left enough and could then elevate people who would make good candidates with values in line with the party? It might not work but vote blue no matter who could punch right. And yes, activist groups are doing this work to get into the party from the ground up. AOC is a good example of that. But the party could support that and do that work themselves if they wanted to shift left. Instead they're allowing center right Democrats gum up the works.

I have trouble with the argument America is just naturally right and left wing ideas don't work. I have two big questions to get around. First, Obama's presidency. Single payer healthcare grew in popularity as an idea during his race and through the ACA fight. It's only grown in popularity. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-care-coverage/

I'll acknowledge that yes, there is the famous discrepancy between "Obamacare" vs ACA vs "Single payer" and how they would poll differently even at the moments where they were effectively the same. But I think that's just proof of the second thing, propaganda works. Democrat propaganda leans right to not come off as too left in a hope to win a group of voters that tend not to show. While the Republicans wrench the party right. The party could move left and move the base left. Even if it's just single payer that would revolutionize this country, give an ailing party something to rally around, and give the party a focused identify. You get sick and don't pay a cent? The Democrats did that.

Instead we get SALT

# ? Dec 2, 2021 06:05

paranoid randroid: Mar 4, 2007

i would have to say i am angrier at the democrats than the republicans lately, because the narrative of the 2020 primary and general was the party saying "so we've gone over the platform you've handed us, and we're not going to do any of the actually radical & necessary poo poo to alleviate conditions in this joke of a quasi-failed state. but don't worry! Joe knows how to gladhand the senate so he'll be able to get some important stuff done! vote!"

and then they seamlessly transitioned to "what are you talking about? Joe Biden is a powerless figurehead, held captive by the honorable Senators Coalfucker Hick and Lmao XD. what were you expecting? maybe you should have voted harder in 2016"

# ? Dec 2, 2021 07:06

Space Cadet Omoly: Jan 15, 2014; ~Groovy~

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I'd argue that, in the context of this thread, "liberals" and "leftists" don't have anything approaching a commonly accepted definition

Based on context clues I'd say the definition of "liberal" is "a person I personally do not like".

# ? Dec 2, 2021 07:15

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

icantfindaname posted:

Liberals being the entire Congressional Democratic party, yes including Bernie and the squad, and the mainstream political media including NPR, the NYT, WaPo, big three networks. I haven't mentioned leftists at all

That's your definition. My point is that there isn't a common definition across the thread.

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

Based on context clues I'd say the definition of "liberal" is "a person I personally do not like".

A bit closer to a thread wide definition than the above, I think. I almost want to try and define it and get everyone to use the same terms so we aren't constantly talking past each other, but it seems like a Sisyphean task.

selec posted:

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/10/biden-says-he-wouldd-veto-medicare-for-all-as-coronavirus-focuses-attention-on-health.html

Oh it�s far worse than that. Headline by sucks but here we go:

"I would veto anything that delays providing the security and the certainty of health care being available now,"

What do you think that means?

I don't think it means "I oppose Medicare for all because chuds would get it". Sounds more like "change is scary and I don't want to do it" to me.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 07:21

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

icantfindaname posted:

Liberals being the entire Congressional Democratic party, yes including Bernie and the squad, and the mainstream political media including NPR, the NYT, WaPo, big three networks. I haven't mentioned leftists at all

this is a comically useless definition fyi

also your statement that the dems will be dead and gone by 2022 or 2024 is equally dumb and is as unrealistic as people fantasizing that the gop will just up and disappear. whatever your feelings about them, both american parties more or less are the product of there being about a hundred million people who feel some affinity towards a bunch of poo poo that broadly categorizes into dem or republican and even if either party did implode completely, there'd be some replacement political vehicle for that 100,000,000 block of voters within a matter of months.

For better or for worse, as long as there is a bloc of political support that substantial, it will express itself in the form of a political party.

As with the gop, the most realistic disaster you can wish for the dems is that a severe schism happens that throws an election or two. Full dissolution just leads to something new popping up, likely unburdened of a ton of dead weight, too.

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 09:33

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Herstory Begins Now posted:

this is a comically useless definition fyi

also your statement that the dems will be dead and gone by 2022 or 2024 is equally dumb and is as unrealistic as people fantasizing that the gop will just up and disappear. whatever your feelings about them, both american parties more or less are the product of there being about a hundred million people who feel some affinity towards a bunch of poo poo that broadly categorizes into dem or republican and even if either party did implode completely, there'd be some replacement political vehicle for that 100,000,000 block of voters within a matter of months.

For better or for worse, as long as there is a bloc of political support that substantial, it will express itself in the form of a political party.

As with the gop, the most realistic disaster you can wish for the dems is that a severe schism happens that throws an election or two. Full dissolution just leads to something new popping up, likely unburdened of a ton of dead weight, too.

Defining liberals as "people not in favor of the abolition of capitalism" is a pretty standard definition tbh.

Like there are next to no actual leftists in the American political classes, and the figures decried as evil communists are just mild social Democrats, at best.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 09:50

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

that's a rough one to square with the assertion that leftist policies are popular in the US, which even if we were saying that they were popular with 10% of the voting population that would still be nearly 20,000,000 people. Obviously the assertion is usually much larger than 10% and it seems strange that there are 'next to no actual leftists', yet 70% of the country supports leftist policies

personally I agree that there is quite a bit of support (tbf you only get the highest numbers if you decouple the questions from how they will be paid for, but even with that included imo the % of support is still substantial), but that using a definition that somehow excludes the entirety of the people supporting such things is useless in the context of american political reality

which is why I called it a useless definition

Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 09:58

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

I said "in the political classes" for a reason. And you'll also note that next to none of those policies are ever proposed or meaningfully lobbied for by those classes!

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:01

Herstory Begins Now: Aug 5, 2003; SOME REALLY TEDIOUS DUMB SHIT THAT SUCKS ASS TO READ ->>

dude explicitly disavowed absolutely everyone even loosely in the orbit of leftist thought (or more relevantly, people with significant leftist followings and support).

the US certainly is not especially representative on many levels, but you don't have 70% of popular support for leftist policies with literally zero prominent elected leftists

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:08

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

A big flaming stink posted:

Defining liberals as "people not in favor of the abolition of capitalism" is a pretty standard definition tbh.

Like there are next to no actual leftists in the American political classes, and the figures decried as evil communists are just mild social Democrats, at best.

There are next to no actual leftists in the United States by that definition.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:10

mawarannahr: May 21, 2019

Herstory Begins Now posted:

dude explicitly disavowed absolutely everyone even loosely in the orbit of leftist thought (or more relevantly, people with significant leftist followings and support).

the US certainly is not especially representative on many levels, but you don't have 70% of popular support for leftist policies with literally zero prominent elected leftists

I haven�t thought about it much and might not have the domestic context to analyze it to even know if I�m in agreement, but this does align with what Fredde deBoer wrote a couple weeks ago in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/opinion/democratic-socialists-india-walton.html posted:

In my political circles, the socialist and activist left, the recent defeat of India Walton, a democratic socialist candidate for mayor of Buffalo, seemed all too familiar, even if she lost in an unusual way to the incumbent Democratic mayor, Byron Brown. Ms. Walton prevailed against Mr. Brown in the Democratic primary, but for the general election, he ran a write-in campaign to retain his position.

That outcome saddens and disappoints me. Like many admirers of Ms. Walton, I believe she was terribly mistreated by the New York Democratic Party, which largely fell in line behind Mr. Brown, even though he was not running as a Democrat. It�s not fair that Ms. Walton had to run against him twice, with the weight of a lot of centrist Democrats and Republicans behind him in the general election, and that he enjoyed the support of several prominent labor unions and much of the city�s and state�s larger party infrastructure. (Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand did endorse Ms. Walton.)

Nevertheless, I am willing to say something far too few leftists seem willing to: Not only did Mr. Brown win, but he won resoundingly (the race is not officially over but stands at roughly 59 percent for Mr. Brown to 41 percent for Ms. Walton); it�s time for young socialists and progressive Democrats to recognize that our beliefs just might not be popular enough to win elections consistently. It does us no favors to pretend otherwise.

What too many young socialists and progressive Democrats don�t seem to realize is that it�s perfectly possible that the Democratic Party is biased against our beliefs and that our beliefs simply aren�t very popular.

They frequently claim that Americans want socialist policies and socialist politicians but are prevented from voting for them by the system. Or they argue that most American voters have no deeply held economic beliefs at all and are ready to be rallied to the socialist cause by a charismatic candidate.

This attitude toward Ms. Walton�s defeat specifically and toward the political landscape more broadly is part and parcel of a problem that has deepened in the past five years: So many on the radical left whom I know have convinced themselves that their politics and policies are in fact quite popular on a national level, despite the mounting evidence otherwise.

As New York magazine�s Sarah Jones put it over the summer, �Should Democrats mount a cohesive critique of capitalism, they�ll meet many Americans where they are.� We are held back, the thinking frequently goes, not by the popularity of our ideas but by the forces of reaction marshaled against us.

But the only way for the left to overcome our institutional disadvantages is to compel more voters to vote for us. Bernie Sanders�s two noble failures in Democratic presidential primaries galvanized young progressives and helped create political structures that have pulled the party left. They also helped convince many of a socialist bent that only dirty tricks can defeat us. In the 2016 primary, the superdelegate system demonstrated how undemocratic the Democratic Party can be. Mr. Sanders won every county in West Virginia, for example, but the system at the time ensured that Mr. Sanders did not receive superdelegates in proportion to his vote totals (many superdelegates defied the wishes of the voters and supported Mrs. Clinton). In 2020, it was widely reported that after Mr. Sanders�s victory in Nevada, former President Barack Obama had an indirect role as the minor candidates in the primary rallied behind Joe Biden to defeat the socialist threat. There is little doubt that the establishment worked overtime to prevent a Sanders nomination.

But the inconvenient fact is that Mr. Sanders received far fewer primary votes than Mrs. Clinton in 2016 and Mr. Biden in 2020. He failed to make major inroads among the moderate Black voters whom many see as the heart of the Democratic Party. What�s more, he failed to turn out the youth vote in the way that his supporters insisted he would.

Whatever else we may want to say about the system, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the voters of the liberal party in American politics twice had the opportunity to nominate Mr. Sanders as their candidate for president and twice declined to do so. If we don�t allow this to inform our understanding of the popularity of our politics, we�ll never move forward and start winning elections to gain more power in our system.

This may be seen as a betrayal of the socialist principles I stand for, which are at heart an insistence on the absolute moral equality of every person and a fierce commitment to fighting for the worst-off with whatever social and governmental means are necessary. But I am writing this precisely because I believe so deeply in those principles. I want socialism to win, and to do that, socialists must be ruthless with ourselves.

The idea that most Americans quietly agree with our positions is dangerous, because it leads to the kind of complacency that has dogged Democrats since the �emerging Democratic majority� myth became mainstream. Socialists can take some heart in public polling that shows Americans warming to the abstract idea of socialism. But �socialism� is an abstraction that means little without a winning candidate. And too much of this energy seems to stem from the echo-chamber quality of social media, as young socialists look at the world through Twitter and TikTok and see only the smiling faces of their own beliefs reflected back at them.

Socialist victory will require taking a long, hard road to spread our message, to convince a skeptical public that socialist policies and values are good for them and the country. Which is to say, it will take decades.

Americans have lived in a capitalist system for generations; that will not be an easy obstacle for socialists to overcome. If you want socialist policies in the United States, there is no alternative to the slow and steady work of changing minds. My fellow travelers are in the habit of saying that justice can�t wait. But justice has waited for thousands of years, and we all must eventually come to terms with the fact that we don�t get to simply choose when it arrives.

Fredrik deBoer is the author of �The Cult of Smart: How Our Broken Education System Perpetuates Social Injustice� and publishes a daily newsletter.

My main objection would probably be that compelling more voters to vote for socialist policies will never work out.

mawarannahr fucked around with this message at 10:15 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:13

A big flaming stink: Apr 26, 2010

Maybe one day Freddie will figure out how to write a different article than the same one he's been writing for a decade

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:30

Space Cadet Omoly: Jan 15, 2014; ~Groovy~

"basically everyone already agrees with me, they're just not saying so or behaving in ways that support this because of reasons" isn't exactly a leftists only problem, it seems like something people all over the political spectrum engage in.

Hence the silent majority conservatives are always talking about.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 10:52

HonorableTB: Dec 22, 2006

is pepsi ok posted:

For the millionth time leftist policy is broadly popular among all Americans.

Then why do leftists keep getting curb stomped on policy in elections in America to the degree that we can barely scrape together the barest social safety net? If leftist policy is broadly popular among ALL Americans as you say, why don't we have President Sanders? Leftism is not as popular in this country as you think, and the evidence for that is that the democratic voter base agreed with Sanders up until it came time to vote for him and then they got cold feet and pulled the lever for centrist golem Biden in the voting booth.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 11:29

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

There's a very big difference between the things Americans want and the things that Americans are allowed to vote for.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 12:37

Fister Roboto: Feb 21, 2008

HonorableTB posted:

Then why do leftists keep getting curb stomped on policy in elections in America to the degree that we can barely scrape together the barest social safety net? If leftist policy is broadly popular among ALL Americans as you say, why don't we have President Sanders? Leftism is not as popular in this country as you think, and the evidence for that is that the democratic voter base agreed with Sanders up until it came time to vote for him and then they got cold feet and pulled the lever for centrist golem Biden in the voting booth.

Well it's not like they got cold feet for no reason. The prevailing narrative against Sanders was that all the good things he promised were nice, sure, but the most important thing at the time was defeating Trump. And Biden was the only candidate who could defeat Trump^{[citation needed]}. And just in general there's this idea that those popular policies simply aren't pragmatic, that they have a heavy political cost, and trying to implement them risks letting the Republicans back in power. You see it with Obama's concept of "political capital". You see it here in D&D with folks belittling others as spoiled children for wanting things like student debt relief.

There are a ton of other reasons why popular policy doesn't necessarily translate to elected politicians, but that's one that sticks out to me right now. Conservatives aren't the only ones that can be tricked into voting against their own self interest.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 12:54

Aztec Galactus: Sep 12, 2002

People support leftist policies but everyone over 40 has their brain shut down when they hear the word communism, so turning that into actual policy is near impossible

# ? Dec 2, 2021 12:57

Sarcastr0: May 29, 2013; WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES ?!?!?

So are leftist policies expanded entitlements like M4A or are they abolishing capitalism?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 13:14

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Ghost Leviathan posted:

There's a very big difference between the things Americans want and the things that Americans are allowed to vote for.

Pretty sure they were allowed to vote for Bernie Sanders. And if not, I'd like something more than "vaguely-defined conspiracy of liberal elites" which somehow prevented only Bernie voters from voting but not their own voters because that's some sniper-level telepathic targeting considering the demographics are by and large the same.

Bernie's problem was not policy. It was not engaging in the same strategies that Biden did. Biden did not win because of policies, he won because of hate.

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 13:31

Gort: Aug 18, 2003; Good day what ho cup of tea

HonorableTB posted:

Then why do leftists keep getting curb stomped on policy in elections in America to the degree that we can barely scrape together the barest social safety net?

Because corruption is legal and policy is therefore set by the richest in the interest of the richest.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 13:57

Kalit: Nov 6, 2006; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

HonorableTB posted:

Then why do leftists keep getting curb stomped on policy in elections in America to the degree that we can barely scrape together the barest social safety net? If leftist policy is broadly popular among ALL Americans as you say, why don't we have President Sanders? Leftism is not as popular in this country as you think, and the evidence for that is that the democratic voter base agreed with Sanders up until it came time to vote for him and then they got cold feet and pulled the lever for centrist golem Biden in the voting booth.

IMO, I think a lot of it has to do with a couple reasons. Most importantly: their electoral strategy is terrible but they refuse to change it (e.g. focusing too much on getting the progressive white vote who already agrees with them instead of focusing a lot more on people their policies would impact the most). Another reason is because the few that actually make it into the office sometime act like huge, uncompromising assholes too often and piss everyone else off (e.g. Lee Carter).

There�s also the issue with successful communication on selling the actual funding/implementation of the bigger plans, along with acknowledging law limitations/respecting court decisions. But that sort of ties in with their electoral strategy.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 13:58

Bel Shazar: Sep 14, 2012

Sarcastr0 posted:

So are leftist policies expanded entitlements like M4A or are they abolishing capitalism?

Yes to both please

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:00

Cow Bell: Aug 29, 2007

DarkCrawler posted:

Bernie's problem was not policy. It was not engaging in the same strategies that Biden did. Biden did not win because of policies, he won because of hate.

What does this even mean?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:04

Srice: Sep 11, 2011

Fister Roboto posted:

Well it's not like they got cold feet for no reason. The prevailing narrative against Sanders was that all the good things he promised were nice, sure, but the most important thing at the time was defeating Trump. And Biden was the only candidate who could defeat Trump^{[citation needed]}. And just in general there's this idea that those popular policies simply aren't pragmatic, that they have a heavy political cost, and trying to implement them risks letting the Republicans back in power. You see it with Obama's concept of "political capital". You see it here in D&D with folks belittling others as spoiled children for wanting things like student debt relief.

There are a ton of other reasons why popular policy doesn't necessarily translate to elected politicians, but that's one that sticks out to me right now. Conservatives aren't the only ones that can be tricked into voting against their own self interest.

As an aside to that, polling during the primaries also showed that a not-insignificant amount of primary voters believed that Biden supported M4A.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:19

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Also literally having a prominent news anchor crying on national TV that Bernie will have him executed in Central Park. The propaganda was not subtle.

IUG posted:

Want Bernie also close to getting the nomination, but the Buttigeig (probably misspelled, sorry) rescinded his campaign at a time and in a way that his votes went to Biden instead? It was timed in a way to gently caress over Bernie if I remember correctly.

His campaign also incredibly blatantly cheated in the first caucus that otherwise would have obviously went decisively to Bernie.

Like, pretending that the primaries weren't incredibly full of bullshit at every step is dangerously unserious.

Ghost Leviathan fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:43

IUG: Jul 14, 2007

Want Bernie also close to getting the nomination, but the Buttigeig (probably misspelled, sorry) rescinded his campaign at a time and in a way that his votes went to Biden instead? It was timed in a way to gently caress over Bernie if I remember correctly.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:44

Cow Bell: Aug 29, 2007

IUG posted:

Want Bernie also close to getting the nomination, but the Buttigeig (probably misspelled, sorry) rescinded his campaign at a time and in a way that his votes went to Biden instead? It was timed in a way to gently caress over Bernie if I remember correctly.

It's extremely common for the Iowa frontrunner to drop out literally days before Super Tuesday. How dare you try to imply that anything untoward may have happened or that the party may have had a hand in making sure things ended up the way they did.

The problem is the electorate.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:47

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Please dear god, end the 60,000th "Does voting matter?/We would have full socialism if it wasn't for MSNBC and Obama's cellphone/America is a fascist nation, get real leftists/relitigate the 2000, 2008, 2016, and 2020 primary" weekly derail in the current events thread that is always allowed to go on and never resolves or changes before it is too late.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1466182575312015361

A little late Susan.

Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:49

the_steve: Nov 9, 2005; We're always hiring!

Cow Bell posted:

What does this even mean?

I think it's the fact that Biden didn't win on his policy proposals. He won on "I am not the Bad Orange Man."
Enough people hated Trump badly enough that they would have voted for a pinecone over him, so that's what Biden's campaign focused on.

Bernie, fool that he is, ran on actual policies and things that would improve people's lives when instead he also should have just spent 3 hours on stage saying "I am not the Bad Orange Man."

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:50

OAquinas: Jan 27, 2008; Biden has sat immobile on the Iron Throne of America. He is the Master of Malarkey by the will of the gods, and master of a million votes by the might of his inexhaustible calamari.

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Please dear god, end the 60,000th "Does voting matter?/We would have full socialism if it wasn't for MSNBC and Obama's cellphone/America is a fascist nation, get real leftists/relitigate the 2000, 2008, 2016, and 2020 primary" weekly derail in the current events thread that is always allowed to go on and never resolves or changes before it is too late.

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1466182575312015361

A little late Susan.

She'd never vote for that. Noises coming from her mouth hole don't matter; she votes party line pretty much 100% of the time.

I'm sure she'll be very concerned when abortion is criminalized across most of the country, but what can you do?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 14:57

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

the_steve posted:

I think it's the fact that Biden didn't win on his policy proposals. He won on "I am not the Bad Orange Man."
Enough people hated Trump badly enough that they would have voted for a pinecone over him, so that's what Biden's campaign focused on.

Bernie, fool that he is, ran on actual policies and things that would improve people's lives when instead he also should have just spent 3 hours on stage saying "I am not the Bad Orange Man."

Yeah, it's this. They probably would have picked Bernie if he could have channeled their frustrations better but he went with the old peace and love and appeal to the material conditions of Trump supporters route. If I am a Democrat voter in 2020, the last loving thing I want is forgiveness for the redhats.

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Also literally having a prominent news anchor crying on national TV that Bernie will have him executed in Central Park. The propaganda was not subtle.

His campaign also incredibly blatantly cheated in the first caucus that otherwise would have obviously went decisively to Bernie.

Like, pretending that the primaries weren't incredibly full of bullshit at every step is dangerously unserious.

Wow, the media was mean to the leftist candidate? Gee there obviously was nothing Bernie could have done about that, prepare for or even use for his advantage.

And there was "incredibly blatant" cheating (that you can't really describe beyond that?) so the primaries were "incredibly full" of bullshit instead of Bernie and the leftists having, again, a pathetic, flaccid campaign banking on love instead of hate.

DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 15:07

Cow Bell: Aug 29, 2007

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Please dear god, end the 60,000th "Does voting matter?/We would have full socialism if it wasn't for MSNBC and Obama's cellphone/America is a fascist nation, get real leftists/relitigate the 2000, 2008, 2016, and 2020 primary" weekly derail in the current events thread that is always allowed to go on and never resolves or changes before it is too late.

It'd be a real shame if people used the current events thread to discuss the current failure of the political system to address any of the current issues. Instead, such discussions should be silo'd off to their own thread that will be conveniently closed.

DarkCrawler posted:

Yeah, it's this. They probably would have picked Bernie if he could have channeled their frustrations better but he went with the old peace and love and appeal to the material conditions of Trump supporters route. If I am a Democrat voter in 2020, the last loving thing I want is forgiveness for the redhats.

I mean, so you're saying it's actually a better strategy to not attempt to provide any solutions, material benefits, or even having an actual campaign as opposed to just being a vessel for the faceless rage of your voterbase?

quote:

And there was "incredibly blatant" cheating (that you can't really describe beyond that?) so the primaries were "incredibly full" of bullshit instead of Bernie and the leftists having, again, a pathetic, flaccid campaign.

Again, you're saying it was the Bernie campaign that was pathetic and flaccid? Not the campaign that literally didn't open offices in multiple states? That's strategy consisted of waiting for Clyburn and Obama to whip voters and convince the frontrunner to drop out?

Cow Bell fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Dec 2, 2021

# ? Dec 2, 2021 15:12

Lib and let die: Aug 26, 2004

DarkCrawler posted:

If I am a Democrat voter in 2020, the last loving thing I want is forgiveness for the redhats.

It sounds awfully "red hat" to prefer punitive action to rehabilitative action. Let's say I snap my fingers and actualize fully automated luxury communism overnight. What would you suggest I do with all the Republican voters in my capacity as God King of our new global communist society?

# ? Dec 2, 2021 15:12

DarkCrawler: Apr 6, 2009; by vyelkin

Cow Bell posted:

I mean, so you're saying it's actually a better strategy to not attempt to provide any solutions, material benefits, or even having an actual campaign as opposed to just being a vessel for the faceless rage of your voterbase?

In the United States? Absolutely.

You can't provide poo poo if you don't get elected.

Lib and let die posted:

It sounds awfully "red hat" to prefer punitive action to rehabilitative action. Let's say I snap my fingers and actualize fully automated luxury communism overnight. What would you suggest I do with all the Republican voters in my capacity as God King of our new global communist society?

Nothing. You actualized fully automated luxury communism, what more do you want? Let them die miserable and bitter, having been dragged kicking and screaming to the future. Or realize it isn't that bad after all. You don't need to do poo poo.

Cow Bell posted:

Again, you're saying it was the Bernie campaign that was pathetic and flaccid? Not the campaign that literally didn't open offices in multiple states? That's strategy consisted of waiting for Clyburn and Obama to whip voters and convince the frontrunner to drop out?

Remind me who won again? That campaign wasn't pathetic and flaccid. And their strategy consisted of more then that, as already outlined.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 15:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 13:39

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Lara Logan blocked the Auschwitz Museum and told her twitter followers send the museum as many messages as possible to "let them know: shame on them for a partisan message" because they told her that her Fox segment describing Fauci's medical work as equivalent to Joseph Mengele's medical work was a very ignorant thing to say.

https://twitter.com/AuschwitzMuseum/status/1466134257550643203

Cow Bell posted:

It'd be a real shame if people used the current events thread to discuss the current failure of the political system to address any of the current issues. Instead, such discussions should be silo'd off to their own thread that will be conveniently closed.

The 2016 primary is not a current event and there is a weekly discussion that goes no where on this every single week. You can copy and paste all the same posts and nobody would ever know.

# ? Dec 2, 2021 15:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US Current Events December: Inflation Growing Faster than Santa's Belt Size

«‹›140 »