|
Medium Chungus posted:Big "manufacturing consent" vibes from these pieces about Ukraine and Russia. manufacturing consent for what? a preemptive invasion of russia?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
Majorian posted:What recent progress? Seriously. Marriage equality came out of a SCOTUS decision. The first black President ended up governing as a centrist, like Clinton and Carter before him. There’s been no significant steps to halt climate change, voting reform is dead in the water, so is immigration reform, etc, etc. So what progress, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You guys are so far up your own asses on this. “When Democrats lose elections, things that Democrats don’t want to happen, which are bad, happen” as an argument to not vote for Democrats is the most bonkers galaxy-brain poo poo imaginable, sorry. Nobody’s arguing that you shouldn’t vote for democrats. They’re telling you that democrats won’t protect your rights or defend you against republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sending US troops to go shoot guns at Russian troops was too insane and dangerous even for Henry Kissinger. It seems kind of the exact thing NATO was designed for. Sending NATO forces to Ukraine for training doesn't seem like a bad idea as a sabre rattling tactic that may have the side effect of deterring a land force offensive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do you have actual data to confirm this? Because the Washington Post has tracked police shootings since 2015, and uh, the number's not going down. It's clearly not just that police violence is being reported more. That stat is vastly underinclusive of your at all the same as your initial thesis about police violence against POCs. But no, I do not have numbers, only qualitative info. But I want to be clear - are you claiming that police brutality and oppression against POCs is worse now than in the 1980s and 1990s? Majorian posted:No, what you keep mixing up is intention vs. results. The fact that the '94 crime bill wouldn't get passed today is irrelevant if a lot of its extremely racist provisions are still in place and the Dems aren't willing to repeal them. That's still a net-negative, in terms of civil rights and racial justice. Majorian posted:Can you be more specific than that? Because it seems to me like we've gotten a lot of milquetoast regs that the Republicans have easily repealed, leaving us still marching closer and closer to climate catastrophe. So for this, I did some research. Here are some highlights I found since 1980 to today:
Majorian posted:Is the party more supportive of M4A now than it was then? Again, Truman and Johnson supported M4A/single-payer; Biden is opposed to it. That's a pretty big difference in terms of the party establishment's position, and it's not in a positive direction. VitalSigns posted:But it is simply a reality that Democrats do not protect abortion rights, and will help Republicans destroy them when Republicans are in power and proposing anti-choice legislation, sending anti-choice judges to a Democratic senate, etc. And we have to deal with reality as it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:06
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Nobody’s arguing that you shouldn’t vote for democrats. They’re telling you that democrats won’t protect your rights or defend you against republicans. Well, yeah, okay - we should vote for Democrats, because that is how you expand abortion rights instead of seeing them eroded. If that counts as them "protecting your rights" or not, well, whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Nobody’s arguing that you shouldn’t vote for democrats. They’re telling you that democrats won’t protect your rights or defend you against republicans. I think people would have more success convincing others (and especially dems) of this if they made the case that an american leftist movement will do a better, more effective job protecting these rights or defending against republicans
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:As I said last night, this requires you to ignore every local action, and every judge/Justice they nominated. The simple reality is that your working very hard to condemn the Democrats for the GOP winning elections and doing evil poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I do hold people who have the power to stop evil people from doing evil poo poo partially responsible if they refuse (or even help out with the evil poo poo) yes, I do not think that is unreasonable. I know that being mad at Congress for not doing the impractical stuff you came up with is like the conventional way to have a good time around here, but blaming the Dems for what's been a GOP cause for decades is taking it to an amazing level. Like the GOP are an environmental factor somehow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:So should there just be a thread for five minutes of hate on the Republicans? Would that fix the weird disagreement about people not focusing on the Republicans enough? No, there should be a "Whatabout the Democrats?!" thread for people to keep blaming the actions of the GOP on everyone other than the GOP
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Well, yeah, okay - we should vote for Democrats, because that is how you expand abortion rights instead of seeing them eroded. If that counts as them "protecting your rights" or not, well, whatever. You would still have to demonstrate that democrats have expanded abortion rights instead of standing back and watching them be destroyed. What will democrats do six months from now when Roe is overturned?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I do hold people who have the power to stop evil people from doing evil poo poo partially responsible if they refuse (or even help out with the evil poo poo) yes, I do not think that is unreasonable. In this instance, the event that is likely to happen will be because of a Republican super-majority in the Mississippi legislature, a Republican Governor, and 5-6 Republican supreme court justices. I think it is fair to complain about the general issues with the Democrats on abortion, but this particular instance had no involvement from the state or national party (every Dem-appointed justice voted to not even hear the case). The only solutions that would have prevented the current court case are for the Mississippi Democratic party to get better at winning elections 6 years ago or for John Kerry to have won the 2004 election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Well, yeah, okay - we should vote for Democrats, because that is how you expand abortion rights instead of seeing them eroded. How. A conservative Supreme court majority is locked in for 40 years, and Democrats refuse to entertain legislative solutions because they want to keep anti-choice Dems in the caucus so there is no way to stop abortion rights from being eroded let alone expand them. And unless you live in a state so liberal even the Republicans are pro-choice, then Democrats support abortion opponents like John Bel Edwards, the Blue That Didn't Matter Who governor of Louisiana that signed one of the country's most restrictive abortion laws. Are Democrats going to blacklist anti-choicers like Edwards to protect Louisiana women? Doesn't look like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In this instance, the event that is likely to happen will be because of a Republican super-majority in the Mississippi legislature, a Republican Governor, and 5-6 Republican supreme court justices. I think it is fair to complain about the general issues with the Democrats on abortion, but this particular instance had no involvement from the state or national party (every Dem-appointed justice voted to not even hear the case). The only solutions that would have prevented the current court case are for the Mississippi Democratic party to get better at winning elections 6 years ago or for John Kerry to have won the 2004 election. Also you are aware who the Democrats ran for Mississippi governor last time around right https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hood quote:He has also campaigned based on what he describes as his pro-life views and has highlighted his gun ownership.[43] Explaining his pro-life position, he referred to his work defending Mississippi's ban, known as a "heartbeat" bill, on abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy The attorney general who touted his work defending the bill as proof of his pro-life bonafides How exactly would voting for Jim Hood have protected abortion rights lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How. A conservative Supreme court majority is locked in for 40 years, and Democrats refuse to entertain legislative solutions because they want to keep anti-choice Dems in the caucus so there is no way to stop abortion rights from being eroded let alone expand them. First, nobody knows how long the court will be composed this way. The world is full of surprises. People can get ill. The Democrats could follow a huge surge in public demand to pack the court after Roe is overturned and actually appoint more justices. Justices can even change their minds. All of those things seem unlikely right now, but unlikely things happen all the time. For that matter, we don't even know for sure how Roberts, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will rule, do we? It's possible, maybe even probable that there will be a period where states can legally ban abortion that lasts as long the Roe era, which is almost 50 years. That sucks. But there is still work to be done that can increase access to abortion, in terms of programs to transport women and help pay for their care, fighting state level battles to protect/legalize, and maybe even trying to get a national right to abortion bill passed. (See above about unlikely things happening sometimes.) We also need to stop the court and any future Congress from going so far as to ban abortion nationwide. quote:And unless you live in a state so liberal even the Republicans are pro-choice, then Democrats support abortion opponents like John Bel Edwards, the Blue That Didn't Matter Who governor of Louisiana that signed one of the country's most restrictive abortion laws. Are Democrats going to blacklist anti-choicers like Edwards to protect Louisiana women? Doesn't look like it. John Bel Edwards is a dumbass and an extreme outlier. He's an exception that proves the rule. Charlie Baker, Phill Scott and Larry Hogan are blah liberals that are about as good/bad as a lot of Democrat governors, but they don't really have anything to do with how national Republicans act.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are Democrats going to blacklist anti-choicers like Edwards to protect Louisiana women? Doesn't look like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Trazz posted:No, there should be a "Whatabout the Democrats?!" thread for people to keep blaming the actions of the GOP on everyone other than the GOP there is! https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3986700 It's kinda fizzled though, looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:55
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Says the person that's so oblivious to the world they live in and the history of the country that they think Obama being a centrist means his being elected wasn't meaningful progress. Good luck trying to talk black folks into your labor revolution, be sure to keep us updated on your progress. I never said Obama's election wasn't meaningful; I did say that his election did not benefit POCs in material terms as much as one might think, and I stand by that. It was an important symbolic victory, but a lot of disadvantaged folks didn't have much to show for it materially afterwards. These quote-heavy posts are becoming unwieldy, so I'm going to just reply to your points here: -I'm claiming that in terms of police brutality and reform, there has not been progress in decades, contrary to your claim that there has been. The '94 crime bill dug us into a deep hole that we have not dug ourselves out of yet. -In terms of environmental regulations, those are good ones you listed, but they're kind of a drop in the bucket given how fast we're still hurtling towards climate apocalypse. This isn't really an area in which saying "We're doing better than we did before" is all that comforting. -Wrt Truman and LBJ, it's not like there weren't elected Dems in Congress and elsewhere who also supported single-payer/M4A at the time. I don't see any reason to believe that there is more support for those policies among elected Democrats now than there was back then. Even if that were the case, you're still basically just arguing, "The Dems in government are slightly better now than they were in the 1960s, after decades of running in the opposite direction from this policy."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
The view that things are improving is a sick and warped perspective born from apathy towards the mass murder and immiseration our nation has participated in and continues to participate in to this day. Even if you live under the illusion that the Democratic Party is granting us limited social progress, it also actively participates in granting immeasurable suffering and death to multiple orders of magnitude more people than it helps. A mass murderer doesn't suddenly become good just because they worked at a soup kitchen for a few hours. Media/culture has normalized all the violence and suffering that isn't along partisan lines (which also happens to be the vast majority of it), warping peoples' minds such that everything outside of a handful of social/cultural issues is just seen as background noise that no longer factors into one's politics/worldview All of that being said, even if you choose to ignore the humanity of non-Americans (and poor people + non-citizens in America), it's very easy to disprove the notion that defeating Republicans will lead to a good future - you need look no further than the wealthy Democratic-dominated states (a couple of which have economies/populations the size of entire countries). How is life for working class people in California? The Democratic Party can probably create a pretty good life for you if you're an American in the top 10-20%, but it will not provide a good future for most people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
We should also ask ourselves, do we think it's okay for Democrats to get votes from pro-life people? Because I think that's what the "oh sure we should let pro-life candidates" sound bites are about. What kind of message would it send to pro-life voters if the Speaker just said flat out, "gently caress no, pro-life scum has no place in this party." If they were actually recruiting and running a ton of pro-life candidates, I would have a problem with it, but the actual number of pro-life Dems in Congress is as low as it's ever been.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
The party can be overwhelmingly pro-choice, but when it comes time to legislate reproductive rights into law (like right now), and they cannot whip their members into alignment, then they as a party cannot be pro-choice. The party has the power, they have the majorities, to pass critical legislation, but they aren't doing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:This is some amazing cherry picking. This one law in this one state is proof Dems don't care about abortion? Lets ignore all the other states and judgeships?! Of course Dems are all a hivemind that are all in line with the worst possible example, however you shouldn't be judging republicans as a unified body there are plenty we could recruit to our cause if we just offered economic support(for the right people)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You guys are so far up your own asses on this. “When Democrats lose elections, things that Democrats don’t want to happen, which are bad, happen” as an argument to not vote for Democrats is the most bonkers galaxy-brain poo poo imaginable, sorry. On a more pessimistic day I can almost sympathize with the “I’m pissed because Dems are losers who can’t deliver” nothing matters-isms but then after half a second I remember hard leftists need to remove the log from their own eye before they go pointing out that mote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It seems kind of the exact thing NATO was designed for. Sending NATO forces to Ukraine for training doesn't seem like a bad idea as a sabre rattling tactic that may have the side effect of deterring a land force offensive. I don’t see why. No Russian ever stole my wages. Russians didn’t gently caress up our pandemic response. IDGAF, what’s Ukraine got to do with me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You guys are so far up your own asses on this. “When Democrats lose elections, things that Democrats don’t want to happen, which are bad, happen” as an argument to not vote for Democrats is the most bonkers galaxy-brain poo poo imaginable, sorry. No one has said this. Maybe you are misunderstanding the argument. The road to hell is paved with the good intentions of the Democratic Party. A buck and good intentions will get you a bad coffee. And so on. Good riddance to intentions. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Dec 5, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 22:58
|
|
|
Okay gents, the gigantic slapfight about Dem's and Voting NEEDS to shift to the Us Politics thread, this is at this point so far off topic of actual Current Events, political or not, and there hasn't been an inch one way or the other towards closure. If you want to continue it, do so there https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3986700
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:04
|
|
|
selec posted:I don’t see why. No Russian ever stole my wages. Russians didn’t gently caress up our pandemic response. IDGAF, what’s Ukraine got to do with me? It's the right thing to do. Democracies should support and defend each other in the face of authoritarian imperial aggression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:ukraine is a us ally tho? It's actually not. The Budapest Memo didn't establish an alliance or anything particularly formal, just a pledge to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council Action" if Ukraine were ever attacked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
Perdue is going to run a hideous, disgusting scorched Earth primary against Kemp where he'll blame his inability to protect georgia elections for losing two senate seats and the electoral vote. God only knows what Kemp will do in response to maintain his conservative bona fides No matter how ugly it gets it will not turn off a single GOP voter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's actually not. The Budapest Memo didn't establish an alliance or anything particularly formal, just a pledge to "seek immediate United Nations Security Council Action" if Ukraine were ever attacked. True, but at this point I feel like something needs to be done about Putin's particular brand of aggression, while he's doing it more to stir up support at home, its become a serious issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:13
|
|
|
selec posted:I don’t see why. No Russian ever stole my wages. Russians didn’t gently caress up our pandemic response. IDGAF, what’s Ukraine got to do with me? You can just post “fygm” if that’s the way you feel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:True, but at this point I feel like something needs to be done about Putin's particular brand of aggression, while he's doing it more to stir up support at home, its become a serious issue. All right, but what, exactly? We're currently supplying lethal aid to Ukraine (a continuation of Trump's policy, which was a shift from Obama's policy of non-lethal aid only). Sending in troops to conduct exercises might help in the short-term, but may also make the Russians more determined to put the screws to the government in Kiev once we've left. Personally, I don't see how us getting more involved isn't going to just make the situation worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All right, but what, exactly? We're currently supplying lethal aid to Ukraine (a continuation of Trump's policy, which was a shift from Obama's policy of non-lethal aid only). Sending in troops to conduct exercises might help in the short-term, but may also make the Russians more determined to put the screws to the government in Kiev once we've left. Personally, I don't see how us getting more involved isn't going to just make the situation worse. Given that Putin is actively stacking Armored Divisions around the Border, there really isn't any way to make it better. Putin's largely neutered EU resolve with Gas dependency, already annexed Crimea, is 1/10th the way into Ukraine already. The idea that its going to get better at Putin's expense is unlikely. But the idea of letting Ukraine fall will likely make everything worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:We should also ask ourselves, do we think it's okay for Democrats to get votes from pro-life people? Because I think that's what the "oh sure we should let pro-life candidates" sound bites are about. What kind of message would it send to pro-life voters if the Speaker just said flat out, "gently caress no, pro-life scum has no place in this party." If they were actually recruiting and running a ton of pro-life candidates, I would have a problem with it, but the actual number of pro-life Dems in Congress is as low as it's ever been. This is the contradictory Democratic abortion stance in a nutshell. Protect abortion rights but only as long as we don't alienate any pro-life voters or require our caucus to make any difficult votes. But you can't both protect abortion rights and also placate the people who hate abortion rights. And so as we see they don't protect abortion rights outside of states so culturally liberal that even the state GOP is pro-choice. The only place you can vote for abortion without taking aaaannny political risks. Reminds me of the Daily Show episode on gun control where they asked the Australian conservative who ended his career by voting for it why he did that and he said because political leadership is about leaving the world better than you found it, then he asked an American Democrat what political leaders' job is and he said "protect the caucus "
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Given that Putin is actively stacking Armored Divisions around the Border, there really isn't any way to make it better. Putin's largely neutered EU resolve with Gas dependency, already annexed Crimea, is 1/10th the way into Ukraine already. The idea that its going to get better at Putin's expense is unlikely. But the idea of letting Ukraine fall will likely make everything worse. I largely agree, but I also don't think that Ukraine "falling," ie: being completely or mostly annexed by Russia, is in the cards anyway. Russia's military isn't in any shape to occupy a country that big, particularly the parts without a large ethnically Russian population. I realize that's drifting into EE chat, though, so I'll leave it there for now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:All right, but what, exactly? We're currently supplying lethal aid to Ukraine (a continuation of Trump's policy, which was a shift from Obama's policy of non-lethal aid only). Sending in troops to conduct exercises might help in the short-term, but may also make the Russians more determined to put the screws to the government in Kiev once we've left. Personally, I don't see how us getting more involved isn't going to just make the situation worse. War, if that's what it takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
How are u posted:War, if that's what it takes. JFC no. You learned nothing from history. The US cannot reliably prosecute wars of any kind. Just get all the way out of here with this. No war thanks, period. Is this bapping, have we discovered a bappist vanguard in our midst?! selec fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
I don't think appeasement of Putin will result in anything good, and I also think that NATO getting involved would make things better for anyone either. It seems in the short term all answers make things worse ,so it's just a matter of degree. There really isn't a good answer. Would a defensive war be worse than Ukraine's cities falling to Russian occupation and the collapse of the Ukrainian government? Probably not to be honest, It's still not great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
selec posted:JFC no. You learned nothing from history. The US cannot reliably prosecute wars of any kind. Just get all the way out of here with this. No war thanks, period. "Yeah, let's just let Russian prosecute wars, problem solved" What a loving hot take. The idea that Russia should be allowed, unopposed, to continue to annex territory for no other reason for Putin to feel happy about having a buffer zone is pretty dumb. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:14 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:"Yeah, let's just let Russian prosecute wars, problem solved" With Democrats like these, who even needs Republicans? We are a loving failing state, and here you are out cheerleading for another money pit, another enormous laundering operation that literally only benefits the McMansion industry of Northern Virginia and its customers. Ukraine is none of our business, and only a 20th century outlook which is completely unable to come to grips with the loving mountains of work we have to do here, in the US, could conceive of another loving forever war against Russia. It’s like you want us to be a failed state. Like you want the worst, excessive death seizures of empire, rather than a dignified folding into ourselves to either get our poo poo together or die. The rest of the world needs nothing like this from us. Any amount less of the US loving around with its military worldwide is to the better. Just astonished at the chutzpah and amnesia. It’s only been 20 years. Give it a loving rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 00:27
|
|