|
So I'm watching Ozark finally and the series literally opens up with the main character doing a monologue straight out of Ayn Rand. No wonder Republicans like this show so much. Is this basically "Breaking Bad but for Republicans"?
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:Obviously a leftist government would provide supports. I'm talking about in the meantime when people boycott the vote and conservatives block grant medicaid. The only thing that stopped that from happening 5 years ago was voting. Can you help me find one of these mutual aid groups? I'm in some in the South Jersey / Philly area and skilled nursing and personal care for 110 hours a week for no pay is something I have yet to encounter. https://mutualaidphilly.com/en/ https://phillywerise.com/mutual-aid-resources/ https://www.communityvs.org/resources-database/neighbors-helping-neighbors-philly-mutual-aid https://www.findhelp.org/ You could also try to contact Philly socialists and see if they have better info than I do, not living there myself. https://www.phillysocialists.org/ The point isn't that you get someone to work for you 100+ hours a week, it's that several people can help at different times. Many hands and all. It isn't me that's going to take your state healthcare away. It isn't me that could stop it from getting taken away. It is going to happen though, so your concern shouldn't be with the people trying to sound the alarm, it should be on how you can prepare for when it happens.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:So I'm watching Ozark finally and the series literally opens up with the main character doing a monologue straight out of Ayn Rand. Not at all. Ozark is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:54
|
|
|
selec posted:Dang dog, you got me; the left wasn’t sufficiently militant enough, that’s the reason this happened. All their power, gone to waste. Were you militant before now? I wouldn't have guessed so. All I was saying is, if the Unacceptable Number is zero, we've already gone way beyond it years and years ago. So, either it was actually acceptable until now, or you weren't paying attention while you were pushing for whatever it is you were pushing for. If you're past your limit of what you can countenance, you don't seem to be acting as such. Before anyone else should answer your question, maybe you should first. punk rebel ecks posted:So I'm watching Ozark finally and the series literally opens up with the main character doing a monologue straight out of Ayn Rand. I only watched a couple episodes a while ago but I thought the joke was that the main character was doing a discount breaking bad even though that made even less sense for him
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 01:58
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Were you militant before now? I wouldn't have guessed so. All I was saying is, if the Unacceptable Number is zero, we've already gone way beyond it years and years ago. So, either it was actually acceptable until now, or you weren't paying attention while you were pushing for whatever it is you were pushing for. If you're past your limit of what you can countenance, you don't seem to be acting as such. Before anyone else should answer your question, maybe you should first. Man you’re right, you don’t know anything about me. Thanks for clarifying that. So what I’m reading is that the increase in dead, wounded and incarcerated women is worth preserving decorum. We can definitely know there will be a substantial increase in those miseries, but it seems like those will be acceptable casualty figures to you. It was bad, now it’s going to be worse. How much worse before you decide holding out hope for a system that has failed all American women isn’t rational or morally acceptable anymore?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
selec posted:Man you’re right, you don’t know anything about me. Thanks for clarifying that. Is the acceptable number zero, or isn't it? If it already failed them, and decorous actions weren't the answer, what were you afraid to do that you haven't already? Before throwing that on anyone else, look at yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
selec posted:Man you’re right, you don’t know anything about me. Thanks for clarifying that. To butt in, I propose that any number of women dying this way is completely unacceptable, and that the justification for razing the system to the ground is already present! Thus, the only criteria we should consider is the likelihood our efforts will be successful
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:07
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Is this basically "Breaking Bad but for Republicans"? No, that's Yellowstone.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Is the acceptable number zero, or isn't it? If it already failed them, and decorous actions weren't the answer, what were you afraid to do that you haven't already? Before throwing that on anyone else, look at yourself. It’s not what I need to do, it’s what people need to do collectively, which isn’t vote—we got here by voting, it’s not a reliable avenue for getting us out. Needs to be collective action with real militancy. I’d accept burning the whole thing down, but I’d also accept nonstop camp outs on the lawns of Supreme Court justices, general strikes, labor militancy, and even dastardly and immoral means. I dunno what your plan is, probably voting extra hard? That how we secured these rights in the first place, anyway?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:11
|
|
|
Reverend Dr posted:https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1172/vote_117_2_00065.htm That vote was taken while Senator Lujan was incapacitated from a stroke. So, not exactly owning him on that one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:15
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:When the Senate had a vote to change the filibuster a few months ago, it got 48 votes out of 50 Democrats. So it depends how many of those ten new votes are for it. Or how many of those 48 are super secretly against it despite their voting records. The first would receive lots of public input in the form of primary and general elections, the second is a matter of personal faith that cannot be proved or disproved. Either way, in a scenario where Democrats get 60 Senate seats it seems unlikely that the number needed to pass a major party priority will be 61 exactly. Barring the Blue Dogs coming back somehow but the route to that feels unlikely. So let’s say they never get rid of the filibuster, just one democrat could still stymie everything even though they have 60 seats. What I’m getting at is that we would need well over 60 senators in order to be sure we can pass progressive legislation which would be a Herculean task and nigh impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
Quorum posted:How do you square this with the fact that younger ages groups consistently vote for Democrats and more progressive politicians, and prefer more progressive policies, than their seniors? Yes, the right wing millennials are real loving right wing but that's a symptom of partisan polarization, not the kids all being fash. The latest big Pew political typology report found a substantial bloc of voters who trend very young, support very left leaning policy, but do not particularly feel like they identify with or are well represented by the Democratic party. (n.b. Pew still uses the word liberal as generally synonymous with leftist in the way that's no longer in vogue here.) Pew posted:The four Democratic-oriented typology groups highlight the party’s racial and ethnic diversity, as well as the unwieldy nature of the current Democratic coalition. So for at least that set, their policy preferences do not appear to be translating to a sense of party identification. e: this was a new grouping in their 2021 report; the young-trending "disaffected Democrats" group from their 2017 report broadly had a positive view of the Democratic party and were just disgusted with the political process. So this would not explain Deep State Plot's experience on campus in 2016, except insofar as that might've been a precursor to what we're seeing now. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:20
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Okay this part I disagree: The Right is largely a minority, 30% at best, and while they have a lot of people in power, they are not a single power block. They might be a fractious minority, but they know how to do something that still eludes the other 60%, as often demonstrated by this thread in macro and micro: win.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
selec posted:Needs to be collective action with real militancy. quote:Dang dog, you got me; the left wasn’t sufficiently militant enough, that’s the reason this happened. So, turns out you really didn't think you were sufficiently militant. Ok, fair enough, I wasn't accusing you one way or the other. All the same, if the number to hit was zero, you failed ages ago. Don't take it out on the rest of us, acknowledge you didn't know what you were doing. That said, where do you plan on starting over then, recognizing that you're already way in the red? Your first option was "burn 'the whole thing' down", but I assume the camp-outs on the justices' lawns will be first. Are you going to start now? I'll join you but I'll be honest, I don't think they'll care. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 02:33 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
Quorum posted:How do you square this with the fact that younger ages groups consistently vote for Democrats and more progressive politicians, and prefer more progressive policies, than their seniors? Yes, the right wing millennials are real loving right wing but that's a symptom of partisan polarization, not the kids all being fash. the kids aren't all fash, that was never my point they are largely leftists who feel the democrats do not represent them ('cause they don't) and just don't participate in politics at all, and the few who actually do participate tend to be fash i just think the idea that millenials and/or zoomers will fix everything is lazy and stupid wishful thinking. two generations that have been largely screwed over repeatedly by the system aren't gonna suddenly decide that actually, they should be a part of that system, and the ones who do decide that aren't gonna be the kind of young people you want in government. DEEP STATE PLOT fucked around with this message at 02:35 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:30
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:So let’s say they never get rid of the filibuster, just one democrat could still stymie everything even though they have 60 seats. In your theoretical situation where Senate Democrats add ten members but none of them are willing to back 96% of the existing caucus on critical votes, the Senate will not be better able to pass progressive laws. In itself that's a truism. Why should we consider this situation to be likely enough that speculating about it is useful or interesting?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:the kids aren't all fash, that was never my point Again, though, do you have data to support that? The Democrats definitely aren't getting 100% of the more-left contingent but if they were getting less support than the Republicans, the last few elections would have looked very different. I'm not saying "demographics are destiny" or anything but even if you exclude the disaffected plurality, Madison Cawthorne is very far from the median politically-involved millennial.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:36
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how hillary winning in 2016 would have changed literally anything? None of the democratic senators who lost in 2016 were close to being pulled over the finish line by a close hillary win, so the senate still would have been 52-48 in favor of republicans. They would have simply refused to vote on her nominees for 4 years, RBG would still die in 2020 and the republican who crushed hillary in 2020 due to covid/riots/economic crisis would have been able to place 3 justices, same as current reality. But I see people saying everywhere if you didn’t vote in 2016 this is all your fault etc.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:41
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:the kids aren't all fash, that was never my point It turns out that for every disillusioned leftist lurking in the wings there's an insane cryptofascist living in the woods, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Can someone explain to me how hillary winning in 2016 would have changed literally anything? RBG would have been replaced by Clinton, and presumably at least one more is the argument.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:43
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:RBG would have been replaced by Clinton, and presumably at least one more is the argument. How? Why would Mitch McConnell let her?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:How? Why would Mitch McConnell let her? This is a completely fair question, honestly.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Again, though, do you have data to support that? The Democrats definitely aren't getting 100% of the more-left contingent but if they were getting less support than the Republicans, the last few elections would have looked very different. I'm not saying "demographics are destiny" or anything but even if you exclude the disaffected plurality, Madison Cawthorne is very far from the median politically-involved millennial. i don't have data, like, i literally said in my post that i was speaking anecdotally, it was the first goddamn word in my post for gently caress's sake if you aren't gonna put forth the effort to actually read anything i've posted then maybe don't bother replying
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:45
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:How? Why would Mitch McConnell let her? It's for sure up for debate. Not sure he could have held out for two years or more but it is is possible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:48
|
|
|
JD Vance won the Republican Senate primary with about 31% of the vote. Shontel Brown is currently crushing Nina Turner by 30+ points with about 30% of the vote in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:49
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:i don't have data, like, i literally said in my post that i was speaking anecdotally, it was the first goddamn word in my post for gently caress's sake I assumed you were describing the anecdote in your post as "anecdotal." If you meant it to apply to your entire post, then I misinterpreted!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:53
|
|
|
fwiw while hunting for more information, I did spot this other interesting Pew tidbit about younger voters. Emphasis theirs.quote:Younger Americans – Millennials and adults in Generation Z – stand out in a new Pew Research Center survey particularly for their high levels of engagement with the issue of climate change. Compared with older adults, Gen Zers and Millennials are talking more about the need for action on climate change; among social media users, they are seeing more climate change content online; and they are doing more to get involved with the issue through activities such as volunteering and attending rallies and protests. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/ They also found that the concern isn't just a partisan identification thing, and that younger Republicans differ markedly from their older counterparts on the issue.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It's for sure up for debate. Not sure he could have held out for two years or more but it is is possible. How is this even a question? They were outright saying they were going to block the nominee for as long as they had control of the Senate, what possible reason could there be for them to go back on it? The massive upside of getting a guaranteed primary loss if they did?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:JD Vance won the Republican Senate primary with about 31% of the vote. Looks like Trump still has the touch. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:00
|
|
|
   Prediction 1: In 2022, voter turnout for young people will be markedly lower than for other groups. Because that's how it's been for decades regardless of who they voted for. Prediction 2: In 2022, voter turnout for young people will be markedly lower than it was in 2020. Because that's universally true for all age cohorts in midterms, even when turnout is relatively high. Prediction 3: In 2022, the youth vote will be markedly slanted toward Democrats, but not by a cleanly predictable amount. Because it's widened in recent years but not linearly or all that suddenly. Even if a reversing trend occurs, it won't be overnight. Prediction 4: Numerous people will point to the first two happening as proof positive that the youth are walking away because Democrats abandoned them,, even though both will happen regardless of what Democrats do and how much an individual candidate connects with young voters. That's not to say that what Democrats do doesn't affect the youth vote. Just there are large, known biases that have to be accounted for.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:01
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Can someone explain to me how hillary winning in 2016 would have changed literally anything? Do you have anything to back up this assumption? Are you just trying to claim that the incumbent would lose no matter what? Or.... I don't follow what you're trying to claim, especially with providing no supportive evidence.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:In your theoretical situation where Senate Democrats add ten members but none of them are willing to back 96% of the existing caucus on critical votes, the Senate will not be better able to pass progressive laws. In itself that's a truism. Why should we consider this situation to be likely enough that speculating about it is useful or interesting? Because when I hear people telling people that all we simply need is more democrats or to vote harder, I think that they’re ignoring the fact that these democrats would most likely be from red states who would sabotage the democratic agenda. All it would take is a handful or even just one to stop even something like voting rights. Therefore, it can’t just be “vote harder” especially since people voted hard in 2020 to give Democrats power and the democrats, in turn, are pretty much doing nothing. I think convincing the few democrats to kill the filibuster would be easier than getting more democrats in the senate
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you have anything to back up this assumption? Are you just trying to claim that the incumbent would lose no matter what? Or.... I don't follow what you're trying to claim, especially with providing no supportive evidence. they laid out the reasoning, that the ongoing conditions (pandemic, riots, inaction due to congressional gridlock) would have primed a candidate for a loss, especially one as unpopular as hillary
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Do you have anything to back up this assumption? Are you just trying to claim that the incumbent would lose no matter what? Or.... I don't follow what you're trying to claim, especially with providing no supportive evidence. You’re right, I am making an assumption. I think the unlikelihood of any party winning 4 elections in a row, combined with the conditions of 2020 and her general unpopularity as a candidate would make re election seem like a leap. But it’s not impossible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:17
|
|
|
Who’s to say Mitch wouldn’t just hold out all Supreme Court picks while Hillary was in office in this supposed other outcome? Voting Dem literally did nothing in 2020. Even with majorities:
To argue that voting for Dems has been a net positive in anyway in the past 30 years is to ignore history. They care about decorum and capitalist. Dems and their supporters are equivalent to republicans.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:32
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Who’s to say Mitch wouldn’t just hold out all Supreme Court picks while Hillary was in office in this supposed other outcome? If someone ever argued against Horseshoe Theory, I’d show them this post.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:39
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Because when I hear people telling people that all we simply need is more democrats or to vote harder, I think that they’re ignoring the fact that these democrats would most likely be from red states who would sabotage the democratic agenda. All it would take is a handful or even just one to stop even something like voting rights. Therefore, it can’t just be “vote harder” especially since people voted hard in 2020 to give Democrats power and the democrats, in turn, are pretty much doing nothing. Sounds like the first step is to pursue political change in red states first, then, so that people with more progressive views can get elected there. Yeah, that takes time, but all the better to start ASAP then. Ideally, the left would have started that fifteen years ago, instead of spending a summer camping out on public lawns or spending half a decade fawning over a doomed presidential run.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:42
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:If someone ever argued against Horseshoe Theory, I’d show them this post. I mean, he’s basically right.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:If someone ever argued against Horseshoe Theory, I’d show them this post. They'd probably just call you a dumbass for thinking it was a good example. Like really now what on earth is "right wing" about that post?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
ellasmith posted:Can someone explain to me how hillary winning in 2016 would have changed literally anything? No you're correct, it doesn't really make any sense. I think people are just dealing with the complete failure of their political ideology to accomplish even its supposed most important value by finding someone to blame in the past to excuse politicians in the present for their failure to act. We'll be hearing about 2016 for decades, every time Democrats fail we'll have a Two-Minute-Hate for the Bernie Bros of 2016 whose fault this all is, even though Democratic politicians in the present have the power to act but refuse to use it. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on voting going forward. The tactic in 2020 was to shame everyone by telling them if they don't vote for Biden they're woman-haters who are killing Roe v Wade, but now we're being told that actually Roe v Wade was ruined for ever in 2016 and could never be saved no matter who won after that, and so voting for Biden and the Democrats did nothing at all. Will shaming people over women's rights be effective in 2022 and 2024 after years of telling them that the president is powerless and the blue dogs will block everything anyway. I guess it doesn't matter since the goal seems to be more about feeling superior in the moment than about putting together coherent arguments or doing convincing voter outreach. E: probably the only thing that would have made a difference would have been Democrats nominating a 2016 candidate who wasn't such a catastrophic drag on the ticket that the party lost every purple senate race too after being favored to retake the chamber at the beginning of the year, so in that sense it is the voters fault: everyone who voted for Hillary in the 2016 primary owns this VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:54 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:43
|
|
