|
Nucleic Acids posted:I mean, he’s basically right. He is right in the way Tucker Carlson is basically right. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
TyrantWD posted:He is right in the way Tucker Carlson is basically right. No, I’d say there’s a difference between the two.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
We've been there before too. As it gradually became impossible to deny what a disaster the GWB presidency had become, it affected people who had initially backed him in 2000, or just opposed Gore, or (like younger and mostly apolitical me) figured neither was going to be a very impactful president so the election wasn't worth getting worked up over. Namely, they more and more often had to confront the question of what that decision meant, and how things could have been differently. It's not surprising that a lot of the answers still assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that a lot would have gone the same. You know, same basic cabinet composition, same decisions on financial deregulation and other conservative domestic policy, same dismissing Al Qaeda as something Clinton used to distract the country from his sexual misbehavior. Even, and sometimes especially, assuming that Gore would have flogged for the same exact invasion of Iraq to complete his daddy's legacy, and same decisions made during the occupation. You know, just a different nameplate. Often it led to how he just would have just been replaced by a rabid right-winger in 2004 or 2008. That was nonsense of course. Some of it was plain sour grapes. The less that really would have been different, the less relevant your individual or collective fuckup was.The rest is just the enormity of what would have happened if a fantastically close election shook out a little differently. It's hard to picture that course of events even if the Congressional results didn't shift a single seat.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:No, I’d say there’s a difference between the two. Using carefully crafted statements with no context to prove a point is literally Tucker Carlson’s bread and butter.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
Using literal right wing talking points but using them as an angry leftist doesn't make those rightwing talking points any less right wing. Like literally everything that said in the context and tone that it was said is no different to what you would find at the federalist.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:52
|
|
|
since we're all just making up what we think would be different from past elections, just think if newt got the nomination way back. We would all be living on the moon now
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Ah yes, Tucker Carlson, well known for his criticism of Democratic inaction on immigration reform and climate change. I remember his episode last night: "You want them to reduce police funding and redirect it to rehabilitation and health services, but THEY insist on pumping up police budgets higher and higher!"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:55
|
|
|
I take back what I said. The federalist would never call AOC a republican shill. Sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 03:57
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Dems and their supporters are equivalent to republicans. They aren't, though. Useless is not the same thing as actively malicious and the left is equally decorum obsessed when it comes to (not) using the methods and means which allowed the Republican Party's far-right faction to gain power over the entire party, much less other successful leftist movements. Honestly, if all Republicans are Republicans and all Democrats are the equivalent of Republicans than who isn't Republicans? The 5% or so of true hardcore left who would never imagine voting for either? If that is the case then what is the point of even hoping for more?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:We've been there before too. As it gradually became impossible to deny what a disaster the GWB presidency had become, it affected people who had initially backed him in 2000, or just opposed Gore, or (like younger and mostly apolitical me) figured neither was going to be a very impactful president so the election wasn't worth getting worked up over. Namely, they more and more often had to confront the question of what that decision meant, and how things could have been differently. It's not surprising that a lot of the answers still assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that a lot would have gone the same. You know, same basic cabinet composition, same decisions on financial deregulation and other conservative domestic policy, same dismissing Al Qaeda as something Clinton used to distract the country from his sexual misbehavior. Even, and sometimes especially, assuming that Gore would have flogged for the same exact invasion of Iraq to complete his daddy's legacy, and same decisions made during the occupation. You know, just a different nameplate. Often it led to how he just would have just been replaced by a rabid right-winger in 2004 or 2008. Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that a hillary presidency over a trump one would have no difference on our current reality. It’s just hard for me to see a very realistic situation where it avoided republicans eventually gaining a majority on the Supreme Court. But maybe someone else can think of one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:I think Twitter's influence exceeds its user count in large part because they spent so long as social media outlet that's very happy to let you just embed in a website or browse without an account, vs Facebook like Facebook not wanting to show you a thing without an account. If you don't want to tweet you don't have to sign up and tweets relevant to news stories or forums or whatever will just crop up on your usual sites so you don't have to follow anyone. Two questions. 1) when did facebook become a closed/gated garden? I used to be able to freeloader and keep up with local community stuff without an account. 2) do people not know about Zipf's Law? like during the Musk Twitter Buying, people are suprised that like 80-99% of twitters activity is generated by 20% to 1% of its user pop. This is common in many many other things. I'm sure the mods or the admins can confirm that its the same with SA.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:12
|
|
|
The answer to all of this is not only unacceptable to every authority figure from this post upwards to the "authority", but likely impossible given circumstances. Abandon faith in your/our way of life. We've overshot a sustainable way of life for longer than I've been alive, and that force has captured the earth and its future. We live in an absurd validation of every disaffected young persons rebellion "They" are all, in fact, wrong. And it is going to cost everything. What do I propose doing besides voting Democrat every election since I was able? Understand power on every level, from the system based power of striking and boycotting, to the more natural power associated with the blood in your veins and air in your lungs. It lands better with gun people than brunch people though!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Sorry, I didn’t mean to suggest that a hillary presidency over a trump one would have no difference on our current reality. It’s just hard for me to see a very realistic situation where it avoided republicans eventually gaining a majority on the Supreme Court. But maybe someone else can think of one. There's a lot of questions I could ask, but just for one: what do you think would have happened if, after all the fighting in the primary, and the schisms in the general between those who embraced Trump, those who at least outwardly rejected him, and those who said to vote for the courts and to stop Hillary -- all that ended in him eating poo poo and Hillary becoming President? Once Trump lost the big one to the party's greatest bogeyman, who rushes in, who falls out, what generally happens in the party that was sharply divided over whether a noisy game show host was the way to stop her? Since that answers absolutely everything of what Republicans would have done in 2017-2022. Particularly as to what kind of unity they would have had to hold Congress through two elections and unify behind a strong candidate in 2020. It's nearly as big a question as "what if Iraq, and even 9/11, didn't happen the same way? Also worth noting that Hillary was historically better liked when she was in government (as first lady, senator, or secretary) than she was as a candidate. There's no way of knowing if this would have held true as President, but I don't feel it safe to say it wouldn't. Obviously the Republican base would have hated her like fire, but would independents have hated her far more than they did all the other times she was in Washington rather than on the trail?  I'm not saying I have clear answers for those. I'm just saying that people who make bold counterfactuals that gloss over those points without examination probably aren't thinking hard about it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
How did JD Vance win his primary? I thought he was trailing behind a more typical reactionary this whole time. Did he just openly start screaming about jews?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:How did JD Vance win his primary? I thought he was trailing behind a more typical reactionary this whole time. Did he just openly start screaming about jews? He had been polling pretty evenly with Mandel for the last month or so and then Trump endorsed him. He only won with 31% of the vote and the vote was split between another candidate who claimed to be the "real trump" candidate and an explicitly anti-Trump candidate who both got ~24%. Trump and a bunch of high profile conservative media figures endorsed Vance two weeks ago and that probably put him over the edge and broke him out of the tie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:47
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted: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. Man, I just gotta day from the way you are posting I don’t even think you care about the impact of this decision, because your urgency is all around owning people, rather than contributing to an idea of what to actually do, and what the outcomes of those actions would be.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
selec posted:Man, I just gotta day from the way you are posting I don’t even think you care about the impact of this decision, because your urgency is all around owning people, rather than contributing to an idea of what to actually do, and what the outcomes of those actions would be. What do you think the outcome of the camp-out will be? Like I said I'll join you but I'm going to be realistic about what it'll do.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:54
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:What do you think the outcome of the camp-out will be? Like I said I'll join you but I'm going to be realistic about what it'll do. It cannot possibly accomplish less than voting has.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
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? Weren't you in CSPAM last year constantly arguing with people to vote for Joe Biden? I seem to remember your piranha plant avatar. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
selec posted:It cannot possibly accomplish less than voting has. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I'll keep an eye out for your sit-in.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Using literal right wing talking points but using them as an angry leftist doesn't make those rightwing talking points any less right wing. Like literally everything that said in the context and tone that it was said is no different to what you would find at the federalist. What literal right wing talking points are being discussed here? Can you quote them and explain how they're right wing?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
poo poo, pundits and such still bring up the 1968 Dem convention as the point in which things went wrong and politics became radical and polarized, so tragic! Mostly in terrible bad faith, but at this point what is the difference? They'll be making hay out of Sanders' very polite challenge for decades yet, never mind that he did 30+ campaign events for Hillary once she won. The Hillary fedayeen on Twitter have been incensed lately over how she was right all along and this is all our deserved punishment for failing to live up to her grace.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 05:55
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:since we're all just making up what we think would be different from past elections, just think if newt got the nomination way back. We would all be living on the moon now Obviously what should have happened is getting Marianne Williamson the big seat. She'd have put Alito into an egg and none of this would be happening now. RBA Starblade posted:What do you think the outcome of the camp-out will be? Like I said I'll join you but I'm going to be realistic about what it'll do. At some point there comes a tipping of the scales where appearance, propriety, and separation of the ruling from the ruled don't hold sway any more. And at that point, we teach them not to fear public opinion, but to fear the public.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:What literal right wing talking points are being discussed here? Can you quote them and explain how they're right wing? Criticizing the Democratic Party is inherently right wing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 06:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1521581893438754817?s=20&t=bBkbcemiUDEsGEWEla9JdQ
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Using literal right wing talking points but using them as an angry leftist doesn't make those rightwing talking points any less right wing. Like literally everything that said in the context and tone that it was said is no different to what you would find at the federalist. Please provide examples of “rightwing talking points” in my post. VideoGameVet posted:https://twitter.com/nandoodles/status/1521581893438754817?s=20&t=bBkbcemiUDEsGEWEla9JdQ It’s a good thing Dems were voted in to defund the police… Wait https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/01/state-of-the-union-2022-fund-police-00013065 posted:
Somebody fucked around with this message at 20:20 on May 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Please provide examples of “rightwing talking points” in my post. I don't think Biden sets the budget for red state police departments
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 07:19
|
|
|
Celexi posted:I don't think Biden sets the budget for red state police departments https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/12/politics/biden-administration-crime-covid-relief-funding/index.html Well, I mean, he's certainly not trying to defund them. He also made it a major talking point of his state of the union address 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Power swinging back and forth between Democrats and Republicans is not the fault of random or collective voters, it is the fault of Democrat politicians. I understood your point here being that the politicians are culpable for not being persuasive enough to voters, but someone reported this who did not see that, so please try to be specific about what point you're making and why.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 08:02
|
|
|
'Right wing talking points' has basically meant 'any criticism of establishment Democrats' in D&D for years now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 08:28
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:If someone ever argued against Horseshoe Theory, I’d show them this post. do you have any substantive criticism to make of this post, or is it merely that the post makes you mad? Koos Group posted:I understood your point here being that the politicians are culpable for not being persuasive enough to voters, but someone reported this who did not see that, so please try to be specific about what point you're making and why. seriously koos, how is THIS discourse permissible under your regime in dnd?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 08:32
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:If someone ever argued against Horseshoe Theory, I’d show them this post. Dealing with Climate Change and the rise of fascism is right wing now? Man your country is hosed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 09:28
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:'Right wing talking points' has basically meant 'any criticism of establishment Democrats' in D&D for years now. Sometimes, sure, but also sometimes people are so mad at the dems that they post literal talking points from republican Twitter's and that's pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 09:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Sometimes, sure, but also sometimes people are so mad at the dems that they post literal talking points from republican Twitter's and that's pretty funny. Which points were those again?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Parakeet vs. Phone posted:Which points were those again? Currently in the thread? None, I'm not trying to agree with TyrantWD here. I'm disagreeing that all uses of that claim refer to justified criticism
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 09:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Currently in the thread? None, I'm not trying to agree with TyrantWD here. Point, though I'm pretty sure I've seen actual right wing talking points also used to DEFEND the Dems.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 10:40
|
|
|
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. He absolutely could have, the same as he stage-managed seating a new Justice for Trump two weeks before the election. The Democratic party demonstrates little leverage even in the majority, because it is entirely unwilling to enforce party discipline on anything other than fundraising, and will happily give up what they do have to maintain the status quo. There's a reason McConnell as Senate Majority Leader was vastly more effective in pushing his party's abhorrent platform, and it is the simple will to exercise power without scruples because he is well aware there will be no consequences. He's in a safe seat, and the Dems even when in supermajority won't use his own tactics against him out of respect for the unwritten norms of bipartisanship.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 10:42
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:We've been there before too. As it gradually became impossible to deny what a disaster the GWB presidency had become, it affected people who had initially backed him in 2000, or just opposed Gore, or (like younger and mostly apolitical me) figured neither was going to be a very impactful president so the election wasn't worth getting worked up over. Namely, they more and more often had to confront the question of what that decision meant, and how things could have been differently. It's not surprising that a lot of the answers still assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that a lot would have gone the same. You know, same basic cabinet composition, same decisions on financial deregulation and other conservative domestic policy, same dismissing Al Qaeda as something Clinton used to distract the country from his sexual misbehavior. Even, and sometimes especially, assuming that Gore would have flogged for the same exact invasion of Iraq to complete his daddy's legacy, and same decisions made during the occupation. You know, just a different nameplate. Often it led to how he just would have just been replaced by a rabid right-winger in 2004 or 2008. It's weird that you are blaming voters for Bush becoming president when it's since been proven that Gore won the 2000 election but Democrats let Bush get away with stealing it because they wanted to be nice and not make waves
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 11:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's weird that you are blaming voters for Bush becoming president when it's since been proven that Gore won the 2000 election but Democrats let Bush get away with stealing it because they wanted to be nice and not make waves Through an election that was basically fixed by the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:24 |
|
|
Spoke Lee posted:What can I do as a disabled person to protect myself? In 2017 it took every Dem senator and a few R's to prevent Medicaid from becoming a block grant, and it came down to a single vote. Nationally elected officials mattered there. Local organizing doesn't work when state budgets can't cover personal care assistance for it's disabled population. Do we just accept out fates and relinquish our autonomy to be abused and neglected in some facility? Are we just expendable for the revolution? Is there is a plan in place to care for us during the downfall before things get better? Takes like this always make me scratch my head because one of the defining forms anarchist and communist action takes are mutual aid networks that serve the community with both broad and personal attention to their needs that are not being met by the status quo. Frankly I trust them way more to care about my personal needs than the status quo currently does.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2022 12:13
|
|
