|
psydude posted:I guess nobody that signed onto that letter is in a competitive district, but there are close races (like Ohio Senate) that were tossups and may now flip red because of this. I highly doubt that this letter and the surrounding stupidity will lead to any significant (i.e. turning a race one way or another) outcomes. Far, far more significant is if people see gas prices dropped by 5 cents the day before they vote.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
psydude posted:I guess nobody that signed onto that letter is in a competitive district, but there are close races (like Ohio Senate) that were tossups and may now flip red because of this. Who is the hypothetical voter that was going to vote for a Democratic Senator, then switches over to vote for a Republican Senator because a handful of House Democrats wrote a letter that takes a far more moderate position than the House Republican leadership that just wants to cut Ukraine loose?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 19:41
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Who is the hypothetical voter that was going to vote for a Democratic Senator, then switches over to vote for a Republican Senator because a handful of House Democrats wrote a letter that takes a far more moderate position than the House Republican leadership that just wants to cut Ukraine loose? Races don't flip because individual voters flip, they flip when individual voters in one party or the other decide to not show up to vote at all. The hypothetical voter in this case would be a Democrat who's disgusted with the House letter and so decides to sit the election out. (Now, I don't think this is actually a thing that is likely to happen on an meaningful scale, but that's the theoretical mechanism in play.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 20:14
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Races don't flip because individual voters flip, they flip when individual voters in one party or the other decide to not show up to vote at all. The hypothetical voter in this case would be a Democrat who's disgusted with the House letter and so decides to sit the election out. (Now, I don't think this is actually a thing that is likely to happen on an meaningful scale, but that's the theoretical mechanism in play.) This. It's an exceptional election when 10% or more of the electorate defects to another party, elections are generally decided by which side is more motivated to show up and vote (in contituencies where the race is theoretically competitive).
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
GD_American posted:Wasn’t Jayapal on that list of worst Congressmen to work for? All I can think of is some Zach Woods like intern being made homeless and out of work over something they didn't even do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Who is the hypothetical voter that was going to vote for a Democratic Senator, then switches over to vote for a Republican Senator because a handful of House Democrats wrote a letter that takes a far more moderate position than the House Republican leadership that just wants to cut Ukraine loose? https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/10/23/vance-ukraine-war-ohio-senate/ In a race that's a tossup, alienating 50,000 Ukrainian Ohioans could make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 21:34
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Races don't flip because individual voters flip, they flip when individual voters in one party or the other decide to not show up to vote at all. The hypothetical voter in this case would be a Democrat who's disgusted with the House letter and so decides to sit the election out. (Now, I don't think this is actually a thing that is likely to happen on an meaningful scale, but that's the theoretical mechanism in play.) Again it should be telling why it was published.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 21:57
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:They withdrew the letter and blamed their staffers. Well done everyone, you earned that after work martini. amazing incompetence all-around. first they release a PR last night defending it, today they withdraw and blame on a staffer. total clown show
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
pmchem posted:amazing incompetence all-around. first they release a PR last night defending it, today they withdraw and blame on a staffer. total clown show Speaking of clown shows. Sir John Falstaff posted:lol, "it was the staffers"
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:This. It's an exceptional election when 10% or more of the electorate defects to another party, elections are generally decided by which side is more motivated to show up and vote (in contituencies where the race is theoretically competitive).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Marshal Prolapse posted:Speaking of clown shows. How are we going to blame this one on the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Again it should be telling why it was published. Whether or not it was meant to be published this week, it absolutely was meant to be published. Per the weasel word non-apology: quote:“The letter was drafted several months ago, but unfortunately was released by staff without vetting. Seriously? There's no way dozens of Congresspeople pit their signatures on a draft if it wasn't 100% vetted by multiple levels of their staff and ready to be published. Edit: and yeah, if it was an actual mistake, several of those reps would have said so as soon as it hit the news, instead of clarifying "Oh no, you're just misinterpreting it."
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
This is just a warmup, next few weeks are gonna be unforgettable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 03:43
|
|
|
I was skeptical when I thought it had been released jointly by 30 offices, but publishing it unilaterally after everyone else decided to drop it actually does seem like exactly the sort of attention-seeking opinon-triangulating stunt Jayapal would pull (she's one of my local pols). AOC and Ilhan Omar seem pretty great, but Seattle seems to produce really poor quality progressive candidates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 03:47
|
|
|
ah yeah it was her https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/addybaird/pramila-jayapal-staff-treatment
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
GD_American posted:ah yeah it was her Yeah, this is corroborated by Seattle thread folks who know people that worked (past tense) for her, it's not good
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Kesper North posted:Yeah, this is corroborated by Seattle thread folks who know people that worked (past tense) for her, it's not good Oh yeah, if it were a somewhat not super blue district wonder if this would ding her re-election chances. Hyrax Attack! fucked around with this message at 05:23 on Oct 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Races don't flip because individual voters flip, they flip when individual voters in one party or the other decide to not show up to vote at all. The hypothetical voter in this case would be a Democrat who's disgusted with the House letter and so decides to sit the election out. (Now, I don't think this is actually a thing that is likely to happen on an meaningful scale, but that's the theoretical mechanism in play.) It absolutely happens. We can see it recent presidential elections. Obama won in 2008 with 69 million votes; in 2012 3 million of those voters stayed home while the GOP picked up a bit but not enough. In 2016 the Dem number stayed flat for Hillary and the GOP doubled their gains to put Trump in the WH. Biden got 16 million more votes than Hildawg. 16 million people who didn't vote in the previous elections decided that "Holy poo poo, I need to vote this time." Those people weren't showing up to congressional elections either. So people are absolutely willing to stay home, and show up only when they feel it's worth the effort. Sure, this is a look at the presidential election with the EC and all that, but it's an easy one to look at. Meanwhile there are HUNDREDS of elections every two years that come down to double or triple digits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It absolutely happens. We can see it recent presidential elections. Obama won in 2008 with 69 million votes; in 2012 3 million of those voters stayed home while the GOP picked up a bit but not enough. In 2016 the Dem number stayed flat for Hillary and the GOP doubled their gains to put Trump in the WH. Sorry, I meant I don't think that this particular event is likely to cause the effect to an important degree, not that nothing ever does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:it would make sense that there's an internal split among the sort of moderately far left (or more precisely that the remaining hard-liners are fully shearing off/being jettisoned by dems) since first it's been visibly simmering going back to at least january and second similar splits along pro-Ukraine/pro-Russian lines are mirrored in left wing groups all over Europe and if it was ever going to come to a head it would be while dems are working to shore up support ahead of midterms. Also, yknow, it's just plainly apparent from talking to people on the left flank of the dems at any point in the last 8 months that people are splitting into one camp that is effectively pro-Russian and another that is clearly horrified by the former.  Also personally speaking, I've found myself basically becoming one of these people. This is my comfort zone. It's not like it'll matter, but whatever you think about it, I think just the presence of people who are like "war bad" is necessary. Because war is indeed bad. I just want people not to lose their conscience or at least fight for that inch of mental space so they don't lose their humanity and become jingos. I don't like jingoism in whatever form it takes. Then there's Twitter where you see this sharper split between people who are basically unorganized. And then you have these bloodthirsty couch potatoes become outright pro-war just on the Russian side and are listening to absolute kooks and grifters who are simply in the tank and selling them a line which is not true. And that worries me a little bit because, in case they haven't noticed (they've noticed), the war is going badly for Russia. So what happens to people who are outright pro-war for a war that suddenly started going badly for their team? Some may become disillusioned with it, but I worry that others will retreat increasingly into paranoia and frustration that will work itself out in ugly ways. They've worked up the aggression but the payoff has been thwarted so it must be because of the CONSPIRACY. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Oct 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
I don't understand the part of being "generally anti-war" that has people doing things like protesting "NATO aggression" while being far less passionate about Russia not engaging in genocidal, fascist invasions (and allowing nations to non-violently deter said invasions). I do not think the main ideology at play for folks like Chomsky is "war bad."
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
Peace at any price, huh?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
You can't spell pacifists without fascist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
McGavin posted:You can't spell pacifists without fascist. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:I don't understand the part of being "generally anti-war" that has people doing things like protesting "NATO aggression" while being far less passionate about Russia not engaging in genocidal, fascist invasions (and allowing nations to non-violently deter said invasions). I do not think the main ideology at play for folks like Chomsky is "war bad." BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Oct 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:04
|
|
|
Chomsky also says that Americans don't have access to media telling the truth about the war, considers NATO expansionism to be provoking the invasion, denies Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea, and echoes Russia's demands that Ukraine "demilitarize" as a way to end the hostilities. I'm not calling him a Russian propagandist, but I'm saying he's extremely focused on the West and NATO as the impetus for the invasion and far less so on Russian revanchism and the last gasp of a fascist dictatorship to shore up support with some kind of victory. I have yet to see a convincing argument that the best outcome for peace in Europe doesn't involve Russia losing in such a complete and humiliating way that the mere contemplation of repeating the act is domestically impossible. We already went through this in 2014, and Russia only took it as an opportunity to mass their forces for the next phase. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Oct 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
To be honest, I think I agree that the “movement anti-war” folks, as you call them, aren’t really pro-Russian per se - it feels more like they’ve brought into the delusion that America is the protagonist of the world and that the power to influence events in Ukraine lies solely in American hands, and that peace is not a question of “What Russia needs to do” or “What Ukraine needs to do” but rather “What America needs to do.” Which makes sense, these are folks who’ve devoted a lifetime of politics to seeing how much damage America can do and actively campaigning to stop America doing that. But it’s a woefully inadequate framework for understanding what’s happening in Ukraine and the only real action plan such a framework suggests, I.e. “America needs to stop being the bad guy,” isn’t really relevant to the situation. They’re pointing at the “usual” signifiers of America being the bad guy (arms shipments and expanding American influence) and calling for them to stop on that basis alone, without understanding the full impact of such actions in this situation (allowing Ukraine to defend themselves, allowing Eastern European countries to no longer fear Russian aggression). It probably also doesn’t help that a lifetime of being suspicious of mainstream American media means they’re more likely to draw their information from alternative sources that are easily poisoned by Russian influence campaigns, thus leading to their parroting Russian talking points without realizing it because it fits with their internal narrative of “America bad and solely responsible for all evil.” Either way, though, while their internal narratives aren’t inherently pro-fascist, their actions and what they’re calling for is deeply misguided at best. While it is true that providing a backstop against unrestrained jingoism is important, there’s better ways to do that than arguing at right angles to reality using talking points provided by Russians. As it is, all they’re really doing is discrediting the very anti-jingoism they’re trying to support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:38
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:Chomsky has said that the Russian war effort is a debacle and a disaster, and also condemning it as illegal and comparing it to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which is not something that someone in the tank for Russia is gonna say. But even Antony Blinken has called for a negotiated settlement -- there's more backing that up of course but that doesn't get the kind of vilification that those old ladies on the streetcorner wearing pink do. Those people are "fascists." You can get Crimea de-occupied and returned to its Ukrainian owners in a negotiated settlement, they are correct on that front. Russia won't agree to that but its not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
And for the record there is not really a lot of invective being tossed at peaceniks that I've seen. It's more targeted at people like this guy: quote:the best outcome Ukraninan civilians is for Russia to purge out every last western influences from the country and end the civil war. going back to the status quo of the last 7 years is not ideal quote:If you want to argue that the lines on the map as conceived by western powers are sacred than I guess russia is pure evil. but to me this is a civil war quote:russia isn't doing any genocide, unless you count nazis as a culture. it could be argued that Ukraine was doing a genocide against Russian speaking Ukrainians though. do you care about them? quote:russia could just nuke the entire ukranian army and send in guys with radiation suits to occupy the rubble. i hope Ukrainians understand this, they actually can't win no matter what. winning just means escalation
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:And for the record there is not really a lot of invective being tossed at peaceniks that I've seen. It's more targeted at people like this guy: What kind of idiot would say those things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:47
|
|
|
Tomn posted:To be honest, I think I agree that the “movement anti-war” folks, as you call them, aren’t really pro-Russian per se - it feels more like they’ve brought into the delusion that America is the protagonist of the world and that the power to influence events in Ukraine lies solely in American hands, and that peace is not a question of “What Russia needs to do” or “What Ukraine needs to do” but rather “What America needs to do.” Which makes sense, these are folks who’ve devoted a lifetime of politics to seeing how much damage America can do and actively campaigning to stop America doing that. But it’s a woefully inadequate framework for understanding what’s happening in Ukraine and the only real action plan such a framework suggests, I.e. “America needs to stop being the bad guy,” isn’t really relevant to the situation. They’re pointing at the “usual” signifiers of America being the bad guy (arms shipments and expanding American influence) and calling for them to stop on that basis alone, without understanding the full impact of such actions in this situation (allowing Ukraine to defend themselves, allowing Eastern European countries to no longer fear Russian aggression). ^yeah that's a good summary of how I was using 'pro-Russian' BrutalistMcDonalds posted:So, I've followed this a bit and I've noticed a difference in the U.S. between the more mature "movement" left (in terms of organized activist groups, peace groups, etc.) and random people on Twitter. These are two different things and the movement left -- and Noam Chomsky is kind of a barometer for this -- has been calling for peace and a negotiated settlement and an end to escalation which includes a halt to U.S. weapons transfers. Now, the reality is that one side is going to win and the other side is going to lose unless there's some kinda bargain, so you could interpret that as effectively "pro-Russian," but I don't think that's how they see it, and they do tend to call the Russian invasion unjustified and a breach of the U.N. Charter. I think the DSA is kinda like this, or at least a current within it. Also, the fact is, there is no real "movement" here that has the force to press those demands anyways, and the only groups that actually go outside and hold signs to this end is most likely going to be a half-dozen elderly peace activists in Milwaukee. This is the terrifying tankie force that's mobilizing to end the war: Yeah I'm being somewhat reductive calling the dividing line pro/anti Russian. While it doesn't necessarily reflect how people consciously feel or identify internally, albeit some are overtly pro-Russian, too, it does reflect where their positions land wrt whether they desire outcomes that favor Russia or that favor Ukraine. The unconditional anti-war types might not support Russia, but their position benefits Russia. That benefit to Russia is why that position is intolerable to the rest who feel it is unconscionable to do anything at all that benefits Russia's genocidal war of conquest. Also while it often doesn't reflect how people feel internally, a non-trivial amount of the time it does seem to reflect an actual pro-Russian sentiment. On a personal note, I'm literally a pacifist (because I'm an idiot who wishes we lived in a better world) so I deeply respect anti-war sentiment and very much understand how it can feel like sort of a life vest against how horrible humans can be. However there is no pacifistic virtue in being passive while people are being invaded, murdered, tortured, and having their lives looted and destroyed. I don't say that to suggest everyone needs to tangibly take up arms or whatever (that's very much not my point, in fact), but rather that non-action in the face of injustice is not a virtue in any way. In this specific case non-action and people pushing unconditional anti-war perspectives de facto serve Russia's interests. For clarity sake: I have no idea where the twitter left as you called them falls, I'm talking about basically casually but earnestly left wing people, eg people at least as far to the left as the DSA and everything past there, and what you call 'movement' left, both American and European. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Oct 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 02:58
|
|
|
McGavin posted:What kind of idiot would say those things? Oh buddy, I suggest you never go to C-SPAM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:00
|
|
|
Jokers Gamble posted:Oh buddy, I suggest you never go to C-SPAM. That’s good advice for everyone
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:13
|
|
|
Chomsky is an evil idiot who is actually totally on team Russia, he just knows he has to couch all of his "Actually NATO is at fault and you should blame them for everything" bullshit with Russia criticism he doesn't actually mean. Because if he meant it, what NATO did or didn't do wouldn't matter. Besides, it's good not to listen to the dude who has never met a genocide he's either loved or denied, depending on what he thinks he can get away with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:14
|
|
|
Jokers Gamble posted:Oh buddy, I suggest you never go to C-SPAM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:I don't understand the part of being "generally anti-war" that has people doing things like protesting "NATO aggression" while being far less passionate about Russia not engaging in genocidal, fascist invasions (and allowing nations to non-violently deter said invasions). I do not think the main ideology at play for folks like Chomsky is "war bad." chomsky's maybe a bit of an outlier as an established outspoken public figure rather than yet another twitter rando, but for the latter category russia has recognized and capitalized on crowds' spectacular ability to propagate bullshit. if you spread talking points in a community long enough, at least some of them will probably catch on and spread organically. they target communities with fringe views (on both the right and the left) and let the message propagate and eventually get laundered away from its original origins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:33
|
|
|
Chomsky is a loving idiot - I don't get why people constantly bring him up. If it's not linguistics related IDGAF what his myopic opinion is. He's about as relevant on these topic as any other dipshit celebrity
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Chomsky is a loving idiot - I don't get why people constantly bring him up. If it's not linguistics related IDGAF what his myopic opinion is. He's about as relevant on these topic as any other dipshit celebrity Even on the topic of linguistics his primary contributions are being as wrong as loving possible, running more correct people out of the field, and then stealing their ideas and proclaiming them his own. This is the dude who claimed that the Hutus were the real victims of the Rwanda genocide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 04:31
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Chomsky is a loving idiot - I don't get why people constantly bring him up. If it's not linguistics related IDGAF what his myopic opinion is. He's about as relevant on these topic as any other dipshit celebrity This, but also as a millennial who's political awareness really only blossomed in the early 2000s I don't really understand why he's even remotely a public figure with an opinion worthy of mention by the powers that be. Was there some period where him being a famous linguist for some reason translated into him being a trusted figure in other contexts? How the hell does that jive with the generalized trend of anti-intellectualism we see in American discourse? In short: How the gently caress is this myopic fossil someone I have consider in two thousand loving twenty two?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
The Strangest Finch posted:This, but also as a millennial who's political awareness really only blossomed in the early 2000s I don't really understand why he's even remotely a public figure with an opinion worthy of mention by the powers that be. Was there some period where him being a famous linguist for some reason translated into him being a trusted figure in other contexts? How the hell does that jive with the generalized trend of anti-intellectualism we see in American discourse? In short: How the gently caress is this myopic fossil someone I have consider in two thousand loving twenty two? Leftists on these very forums have called him the most important linguistic mind for leftist language, so yes. As far as I know, he got his fame decades ago when he'd deny obvious genocides and wrote lots of stuff about America Bad. And yes, that's why I am fired up to push back against any stupid thing he says.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 04:43
|
|