|
E: quote not edit.
Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 13:51 on Oct 31, 2023 |
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Gyges posted:Here's an Intercept article about a 2020 FBI op Also, people should remember that the FBI acting that way is not something that is written in the stars (well, ACAB, but bear with me) - does anybody remember Obama redirecting DHS resources towards fighting domestic right-wing terrorism and Congress having a shitfit about it? That means it's yet another situation that can improved by voting - even if it is at the discretion of the executive and frustratingly slow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 13:43
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:Again, my dispute was with the idea that it's nigh-ubiquitous, and that it is impossible to overcome, not that it happens. But thank you for the interesting link. Cops investigating right wing terror is kinda like letting the fox investigate the missing chickens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Cops investigating right wing terror is kinda like letting the fox investigate the missing chickens. Yeah there's truth to that, I can only imagine how bloody Jan 6th would of gone if it was leftists doing that instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I know you're probed and can't respond to this but this is for the thread in general. The governor of California, a Democrat, recently vetoed a law that would protect trans kids. I know that's just one state but it's always brought up as the most progressive state that chuds hate the most. And to extend that to women, the Democrats got leaked a Supreme Court decision that was going to overturn Roe vs Wade and they did nothing. They had a majority and could have codified abortion as being legal nationwide but instead they said "hey donate a bunch of money and maybe we'll do something". They did not codify abortion as legal in this country because they did not want to. Democrat party leaders are also on record multiple times endorsing anti-choice Democrats who are running against pro-choice Democrats in certain House races I see only a couple of posters have thus far directly responded to one or two points, so I'll start off with that every claim in this post is either wrong, misleading, or otherwise has made a lot of unsupported assertions already addressed in previous discussion. IIRC "a Democrat, recently vetoed a law that would protect trans kids." is incorrect and as I understand it from what I can remember because the law passed was more of a feel good "optics" law that didn't meaningful increase protections over what was already in law? But if I'm incorrect I'm sure there's evidence somewhere to that effect. Regarding Roe vs Wade as I understand it many Dem controlled states worked rapidly to codify such protections into law, and seems like Dems did try to codify abortion rights into law, but Manchin blocked it and two Dems, not Dems as a whole, prevent the chamber from overcoming the filibuster in order to pass the law. I think its fair to be disappointed that the political will doesn't exist to force through good things like DC statehood to try to entrench Democratic control over the Senate over the GOP but it's also unfair to blame Dems as a whole when US politics doesn't work like that. And as had been mentioned multiple times before that you didn't respond to, until recently the right to have an abortion was settled law, why codify something that was already a legal right? IIRC "as others have mentioned that whole things started under Trump" is also not quite accurate, it is technically correct that in theory it "started" under Trump, but others pointed out that Trump was hardly likely to have kept his word, Biden was the one to ultimately hold to the deal and stick by a difficult process to its end, which matters way more. Additionally the earlier part of the sentence, "has done nothing good for this country on a grand scale" is also incorrect, billions of dollars was spent in landmark legislation that hasn't been seen since the Great Society and the New Deal which has done clearly a lot just looking at the economic data Leon posts in the thread. How are you even defining grand scale at this point? As a result, "Voting for Democrats does not result in good things. It results in slightly less bad things" unsupported opinion, see above. "we have the Parliamentarian that nobody ever mentioned" Your ignorance in the American political system is not the fault of the Dems. "they don't want to piss off the billionaires that control every single one of them. " I don't think this is true either. "All of their kids can get abortions if necessary with no problems. If any of them have LGBTQ family members they're perfectly safe because of money and power. They do not actually care about you or the women in your life or any of the immigrants at the Mexican border because all those camps are still there under the "less bad" party" This seems to just be opinion, and not really anything anyone can really reply to because it isn't a falsifable position and just seems to be polemnics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yeah even the libertarians have managed to take over and ruin a town or two, have the leftists managed the same anywhere? As a puling leftist shithead, I think their actions are incredibly shortsighted and if it doesn't serve to swing VT purplish within the next 10-15 years, will ensure the continued bullshit of voting "not that kind of Republican!" for governors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I know you're probed and can't respond to this but this is for the thread in general. The governor of California, a Democrat, recently vetoed a law that would protect trans kids. I know that's just one state but it's always brought up as the most progressive state that chuds hate the most. And to extend that to women, the Democrats got leaked a Supreme Court decision that was going to overturn Roe vs Wade and they did nothing. They had a majority and could have codified abortion as being legal nationwide but instead they said "hey donate a bunch of money and maybe we'll do something". They did not codify abortion as legal in this country because they did not want to. Democrat party leaders are also on record multiple times endorsing anti-choice Democrats who are running against pro-choice Democrats in certain House races California is an absolutely perfect example here. For one thing, Newsom isn't "the Democrats", he's one guy. Large majorities in both houses of the California legislature backed the bill, and you're hyperfocusing on the one guy who didn't. If there were more Dems in the California state government, the bill could have potentially made it into law - even over Newsom's veto. Moreover, the bill he vetoed was just one bill in a large package of bills to protect trans kids, and he signed all the other ones. So although AB 957 was vetoed, these other bills were passed and signed into law: quote:This is the list of policies that passed: I think that's a whole loving lot better than "slightly less bad things". It may not be everything that could possibly be done, but it's still quite a bit! The idea that California Dems did jack poo poo for trans kids is clearly wrong here; it's propaganda spread by people who care more about attacking the Democrats than helping trans kids. Twitter, where it's impossible to fit any kind of nuance into tweets even if you want to, is quite poisonous to political discussion and makes this kind of stuff very easy to spread. As for abortion, the Dems put a bill on the floor to codify Roe, and 98% of Senate Dems voted for it. If the Dems had held just one more seat in the Senate, the bill would have been able to reach the passing margin - although, given the existence of the filibuster and Sinema's willingness to break with the party, they would have probably needed a few more seats rather than just one. It's not that people voted for Democrats and then Dems did nothing, it's that people voted for Democrats and then the Dems couldn't do it because not enough people voted for progressives. It's not like Manchin came out of nowhere or was a surprise to anyone who follows politics; his conservative leanings are well-known. Passing laws and policies has never been a binary "the party gets 51 votes, so the party gets everything it wants" situation. Similarly, the Senate Parliamentarian isn't just something that was made up out of thin air; the position has existed all along. You've never heard of the parliamentarian before is because the Dems have never tried to engage in so many procedural tricks to loophole their way through the Senate rules before. The parliamentarian's sudden prominence is a product of how much more radical the Dems have become since 2008, and how much harder they're willing to push for policies they want despite increasingly thin margins. The reason the parliamentarian was such a big deal in the Biden administration is because the Dems under Biden tried to stretch the reconciliation rules far harder than the Dems ever did during the Obama administration. That said, if you've been following politics since the Clinton era, you should have seen the Senate Parliamentarian in the news before; as the position suddenly becomes quite important whenever the Senate margin is thin. There were a number of parliamentarian-related disputes in the early 00s when the GOP was dealing with a similarly slim Senate margin, and politics writers kept a close eye on the parliamentarian when Obama was trying to use reconciliation to pass PPACA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:the "less bad" party My sister is a high school teacher in Florida. She has a tran students and if she uses their preferred pronouns or the name they want to be called she will be fired. So she avoids names for them entirely and uses non gender ways to greet them. The school I went to is famous for the “curly hair” valedictorian speech. If you haven’t seen it it’s worth a watch. I need you to know that this stuff is incredibly present in anyone’s life (trans or not) in a red state right now. You either know that or you don’t. If you don’t you are merely naive. If you are merely naive you should be listening to the things real people are telling is happening. If you are not naive and you do know these things are happening and are making these arguments anyway, you need to know you are being a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Cops investigating right wing terror is kinda like letting the fox investigate the missing chickens. I mean, it is pretty clear that the FBI, by and large, sucks. Giuliani loyalists in the Southern NY office are arguably responsible for Trump’s entire presidency. But the problem is not the letters “FBI,” or the idea of federal investigative agencies; it’s the people who run it and their priorities that are the problem. And you can’t just clear it out overnight, especially when the president has pledged to let the DOJ operate independently. It’s unsatisfying*, but I think the proper course of action is working on improving the conduct of the FBI, and its transparency, so as to make sure it is holding itself to those standards. It is not to abolish the FBI, which is currently a goal of the far right, who can see clearly that the (highly educated, professionalized) FBI is hostile to their goals, because their goals include doing lots of crimes. The FBI is run by “cops,” but without it the American public would absolutely be subject to more right wing terror, more scams, more organized crime, more wage theft, more civil rights violations. The FBI is not the people out kneeling on black men’s necks until they die, and it does valuable things. Unless you are insistent that all forms of “law enforcement” need to go in a single bucket, it is pretty clear that they are distinct from cops on the street and have different (and arguably fewer) moral weaknesses. * Re: dissatisfaction: sometimes things are unsatisfying, but we have to live with them. We all accept this in our day to day, non-political lives. It sucks that I have to go to work every day. It sucks that most people can’t take transit to work. It sucks that parents can’t spent more time with their kids. It sucks that some people get fat way more easily than others. It sucks that people get cancer. I am not saying this to say that we should give up on improving things, and I think it’s extremely important that people maintain their ideals, even if they must vote in a way that does not fully represent them. It’s just that there is no plausible reason to expect nothing about a government for and by 300,000,000 people to be inefficient, ineffective, or inexcusable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:It's a major reason why American socialists (to distinguish from the broader 'the left' that some use to include the Democrats) are a nebulous blob of directionless, leaderless malcontents operating on vibes. The libertarians took over towns (not cities) by voting in elections, while the leftists set up a tent camp on public property and put "no cops allowed" signs on the entrances like it was a cartoon. DeadlyMuffin posted:It sounds like the solution is to have leftists vote in Democratic primaries so that Democratic politicians are as afraid of primary challengers from the left as Republican ones are from the right. That's a mistaken impression, and one that I see a lot. Rather than that, the solution is to work to shift people who vote in Democratic primaries to the left (by convincing current primary voters to move left and by convincing non-voters to come in and vote for the left). Republican voters showing up and pushing the party right didn't just randomly happen one day: it was the outcome of decades of work by right-wing advocates to pull as many people to the far right as they could. They showed up and voted for their beliefs, but they also attempted to get more people voting for the same things they wanted. Voting is the end of the political process, the result of political work. Voting isn't how you change things, it's how you see the changes you made bear fruit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The libertarians took over towns (not cities) by voting in elections, while the leftists set up a tent camp on public property and put "no cops allowed" signs on the entrances like it was a cartoon. They also had multiple billionaires funding an absolutely massive right wing media empire and taking monopolistic control of whole media networks (eg, clearchannel, Sinclair, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:All of their kids can get abortions if necessary with no problems. If any of them have LGBTQ family members they're perfectly safe because of money and power. People in states with governments run by the Democratic Party… Main Paineframe posted:The libertarians took over towns (not cities) by voting in elections, while the leftists set up a tent camp on public property and put "no cops allowed" signs on the entrances like it was a cartoon. CHAZ leader: “It says no cops. We’re allowed to have one.” Officer Johnson: “A-hyuck!” Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Oct 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
gently caress off with your condescending bullshit. There's a massive difference between Newsrom vetoing a bill that would have been good but at least it was in the context of a state that has passed some of the strongest LGBT protections in this country, and the Republican think tanks drafting policy plans for how a Republican administration can most expediently eliminate "gender ideology" (i.e. the ideology that trans people exist), use the government to pressure healthcare providers to stop gender affirming care, and generally criminalize queer existence (such as making it a sexual offense to go to the bathroom), and Republican state governments being test labs for testing these policies out on a state level. I've never said the Dems are good or that they care about LGBT people, and I certainly don't believe that. All I've said is they're not the party that is actively pursuing the eradication of queer people from public life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:I know you're probed and can't respond to this but this is for the thread in general. The governor of California, a Democrat, recently vetoed a law that would protect trans kids. I know that's just one state but it's always brought up as the most progressive state that chuds hate the most. And to extend that to women, the Democrats got leaked a Supreme Court decision that was going to overturn Roe vs Wade and they did nothing. They had a majority and could have codified abortion as being legal nationwide but instead they said "hey donate a bunch of money and maybe we'll do something". They did not codify abortion as legal in this country because they did not want to. Democrat party leaders are also on record multiple times endorsing anti-choice Democrats who are running against pro-choice Democrats in certain House races You're getting mildly dog-piled for this post, but I just want to add. People are correct to point to the things like trans rights and other Democratic policies that are easily, demonstrably better than Republicans' plans, but I want to bring up a more personal point. Hi ElephantAmbush! Remember me, the guy who played Gloomhaven with you a bunch? If it wasn't for the watered-down bullshit imperceptibly better than nothing ACA I'd be dead. I almost died while between health insurances and that policy is the reason why I got to get surgery and, y'know, didn't loving die. The ACA does nowhere near enough, it's a pretty lovely implementation of any of its policy aims, but it's still the sole reason I'm alive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
I don’t want to come across as excusing everything Democrats do, but I do want to talk about that bill Newsom vetoed, just to put it in context and explain how the law didn’t really do anything. - Trans status is already a protected class in CA. - This means that parents who deny their kids’ identities are, legally, being abusive, and that is already held against them in custody disputes, just as much as if you were a dick to your kid because they were a cis girl or gay or half black. - The law directed judges to consider parental recognition of trans status. It didn’t actually mandate any action whatsoever. Which is to say, it did literally nothing, and was purely a messaging bill/would have been a “messaging law.” The fact that the bill didn’t actually do anything probably has a lot to do with the legislature not bothering to overturn the veto. Newsom’s stated reason for vetoing the bill is a concern for the complexity of the state code. That would be a super weak excuse for actual denial of rights, but none has occurred. I don’t doubt that Newsom’s veto was cynical triangulation to appear “even handed” on trans issues, because that’s kind of his whole thing, and it’s pretty gross. But he did also sign the most sweeping trans rights package in the country at the same time, so… Contrast with Republicans. I hope that after Dobbs people are not under the impression that they don’t mean it when they talk about outlawing trans people and forcing them into the shadows, or into a prison for the opposite gender, where they will be literally tortured. That is, the ones who don’t commit suicide. Misunderstood fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
It's also notable that Newsom is doing this for a future presidential campaign, and the Democrat in these kind of examples is usually him or Eric Adams, not like Roy Cooper.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
It seems a lot of Muslim and Arab Americans have already made their calculations about what they will and won't support in a Democrat. Full-throated and unceasing support for Israel might end up costing Biden in some important states (Michigan) that have large communities of these folks. https://twitter.com/YasmeenSerhan/status/1719374204980662649
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:It seems a lot of Muslim and Arab Americans have already made their calculations about what they will and won't support in a Democrat. Full-throated and unceasing support for Israel might end up costing Biden in some important states (Michigan) that have large communities of these folks. I wonder if we'll get a new take on the "For every voter we lose to X, we'll gain 2 from Y" logic that worked so well in Hillary's favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Pragmatic liberals like me love to say "it wasn't Democrats who failed to pass all the good stuff in 2021, it was two specific Democrats." And while one of those two specific Democrats, Manchin, is the proverbial "he'd get replaced by a Republican if we ever primaried him," we can't ignore that Sinema was going to get primaried so hard that she left the party two years early. And in one of the purplest of states, it looks like that isn't even going to remotely hurt the Dems (though it's way early).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The libertarians took over towns (not cities) by voting in elections, while the leftists set up a tent camp on public property and put "no cops allowed" signs on the entrances like it was a cartoon. I’m reminded of all the fuss over the right wing takeovers of school boards (not talking about the cases where psychos violently disrupted proceedings). They didn’t do anything nefarious, they just showed up and voted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:I’m reminded of all the fuss over the right wing takeovers of school boards (not talking about the cases where psychos violently disrupted proceedings). They didn’t do anything nefarious, they just showed up and voted. More precisely, well funded right wing organizations organized them and funded them and motivated them with propaganda. It didn't all happen spontaneously just because right wingers care more. They were made to care.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
"Just showed up and voted"? Yes, and the Normandy Invasion was just a bunch of Army guys from Tennessee on leave. Scale. When you have historically low turnouts, directed get out the vote campaigns are literally the easiest way to win elections locally. It's a tactic depending on how it's used. Unless you're being obtuse to prove a point?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
So now that the house has a speaker, are they actually doing anything? I haven't seen much of any news about budgets or some sort of deal to not have a shutdown in a few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I wonder if we'll get a new take on the "For every voter we lose to X, we'll gain 2 from Y" logic that worked so well in Hillary's favor. For every blue Arab American they lose, they'll gain two zionists ex post facho posted:It seems a lot of Muslim and Arab Americans have already made their calculations about what they will and won't support in a Democrat. Full-throated and unceasing support for Israel might end up costing Biden in some important states (Michigan) that have large communities of these folks. It's an incredible mistake Biden and other Democrats are making. I've seen some people write their Democrat representatives and gotten back harrowing responses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:So now that the house has a speaker, are they actually doing anything? I sure hope not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It sounds like the solution is to have leftists vote in Democratic primaries so that Democratic politicians are as afraid of primary challengers from the left as Republican ones are from the right. I mean, isn't that what the DSA is supposed to be doing, only to find that when Democratic politicians are afraid of primary challengers from the left, they just change the rules so they can't be challenged from the left? There's a common thread I've noticed in a lot of these discussions that portrays the government, the Dems, the cops or the military as neutral entities that can be swayed if only you
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
.
mannerup fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Nov 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I mean, isn't that what the DSA is supposed to be doing, only to find that when Democratic politicians are afraid of primary challengers from the left, they just change the rules so they can't be challenged from the left? Except DSA members are winning elections, so the rule changes to keep them from challenging more centrist Democrats don't appear to be working very well. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_public_officeholders mannerup posted:Democrats already have veto-proof supermajorities in both chambers of the California State legislature, the Democratic Party did not want that specific bill to pass. Its completely disingenuous to blame it on there just not being enough Democrats in the California state government. Not all Democrats are equal. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 31, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:I mean, isn't that what the DSA is supposed to be doing, only to find that when Democratic politicians are afraid of primary challengers from the left, they just change the rules so they can't be challenged from the left? I think you’ve highlighted a very important distinction; the left part of the spectrum has structural critiques that far outpace the policy critiques of the right part of the spectrum. It would be comparable if the right wing of the electorate had a meaningful number of monarchists that had structural critiques of representative democracy, or some other meaningful difference when it comes to the actual composition of governmental structures that differs from their representatives, but they don’t. Whereas that level of critique is present on the left, and requires that the Democrats deal with their left wing in far different ways than the Republicans deal with their right wing. This arises in a ton of left-liberal conflicts—ie can a for-profit medical system ever deliver just results? Can you ever really solve homelessness if you insist shelter is going to be a market? Can you meaningfully change foreign relations and our status as a global exporter of violence and oppression if you don’t change the underlying economic systems that depend on us opening markets at gunpoint?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 19:59
|
|
|
selec posted:I think you’ve highlighted a very important distinction; the left part of the spectrum has structural critiques that far outpace the policy critiques of the right part of the spectrum. Mentioning for-profit medical care is touching on a point that is very, very radically different between the two. Billionaires generally aren't funding leftist organizations with the expectation of a positive return on investment, that's kinda the opposite of what leftist critiques lead to. Billionaires ARE, however, funding right wing insanity with the expectation that boots will be put on necks and labor will be crushed with the tools of racism. Those two processes are aligned in their incentives from the billionaire's point of view. Whether they're secretly heil-ing Hitler in their heart of hearts or they just want even more billions, both things intertwine with and reinforce each other with the leaning-towards-fascism path the US is taking. It's a completely unmatched resource for funding, organizing, and maintaining political pressure in the direction they want the country to go. People get tired, old, beaten down or beaten up/murdered and at the end of the day have to take care of themselves at some point. Money never sleeps, and billionaires will never run out of more of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
That’s very true. Money can flow to both parties to fund the ultimate goal of preserving the ability to bankrupt patients, with a stretch goal of making it so hospitals don’t have to serve anyone without insurance or cash. What’s the appropriate left-wing response to those billions of dollars that isn’t “vote for the people taking the bribes?” I’d say the only one I think would work is a national movement that makes it too painful for leadership to continue on the status quo, extract a price so high that we don’t end up with a “reform” bill that forces us all to become customers of the profit-takers. My vote will never be able to compete with the money stacked on the other side; and as we’ve seen, who else am I gonna vote for? Withholding my vote is unacceptable, so just vote in the primary and pray they don’t get bribed? Mug’s game, imo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:It seems a lot of Muslim and Arab Americans have already made their calculations about what they will and won't support in a Democrat. Full-throated and unceasing support for Israel might end up costing Biden in some important states (Michigan) that have large communities of these folks. This chunk of that article is sure something and pretty much matches what I got from talking with my retired neighbor who comes by canvassing for every local election and some old friends in the DSA. Sure seems like even the more electorally focused lefty folks are pretty loving mad / doomerist about the Israel response. That press briefing yesterday where protestors got compared to the Charlottsville Nazis has my friends mad in a way I normally have to visit cspam to see. quote:“Look, we’re not silly—we know what Trump has done to our communities,” says Amer Zahr, the president of the Dearborn-based New Generation for Palestine. But when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he continues, “The policies are basically the same. Except when Trump does it, you get some pushback from the Democratic Party.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Not all Democrats are equal. So why would one be expected to vote for a Democrat who has no intention of passing the beneficial legislation one would want them to pass, if there was an option to vote for someone who did want to pass that legislation?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
selec posted:That’s very true. Money can flow to both parties to fund the ultimate goal of preserving the ability to bankrupt patients, with a stretch goal of making it so hospitals don’t have to serve anyone without insurance or cash. I mean leftists need money, power, leadership, and direction. I'm not sure how an intellectual bloc pools money for purposes of centralizing its goals, its a group that is actively hostile to money and distrustful of those who keep it, but you need some to achieve policy goals if that's the route you want to take. Hell even a revolution needs money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
Kalli posted:
Maybe I'm missing something here, but does impotent, hollow, meaningless harumph-ing make any difference in the grand scheme of things if the immediate outcome is the same?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Hello all. I've received some complaints about the perennial accelerationism vs. incrementalism and voting vs. not voting arguments cropping up in this thread recently without enough interesting material to justify the amount of posts spent on it. So, from here on, I ask that when dealing with these topics everyone take particular time and use particular effort to make sure that your arguments are original or rigorous. By originality, I mean that it is not rhetoric everyone is likely to have heard before, but is a way of framing these issues and supporting your side that you yourself have come up with. And by rigor, I mean including historical examples where something did or didn't work, specific predictions of what might happen, detailed descriptions of the political systems where they would be applied, etc. I'm also going to include this as a potential issue to discuss in the next feedback thread, which will be about how to deal with the coming election season. Until then, please provide any feedback you'd like to me via PMs, as I read and and (if desired) respond to all of them. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:So now that the house has a speaker, are they actually doing anything? I haven't seen much of any news about budgets or some sort of deal to not have a shutdown in a few weeks. They proposed an aid package to Israel that is offset by equal cuts to the IRS, which I would assume would be DOA in the senate but the Irsael has an intoxicating effect on politicians so I don't know how rational anyone is capable of being.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I wonder if we'll get a new take on the "For every voter we lose to X, we'll gain 2 from Y" logic that worked so well in Hillary's favor. And it's loving galling. I was willing to give Biden a lot of credit for taking the political hit and pulling out of Afghanistan, but he's lost all that and more with me for how he's handling a god drat genocide. I just think it's a fantasy to imagine that doing this horrible thing is hurting him electorally more than doing the right thing would- he'd be hurting worse if he did the right thing. At least that's my hunch. I'd be interested to hear arguments to the contrary. Last I heard calling for a ceasefire was a reasonably popular position among the electorate, but I bet that would change if Biden did it and the media could portray him as anti-Israel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:Unless you're being obtuse to prove a point? Not going to bother responding to this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Dubar posted:They proposed an aid package to Israel that is offset by equal cuts to the IRS, which I would assume would be DOA in the senate but the Irsael has an intoxicating effect on politicians so I don't know how rational anyone is capable of being. The Senate Dems have already signaled they won't take it up if it even passes the House, and the administration would veto it if by some twist of fate it did. The IRS investment was a cornerstone part of the IRA, and Biden's not going to torpedo that even under the current circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 22:00
|
|
