|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Remember when this thread was all about Hillary Clinton's idiotic decision to make the election about Trump's terrible racism, as opposed to appealing to the economic calculus of midwestern voters?
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Benefits for who? In fact WWII Germany lived off the spoils of conquered territory and slave labor. And for the people who weren't rounded up as enemies of the regime, quality of life was pretty good until they started losing the war. That's very basic history. And how any kind of exploitation works. Someone loses, someone else benefits. Don't forget the cash and valuables the Nazi's stole from Jews either as the "tax" for being allowed to leave Germany or otherwise outright claimed post murder. The houses and belongings were also stolen, so Jews who survived had nothing to return. The German rearmament was very much funded by Raubwirtschaft. Ardennes posted:Granted, there is an argument to be made if the Nazis had simply kept everything running relatively smoothly rather than starving/murdering entire categories of people they could have gotten more out of their conquests. Abandoning the racial policies of the Nazi state--particularly with regard to the Slavs--would have completely changed the tenor of the war in the east. Treating the conquered Slavic peoples as untermensch (vis-a-vis hypothetically playing the liberator/protector from Russia) was a strategic, political and, of course, moral disaster.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're arguing with a person who can be convinced of the folly of Naziism with an economic argument, and you choose not to make that argument because it gives you bad feels, you are a moron.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Remember when this thread was all about Hillary Clinton's idiotic decision to make the election about Trump's terrible racism, as opposed to appealing to the economic calculus of midwestern voters? Then we took the red pill; stayed in Wonderland, and we're seeing how deep the rabbit hole really goes. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I mean, it seems like you should be concerned with poor people facing higher food prices, but I'm not really surprised that you aren't. Ahahah, JC shows his true colors once again with the "minimum wage hurts the poor because price increases" masterstroke, tactically tearing down the jenga tower of concern for labor welfare he had been building over many posts
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Remember when this thread was all about Hillary Clinton's idiotic decision to make the election about Trump's terrible racism, as opposed to appealing to the economic calculus of midwestern voters? Yeah man, that was actually...  ...oh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Remember when this thread was all about Hillary Clinton's idiotic decision to make the election about Trump's terrible racism, as opposed to appealing to the economic calculus of midwestern voters? This isn't the same thing at all, because "how much product can a company sell" isn't the same thing as "people are poor and struggling financially." Not all economic arguments are created equal, and arguing from the perspective of how much money businesses can make isn't comparable to arguing about the money not-rich individuals make*. And that's not even getting into the way American farms overproduce, so it's not like this is food that would have otherwise fed starving people. *I'm using my crystal ball, and it is showing me a future where JC argues about how the performance/profitability of businesses is also important to American workers/poor people, and thus there's no differences between things that harm a business's bottom line and things that harm American workers. vvvv Hahahah it looks like I was sorta right (I wrote the above before seeing the post below) JeffersonClay posted:I mean, it seems like you should be concerned with poor people facing higher food prices, but I'm not really surprised that you aren't. You do realize that these same arguments can be used to argue in favor of all sorts of ghoulish things, like eliminating minimum wage, eliminating various labor standards, etc, right? Basically any policy that would increase costs to a business can be argued against by saying "it might increase costs for the consumer." It is transparently obvious that you're trying to come up with any sort of reasoning that could possibly be used against those dastardly leftists, regardless of how ridiculous that reasoning may be (or in this case whether that reasoning is Literally Republican Arguments).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/897562409476517888
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Despite how nice it wold be otherwise, irrational hate is a very human thing, and a lot of people think or at least have intellectual blind spots from not thinking through things that are inevitably destructive towards society a whole. However, often, people with horrible views can be persuaded with reason if you can connect to their humanity and make a decent argument. Even for white nationalists or anti-abortion people, a good argument made in good faith can actually some times change minds, maybe not convert them to secular liberals that support a welfare state for the best reasons, but a manageable consensus based on a shared desire for a prosperous and moral society. Having said that... JeffersonClay posted:I mean, it seems like you should be concerned with poor people facing higher food prices, but I'm not really surprised that you aren't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
I do think that the "Trump is sexist and racist" line has brought out the most vocal and open marches-on-the-street against Trump - the outrage doesn't seem to be of the same volume as the healthcare poo poo - so Hillary running on that, especially given she'd be criticized for a glaring lack of credibility were she to say, after the primaries, "actually, single payer", wasn't a bad idea. She just had too much baggage herself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Dear Leader cannot fail, but rather can only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Yeah! It wasn't like she smeared herself or anythi- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno Uhh...  Oh. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Benefits for who? In fact WWII Germany lived off the spoils of conquered territory and slave labor. And for the people who weren't rounded up as enemies of the regime, quality of life was pretty good until they started losing the war. That's very basic history. And how any kind of exploitation works. Someone loses, someone else benefits. JC's entire worldview revolves around justifying horrendous poo poo on economic grounds. Remember, this is the guy who thinks sweatshops are good because they create jobs and provide cheap goods. By his logic the Third Reich simply couldn't have been economically successful because if they were then Nazis would be good. Hrmmmmm... Maybe because she was dogshit? Still don't regret my Stein vote btw. Hell, the way things are going I'm thinking of making it a tradition!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Ahahah, JC shows his true colors once again with the "minimum wage hurts the poor because price increases" masterstroke, tactically tearing down the jenga tower of concern for labor welfare he had been building over many posts No, deporting farm workers causing crops to rot in the fields increases the price of those crops. That's a good thing to point out if you're defending immigrant laborers from racist alt-right talking points. Goddamn this thread is dumb. Ytlaya posted:You do realize that these same arguments can be used to argue in favor of all sorts of ghoulish things, like eliminating minimum wage, eliminating various labor standards, etc, right? Basically any policy that would increase costs to a business can be argued against by saying "it might increase costs for the consumer." It is transparently obvious that you're trying to come up with any sort of reasoning that could possibly be used against those dastardly leftists, regardless of how ridiculous that reasoning may be (or in this case whether that reasoning is Literally Republican Arguments). Eliminating the minimum wage would lower prices slightly and lower wages significantly. That's a net loss for the poor. I'm sorry you can't hold both parts of that argument in your head simultaneously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
interesting how even mitt romney has called out nazis for being nazis but hillary has not
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
watching jeffersonclay's descent from tedious Serious Poster with a ratfucking fetish to just a bitter angry rear end in a top hat has been pretty fun btw
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Hrmmmmm... Maybe because she was dogshit? Studies show people tend to make the same dumbass mistakes throughout their lives
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:watching jeffersonclay's descent from tedious Serious Poster with a ratfucking fetish to just a bitter angry rear end in a top hat has been pretty fun btw
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
you can tell carrying water for the liberals is breaking his brain, but it's breaking it in a way that makes him more likely to continue doing it he'll be repeating this same poo poo over and over as the redhats are marching him off to the gas chambers, and when the guy next to him in there tells him to shut the gently caress up about hillary so he can die in peace, he'll call him an illiterate moron
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:you can tell carrying water for the liberals is breaking his brain, but it's breaking it in a way that makes him more likely to continue doing it A Netflix Original™ starring Adam Sandler and Kevin James!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:A Netflix Original™ starring Adam Sandler and Kevin James!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:I don't think Netflix makes the kind of movie that would be about JC. Have you seen just how many movies they've made with Adam Sandler?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:interesting how even mitt romney has called out nazis for being nazis but hillary has not Interesting that this thread is so highly impacted by posters with terrible reading comprehension https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/896463528697188352 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/896463708875931649
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Interesting that this thread is so highly impacted by posters with terrible reading comprehension
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Interesting that this thread is so highly impacted by posters with terrible reading comprehension She is just awful at messaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:shut the gently caress up so I can die in peace  
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
how is it that mitt romney can straight out call these people nazis, but hillary clinton can't https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/897612532386607104 vs https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/896463528697188352
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
If this is some brilliant pedantry gambit to make an important distinction between nazis and white supremacists, my hat is off to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
We do remember that Hillary and Romney probably didn't write those tweets, right? Same with the Harris tweets as well for that matter, politicians' Twitter accounts are overwhelmingly handled by staffers most of the time. That doesn't make what they chose to put there not important, but arguing over whether "white supremacists" is specific enough versus "Nazis" on the basis of what the staffers chose to say is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Nah, it's that if this tweet were coming from a Republican, I would read "My heart is in Charlottesville today, and with everyone made to feel unsafe in their country." and "the incitement of hatred that got us here" as including condemnation of the "alt-left". The only way I read it as not including the alt-left is for it to refer specifically to Donald Trump, but that isn't obvious and I really think she should have just named him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We do remember that Hillary and Romney probably didn't write those tweets, right? even trump can denounce these guys as white supremacists. but they carry swastika flags, sieg heil, and joke about putting people in concentration camps and ovens. they're nazis, plain and simple
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how is it that mitt romney can straight out call these people nazis, but hillary clinton can't
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
i dont see the word nazi in her twits
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:Nah, it's that if this tweet were coming from a Republican, I would read "My heart is in Charlottesville today, and with everyone made to feel unsafe in their country." and "the incitement of hatred that got us here" as including condemnation of the "alt-left". The only way I read it as not including the alt-left is for it to refer specifically to Donald Trump, but that isn't obvious and I really think she should have just named him. I mean that's delving into Rorshach test type poo poo where everything comes down to the contextual interpretation of the person reading it. The full statement without breaking it into tweets is: "My heart is in Charlottesville today, and with everyone made to feel unsafe in their country. But the incitement of hatred that got us here is as real and condemnable as the white supremacists in our streets. Every minute we allow this to persist through tacit encouragement or inaction is a disgrace, & corrosive to our values." In the context of the public statements made by Hillary Clinton in the last year alone and the literal text of the statement, I don't think you can reasonably argue it supports both sidesism. Condiv posted:even trump can denounce these guys as white supremacists. but they carry swastika flags, sieg heil, and joke about putting people in concentration camps and ovens. they're nazis, plain and simple I mean, I agree, they are Nazis, but I don't think the semantic difference between calling them Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, etc., is important for the purposes of writing 1-3 tweets about how they bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, I agree, they are Nazis, but I don't think the semantic difference between calling them Nazis, fascists, white supremacists, white nationalists, etc., is important for the purposes of writing 1-3 tweets about how they bad. it is. white supremacists have a long storied tradition of being tolerated in this country. nazis much less so. nazis are frequently seen as unabashedly evil. white supremacists less so (undeservedly imo, but still). like, i'd accept fascist as interchangeable with nazi, but white supremacist doesn't evoke nearly as much revulsion so we should use the stronger term when justified (and wow is it justified with those asshats) imo, it's very important in combatting these manchild nazis to prod people to think of concentration camps, hitler, genocide etc when they think of these people, cause that's their end game! calling them white supremacist doesn't draw those parallels and is taking it easy on them Condiv fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is. white supremacists have a long storied tradition of being tolerated in this country. nazis much less so. nazis are frequently seen as unabashedly evil. white supremacists less so (undeservedly imo, but still). I mean, I could make the counter argument that making it clear that they are white supremacists and associating white supremacy with violence in the streets and vehicular homicide would be good in this context. But at the end of the day, things Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton also have in common is not being relevant anymore, and I just don't think that the specific language a Clinton staffer used in this case is important when it's clear what was meant and who is the bad guys. More broadly, I don't give a poo poo what Hillary tweets anymore, to be honest. I just think it's a dumb thing to worry about. if you don't that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, I could make the counter argument that making it clear that they are white supremacists and associating white supremacy with violence in the streets and vehicular homicide would be good in this context. with the nazi signifier, we get their current violence plus their well-known past violence brought to mind when people think of them. and they deserve those parallels being drawn because they love hitler and love joking about concentration camps! again, the white supremacist label takes it easy on them cause they lose their past historical baggage with that label quote:But at the end of the day, things Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton also have in common is not being relevant anymore, and I just don't think that the specific language a Clinton staffer used in this case is important when it's clear what was meant and who is the bad guys. More broadly, I don't give a poo poo what Hillary tweets anymore, to be honest. I just think it's a dumb thing to worry about. we've also had centrists calling trump "presidential" for just barely managing to denounce white supremacists i don't particularly care about hillary or romney, but our past leader should have more of a backbone than a republican when it comes to nazis imo Condiv fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Aug 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The full statement without breaking it into tweets is: "My heart is in Charlottesville today, and with everyone made to feel unsafe in their country. But the incitement of hatred that got us here is as real and condemnable as the white supremacists in our streets. Every minute we allow this to persist through tacit encouragement or inaction is a disgrace, & corrosive to our values." In the context of the public statements made by Hillary Clinton in the last year alone and the literal text of the statement, I don't think you can reasonably argue it supports both sidesism. What it isn't, and what Mitt Romney's tweet is, is an explicit defence of antifascism. That is not to say that Mitt Romney is an antifascist, but it does appear that if he's forced to choose between fascists and antifa, he'll side with antifa (even if at more than arms length), while all you'll get from Hillary is some hemming and hawing about the state of the discourse which got us here. Basically the best you get from her is a complaint about having to choose in the first place. She's loving gross. I'm ashamed I voted for her, even against Trump. Boo this horrible, horrible woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 05:00
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's not both sidesism, and it's about as close as you're going to get to a full-throated condemnation of fascism / white supremacy / nazism / literally anything, as you're going to get from Hillary Cliinton. I mean, I guess. I just think this is an extreme stance to take when we're not actually talking about public statements made by either of them, we're talking about Twitter accounts managed by staffers. It's very likely that they approved of the language, depending on their level of direct engagement with Twitter (we're talking about two very old people here, who the gently caress knows if Romney or Hillary even read Twitter?), but they didn't make these respective statements in speeches and it's second-hand at best. I think this would be a better argument if the tweets had been explicitly signed as directly from Hillary but they weren't, so
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:01 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, I guess. it's not particularly endearing that hillary had a staffer make her tweets about the charlottesville tragedy either if any event deserved a personal statement from democrats, it'd be one imo
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2017 05:07
|
|