|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She did? Citation needed, all I remember was some incredibly milquetoast poo poo that seemed like it was primarily concerned about not spooking investors in pharma stocks.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
Sapozhnik posted:Citation needed, all I remember was some incredibly milquetoast poo poo that seemed like it was primarily concerned about not spooking investors in pharma stocks. Yeah, I am not going to get into this if the standard is going to be whatever moving target of sufficient outrage you feel someone has to express before they tick the box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
i think "counting the republicans out" is a laughable position that should immediately disqualify someone's political opinions. we've been counting them out for over 10 years now including fantasizing about the total collapse of their party. yet here they are, back in control of everything and its the dems that have never seemed weaker
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I think no one who matters in an election. (The average voter) cares about specifics of whatever bullshit you're proposing is pretty clear. I am sorry if you have such a low comprehension. Okay so you advocate for a policy of lies and bullshitting. Interesting. But I think that this is part of what drives electoral apathy and cynicism, the sense that politicians never tell the truth about anything and everything is too complex for you to understand anyways.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think that far left policies are as popular as you think, while there's a whole bunch of white people who are more than on board with White First Nationalism. I don't see that at all. Picture a national runoff vote tomorrow morning between Sanders, Warren, Bannon and Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay so you advocate for a policy of lies and bullshitting. Interesting. But I think that this is part of what drives electoral apathy and cynicism, the sense that politicians never tell the truth about anything and everything is too complex for you to understand anyways. what are you talking about? it worked for the republicans for an entire generation with tremendous success
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i think "counting the republicans out" is a laughable position that should immediately disqualify someone's political opinions. we've been counting them out for over 10 years now including fantasizing about the total collapse of their party. I am not counting them out. I am pointing out how their rigid orthodoxy and insane ALL OR NOTHING has caused actual problems for them in getting to their policy goals. But whatever, if you think the best way to accomplish leftist ideals is to tell everyone who doesn't agree with every single policy proposal to the letter they're neonazis who are collaborators, go right ahead. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't see that at all. Picture a national runoff vote tomorrow morning between Sanders, Warren, Bannon and Trump. That's some magical thinking on your part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I don't see that at all. Picture a national runoff vote tomorrow morning between Sanders, Warren, Bannon and Trump. None of those people are on the far left, though. RaySmuckles posted:what are you talking about? it worked for the republicans for an entire generation with tremendous success And so of course the solution is to beat them at their own game.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:And so of course the solution is to beat them at their own game. i think their "game" is providing incredibly strong ideological leadership and selling their constituency on it. that's the game i want to play and i think its a winning strategy that will also do good for millions of people BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But whatever, if you think the best way to accomplish leftist ideals is to tell everyone who doesn't agree with every single policy proposal to the letter they're neonazis who are collaborators, go right ahead. i actually think name calling is a terrible idea. the right idea is provide good ideology and try to convince everyone that it'll work. see above
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am not counting them out. I am pointing out how their rigid orthodoxy and insane ALL OR NOTHING has caused actual problems for them in getting to their policy goals. are you talking about their faceplants during obama? their inability to override a presidential veto was a bigger hindrance
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i think their "game" is providing incredibly strong ideological leadership and selling their constituency on it. But you just said that their game was lying. It seems like you're just looking for reasons to pick a fight, which you can do at any given bar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay so you advocate for a policy of lies and bullshitting. Interesting. But I think that this is part of what drives electoral apathy and cynicism, the sense that politicians never tell the truth about anything and everything is too complex for you to understand anyways. Not being specific isn't a lie. Its just recognizing its best not to bore someone who you want to get to vote for you. If you deliver on your promise they 'll love you. Now on the other hand if its a shallow reflection of what you were promising that creates cynicism and apathy. Just ask people why they don't like Obamacare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:are you talking about their faceplants during obama? their inability to override a presidential veto was a bigger hindrance They had Obama onboard for major policy goals, and couldn't get it done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They had Obama onboard for major policy goals, and couldn't get it done. well they're going to get it done now despite their orthodoxy
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
actually it was probably better for them to gently caress up dealing with obama seeing as the end result was being awarded 2 and probably all 3 branches of government
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:well they're going to get it done now despite their orthodoxy I am still pretty skeptical about them being able to get a lot of the really, really big things done. They're going to do all kinds of terrible micro policy poo poo, but I think the window of really big policy changes are going to end up not happening when they trip over themselves constantly while the Furer continually self-immolates. At any rate, I just don't think you're ever going to be able to form that kind of a cohesive leftist block because I don't think Leftism lends itself to that kind of ridged orthodoxy, which is actually a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:But you just said that their game was lying. It seems like you're just looking for reasons to pick a fight, which you can do at any given bar. no, i just don't think talking a big game is the same as lying. you think running on leftist policy will result in promises that the dems won't be able to deliver. i'm saying that if they convince the electorate of actual leftist change and actually get voted into office then they'll be able to deliver if they fail, then they're in no worse condition then they are now
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I am still pretty skeptical about them being able to get a lot of the really, really big things done. They're going to do all kinds of terrible micro policy poo poo, but I think the window of really big policy changes are going to end up not happening when they trip over themselves constantly while the Furer continually self-immolates. Even if that's true, that's a pretty loving dangerous wager you're putting down. Moreover, I don't know what you consider "micro policy poo poo" but deporting legal residents and openly threatening the press corps is not what I would call "micro" Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Feb 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Even if that's true, that's a pretty loving dangerous wager you're putting down. I am pretty explicitly talking about the legislature, not Trump being a dictator.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:no, i just don't think talking a big game is the same as lying. Well, see, the lynchpin here is the "convincing the electorate" part, since if they promise leftist change and the electorate doesn't like that enough to give them a filibuster-proof majority without relying on Democrats from the Great Plains and mountain states, their ability to implement leftist change is pretty loving limited, dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, see, the lynchpin here is the "convincing the electorate" part, since if they promise leftist change and the electorate doesn't like that enough to give them a filibuster-proof majority without relying on Democrats from the Great Plains and mountain states, their ability to implement leftist change is pretty loving limited, dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How do you know that people from those states ddon't want change some of those states were the ones that just passed referendums to make their states better. Because when they elect Democrats they elect centrist or conservative Dems, so either there's a vast conspiracy or they currently prefer centrists and conservatives to liberals, generally speaking. Is this unchangeable? No. But is this something where you can assume everyone will be a good communist by 2020? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
jesus the Republicans are so loving ideologically rigid they can't even pass a loving tax cut
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, see, the lynchpin here is the "convincing the electorate" part, since if they promise leftist change and the electorate doesn't like that enough to give them a filibuster-proof majority without relying on Democrats from the Great Plains and mountain states, their ability to implement leftist change is pretty loving limited, dude. yeah, so fight like hell to convince people that the party's plans will work. we've seen republicans convince the electorate of all kinds of bullshit provide strong ideological leadership, run candidate who people trust will actually implement it, and don't compromise away your plans at the first sign of trouble we've seen the republicans do this for years and it works like a charm, even when their policies just make everything worse for their constituents and even when they fail to actually accomplish anything people are primed for change. they'll take it from any direction, even a buffoon like trump. bernie was incredibly popular despite coming out of the loving blue. he got 13.2 million votes to clinton's 16.8 million. that's a lot closer than the percentages make it appear. and i'm pretty sure that doesn't include caucus votes, though i could be wrong. so let's see what happens when the democrats actually provide a candidate that will fight for real change and is believed by the public. looks to me like a totally winning strategy. incremental changes within a mostly status quo offering are not going to get the electorate fired up. we just saw that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:yeah, so fight like hell to convince people that the party's plans will work. The assumption here is that people just want "change" and have no ideological beliefs of their own, so we can just declare "all power to the worker's soviets!" and Bob's your uncle. Which, ah, is not intuitively obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
I am glad I am actually involved in the democratic party and seriously considering parallel organizations along side. Because if TB, Brainic Five, and stone cold are any indication of the hapless rage-junkie that needs to define anyone besides their specific clique on this forum as being monsters that cannot be reasoned with, actual people will be a breeze to work with. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The assumption here is that people just want "change" and have no ideological beliefs of their own, so we can just declare "all power to the worker's soviets!" and Bob's your uncle. Which, ah, is not intuitively obvious. it wasn't obvious that a policy of proven-to-fail tax cuts and devastating deregulation would be popular either, but whelp, the republicans are back in power, bigger than ever. i definitely think people want change and the democrats have failed to provide any meaningful ideology to support their "subtle tweaks/stability managers" platform that has been failing for years. its telling that people that support current democratic policy are totally resistant to even trying anything else and quick to capitulate at the first sign of pushback.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:The assumption here is that people just want "change" and have no ideological beliefs of their own, so we can just declare "all power to the worker's soviets!" and Bob's your uncle. Which, ah, is not intuitively obvious. You keep coming back to this nihilistic counterpoint, and it's getting tiresome. If distilling diverse popular opinion into an ideology were as impossible as you seem to think, politics wouldn't exist. If you don't accept the basic premises of human social order, you're really not adding much to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Grognan posted:I am glad I am actually involved in the democratic party and seriously considering parallel organizations along side. Because if TB, Brainic Five, and stone cold are any indication of the hapless rage-junkie that needs to define anyone besides their specific clique on this forum as being monsters that cannot be reasoned with, actual people will be a breeze to work with. I have some bad news about actual people. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Because when they elect Democrats they elect centrist or conservative Dems, so either there's a vast conspiracy or they currently prefer centrists and conservatives to liberals, generally speaking. Is this unchangeable? No. But is this something where you can assume everyone will be a good communist by 2020? No. Did I say we'd have universal healthcare by 2020. No. However I do say that having the party actually stand for something will mean change can be achieved rather then near continuous retreat. People like politicians that can stand for something doesn't have to be complex, just you have to stand and believe in something. Yeah the Republicans believe utterly horrible things. But at least they believe in something. Most can not tell you what Dems believe in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i actually think name calling is a terrible idea. the right idea is provide good ideology and try to convince everyone that it'll work. What do we do about the part where Americans poll well for left wing ideas but vehemently hate the idea of government or tax increases, which are sort of necessary to pay for the things we'd like to do in the long-term? Republicans are free to run on whatever they want because they can always fall back on "government bad, here's a tax break, we didn't need that government service."
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What do we do about the part where Americans poll well for left wing ideas but vehemently hate the idea of government or tax increases, which are sort of necessary to pay for the things we'd like to do in the long-term? use better rhetoric. don't be afraid to attack the ruling/donor classes that mainstream republicans/the general public already despise. show them who their real enemies are and show them how they're being hosed. this is something the dems refuse to do because they don't want to alienate big money. its not going to be easy, hence the use of words like "strong" and "fight" there is plenty of low-hanging fruit that could be used, but isn't because it will alienate the much smaller, but more powerful donor class. we know that americans are really into "a fair deal." they just want to feel like they're being treated fairly. show them how democratic socialism will make things more fair and satisfy the needs and wants of the people. its not hard because the people won't accept it. its hard because the donor class is powerful and controls the media so they're quick to defend themselves. but we're already seeing people splinter away from the traditional media and levers of power. if the dems can provide a clear and strong message then i think they'll convince lots of people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What do we do about the part where Americans poll well for left wing ideas but vehemently hate the idea of government or tax increases, which are sort of necessary to pay for the things we'd like to do in the long-term? Tax the rich. The only reason the Republicans get away with yelling "class warfare" and "immigrants are the real problem" is because Democrats let them. No Democrat is willing to say this loudly and proudly, but they need to start. Tax the rich. They can afford it. Don't listen to their bullshit, they're devious fuckers. They owe you. Tax the rich. edit: ^^^ yeah what he said but less eloquently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:it wasn't obvious that a policy of proven-to-fail tax cuts and devastating deregulation would be popular either, but whelp, the republicans are back in power, bigger than ever. So why are you assuming that people don't support those policies for ideological reasons? Dr. Fishopolis posted:You keep coming back to this nihilistic counterpoint, and it's getting tiresome. If distilling diverse popular opinion into an ideology were as impossible as you seem to think, politics wouldn't exist. If you don't accept the basic premises of human social order, you're really not adding much to the conversation. It's not loving nihilistic to suggest that political opinion might need to be shifted, rear end in a top hat. Granted, you're obsessing about the prospects of doing so from the top down, so I don't think you're suited for the Democratic party, ha ha ha. Anyways, in order to enact change from the top down, you kind of need to get into power first and if people will be resisting communist ideas you might have to engage in some Fabianism. Which is not an esoteric branch of nihilism. Crowsbeak posted:Did I say we'd have universal healthcare by 2020. No. However I do say that having the party actually stand for something will mean change can be achieved rather then near continuous retreat. People like politicians that can stand for something doesn't have to be complex, just you have to stand and believe in something. Yeah the Republicans believe utterly horrible things. But at least they believe in something. Most can not tell you what Dems believe in. This is something that is solely a product of your self-absorbed bubble, dude. You should probably learn how to talk with regular people about politics, so that you can disentangle yourself from using jokes from The Big Lebowski to understand things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:its not hard because the people won't accept it. its hard because the donor class is powerful and controls the media so they're quick to defend themselves. but we're already seeing people splinter away from the traditional media and levers of power. if the dems can provide a clear and strong message then i think they'll convince lots of people. I think this is where you veer into fantasy world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:use better rhetoric. Republicans don't detest the ruling class unless by ruling class you mean wealthy Jewish and black people. I don't know what the loving "donor class" is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Tax the rich. I mean, you don't have to sell this to me. I just think that we underestimate this part of the problem of selling left-wing policy to Americans. Systemic ignorance of how the system works means that all too many people legitimately believe that we cannot afford to have nice things done by the government, or that things done by the government are strictly inferior, and overcoming decades of that kind of propaganda in the limited time we find ourselves with is a monumental task.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think this is where you veer into fantasy world. the media hated trump. he's now the president. "fake news" is the response from the ruling class that is desperate to shift people back into their controlled media monopoly. i don't see any fantasy in that. Brainiac Five posted:So why are you assuming that people don't support those policies for ideological reasons? yeah, the idea is to provide new ideology that convinces people. the current democrat's messaging and lack of ideology is not working. let's try putting out some strong ideology and standing by it so people believe in what we're selling instead of waiting for the dems to disappoint them/sell them out
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think this is where you veer into fantasy world. Well how about you present some sort of constructive idea instead of leaning back and sniping at people? All we've heard from you is why you think leftism is doomed to fail. Do you have a plan you'd rather try?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:31 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:yeah, the idea is to provide new ideology that convinces people. the current democrat's messaging and lack of ideology is not working. let's try putting out some strong ideology and standing by it so people believe in what we're selling instead of waiting for the dems to disappoint them/sell them out Why do you think that Republicans imposed ideology on people rather than crafting their policies to appeal to people's existing ideologies?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 07:11
|
|