|
paranoid randroid posted:i think u guys are assuming way too much cunning on the part of the democrats logikv9 posted:it's a conspiracy, it's a conspiracy i continue to insist as i post on somethingawful.com Much like the market distortions caused by oligarchic players, the result doesn't actually require conspiracy, only a group of people with similar interests acting in those best interests independently. There are probably some folks conspiring too, of course, but I don't think that's where the bulk of the resistance will come from, which will be "people clinging to power they don't want to lose who like things the way they are" and "opportunists who see an opening to get some power for themselves". But I don't think there's any sort of long term plan, just that it's the way all the various short sighted self interest is gonna line up.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:just a quick history lesson for y'all: obligatory What About FDR Because I'm 100% fine if we end up with FDR rather than full socialism now
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:well i mean the assumption here seems to either be that the dems are secretly cunning, or that theyll commit suicide to spite you personally.... these are my favorite ones btw, can we increase these?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:just a quick history lesson for y'all: there was also never a black or an orange pres, yet here we are
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:well i mean the assumption here seems to either be that the dems are secretly cunning, or that theyll commit suicide to spite you personally.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhWrDXvpgkM&t=21s
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:well i mean the assumption here seems to either be that the dems are secretly cunning, or that theyll commit suicide to spite you personally.... the assumption is that party elites are, well, elites, and don't actually face any real consequences from a republican being in power. losing to folks determined to remove them from the corporate teat is another matter, and is an outcome they don't want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Agean90 posted:there was also never a black or an orange pres, yet here we are
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
there were loads of indian presidents pre european illegal immigration!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
FireDooley posted:Getting ready for more holidays family politics discussions! Does anyone have a good rebuttal for the "Socialism only works in Scandinavia because they're small, culturally homogenous, and don't have a large 'lower class'" nonsense I have to hear from my fiscally conservative but socially liberal family? It seems kind of lame to workshop a response but I keep coming across this argument and I can't really think of a succinct answer. The last one is particularly infuriating because isn't that the whole point of socialism? They admit that we have inequality in this country, and that the system favors the rich, but every discussion just ends with "Well it just wouldn't work here". Maybe bring up that they also nationalized their resource extraction explicitly to fund that and that they tax their corporations properly. School, food, business grants, and housing being freely available helps entrepreneurs succeed in starting small businesses because they don't have to risk it all like we do in the USA. Well, it just wouldn't work here. Because we can't control or tax corporations like we used to before *segues into a full bernie rant about wall st.*
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:well i mean the assumption here seems to either be that the dems are secretly cunning, or that theyll commit suicide to spite you personally.... lmao if you don't think plenty of politicians are willing to firebomb their own careers if they think there's any chance they'll survive the flames and be allowed to rule the ashes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
loquacius posted:obligatory What About FDR FDR did a ton of Good poo poo, but he acted the way he did due to a plethora of pretty unique circumstances, as well as largely because of an actual American Left that was agitating and pushing him to do the things he did. The Democratic party of the time was certainly not "leftist" in any sense of the word
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Ellisons on the left side of the democrat spectrum, but hes hardly Eugene Debs and i think framing this like the political mainstream trying to stamp out socialist movements at the turn of the century is a little overwrought
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
I think we need a strong third party that totally is not democrats but involves themselves with them. Berniecrats
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:just a quick history lesson for y'all: Complete cooption? No, and I don't think we can get that even now. It's never going to stop being a coalition party. But a party where the left is significantly more relevant, and has a real power and a say in which policies are pursued and adopted? I think we've had that in the past. Right now it feels like the left doesn't even have a seat at the table, I don't think we need total domination to make the party better (although it would be nice) Like for me a lot of my agitation is based around either convincing politicians to do what the left wants or replacing them with people who will while giving the left the power to force their hand. I don't expect some sort of mass ideological dedication on the part of the party itself, I just want them to be less overtly complete poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:'nuff said The notion that you can just disregard entire demographic groups as the hardcore Hillfolk were promoting is just disgusting and it needs to be scrapped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Ellisons on the left side of the democrat spectrum, but hes hardly Eugene Debs and i think framing this like the political mainstream trying to stamp out socialist movements at the turn of the century is a little overwrought I genuinely don't believe 90% of the establishment gives two shits about Ellison. Like, again Schumer near instantly jumped on him, that's usually a sign 'the establishment' is fine with him. So far the only proof of some grand political civil war for the SOUL OF PROGRESSIVES is...another dude run and got a little support but still pretty much gonna be Ellison unless he shits the bed horribly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:just a quick history lesson for y'all: has the right wing done the same at any point? actually, yes - this election proves it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! I continue to insist as the new president slowly assembles a cabinet of oligarchs and plans to give himself and the other ultra-wealthy a tax cut
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i hate idpol isnt that what idpol means!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Al! posted:isnt that what idpol means!?!??!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? it's the cool way for leftists to say 'sjw'
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Serf posted:there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! I continue to insist as the new president slowly assembles a cabinet of oligarchs and plans to give himself and the other ultra-wealthy a tax cut people are asserting that Schumers endorsement of Ellison is a false flag attempt to discredit the left thats kinda kooky
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
welp at least with Trump it's now easy and 100% correct to say "this nation is run by and for the 1%"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Serf posted:there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! there's no corporate conspiracy to control america! I continue to insist as the new president slowly assembles a cabinet of oligarchs and plans to give himself and the other ultra-wealthy a tax cut There's no conspiracy, because there's no need to actually conspire when your interests align so well. That's the power of the free market!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
FDR got elected on a platform to "balance the budget" then basically said gently caress that and enacted the New Deal. His Congressional majorities got voted out and those who replaced them repealed half of the more radical stuff. The same happened with LBJ and the Great Society. Conservatism is comfortable, if completely poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
RENEGADE CUCKSKY posted:welp at least with Trump it's now easy and 100% correct to say "this nation is run by and for the 1%" trump is not the 1%, ergo, the country is not run by the 1% politifact rates this as "PANTS ON FIRE"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
i can't believe that opponents of my chosen candidates are attacking him my god this type of political brutality is awful
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:FDR got elected on a platform to "balance the budget" then basically said gently caress that and enacted the New Deal. His Congressional majorities got voted out and those who replaced them repealed half of the more radical stuff. The same happened with LBJ and the Great Society. Conservatism is comfortable, if completely poo poo. it's almost as if human nature tends towards conservatism and must be pulled kicking and screaming into the future
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
yea don't play into trump's fantasy about being an elite top player, that's 100% why he ran in the first place
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:people are asserting that Schumers endorsement of Ellison is a false flag attempt to discredit the left I don't think that's something "people" are seriously asserting. I will freely assert that I think Schumer will be more than happy to stick a dagger in Ellison's back the moment he thinks it is advantageous to do so, and that he's largely supporting Ellison because he thinks it is, practically speaking, the best direction to go in to acquire the outcomes he wants. I would love if that continued to be true, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:i can't believe that opponents of my chosen candidates are attacking him my god this type of political brutality is awful "I think you should vote for me, not the other guy." "My god...this establishment sponsored civil war has gotten truly brutal. I bet even if my guy wins it's all a conspiracy to blame him for everything anyway and REALLY get what the shadow masters want anyway..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:people are asserting that Schumers endorsement of Ellison is a false flag attempt to discredit the left I think Schumer can see which way the wind is blowing, and knows the dems are gonna crash hard in 2018 on the high tide of Trumpism. dude is playing the long game by backing the progressive. give them a turn at the wheel when you know there's ice on the road, and when they crash, you get to sweep right back in on the assurance that you'll do better
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:people are asserting that Schumers endorsement of Ellison is a false flag attempt to discredit the left it's not a ~false flag~ attempt or an attempt to discredit the left it's a political calculation: the party is literally the weakest it's ever been and will likely continue to be that way. If the situation was reversed, or even if the D's held the presidency, there's no way in hell they would have ceded control this easily. if Ellison fails, which he likely will (because the DNC chair is not as all powerful as a lot of y'all think it is), it'll be much easier for the ~centrists~ to say "we tried your approached and it failed, now fall back in line"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:"I think you should vote for me, not the other guy." has anyone actually said this yet
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
can we get a liberal version of infowars, this stuff would look great on the homepage
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I don't think that's something "people" are seriously asserting. you keep doing this weird thing where you just say 'that didn't happen' when within like 2 pages of now that you were posting in multiple people literally said it was possible that Ellison would only win to be some elaborate fall guy to fully destroy the leftist shift. Also cool imagery
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
the easiest assumption is that schumer considers himself a WINNER and he wants to WIN so he's going to back the horse he thinks will be the best to WIN but a long-term conspiracy to discredit the left gets more clicks
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Serf posted:I think Schumer can see which way the wind is blowing, and knows the dems are gonna crash hard in 2018 on the high tide of Trumpism. dude is playing the long game by backing the progressive. give them a turn at the wheel when you know there's ice on the road, and when they crash, you get to sweep right back in on the assurance that you'll do better If Ellison somehow manages to lead the party to success I think Schumer will continue to back him all the way though. Tatum Girlparts posted:you keep doing this weird thing where you just say 'that didn't happen' when within like 2 pages of now that you were posting in multiple people literally said it was possible that Ellison would only win to be some elaborate fall guy to fully destroy the leftist shift. you keep doing this cool thing where you pretend people say what you want to claim they said instead of the stuff they actually said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
PSA: Stop engaging with tastrom garmprats. regards, --gane hokum fin
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:50 |
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:PSA: Stop engaging
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 21:50
|
|