|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:A few follow-up questions. Why are there so many tiny American socialist parties? Why can't they all just come together behind a minimal "eat the rich" platform? most of the answers to those questions are three-letter initialisms. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Nov 11, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
How strange that the PSL supporters should all ignore my last question. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Its because decades of repression combined with individualistic identity driven politics (not "identity politics") makes for a fractured, un-united left. Doesn't have to be that way though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Like, you know what they did to the Black Panthers, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:How strange that the PSL supporters should all ignore my last question. Nothing suspicious about that at all. Homework Explainer posted:to your last one,
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The actual platform of the Democratic Party isn't sufficient, This remains to be seen. It's not the status quo by any means. quote:and it's only as left-leaning as it is because of intervention by a leftist insurgency which Democratic leadership fought against tooth and nail. The most common refrain from the neoliberals who maintain control of the levers of power, is also "the platform doesn't matter." If the Democrats don't take action to actually implement their platform, then of course it doesn't matter. "The neoliberal elite could not stop a leftist insurgency from pushing the democrats left" does not seem to support your assertion that the democrats cannot ever address the problems of capitalism. quote:We already had a situation where Democrats had significant majorities in Congress, and held the presidency - yet no real progressive agenda was pushed through because too many right-wing Democrats resisted it. The best we got out of the Obama administration was the ACA, which doesn't come even close to addressing the healthcare needs of our society. When people tried to campaign for a better system to replace the ACA, the refrain from establishment Democrats was that it wasn't "realistic" and that we shouldn't even try. Apparently those establishment democrats couldn't stop the leftist insurgency that happened in response, though. Yes, conservative democrats had some outsized power when the democrats held bare majorities in the house and senate. It doesn't follow that they'd be able to resist leftist policies if democrats expand those majorities. Joe Lieberman loses all his power if he's the 61st cloture vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are refusing to engage with the actual platform of the Democratic Party and justify that stance by appealing to a centuries old conspiracy theory. What conspiracy theory
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Deimus posted:What conspiracy theory Marxism
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Marxism So, analysis that class exists, and what that implies, is a conspiracy theory? Or what. Deimus fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:The party platform doesn't matter. This is such common knowledge that I'm sure you are concern trolling. It's a simple point: voters can shift the major U.S. parties. See: republicans. Deimus posted:So, analysis that class exists, and what that implies, is a conspiracy theory? Or what. Heh, I'm positive Marx means little more than this to many "Marxists" (who don't know Marx).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Deimus posted:So, analysis that class exists, and what that implies, is a conspiracy theory? Or what. The part where democratic political solutions are impossible because the capitalists control everything is a conspiracy theory, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:"The neoliberal elite could not stop a leftist insurgency from pushing the democrats left" does not seem to support your assertion that the democrats cannot ever address the problems of capitalism. The leftist insurgency didn't really push democrats to the left, they got some appointments to the platform committee as a concession, but the party platform is still a pro-business platform. Basically, the Democratic party won't be capable of addressing these issues without a total takeover by the Left, which isn't a likely proposition because there's always going to be liberals standing in the way of left wing agitation & campaigning. JeffersonClay posted:The part where democratic political solutions are impossible because the capitalists control everything is a conspiracy theory, yes. Democratic political solutions are exactly what we're proposing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The part where democratic political solutions are impossible A democratic solution for what. Are you implying that we need a political democratic solution to bandage the fact that the economic system is inherently undemocratic? If this is what you're implying, then please point out what's wrong with this picture. Deimus fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The leftist insurgency didn't really push democrats to the left, they got some appointments to the platform committee as a concession, but the party platform is still a pro-business platform. A takeover by the Left would be decidedly undemocratic under today's conditions. Make the majority of the party leftists and it's easy (bonus fun: watching the elite throw a fit like republicans with respect to trump).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A takeover by the Left would be decidedly undemocratic under today's conditions. Make the majority of the party leftists and it's easy (bonus fun: watching the elite throw a fit like republicans with respect to trump). Bernie sanders was step one and we have the youth on our side. The tragedy is that the GOP is melting down just as it seemed there might be a genuine left wing faction of a major
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
That would require actually convincing people of things, though, not just posting "ma neoliberal have you tried
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
It's conservatives and the unengaged that I'm looking to convert, liberal ideologues have always been a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:That would require actually convincing people of things, though, not just posting "ma neoliberal have you tried somewhere, duncan is wincing after this lovely paraphrase
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:A takeover by the Left would be decidedly undemocratic under today's conditions. Make the majority of the party leftists and it's easy (bonus fun: watching the elite throw a fit like republicans with respect to trump). it'll probably happen next election, provided the dnc doesn't gently caress with the primary contest again
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it'll probably happen next election, provided the dnc doesn't gently caress with the primary contest again lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
TheDeadFlagBlues posted:No, the profit motive does not cause environmental devastation, poverty and economic/social inequality.  
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
hey bip, what's up? what brings you to the psl thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
greetings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
Deimus posted:greetings. oh hai there
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 09:25
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Bernie sanders was step one and we have the youth on our side. The tragedy is that the GOP is melting down just as it seemed there might be a genuine left wing faction of a major The GOP is not melting down because the GOP while will lose this election will continue to control the house of representatives as well as like ~35/50 states in the US. The democrats control like 7 states so once they lose the presidency come 2020 they will be really screwed. The Republicans don't need the presidency: the Democrats actually need it. The tragedy is even though the democrats have views more in line with the median american voter the GOP are locked into power because rural people have way way more voting power per capita than urbanites.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Typo posted:The GOP is not melting down because the GOP while will lose this election will continue to control the house of representatives as well as like ~35/50 states in the US. The democrats control like 7 states so once they lose the presidency come 2020 they will be really screwed. The Republicans don't need the presidency: the Democrats actually need it. Rural voters don't really have a decisive disproportion in voting power compared to urbans. What really tips the scale in favor of Republicans is all the district gerrymandering, where they can carve out all the urban districts they can win. Also, you need to be following the Trump thread right now if you think Republicans are definitely gonna keep the house.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Rural voters don't really have a decisive disproportion in voting power compared to urbans. What really tips the scale in favor of Republicans is all the district gerrymandering, where they can carve out all the urban districts they can win. District gerrymandering at best tips something like 10-12 house seats in the GOP's favor (they are up by like 60 seats atm), and is itself a function of state legislature control which are geographically determined. And I basically don't think Clinton is going to get the ~+12 to +15 v Trump she needs to take back the house for the dems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Typo posted:District gerrymandering at best tips something like 10-12 house seats in the GOP's favor (they are up by like 60 seats atm), and is itself a function of state legislature control which are geographically determined. https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/785510345934671872
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
If RCP has her up by 10%+ a week before the election then yes, I'll believe it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Typo posted:If RCP has her up by 10%+ a week before the election then yes, I'll believe it. It's ok to believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Is there any proof that everyone in the country just votes straight D or straight R tickets? Won't a lot of Clinton's votes be from people who might support her against Trump for the presidency, but will vote for less offensive Republicans further down the ticket?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
In districts where the republican did not denounce trump, moderate republican turnout will go down. In districts where the republican did denounce trump, trump supporters are likely to vote 3rd party downballot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:In districts where the republican did not denounce trump, moderate republican turnout will go down. That or they just won't vote down ballot at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
The Saurus posted:Is there any proof that everyone in the country just votes straight D or straight R tickets? The impression I get is that this has being the trend for multiple electoral cycles now
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Bourgeois democracy seems to not really fit our current ideological mask anymore.. I wonder if the next election cycle will be more of a mindfuck than this one. Things seem to be getting more and more farcical, indefinitely. Deimus fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
2020 will be worse. The factors that lead to this election will all be there, maybe even worse. It's going to be a real shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
I want to understand the forums optimism for Dems in the near future. But it's like, things have shifted so far to the right that something as moderate-left as the New Deal is now considered something like a marxist fever dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
Hillary is indeed a Republican but they have learned to love big brother.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 11:54
|
|
