Progressive Peanut Gallery: I plan to transform my town into a socialist utopia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Progressive Peanut Gallery: I plan to transform my town into a socialist utopia

«‹›2 »

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

is this threaed the appropriate place for me to put this tweet?
https://twitter.com/bougeottee_/status/679395604368330752

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 01:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Classic Comrade posted:

only if u add, with an asterisk

"*im voting for these people instead!!"

bErnie Sanders

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 02:06

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

There's actually a ton of people who haven't voted in the democratic primary yet, so not sure what merited anyone to be bothered enough by a thread they didn't have to read that theyd gas it. Reminds me of the dailykos banning people criticizing Hillary or whatever. Circling the wagons. If anyone here is that uncomfortable about people rejecting the democratic establishment then they're really in for it because the Bernie thread may have just been meme loving fucks & shitposters, but theres seemingly an entire generation thats overhwlemingly done with the bullshit.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 02:16

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

What does CCCC mean

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 02:20

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

it will be funny when the "general election" thread created 2 months before party conventions sinks off the first page. Personally i am not interested in distinctions such as whether Hillary and her emails are the subject of an fbi probe or whether Hillary's state department and email server are the subject of said probe, so subsequently I don't have interest in much of this subforum, which may be the point.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 02:36

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

yeah I was saying there'd probably be a wolf in sheep's clothing (an Obama pretending to be a Bernie, iow an Obama) next time the Dems have a presidential primary, but it really did start immediately. In the old thread I wrote a few posts about David Trone who was some millionaire running against Jamie Raskin, boasting how he wasn't taking any corporate money and saying some of the right things (but that was only possible because he was a millionaire so eh).

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 04:07

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Mr. Horrible posted:

To be honest, I think money is the biggest threat to progressivism, not identity politics. If anything, identity politics are often a tool used by money and its agents to divert discourse.

I was tempted to write up a big effortpost about ways we can use identity politics in our favor, but I'm worried that might be outside the scope of this thread... Are we talking only about individual candidates itt, or also general strategy?

Write the post.

In this thread maybe it won't get lost in the shuffle immediately. I'm curious what you have to say myself. I feel like race/gender/sexuality causes are good and there's still struggle left there, but I also feel like, based on the way the corporate world went hard at North Carolina over that bill, that corporations are gonna be happy to allow progress on that front. Meanwhile, I fear we have a long future of money using identity as a wedge against class, like we've seen a lot of this election season.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 04:29

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Concerned Citizen posted:

mods rename this thread Gallery of Failure

��/

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 04:34

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Classic Comrade posted:

nope. the only three that got an e-mail so far were zephyr, lucy, and pramila.

Fetterman was on Berniecrats.net, which btw when I was getting text telling me to vote, they mentioned that website so it's sort of tied in
http://berniecrats.net/#PA

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 05:45

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Concerned Citizen posted:

this is my favorite progressive, chicago mayor rahm emanuel. he's for good schools

just seeing rahm mentioned i already know youre trolling, but lol

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 05:48

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

hemophilia posted:

I used to whine about identity politics a lot and honestly what has given me pause is how Bernie Sanders has handled the issue.

Believe me I still lament the theoretical single-issue identity politics person who may exist somewhere up the food chain making GBS threads up a larger movement for the sake of their own pet issue, but I'm not sure this actually exists much as I and others sometimes think it does. I think there are bigger fish to fry since it's reasonably easy to integrate the politics of identity into a larger progressive movement and there are much more malevolent forces that actively work to undermine progressive politics and I would rather focus on that than being an rear end in a top hat because somebody is trying to be a part of something while having needs unique to them and people like them.

There's definitely an issue that exists when there's a clearly more left-wing candidate (Bernie) with a superior record to Hillary's who's had his supporters smacked with the label "Bernie Bro" and called "white men" all campaign long, when Hillary says things like "if you break up the big banks, would that end racism," when people considering not voting for Hillary are accused of "privilege," and on down the line. They did it in the UK too, calling Jeremy Corbyn a "brocialist." It's incredibly unfortunate that cynical people would leverage the identity-based movement against the economic left wing, but I don't think any of us could have missed that it's happened, and on a massive scale. Look, corporations aren't bad, they're good, just check out the beautiful brand logos! https://www.buzzfeed.com/jarrylee/beautiful-rainbow-brand-logos-celebrating-marriage-equality

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 13:17

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

C-SPAN Caller posted:

It's not as bad as moneyed right interests but it is a distraction tactic for sure.

Oh, it's entirely the ownership class that is the enemy. The main issue with identity politics is that it doesn't directly address class, and thus is vulnerable to being co-opted by the elites against EJWs.

hemophilia posted:

Way too many social issues have related if not causative economic factors, so to be merely socially progressive doesn't compute for me. To me, being socially permissive and/or accepting while also having apathetic or rear end-backwards attitudes about the economy already has a label, it's called 'libertarianism'.

Yeah, that's a perceptive point, I think it's close, but the woke Hillary supporters aren't really libertarian either. Libertarians wouldn't support a Democrat's wars, and libertarians would want a flat tax and privatized social security and all other kinds of bullshit. These people are really just loyal team D centrists who want to be on the right side of social issues.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 14:51

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Classic Comrade posted:

yeah it's very sad how centrists (and right-wing ppl, on the opposite end) use identity politics to manipulate people. most 'economic progressives' embrace identity politic issues too, so what do you think would be a good way to counteract the whole "using identity politics to obfuscate" issue?

Yeah, any economic progressive worth their salt needs to be on the right side of gender, race, and sexuality justice issues or else you're taking populist economics down nationalist roads which uhh is kind of scary.

i think it's good if all people and especially prominent voices on the social justice scene remind their peers and allies that there's more than one struggle, that it's all connected, there's a kinship between all oppressed people, that in the not distant past you could be dismissed from certain jobs for being gay, and as progress is made in any of these arenas, not to leave anyone behind. Which, to be fair, the majority of people in the social justice movement are aware of pretty much, but there do need to be continual reminders, because you know the corporate media is going to give platforms and voices to those who don't threaten them, and there are a lot of less informed people that might succumb to marcotte-ism. I don't think it's wrong to call out people who aren't being allies of the working and lower classes

Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 15:28 on Apr 29, 2016

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 15:14

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Like it would be very good if someone with the stature of like Deray for example called out Hillary Clinton when she said "We could break up the banks, but would that end racism" telling her not to use black people's struggles as a defense of big banks... instead somehow Hillary won points for understanding what it means to be intersectional while implicitly sticking up for big banks. :psyduck:

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 15:25

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

fade5 posted:

"What do you think of Stalin?
What do you think of Assad?
What do you think of Putin?"

If you get apologism for any of the above, you've got a 'crazy'.

So like if I say hey maybe we should stop training and arming and spending millions of dollars to send violent rebels and terrorists in to fight Assad, and maybe if we're serious about combating terrorism we should allow Assad to reestablish his secular state instead of trying our best to overthrow yet another state's existing regime only now in a more subtle way than we did in Libya and Iraq,

now I'm a crazy?

Or if I say Russia's not that great and neither is Putin but he's probably not the devil and in fact isn't one of the world's big problems because why would he be... I'm crazy?

Like you can be left wing and it's fine but once you start opposing the condoned imperialist line on things it's no good?

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 16:54

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

I believe Hillary's foreign policy specifically, but basically the whole establishment line, includes the preference that a nation to become a failed state over it being in someone's orbit other than our own. In that way Iraq and Libya aren't even the colossal failures they appear to be, and in that way also it even makes sense that we're supporting literal al Qaeda affiliated groups against Assad. It's basically flat out evil when you consider all the death and misery involved in this sort of foreign policy (all under the guise of furthering democracy, which obviously isn't the real goal, just look at our attitude toward Egypt's coup government or the classic example of the Saudi monarchy). This is what makes Tulsi Gabbard's surprising opposition so revolutionary and good.

# ¿ Apr 29, 2016 17:05

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

ElPez posted:

Short of switching to a global command economy focused on rationing energy and developing new alternatives (and almost nothing else beyond sustaining basic needs (could preclude posting on SA!))

Okay, and are there any down sides to this?

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 00:42

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

ElPez posted:

fast luck (as a child): i have been playing minecraft for 12 straight hours. i only rise from my chair to poop and pee, and even then, only sometimes..
fast luck jr (somehow existing, despite the above): hey im taking this baseball bat and going to play outside, like kids do again now. probably ill smash the obsolete computer machine pile with the bat

Yeah seems pretty good

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 01:35

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Has everyone read this article already? https://newrepublic.com/article/127500/debbie-wasserman-schultzs-challenger-chance
Really good poo poo. It's amazing how good he is and how bad she is

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 01:52

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Pro-pro-pro-pro click

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuOBSCShBWI

# ¿ Apr 30, 2016 01:58

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

NumberLast posted:

It's not about making a principled stand. It's about taking a totally pragmatic, realistic stand of if we don't do something now, poo poo's gonna get really, really bad.

Do you think it's possible to, before a few cities sink into the sea, convince people we need to cut back our own standard of living?

Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 22:35 on May 2, 2016

# ¿ May 2, 2016 22:29

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Forgot to mention earlier, Jamie Raskin was chilling outside the station this morning. I mean it was pretty unmistakably him. Some woman was talking to him when I came through so I didn't talk to him if I would have anyway.

Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 01:12 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 01:09

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Interesting to see him there after the election is over. I guess he's a man of the people

# ¿ May 3, 2016 01:13

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

empireofcrime posted:

So this is how a pragmatic progressive fundraises?

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeneps/status/727170463814836224

saw this posted but can't find the discussion, if any

basically the politico article is all about the hillary victory slush fund and how most state parties are not seeing a dime but are too afraid to complain because they don't want to be punished lol

Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 22:35 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 22:26

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

so why are they sending the money to the state parties to start with, then (before having the state parties send an identical amount of money back)? that's just how the money laundering operation works, i guess?

# ¿ May 3, 2016 22:36

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Concerned Citizen posted:

it's essentially a giant hole in campaign finance laws opened by scotus. there used to be a maximum to the amount you could donate to all federal accounts combined in a single year. scotus overturned that maximum, although they kept the contribution caps to a given committee. however, the maximums only apply to individual donors - state party committees can send an unlimited amount of money to the national party. so the scheme is basically people donate to the victory fund. the first $2700 of any individual donation goes to hfa, the next $33,400 goes to the dnc, and the remainder is split up among the state parties. since the parties are allowed to transfer money back to the dnc, it means those additional donations can be sent back to the national party to reinvest into targeted races. for the state parties, there's really no loss here. most of these donors were not going to give them money anyway, so they lose nothing and they just signed up to help the dnc fundraise.

Yeah so that all makes it sound like they're (the state parties) just a front for money laundering and evading campaign finance laws. Especially if equal payments are going back to the DNC from the state parties the same day they receive the money, that's pretty much just prima facie what that is, and they're at best circumventing the law but to any common sense minded person (as opposed to a weasel conditioned to examine technicalities) they're outright breaking it. Like, most "progressive" people would agree that big money needs to be taken out of politics and here the "progressive" Hillary Clinton and "progressive" Democratic party are in fact skirting campaign finance laws to get even more money in. Gross

All while tut-tutting and concern trolling about Bernie not helping any down ticket Dems

Fast Luck has issued a correction as of 23:14 on May 3, 2016

# ¿ May 3, 2016 23:09

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

It's convoluted because that's how out-and-out money laundering works.

There's a limit on how much you can give to committees. This includes the DNC. And they are skirting that limit by pretending as if money is going to state parties while having state parties give almost always just as much money back to the DNC.

quote:

For example, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party received $43,500 from the victory fund on Nov. 2, only to transfer the same amount to the DNC that same day. The pattern repeated itself after the Minnesota party received transfers from the victory fund of $20,600 on Dec. 1 (the party sent the same amount to the DNC the next day) and $150,000 on Jan. 4 (it transferred the same amount to the DNC that day).

That means that Minnesota�s net gain from its participation in the victory fund was precisely $0 through the end of March. Meanwhile, the DNC pocketed an extra $214,100 in cash routed through Minnesota � much of which the DNC wouldn�t have been able to accept directly, since it came from donors who had mostly had already maxed out to the national party committee.

Fairly clear there, it's money laundering to dodge the limits still in place in the already winnowed down campaign finance laws.

# ¿ May 3, 2016 23:38

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

NumberLast posted:

And also I was talking specifically about the blob of identity politics consuming all other discussion, beginning as a result of people talking about how identity politics consume all other discussion.

Yeah basically if someone's politics start and end with identity politics then they're missing the "class" element of intersectionality, and they're far more likely to buy into liberal attack lines against the economic left.

# ¿ May 4, 2016 21:42

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

GlitchThief posted:

imo it goes both ways, but I see your point.

It surely does with some individuals, but historically reds in this country have been on the front lines in fights for civil rights and social justice

# ¿ May 4, 2016 21:46

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

y'all ever hear a person with a boston accent say "queeah"? lol

# ¿ May 4, 2016 22:45

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

https://twitter.com/emorwee/status/741756943228936192

# ¿ Jun 12, 2016 00:27

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

do the greens recognize theyre just a symbolic protest vote or do they actually think the solution to a broken system is an impotent third party in a nation where third parties cant win? speaking of, when there are rare third party wins they usually seem to be sawant, sanders, etc that are willing to go the extra step and call themselves as "socialist" not "green." cynthia mckinney for example only joined the greens after losing her house seat.

# ¿ Jun 13, 2016 17:49

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

TinFoilJoy posted:

Y'all following this Guccifer 2 stuff?

Adam Johnson spent all day on twitter yesterday questioning why everyone was accepting that it was Russia that did the hacking, saying the only source was that CrowdStrike security company and they hadn't provided evidence. And I was thinking like well Adam I agree with you 100% of the time but what reason is there to believe CrowdStrike is lying? then Guccifer 2 comes along

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 16:02

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Mr. Horrible posted:

What I asked earlier still stands: is it necessarily going to be easier to hijack the Dems and make them not awful, or hijack the Greens and make them stop being anti-science and start being competitive? I honestly do not know the answer to that, because there is a lot of money at stake for the Dems and they have shown that they see actual progressives as intruders into their center-right party.

Both are probably impossible, but due to the nature of the voting system, the Greens rising to relevance is likely even more impossible.

# ¿ Jun 16, 2016 22:36

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Error 404 posted:

We could descend into no-true-scotsman land all you'd like, but tankies are definitely a thing friendo.

you know who was against the libyan intervention? "tankies" and not too many others

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 00:50

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

against it at the time it was happening, when anyone disagreeing with intervention was accused of liking a murderous dictator?

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 00:54

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

Error 404 posted:

Yep. Dude was bad, intervening made it worse.

okay cool. well anyway, almost all liberals down to a person supported hte libyan intervention, and like a decent chunk of the socialists did too. youd know i guess but when you opposed it people literally looked at you like you must be crazy. the so-called tankies were right then and actually are right most of the time in their foreign policy beliefs

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 01:00

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

hemophilia posted:

If you haven't seen people categorically oppose the united states and eu on anti imperialist grounds while defending for-a-fact shitbirds like Putin on this forum, in D&D, you're blind. That poo poo is the primary reason i stopped reading D&D. I never really posted there but i did get a kick out of reading it until i started seeing way too many ex lf freaks going to bat for moscow as if we were still in the 60s and russia was still Marxist when its a dysfunctional crony capitalist, imperialist mockery of its former self.

Good news: it's definitely safe for you to go back into D&D lol.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2016 23:32

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

well I don't recommend it either, but the Eastern Europe thread is basically a wall of people saying gently caress Russia, Death To Putin

# ¿ Jun 18, 2016 00:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 17:50

Fast Luck: Feb 2, 1988

exploding mummy posted:

so you support dws and payday loans

what motivates people to make such bad posts

# ¿ Jun 21, 2016 02:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Progressive Peanut Gallery: I plan to transform my town into a socialist utopia

«‹›2 »