|
Captain Magic posted:I disagree. It worked really well up until the eighties when Dems rapidly ran away from the working class. Uh, what? That's the opposite of what they did in the 80s.
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:They allied themselves with the Republican Party, the largest and longest running party in the USA. Uh, no, the Democrats are several decades older.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
greatn posted:Even Pence I have no idea how anyone could ever make coal a viable business model again. It'll certainly never be a big employment business again, the switch to strip mines etc has taken care of that. But yeah, there's already too much that's already converted over to the natural gas for coal to stand a chance, barring something coming up like the natural gas sources running dry. Natural gas' only likely way to get hurt would be crackdowns on environmental regulation but that ain't happening.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:But I in the hypothetical situation remember losing that jo and my friends losing their jobs to NAFTa why do I vote for the white fe of the architects? Hillary Clinton was not married to George HW Bush: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-12-18/news/1992353055_1_treaty-renegotiate-clinton
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:I never bothered to look into it because it always seemed to be the comedy option but.... China doesn't really have preferred trade status, they have the same status as almost any country we're not actively embargoing, and which doesn't have a specific trade agreement. More or less.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Clinton was a major supporter and its effects were felt under him. Why vote for the wife of Bill Clinton if you hold him responsible for your plight? If you hold Clinton responsible for your plight, it's because you chose to ignore the bottom falling out during Nixon through HW is the thing. The actual damage was done by them, including Carter. The treaty didn't take any sort of effect until 1994 but people were still blaming it before it finished being negotiated in 1992.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You are right of course but it definitely did gently caress some communities over and it because the rallying cry against Neoliberalism. No it became a rallying cry against Bill Clinton with the opposite proposal being more neoliberalism under Republicans instead.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Tulsi Gabbard is someone to root for, but she's probably too young Uh no, she's garbage. She hates refugees and wanted them blocked fromt he country, is really into Fox's thing of yelling about "radical islamic terrorism", and is pals with Sheldon Adelson. Who if you don't remember is a hardcore conservative casino magnate who was one of Trump's biggest supporters. She's also close friends with the leader of India's Bharatiya Janata Party, which is a right-wing Hindu nationalist party that also hates Muslims.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:I'm from TN, I know how you feel. Just never forget that, a hundred years ago, the midwest was the heart of the progressive movement. Some early anti-racism came out of rural communities from mutual struggle. It can be so again. Something to keep in mind is that a lot of the people who made up the progressive movement in the rural midwest in the late 19th century and early 20th century? They ended up forced to move elsewhere, particularly as a result of the Great Depression and World War II. And then they never came back to the rural areas they had come from, and often a lot didn't even return to the midwest at all. (Lots of them moved to East or West coast cites for war production job offers, or East or especially West coast rural areas for better farming opportunities) Many of their fellow progressives stayed behind for a while, but they got drowned out increasingly by others who'd stayed behind and weren't progressive at all, especially the really big landholders.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Bad Decision Dino posted:So you are saying that "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs." isn't communism? It's less that caring for the homeless costs so much money, as that forcing people to remain homeless means they're going to get in trouble with the cops and commit crimes more often just to get by and survive. And that's what costs a lot of money, including frequent stints in jail/prison. Give people at least a safe place to stay of their own, and they end up getting involved in less problems and have a much easier time picking up some sort of legit job.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Any chance Gabbard could be minority leader? It'd be nice for her to get some sort of bona fides beyond "line house member from surplus naval base we accidentally made a state" Why do you want someone who has serious issues with Muslim immigrants (including voting to bar refugees from the Middle East) and is buddy-buddy with one of India's leading right wing parties (which really really hates Muslims) and Trump's buddy Sheldon Adelson?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Mainly throwing a bone to dumb berniebros, they may be dumb, but their vote is needed. We shouldn't do that by nominating someone who has serious problems with Muslims and is actively pals with hard right wing people in the US and hard right wing parties outside the US.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Maybe the party that has championed NAFTA and similar deals could own up to the fact that many factories have gone abroad because of it You mean the Republicans?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:No, I mean the Democrats. Because the people you claim hated NAFTA so much repeatedly elected the Republicans and conservative Democrats who supported and created NAFTA et al for a good 20 years straight by the time NAFTA was done. The Republicans sure enjoyed blaming their own trade treaties on Clinton, but that doesn't make it true.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:Reminder that Snowden is in Russia because that's where he happened to be when the US cancelled his passport. Because he forgot that you shouldn't tell the world you're behind a big intelligence leak before you get somewhere it's safe to stay, to be clear.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Convergence posted:I have clients at Harvard and I can at least confirm this is 100% true. Even moving exams because you're kinda sad. But Harvard is always way over the top with this stuff because their freshmen keep trying to kill themselves Well that and the people who are paying to be there are paying quite a lot to be there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:My primary accusation was that Snowden didn't just steal secrets related to the NSA surveillance program. He definitely stole a lot more than that. Some goons said otherwise, but they were wrong That's a weird accusation to make and complain about. It would be extremely difficult to manage just steal things directly related to any given program, as documentation involved would inevitably be full of related things that weren't strictly that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Snowden is also a dumbass libertarian who doesn't understand that China is actually in charge in Hong Kong. Gee buddy, I guess the Reason article didn't say anything about it. Yeah he thought Hong Kong was a great place to go to be free from a government interested in heavy-handed surveillance. It was pretty ironic. It's why he ended up stuck in Russia, because he realized after he announced "it was me, I released a bunch of stolen data" that oh poo poo, this place ain't safe, and tried to get out to the first place he could.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Lime Tonics posted:Or, get this strange idea, they might actually listen to democrats instead of special interests. Tell me about these special interests.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:The Ghostbusters movie is a perfect analogy for this, actually. Uh bro if having to look at women, some of whom aren't white, alienates you... you are the problem here to be quite honest. Also as if the original Ghostbusters, a pre-planned merchandising bonanza, wasn't corporate as gently caress? Like really?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Xae posted:A Constitution Convention is a non starter. Not really. All a legit constitutional convention, like in the sense of "we're completely replacing the whole thing" needs is the consent of a majority of the economically powerful states. Because a brand new constitution is going to be enforced on its own terms, not through a pre-existing one. Much like how the current one was enforced without benefit of any ties to the Articles of Confederation. Once the new thing is in power, you'd maybe pass an amendment to the existing one saying "strike all this, refer to newconst 2.0" or whatever. But that would just be a formality. The rules the original Convention used were hashed out over the course of the 2 year process, but were essentially based on existing rules used in Congress and the British Parliament. It would be much the same in a modern one - basic rules of order but no special rules. You're running the thing to create a whole new order after all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
speng31b posted:I haven't been paying attention to that guy for years, has he just become a complete lunatic? He's been one for a long time. It's just that it's easy to sound reasonable compared to George W Bush when he's president.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:It's been rolling around in my head for a couple days but when I try thinking about the actual words it sounds so loving stupid but here goes: Democrats have a message problem more than a policy problem, whereas Republicans have a policy problem more than a message problem. I feel like it's worth mentioning that the proverbial "closed down mill" has been gone for 30-50 years at this point depending on area. They already didn't get the mill during George W Bush, they often also didn't get it back during George HW Bush or Reagan. "The old mill" has been gone often for longer than the people in question had "the mill" actually up and running during their lives. It's had so much time to become the ideal past that nothing's ever going to replace it. Because nobody remembers things like "the mill actually only paid a lot of the workers barely above minimum wage, and that wage wasn't high then either" or "the mill's healthcare benefits were poor or nonexistent, but I was 22 then so it didn't matter". Often they don't choose to remember that "the old mill" of their town didn't even employ many people in the small town - a lot more were employed by stores and general small service businesses that relied on there being way more people in town back in the day. The real problem is often that your small town really relied on having a bunch of small time family farms around, often before WWII, and as those gradually lost their ability to sustain people they moved away to the cities or suburbs in search of more typical jobs. And when your small town loses that surrounding amount of customers for local business (even if it's at franchise stores, that's still employment) a lot of that local business has to close for lack of customers. Then that means more of the smallholders can't/won't bother to stick around etc. "The old mill" might have been the last major employer in the town, but when the town was doing well it was far from the most important employer - and that's the real problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:It's almost as if you focused more on the disease (income inequality across the board, among all races) and less on the symptoms (violence, drug abuse, education, poverty, healthcare, etc.) you might actually cure society's ills rather than alienating people who feel like you're ignoring their problems in favor of someone else's. Except the Democratic policy does focus on income inequality by seeking to improve welfare of all sorts, raise minimum wages, support labor and all that. The problem is actually trying to fix that alienates large swathes of middle income people who are mad that other people would reach about the same outcomes as they did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:What a load of horseshit. The very culprit that is responsible for income inequality (Wall Street) has been steering Democratic policy for 30+ years. Minimum wage increases is incrementalism bullshit. Oh you're one of those lunatics who thinks Literal Communism was going to poll well with Americans, glad to see you aren't actually making serious suggestions. Incrementalism is how things actually work when you don't have majority military/civil support for revolution, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:bahaha, you're still clinging to incrementalism You're clinging to "accomplish literally nothing", how's that working out for you exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:Good thing we elected trump instead Trump would for sure have been elected if he was running against an actual communist proposing actual communism. Condiv posted:hmm, bernie seems to be accomplishing things as we speak. last I heard hillary was off hiking in the woods after her defeat to a clown man. too bad incrementalism wasn't electable, huh? Bernie isn't anything close to an actual communist, so I'm not sure why you think he's relevant? Bernie was incrementalism as all hell, he wouldn't even advocate the people's ownership of the means of production! poo poo, he wouldn't even promise free college, just free tuition. Crowsbeak posted:Well HRC offered incrementalism. She lost. So did Bernie, so did literally everyone else who ran to be the Democratic candidate. fishmech fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Condiv posted:who said anything about communism fishmech? also, bernie's relevant cause he's doing things. making endorsements, rebuilding the dem party. unlike your do-nothing abuela Ah, so you're incapable of reading posts. The conversation is about revolution vs incrementalism, and Bernie Sanders is firmly on the side of incrementalism. The things he's doing right now that you're jizzing over, are incrementalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:It's almost as if no one is actually asking for a real Communist Solution you nitwit. That guy was mad that the Democrats have capitalist solutions and attitudes. If you're mad about capitalist solutions, you're asking for communist solutions - unless you're instead asking for some dumbass monarchist-feudalist stuff. But I sincerely doubt he wants that! Rexicon1 posted:You are such a disingenuous piece of poo poo. That's you, buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh wow, where is this definition of incrementalism which encompasses everything up to communism fishmech? is this based on horseshoe theory? why should i have been able to assume that by incrementalist you meant everyone between stalin and hitler? Describe how you believe Bernie Sanders isn't incrementalist. Is it just that Bernie Sanders' platform is where you think things should stop, with nothing beyond that? Rexicon1 posted:Ok McCarthy Why do you hate communism?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:oh it's quite simple, during the primary, incrementalism was the word of the day as it was why bernie sanders was a fool. see his policy was neither pragmatic, nor was it incremental. So you believe Bernie Sanders isn't an incrementalist because some guy was mean to you. That doesn't make him not an incrementalist though, especially since he expressly advocated for incrementalist policy both during the primary and in support of the general election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hmm no, try again. here's an example of the term in use: http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/i_have_had_it_with_naive_bernie_sanders_idealists/ Uh, bro, Bernie Sanders being an incrementalist who wants larger increments, does not make him non-incrementalist. Maybe it's just that your command of English has slipped in your time overseas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:Why do you keep going after me when I'm literally 100% on your side. Literally everything you've been standing for I'm right there with you on every front. But you take Fishmech's dumb rear end moderate nonsense side? Go for it dude. You're gonna have great success convincing people of the problems we both are fighting for if you snap at every goddamn line thrown your way. It's really interesting how you show you've never read a single word that you ranted against, with this post. I'm no moderate, I'm a leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no-one used the term like this, just you. you seem to have invented some bizarre form of incrementalism as related to politics that no-one ever mentions fishmech. No I didn't. in·cre·men·tal·ism ˌiNGkrəˈmentlˌizəm/ noun noun: incrementalism belief in or advocacy of change by degrees; gradualism. That's his policies. This is very simple stuff, buddy. His platform and campaign were advocating for an incrementalist approach to improving America, and he's continuining to do so right now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:rural living is no longer economically tenable, stop loving listening to the people who still talk about free market solutions to everything and listen to the people talking about expanding the welfare state Rural living is plenty economically tenable, for a lot of the people still doing it. It's just no longer something that is tenable for everyone the way it was over 100 years ago. And the cut off point was somewhere around World War II at the absolute latest really. What old style "rural living" relied on was tons of small towns, which themselves relied on having a bunch of smallholding family farms and/or relatively small mining/other resource extraction scattered around, which needed a small town nearby to sell produce/get supplies/gather stuff up for shipment out to other markets. Just the diminished ability of smallholding family farms as a viable thing, and those people moving to the cities/suburbs killed a lot of towns and thus the surrounding rural area for most people - stores couldn't stay open, local services like a doctor or lawyer or bank couldn't stay in town. And that has a domino effect of making the area less viable, driving away more people. The big landholders generally can handle it fine, and so can people who are rich by other means, usually some manner of business that runs itself in the suburbs or cities. And there's a small base of people who can be sustained off the business they'll bring. It's just never going to be that critical mass for the heyday of the American small town, which was somewhere around 1860-1910. Condiv posted:nothing in there about communism. so why'd you start talking about it like it was the opposite of incrementalism? cause communism is incrementalist by your definition. (revolutionary communism is not however) Communism is an end state, something where incrementalism stops because you've reached your goal. But we're talking about communism because a guy was mad that Democrats are capitalist! Please, you should try to read threads sometime.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:lol nope i read his post and you called him a communist out of the blue Keep making things up all you want, that didn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You are specifically arguing that in order to vote, people should have to get an id. Under the current system, getting an ID costs money in most areas. You are requiring people to pay money for a vote. How is that any different from a poll tax? I'll tell you how it's different: a poll tax would be legit a lot less hassle than voter id is. That's what's so hosed up about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Everyone who felt that was pointless packed their bags and left town, leaving a hard core of the extremely stubborn. Or those who feel that they are in their soul a coal miner despite being on paper a social worker. This is a big factor that people ignore. The places that are in trouble now have been in trouble for decades on decades. Sometimes a whole century, for certain farming areas that started to have farmlands consolidated to large owners earlier than others. Anyone with the means to leave has left at some point by now. And many of those who left were ones who worked other things besides the one big thing that ended up left, whether that was a mine or mill or factory. So those who left also would have had perspective that it was never just that thing that kept the place going, it was the other things from chain stores to the local doctor they used to have.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Specifically, the founding fathers wanted to make sure the wrong person didn't get in. Well also you originally didn't have a popular vote for electors in most states too. It's often glossed over because every state but South Carolina switched to popular vote for electors by the 1850s,but it was very much expected that most of the voting would be done by state legislatures initially,just as senators were mandated to be.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but I'm on my phone here. Larger point is that Occupy was initially dismantled by a national campaign of physical force. Of course it went down the silly spiral after that. Nah, in most cities it was already having problems when all the cops were doing was yelling outside the park (or whatever it was for each city) asking them to move. By the time they actually started coming in and pushing people around, most of the encampments were stagnating and bogged down in arguing for days already. And of course, in a lot of the more minor cities it never got off the ground to have the cops come in to break it up to start with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 21:37
|
|