|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean in principle, you can't trust any of the ruling class with anything. Politics is about strategy and alliances of convenience, not trust or ideological purity. That may not be how should be, but it is how it is. You've got it backwards. In a good political system, trust wouldn't be necessary because the elites couldn't just abuse the system to their advantage. Unfortunately, the US' is breaking down to the point where we have a fascist everyone hates in power, and he's ignoring multiple important laws and not really being punished. In such a situation, trust is important again. I agree we could have nafta like free trade deals, but the problem is the elites would rather play geopolitical chess than pass good policy. They are passing policy that helps them and their friends at the expense of everyone else.
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Perez isn't a centrist. The 2016 democratic platform is not centrist. The positions articulated by Perez and the 2016 platform are not electoral liabilities, and there's zero evidence democrats would benefit from shifting further left. Your "give me exactly what I want or I'll throw a tantrum" strategy got you nothing but Trump in 2016 and will get you exactly the same if you try it again. dems insistence on centrism at all costs got us trump paranoid randroid posted:i swear, selectively edited video clips posted to twitter are the most effective anti-left disinformation tactic ive ever seen what was wrong with his assertion? as far as I've seen, the cutoff only really has nancy pelosi laying out some flaws of capitalism, but no real solutions, which dude asked for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR65ZhO6LGA
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What I'm saying is that the left needs to start actively organizing, not voting third-party once every four years while smugly patting themselves on the back for doing their part to destroy capitalism.  they should actively organize for third parties, not bother with the dems who clearly don't want them and would rather have some more republicans voting for them. tbh, until recently i thought the dems were still trying to fight for leftism, but this election woke me up to the fact that's not true, so I'm organizing now quote:And although I say "needs to" in the present tense, it really needed to start doing that thirty years ago. The fact that the left stood around with their thumbs up their asses doing nothing for the last couple of decades while both parties collaborated to destroy them is exactly why I don't have any faith at all in the current progressive "revolution" - it's way too top-down. There's plenty of outrage on the bottom, but it steadfastly refuses to organize itself into something meaningful; it just sits around waiting for somebody to tell it what to do, just like the Tea Party did. a lot of the organization i've seen has been from the bottom up. just because leftists would like a little top-down action to help them doesn't mean they're abandoning bottom-up efforts. hell, a lot of c-spammers got elected recently, and centrists were making GBS threads on them because they were elected to "unimportant positions" so I wish you guys would figure out which way you want us to organize.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I realize this is a joke, but leftists should be organizing now for the elections in the coming cycle. they are. dunno why you guys are pretending people aren't organizing. likewise, just because i stop voting for or supporting the dems doesn't mean i'm not organizing, it just means i'm organizing against the republicans AND the dems.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Have fun. i will. the dems are a dead party and need to be replaced
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Because third party organization will not make a difference in the next four years. neither will democrats at this rate. so what's your point?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If the Trump Administration continues at the present rate of own-goals you are most certainly wrong. you know the dems need to be effective in 2 years right? you realize how close to actually dead the dem party is right? and the leadership of that party is choosing to sit on their rear end instead of fight back, so I very much doubt the dems will be sucessful in 2020 even with trump's help. hell, trump owned himself constantly during his campaign and helped the dems immensely and they still lost in 2016
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Alright. So you're posting in the DNC Chair thread, why? cause i'm still rooting for ellison to win and the dems to wake the gently caress up? i really don't want to have to abandon the party that my parents were a member of, and my grandparents, as well as myself all my life. Lightning Knight posted:So then who cares who is DNC chair? DNC chair is a good measure of whether or not the dems are waking up and actually going to fight, or if they're going to double-down on the failed policies and strategies that have led us to the repubs having nearly enough control to amend the constitution on their own.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i think the current democratic platform is p alright for a mainstream party and time would be better spent holding them to it rather than pulling a houdini, but i am also a massive unironic neoliberal shrill hill shill so what do i know i'd prefer that option too. too bad establishment dems are going to stonewall any attempt at change Lightning Knight posted:Don't you live in, like, Oklahoma? i live abroad now, but yeah my home state is oklahoma. i've thought about maybe moving home and trying to run for office, but i'd like to at least get my PhD first. party office isn't as much as a problem cause the current chair of the ok dems is receptive to the sanders wing and is voting for ellison.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i maintain forever that Los Angeles is a natural jumping-off point for Sanderistas, if theyd only be bothered to actually campaign here probably too expensive to get residence there Lightning Knight posted:The farther Western states that are sparsely populated and mostly white are basically perfect for Sanders style Dems to wrest control away from entrenched Republicans. oklahoma's tough cause the dem party is drat near skeletal at this point and the dnc doesn't give a poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And that's why Dems attempting to appeal to labor with the most respected labor secretary since FDRs as chairman is totally suicidal and shows their TRUE contempt for workers. Only Californian tech workers can ever understand that what these people truly need is wholly symbolic wins by the aforementioned tech workers. if the differences between perez and ellison are entirely symbolic then certainly perez should go ahead and withdraw his candidacy, and biden shouldn't have bothered to endorse ellison. i mean, biden is already getting what he wants through ellison!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that Perez being presently lacking in a position, versus Ellison as an established congressman, would imply that in terms of resource utilization it may be better to put Perez in and let Ellison do more work in Congress or run for higher office. On the flip side, Perez could run for office, however. imo perez should run for office before he should be DNC chair. he has near no experience with campaigns
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:Ellison and Perez should commit ritual suicide for standing against the rightful heir, Peter Buttigieg i wouldn't mind buttigieg, he's done some real good recently, but he's got less of a chance than ellison sadly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The previously stated thing was that he should run for Governor of Maryland. I think that DNC chair Ellison and Governor Perez would be the ideal solution to placate all parties involved. i wouldn't mind that paranoid randroid posted:honestly i know less about the guy than i do about that South Carolina dude who is basically hopeless and terrible. he wrote a really good essay on bernie back in 2000, and he's been protesting with protesters what i've seen of him is much better than what I've seen of perez. ellison's the most established of all of them though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Cute. No, see, being better at coordinating a large organisation is the big difference. It's essentially pragmatism vs. Symbolism where's the evidence of perez being better suited to this than ellison? DOL is a very different organization than the DNC, and so far in the race perez hasn't showed an ounce of the leadership of ellison
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:thats pretty dope https://www.jfklibrary.org/Education/Profile-in-Courage-Essay-Contest/~/media/32A849B1D0E6446B9BCAFCCDF90B2BB8.pdf i'm assuming you haven't read it yet, but this is buttigieg's essay on bernie. it's pretty inspirational imo
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Kristov posted:How about Perez and Ellison both be DNC chairs so dipshit political naifs stop getting mad for no good goddamned reason and direct their anger towards the fash. you're suggesting there be two dnc chairs while calling other people political naifs?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Tom Perez appeared on a Washington Post podcast. i'm not listening to a capehart podcast or reading a capehart article. i try not to consume fake news
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/831959272741298177?ref_src=tw the establishment is finally showing its worth
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:Did you read it? The resolution says that the show depicted an FBI director as being blackmailed into doing illegal things. The resolution goes on to say that this besmirches Comey because he's clearly demonstrated he doesn't need to be blackmailed to do that. Ya I did. I'm glad the dnc is hard at work on joke resolutions
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Welp, I'm convinced. Generic Democrat 2020! i would think this would be p obvious. i mean "generic democrat" is basically just a concept which you can assign all your warmest fuzzies without any of the things you hate coming along. centrist and love free trade and wall street? generic dem is there for you! leftist and want full communism now? generic dem is your candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Actually I think if you look closely you'll find that voting for the greater of two evils is what got us trump. You have this weird insistence that it's the democrats fault that Trump is president even though the Republicans are the ones who ran him and voted for him and in fact many democrats actually voted in the general election for the most likely other person to win and in turn prevent him from winning. it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. trump is an incompetent boob and his presidency so far has made that drat obvious, but the dems couldn't pull out a win against him even though he was their favored candidate. it's dems job to convince people to vote for them, and they absolutely refuse to do that and instead rely on party loyalty to win them election.the dems need to stop being just the lesser evil and actually appeal to someone other than wall street.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:cool well if I have a time machine I'll go back and vote for Al Gore again, in the meantime here in the year 2017 if the establishment candidate gets to lead the party then the party is going to have to earn my vote again, instead of just getting it automatically like they have in the past you have to remember that for a lot of these centrist democrats, it is not the job of the dem party to earn your vote. it's your job to earn the dem party's support by voting for them long enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this. People voted for her in the primary. You may not like it but acting as though refusal to appeal to you is the cause of all the nation's woes is incredibly childish. people voted for her after the dem party chanted in chorus that she was the most qualified and electable candidate possible. dems lying to their base is a good part of our nation's woes right now, the other part being said candidate's arrogance and foolishness that let caused her to lose to an incompetent fascist clown who can barely read.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Great. Your insane hatred has nothing to do with Perez/Ellison you big baby. A person who voted for Hilary in the general has less responsibility for Trump than literally every single other person in the country. i didn't say anything about the people who voted for hillary in the general being responsible for trump. the dems are. also, i was responding to your assertion that dems weren't responsible for trump, so if you want to only talk about perez/ellison don't talk about trump and who's responsible for him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty. voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Being ethically obligated to vote for the lessor of 2 evils isn't the same thing as being obligated to vote for a certain party. no it's just effectively the same thing also, pretending it is an ethical obligation is just a nice excuse for the "lesser evil" refusing to appeal to voters, otherwise you're saying over half of the US is unethical
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:OTOH you have people who get almost exactly what they want., but decry it because it's not exactly what they want or it's not presented to them by the person they want, so? they're not unethical because they disagree with you. and clearly they disagree with you on what they want because by your estimation they should be happy, but they're not
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is rhetorical nonsense. not really. you're deciding what people should want and saying they're unethical for not agreeing with that decision. it's p hosed up imo mcmagic posted:Of course half the US is unethical. That is low. well then we have very little to discuss. i don't believe over half the US is unethical cause they don't vote. i think our political system is not really representing a large portion of the populace, which explains why such a large portion of the population doesn't bother to vote. i don't think pretending they're unethical helps convince them to vote nor is constructive at all. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If you voted for Trump you are unethical. Period. nearly half the nation didn't vote for anyone, and yet for some reason you think they're unethical too
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:They are. They are complicit in enabling an unfit, racist madman to be the president. they didn't enable trump to be president at all, that's not how voting works. also it's p hosed up that you think a large majority of america is unethical because they didn't give a vote to your precious abuela. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lol at accusing mcmagic of being in the mi abuela crowd he is if he's so judgemental that the mere act of not voting for her makes you as bad as a trump supporter
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:If you've been reading these forums you would know that I think Hillary Clinton sucks and have been saying so for years. Not voting for her is also unethical. still disagreed. choosing not to vote is not unethical. also, if the only ethical choice is to vote for hillary then you obviously don't think she sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:No. I do think she sucks. You just have an ethical obligation to do everything you can do to make sure that an unfit, racist, madman doesn't become president and voting for her falls into that category. By your definition hillary herself is unethical since she angled to have trump as her opponent, and she was too lazy and arrogant to do everything she could to make sure he doesn't win. Also, said non voters may not have realized how hosed up trump was. Claiming they're unethical because they're under informed and detached from politics is p hosed up Lightning Knight posted:I still find it interesting that when you apply the Trolly Problem to voting, tons of people will say it's more ethical/not unethical to not pull the lever. It's not the trolley problem because by throwing the switch for the lesser evil, you encourage them to keep tying people to the tracks. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Sure. You still had an ethical obligation to vote for her. Nope because people may not have realized how hosed up trump was, what with being detached non voters. By insisting voters come to the dems on their own instead of trying to attract voters you only enable mad men like trump, making you unethical too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:His entire loving gimmick was making subtext about race text. It was pretty friggen obvious, dude. To a dyed in the wool dem maybe. Why would detached non-voters tune in to a trump rally or debate though?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is nonsense. Everyone knew what Trump was and his voters either agreed with him or willingly looked the other way. Lol really? The populace is perfectly informed and not swamped in a stew of fake news and disinformation?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"Mexicans are all rapists and are taking your jobs" is uh, pretty loving obvious. Yes, that's why you have people that were even trump supporters who are saying poo poo like "I didn't realize he'd be like this!" I doubt the populace in general was as informed on the election as you bngl.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Chelb posted:You're confusing not being aware of a candidate's racism for explicitly participating in a racist system and hell, enjoying that they get to do so Choosing not to vote is not participating in a racist system or enjoying doing so. mcmagic posted:You don't need to be perfectly informed to know what Trump is. And yet a lot of trump supporters didn't realize what he is. Hell, a lot of people didn't know trump was a serial con man despite it being quite obvious and reported on. You're overestimating how well informed the populace is
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 15:39 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:They are willfully ignorant. Ok you win, America is unethical and loves trump. We will never win again because a well informed populace chose evil and will continue to choose evil.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 18:16
|
|