The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›11 »

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Zoro posted:

You guys can say "it's not a democrat win, just a republican own-goal" but that is kind of ignoring how things work, really. Nancy Pelosi went in to negotiate with Trump and the GOP. You can argue all you want that Trump agreeing is a Republican own-goal, but capitalizing on an opponent's weakness to gain leverage is just...how things work. She went in, had a strategy, took advantage of their weakest member, and got them to agree to a bad position. I'm not saying it was the "perfect, most awesome move ever, ohmygod" and have calmed down a bit, but trying to take it away because their opponent was incompetent...is just being pedantic. If your opponent has a weak spot and you exploit it to take down the people who may be a tougher challenge in one go, that's just a win.

Cool well I'll let whoever you're arguing with know that, just as soon as I figure out who that is.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2017 22:19

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ramirez-Rosa should just run for governor, then.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2017 07:37

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

the DNC should just disband

# ¿ Sep 7, 2017 08:37

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

It's odd that many of the same people concern-trolling about antifa (i.e. confronting white supremacy head on) also can't seem to grasp the complexity of hating the bigot while seeking to address the conditions that lead to bigotry. If there is any hope of ever eliminating racism in America it is going to include building cross-racial solidarity among the working class and the only way to make that happen is to have a concrete goal for such a coalition to work toward. It won't just conjure itself into existence from some shared moral imperative.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2017 21:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ardennes posted:

Uh ......I deny the main thrust of the article? Whiteness doesn't explain everything going on. You don't have to be a Trump voter to see he was able to recruit substantial appeal due to his anti-trade/globalization stance. In the end, he has deceived those people. The problem is how do you actually move left enough in a way to get those people on your side. UHS is a step in a good direction, but I think there is a broader issue of wages and trade that is still largely unanswered (including by a GMI). TNC if anything uses a standard argument I have seen from many centrists, just in a more intelligent and well-written manner (most of the time it is hidden under a bunch of other garbage).

I do have a feeling TNC doesn't want to admit there is any possibility to change because then he very well not be that left-wing economically or has excluded economics in exchange for race to such an extent there is no realistic way to ever achieve what he wants. If you keep the "pressure-cooker" on there very well may not be a way to move anywhere forward on race because you are breeding so much hatred otherwise.

The problem is that in order to vote for Donald Trump you had to ignore a lot of really obvious and blatant, over-the-top hideous racism, to the point of willful ignorance. People are stupid, but few people are actually that stupid. It's selfishness, and it's selfishness that rises to the level of "I'll happily watch you packed in trains and shipped off to wherever, if I think I might be better off for it". Voting for Trump is pretty strong evidence that you're a total rear end in a top hat.

As for what to do about that, basically what Ze Pollack said. If people oppose that because it sounds like it rewards racism, I don't have a good answer for it other than the hope is that their children don't grow up in an environment as nurturing of it.

Peachfart posted:

Has centrist joined neoliberal to mean 'people I disagree with'?

It's lovely how every time we try to label the Democratic establishment and its supporters (to varying degrees, to be sure, but at any rate stopping far short of Full ~~Communism~~ Democratic Socialism Now) we get people hemming and hawing about the terminology and "ooh is that just everyone you disagree with now? :smug:

A: I gather this thread doesn't consider Paul Ryan a centrist. So, no it hasn't. Now shut up.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 01:39

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ardennes posted:

I do think there are people who voted for Trump beyond issues of race, even if it was all over his campaign. There was an economic plank to his campaign and while you can say he ultimately tricked people with it, doesn't mean it didn't exist.

Also, there is the issue that he was able to get a major swing in working class voters compared to Romney, and was able to do better than Romney among non-white voters (despite everything). I don't think racism on its own explains this.

Even if you voted for Trump "purely" for the economic plank, that means you ignored the blatant and unmistakable racism. I'm sure there are some people stupid enough that they really truly did miss it, but not in significant numbers. The rest of them ignored it because they thought they'd be better off in spite of it. That's pretty damning.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 04:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Jizz Festival posted:

And white supremacy ends when white workers stand in solidarity with their class, rather than their race. The obvious way forward is class struggle and class consciousness. Do you have a different idea?

You're not wrong, but those white workers just voted for an explicitly racist fascist. So it's hard for the left to make the case to minorities to stand in solidarity with whites in class struggle, when those same whites would obviously not be terribly perturbed if those same minorities were all shipped off in boxcars.

Basically, by addressing some of the factors that nurture racism, you're inevitably going to make some racists better off. That's a bitter pill to swallow. Personally I'd rather punish racist white bigots, but as satisfying as that would be it's not going to make things better.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 18:25

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Futuresight posted:

No "they" didn't. A portion of them did. Another portion of them voted for Hillary. Another portion voted third party. Yet another portion didn't vote at all. And they had all kinds of different reasons to vote the various ways they did. Some voted Trump for his racism. Some voted Trump in spite of his racism. Some didn't even notice the racism. Some didn't care one way or the other about his racism.

And you can't throw "those same whites would obviously not be terribly perturbed if those same minorities were all shipped off in boxcars" while implying that you'd be fine with those same whites wallowing in poverty and insecurity to achieve your social goals. You're either the bigger person or you don't get to complain that the other side is not being a bigger person. The case is the same to both sides regardless. You wanna keep getting hosed? No? Then suck it up and co-operate. And if minorities should find themselves working alongside white workers in solidarity for all the downtrodden then they're either working with good people, or the other side of that exchange is just as upset to be forced into that situation.

I don't disagree with any of this other than I wouldn't let off people who voted for Trump "in spite of" the racism so easily. I don't disagree with it I'm saying that there is an emotional component there that is not easily overcome and shouldn't be brushed aside. I think for a lot of people, a desire for justice includes punishing Trump voters, and I don't see much wrong with the sentiment although I know it doesn't go anywhere.

Oh, and there is a difference between wanting to punish bigotry (as opposed to curing it), and ignoring oppression or even participating in it. Neither leads anywhere good, but the latter is a serious moral failing - the former not so much.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 20:15

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Condiv posted:

i don't think william is jc, but i've been wrong plenty of times

Yeah I've been having my suspicions but I'm far from certain. It's not like there's a shortage of shitposters.

# ¿ Sep 8, 2017 21:35

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Would racism still be a problem in a post-scarcity society, to the extent that it is a problem in ours?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 01:14

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

William Contraalto posted:

I would think that depends on the particulars of the society, since if absolute equality is freely available with no one able to limit access to resources, then of course racism would be much reduced as a problem, but that doesn't mean that poor people are more racist, or that if they are more racist, it's because poverty makes you more racist.

William Contraalto posted:

So, the cool part of this post is that it's being used to support an argument that the proletariat are more racist than the bourgeoisie, which is pretty funny but also pretty worrying.

The bourgeoisie is in a better position to stoke racial division and animosity among the proletariat in the interest of preventing class consciousness and solidarity from emerging there. It's the job of the left to fight that, and in the process it sounds like we're making excuses for racists - in effect we are. It's not a good look, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Post-scarcity makes it harder / impossible for the bourgeoisie to do that, if they even exist. The same can be said of socialism if in muted form.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 01:51

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

William Contraalto posted:

This is an extremely vulgar Marxism that amounts to a conspiracy theory. Do you really think that the bourgeoisie don't believe in capitalism? Seriously?

Depends on what you mean by "believe in it". Do I think the ruling class believes capitalism is a very effective tool they can use to ensure that they and their progeny remain in the ruling class forever? Yes, I do.

Do I think they believe it should be implemented according to pure free-market ideals? To the extent that interferes with the above, no.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 02:08

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

William Contraalto posted:

Okay, so why are rich people immune to ideological thinking?

Because there's more money in it for them not to be.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 02:12

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

William Contraalto posted:

Not to be immune? Uh, would you mind clarifying?

They are less likely to be ideologically "pure" capitalists because there is incentive for them not to be. They can do well under "pure" capitalism, to be sure, but they can do even better if they capture the state and use it to entrench their power. So of course they do that, and the more ideological ones who refrain out of some personal morality will find themselves increasingly shut out of power. That capitalism is so vulnerable to this is one of the many reasons (and one of the bigger ones) it's a poo poo show of an economic system.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 02:27

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

William Contraalto posted:

Okay, so you can just will your way out of ideology by your bootstraps. Marvelous. A+ class analysis.

Are you really this stupid? Because that's pretty stupid.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2017 05:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

It's not "minimizing" Russian election interference to point out that Putin's going to be Putin and that the interference was not enough to swing the election had the Democratic campaign been otherwise competent. The response from the Democratic party ought to be to reduce the number of vulnerable attack vectors going forward and to neutralize Russian propaganda efforts wherever they can. And to not run lovely candidates who are vulnerable those kinds of attacks. GOP voters are not going to give a poo poo as long as the interference favors their side, and it always will, nor is the Mueller investigation going to make being a Republican illegal.

Russia is just another in a long line of excuses from liberals for why Hillary lost. And like all the other excuses, there is enough to it that you can sorta point to it as having swung the election, because the election was so close. If you think this is an argument that reflects well on liberalism and Hillary's performance in the election, trying being less stupid and thinking a little harder.

Peachfart posted:

The phone call was on election day? lol, this thread never changes.

Have you given up on the idea that the Democratic establishment is a worthwhile ally of leftists, then? Because anyone calling Theresa May and telling her to keep her chin up is not a friend of the left. Not that we didn't already know that, since Obama's been making GBS threads on Corbyn since the leadership election in 2015. Good to see you're coming around to the idea that the Democrats can be liberal, or socialist, but not both - even if you're on the liberal side of things. Strange though that you're still complaining about this thread if you agree with the basic thesis of it, but I'll just attribute that to your being a bad poster.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 07:16

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

NewForumSoftware posted:

centrists becoming more effective politicians is a bad thing, not a good thing

unless of course you want president booker

him continuing to shoot himself in the foot is the best case scenario unless you want to explain in 2020 why he actually doesn't want the bill he cosponsored while he runs around campaigning on it

I don't want a President Booker but if runs in 2020 and wins and at the same time the Progressive Caucus is like half the House and there's a few socialists there as well - well that's pretty much 10x what anyone could have hoped for TBH.

Like I want a socialist in the WH as well, but I'd take a centrist who's more scared of attack on his left flank than the right, for a change, and who acts accordingly.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2017 19:31

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

VitalSigns could you provide me with evidence, preferably in the form of HD video, of a leftist (i.e. card-carrying DSA member or equivalent) standing in front of Anthony Rendon and saying "I put a recall on you for healthcare things" etc etc, forthwith Anthony Rendon schedules a bunch of committee meetings?

Because otherwise, I don't know man, your case that activism did a thing, seems kinda shaky. How do you know it wasn't concern-trolling centrists in this thread that convinced Anthony Rendon to do that?

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 07:05

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Unbelievably Fat Man posted:

You would think someone who isn't even in your party offering a serious primary challenge to the heir apparent would give some pause at least, but when you're 100% certain of your world view...

Same with "We can't support candidates in deeply red districts! We're too toxic in those places! They're better off without our help!"

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 21:16

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Also, the DNC is going to be a pretty critical component of success whether you want them to be or not.

A big part of their strategy for winning districts is "don't get involved" so basically the DNC itself disagrees with you on this.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 21:29

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Yeah, it would seem so. Any thoughts on what is preventing him from getting something done? I have avoided most DNC informartion since the lection so I am not sure what the internals look like at the moment other then ellison and perez trying to pick up pieces left over from DWS.

The most important job Tom Perez had as DNC chair was to send a message to the party ~~donor class~~ owners that the party establishment would resist, at all costs, leftists and progressives getting a toehold in leadership. He fulfilled that purpose the instant he was elected - arguably before. Everything else was just bullshit to get elected without causing a literal riot. There is no 50-state strategy.

mission-accomplished.jpg

# ¿ Sep 12, 2017 22:48

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Ardennes posted:

That said, I wonder how far this line of debate is going to go because if Hillary's book becomes the "definitive account of what happened" then I have little faith in the Democrats ever really uniting. I mean you can only burn so many bridges until there is nowhere to go.

Good. There isn't any uniting with liberals. Not for socialists, anyway (fascists are a maybe). Anything that makes the difference between the two more stark and forces people to choose a side, is a win.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2017 06:43

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

steinrokkan posted:

There needs to be a thread that is not quite the suck zone, not quite the trump thread. This one fulfills a niche that is important, as evidenced by the traffic it draws. If anything, it may need a refresh with a new OP and new rules against the most obvious trolling efforts.

I oppose creating a new thread because then we've got to work to get JeffersonClay banned from it again :colbert:

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 00:03

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Fans posted:

Maybe!

I'm just confused as to why the article goes to such length to try point out it's not really "Medicare for all" and comes down on "It's a slow process to get everyone on an expanded version of Medicare." as if that isn't "Medicare for All"

Also if it was a clean break, with full single payer / public option for everyone immediately upon passage of the bill, they'd complain about changing too much too fast instead.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2017 23:10

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yronic heroism posted:

So what's your qualification for all this mind reading/psychoanalysis you do?

More thought and effort goes into every single Ytlaya post than you've expended for the entirety of your posting history. Frankly this entire thread should just be Ytlaya dunking on idiot poo poo posters such as yourself while the rest of us point and laugh and otherwise don't bother contributing because it isn't necessary. Hope this helps.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2017 17:23

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

shrike82 posted:

Quite a few leftists ITT voted for Trump e.g. Kilroy, CallToAction, NFS.

Something like 20% of Bernie voters ended up voting for Trump. So a minority but not insubstantial.

lol you're the weirdest fucker on these forums

it's creepy as gently caress that you keep assigning this one specific lie, specifically, to me, whenever you get the chance

get help

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 09:49

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

call to action posted:

Or he could just be lying for convenience because he know it won't pass

And I voted for Stein actually, couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump and I knew a Stein vote would be slightly more morally defensible and equally enraging to the people that post here. It's funny as gently caress that I have a Trump voting reputation though considering I've never said or done that, I guess when you piss off enough whiny libs they just assume you're hitler

shrike82's gimmick is saying people voted for candidates that they didn't vote for

that's seriously his gimmick - it wasn't a mistake he made that's just a thing he does

probably some psychosis related to voting for trump despite considering himself a "leftist" - at any rate don't worry about it

# ¿ Sep 17, 2017 20:34

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yronic heroism posted:

Nah, I'm calling out the bad posts in this thread. Which are many, and by very prolific regular posters, including the one who started the thread.

There are lots of threads in D&D with lots of bad posts in them, so good luck to you calling them all out.

Unless you're singling out this one for some reason (you are).

Also your bad post radar is not calibrated well and I fear you're missing a lot of bad posts you could be addressing. This should get you started: https://forums.somethingawful.com/query.php?action=posthistory&userid=142988

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 00:49

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yronic heroism posted:

Hey, that's not the guy threatening to shoot other goons at all!

Sometimes I guess you have to consider the seriousness of the "threat" and the chance that it will ever actually be carried out. Like "ooh real leftists are pro-gun, motherfucker" vs "I, forums' poster yronic heroism, will continue to poo poo up every thread I gaze upon".

(Note that I never actually threatened anyone directly, either.)

Or you can continue using it as some weak-rear end shield from my legit and utterly scathing criticism of your terrible posts and the broke-dick brain responsible for them :shrug:

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 06:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:58

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

"See I just can't take leftists seriously because they're always talking about "eat the rich" and I'm not a cannibal." :colbert:

yronic heroism posted:

Your same reasoning could be used to ask why certain of the whiners here spend all their ire on Democrats with barely a word about the GOP horror show.

*looks at thread title* :thunk:

Maybe you're just too dumb to post good, yronic.

# ¿ Sep 18, 2017 07:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›11 »