|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Have you considered the United States is simply working as intended and the Dem leadership is comfortable with this?
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The dastardly Russians, now escalating from forcing Hillary to not campaign in the Rust Belt to saying that the Democrats should follow the 50-state strategy they claimed they would follow. I heard the Russians travelled back in time to hobble the republic, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
The Harlem globetrotters was actually a piece of occulted activist art demonstrating the true essence of the American political reality: A bunch of show boating maniacs simultaneously bound and unbound by the rules of the sport crushing a by-the-book team with an ease that is frankly quite suspicious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The left has been trying that for about thirty years or more. Turns out that an alliance with nihilists isn't worth much. Fwiw, I think your assessment is essentially correct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Axeil, what the hell are you even referring to with regards to value? In the current capitalist sense?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I wish Obama would have actually you know, done anything about the financial crisis other than completely bail the banks out. It gets really old hearing people who work in a failed industry (finance) that only still exists because the US government bailed them out talk about how people need to provide value while they almost collapsed the entire financial system. Just further verification that anyone in finance is an existential threat to most humans. We may as well be letting hyenas make decisions about human society.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like that's evil for a Republican. The fact that Obama kept defending this guy really paints a negative portrait of him. Hell, there is a nonzero chance that Obama buys into this horrifying poo poo too. Good God Summers is absolute scum.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Thomas Frank's book "Listen Liberal" was mentioned earlier but I forgot to add that Frank's portrayal of Democratic governance in Massachusetts is probably the most accurate assessment I've seen to date.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:What does he say about it? He says it has effectively been a test bed for the blue state model of governance and has produced an outcome that serves as a microcosm of national Democratic governance and it's outcomes. More specifically he is referring to the orthodox Dem desire for a highly educated "innovator" class that lives and works in a well developed metropolitan area guiding the party, with the state level policy focus being primarily on them. Predictably, this has caused lots of development in and around Boston with accessory benefits to locals, but with much of the state rotting away by comparison. On paper we look great, but once you look outside of Boston and some wealthy bedroom communities things aren't going so well. He specifically mentions Fall River as an example of this contrast, and oh boy was he right on that one. Worse yet Frank seems to identify the population of Mass as a captive audience, things are largely Democratic with the occasional Republican surge but as far as ability to set policy there isn't that much in the way of the Dems beyond the leadership itself and problems of their own making. And still they usually can't manage. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
axeil posted:https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/855015900495458304 Why would you trash the group you said you need for turn out in the exact same post. What is served by this? Pathology is 100% correct.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:My state passed a legalization referendum. The Democrats have not only come out against it, they have attempted to postpone it, subvert it, and undo it. Hello Massachusetts buddy. I agree the dem party of Massachusetts are useless, with some dems floating amendments to the bill ranging from contradictory (six plants but only two ounces of flower per household), to pure "what the gently caress" such as raising the legal age to 25 for cannabis products.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If you want to get involved in fixing the BadDem situation in MA I've been working hard at it and it's always nice to have more goons on board. We're currently trying to destroy the state party establishment which is chock full of unelected BadDems that can't be removed without literally amending the party charter. Yes I'd be willing to help however I can. I have some experience in municipal government, for whatever it is worth which isn't much considering the horror show it tends to be.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yes, my post was stupid. But it was still very thread appropriate. You guys don't seem to mind stupid posts that much. Cory Booker is a centrist. Deal with it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:He is a centrist in reference to your own position simply because you see anything to your right as the wrong side. He is a pretty solid center left politician. This is different than a centrist. True centrists don't exist anymore. Sorry guy, you are wrong. He dodged the term "progressive", George Norcross III defended him as a fiscal conservative, he defended Bain capital, and he did vote against negotiation for drug prices, among other things. In the future you should rely on empirical assessments such as track records and stated positions as well as allies rather than whatever internal sensations you have in that addled centrist brain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't think he calls himself a progressive. Also, I don't see the point of hanging a symbolic vote around his neck like it really mattered. If you don't think people like Cory Booker on on your side, it's no wonder you can't put a majority together. Instead of making GBS threads on him and those that support, you should see he votes with you 95% of the time and not try to push the ideologically impure from your ranks. Cory Booker ins't preventing you from achieving progressive legislative wins, so why focus on him instead of the R's that are actually the issue. Wrong again. Do some research on how centrists have royally hosed up even deeper blue states, not because of opposition from the right but because their policies are poo poo for most people and they have a stranglehold on the party at all levels. I'll once again ask you to look at reality rather than the increasingly feverish dreams of the centrists.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:
The fact you and jc think this is at all meaningful data speaks volumes. Please, go on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You guys are so terrible a this. Track record =/= narrow focus on voting record, but a good attempt.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:Maybe people are correct in being cautious about a man who said attacks against Bain were "nauseating" Naw dude, centrists don't exist anymore apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:what other empirical data should i look at if not voting record? If you say "His positions" you are loving awful at this. Bills drafted/submitted by him would be a better indicator than pure voting record as other posters have already argued, but maybe you should take a look at that link because it doesn't say what you think it says. He looks explicitly socially liberal and economically conservative, aka a centrist. He is even categorized as a libertarian democrat up top you doofus.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money? Not sure if self-parody or just incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
I'm not even sure how one would think that is a good argument, or barring that, a clever one. If one of the accusations is that impropriety is occurring due to a financial transaction, how at all does it follow that the transaction itself is good because it takes money away from one party and gives it to another when that very dynamic is what is being called into question either because of bad optics or nefarious intent. It's loving stupid and applying it to any other situation should make that abundantly clear. This is to say nothing of how little 400k actually represents in terms of financial impact for Cantor Fitzgerald AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
axeil posted:It can't just be a vanity "we got a cool speaker" thing? I doubt companies really think former athletes and hollywood stars are fountains of wisdom but they get to come and speak. Yeah, we get you are super salty because you are in finance and also have poo poo opinions you share to people who dislike you, thus making you more salty. How about you spare us all and become a Republican or Libertarian instead? I'm sure they won't stab you in the back.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Obama clearly wants to have a constructive role in unifying the party going forward. Acting like a corporate Democrat isn't going to help him, in that regard. The number one thing his legacy does not need, is for him to look more like the Clintons. Can we start taking bets on if/when Obama will lead the vanguard against an insurgent left in the party?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Fansy posted:If FDR proposed the second Bill of Rights today, how would liberals respond? Probably say it was pie in the sky full communism now, maybe you'll get a hot take on Sanders too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
How many politicians willing to speak to folks from Wall Street for fat stacks of cash only do it once, though? I might be totally incorrect, but it seems like a well that is repeatedly dipped into.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Oh yeah, and the tax cuts are almost certainly going to balloon the deficit, which led to further cuts more than the ones that are planned (in all honesty they will probably be directed to SS/Medicare). Then you always have the looming possibility of another incoming recession in a year or two. I don't know how people have faith that political reform is possible. It really is just faith, too, as there are very few indicators of reform being feasible through typical political channels.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:It's very easy to understand the "he's making them poorer" when you realize that the neoliberal mindset isn't that employees create wealth but that they're actually a burden that the capitalist class is being charitable to let leech on their profits. It's just rare for liberals to tap into that so openly. Huh, I never really considered that but it does make a lot of positions make much more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Future spoiler: Everyone defending Obama getting 400k from Cantor will just as vigourosly defend Obama's future extravagent speaking fees to questionable entities, which I think everyone knows are coming deep down inside.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
There's also a pretty big difference between formal and informal fallacies. The former are logical show stoppers if your argument relies upon it as the logical structure is just broken, while the latter is has more to do with things like a bad conclusion or the characteristics of the premises.
AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It's nice that you think you can just handwave them away, but guess what, internet tough guy? Your little pea-shooter gun isn't going to do much against a tank or an F-16. There is no way in which the violent protests that you advocate will be "sufficient." Hi, sorry to bring it up again but this bothers me a little. This particular line of argument never made much sense because it assumes militaries are fueled by hoorah and magical logistic elves. No military is going to be throwing around the best poo poo they have in a full blown armed revolution, as the logistical basis of said military is for sure going to be compromised. Even the mighty US military needs food, fuel, and ammunition as well as good maintenance schedules for sophisticated equipment like aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It would be nice if this article highlighted what the Democratic base is even supposed to be. It's not clear to me anymore. When Democratic leadership talks about turning out "their base" are they just talking about people who are terrified enough of the GOP to vote Democratic no matter what? I think you just nailed it.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:The Syrian civil war begs to differ, and that's even with full paramilitary groups on the sides of the civilians. The Syrian government seemed to manage just fine with logistics. So they experienced no degradation of performance or capabilities during the civil war? My basic point is what is on paper is not necessarily what would really be able to be utilized, internal strife places significant stress on the abilities of military organizations to function optimally, whose effects range from logistical disruption to desertion. This is separate from the issue of whether such an event is desireable or even likely. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 19:15 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Sure, they did have issues, but they still managed to drop bombs on civilians regularly Fair point, the average American is indeed very servile and made of softer stuff than the average Syrian.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Typo posted:Also the Syrian rebellion "worked" because a significant part of the army defected, if the army as a whole remained loyal to Assad the war would be over by now Yeah this is a good point too that I didn't consider when I commented earlier. As the right wing essentially owns the US military we can forget that happening. Can't do it by ballot or bullet, so what's left?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:I don't think the ballot can be ruled out but it requires the democrats to either reform or get the gently caress out of the way So it can be ruled out, then?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Typo posted:The concentration of corporate power today is I'd say similar to that of early 1890s gilded age, populists and progressives equalized societies 100 years ago, it can happen again Citing the successes of an ultimately defeated movement whose historical situation is very much disanalgous to our own is kind of a cold comfort. You may as well be citing the Bolsheviks.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Typo posted:They weren't ultimately defeated no, you would be right to argue that some of their progress was rolled back though The meager reforms that were able to be passed survive, in a sense, but the movement that made them and the political will to further them is gone. It will only be a matter of time before the will to maintain them disappears as well. The party that pushed for these reforms now mirrors the ideological opponents the early dems had to fight to get even the pathetic skeleton of FDR's reforms passed. Sorry, that is a total defeat. There is popular desire to do things, sure, but the ability to actually harness it is essentially gone. The Democrats either refuse the call or actively dismantle anyone who tries to get genuine leftism, which further illustrates the degree of defeat in the left. Edit: Also I do not think the situations then and now are at all analogous. The situation just with labor is very different, as is the threat that automation and globalization play in weakening labor to the point of irrelevance. Leftist organizations were also significantly stronger then. AstheWorldWorlds fucked around with this message at 22:37 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Radish posted:I don't get the Booker/Kushner thing. Like every Democrat hates everyone associated with the Trumps from the Berniebros to the Hillbots. If he's trying to be the serious bipartisan guy waiting for all the facts there's probably better people to defend than the idiot son in law that shouldn't have gotten clearance in the first place. It's not like Republicans are going to respect that. Like it seems like a move designed to piss off as many people as possible. Maybe he's gearing up to be the next Lieberman?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
One of the elements of the argument that this is all just a matter of education and dialogue I find so confusing is what do these folks think has been happening for well over a century? That conceptualization of the problem is old as dirt and clearly engaged in already presently and much more so historically. When you consider that the bulk of efforts have exactly been on those lines and with meager success I would presume the matter would speak for itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 10:02 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Efforts at dialogue, or rather outreach, do not happen to be uniformly distributed, right? Isn't it quite uncontroversial that certain areas have been entirely dominated by GOP agents, and vice versa? I mean in the aftermath of this election there was suddenly an avalanche of people trying to get politically involved only to find out their local party office was defunct. And appealing to people through talking heads on TV alone is ineffectual, it only works for the right because there are actually people on the ground, embedded in communities, who integrate right wing talking points into public life. Depends on the time and place, I think. I won't deny it is certainly one important tool to utilize, that is just objectively true. My confusion comes from the fact that it has been widely utilized as a technique to the point that I think one could reasonably argue it is the primary strategy leftists rely on. And yet the country, in terms of who controls actual power, has been decisively becoming more right wing, more capitalist over time. Even the much lauded New Deal period was accompanied by an incredible expansion of corporate power and influence over the state. Clearly there is a bit more going on than a simple lack of reaching out to folks on their own terms.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 19:09
|
|