|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
shrike82 posted:The democrat party in a tweet
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
They had won the war with themselves. The dems loved Big Business.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
There's no reason to vote dem anymore. I was wondering whether or the dems would take the same tack in 2020 that they did in the dem primary - conflating econonic populism with racism. It seems like that's now a certainty. The daily show is important because it taps into the exact audience of highly educated wonks that constitute the dem leadership. For them to take this line suggests that 2020 primary is going to be 2016 primary: redux. The idpol infection has now reached the terminal stage. There is no cure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The collapse of rudatron into full-on hatred of all the darker peoples of the earth on grounds they're not the right flavor of woke for him has been ongoing for quite some time now. Trevor Noah issuing a lame-rear end joke in defense of the democratic establishment driving him to existential despair is not unpredictable, but it is embarrassing to watch. You're part of the problem here, you know that? Believe it or not, idpol is not equivalent to anti-racism, and abusing the legitimate goal of anti-racism to justify political corruption, is the exact kind of bullshit that makes idpol destructive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
The media was incredibly lenient on Hillary, and almost every single celebrity came out and endorsed her. Hillary had better 'messaging' than almost any political campaign in history, as well as one of the largest campaign warchests ever assembled. What she didn't have a vision, a reason for her to run for election, other than "it's her turn". Which was quite possibly one of the most self absorbed, selfish, and empty slogans in all of political history. No one, not even the people voting for her, was enthusiastic about Clinton. Because literally everyone saw through the vacuous 'messaging' of the Clinton campaign team. rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:he's still mad that when he lumped every PoC, gay, trans, and otherwise minority voter in Kansas in as "odious" filth unworthy of his support, I pointed out MLK's stance on people like him was a pretty solid "poo poo or get off the pot, man."
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Also don't doxx people please, or attack their gender identity, that's garbage behaviour from garbage people.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:your instinctive reaction, in the aftermath of donald trump being elected, was to blame the people who said racism was a thing for causing it. Now, if you could kindly get your facts straight, before you start helldumping, that would be grand.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
Protest without violence carries no threat to a political order that uses violence to secure itself. Believe it or not, fear and intimidation is a real thing, and if someone can kill you, but you can't kill them, you are at the mercy of that person and effectively a slave. By committing to non violence, you're castrating yourself.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:These are pretty words, but they're meaningless. The reality is, capital fears more than just physical violence or death. They also fear massive profit losses. If what you said were true, peaceful disruptive protests like the Dandi Salt March would not have reaped any results at all, when in fact they did. Capital is more than willing to deploy killers and murderers to get what it wants, all non-violent protests provide are defenseless cattle for the slaughter. The use of violence or non violence should be an instrumental and strategic choice, based on the context that an organization finds itself in. Ruling out violence is to simply pray and wait for death, at the hands of reactionary paramilitaries.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Strategically, in the context of the current political climate, direct assassination or violent action would represent an escalation, and would be disfavorable to the party escalating. So a non violent protest would be more successful - for now. That context won't stay the same forever however, and swearing off violence is a very dangerous thing to do, so long as people fear death (they do).
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
I can agree with 'right now', but I can't agree to a general attachment to non violence, nor can I agree that a successful revolution can ever be completed without violence. Strikes are never met with inaction, they have historically been very brutal and bloody scenes - if you believe the sane won't happen in the future, you're being naive.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Not hitting back is actually the easiest choice to make - you give up, and place yourself at the mercy of others. That gives then power, which they will use to serve their interests, not yours, assuming even letting you live is something they want to do. 'Showing the world' is nothing but a meaningless symbolic gesture. All you're doing is hoping that someone else will swoop in and save you, thereby absolving yourself of doing anything. There was a note found, recently, in Wal-Mart clothing, from a Chinese prisoner, detailing their working conditions. This was that person, "showing the world", the abuses they suffered. Will their abuse stop? No. Will the system that perpetuates that abuse stop? No. It didn't do anything. In a world were activists swear off violence, nothing will ever change, because the system will continue to operate, deploying brutal violence if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Individuals don't change anything, and terrorism rarely achieves the goals the terrorist want it to. I don't blame non violent protestors, nor do I think that it necessarily the wrong strategy, for right now. But there are hard limits you reach with those kinds of tactics, and they can only work in certain situations (Importantly, they have to carry the implicit threat of violent counterattack if they are not respected). If the ruling class no longer cares about being seen as moral or righteous, they'll absolutely use things like wmds or whatever to maintain power. That's what naked self interest looks like. That's exactly the kind of thing that's happened before, and it can happen again. A major shift in power will not happen without at least the possibility of that occurring. All power ultimately rests on the willingness and ability to use force to compel others.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Why was racism a decisive factor in the loss of the (white woman) Clinton, but not Obama? Assuming O-O-T voters voted on the grounds of racial prejudice doesn't have any explanatory power.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
You're just starting from the assumption that not voting Clinton is racist, ergo it was racism. That's a transparent attempt at obsfucation of ideology. In particular it ignores that Trump made an attack on trade deals a cornerstone of his campaign. Perhaps the people who voted O O T did so in the basis on that promise?
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Actually that strategy does scale up, even to things like elections, and perpetually choosing the 'lesser evil' is just a more elaborate ultimatum game that's been set up by people in power for their own benefit - by rejecting the terms of the game entirely, you blow up that system. Spite is good.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Racism never comes from nowhere. Clintonites never seen to be able to give a coherent theory as to why racism is worse now than it was 4 years ago, so that Obama could win but Clinton (a white woman) would lose. The reason is simple: people are more anxious, more afraid, and in that fear turn to old prejudices. Cultural anxiety is a function of economic anxiety, limiting the size of the in-group and romanticizing old prejudices are symptoms of decline and alienation, not totally serrated forces.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Its really weird how "white people are racist" has itself become a racial stereotype. Its particularly egregious when you start comparing it to racism in other countries. When we talk about racism in countries like China, or the Middle East, or whatever, the cause is always (correctly) seen as relating to education or development or whatever. Yet, when talking about it in the white community, its assumed to be caused by a malevolent spirit, that can only ever be exorcised through the ritualistic blood sacrifice of appalachians. Maybe the cause is the same in both cases, and the people who prefer to only ever see racism as an essentialistic character flaw, are engaging in exactly the same kind of prejudicial thinking they're claiming to oppose? Its just that they refuse to engage in self reflection of this fact, because that would imply some uncomfortable conclusions about their own moral superiorty, which they have gone to great lengths to nurture.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:thank you for explaining why anti-racists are the real racists, antifascists are the real fascists, and counterrevolutionaries are the real revolutionaries The point isn't that 'anti-racists are the real racists', a line used almost exclusively to excuse the bigotry of racists. It's that the self appointed leaders of progressivism (such as yourself), wouldn't know what a revolution actually looks like, because they're arrogant tossers more interested in politics as a team game like football, then politics as a philosophy. Revolutions are positive in spirit, they sweep away all existing prejudices and invert already existing social dogmas. You, are negative in spirit, and you've internalized the carefully constructed rube goldberg machine liberals have made for themselves, to protect themselves from introspection. No introspection is necessary if you're committed to the belief that some totally disconnected phantom called racism caused Hillary's loss. But that leaves questions unanswered. How did Obama win where Hillary lost? Why have things gotten worse over the past 4 years? Is racism itself without cause, simply the result of the pure malice that white people of course inherit (being white), or is it caused by something else? These, and other questions, haven't been reckoned with by people like yourself, because they imply uncomfortable uncertainties about long held assumptions, that have dominated activism. But rather than confront that, you of course naturally gravitate to harassing the people who point this out to you. After all, if you can get them to shut up, the problem goes away, right? So you see, the potential for revolution exists - outside of you.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Whining about small businesses, while wages have remained stagnant with inflation is concern trolling, the minimum wage should increase because that's the fair thing to do. America hasn't gotten a pay rise since the 70s, yet people are working longer hours than ever. Business owners have made off like bandits, while the people they employ get a poo poo sandwich. gently caress off with your crocodile tear poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Marxism-via-Blizzard-Entertainment. Delightful. No material conditions need be considered, no, it is a a sickness of the soul that has produced the servants of the dread "idpol," who must be vanquished in ascending order of sweet drops in order to proceed to the next tier.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Its not one or the other, you grab whatever's easiest.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 09:16
|
|
|
You're falling into the trap of assuming that 'jobs' are a limited resource provided by 'job creators' based over their personal comfort or whatever. All wealth is based on labor, banning unsafe jobs or exploitative jobs won't throw people inyo unemployment, because that work still has to be done (clothes made, vegetables/fruit picked, etc). It will provide a base level of safety for people in those jobs.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Jc in the confederate state: well slavery is bad, but think about the possiblity of unemployment
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That's funny, because "there's no difference between wage slavery and chattel slavery" was literally one of the arguments confederates made to defend the peculiar institution. Your faux-concern of the employability, is nothing but a smokescreen for your disgusting self-interest and greed, the benefits you receive from the the exploitation of third-world workers. rudatron fucked around with this message at 13:16 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm loving the leftists who now have a deep, abiding faith that the market will not let unemployed labor go idle. Unemployment isn't a market failure, its an system designed to depress wages through the existence of a reserve army of labor. In terms of resources, capitalism doesn't let resources sit idle, not if it can help it. You aren't going to make an entire country unemployed because you ban sweatshops, you moron, that's too valuable a thing to just give up. The only reason the unemployment crisis is hitting the west as hard as it is, because global capital wants to bring its wage levels down to third world levels, not because of a market failure.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Its just this stupid naive magical thinking that you have, JC, that you think that sweatshops are just going to disappear, naturally, once the country is 'developed' enough. What you're forgetting, is that the only reason sweatshops don't still exist in the west, has nothing to do with the generosity of capital, and everything to do with decades of violent labor agitation. These conditions will not magically disappear with the passage of time, by themselves. They will only disappear after encountering violent, aggressive opposition. Threats and ultimatums. They will never be replaced after even a million years of your stupid apologia. I doubt that said jobs are ever coming back to the west, and if they did, it would be at the same wage levels of those in the third world, which is basically unaffordable anyway. But it's plain to everyone that this race to the bottom is helping no one, but people like yourself, so I say 'gently caress you buddy'.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
If you're seriously arguing that small businesses can't survive without treating employees like garbage, and not paying them a fair wage, then destroy all small businesses forever. Being a Plucky Little Underdog Mom And Pop store is zero excuse for underpaying or exploiting employees. QQ will someone please think of the plantation owners QQ
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
There sonething totally pathetic about giving a Tear Jerking Story, about how sad people getting paid a living wage makes you, or justifying your heinous poo poo on the grounds of 'people are evil' amd 'idle hands are the devils tools'. No retard, you are evil, as evidenced by your callous disregard of people's basic welfare. Your fake nihilism is nothing but a smokescreen for your malicious, greedy, and anti-social psychology. Its just a sweet nothing you can tell yourself, while you dream of horrors you can inflict on the powerless.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:When people ask why the democrats are a waste, I'm going to point them to this thread (also the hillary toxx thread)
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
People aren't paid poo poo wages because their work is unnecessary. Minimum wage labor actually tends to be very critical work, that no one wants to do. The reason for the low wages is the lack of power on the part of people compelled to work them. They are powerless, and so are coerced into accepting bullshit wages. An increase in the minimum wage won't actually affect employment, because toilets still have to be scrubbed, and they're not going to scrub themselves. So where does the extra money from? Answer - from people with higher incomes, who must see both a real decrease, because the price of goods increase, and a nominal decrease, as all businesses collectively have less excess money to encourage high earners to stick around. This redistribution is 100% of the reason minimum wage is opposed so vehemently, from people like troika, because the suffering of everyday people is less important to him than his marginal comforts. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:11 on May 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
People are rightfully distrustful of things they do not understand, and that goes double for policies that politicians present, because more often that not, that complexity exists only to screw them over. Talking about 'simple' policy isn't a right-wing argument because 'simple' =/= no government involvement. Eg- The public option is 'simple' but not right-wing. Also JC you're still a massive moron without an understanding of economics, who's pretending they're a loving professor. Even if minimum wage leads to price increases, that doesn't mean that people living on that wage will experience a decrease in living standards - in fact, it must increase. Why? Because total costs = total wages + dividends, and not everyone is on minimum wage. Only human beings actually earn money. Each product has some proportion of wage labor built into it, which has the different wage levels contributing to the cost, ie: 30% minimum wage, 40% median wage, 30% high wage. Even if the minimum wage increases, that only affects the proportion of the labor in a product that pays minimum wage. That price increase will be both proportional to the wage increase, but also to the proportion of labor that pays minium wage, which since it is less than 100%, must mean that the product of the two, which is the proportional increase in the cost of production, must be less than the proportional increase in the minimum wage. rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is asking for a compromise on principles. Look where triangulation got us. But you get votes wherever you can, by pushing ideology. The belief that white workers are all genetically racist, and that clearly chasing after the suburbs for the umpteenth time is going to produce results now, is just pure ideology. In order to push class interest, its important that the party be composed of and have the support of the class they want to represent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
I didn't do either of those things, buddy, I blamed and still blame idpol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Idpol isn't leftism, its virtue-politics liberalism masquerading as radicalism. It had nothing interesring to say, no insight to give, and its not interested in emancipation, or mass politics. It is made for exactly one purpose - justifying a smug superiority complex. Anyone interested in the liberation struggle, against oppression along class, racial, gender & sexual orientation lined, should recognize it as destructive/counter productive. Sadly, many do not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Identity politics is any political framework that essentializes human beings, and then attempts to build a political worldview centered around that. For example: b5 rejects the idea of the democratic party even attempting to steal poor/rural whites. Why? Because, quote, "many are nativist". This is idpol. Discussion of interests, ideology and political philosophy are sidelined, by discussions of whatever prejudices b5 has about poor/rural whites, what they are or ought to be. Though he claims to want a 'structural ' discussion on racism, its actually not a structural discussion, in that no structure is being addressed. It's character politics. The rural white is a character in his mind, not a person. He thinks appealing to suburbans is a better strategy, because the character of the suburban in his mind, is less offensive/more virtuous. That's it. Everything else is just a rationalization of this limited imagination.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Well, now that that's out of the way, nobody has any reason to reply to b5 anymore. See guys? It doesn't matter if you beat him at debate, he'll just call you a liar and then move on. Engaging with him is fruitless, because he does not ever admit fault, or change his mind. That would require feeling some amount of shame. So now, you can all safely ignore him, with the knowledge that talking with him is literally useless.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Why are you guys still arguing with b5? Do you think you're going to achieve anything? Look at his behavior, as an outsider. Is anything he's done the actions of a man with integrity? Look at how quickly he dismissed anything that actually threatens him. What hope do you have, of holding him to account, when he doesn't do that for himself? There's nothing you can say or do, that can compel him to act with dignity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
This is getting tedious.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 01:56
|
|