|
Elizabeth Warren is cool and good. The right is targeting her early which should tell us something. It's bizarre to put all eggs in a 78 year old Bernie basket.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
karthun posted:Its pretty much the opposite. Yeah, I guess the smear machine is already in high gear if random people are coming into D&D believing this poo poo. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/wasserman-schultz-elizabeth-warren-payday-lending-223802
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Payday loan offices are loving evil and often lure in the poorest and most vulnerable with the promise of FREE MONEY NOW! And almost always lands them in more debt. I agree with this 100% if that wasn't clear. Was just chiming in that in no way does Warren support them, since apparently that's what the whisper campaign now would have people believe.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:^^^ Criticism doesn't imply not voting, though. I'll end up voting for whoever ends up getting the Democratic nomination, even if I don't like them. While you could argue that criticism could possibly encourage people to not vote, at that point you're suggesting the flat-out crazy idea that criticism or anything else that has a non-zero chance of hurting election chances should be quashed (and one could very easily make the argument that attempts to shut down such criticism are more harmful than the criticism itself). Yeah, impugning motives is bad. Like, let's stop doing it. "Democratic socialism" isn't actually socialism though. It's just using the word. It really just seems to mean expanded welfare state to include college/health care. The Bernie platforn doesn't really represent much of an ideological schism outside of trade. And I suspect trade deals would still get done with Bernie too. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Sep 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The core value of democratic socialism is employee ownership and democratic control of industry within that context. It is socialism. What policy has Sanders proposed to establish employee ownership?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
I guess there's stuff he cosponsored with noted "socialists" Gillibrand and Leahy. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/legislative-package-introduced-to-encourage-employee-owned-companies
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What does that have to do with anything? You claimed democratic socialism isn't socialism. You are wrong. The whole point of this thread was discussing specific political figures and Ytlaya contends Sanders is a socialist. So the conversation is about pressing for an example of this supposed socialism. Whether some theoretical "democratic socialism" is socialist doesn't answer whether the ideology as defined/proposed by Bernie Sanders is. Maybe not as fascinating as picking apart comments divorced from their context, but oh well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Yeah, assuming I read them correctly, the difference Ytlaya was pointing out is between achieving M4A and saying "There, we're done!" and achieving M4A and saying, "Great, but we've got a lot more work to do." That's great in the long term. But in the long term we're all dead (because we can't afford healthcare).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:If the Democrats hadn't spent the last 45 years triangulating to swing conservative voters instead of their own voters, maybe the base would still be voting Dem instead of staying at home. Hmm yes the story of Democrats before 1972 was one of harmony with those true "leftists" of their base, southern white people. Tell us more about US politics with your keen Canadian knowledge of this country. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Oct 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Democrats didn't have any problem winning election after election without the "harmony" with or even relying on the South FYI I got bad news for you about the math on those 1948 and 1960 maps. They both incorporated southern states to win. And those votes were not "leftist" in any way the modern champions of that word would care to claim. The party in those days kept a truce with white supremacists which was only broken once the issue was forced. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Oct 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Racists gravitate toward racist campaigning? How shocking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let's pretend 1964 didn't happen because it didn't fit *~the narrative*~. Of course it happened, but you can't cherry-pick history. It's not like Democrats in all the other years they lost to Nixon, Reagan, and Eisenhower didn't support the Great Society programs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Yes what could have been wrong with the Democratic Party before the 70s? "If I come out for the anti-lynching bill now, they will block every bill I ask Congress to pass to keep America from collapsing. I just can't take that risk."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Johnson was of course a pro war centrist who ran largely on his opponent's nuttiness (sound familiar?). Beyond that his platform was the same Great Society stuff that Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Carter and all the rest supported. But by all means let's gather round as Canadians tell us about a lost U.S. leftist party that never existed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Balancing an occasional budget through increased progressive income taxes is actually important for the health of a welfare state, dumbass.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Actually, I'm not the one telling it, I'm only re-posting the words of a Kansas book writer. Oh well as long as you are just plagiarizing some dude from Kansas... Also apparently Kansas book guy didn't cover the Vietnam War.  I'm sure you can look up the documentary on the PBS website though if the US in the 60s is one of your interests.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I love how your ignoring that the Democrats actually had a debate about the war. Typical liar Also you never responded about why Mondale had a balanced budget as a central plank. But then that would undermine your whole much mountain of lies neoliberal. Now go join the gop. Sociopath. Probably because Reagan had big budget deficits due to tax cuts and part of running against an incumbent is attacking stuff that they did. And yeah the democrats had a debate on Vietnam, and the president who some claim ruled over some golden leftist age was firmly pro-war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Indeed JFK was a centrist president. It's not me claiming the 60s were some sort of leftist heyday.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The original claim was that supporting the Great Society again means you must be suggesting we support Jim Crow because that's the only way 60s Democrats won. No I'm saying you can't point to a moment in time and ignore its historical context. Also what Great Society programs did Obama not support?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Lbj did so because no one would have supported America leaving. MLK who really was the voice of the left was neutral on it. The left wing position if there was one outside of types like Ginsburg was for a negotiated settlement to be attempted. It was not bring the troops home. Also neoliberal( which your constant need to pubch left shows). It was tragic he did that. But unlike you I actually recognise what America was like then I think his biographers will tell you LBJ did what he did because he believed in the war. Also lol at talking about punching left while defending the sworn enemy of hippies and 60s leftists everywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Should you really be posting on a political forum if you're this ignorant of the last 8 years, come on man. Read a book. Can't name anything can you?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you don't know that Obama literally tried to cut Medicare, one of the signature accomplishments of the Great Society then you're really not informed enough to be worth talking to honestly. I'm well aware of this, but your "hands off my Medicare, Obummer!" doesn't really change anything here. Obama took a negotiating position that literally was unacceptable to Republicans because it was too good at separating the rich from their wealth.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Did you read the article at all? Also it ignores that campaigns aren't won on banking policy in this century. That is literally the dumbest of takes. At least trade is an issue actual numbers of voters have an opinion on. No low attention voter understands anything about actual banking... you might as well just run ads saying "those fuckers our poo poo" on loop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
"I'm just saying there was good growth and popular programs like the autobahn back then. Why bring up the other stuff? That wasn't covered in my book on German politics."
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Aw now liking LBJ in some capacity is like being pro nazi. gently caress off Troll. You are dumb as hell if you think that is the point but I guess that's to be expected given the historical ignorance of D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Person who says balanced budget is not running to the right accuses others of historical ignorance. gently caress off sociopath. Guess the well has run dry and we're back to sociopath as the favored insult. Also you say taxing the rich is running to the right and now wants to open carry as an intimidation tactic. So who is the actual sociopath, maybe the poster with no sense of empathy who wants to see the world burn? Welcome to the ignore list. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Idk feeling bad for the bottom 0.9 of the top 1% is pretty dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
But seriously a lot of the leftier-than-thou posturing in this thread and D&D in general draws a really rose colored picture of the mid 20th century. That is a real thing for that is being done.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:the idea, that a distinction between defense and aggression is mere pedantry, is absolutely peak liberal Not particularly. Any committed idealogues or just plain opportunist say what they are doing is defensive. Bush admin claimed it in a Iraq. Alt right claims it. Antifa claims the same for that matter regardless of whether you see them as good or bad. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:that you think that is, uh, revealing? lol "It's still self defense because it stops something bad in the future" -what everyone argues when it suits them
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is p easy yronic. People who supported the Iraq war said it was a direct threat though and/or said they were defending others from Saddam. And they were sure to point to Nazi-like traits of the Baathists. So the core claim is made in the same way regardless of whether the merits are adequate for the particular argument. It's not just LINERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS who make the claim. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and they were lying. and anyone with half a brain knew they were lying You are the one talking about defense of others. Saddam never threatened anyone in Iraq?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
You're the one implying the type of argument is a good one. Then you try to get around the implications by saying "well actually everyone was lying about Iraq because no one ever believed a bad thing was good because of their ideology." That said, I'm not convinced you even recognize what the original argument is about. You probably just heard antifa and jumped in.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nah, my argument lines up with what other people were saying. just cause bush said the iraq war was defensive doesn't mean it was. just cause jefferson clay said vietnam was defending capitalism, doesn't mean it was. Don't be obtuse. Of course keeping them from beating up protesters is clear-cut defense. Otoh stuff like punching Richard Spencer at an interview is argued to be an act of preemption. Preemption, as Sarah Palin can't tell you, is at the core of the Bush doctrine as well. So that's two examples of non-LIBERALS LIBERALS LIBERALS who argue for preemption in some form.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:ah, you're crying tears for richard spencer, a man who has argued the following: I never said preemption was always needless, just that it's actually a universally held belief (except among some pacifists). Liberals do it, conservatives do it, even antifa does it. Nice try shifting goalposts though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and i already said that the preemption is justified cause there's a legitimate threat in the case with nazis that there wasn't in the case of Iraq So do you deny the Kurdish genocide?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Regardless of any inaccuracy/accuracy, it is probably an unwise rhetorical move for this audience to compare antifa to W. This audience will throw a tantrum no matter what.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
No, this is simply turning your own fallacious argument style against you for sarcastic effect. Good gravy you are a dumb motherfucker.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:18
|
|
you're really doing it, you're arguing in favor of the iraq war
|
Calibanibal posted:yeah uh there is nothing wrong with the idea of preemptive violence. just the opposite, its an incredible important concept, to leftists, and not to liberals, because leftists, unlike liberals, are deeply concerned about the use of violence and how or when it can be legitimate or illegitimate. thats the whole loving point - jeffclay, like all liberals, sees the distinction between aggression, defense, or preemptive aggression as mere pedantry. because they are unconcerned with the intellectual dilemma of violence And liberals, and some non-tankie leftists for that matter, generally believe Stalinists killed a hell of a lot of innocent people, so the question of containment was one of tactics.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, the vietnam war was the best way to prevent a hell of a lot of people from being killed Sounds like you support those things since sarcasm is not a thing anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:34
|
|
