|
The Glumslinger posted:https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/913466992048340992 quote:Other Democrats we tested against Trump are Cory Booker who leads him 47/40, Elizabeth Warren who leads him 47/41, Kirsten Gillibrand who leads him 42/39, and Kamala Harris who leads him 41/40. Strap in and stockpile plenty of alcohol to get through 2020 if we nominate Booker or Gillibrand or Harris though.
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:This is me officially getting on the gently caress Joe Biden train. Bottom floor baby. He's Hillary Clinton with worse positions but he's a creepy white dude who loves to mack on women in public, so him winning would reaffirm everything we think is terrible about America. Ah but if we apply the converse, since 2016 already affirmed that everything we think is terrible about America is in fact true, then Joe Biden will definitely win 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:she's not jumping onboard already, Dude
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted: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. Democrats didn't have any problem winning election after election without the "harmony" with or even relying on the South FYI   
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
Let's pretend 1964 didn't happen because it didn't fit *~the narrative*~ Those we're all examples of Democrats winning despite Southern defections, and 1964 didn't rely on a single Southern EV. Because it turns out if you offer the people something they want they vote for you. If you tell them what they want will never happen they don't, that's why you have to start pandering to racists by say shopping around a picture of your primary opponent in Somali garb and talking out of both sides of your mouth about whether he's a Muslim, or advising party attaches to remind the public what a Jewy Jew your opponent is, or appeal to islamaphobic smears as a last ditch tactic to win an intraparty leadership race.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
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. I showed that this wasn't true, so now the corporate dems are moving the goalposts "but Vietnam was bad!" Of course it was, but Vietnam wasn't why LBJ won and it is why Humphrey lost so it's irrelevant to the discussion. The point is, accusing anyone of saying "hey the Great Society was good policy and good politics" of being a secret Jim Crow loving racist is incorrect. And I know you know that yronic, so it's dishonest and quite frankly tiresome to boot. All you ever do is make up accusations of racism against anyone you disagree with, I don't know what you get out of it but it's really boring and irritating please stop. It's also hypocritical because as we saw in 2008, 2016, and 2017 the instant a non-white and/or non-Christian runs on anything even vaguely economically populist, the centrist corporate faction of the Democrats trample over each other in a stampede to Lee Atwater's grave to dig up the golden dogwhistles entombed therein.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
stone cold posted:i came in when some dumbass claimed johnson wasn't pro war so Fair enough, Johnson was a babykiller that's indisputable.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No I'm saying you can't point to a moment in time and ignore its historical context.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Also I like that this sealioning thing you're doing now inadvertently undermines your own point. "The Great Society was racist, anyone who like it is a secret racist!" "Not really, here's the proof." "Oh um uh well, hm okay new claim: actually Obama was identical to LBJ so what are you whining about?"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Can't name anything can you? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted: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. lmbo E: That is to say, the argument you're incompetently trying to make is so self-evidently stupid it's not even worth engaging with. The idea that trying to cut Medicare was Obama's 99th-dimensional chess move to trick the Republicans into giving up on cutting Medicare is absurd; Obama was the president and his party controlled the Senate, there was no way the Republicans could cut Medicare as long as he refused to let them. The only reason to offer it is because Obama believed in austerity and balanced budgets and actually wanted to cut entitlements in order to get higher taxes and more deficit reduction. Like unless you've got some proof to back it up (spoiler alert: you don't), this is just the laziest and dumbest trolling I've seen in a while, and given what D&D is like these that's fuckin saying something. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Oct 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
I don't think the article is saying that segregation is a good thing, I think it's accusing the Democratic Party of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. No longer tolerating segregationists and warlovers: good. Also turning its back on anti-trust and banking regulation: bad
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Centrist dems don't have any problem differentiating economic populism and racism whenever they reach for the racist dogwhistles to attack non-white and/or non-Christians running on economically populist themes. Just like they have no scruples accusing anyone who likes Medicare of loving the Vietnam War because LBJ, while voting for every one of our colonial adventures in the Middle East.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Should Democrats even want to be popular? You know who else was popular...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It's fine to suggest Democrats try to recapture the kind of popularity that LBJ and FDR enjoyed, but it's weird to assert their popularity was solely due to expanding social services and had nothing to do with their ideological defenses of free enterprise and capitalism and their interventionist foreign policy to defend the same across the world. Mmm yes noted defensive war, the colonial occupation of Vietnam
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Is this pure pedantry or are you trying to argue the Vietnam war wasn't about resisting the expansion of communism? It definitely wasn't We can be 100% certain that it wasn't about self-defense or self-determination because we were supporting the French colonial occupation of the Vietnamese people VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
"Containing communism" is not a defensive aim by definition because it involves attacking other countries and imposing an economic system on them regardless of popular will, also see Cuba. Also lol at "well McNamara wrote that maybe he kinda sorta believed that conquering the Vietnamese would give them* freedom" obviously means it was true and the war was for freedom, even though we were supporting a murderous dictatorship (also see, Cuba). Also clearly George W Bush's aim in Iraq was freedom, look he even said it and wrote it down once an everything. *the ones who survived the napalming
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
stone cold posted:e: i am not claiming this as a "defensive aim," as you put it, i am claiming this because you denied that was what the johnson administration was freaked out about Jefferson Clay claimed the war was a defensive one. I pointed out that it wasn't, if you agree with that then you and I have nothing to argue about. I think you misread my original post.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Ah I see, it's more to do with you clarified it when originally you just had written "it wasn't" which obviously I interpreted to mean that it wasn't about containing communism Yeah sorry. Of course anticommunism was a major war aim, because anticommunism is a broad net that encompasses a ton of aggressive actions such as Operation Ajax. Or invading Vietnam after the war and reinstalling the same guy Japan used as their puppet emperor to rule over the people as colonial subjects of an expansionist foreign regime. I was objecting to Jefferson Clay claiming anything done under the banner of anticommunism is defensive by definition because invading, colonizing, occupying countries, overthrowing democracies etc is "defending free enterprise" according to him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No I didn't, I said LBJ's interventionist foreign policy was about defending capitalism. Not that every intervention was purely defensive in nature. I think you misread my original post. Invading and occupying other people's countries in order to impose a government and economic system on them is not "defending" anything, capitalism or otherwise. It is aggressive expansionism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:So domino theory was about stopping anti-capitalism and not about defending capitalism, which is a really important distinction and not at all pedantic. Got it. It is very telling that you think distinctions between aggression and defense are unimportant and pedantic.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Communism is an attack on capitalism you dingus. That's the whole idea. There's no important difference between thwarting the spread of communism and defending capitalism. The phrases are functionally identical. Yeah no. Someone else somewhere deciding to be communist is not an attack on capitalism. It doesn't stop people on the other side of the world from being capitalists if they want to be. This makes as much sense as saying that someone deciding to be Jewish is attacking Christianity, or someone being Methodist is attacking Catholicism. That only works if your underlying theory is that some institution is just owed everyone's belief and allegiance by divine right and any wrongthinkers are attacking it just by existing, and therefore going to someone else's country and dropping napalm on them until they agree with you is just defending your ideology, it's nonsense. Domino theory was false, whether the Cubans or the Vietnamese decided to be socialist was not an attack on American capitalism in any way. JeffersonClay posted:You can defend capitalism by engaging in a bunch of unprovoked aggression. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 09:30
|
|
|
And she only accepted the slaves because she was selflessly motivated to reduce the state budget deficit.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
stone cold posted:perhaps the more nuanced read would be, as i've said before, that lbj did extremely good poo poo domestically, but like all presidents in the post wwii era, was an imperialist monster, as one is when one is head of state of the extremely capitalist hegemon That's not really relevant to the leftists today who say we need to get back the LBJ's Great Society. I doubt they're proposing we re-invade Vietnam. Looking at the modern Democrats, the biggest imperialist war hawks also tend to be the most conservative, economically
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:I am reminded how a lot of minority people in TGRS and elsewhere are skeptical of leftist ideas compared to the Great Society and/or New Deal given those programs were carefully crafted to exclude minorities. Historical context means different things to different people, and you have to keep that in mind with communicating. Though people looking for a reason to oppose the real core of what you're proposing will find a way no matter what you do. Those are much more reasonable concerns than "the far left wants to reinvade Vietnam, Medicare is just a dogwhistle for war with the Communist Chinese", because anticommunism and imperialism and colonialism had much more support from the conservative wing of the party and the far left was in the streets getting shot by the National Guard for protesting the war
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Endlessly harping on Vietnam whenever anyone brings up the popularity of Medicare seems like an irrelevant waste of time at best, or more likely a disingenuous concern troll because those same people will tell you to get over Iraq already because cynically voting to murder thousands of 20 year old American kids and countless Iraqi civilians based on a (horrifically wrong) calculation that it would d look good politically to be tough on terrorism, well that's just shrewd pragmatism and exactly what we need in a President.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:In terms of economic populism, compared with the Democratic Party orthodoxy over the past several decades, yes - Johnson's economic policies were considerably to the left. You know how I know this? Because centrist presidents who follow your playbook do poo poo like welfare reform. Actually I think you'll find that the real leftists are the ones who destroyed welfare and tried to cut Medicare and Social Security
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Vietnam was a pragmatic calculation that it would look good to be tough on communism which would help when passing great society programs by defusing accusations of socialism!. So when people say democrats should just copy Johnson to get real popular again, Vietnam is actually quite relevant. Johnson was threading a needle by attacking both unrestrained capitalism with minimal government and revolutionary socialism. when Ronald Reagan put out records saying Medicare would lead to a socialist dictatorship Johnson could respond he was bombing the poo poo out of revolutionary socialists and Medicare was just about taking care of grandma. Ah the liberal, faced with being locked out of every level of government, takes a breath, searches deep within his very soul to find the truth buried within, and says "we gotta bomb more scary mud people". I think your conclusion that the New Deal/Great Society Democrats' success was owed to, or at least impossible without, an aggressive murderous foreign policy is not well supported. It's true that they did these things, but "politician did X, therefore X must be why he won" is not automatically true and there are some big problems your theory would need to deal with. Imma list 3: 1) Yes Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 and among his campaign strategies were insane Trumpy claims like the imaginary missile gap. But it wasn't exactly a smashing success, Kennedy barely won in one of the closest US elections ever with razor-thin margins in the popular vote and in the key states of Illinois and Texas and it could have easily gone the other way. So if that's success to you, well be prepared for more gut-punches like 1968 and 2000 and 2016. 2) In response the GOP nominated the craziest warmonger they could possibly find in 1964 and got absolutely destroyed. 3) By 1968 the Vietnam War was so unpopular that LBJ was trying desperately to get a peace treaty and pull out before the election because without that the Democratic ticket had no hope, and Nixon was promising America a secret plan to end the war while secretly sabotaging the peace talks so he could keep hanging the unpopular war around the Democrats' necks. Also I want to say we've recently tested the theory that cynically supporting insane and evil wars for political gain in order to run an "I'm the real Tough On Terror candidate because Republicans are too dumb to do the wars right, I'll be the bestest at the wars just look at my pro-war record and my war criminal friends who support me", some guy named John Kerry, how did that turn out? And didn't someone try it again real recently like last year, can't place the name though who was that? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Oct 9, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
"We need to murder even more foreigners than Republicans do to get that sweet voter cred" shrieks JC over and over, as Republicans call his war candidate the founder of ISIS anyway and simultaneously blame Democrats for the unpopular wars because "hey they voted for it, whereas I was always secretly against it just ask Sean Hannity"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
All those  are overkill Ytlaya. The "more social spending in an administration = more leftist than" standard puts George W Bush economically to the left of FDR and LBJ. That's really all you need to say about it. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Well, in that post he seemed to be trying to make the point that efficacy of the welfare state was better, not just that there was more spending. Don't get me wrong I quite liked your post. And the discussion of how effective our spending is at relieving poverty is a very important one to have! I'm only pointing out that he's getting you off in the weeds debating the efficacy of the EITC at resolving poverty etc in order to muddy the waters about how the modern Democratic party's legislative agenda, policy proposals, and attempted deals with Republicans differ from what the party used to stand for by saying that's all irrelevant and the only thing that really matters is what federal agencies are doing during someone's administration. If they are effectively reducing poverty then the President is a leftist regardless of whether he would support creating those agencies if they did not already exist, or if he is trying to change them or get rid of them, etc. But if this is the standard that makes Barack Obama and Bill Clinton the leftiest lefty presidents in history during their respective terms, then Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and Donald Trump are also to the left of FDR which is absurd. Well maybe not so absurd to him, since he would probably greet a theoretical George HW Bush candidacy on the Democratic ticket with a sigh of technocratic relief, finally decorum and respectability has been restored and we can start fixing the economy with targeted tax breaks for industries and business.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
JC gonna keep claiming Reagan, Trump, and George W Bush are left of LBJ on poverty huh
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Helsing posted:You think putting a five year lifetime cap on welfare assistance, or switching to block grants (which gave those dastardly Republican state governments you blame for everything a lot more leeway to cut cut cut) was a good move? Also known as the Graham-Cassidy defense. "This bill doesn't do any of those terrible things, we would never do that. It just outsources that part to Republican governors and who can predict what will happen if we give a Republican governor the opportunity to kill the poor"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
 Hillary Clinton managed slaves
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:In what loving world is attacking prison slave labor a right wing tactic. Don't you know. The top 1% are a minority, affecting their bottom line is just like the Holocaust.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There's nothing wrong with attacking prison labor, and if you were calling out FDR as a slaver each and every time his name is mentioned nobody would be suggesting you were using prison labor as a cudgel. But you don't. It's weird to focus on a few dozen convicted murderers working in the governors mansion and ignore a hundred thousand Japanese Americans, denied due process, building infrastructure for no pay, if your real goal is to dismantle the state's use of unpaid prison labor. Nobody defends Japanese internment, JeffersonClay. Well except Michelle Malkin I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If you're looking for high profile 20th century Democrats who personally contributed to the prison slave labor system, FDR has everyone else beat by like four orders of magnitude. That this is never mentioned when discussing his legacy implies prison slave labor is not, in fact, the reason you keep talking about it. FDR wasn't running for president last year and no one discussing his legacy is secretly trying to bring back internment. If FDR ran, or if someone else ran for president on his legacy and wrote a book where they said "at first I was scared to be near Japanese internees because what if they attack me, but after I got to know them I realized that the troublemakers were easy to control and the rest were fine workers whose free labor was great for the state budget!" I promise you it would come up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:What's the statute of limitations for slaving? I agree that we should not nominate any more pro-slave politicians.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
I'm glad he's alive. I was worried Helsing's goodposting had atomized him and I was going to suggest someone go round his house to check on his pets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 11:42 |
|
|
The biggest barrier to discussing prison slavery is partisanship, honestly. My-team partisanship and the bizarre cults of personality around figures like the Clintons that accompany it makes it impossible to criticize those politicians for supporting the prison industrial complex and the government's complicity or active role committing the exploitation outright if it keeps taxes low on the 1%, because hyperpartisans who would condemn it if Republicans were the only ones doing it jump in and leap to the defense of all these things rather than admit that their idols might support bad things and that by extension they themselves are enabling these atrocities. Then they'll bring up FDR expecting the critics of slavery to flip and start defending it if FDR is doing it, because they think everyone else's politics consist of the same cult of personality and the same doublethink when it comes to the party line.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2017 03:50
|
|