|
The fantasy that politics begins and ends at the voting both is still one of the most successful methods of crippling the left.
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's difficult for centrists to credibly champion the things that people want because they've opposed all that poo poo at some point in their political career. Joe Biden is no exception no matter how many Onion articles get written about him. No one is going to believe Biden if he says he's in favor of single payer, or banning private prisons, etc. People will believe Biden wants single payer in the same way people believe Trump doesn't want people to die on the street. I think you underestimate how willing people are to believe bullshit they want to hear.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Republicans / Russians / whoever will spin up a bunch of bullshit concern trolling outfits and saturate social media with a bunch of stories about how Biden is full of poo poo. The propaganda will be effective because it's not exactly wrong. The media will pick up on it as well. That can still happen and you'll still have people who've identified with Biden saying he's the greatest thing since the Trans Am. Same way you have people arguing Hillary was Perfect still, after she lost. The media can't make those people change their minds anymore than the media can convince a Trump voter that actually Trump doesn't mind if you die in the street.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
If Bernie is the best we can do in 2020 we are so hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:He'd probably beat Trump pretty handily. I am nowhere near as confident as you that 2020 will be so easy. Even the theoretically perfect candidate will likely only be able to achieve a squeaker. It's going to be a war-time election, with the most voter suppression since Jim Crow and more dark rightwing money and pseudospeech than ever.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope, but ya know, three years. Yeah "should" if the American voters and our media cared about that poo poo. The idea that Trump is a weak candidate ignores the reality that it doesn't matter what he achieves so long as he keeps being the symbol of regressive "gently caress your bitches." He can blame all the legislative failures on congress, he won't be wrong. Why would facts start mattering all of a sudden?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If their lives don't materially improve, a big chunk of them aren't going to turn out for him. They don't need to vote for the Democrats for Trump to lose. I'm not as confident in the people who voted Trump deciding to vote based on that sort of calculus.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I mean, it doesn't need to be true of 100% of his voters for it to keep him from winning. The dumbass won by 80,000 votes. You're right that a lot of people voted for him as a "gently caress your bitches," but that's not gonna be enough people to win him another election. Sure but how many thousands or millions will be disenfranchised through voter suppression in 2020? How will any new wars impact voter apathy or turnout? You can just here them saying "sure he didn't reopen the mine but America is the land of second chances and Evil Congress has been stymying Good Trump so give him another go!" Add on top that Trump will take credit for a bunch of BS achievements and you or I will see through it, but for half the country "Trump defeated ISIS" will become a fact. And god help us if he starts a minor war and "wins" like a middle school bully wins by beating up a 3rd grader.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Honestly, there doesn't seem to be anyone in the pipeline that is truly leftist in the particular way Sanders is. Sanders is the only one I feel like I can really trust to stick to his particular vision/ideology, and that's definitely a shame because it would be great if there were some younger Sanders-equivalent politicians. I think a mayor, statewide elected official or even an on-the-streets activist could win the Democratic Primary in 2020 if they both a compelling vision and good organizational cadre. Every suit with ambition will be vying to win the nomination in 2020, being someone in touch with the realities of human life in America won't be as big a disadvantage as talking heads might think.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/Marketplace/status/913422360526671873 Marketplace is poo poo. Remember when they fired a reporter for daring to say this: quote:Sharing his own perspective as a transgender person, he said, “I can’t be neutral or centrist in a debate over my own humanity. The idea that I don’t have a right to exist is not an opinion, it is a falsehood. On that note, can people of color be expected to give credence to ‘both sides’ of a dispute with a white supremacist, a person who holds unscientific and morally reprehensible views on the very nature of being human? Should any of us do that?”
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
stone cold posted:duckworth duckworth duckworth duckworth Is unacceptable because she doesn't stand with Bernie on Medicare for All.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Yes a blue Texas would really change the math.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Actually, I'm not the one telling it, I'm only re-posting the words of a Kansas book writer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTyqoV1d2Ys
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The big problem with Obama wasn't that he dismantled the Great Society; rather, it had already largely been dismantled by his predecessors, and he didn't do enough to put it back together. Read the Atlantic piece that I just posted; it provides some good history. That article is interesting in that it argues that we should have been more forgiving of former supporters of segregation and of the Vietnam war so long as they're also economic populists. Certainly has parallels to current politicians and their former support for the Iraq war and the prison-industrial complex.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Where does it argue this? Post a quote. Did you read the article at all? quote:Ironically, as chairman of the Banking Committee, Patman had been the first Democrat to investigate the Watergate scandal. But he was vulnerable to the new crowd he had helped usher in. He was old; they were young. He had supported segregation in the past and the war in Vietnam; they were vehemently against both. Patman had never gone to college and had been a crusading economic populist during the Great Depression; the Watergate Babies were weaned on campus politics, television, and affluence. The article's premise is that the removal of Patman from Banking was one of the mistakes that led towards the pro-banking era of the Democratic party. Patman was a former supporter of segregation and the war in Vietnam and the article argues that those issues should have been ignored because of his populist positions on banking.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I did - evidently a little more carefully than you did. None of what you posted said we should "forgive" Patman for supporting segregation or Vietnam. The article certainly was arguing that removing Patman was a mistake. He was removed because of his support for segregation and Vietnam, so yeah the article is arguing that should have been ignored in favor of his populism on banks. As someone who has repeatedly argued Democrats need a broad coalition, the similarities between this and Democrats who supported the Iraq war or militarizing the police are interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article isn't arguing anything of the sort. Just admit you didn't read it very carefully, jesus dude. You seriously think that the article doesn't argue that removing Patman was a mistake? This passage argues that the destruction of the anti-bank tradition of Democrats was furthered by removing Patman as chair. quote:At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article's lamenting the loss of an anti-monopoly, anti-corporate tradition among the Democrats. It's not about Patman personally; it's about a broader rejection of populism by the Democratic leadership. But the article says that by dethrowning Patman, the Watergate Babies helped the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition. Where in the article do you find it saying removing Patman was a good thing?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It doesn't say it was a good thing. What it does say is this: You're right you got me, the article doesn't say we should forgive him, just let him keep his Banking chair.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The article doesn't say that either. Just stop. So you think the article says that removing Patman from Banking was a good thing?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
The Democrats' big mistake was abandoning organized crime in favor of the financial industry.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/914863875979345922 Which parts?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 01:19
|
|
I'm for stricter gun laws, but this guy's argument has some questionable parts to it.
|
Vietnam can be both about containing Communism, a Wag the Dog, and about broader American imperialism at the same time. America can multitask in our wars.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Well, we lost in Vietnam and capitalism is doing a-okay, so if the Vietnam war was about defending capitalism, it seems like it was needless even for that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:i'm not sure if moving from a possibly winnable race to a definitely not winnable one is failing upwards I think they're more upset that a firm that did digital for a losing campaign can still win contracts
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup. Terrible Democratic advisers keep getting rehired, regardless of how poorly the campaigns they serve do. But here's the thing, what's the non-terrible digital media firm Democrats could hire instead?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Regardless of any inaccuracy/accuracy, it is probably an unwise rhetorical move for this audience to compare antifa to W.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This audience will throw a tantrum no matter what. Yeah but the skill comes from making their tantrum make them look like an idiot instead of you. Now you've seemed to stray into arguing the Iraq war was justified and its not a good look.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i argue in favor of things and people i support Especially considering how well trod the philosophical grounds are that "state action can be held to a different standard than individual or collective action." One can give antifa a right to preemptively punch Nazis while denying that right to the state and be ideologically/philosophically consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can we agree that the state should also punch nazis? Like, it should be a requirement for office. I want debate questions about how many nazis a candidate has punched in the face. Not at all. I don't think the police should be beating Nazis, that's a community job. For the same reason I oppose criminalizing speech, that's a social responsibility. Giving the state, especially our state, more powers to brutalize preemptively is a bad thing. Because our cops are Nazis and they already twist ever law they can into a tool of community abuse, I have no doubt they'd do the same if they could arrest for criminal speech. That cop who made people, under threat of arrest for refusal to obey, repeat "I am on drugs" comes to mind. Nazis thrive when the community lets them survive. I know a Nazi wouldn't dare walk around my community openly and it isn't because they're afraid of the cops. It is because the community wouldn't allow it. Requiring candidate to have a Nazi-punching history before you vote for them, well that's back into the social realm.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Here's an idea. Just decide how you'll do your own loving slogans and tell them to put them on a loving gif or whatever. Don't let them tell you how they think it should go, because they don't know poo poo outside how to spread a message on twitter or facebook. You're vastly overestimating the technical, internet and meme savviness of most people who get into electoral politics. Like squarespace requires a consultant to help setup and maintain. Campaign consultants are a good idea but the issue is no one in the mainstream Democrats get the Internet yet. They're still thinking piecemeal and with a "and digital" mindset rather than the Internet being as embedded in the campaign as it is in the world. Also the cheap out answer is "hire whoever Bernie did."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:i dunno yronic makes some compelling points. why WONT condiv condemn the kurdish genocide??????? Is Condiv Saddam?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:That wasn't the issue though. No one is saying the US shouldn't have taken action in WWII since it was motivated by geopolitical considerations rather than humanitarian ones. Speaking of, this article makes an interesting case that the US could have prevented the Holocaust by not declaring war on Germany and evacuating the Jews et al. A reposted PDF since harpers has a paywall: https://dorsheitzedek.org/sites/default/files/managed/Baker%20Why%20I%27m%20a%20Pacifist.pdf quote:By 1941, as Congress was debating the Lend-Lease Act, which would provide military aid to Britain and other Allies, the enormity of the risk became clear, if it wasn’t al- ready, to anyone who could read a newspaper. On February 28, 1941, the New York Times carried a trou- bling dispatch from Vienna: “Many Jews here believe that Jews through- out Europe will be more or less hos- tages against the United States’ en- try into the war. Some fear that even an appreciable amount of help for Britain from the United States may precipitate whatever plan the Reichsfuehrer had in mind when, in recent speeches, he spoke of the elimination of Jews from Europe ‘un- der certain circumstances.’ ”
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:but don't you see, clearly the americans made the germans do a genocide More that America had opportunities to save people from the Holocaust that we didn't take because we didn't really like the Jews and it was more important to not negotiate with a hostage taker than to even try.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:so do you want to punch nazis or negotiate with them JESUS Negotiate to save as many hostages as we can then punch?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What negotiation do you envision could have happened? The USA was in routine negotiations with Nazi Germany during the war over transfers of POWs, so having negotiations was doable. I have no idea if a doable deal would have ever been brokered, but the larger point is we didn't even try. People were advocating this at the time too, this isn't just hindsight. quote:What mattered, Gollancz held, was, and he put it in italics, the saving of life now. The German government had to be approached immediately and asked to allow Jews to emigrate. The Allies had nothing to lose with such a proposal. “If refused, that would strip Hitler of the excuse that he cannot afford to fill useless mouths,” Gollancz wrote. “If accept- ed, it would not frustrate the econom- ic blockade, because Hitler’s alterna- tive is not feeding but extermination.” I'm not convinced, as is often true for hypotheticals like this, it is impossible to know how many more could have been saved (USA immigration restrictions certainly place a floor). But I find it an interesting argument especially when it was made during the war.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Who are these Twitter people and why should I care?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Fighting about which president was more liberal or leftist is dumb as gently caress since politics changes too much to be certain what each would do in each others' shoes. A juicer fight is to be had over what policies should be kept/expanded/undone. Anyone here think Glass-Stegle was bad? Anyone oppose the ERA? Anyone oppose a jobs guarantee? Is the opposition for theoretical or practical reasons?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:So what the gently caress is up with the race to squeeze in the shittiest, most corporate-boot-licking take to any story about capitalism being bad? Loam will have to post in here first for us to find out: quote:4. This isn't a Helldump thread and shouldn't be used to litigate post histories or spread personal information. Your rear end is banned if it happens. But it is OK to make fun of people for posts in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:23 |
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:First post on this very page, my dude. Right but we're supposed to mock each other for posts in this thread, not posts in other threads.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 16:55
|
|