|
The election results weren't nearly good enough to check the march towards fascism to any real degree, and Trump is just going to rule by way of executive orders and stuffing the courts with chuds that will uphold the legality of anything he decides to do. Also Bad Dems in the House are going to collaborate enough with the GOP to put 2020 in serious jeopardy. And anybody who insists that you should just close your eyes to all this and just be happy is a moron of the highest caliber.
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Omobono posted:You don't go to war with what you want, you go with what you have. Leaving the fact that you're falling back on a literal Rumsfeld quote to justify your opinion aside, Pelosi has been in her position for over a decade by now, so if she hasn't trained a successor or five already then that's worthy of condemnation in itself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Hi Nancy Pelosi is one of the most badass women in America and the fact that the Republican party absolutely loving hates her guts should probably tell you something about how effective she has been. Unlike other prominent Democratic politicians whose guts the GOP doesn't hate, such as
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
Suburban white voters are a pivotal demographic solely because they're the only one that either party actually tries to win over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:The long-term losses are because Republicans reliably get out to vote for every election including midterms and local, and Democrats do not. It is impossible to push left only in general elections. Primary left to enact the change you want; vote in the feneral in whatever fashion prevents the conservatives from winning. The PP-ACA might have been hugely flawed, but if Republicans had not been able to chip away at it, it would be far better today than it currently is, and it would be easier to patch up until we had enough progressives in the House and in the Senate to pass something better. This happens because republican voters know that when they vote GOP, their representatives will broadly do what they want, whereas the first thing Democrats do when they get power is to start making GBS threads on their base and declare that the things the base wants are completely off the table. This leads to the current situation where the GOP wins over and over until they gently caress up so bad that the sheer popular backlash gives the Dems an occasional win, hth. Hence the Democratic party needs to be reformed first if you want the GOP out of power for good Themagicalgoat posted:I don't really get why leftists love to complain about Democrats on the internet. I mean, I guess they'll at least have a reasonable argument with you, unlike a Republican or conservative. But if you can't pull a Chomsky and admit to yourself that the Republican Party is one of the most evil organizations in US and world history, then what are you even doing? What is useful about quibbling with degrees of responsibility when you know for a fact that the Republican rank and file voter will lie to you, live in bad faith and vote for a fascist? I'd rather hold them responsible and focus my anger and frustration at them. Everything else, from voting to protesting or whatever policy you want is a tactical disagreement about how to deal with the same enemy, right? It's because the current Dem leadership are completely incapable to resist fascism at best and a bunch of Quislings at worst, and hence they've gotta go if fascism is to be stopped. They're responsible for paving the way to where we are now, and hence this whole dem fanboy fantasy of team D winning an election is all that it takes is absurd and counterproductive. You're essentially in a ticking time bomb situation where you have to unfuck the fundamental problems in the US before an actually competent fascist arrives on the political scene, but the dems have shown themselves to be capable of what's at best a holding action, and hence everybody who's just circling the wagons around the dem establishment is making fascism pretty much inevitable. Also getting mad at individual voters just doesn't loving work, so anybody who still pushes that line while claiming to want the GOP out of power shouldn't be listened to under any circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Long term losses don't matter when the next short term loss means there won't be a long term any more. I don't give a poo poo if you're sick of it, I am too, but that's reality, get on board or you're part of the problem. Short termism is what's brought us to this situation so you're literally advocating for something that will make the outcome you want to avoid inevitable here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:No poo poo short-termism brought us to this situation. That doesn't change the fact that from this situation, sacrificing the short term is no longer survivable. It is possible that a loss in the short term is "survivable" (though that's a pretty drat vague term in itself) on account of Donald Trump being a sundowning incompetent at everything except twitter burns. On the other hand, it is vastly less likely that having a competent fascist in charge of the GOP would be survivable, and that's where the current political trajectory is taking us. So the real question is how to best change that trajectory, and evidence shows us that trying to scold individual voters sure as poo poo ain't it. Then again, Dems losing an election is most likely not it either since the establishment has been able to maintain their death grip on the party despite losing over and over.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The causation is backwards. The Republicans do what their base wants because the base consistently push them to the right in primaries. Just look how far to the right they've moved in the last twenty years. The voters made that happen against the will of the GOP establishment. Even back in the day when the GOP hadn't openly gone full chud the base still got most of what they wanted. At the very least I can't recall Republican establishment openly telling their base that they're never ever getting something they want, which is routine when the Dem establishment talks to their base. So it it really surprising that republican voters are more loyal? Also I think you're severely overestimating the reluctance of the GOP establishment to go full white supremacist. It's pretty clear that the only problem they ever had with it was the fear that it'd cost them electorally. Syfe posted:I agree though that the greater evil needs to be considered, purity tests are gone once there are only two options. So the weight of each must actually be weighed, and I think a lot of people waffle over purity at the wrong time. The problem here is that the US doesn't have time for baby steps. When you already have the fash marching through the streets you can't settle for some ten-year plan of primarying bad dems, because they'll most likely just have taken over by then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:There's no reason you can't be both voting for leftists/progressives AND votebluenomatterwho No, you actually couldn't. Let's have a little thought experiment here. Let's say that you got your wish and everybody actually did vote blue no matter who and no matter the circumstances. If this were the case, what's to stop the party establishment from abolishing all primaries and going back to handpicking candidates in smoke-filled rooms? And furthermore, why wouldn't they immediately do that? There's no electoral downside since everybody does vote blue anyway, and they get to keep power for their ideological wing in perpetuity. Hence it's clear that the one thing you wish for would clearly lead to the other one becoming impossible, which is kind of a bad thing for your overall argument.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The GOP elite talked up immigration reform that would favor big buisness for decades because that's what big buisness wanted and the GOP is beholden to them. It is what really sank Bush 43s presidency, not Katrina. The base revolted. Yeah, what about it? The moment that it looked like not going full chud would cost them more electorally than going full chud the GOP establishment happily went along with it because they never actually gave a poo poo about not being racist. They weren't exactly dragged kicking and screaming to supporting white supremacy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:And here is why And this is why you need reeducation camps.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Who the gently caress on the left would give Chuck loving Schumer a pass? E: Other than a one-way pass to the Gulag, that is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Retro42 posted:The entire membership of the Dems in the Senate. Just easily got his Minority Leader job again today. I said people on the left, buddy 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I dunno man, when you've got people calling for the death of pharma executives because a drug is too expensive to keep in production, I suspect that people have a bad read on this simple situation. It doesn't cost a million loving dollars to manufacture a dose of said drug. That's the only economic reality that matters here and gently caress you for pretending otherwise you piece of poo poo bootlicker.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:I'm so loving tired of this argument, and I'm even more loving tired of the left's circular firing squad. Let's have a little thought experiment here. Let's say that people actually behaved the way you wanted, and voted Blue in the general literally no matter what. If this is the case, why wouldn't the party establishment just abolish the primaries and go back to handpicking the candidates they want? If there's no electoral cost there's no reason not to do it, and every reason to do it since it would guarantee them retaining power in perpetuity, and as you note, the establishment won't change unless it's forced to, yet here you're demanding something that would remove even the possibility of forcing that change. tl;dr your own argument literally contradicts itself, which is kinda bad. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Nov 25, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 10:09
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:If the Democratic Overlords won't ragequit to keep their party from moving an iota left, why do I keep insisting they will? The gently caress is this even supposed to mean?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 11:07
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If only people could do something like complain if Dems try to get rid of primaries. But that would require us to be able to actually react to things. Curse our ridiculously specific and yet all encompassing inability to deal with things like rational people! If merely complaining about things would be enough to effect actual change your ilk might not be a complete political failures, but alas.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Lol, ok, where are you getting this wild idea that they're gonna cancel primaries? If they could do so without any backlash, then why wouldn't they?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:And if your mother had wheels, she'd be a garbage truck. You can posit all the hypotheticals you like but don't be ridiculous. Do you think that primary elections are caused by some kind of immutable natural law, or do you have some other reason for not wanting to answer the question?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
tehinternet posted:Violence has a funny way of spiraling out of control, which is why it should always be the last resort. Thankfully -with politics at least- violence being the last resort is usually the case. Political violence is currently being employed every single moment, every single day, buddy. It's just that when it's the upper classes doing it against everybody else we're supposed to pretend like it's normal and OK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:It means you’re arguing a hypothetical and insisting that your hypothetical is fact. It isn’t. I'm not, but thanks for playing I guess? Omobono posted:I don't know about Rust Martialis, but from an outsider's perspective primaries seem so entrenched in the USA political landscape that even if it's not against the law of physics, I really don't see an American party removing them. And why exactly is it impossible? This is important, so give it some thought.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Omobono posted:Considering that in the post you quoted I stated twice that it's not impossible, how is this answer relevant? Why should explain a fact I believe to be untrue? So it's clearly impossible, but you can't even explain why? And I'm supposedly the one arguing in bad faith here?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:You’re pushing an idea that the Democratic Party will stop running primaries entirely, despite precisely zero indication that this is something anyone has pushed except you. You’re then using that as proof that anyone who disagrees is either foolish or disingenuous. Considering superdelegates have already been neutered in recent memory, yes, you’re arguing a hypothetical. There’s enough reality to bang on Democrats for, and here you are making poo poo up to be angry about. Uh, yeah, I'm positing a hypothetical situation and I'm arguing that the Democrats would in fact try to abolish the primaries provided said situation were to arise. This is what hypotheticals are for, and your claim that I'm somehow arguing that said hypothetical is actually reality today is absurd on its face. Furthermore I'm arguing that said situation would arise if this whole "always vote Dem no matter what" principle was universally or even near-universally followed in order to show that said principle is incompatible with actually being able to push the Democratic party to the left by way of primary elections. This shouldn't be hard to follow. Rust Martialis posted:There was a discussion of how people should course left in the primary then Democratic in the general, and you barged in with your "thought experiment" of "well what if they cancelled the primaries then?" that literally nobody but *you* wanted to talk about because it's like interrupting a discussion of treatments for hay fever with "well what about blowing your head off with a shotgun?" Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if people are arguing for two different ideas, then the counterpoint that said ideas actually contradict each other seems pretty loving germane to the discussion, pal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I know I’m late but this seems slightly absurd, not in that I doubt they would if they thought that they could get away with it I suppose, but that I don’t think we’re close to that point. That’s the kind of thing that would happen if the comfort of the powerful was legitimately threatened, which we aren’t at yet. Yeah, but I'm not saying it happens right now, I'm proposing a thought experiment where it clearly would happen in order to demonstrate a logical contradiction in the whole "vote left in the primaries, but always vote Dem in the general no matter what" idea that's being thrown about ITT. KillHour posted:We will have to disagree with the means then. Doesn't mean I don't smile watching that gif of Richard Spencer getting clocked, but it didn't achieve any actual progress besides making that one person afraid of getting punched again and if he died, the guy who hit him would absolutely be facing manslaughter charges or worse (and should). This is dead wrong and completely misunderstands how nazis work. The appeal of fascism is entirely built on the idea that the fascists are a group of invincible supermen that can do whatever they want to the weak, so when they get the piss beaten out of them it strikes at the very core of their worldview and is therefore a very efficient way of discrediting the entire nazi movement. And doubly so when a high-profile nazi is exposed as a sniveling pissbaby.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
What is it with the hardcore centrist fanboy brigade members constantly outing themselves as defenders of literal loving sweatshops?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
It's pretty interesting that literally every one of Fulchrum's arguments relies on a blatant false dilemma, but I guess it's nice that he's at least consistent about something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:It ended up not mattering. Tina Smith has turned out to be a pretty good Senator, and she just won election in her own right--all of which we tried to point out to the "but you can't kick him out cause he's a member of the triiiiiiiiiibe" crowd. Team politics is one hell of a drug.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Found a Facebook post from Kamala about her program. Which goes more into the rational behind the program and the procedure "We only went after a few poor people for being poor" isn't much of a defense, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 02:13
|
|
|
It's almost as if politically aware people are capable of and even tend to look into people who are running for president and point out things they like or don't like. I even recall hearing somewhere that this is how democracy is supposed to work.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
Themagicalgoat posted:How can people disagree that Hillary's emails are an important issue? Republicans have held thousands of hours of hearings about it? Is anyone really surprised that it's come back and is being spammed on all social networks? So remind me, how did insisting that every single criticism of Hillary was a nothingburger work out again? Themagicalgoat posted:Just to be clear--I think that handling classifed emails is important. I also think that broken window policing is a problem. So remind me, how did the Obama years work out WRT republicans not winning any elections again?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Oh for gently caress's sake lol they're such loving cowards. kidkissinger posted:Maybe I'm dumb but this thread just seemed like a muddled mess and I still dont understand how Corbyn is anti-semitic from it. He actually isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
St. Dogbert posted:It worked on Corbyn in the U.K., and it worked in the U.S. too. It didn't actually work on Corbyn because he's not a coward who backs down at the first sign of confrontation. Jaxyon posted:LOL at goons who can't figure out that Nancy is an effective politician but also not a good person. Extremely effective politics to join in on a smear campaign against one of your own but stay mum when your opposition says poo poo that's a million times worse.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
axeil posted:Where do I get my DSA card? AIPAC?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's because she and a ton of people in the party take a ton of cash from AIPAC and she is a big fundraiser for the party. You know, the admission that you equate politics with grifting suddenly makes your posting make a lot more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I think it's hurt his popularity. It didn't move the polls one inch, buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In about five minutes we will get demands from Republicans asking AOC to denounce Omar. Yeah, this is why Omar really shouldn't back down. She could literally go grovel at the feet of every motherfucker who's demanding an apology, and they'd still attack her for this. Even worse, if she apologizes, they can point to that as evidence that she actually did something wrong. The only way to win is to tell these ghouls to go gently caress themselves. Fritz Coldcockin posted:Wait, they went after him for his choice of beans? They had some bourgie gently caress write a supposed hit piece that revealed horrifying details such as Corbyn taking his constituency work extremely seriously, him not enjoying looking at old castles and poo poo when on vacation, as well as working so hard that he subsisted on canned beans. mcmagic posted:They have been smearing him as an Anti Semite for as long as he's been the opposition leader..... And during his tenure as opposition leader he produced the biggest election swing towards Labour since loving 1945. It didn't loving work, and you're speaking form complete ignorance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Kale posted:It occurs to me now that she was likely referring to Benjamin Franklin and money instead of the common Jewish name Benjamin which kind of changes the read of the tweet completely. Assuming that's the case yeah there's no anti-semitism whatsoever, the comment is fine and there's nothing to apologize for. Realistically all she needs to do in that scenario is just clarify that and be rid of the ambiguity and that's it, anyone that tries to push the issue further (probably Republicans) then gets cast in bad faith and essentially status quo. Buddy, I'm a pasty-rear end white dude who's not even from the US, and even I know that "Benjamins" refers to $100 bills. Have you been living under a rock or something?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Excuse me but she is brown and leftist so we suddenly have standards for her gosh Remember when the very same folks who are reaching for their smelling salts right now spent literally years yelling about how you need to listen to black women? Well, not this particular black woman, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Welp, she's pretty much done then. A real pity.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Pretty much done? What? Every time she opens her mouth from now on the usual suspects will jump on her and scream about antisemitism. And if she tries to defend herself they'll start screaming about how she had to apologize for being antisemitic that one time, so obviously she's both an antisemite and a liar. Any chance of doing anything effective under those circumstances is pretty much zero.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2019 20:57
|
|