|
Engh, I'm pretty sure you've been able to kill Americans without consequence for a while if you're rich/powerful enough and the victims are less connected.
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Proud Christian Mom posted:but guys, the sanctity of life This literally made me laugh out loud. Sigh.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
I'd put it at 9/11, myself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Is everything worse or are we now just able to see every detail of how the upper class is never held accountable thanks to the dumb old internet? Either way I'm with you all. Both. It's more visible AND we're back in a second gilded age.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Silent Generation, he was too young to serve in WWII. Isn't silent generation the people born in the inter-war period? I thought it went silent-greatest-baby boomer-x-millenial-z
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Sanders says the same kind of poo poo about how if they’re (Sanders or Biden) president, GOP will suddenly teamwork it up with Democrats, and they’re both wrong as hell about it. I believe his usual theory of power is more along the lines of "we'll win more seats than the Republicans, and then we'll have supporters go confront dipshits who aren't getting with the program wherever they go, and I'll tell my VP to ignore the senate parliamentarian and just pass whatever we feel like through reconciliation."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I've always thought this is a dumb as hell strategy. Reconciliation can only be used once per budget cycle, and if you gently caress it up, it's gone (See the Republican attempt to repeal Obamacare in 2017). The left's entire theory of action is that they need to prove to the voters the left will do for them what the Republicans won't, but you need to go FDR's Hundred Days for that poo poo, with constant coverage of new bills that will help people's lives. One bill a year is just not going to cut it. Generally, I agree. Ideally you have a bunch of angry leftists in office tearing all the goddamn corrupt edifices and institutions down and replacing them with poo poo that will allow us to survive the coming climate apocalypse while making sure that everyone actually has some decent basic standard of living, and generally making everyone's lives better in ways driven by popular consensus. But there's a transition period when the presidency and senate still exists and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi (and their political allies) are still in power. I don't have a good answer for how to get to the ideal state quickly, but I do know that even if you get to 55 Dems in the senate in 2020 (or hell even 65 somehow) you probably won't get 50 of them to vote for Medicare 4 All without significant arm twisting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Like, FDR came into office after years of economic depression, people near starvation, and with literal armed spontaneous uprisings popping up across the Midwest. We are nowhere near there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Maybe if theyd pay their taxes and stop fighting.against social programs, as well as mistreating warehouse workers, nobody would poo poo on them. All of the billionaires that signed that stupid pledge to give away all their money by the time they died have more money now than they did when they signed the pledge. Gates pumped a bunch of money into charter school propaganda, the revolutionary idea that maybe schools would see better outcomes if we paid teachers less, have them do more work, and they had less job security. Crakkerjakk fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Nov 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
colachute posted:Had twitter been a thing back then it would be more like it is now. Disagree. There were a lot more people going hungry back then. And traditionally, for real revolutions what you tend to see is poo poo being pretty bad for a large group of people at the same time that established political powers focused on inter-faction fights and starting violence and then it spiraling out of control. There ARE a lot more distractions available today, for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Which is a hilariously bad line and Sanders' weakest argument, IMO. He seems to think that if he's president, it'll just all work out and the GOP voters or senators will just hop on board, and the filibuster can stick around, too. His Green Lantern thinking is possibly why his legislative record is poor. Ideologically pretty good, pragmatically suspect, IMO. Like, "we'll win more seats" is the only way things change for the better. Well, that and violent revolution, but that's vastly more likely to turn out shittier for everyone. And in most of the country more eligible voters didn't vote than voted for either party, so it's much less "cater to GOP voters" and much more "cater to voters that currently stay home." And his legislative record is pretty good for a independent socdem who's been in office since HW.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
I think Trump has laid a pretty good blueprint for taking over a party. Like's it's not perfect because Trump mostly is 100% fine with all the normal republican poo poo (except for the trade war thing), but most Republicans are terrified of crossing him because most republican voters love Trump and he'll call out Reps that annoy him at the drop of a feather. And Trump getting elected first ripped a lot of the stupid decorum band-aid off our politics so if Sanders wins and does something similar there's less weight behind "how dare he criticize the honorable rep Johnson (D-Amazon)"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Incremental change is just suicide that takes longer for two reasons. One, we ain't got time for that poo poo with climate change. We go big or billions die. Two, any incremental changes will be thoroughly and absolutely rat-hosed raw dog style by Republicans, their propaganda machine, the judiciary they've captured for the next 30-40 years and the wealthy elite behind most of it. Hard agree with this. We are probably hosed, but if we go for further incremental change we are absolutely hosed. The system is deeply biased against actual democratically representing the will of the people, and the only way that changes (and we avoid apocalyptic climate change) is by drastic change that takes power out if the hands of those who currently hold it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
I find the "we're all just a buncha leftists in here" amusing given various folks thinking Joe Biden was good not too far back and a few pro-Buttigieg posts I remember over the last couple months. There are some leftists that post in here, and who exactly qualifies as a leftist is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but there ALSO other people who are not leftists in this thread. Mostly everyone is dem-friendly (as far as I know) but that don't make you a leftist, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
LtCol J. Krusinski posted:I’m probably the closest person to “conservative” on this sub forum. And I’ve never voted Republican, I just have an insatiable lust for Slavic and Terrorist blood and a true desire to see nukes at least go back into testing so we can see 4K HDR nuclear explosions. If they’re over Moscow or Riyadh, all the better. I mean, I have voted for republicans because I was young and stupid (see also enlisting), but I got better(ish). But "only votes for Democrats (or non-Republicans)" is not the metric by which you measure whether someone is a leftist by. My point is there are actual disagreements on what "good things" are in GIP. It's not just virtue signaling or purity testing or whatever the current buzzword is for leftists disagreeing with centrists.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
bird cooch posted:There's a lot of folks who misconstrue an understanding of how a candidate can seem appealing (discussion on buttigieg, Biden, et El) and approval for said candidate. I'm talking about people who are like, "I'm not sure I want buttigieg for president, but we absolutely need the guy who put out a book in 2019 deriding Iraq war protesters as clueless hippies who don't understand how the world works in future administrations." I'm both trying not to be lovely by singling out particular individuals, and also I don't keep like lists of everyone's lovely posts or political opinions, but no it's not that all GIP leftists (or just me) are dummies who don't understand nuance.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Also I hope the both of you are just trolling with your hard man "watching millions of civilians die would be awesome because they're our nation's geopolitical enemies(or should be, in the case of the Saudis), hyuck hyuck" because that poo poo is loving gross.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Better they die in Russia and Saudi Arabia than say Ukraine and Yemen. *Thinking real hard* Maybe.... It would be good if no civilians died....? Hell, maybe it'd be good if the only people who died were the assholes trying to get other people killed in the pursuit of political power/a payday.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:So.... Russians and Saudis? It's mostly (as a percent of the population) not the people living in the cities of Moscow, Riyadh, or for that matter New York or DC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 17:27
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Do these people support the regime? Would they be less likely to support it if war was on their doorstep? Stop using metaphors. When you say "if war was on their doorstep," what we were talking about is "if we nuked the city they live in, killing millions of them." Definitionally, they'd support it less because a bunch of them would be dead. That aside, do those people support the regime? Most people in NYC and DC don't support Trump, no. My understanding is that most opposition to Putin is in larger cities, so there's a pretty good chance you'd be murdering a bunch of people who don't support him if you nuked Moscow. And Riyadh is about 70% Saudi, they probably mostly support the saud dynasty (though a bunch of them are children), the remaining 2 million people you'd be murdering are foreigners, I'd guess the majority of those are workers imported from elsewhere who probably aren't particularly fond of the Suadis. Crakkerjakk fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Nov 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
You'd need what... 20 republican senators to vote for it? Extremely doubt that is going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
I still don't get why we have to theorize about what happens if we get a poo poo Dem candidate. Worry about it when it happens. In the meantime vote, donate, and organize for a good one (that would be the Sandman.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Like, I'm not arguing for optimism. I'm pretty sure we're all hosed in the moderately near future. I just don't get slapfighting about exactly how many bites of a poo poo sandwich each of us might be willing to eat before we're at the point where we actually have to eat the poo poo sandwich. There'll be plenty of time for that in the general.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2019 04:49
|
|