|
How are u posted:Social spending is not incompatible with capitalism, friend. There are countless capitalist nations around the world that do plenty of it. Western European countries only instituted their social welfare programs to safeguard against revolution. Non-Western countries mostly implemented theirs after revolutions. In either case, revolution or the threat thereof were necessary ingredients. Capital will otherwise never allow us to implement programs that limit their profits.
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
How are u posted:So, capitalists will never institute social spending, except for the times that they have in response to social pressure? I rarely use the word "never," but absent social pressure in the modern context, it is extremely rare, yes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:So should we not be investing in infrastructure then? You seem to be bending backwards to make even the slightest good thing a bad thing at this point, it's just tiresome. No one is arguing anything of the sort. People are pointing out that if the BBB doesn't pass intact, the Dems are considerably less likely to benefit electorally from the infrastructure bill, because they will have reneged on many of their campaign promises. How are u posted:Isn't that something that you want to happen? Ideally, sure, but I'm not talking about what I want. This discussion is about the electoral consequences of these pieces of legislation. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Nov 6, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:And all it finally took was a pandemic that killed the working poor & a bunch of olds to get boomers & women out of the job market. Reminds me of how wages skyrocketed for workers who didn't die of the Black Death during the Late Middle Ages. Of course, that famously caused inflation to skyrocket, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:It's weird how obsessed people are with giving Trump credit for the payouts for a bill he didn't write and threatened to veto, that the Democrats voted for and wrote parts of and even pushed for more money in. It's like you are going out of your way to reduce things so you can get some pointless jab in. I think Freakazoid_ is speaking to the likely electoral implications of this legislation, if it passes in any form. (correct me if I'm wrong on that, Freakazoid_) The average voter doesn't care that Trump didn't write the previous bill and threatened to veto it, nor do they care that the Dems tried really hard to make the BBB as expansive as possible. They care about whether or not they, themselves, got anything material out of it, and they'll vote accordingly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:This assumes SA posters are in any way like the larger body of voters generally. Given that the pattern being discussed is "people tend to vote for politicians/parties that they perceive as benefiting them materially," it's a fair assumption. That is indeed how voters, here and elsewhere, usually behave. small butter posted:It's obviously not as simple as this. If it were, Republicans would lose every single election they run in and Bernie would be in the White House. I mean, you're correct insofar as it's a game of perception more than anything. Voters vote for leaders who they believe are helping them in a real way. Right now, though, in a time of severe economic, social, and environmental crisis, the Dems have an opportunity to benefit voters' lives in a truly material, tangible way. It's really the only thing they could do, if they wanted to seriously increase their chances of holding onto power over the next 2-4 years. They can't hope to win by playing the Republicans' culture war game; Virginia proved that conclusively. So it's a shame that they've bungled and half-assed it as much as they have over the past several months. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:I really don't think that tracks, at least since 2008. Voters in exit polls indicate they're motivated by negative partisanship - the idea that the other candidate is mounting an existential threat to American values. I don't think the evidence supports this; in the 2020 election, for example, voters listed the economy and health care as their top two issues. Indeed, the economy has been the number one issue for voters since 2004. (it tied with "jobs" that year) Seph posted:People vote against their material interests all the time. Exhibit 1: poor republican voters. Do you think they think they're voting against their own material interests? Or do they perceive the politicians and policies they support as likely to benefit them materially? I'm pretty sure it's the latter, but I'd be interested to hear why you think otherwise, if you do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:Those polls don't include negative partisanship as an option. It's not like negative partisanship and perceived material concerns are mutually exclusive, though. A lot of poor Republicans do genuinely believe that the Democrats are going to raise their taxes, take away their jobs, etc, regardless of who the Democrat in question is. e: and to be 100% crystal clear to everyone, I'm not suggesting that the Dems try to win over those voters, through economic populism or otherwise. Economic populist appeals should be geared towards turning out working-class (predominantly POC and/or non-cis-male) people who don't vote, regularly or at all. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 19:44
|
|
|
Speaking of things which are completely and utterly predictable... https://twitter.com/TPM/status/1457421894064480264 quote:Gottheimer said that Democrats plan to move forward with BBB because he expects it to meet moderates’ expectations, before reiterating the need for assurance that the bill is “fiscally responsible and paid for.” This makes me think they're going to whittle the BBB down to a level that we didn't think possible and then pass it and declare victory. I guess we'll see if I'm right on that. Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Nov 7, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:According to Willa's poll only 25% of Americans even think BBB will help them period, so who even gives a poo poo. All the loving garment rending and exulting about how Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by whittling down the bill and the people it's supposed to help don't even want it. And don't tell me its because of cuts, do you think anyone responding to that poll even knows what's supposed to be in build back better other than the vague 6o'clock news summary of "Biden's social and climate spending agenda?" I mean, they may not know/care about the cuts to the original legislation, but they're certainly going to have opinions about whether or not their lives and financial prospects have improved under the Biden Administration eleven months from now. The cuts to the legislation make it less likely that they will answer "yes, things have improved" by the time the midterms come up. The fact that most Americans aren't currently clued in enough to realize how the BBB could benefit them is kind of immaterial. A big enough bill could improve most voters' lives noticeably, and help the Dems retain control of the government. This bill probably won't, though, particularly if it continues to get slashed to ribbons.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:2) For the "people only respond to making their material conditions better" argument: Well yeah, that's kind of the name of the game - economic confidence is deep underwater nationally. It doesn't matter how much "Number Go Up" for the Dow; if people are afraid that it's all going to bottom out for them sooner rather than later, they're not going to reward the government in power: quote:Before the eruption of COVID-19 in the U.S., confidence was high, registering +41 in February 2020, the best reading since 2000. By mid-March, as the U.S. began to deal with the spread of COVID-19, economic confidence had fallen to +22. Confidence bottomed out at -33 in the latter half of April amid widespread business and school closures in the U.S. You also mention that VA voters who benefited from Medicaid expansions did not shift significantly to the Dems, but there's a fairly simple explanation for that: McAuliffe did not run on that. Nor did he run on any of the genuinely good things that the Democrats have accomplished in VA over the past decade. He instead largely ran on evoking fears of Trump and January 6, apparently in an attempt to replicate Gavin Newsom's victory here in CA. Suffice it to say, the strategy he chose did not work. e: \/\/\/ Kraftwerk posted:Yet progressive “excessively left” policy was immediately blamed for the loss. Yeah, that's unfortunately a function of how much "left-wing policies" have become strongly associated with culture war/social justice issues (which are essential and the left can't afford to back down on one iota, let there be no mistake), largely to the exclusion of economic justice and class struggle. To a lot of voters, "left-wing policies" don't mean things like Medicare expansion; they mean gender-neutral bathrooms and CRT in grammar schools. Plus, of course, the mainstream media and Democratic establishment have every incentive to blame the Virginia debacle on the left, because, well, you know. Majorian fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 8, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:What is the lag time between various economic indicators of growth or decline and various economic indicators of confidence? The consumer confidence index is about to make a run up to all time highs. That might well be the case. My point is, perceptions of how the economy is serving the needs of most Americans clearly are significant factors in how Virginia played out, as well as Biden and the Dems' dismal approval ratings.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Yes. Trump is a straight up wannabe dictator who overtly tried to overturn an election and seize control of the government. LOL at people getting offended at calling his active supporters anything other than what they are. I don't think people are getting offended at this characterization, or even actually disagreeing with it on its merits, so much as they are arguing that it's not really effective campaign rhetoric.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 19:24
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:You start out in 2016 by saying, “Nazi, Nazi, Nazi.” By 2024 you can’t say “Nazi”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, Critical Race Theory, Vaccine Mandates, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, liberals get hurt worse than conservatives.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the vaccine thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nazi, Nazi.”  Yeah, it would be a very different conversation if the Dems had a left-of-center version of Atwater. Alas, the Dem consultant industry is what it is: sinecure jobs for the failsons and faildaughters of those in power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:
Indeed, one need only look at how poor Max Cleland's career turned out to see that "wounded vet candidate" is by no means a slam-dunk. (and Cleland was the drat incumbent!)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I think at this point the most rational conclusion is that the left-wing populist message is not, indeed, as powerful as its adherents suppose. Why do you think that's the most rational conclusion?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2021 22:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:People are "talking themselves into it" because it is a verified historical fact. Passing good policies that benefit the nation are rarely rewarded with electoral success. TheIncredulousHulk posted:Oh word? Verify it for me then Yeah, that's an incredibly bold claim that I'd also like to hear you explain a bit more, Deteriorata. The New Deal allowed the Democrats to dominate the House for decades after FDR's death.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 00:39
|
|
|
karthun posted:Decades? You might want to double check that Between 1933 and 1995, the Democrats held the majority in the House for all except two sessions - the 80th ('47-49) and the 83rd ('53-'55).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
karthun posted:FDR didn't die in 33, he died in 45 and Republicans swept the 1946 election away from the Conservative Coalition. Republicans and a minority of Democrats ruled the House from 37 to 63 when Johnson finally broke it over his knee. That's what setup Nixon in 68. FDR did die in ‘45, yes, but the point is, the New Deal (or promise thereof in 1933, I suppose) handed the Dems a durable majority that only faltered in two two-year sessions over the next 62 years. Yes, there were divisions in the Democratic Party throughout that period; doesn’t change the fact that voters rewarded the party for passing, and then defending, extremely popular legislation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:It's notable that this ended just around the time of the party realignment being solidified. I just don't see a scenario where Democrats attain that sort of national dominance again, especially with fully legal gerrymandering. That may be true. All I’m saying is, the evidence history provides us doesn’t seem to back up the claim that voters don’t reward politicians and parties that enact good policy. karthun posted:But the New Deal Coalition was swept away in 1936 and didn't return until 1964. It was the Conservative Coalition that was in power during that period. The public didn't reward Democrats and Republicans who supported and praised the new deal, they rewarded Democrats and Republicans who opposed the new deal. Look up the history of Rep Howard Smith and think about why Republicans would want to hang his portrait when they took power in 1995. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:So basically it's less about the policy and more about the propaganda. Propaganda-only can work short-term, especially if you haven’t blown off a bunch of your promises already. But the post-New Deal Dems succeeded because enough voters felt that their lives had been improved materially by Dem policies that they were the safe choice. As a white suburbanite Dem famously said in the 50’s, “I own a nice home, have a new car and am much better off than my parents were. I've been a Democrat all my life. Why should I change?" Propaganda needs a certain level of perceived credibility to work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 01:53
|
|
|
karthun posted:100% absolutely, That's how these conservatives kept on getting elected. I haven't seen any evidence of this in my historical reading; most historians I've read attribute conservative congressional gains in the late 30's to the economic downturn of '37-38. Even then, the Dems held onto their majority for the next several decades, passed the Great Society programs, and managed to even hold onto their majority in the House through Reagan. This was a function of the fact that they had, in fact, made life considerably better and more stable for a wide swath of American voters. The famous quote from a late-1940s suburbanite sums it up perfectly: "I own a nice home, have a new car and am much better off than my parents were. I've been a Democrat all my life. Why should I change?" socialsecurity posted:You have any proof that both this was the main issue driving out voters and that they voted in anti new deal people because they didn't know? This discussion sparker from an actual deep dive into voter intentions and you are countering it with wide generalizations. Actually, this discussion sparked from the extremely wide generalization that voters do not reward good policy electorally. The fact of the matter is, the New Deal was excellent policy, and voters rewarded the Democrats for it for quite a long time, even after the Democrats started moving away from its populist principles. e: and again, FLIPADELPHIA might be correct - that type of success just may no longer be replicable in today's political environment. I'm not arguing that point; I'm asserting that voters have historically rewarded good policy that's communicated effectively on at least a few notable occassions. Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 9, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:This is good feedback, thanks. I'm willing to accept that on average, people's wages are about as stagnant as they've been since the Reagan era (outside of the late-90s blip). That's a strike against "the economy is good, actually" but it does still leave a question as to why people are interpreting the economy as being as bad it was in April 2009 when things were worse then by pretty much every measure except "if you want a thing and have the money for it, can you buy it easily?" If Democrats can address that (or if it addresses itself), it should help public perception of the economy, even if it doesn't bring us into "actually good economy" territory (which is something very few goons have actually seen in their lives). It's a sense of precarity. I posted that Gallup poll about people's lack confidence in the economy a couple pages back, and I think that's what you're seeing in these other polls. Even if people are doing better financially than they were five, ten, or twenty years ago, it's hard to feel like the economy is doing "well" if you're afraid that the bottom's going to drop out again suddenly and blow away your life savings (or that you or a family member will get sick and suddenly face huge medical debts, or any other number of possible tragedies).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
hobbez posted:I initially posted in this thread because I thought there was a strong case to be made that Rittenhouse had redeemed his right to self defense in light of the statutes referenced in a post by another individual. No one has really countered that claim in any substantial way responding to the fact that Rittenhouse was: in flight while being pursued by two individuals, one of which fired a bullet in his general direction. I wouldn't call these facts "weak counter-arguments". That's what accelerated the whole mess. The first shooting victim, yes, it appears he hadn't actually made contact with Rittenhouse in the footage, but he was DEFINITELY chasing him and I don't think it's unreasonable for Rittenhouse to believe his life was in danger especially in lieu of the gunshot. Rittenhouse further testified the man had told him he was going to kill him. This would all be more compelling (and come off as less of a blatant troll that people should stop responding to ASAP) if he hadn't previously said that he was planning to provoke a fight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 07:57
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:"Isreal literally owned congress until The Squad got elected," as a Trump talking point is confusing me for like, a dozen reasons The fact that he singled out AOC was especially bizarre, considering the fact that AOC had just folded to Pelosi over funding the Iron Dome, changing her vote from "no" to "present."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Enver Zogha posted:Yeah but you're trying to look at this in a rational manner, whereas the actual reason she's singled out is because tons of conservatives fixate on her as the ultimate symbol of "haha socialists are stupid and/or support everything that is bad" or whatever. So by going "lol AOC am I right" Trump is just appealing to the base. Mellow Seas posted:He singled her out because she's the most famous and polarizing. I'd be mildly surprised if he could even remember Tlaib, Omar, Pressley or Bush's names off the top of his head. Oh I know why he did it, it's just...extra maddening for the reason I mentioned, I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Nothing because he's a fascist and 4 years of him showed me he's the biggest liar in politics. I just wouldn't vote. Yup, this. One-third or more of all eligible voters don’t vote. They’re disproportionately poor and POC. “What would the Dems have to offer to keep you from voting for Trump” is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, “Why can’t the Dems turn out a huge chunk of voters that tend to lean in their direction?”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2021 10:17
|
|
|
Shammypants posted:Whoever won the election would be facing high fuel prices and inflation. That is what is on everyone's mind during the holiday season. It's kind of silly to post polls suggesting the party in power would, at the moment of those issues are hitting households the clearest, face electoral blame even if they were not directly responsible for it. So what's the point? The elections aren't today, they are over a year from now. The real question is what would lowering fuel prices and diminishing inflation mean in the context of the 2022 elections? What would the same situation or worse do? There are things the Biden Administration could have done in the past months, and could still do, that would narrow this gap in how the parties poll. Those things have been discussed at length ITT. The fact that they refuse to do so is political malpractice. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2021 18:26
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This gets brought up as an example of liberal media's hostility towards leftists, but everyone else on that stage looked at him like the drooling moron he was, Chris Hedges told him he was being absurd, and he was fired shortly afterwards. Dude was one of the longest tenured hosts on MSNBC and basically lost his career because of that outburst. Matthews wasn't fired because of that; he was fired for being a sexpest. It's good that people looked at him like he was a moron or whatever (I don't remember that, but I'll take your word for it), but it was hardly an isolated incident of MSNBC showing some pretty heavy bias during that primary. See the Mimi Rocah incident, the Liza Treyger incident, the Joy Reid's antisemitic body language expert incident, the Jason Johnson incident, etc. e: \/\/\/exactly. That's one lesson from last year that I hope we all can agree on: the mainstream media is not at all subtle about its agenda. By and large, they like the status quo, and they will defend it. \/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Nov 17, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Well, it may indeed be the case that it's ideological but I still think the left should go for broke. No country can call itself "great" when there are people homeless and hungry on the street, and people are entitled to the basic necessities of life. Plus, again, there's anywhere between 33-40% of the population that doesn't vote and isn't politically active in any meaningful way. They're mostly non-white and disproportionately working class. They're the ones that need class consciousness more than anyone in this country. If socialism or communism or really any left-wing project is going to succeed in this country, it will be because we managed to activate and radicalize them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2021 20:30
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I think what would happen is that they would gently caress up the codes and the military wouldn't launch anything. The football isn't a big red nuke button. It's instructions and a private communication setup so the president can call the military and provide codes and instructions on launching nukes which the military confirms and then launches. I guess the biggest risk is that someone strikes the US when we can't retaliate but that's an insanely stupid strategy and only exists in a world where you think North Korea and Russia are cartoon villains instead of nation states with their own goals and interests. This. The football exists to give a direct line to STRATCOM and allow the president to choose a specific strategy for a nuclear strike. It doesn't allow for an instant launch or anything like that. Indeed, there's good reason to doubt that, even if a president followed procedures to the letter, an order for a first strike would make it all the way down the chain of command anyway. One need only look at well-known "near miss" incidents like the Stanislav Petrov episode in 1983.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:If there was any serious abuse going on surely the wife would've pressed charges! The power dynamics involved in the Jan 6 episode are not at all comparable to the power dynamics between a domestic abuser and their victim. Please don't make comparisons like this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 06:32
|
|
|
J.A.B.C. posted:Then why are you still asking a question that several people have already answered? Is it an answer that everyone here agrees upon? Because I like this answer... Roadie posted:Because most of the Dems are functionally incompetent at anything that might conflict with ...but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if everyone here agreed with it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 06:43
|
|
.
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think I can help you resolve what looks like an inconsistency to you but isn't: you take the view that the courts have no legitimacy and should be ignored. From that standpoint you're absolutely right. Democrats have power, by how much doesn't matter if you're ignoring everything you disagree with, and so believing January 6th was a coup should result in people up against the wall. Since you don't see that, they must not *actually* think it a coup attempt. I don't believe for a second that Biden allowing the Republicans a place at the table in negotiating the reconciliation/infrastructure bill is a function of their small majority. Nor do I believe that the party leadership's mantra of "we need a strong Republican Party, they are our friends and the Trump fever will break soon!" is either necessary or electorally beneficial to them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 06:57
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:That and their incredibly slim majority in the senate, yes. You're missing my point. A number of elected Republican officials aided in Jan 6. If Jan 6 were as serious a coup attempt as some in this thread are claiming, then the Democratic leadership should not continue to insist the country needs a strong Republican Party, nor should Biden keep trying to deal honestly and amicably with them. The fact that the Dems keep doing both of these things as if Jan 6 never happened, instead of, I dunno, raking the complicit Republicans over the coals, suggests to me that they're not taking Jan 6 as seriously as you are.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 07:13
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:I think the fact that the Republican party has 50 Senate seats limits Democrats ability to tell them to go gently caress themselves. I don't see how. It may keep them from being able to prosecute Republican members of Congress, or get them kicked out, but it shouldn't keep them from saying, "Congressmen A, B, and C aided and abetted in the Jan 6 attack on us, the very people in this room with me as I speak, and we have proof in these emails. They should be kicked out of Congress and/or prosecuted for the very real crime of aiding and abetting in a coup." It certainly doesn't force Democratic leaders like Biden to allow Republicans a place at the table in negotiating major initiatives. So again, it seems to me like the Dems are only treating Jan 6 as a genuinely dangerous coup attempt on certain occasions. The resulting message is a muddle: Dem leader: Jan 6 was an attack on our democracy! We need to treat it with the utmost seriousness and make sure this never happens again! Reporter: Okay so what are you going to do about it? Dem leader: I'm going to glare very sternly at the Republicans in Congress and tell them that they need to mend their ways! That fever had better be close to breaking, I tell you. But yes, to answer your next question, we will readily take their input on every piece of legislation going forward and will be willing to meet them halfway before any negotiations start. We need a strong Republican Party! quote:I think the "strong Republican party" language is part decorum poisoning and part trying to give voters on the fence the excuse of "those guys have gone crazy and aren't real Republicans anymore" and get them to support Democratic initiatives. The latter seems to work at least a little, based on what I've seen from more conservative family members It's not going to work quickly enough to overcome things like redistricting, nor does it have a snowball's chance in hell of altering the way Republicans in government behave. It's an unbelievably idiotic strategy that the Dem leadership needs to abandon.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 07:59
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:On the day of Jan 6 I was laughing. I thought it was funny. Look at these dummies acting like a bunch of tourists taking selfies. This is their precious Day Of The Rope, a wine-mom tour where the jackboots dare not step past the rotunda's velvet rope? I was a fool to ever fear these doofuses. People posting on a dead online comedy forum aren't the ones failing to rake the Republicans over the coals for aiding and abetting the Jan 6 riot when they have the ability and a megaphone large enough to do so. That would be the leadership and most of the elected officials of the Democratic Party. You do not need to keep defending the people in power who have continually and consistently failed to protect you and the people you care about. e: really the only person I can see ITT actually minimizing Jan 6 is Peter Daou Zen, and you can probably ignore them. Most of CSPAM already does. Everyone else here is simply flummoxed at how eager the Dems are to treat the party that directly stoked, aided, and abetted the violence with the softest of kid gloves. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:47 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 08:35
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Nobody needs to defend the rioters themselves either, and yet its happening on this very page. Again, I’m only seeing one outlier poster who is making excuses for the rioters. The rest of us are saying that the Dems aren’t taking to task the people with any real power who were involved in Jan 6. The bovine dipshits who made up the majority of people there on that day were and are lovely reactionaries, but that doesn’t mean it’s wise or helpful to lump them all in with the smaller group of people who had an actual plan for a coup. Again, as folks here on all sides of this debate have pointed out, there were countless groups there who did not all share the same agenda. Couching Jan 6 as a coup attempt by a particularly large, faceless, unified mob of chuds only serves to obscure who was the most responsible for it, and how the party in power can act against them. Nancy Pelosi isn’t interested in holding her Republican colleagues accountable for their involvement. Neither is Joe Biden. They have the power to at least kick up a storm over this. So far they haven’t utilized it in any meaningful way. Instead, they have largely treated elected Republicans as old friends who are just going through a rough phase. They're perfectly happy to keep treating Jan 6 as the work of a big, faceless, unified mob, because it absolves them of any responsibility they have to treat Republicans in office like conspirators caught red-handed in a coup attempt. e: and I'm not just talking about people like Gosar or Mo Brooks, btw. I'm talking about the GOP as a whole. The fact that Biden, Pelosi, et al, haven't completely shut out the Republicans from every negotiating session possible since Jan 6 shows how fundamentally unserious they are about this. When you're in power (even barely, as the Democrats are), you don't make accusations of coup attempts, and then only take things part of the way after that. You either publicly and loudly excoriate their party and everyone they've ever been even tangentially involved in, and shut them out of the halls of power for as long as you can - or you don't make those accusations in the first place. Trying to just go halfway, as the Dems have thus far, makes you look weak and makes your case look cynical and insincere. Majorian fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:I honestly think you are mistaken. In particular I absolutely believe the "why aren't the democrats taking this seriously" talking point being raised repeatedly is a rhetorical question meaning "it's just political theater not actually worth taking seriously." I just explained in detail how the Democrats in power aren’t taking Jan 6 seriously though. It’s demonstrable fact that they haven’t done everything in their power to hold their Republican colleagues accountable for it. So I’m not seeing where the bad faith is. Meanwhile, you compared folks pointing the Democrats failing to act to blaming a domestic abuse survivor - and you have the gall to accuse others of bad faith?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2021 10:40
|
|