|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Generic criticism of elected officials (even coded) is hardly “conservative speech” or hate speech. Moving the goalposts on what those phrases mean undermines your ability to actually call them out - like applying the “Nazi” label to Romney undermined doing the same with Trump. More importantly, the end of that line of thinking results in: people critiquing DEAR LEADER are the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. Nobody here gives a poo poo that Biden is getting criticized. Somehow that seems to be missing from this discussion. "Why should we care if they say 'gently caress Joe Biden' if he sucks?" Nobody cares to defend Biden, that's not the thing at all. The thing is that anyone posting a "Let's Go Brandon" meme or whatever is saying "I am very right wing and very online" and you should react to those two facts about this person accordingly.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Look, Scott, I'm also someone who will vote for Democrats even if I technically like a third party candidate better. In my viewpoint that's better overall. But vote scolding makes these boards really toxic. It's toxic and entirely ineffective. Calling B B 'dumb as dog poo poo' isn't going to get them to vote D next time. Make a positive case for your candidate of choice before the election. Edit: Honestly I feel like vote scolding in either direction should be probable. It's the root of much of the ugliness on the board.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
A vote for a third party is not a vote for the republicans. Just, mathematically it simply isn't. If you have a small town with 25 voters, 12 vote dem, 10 vote GOP, and 3 vote 3rd party, the dem still wins. If those three 3rd party voters had voted GOP, then GOP would have won. This is an extremely dumb example, but "vote for 3rd party is a vote for the bad guy!" is an extremely dumb point to make, so it deserves a dumb reply. A vote for a third party is a vote saying you don't really care who wins between the Democrat and the Republican. I disagree with that viewpoint: I think most of the time we should care, and most of the time we should want the Democrat to win. But assuming that's obvious, assuming that's so "correct" that anyone who doesn't see it is a fool is also wrong. We are all captives to this broken system and anyone confidently saying they know the way out is still just guessing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Fucker posted:Pretty good argument. Unless someone comes up with a better counter-argument, I'm gonna have to concur. I would say "being a boring retread" and "being the same party as the president while there's a global supply chain crisis and a pandemic" and "giving a bad debate answer about schools" all count considerably more than whatever the VA legislature did or didn't do over the last few years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Hi, I have a question about healthcare while living in the United States. I'm from the US but I've lived out of the country for like ten years, and specifically since before the ACA was really in full effect. We don't have a general USPol thread anymore, which is where I would post this. I know there are people in this thread who understand US health policy better than most. If this is not kosher to ask about here, I'll move it. Also, I can tie it back to real US Current Events because if I get the (bad) answers I'm expecting, or really any answer, I can say "Democrats should really fix that" or something. Are medical bankruptcies still a thing even if you have marketplace coverage? I know marketplace coverage is not great, the premiums are too much for most people, as are the deductibles. For this purpose assume I have enough income to pay the premiums and enough savings to pay a disgusting deductible: Do people with coverage still lose their loving house if they get cancer or whatever? Sometimes I want to move back but I'm terrified of the healthcare system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
gently caress. Democrats should really fix that. <-- Now this is officially a political/news discussion. I'm healthy but I can't see myself ever moving back to the US, at least until I'm 65 and qualify for Medicare.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 22:16
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Cancer? See, that stuff I knew about. I know for routine stuff US health insurance is garbage. But I was wondering does it help for truly catastrophic things. I know a day laborer who fell off of a roof and broke his back. The system here fixed him up and he's walking and working again. Hopefully not on roofs anymore. But it dawned on my when I saw him go through it that he was better off than most people in the US at least as far as healthcare is concerned. Deteriorata posted:Negotiating prescription prices required a sledgehammer to get to 50 votes. M4A ain't gonna happen until there's a drastically different Senate. Yeah, no poo poo. I'll qualify for regular old people Medicare long before I expect the US to expand that coverage to younger people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Look up "out of pocket max" and ask yourself how many people have that kind of money lying around for one catastrophe, let alone having it every year for a chronic illness Yeah, it's hosed. I do happen to have that much available for a one off but would not for very long if I were out of work with a chronic illness. But there's something in the out of pocket max language that I don't quite know how to parse. Healthcare.gov posted:The out-of-pocket limit doesn't include: Uh... what's that last one? If the provider may charge more than the allowed amount doesn't that make coverage literally meaningless? The first several are of course dumb and bad but I don't see the point at all if providers can just charge more than insurance pays.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Man. Really depressing. I'm doing moderately well financially but I don't think I could risk living in the US unless I absolutely had to. Like if I lost my job and couldn't find another remote job. Even then I'd probably rather try to skate by teaching English or something before I gave up and moved back to meat grinder. Sad because I miss my family but, well, it's a broken society.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:What this means is that insurers negotiate a 'max allowable' rate with each provider in their network. This is the maximum amount the insurer will pay for a billed service, and its almost always some (larger) multiple of medicare rates, like 125% or 140%. If the provider charges *more* than the agreed upon maximum amount it can go two ways: either the insurer denies the excess as part of their contract and you the patient are off the hook, or the insurer washes their hands of the excess and the provider bills you for it. Which one happens depends on the contract between the provider and the insurer and the text of your particular policy. Seems like even without M4A they could... do a lot to make this system less punishing for ordinary folks. Obviously they should do M4A, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying a regulated private health insurance system doesn't need to be quite that stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2021 23:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:^^^^* exactly "I'm so glad that coin flip didn't land tails - doesn't mean I'm happy it landed heads!" is kind of hollow to me. In 99% of elections it's a binary choice, either the Dem wins or the Republican wins. One of them losing necessarily means the other winning. Personally, I don't give a poo poo what you want to post about it. But if I was, say, a teacher in a VA school and my life was about to get a fuckload worse by all this poo poo, I'd probably get upset about gloating that the bad dem lost.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 04:24
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Blaming the voters is disgusting and downright heinous. Put the blame where it belongs: the Democratic Party. For the record I agree with this part. virtualboyCOLOR posted:Again, bolding this time, a number of peoples lives don’t improve under a bad Dem or a Republican. They just stay bad. I agree with this part as well, as it relates to like, the overall population. Economically, we're all hosed, nationwide. In terms of climate, we're all hosed. Neither party is offering real solutions and if Dems did offer solutions AND followed through with them, we'd never even be having this discussion. There are people for whom things will get demonstrably worse under republicans. Trans people, women seeking abortions, and teachers spring to mind as people who may face actual concrete problems in their lives that they would not face (or face less of) if this election had gone differently. For some of them, "I didn't want the Republican to win, I just wanted the Democrat to lose" might not be very convincing. The loss belongs to McAuliffe and the national Democratic Party. I am mad at them for being so worthless that they threw away what could have been a winnable race. Their hubris and stupidity put vulnerable people at risk. It's not enough for the Democrats to simply be "not transphobic and way less racist" or whatever. If they're poo poo at elections it doesn't matter because the people they could protect by being less openly destructive than Republicans are going to always be at risk. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Between this, Minneapolis voting down police reform and NYC electing a Pro-Cop Mayor, I just don't know what the way forward is on the cop problem. They've become as bullet-proof as the military thanks to American pop culture, and the judiciary is protecting them at every turn even as their abuses grow more blatant daily. I feel like the silver bullet is destroying Qualified Immunity, but anyone who tries to go after it will be painted as anti-cop, and even the cities with the most anti-cop sentiment and who have been most harmed by police apparently won't countenance anti-cop politicians. Is there an age breakdown on the procop/anticop voters? I don't know anyone under 45 who doesn't say poo poo like ACAB or whatever. But I guess I don't know that many people.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 05:52
|
|
|
Radirot posted:what needs to happen to change that? is there even an answer to that? At one time "The Dems" brought The New Deal and The Great Society programs. So I don't think it's simply the "Democratic Party" label that is so fatal. Officials operating under that label have done decent things, brought real changes to lots and lots of people. But it's really not that party anymore. I had long operated under the belief we could capture the party via the primary process and make it help people again, but the India Walton thing has my really shaken and angry. I guess Murkowski's write in win ten thousand years ago didn't prevent the tea party/trumpist/outward lunatic takeover of her party, so a single instance of this isn't the end. But holy poo poo it's bad, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 06:04
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The democrats were taken over by an internal faction way back in the 80s. The Clintons, Gore, Biden, even Obama all affiliated with the centrist third way New Democrats, and the current state of the party is directly attributable to them. Whatever the democrats were during LBJ or FDR's day, they are now firmly the party of Clinton and will be until the icy grip of death takes the current batch of dem leadership Yeah... but they're all 80 so that might be kinda soon. I am pretty afraid of Republicans gutting voting rights in the meantime. TulliusCicero posted:I comtend that Bill Clinton was the single most destructive President in our lifetimes in the long run: he destroyed the New Deal Great Society Democrat party and made it New Coke of the GOP to chase votes. His actions and the failures of Third Way Liberalism lead to all this poo poo Clinton sucks. I still think Reagan was the worst in our lifetimes (assuming you're as old as me at least). You don't get a Clinton winning the primary until you've had 12 years of GOP holding the White House and Reagan changing the zeitgeist. But yes, I agree that Clinton's triangulation, after 12 years of Reagan/Bush, fundamentally destroyed the "actually sometimes kinda good" portion of the Democratic party. Edit: Killer robot posted:^^^^ Don't leave out the two massive Nixon victories that cemented the Southern Strategy and set the stage for Reagan. In 1992 a lot of the country just assumed Carter was a Watergate-induced blip on a permanent Republican White House, plus Democratic congressional majorities meant a lot less with a lot of them still not even moderates but full-on conservatives. Yeah, that too. Clinton winning two in a row for the first time since in like 30 years really broke the party. Nixon was not in my lifetime, but yes he was awful. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
Yeah I'm sure voters in VA were just steaming mad, wishing they could pay more for insulin.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
pthighs posted:Many people who do not need insulin could in fact be steaming mad that someone they do not know is paying less for it. Very interesting theory, with no evidence or data to back it up. Biden's approval has dropped like 15 points since the summer. I don't think that's because "Dems actually did too much to help people!" I think the much more obvious explanations are Delta and the supply chain issues. And of course, getting NOTHING done on BBB and BIF. With Biden's approval underwater, Democrats would need to run really smart campaigns to win. Instead of doing that, Terry said "parents shouldn't have a say in their children's education" and complained about Trump, who never campaigned for Youngkin. I love Kraftwerk's post, and if dems or an actual left party did that stuff they'd win. But I think if there weren't a Delta surge and if like, you could find your favorite brand of graham crackers (or whatever) at the store McAuliffe would have won. Fancy Pelosi posted:For the Democrats to suffer losses right when their colleagues in Congress are making extraordinary progress on the SALT cap repeal just shows that the masses aren't paying attention. Very disappointing. lmao this post is very good. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Because a healthy democracy requires multiple major parties to properly reflect the popular will. First of all, I reject the contention that parties are absolutely necessary. They're a part of this system, and they're sticking around, so whatever. Assuming we do need parties, we don't need any of those parties to be republicans, though. We actually don't need any of them to be democrats, either! Edit: I'm of the opinion 1/6 was a big deal. Full stop. But I also agree dems aren't taking it seriously in a real way and are just using it to try to scare voters into their corner, and it won't work. Every single person who showed up that day should be in prison. Every congressperson who supported them should be out of office and probably also in prison. I don't understand using it as a vote cudgel, though. It happened EVEN THOUGH we voted blue no matter who. So... why would doing more of the things that made that happen make that not happen? Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Parents have been miserable because of the poo poo pandemic response for almost two years. What could have been done differently with schools? I mean, they kinda had to close with this pandemic. Yes that absolutely sucks for parents but what was the alternative? Just send thousands to their deaths?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 17:05
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:Nah. I feel like people were out of their minds over mask mandates as well. but maybe fewer of them. Although I do mostly agree with these takes now that I think about it. If schools could stay open with masks (a big if) then that should have been done, but also if they couldn't yeah you gotta provide a lot more for parents that now have hosed up work situations. Ciprian Maricon posted:Parents had to contend with a society that was organized around their children being away from the home and watched over for a significant portion of the work day, then we took that away from them and expected them to just magically pick up the slack and we gave them literally nothing to deal with the new reality. Many things could have been done to allow parents to say, take a sabbatical from work and focus on caring for their children, cut back on their hours, or just flat out just leave work for the duration. selec posted:Pay people with kids to stay home, or to go half time. This can’t happen under a system so tightly in the grip of capital, though. There are multiple fallback systems in place to prevent threats to the status quo from occurring.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Ciprian Maricon posted:Like even if you consider that pie-in-the-sky unrealistic, the bare minimum you could do is run a campaign that doesn't tell angry frustrated parents "you shouldn't have a say in your childs education" yeah, no poo poo. That was a total unforced error which might have, by itself, changed the result of VA last night.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Aren't there quite literally hundreds of thousands of otherwise-innocent nonwhite people in jail because weed is illegal? What, exactly, is so deplorable about your line in the sand being "hey, these guys don't actually want to end racist social construct laws?" It's weird that we're talking about weed in the "dems didn't do anything FOR ME" discussion because https://twitter.com/carterforva/status/1455703596033585156 Is the tweet that prompted the discussion on insulin prices, etc. I don't know the details of VA's legalization, but it seems like it's a thing they like, actually did do in VA.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:Knock off this echofacist Malthusian bullshit. There’s plenty of resources to go around if we didn’t have 1% of the population hoarding them like greedy dragons. There's room to debate the ethics of having kids in 2021. Probably deserves its own thread, though. One reason I don't have kids, besides simply not wanting them, is that I know I wouldn't want to be alive in whatever future is coming up in 40-50 years and I would not willfully subject someone to that by creating them now. It's not necessarily about the resources they'd take up (although that's part of it) it's just that I expect the world to be a pretty difficult place in that time. It's a really difficult place right now. I very much wish that my parents had chosen not to have children. Also my mom and grandfather both had Parkinson's so I really don't like my chances and wouldn't want to risk passing that on. OP was 100% wrong - it's not always unethical or stupid to have children. But there's ethical considerations around having children that go beyond "ecofascist Malthusianism" However, Gumball Gumption posted:You're all chicken poo poo idiots with failed relationships and kids you don't love might not be a winning platform In the context of discussing US current events I think the more salient discussion is what can/should US political parties and activists do to make having children less economically painful.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Police_monitoring posted:It's always useful to remember that Socialists held a legislative majority in Italy when Mussolini marched all the cops, vets and hicks into the capital and the King handed him power with support form every industry in the country. Elections that Socialists win can easily be erased by the actual parties that hold power. According to Wikipedia the Socialists had 24.7% of the vote in 1921, and were not included in the coalition government. So, this is not true. They were the largest single party, but they had not won. A coalition of liberals and conservatives won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Italian_general_election Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I look at it like this: a President can, with the stroke of a pen, essentially legalize marijuana, or erase student debt. There's no fight in that. The President has the authority. If I can't expect someone to do something good with a stroke of a pen when there's little to no institutional path of obstruction to it, how can I expect them to go to the mat on issues where they're going to have to fight the far-right culture war machine? If Biden did this, he'd single handedly save the Democratic party. He won't do this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:The president cannot legalize marijuana with a stroke of a pen, it will require Congressional action to change the Controlled Substances Act to deschedule it from Schedule I. Descheduling probably requires congress to act but rescheduling to Schedule II could be possible without congress. It is worth trying, anyways. I mean, if we're talking about winning elections, what's going to resonate more: "We took action to fix [pain point x] but we were blocked by the republicans. Vote them out so we can finish the job" or "yeah we're not gonna even try though." Not saying the first one is a winner per se but the second one is demonstrably a loser. This goes for student debt, MJ rescheduling, or just about anything else they could try. The legislative agenda is dead at this point, might as well TRY and use the executive to help people and then litigate in public.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Democratic Party members when a Democratic President is in office: "He can't do anything! Don't you see the president is very weak and is trapped in an Iron Cage of Law?!" I'm actually with Sharkie here, most of the way. Law is mostly fiction, as is money. It's all just a pieces of paper that prevent us from living good lives but somehow never applies to certain rich classes of people. I don't expect Biden to ever go "lmao law is fake though." At the very loving least, Biden should try to be aggressive with executive action to see what he can get away with, within that fiction. Like, for instance, rescheduling MJ. If the law wizards say he doesn't have authority, then so be it. The "oh, we don't have authority to even try" is just an excuse to not do things he doesn't want to do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
"Biden should legalize weed" "He can't, here's some rules about why" "OK, well he should try to do what he can anyways." "Oh my god if these goal posts move any faster it's going to create a causality paradox you're literally threatening the universe rn" Pamela Springstein posted:Joe Biden during the campaign was asked about marijuana and he said it should stay illegal because it's a gateway drug. He also said he doesn't care about student loan debt, he'd veto medicare 4 all, and told rich donors that nothing would fundamentally change. Yeah this discussion is all in vain because regardless of what Biden can do he simply doesn't want to do the good things. I know a lot of people rag on Bernie now for "giving in" to the right of the Party, but if he were President I bet he'd at least try the good things. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Nov 3, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
Ortega sucks and is essentially a dictator but US sanctions are like the worst possible thing. All that will do is make a bad situation worse for the people there. gently caress that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:but there should be some genuine domestic opposition to Ortega too. There's a real tendency among Americans - even anti-imperialist Americans - to see everything in other countries through the lens of their relationship to America and discount the impact of actual domestic politics in those countries. There is genuine domestic opposition to Ortega. I've met some of them. There were massive protests a few years ago when Ortega tried to cut the social security system. Those protests saw college aged kids getting shot in the streets by the police forces. It's not a good situation and Ortega is not like, a left wing ally at this point just because he claims to be a socialist. Edit: Does D&D have a Latin America thread anymore? I couldn't find it. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Nov 4, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's because the media either doesn't have any concept of what a normal working-class family looks like, or knowingly chooses to seek out extreme examples when creating hardship stories for families that tend to actually be much better off than the reporter suggests, which tends to provoke a backlash. lol that mortgage payment alone is more than many people I know live off of.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:The take away here is that even without any dumb technocrat stuff, the "student debt jubilee" policy won't move the needle - it isn't beneficial to 87% of people and a fairly large proportion of them would feel slighted. If you want an unimpeachable policy, you have to find a way to tie the student debt relief stuff with something that would benefit people with no student loans, or you are gonna piss off the blue-collar workers and the scholarship-getters that won't benefit I think if you had 45 million people suddenly having an extra $400 to spend every month and 1.6 trillion in debt wiped away, a broad swath of the population would benefit. That's billions of dollars going into the real economy instead of to some loving bank somewhere. That's 25 year olds getting to move out from their parents homes. The parents might not have student debt, but they definitely benefit. Ditto for the kids and partners of anyone with student debt. Ditto for any local business in their community. Student debt relief would benefit WAY MORE than the 45 million people with student loans in the United States. There's also an intensity factor to consider as well. If you slightly piss off some people because "hey that's not fair" but you MASSIVELY improve the lives of 45 million people, that can still be beneficial politically. Among the people who are so motivated by resentment they don't want to see loans forgiven, how many were getable by Democrats in the first place? How many previously apathetic voters do you win by doing the thing? You can't just look at the approve/disapprove numbers to determine how many votes you'll win from a policy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Vorik posted:passing debt relief would certainly would be the easiest lay up in history for Republicans, and would completely doom Democrats for a generation to come. Jfc. This student loan discussion has pretty much made me lose it. This is the most bad faith bullshit I've ever seen. Republicans can literally cut taxes for billionaires and nothing happens. But a "give away" to a computer programmer making $80k, well, that's just the end of the party as we know it! See, if they do that, they'll get killed at the polls by...the people who love billionaire tax breaks! Something that's fundamentally missing from this discussion is the fact that voters do not know what the president does, the generally do not know what he has done, and many do not have a coherent ideology or even many policy preferences. They do not know what laws have been passed or what laws are being debated. If a law is passed they don't know what it does or who it helps. They know if their life is getting better or getting worse. If life is getting worse, they punish the party in power. If their life is getting better, they might reward the party in power. Wiping out student debt will not make anybody's life worse. It will make 45 million lives better. There are many people who, if you ask them about it, will say they oppose it. But it won't actually impact their lives negatively. Negatively impacting zero people while positively impacting 45 million people directly and the rest of the country indirectly via stimulus would not "completely doom Democrats for a generation to come." The fact that so many of you think this is depressing as gently caress, though. Edit: Democrats are loving doomed for 2022 and 2024 as things stand because they've done close to nothing. And here you have people going "oh, they better not do a thing though!" because some people might not like it. I get it, it's academic since Biden hates young people, but holy poo poo. Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
The people arguing against student loan relief in this thread did more to radicalize me than a thousand CSPAMers on a thousand typewriters could in a thousand years.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
I think we should definitely govern based on what Republicans will say about our plans, because they've proven they're good faith actors and will honestly analyze our proposals and lay out their differences in a rational manner in the spirit of debate. https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1443549488447205378 Mellow Seas posted:First of all, I don't think anybody is saying it would be the "end of the party as we know it." ...did you not see the post I quoted that said relief would doom the party for a generation?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
TCJA was passed under reconciliation. They did not NEED to because as the majority party, the republicans could eliminate the filibuster at any time. It is not a constitutional limitation.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
How are u posted:Agreed. If you're gonna go off on a tear about how the system needs to be torn down and revolution is the only real solution then it's perfectly reasonable for somebody to ask you how that's going to happen, to ask who is putting their money where their mouth is. People declining to post about their direct action doesn't necessarily mean they are not engaging in any. Edit: Also, does 'direct action' always mean crimes.txt? Can't it also mean like, giving sandwiches to the homeless or trying to unionize a workplace? Hellblazer187 fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Nov 5, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2021 21:58
|
|
are worth about as much as the Vice Presidency of the United States.
|
If they're going to blame progressives anyways... then maybe progressives should stick to their guns? I don't get how "you're getting blamed no matter what" means "so therefore you should give us all your leverage"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 03:56
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:If them getting blamed is what's destined to happen, the logical argument might be that they were about to lose this leverage anyway. If things descend into blame gaming in the media before anything gets accomplished, and we assume they would inevitably lose the media fight, their leverage dies anyway. So the better move is to put it on the table, get what you can get for it, and toss the dice. Either it all turns to poo poo and you get blamed, which would have happened if you didn't try as well, or good things happen and you reap the benefits because you played ball at the key moment rather than holding out for better odds. Maybe that makes sense if this is like, the final negotiation of all time. But since it's not, and this now a guarantee that TheIncredulousHulk posted:Nobody's ever going to take any of her threats seriously again Probably it was dumb to throw away any and all leverage on this and also anything else that might ever happen again.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Did the entire CPC cave? Where can I find the actual vote counts? I guess it doesn't really matter, though. The CPC as a block with any power is totally done.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2021 04:45
|
|