Advertisement
by South Odreria 2 » Sat May 30, 2020 12:31 pm
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by The Black Forrest » Sat May 30, 2020 5:17 pm
South Odreria 2 wrote:Why so many effort-shitposts in here what’s even the point
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sat May 30, 2020 10:59 pm
Mirjt wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Frankly the Greens should disband their party and all join the Democratic party.
As moderates.
All their platform about social justice and anti-corporatism is a smiling face on hard-left policy. Anyone who's with the Green mainly for that should go join the Socialists instead. So much leftism has made the Greens a fringe group and worse it's keep the ecological and climate action part of the platform at the fringes of national politics.
Ecology is a broad church with its core in the center-left. Protecting the environment puts restrictions on business (and trade) and there's no getting around it. But even some Republicans would be on board with it: it's broad as in all the way from the left into the moderate right. Republicans voted for the Clean Water Act in 1972 for instance.
Climate Change should be a centrist issue. Mainly because partisan politics will not provide solutions: partisan politics is always focused on achievements within the term of government (2years, or 4 or 6). And both sides deeply distrust binding legislation which either side will be unable to reverse without the supermajority. Dealing with a problem so long-term as climate change requires sustained bipartisanship, and that can only be led by the center.
Take for instance a carbon tax. Suppose you pass it the partisan way, with a Dem president who won't veto, and you either nuke the filibuster or use the budget reconciliation trick. It would definitely help, by directly reducing emissions, and by giving an advantage to non-emitting sources. But you lose in the next few rounds of elections, now it's a Republican president and Republican congress. They can't repeal your carbon tax BUT they can pass a new law refunding all carbon tax paid. Just to be extra nice to the polluters, they might make the refund more than the actual tax!
I just want to mention another reason you should become moderate Democrats. If you're moderate you can win districts or states that a mainstream Democrat can't. Swing seats. If you enter Congress a winner, who beat an incumbent Republican, you'll be welcomed and listened to, far more than those Progressives who only win in seats that no Democrat could lose.
Greens have other policies that aren't instantly identifiable as Far Left. They're for forestry and planting trees, that's OK providing you don't forget to mention jobs for loggers. Maybe subsidies for renewables, just not on the aggressive timeline of 100% renewable by 2030. Social justice, well you could get broad agreement that cops shouldn't shoot civilians. Maybe even UBI, providing it's at a low "experimental" level. Cut to Defense, but not drastic ones. Remember you're a moderate though: you never bring these things up, you wait for a real lefty to do it then quietly vote in favor.
I know, I know, asking Greens to give up their vast dreams, just so they individually can get elected and have a share of power, it's not reasonable. Except it is: if anyone who values the environment above the other concerns were to just leave and the join the Democrats, the remainder would no longer have a unifying principle, they'd have a blazing row about whether or not homeschooling should be allowed ("it allows religious parents to indoctrinate children!" versus "hey I homeschool because They wanted to vaccinate my kids!") and then more public rows until they weren't a party any more.
And I wonder how many members and voters for Green don't believe in any of it. Not the green stuff, not the social justice stuff, not the economic intervention stuff, not the anti-war stuff. They just want to recreate Nader's great performance in 2000 to stick it to the Dems again?
You talk as if socialists invaded the Green Party. The Green Party in the U.S. was actually a single organization until it split into the political party the Green Party US (GPUS), and other non-electoral grassroots organizations (which avoids acting as an electoral spoiler). The Green Party US is part of a global movement of Green Polotics started in the 80s. Anything that is environmental, or eco-friendly, or addresses climate change, or is involved in wildlife conservation can be labeled green, but that is not the same as green politics.
Green Politics is it's own ideology, it views issues such as environmentalism, social justice, and the economy as being interconnected and it is impossible to address one successfully without also addressing the others.
Green Politics has four main pillars: (1) ecological wisdom, (2), social justice, (3) grassroots democracy, (4) non-violence;
which are a part of their ten key values: (5) decentralization, (6) community-based economics, (7) post-patriarchial values, (8) respect for diversity, (9) global responsibility,
(10) future focus; which all make up their guiding principles along with (11) participatory democracy, and (12) sustainability.
My point is that while environmentalism is at the core of the Green Party and Green Politics, they have always had tendencies of Eco-Socialism, Eco-Feminism, Social Ecology, Green Social Democracy, and Ethics of Care.
P.S. If the major parties really cared about spoilers then they would eliminate the spoiler effect by switching to ranked choice voting which would allow people to vote for third parties without spoiling the major parties. Not to mention it would help build a more democratic society (democratic defined as rule by the people, not just ballot box majoritarianism).
by Sundiata » Sat May 30, 2020 11:07 pm
by Alcala-Cordel » Sat May 30, 2020 11:07 pm
by The Black Forrest » Sat May 30, 2020 11:39 pm
Alcala-Cordel wrote:Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.
Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.
So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.
by Gormwood » Sat May 30, 2020 11:51 pm
The Black Forrest wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.
Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.
So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.
What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?
by South Odreria 2 » Sat May 30, 2020 11:55 pm
Sundiata wrote:Ultimately, I want to see Joe Biden do more for America's poorest but the kind of change I want isn't likely.
I understand that Joe Biden isn't an outsider to politics. Like most American politicians, including Donald Trump, he has elite donors. He has to placate those donors as well as the progressive wing of his party. From Joe Biden I expect business as usual, standard economic neoliberalism.
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by Gormwood » Sat May 30, 2020 11:57 pm
South Odreria 2 wrote:Sundiata wrote:Ultimately, I want to see Joe Biden do more for America's poorest but the kind of change I want isn't likely.
I understand that Joe Biden isn't an outsider to politics. Like most American politicians, including Donald Trump, he has elite donors. He has to placate those donors as well as the progressive wing of his party. From Joe Biden I expect business as usual, standard economic neoliberalism.
I'm under no illusions about who he is, but I genuinely think that if we the people put enough pressure on him and his government, we could start to see some change in the right direction.
by Alcala-Cordel » Sun May 31, 2020 1:59 am
The Black Forrest wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:Imagine seeing people starving and filthy all over the streets, police officers regularly murdering innocents in cold blood, the United Sates going into endless wars for profit, the U.S. army turning a blind eye to torture rape, and mass murder, corporations systematically laying waste to the environment, companies using child slavery, people being caged in crowded concrete cells, and workers being exploited for labor only to believe the status quo is anything but a nightmare.
Trump may be arguably worse than Biden in some regards but for every difference they have, they have 100 similarities. I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders, who was a compromise in himself. Biden is a poorly disguised neocon with a history of support for all these policies.
So to everyone saying that "a vote not for Biden is a vote for Trump", you have no idea what you're saying.
What do you expect from four more years of Trump vs four years of Biden?
by Nazis in Space » Sun May 31, 2020 3:01 am
Alcala-Cordel wrote:I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun May 31, 2020 4:05 am
Nazis in Space wrote:The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
by Nazis in Space » Sun May 31, 2020 4:18 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Nazis in Space wrote:The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
You got 3% by dividing Sanders' primary vote by the entire US population? Or even vote-eligible population?
That's not how you measure anyone's electoral support. Use his percentage of the people who actually vote.
If we did it your way, actual elected presidents would have something like 12% support (ie primary divided by vote-eligible). It would make no sense.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun May 31, 2020 4:22 am
Nazis in Space wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
You got 3% by dividing Sanders' primary vote by the entire US population? Or even vote-eligible population?
That's not how you measure anyone's electoral support. Use his percentage of the people who actually vote.
If we did it your way, actual elected presidents would have something like 12% support (ie primary divided by vote-eligible). It would make no sense.
It does make sense for two reasons:You'll note that I'm not going around and claim that 70% of the United States population support a 'moderate democrat'* agenda (aka, all the votes not going to Sanders in the primary), either. Again, this would include the Republican voter block, which is obviously nonsense.
- it's a primary, meaning that everyone (okay, there are a handful of states with open primaries, so almost everyone) who isn't registered/is registered republican is not part of the pool. These same people are also immensely unlikely to vote Sanders even if they could. Excluding people who'd very much vote against Sanders in the actual presidential election when it's about Sanders' support within the overall population makes no sense
- Sanders specifically claimed that he'd be able to bring out a shitton of normally not-voting people (most notably the youth vote). Since he made this claim, he ought to be measured by it, meaning that we have to include these people that Sanders thought would vote for him but nobody else, yet just... plain didn't vote
And you'll likewise note that this is specifically about active support. People that don't vote don't care. Note, again, that I didn't claim that the non-voters supported Biden, or Donald or whoever. All I'm saying is that they don't support Sanders. If you don't vote Sanders, you don't support him. Not exactly a difficult concept.
* I really wanted to write 'Sane democrat' here
by Blargoblarg » Sun May 31, 2020 4:27 am
Nazis in Space wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders
I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.
The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.
This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.
Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...
... well...
... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.
The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.
Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.
And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).
You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.
Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.
Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.
These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.
They need to be excised like the cancer they are.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun May 31, 2020 4:46 am
Blargoblarg wrote:Nazis in Space wrote:I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.
The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.
This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.
Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...
... well...
... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.
The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.
Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.
And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).
You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.
Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.
Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.
These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.
They need to be excised like the cancer they are.
If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.
by Blargoblarg » Sun May 31, 2020 4:50 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Blargoblarg wrote:If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.
You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.
But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Sun May 31, 2020 5:43 am
Blargoblarg wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.
But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
It's literally always been the policies for me, and Biden's are terrible. Though his mental state and his sexual harassment of women don't help.
by Nazis in Space » Sun May 31, 2020 7:23 am
Blargoblarg wrote:Nazis in Space wrote:I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.
The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.
This is, incidentally, something the supporters of Warren, Buttigieg or Klobuchar understand. Only supporters of one candidate don't understand this. Coincidentally, it's supporters of a candidate who have termed the sole more left-wing candidate than their own (Warren) a traitor and a snake.
Warren does, coincidentally, actually have a respectable track record in the Senate, while, if we were to take a look at Sanders' track record...
... well...
... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.
The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.
Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.
And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).
You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.
Mind, I do agree that the Democrats blew their chance.
Biden's being way too reconciliatory towards the Sandernistas. His outstreched hand keeps being rejected. The Sandernistas continue their firebrand rhetoric, make it blatantly obvious that they reject democracy in favour of Sanders.
These people shouldn't be, cannot be woo'd. They know no reason, no limits, they just plain don't get politics as the art of the possible, the attainable, the art of the next best. They cannot be worked with, therefore they shouldn't be worked with.
They need to be excised like the cancer they are.
If you want to drive us away from the Democratic party, by all means keep saying stuff like this. But don't blame us when the terrible candidates the Democrats keep picking lose to the Republicans repeatedly.
by Jakker » Sun May 31, 2020 7:41 am
Nazis in Space wrote:You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.
They need to be excised like the cancer they are.
The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.
by Ngelmish » Sun May 31, 2020 7:43 am
Blargoblarg wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
You hate Biden for his mental state and private-life behaviour. I'm quite sure it's that, not his policies, that you hate.
But when Sanders was a prospect, it was ALL ABOUT the policies.
Doesn't that seem a bit hypocritical to you?
It's literally always been the policies for me, and Biden's are terrible. Though his mental state and his sexual harassment of women don't help.
by Fahran » Sun May 31, 2020 12:00 pm
Gormwood wrote:More likely to bend under progressive pressure than Trump ever will be.
by Alcala-Cordel » Sun May 31, 2020 12:20 pm
Nazis in Space wrote:Alcala-Cordel wrote:I will never support anything other than leftist reform, and the Democrats blew their chance at Sanders
I mean, sure. But I'd advise you to be prepared for a lifetime of disappointment if you're unwilling to settle for incremental change.
The 'Leftist Reform' you want has support in the ~ 3% range (percentage of the population that voted for Sanders in the primariess). This ain't winning elections as demonstrated by Sanders, well, losing the primaries.
The reforms you want don't have popular support. The only way to get them is to eliminate the democratic process (which, admittedly, is something the Sandernistas seem fond of doing, what with them trying to fuck around with superdelegates in 2016, and likewise wishing for something like that now, coincidentally invalidating the ~ 90% of the black vote that went to Biden). Your choices are either some change in the direction you want, or no changes in the direction you want and quite possible changes in the opposite direction.
... well...
... why exactly do you believe that Sanders would bring change? He has the highest absentee rate in the Senate, his legislative track record is utterly pathetic relative to Warren and Biden alike, he voted against progressive legislation that was supported by Biden (CHIP comes to mind; and then there's fun like his fundraising gig keeping him from casting the decisive vote to eliminate the patriot act. Convenient, that. Don't have to vote nay if you're simply not around), he refuses to compromise with farther right democrats, rendering him a lame duck.
The President isn't a wizard. If Senate/Congress say 'No', he ain't getting shit done. Electing Sanders would change literally nothing because he can't actually pass anything.
Unless one were to propose eliminating the Senate/Congress as obstacles of the revolution. But y'know. You can try to do that without getting someone elected first, too.
And all of this together - Sanders' pathetic track record of getting nothing done, the Sandernistas' rejection of a candidate with a practically identical program as a traitor and neoconservative snake, the flat-out desire to to eliminate democracy in favour of installing their favoured candidate - is the reason why I don't believe for a second that you, or any other Sandernista, actually has a progressive agenda (targeted at benefitting young white men above all others, as those dearies are clearly most in need of our help. And if the blacks and women that overwhelmingly voted for other candidates can't see that, well, we'll have to ignore the votes of these low information voters, don't we? All for the progressive cause, of course).
You're following your Messiah. You're beyond reason, a cult. You're ready to see the world burn, as long as it's other people's neighbourhoods.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Pasong Tirad, The Xenopolis Confederation, Tranquilizer-o7, Tungstan
Advertisement