By 33MillionDollarMen Go To PostI think Clinton's presidency is inevitable tbh.There's a strong chance, and I do recognize that when I talk with friends.
But campaigns are to be taken to talk about the right ideas, not political calculations that are the cause of the slow course of history.
Political revolutions start at the local level.
All of these Sanders supporters? They better be fucking volunteering for local and state campaigns. Instead of latching on to a charismatic national politician every few years and annoying the shit out of everyone on social media about how much they love him/her, they need to put in some actual consistent groundwork to build a national effort from the bottom up, not from the top down.
The Tea Party movement, as much as we all loathe it, understands this in a way that Sanders-style liberals simply don't. Tea Party types packed themselves full of city councils and school boards and all of that shit. It's not about just winning the presidency.
All of these Sanders supporters? They better be fucking volunteering for local and state campaigns. Instead of latching on to a charismatic national politician every few years and annoying the shit out of everyone on social media about how much they love him/her, they need to put in some actual consistent groundwork to build a national effort from the bottom up, not from the top down.
The Tea Party movement, as much as we all loathe it, understands this in a way that Sanders-style liberals simply don't. Tea Party types packed themselves full of city councils and school boards and all of that shit. It's not about just winning the presidency.
By BertramCooper Go To PostAll of these Sanders supporters? They better be fucking volunteering for local and state campaigns. Instead of latching on to a charismatic national politician every few years and annoying the shit out of everyone on social media about how much they love him/her, they need to put in some actual consistent groundwork to build a national effort from the bottom up, not from the top down.
The Tea Party movement, as much as we all loathe it, understands this in a way that Sanders-style liberals simply don't. Tea Party types packed themselves full of city councils and school boards and all of that shit. It's not about just winning the presidency.
First paragraph: true, and it's true of many Sanders supporters. I don't have much hope for internet commentators though.
Second paragraph: I know where you're going and I agree with the general spirit of it (get involved!), but I'm not sure I would call the Tea Party a "movement". It has very strong ties to capital, and the political establishment. It's a discussion that might be too ambitious to have it here.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostGaby, you sound like a delusional Goldwater supporter right now.And you sound like a Tony Blair enthusiast from the mid-1990s.
How does your comparison make any sense? You do realize that I've been a political activist for a while, and in a context that in no way resembles backing the Republicans in the mid-1960s? Stop throwing out off-topic references. I'm talking about economic inequality, the value of being true to social movements of the past, etc, all things that have nothing to do with Goldwater.
Centrists always talk about compromises and opportunities. They're not the driving force of the grand historical moments. There'll always be some centrists somewhere. I'd rather find my historical grounding in the abolitionist movement. In feminism. In the civil rights movement. In labor! All these were "infested" by socialists… Enough with neoliberal policies that further inequality.
Counterpoint: Same-sex marriage. That was undoubtedly a grand historical moment. And delivered in a ruling authored by a centrist, Republican-appointed justice. And I don't think anyone would argue that the political path toward same-sex marriage was pushed by highly partisan or extremist forces. It was moderate-minded people simply learning to accept that gay relationships are fundamentally no different than straight ones.
You can't paint with such a broad stroke. Some watershed political breakthroughs ARE borne through explosive, extremist forces. Others are achieved through slow, methodical, deliberate efforts.
By BertramCooper Go To PostCounterpoint: Same-sex marriage. That was undoubtedly a grand historical moment. And delivered in a ruling authored by a centrist, Republican-appointed justice. And I don't think anyone would argue that the political path toward same-sex marriage was pushed by highly partisan or extremist forces. It was moderate-minded people simply learning to accept that gay relationships are fundamentally no different than straight ones.No, we wouldn't have gotten there without grassroots movements who pushed for the cause, in demonstrations, actions, cultural impact...
You can't paint with such a broad stroke. Some watershed political breakthroughs ARE borne through explosive, extremist forces. Others are achieved through slow, methodical, deliberate efforts.
In France in 1968, De Gaulle improved wages tremendously. Was it his doing? No, there was a strike that forced his hand...
Your point is like saying Lincoln is reponsible for the abolition of slavery, when slaves and abolitionists fought really hard.
My point is saying there'll always be a Lincoln. I'm concerned with what forces his hand (/impacts the context at large).
Just so we're clear about our opinions, even if I don't nurture the hope of convincing anyone through sla&nt.
By Gabyskra Go To PostAnd you sound like a Tony Blair enthusiast from the mid-1990s.
How does your comparison make any sense? You do realize that I've been a political activist for a while, and in a context that in no way resembles backing the Republicans in the mid-1960s? Stop throwing out off-topic references. I'm talking about economic inequality, the value of being true to social movements of the past, etc, all things that have nothing to do with Goldwater.
The idea is you're living in a bubble and think that the majority of people in the United States think like you and will be willing to vote for the guy you want. Just like Goldwater and McGovern supporters. Spoilers, Americans hate Socialists and Rubio or Christie would beat Sanders and would reverse Roe vs. Wade.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostAmericans hate Socialists
No, Americans don't know the first lick about socialism, and they don't care about politics. You're the one who's living in the bubble of the Cold War... Reading you, it seems you're from a white conservative middle-class from the middle of the country, you broke away from the family mold because of gay marriage and racism and all that, but your economic ideology is still very much influenced by the fear of paying too much in taxes... But for working people, the phobia of communism is long gone... It's just an alien concept. Redbaiting can not have the impact you think it has. If I had asked you a year ago if Sanders could have gotten that far, you'd have said no because of that reason...
By Gabyskra Go To PostNo, Americans don't know the first lick about socialism, and they don't care about politics. You're the one who's living in the bubble of the Cold War…
Fact check: No.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
By IWMTB19 Go To PostYou are an imbecile
Okay, here I'm asking for moderation to intervene. There's doing a political characterization, and there's insulting.
Do you want the discussion to continue?
Your poll does not even take into account the option of not answering yes/no.
There's a ton of polls against your general appreciation.
http://www.alternet.org/poll-more-democrats-now-favor-socialism-capitalism
But the fact that Sanders got that far is already telling.
(your understanding of "data" would not get you far in academia btw, zero critical ability)
By Gabyskra Go To PostNo, we wouldn't have gotten there without grassroots movements who pushed for the cause, in demonstrations, actions, cultural impact…Who said there wasn't a movement behind the path to SSM? Of course there was.
In France in 1968, De Gaulle improved wages tremendously. Was it his doing? No, there was a strike that forced his hand…
Your point is like saying Lincoln is reponsible for the abolition of slavery, when slaves and abolitionists fought really hard.
My point is saying there'll always be a Lincoln. I'm concerned with what forces his hand (/impacts the context at large).
Just so we're clear about our opinions, even if I don't nurture the hope of convincing anyone through sla&nt.
But it was a movement that was very calculated and methodical - not one that relied on grand, explosive events to fuel itself. It was about gradual cultural acceptance, not confrontation and conflict.
Hey, sometimes confrontation and conflict work, and are necessary (certainly in the case of slavery). But don't act like it's the only way to achieve massive societal changes.
By Gabyskra Go To PostOkay, here I'm asking for moderation to intervene. There's doing a political characterization, and there's insulting.
Do you want the discussion to continue?
Your poll does not even take into account the option of not answering yes/no.
There's a ton of polls against your general appreciation.
http://www.alternet.org/poll-more-democrats-now-favor-socialism-capitalism
But the fact that Sanders got that far is already telling.
(your understanding of "data" would not get you far in academia btw, zero critical ability)
6 points is not much when running against an opponent that hasn't even done a single attack ad in the entire campaign, come on.
By BertramCooper Go To PostWho said there wasn't a movement behind the path to SSM? Of course there was.
But it was a movement that was very calculated and methodical - not one that relied on grand, explosive events to fuel itself. It was about gradual cultural acceptance, not confrontation and conflict.
Hey, sometimes confrontation and conflict work, and are necessary (certainly in the case of slavery). But don't act like it's the only way to achieve massive societal changes.
Who's saying movements have to be "explosive" at all times?
Who's saying anything against acting in a calculated fashion?
Btw, conflict can be about "gradual cultural acceptance".
You have a wrong impression of revolutionaries and socialists, I think.
And I also think you got your history of feminism and anti-homophobia wrong. It was very much eventful and explosive.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostGood call putting the "Sanders can't win in a general election because Americans hate Socialism to bed"
There was another poll that made the rounds about the word "socialism" months ago. It showed it wasn't the Cold War any more. If you can't see that around you because you're in your own bubble, then fine.
Pretty sure most face-to-face polls show Sanders does better in the general. Surprised you haven't seen them.
Do you mind not calling me an imbecile? I'm not letting that go. Answer it.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostFact check: You are an imbecile:Dude, no. Stop. It is absolutely not okay to insult people like that.
Be respectful at all costs.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostFact check: You are an imbecile:What does this have to do with Americans understanding what socialism is beyond reflexive reactions stemming for the Cold War?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx
Data vs. your ravings let's go.
A leftist tea party like movement would be more challenging since it wouldn't be backed by Koch money.
By Gabyskra Go To PostThere was another poll that made the rounds about the word "socialism" months ago. It showed it wasn't the Cold War any more. If you can't see that around you because you're in your own bubble, then fine.
Pretty sure most face-to-face polls show Sanders does better in the general. Surprised you haven't seen them.
Do you mind not calling me an imbecile? I'm not letting that go. Answer it.
I'll note that I meant imbecile in the definition of "a stupid person" not the medical definition regarding developmental disabilities and I apologize if you thought I meant the definition of developmental disabilities. Regardless, you really do judge a lot about me without knowing much about me and have insulted my empathy for the poor.
You irritate me immensely, but I'll turn it down from now on based on relio's recommendations. I apologize to the moderation staff if they feel I crossed the line.
General election polls have little to no predictive value 11 months away from the election.
Apologies don't hold much weight when you qualify them as "sorry if I offended you". There's no need to call someone as a whole stupid, regardless of context.
By reilo Go To PostApologies don't hold much weight when you qualify them as "sorry if I offended you". There's no need to call someone as a whole stupid, regardless of context.
You're right, I apologize to Gaby entirely, I'm sorry for the insult, I shouldn't do that.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI'll note that I meant imbecile in the definition of "a stupid person"
Like that's acceptable. Have I ever called you stupid? How about you don't do that? I don't think you're dumb, I think you're mistaken and influenced, like most people (like I am in some ways unknown to me). You run the political threads, give it your own flavor, and in case you haven't noticed, you might attract a few people who disagree with you and you're going to have to accept that people disagree if you want to be read at all. I understand you've never met people with my ideas, but socialist Leftists exist, especially outside of Utah, outside of the United States.
I hope we'll be able to accept our differences and get the conversation rolling, no need to apologize much as long as we find balance.
I mean, the abolitionist and feminist movements were also infested with horrible racists (the Know Nothings were extremely important towards ending slavery and they were the worst people that existed), being involved with a good movement doesn't mean your overall ideology is good.
I talk to Marxists all day long, my best friend is a Socialist, but sure, whatever. The reason I disagree isn't remotely a lack of exposure. My college is full to the brim with Marxists. My girlfriend has a positive opinion of fucking Chairman Mao, okay.
I talk to Marxists all day long, my best friend is a Socialist, but sure, whatever. The reason I disagree isn't remotely a lack of exposure. My college is full to the brim with Marxists. My girlfriend has a positive opinion of fucking Chairman Mao, okay.
By BertramCooper Go To PostI'll be relieved when these stupid primaries are over and we're all on the same team again.
I've been hit twice this primary season arguing with Bernie Stans. I like Bernie too ...
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI mean, the abolitionist and feminist movements were also infested with horrible racists (the Know Nothings were extremely important towards ending slavery and they were the worst people that existed), being involved with a good movement doesn't mean your overall ideology is good.
That was not my point at all.
And I'm afraid what you said about the nativists is a terrible historical characterization. It's like libertarians who argue that Trump is a Leftist because of anecdotal elements (friends of Clintons, some policies). Voicing opposition to slavery in some States (not all) is not being a part of a movement, and it is not being "extremely important". The Know-Nothings were relatively impactful in the South, and that was made possible by their general neutrality towards this issue (even though Democrats accused them of not being really neutral in the North).
By IWMTB19 Go To PostI talk to Marxists all day long, my best friend is a Socialist, but sure, whatever. The reason I disagree isn't remotely a lack of exposure. My college is full to the brim with Marxists. My girlfriend has a positive opinion of fucking Chairman Mao, okay.
("i have a black friend")
I'll be sure to see future insults as sexually fueled.
The Know Nothings helped create the party that elected Lincoln. It's called building a coalition that actually makes things happen. An anti-slavery party would never have gotten over 50% of the vote without the support of hideous racists that only disliked slavery because it was taking WASP jobs.
"I have a black friend" is a claim meant to imply you don't hate black people. I've listen to socialists talk a lot which is directly counter to all of the inference you've made about me. You have claimed that the only reason I disagree with you so heavily is that I'm not exposed to your viewpoint. That couldn't be further from the truth. Your inferences about me are trashy and you should quit making them while you're ahead. I disagree with you not because of any exotic-ness on your part, but because of the substance of your ideas.
("i have a black friend")
I'll be sure to see future insults as sexually fueled.
"I have a black friend" is a claim meant to imply you don't hate black people. I've listen to socialists talk a lot which is directly counter to all of the inference you've made about me. You have claimed that the only reason I disagree with you so heavily is that I'm not exposed to your viewpoint. That couldn't be further from the truth. Your inferences about me are trashy and you should quit making them while you're ahead. I disagree with you not because of any exotic-ness on your part, but because of the substance of your ideas.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostThe Know Nothings helped create the party that elected Lincoln.The "abolitionist movement" is not what you describe there, and Lincoln hated them (+ Lincoln's not part of the abolitionist movement either, see James McPherson, Eric Foner, etc). He did not denounce them publicly at first, sure, but that's not "creating a party". Every concept is misused there.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostYour inferences about me are trashy and you should quit making them while you're ahead. A huge majority of people disagree with you not because of any exotic-ness on your part, but because of your lack of substance.
Some way to apologize.
I am in no way responsible to people disagreeing with me when I haven't talked to them, and I'm fairly certain I would have little to no impact on that anyway, one way or the other. That's not how political consciousness works.
Sent a PM.
I haven't signed up for PMs, I think. Not sure where they could be located at though.
Seriously though, stop making inferences about me. I've heard all of your arguments a billion times from other people.
Seriously though, stop making inferences about me. I've heard all of your arguments a billion times from other people.
By reilo Go To PostIWMTB doesn't have PMs but I can enable it f he so wishes.
That would be nice, thank you, relio, I'll try to keep it civil.
I am in no way responsible to people disagreeing with me when I haven't talked to them, and I'm fairly certain I would have little to no impact on that anyway, one way or the other. That's not how political consciousness works.
I edited that part immediately after posting it since I realized it didn't make sense.
I'll be home shortly so you'll see a message icon near your avatar in the navigation bar when it's enabled.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostSeriously though, stop making inferences about me. I've heard all of your arguments a billion times from other people.
Your point of view is not original either. Plenty of middle-class boys from tax-resentful families turned Democrats when the Third Way (Clinton-Blair) took over in the 1990s. Heard it two billion times. You might not fit the description, okay, okay. But you know the usual "economically conservative, socially liberal" thing is famous for a reason...
And please say my argument is unsubstanciated next time. Entirely okay.
Your point of view is not original either.
..........................................And? I'm not the one arguing that the uniqueness of my viewpoint is the reason you disagree with me. What is your point with this comment? My comment has a point.
I want massive land taxes to pay for more mental health research and domestic violence prevention. I want schools to focus less on job skills and more on racial contact and anger management skills. I want open borders and legalized sex work. I'm going to get none of those things from either candidate and will never get them for decades, but I'm still going to do political work to get them in the future and I want Hillary to be the nominee because she's a safer candidate to win the election and a Democrat winning the election will ensure that abortion will stay legal throughout the lifetime of all the women I love. I'm extremely far left, your inferences about me are just incorrect.
I'm on the train of Americans don't really even understand socialism, there are far too many old folks who refuse to let the government take away their SS constantly demeaning socialism or any other government handouts. Also the most subsidized are the rich but you won't hear about it thanks to how shit our educational system and media is.
By IWMTB19 Go To PostThank you.A little over a month. It's in beta, gotta hammer out some more issues. Check the support thread for questions and what's available.
How long has this feature been available for? I'm cutting myself out of the loop…
suuuuuuuuuuuuure would be nice if iran wasn't chilling with our soldiers as captives right now
but oh whatever
but oh whatever
Apparently Joe Biden thought about selling his home when they learned of Beau Biden's cancer.
What does that say about the humanity of the economy's rules when a longstanding powerful politician, the serving vice president, might see his whole life turned upside down by a disease that touches rich and poor people undiscriminately? How do people with less income cope? Incredibly shameful.
What does that say about the humanity of the economy's rules when a longstanding powerful politician, the serving vice president, might see his whole life turned upside down by a disease that touches rich and poor people undiscriminately? How do people with less income cope? Incredibly shameful.
Just noticed that that poll shows that independents have a worse view of Socialism than before Bernie started running and only 18% of independents say they have a favorable view of Socialism, lol.
An obvious response to that would be: "Well, independents aren't paying any attention to Bernie right now" which is true... But then why look at general election polls also?
An obvious response to that would be: "Well, independents aren't paying any attention to Bernie right now" which is true... But then why look at general election polls also?
By Dark PhaZe Go To PostI don't buy the socialist hate being as strong as the polls suggest tbh.americans hate socialism as long as its called socialism
Gondo, I wouldn't trust your state officials to be able to put together a doll set, how are you alive still?
Are you sure your water supply isn't poisoned?
Somewhat strong post of mine from the last thread with Michigan's water supply being poisoned by leaders similar to those in Oklahoma.
Okay, not THAT strong.
By BertramCooper Go To PostCounterpoint: Same-sex marriage. That was undoubtedly a grand historical moment. And delivered in a ruling authored by a centrist, Republican-appointed justice. And I don't think anyone would argue that the political path toward same-sex marriage was pushed by highly partisan or extremist forces. It was moderate-minded people simply learning to accept that gay relationships are fundamentally no different than straight ones.
You can't paint with such a broad stroke. Some watershed political breakthroughs ARE borne through explosive, extremist forces. Others are achieved through slow, methodical, deliberate efforts.
Those slow, methodical, deliberate efforts tend to be liberal and last longer to when it comes to America
Cruz's PAC is hitting Rubio now as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOjFoSVgrX4&feature=youtu.be
Tough to see how Rubio survives all these negative ads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOjFoSVgrX4&feature=youtu.be
Tough to see how Rubio survives all these negative ads.
My Anarchist friend just posted a message on Facebook asking about how to sell bitcoins for dollars, lmao.
Hopefully he didn't invest too much money into Bitcoin, he's a great guy.
Hopefully he didn't invest too much money into Bitcoin, he's a great guy.