Important points:
1. The DNC officially blacklisted and continues to unofficially blacklist political consultants working for non-establishment DNC candidates working to unseat Democratic incumbents.
2. The Nevada Democratic Party had most of its elected seats taken over by Democratic Socialist of America types, which resulted in all the executive staff embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars and then resigning, effectively dissolving the party. The Nevada Democratic Party was in the running to being allowed to hold the first Democratic primary elections, giving them great power to nominate candidates. That power is now gone.
3. A new book, "Lucky, How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency", details the extraordinary lengths to which the DNC went to stop Bernie Sanders and push up Biden, to the point of ordering candidates to drop out to unify opposition to Sanders.
Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sanders: report (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/472090-obama-privately-said-he-would-speak-up-to-stop-sanders-report)
Care to make an intro thread before doing anything else?
It's custom to make one. Not even supposed to start different threads before you've posted at least ten times and made your own thread. Let alone share media.
Don't mean to come across as crude; but it would give us a chance to get to know you. Go on, make an intro thread and say hi.
my bet is that op posted that and will never come back
Sanders has a lot of support, and I do remember back when one primary debate was scheduled at a time when Sanders had obligations elsewhere, and I thought it was a great way to keep Sanders quiet and out of the public eye when fans of the democratic process were thirsty for his presence. Was this establishment Democrats monkeying with the process, or just an unavoidable circumstance? It looked fishy, but I doubt that we will ever know. Although, I hope we will always care. It would be a threat to the democratic process, and as offensive as establishment Republicans trying to exclude voters from the polls. But the media has not made an effort to examine the issue of Democratic Party insiders tampering, partly because Republicans are currently stealing all the headlines with their own manipulations to override the democratic process. Or maybe there is nothing there. But I'm cynical enough to believe that there is always something there. It is, after all, politics.
And a link I forgot to post above: DNC chair Jaime Harrison says Democratic brand is tarnished (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/546387-dnc-chair-we-have-to-battle-the-damage-to-the-democratic-brand), in an obvious reference to BLM and antifa.
I'm still wondering where this thread is going. I sense an agenda, but I don't know if it's going to have a clear logical conclusion.
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.
An old article, but worth re-reading:
The Democratic Party's deceitful game: They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass (https://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/)
QuoteRockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60). But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan." What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment.
Portland Police Charge 8 After Demonstrators Vandalize Democratic Party Offices (https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/959109593/portland-police-charge-8-after-demonstrators-vandalize-democratic-party-offices)
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 19, 2021, 04:15:02 PM
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.
Of course that's the point. It doesn't want to mind it's own house to get certain things done if it doesn't want to get them done. What would be the point? I'm not disagreeing with you, because it's true, and has been for years, as your following link points out so very well.
QuoteAn old article, but worth re-reading:
The Democratic Party's deceitful game: They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass (https://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/)
I watched the big "switch" in Obama's healthcare bait an switch on the news when it happened in a townhall meeting in Montana. All through Obama's election campaign and up to the passage of Obamacare, 99% of the population thought he was talking about universal care. Why in the world did they think that? Well, it was because that was exactly what he wanted people to think he was talking about. In retrospect, I don't believe for a minute that is what he ever intended. And why of all places, did Obama go to Montana to announce this?
The then Senator from Montana Max Baucus, who I had voted for many times, was the chair of a crucial committee that would shepherd that bill to the senate. It was reported on MSNBC, I think maybe by Keith Olberman, that Max had received roughly 3 million dollars from the insurance industry. Now 3 million may sound like chicken feed in most states, but in Montana with such a small population, it apparently buys a Democratic Senator, and Max announced that "We had to slow this health care thing down," god forbid it might gain any more momentum and, "we could never pass universal health care because it didn't have the Democratic votes," and the town hall began to boo.
At that time, Obama jumped to Max's defense and scolded the audience, "Now look people!" He said, "Universal coverage is just one small part of health care," and he held up is finger and thumb to show the teeny-weenee hand signal, "We can still have health care without that one tiny part."
I was dumbfounded! "One tiny part?" He just threw out the whole enchilada, half the Mexican rice, and all the beans on the grounds that there were not enough votes in the Senate, just as your article describes so well.
But Nancy Pelosi, countered that Obamacare could never pass the House, because they didn't have the votes, but in the end the stars aligned just as Salon reported, and we got Obamacare, and the constituents began to cheer, "We can do baby steps and eventually get good health insurance for everyone, the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy if the wealthy want it, but everyone else can have it too.
This was not a baby step. It was a barricade that has locked us into dealing with private insurance for the last 16 years, and will continue be be nothing more than a political football used for posturing long into the future. It is just to valuable to lose the issue by passing it. I remember NPR pointing out a year ago, the Democrats were going to leave any attempts to fix Obamacare out of the campaign, because Republicans were hurting themselves by trying to get rid of it. Like this as anything to do with what voters want. It's just politics and Dems are as bad at it as the GOP.
I decided I wouldn't vote for Obama his second term after sending him $200 before his first term, and I wouldn't vote for any Democrats either, because they were all a part of the fiasco, and I didn't vote for Hillary. I just wasn't going to vote, because I would never vote for the GOP.
But then came Trump and in the last election I finally voted, not for Biden, but against Trump, because the Republican Party is now officially insane, and had such an insane following of what's the word? Deplorables? Yes, that's the word, the exact word I'm looking for. I voted just to be a part of that thin majority that was needed to stop an accelerating freight train of Trumps beloved but misguided following. It was a dazzling turn out at the polls too. Democracy in Action! Albeit a Democracy in decline.
Now I'm still not sure if you are here to deflect from the failures of the GOP, or if you would like to see an improved Democratic Party. Are you going to lay your cards on the table, or do we have to keep guessing? Come on in and really get your feet wet Nothing wrong with a little heartfelt participation.
If you don't realize that they're basically both one party then you haven't been paying as close attention as you thought.
If you don't realize that I figured that out long ago without your help then you don't know as much about me as you thought. So are we good then?
Edit: I have to take back a small part of that. If the Republicans float much father off into nether lands of absurdity, there will no longer be just two of the same.
Quote...it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done...
Given the fact there is no left in the United States and you haven't really seemed to state your actual intentions, I am dubious about the sincerity of your argument or at the very least your understanding of it.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 19, 2021, 04:15:02 PM
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 19, 2021, 08:59:55 PM
If you don't realize that they're basically both one party then you haven't been paying as close attention as you thought.
If the Democrats and Republicans are "basically both one party" then why are you concerned about which party is in power?
Liberalism: a theory in crisis
/s
Quote from: Hydra009 on April 20, 2021, 04:28:18 PM
Liberalism: a theory in crisis
/s
yes (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/stop-being-shocked)
QuoteI share with the majority of American Jews’ disgust toward Trump and Trumpism, which has normalized bigotry and cruelty in ways that have crippled American society. That truth doesn’t detract from another: There is another danger, this one from the left. And unlike Trump, this one has attained cultural dominance, capturing America's elites and our most powerful institutions. In the event of a Biden victory, it is hard to imagine it meeting resistance. So let me make my purpose perfectly clear: I am here to ring the alarm. I’m here to say: Do not be shocked anymore. Stop saying, can you believe. It’s time to accept reality, if we want to have any hope of fixing it.
To understand the enormity of the change we are now living through, take a moment to understand America as the overwhelming majority of its Jews believed it wasâ€"and perhaps as we always assumed it would be.
It was liberal.
Not liberal in the narrow, partisan sense, but liberal in the most capacious and distinctly American sense of that word: the belief that everyone is equal because everyone is created in the image of God. The belief in the sacredness of the individual over the group or the tribe. The belief that the rule of lawâ€"and equality under that lawâ€"is the foundation of a free society. The belief that due process and the presumption of innocence are good and that mob violence is bad. The belief that pluralism is a source of our strength; that tolerance is a reason for pride; and that liberty of thought, faith, and speech are the bedrocks of democracy.
The liberal worldview was one that recognized that there were thingsâ€"indeed, the most important thingsâ€"in life that were located outside of the realm of politics: friendships, art, music, family, love. This was a world in which Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be close friends. Because, as Scalia once said, some things are more important than votes.
Crucially, this liberalism relied on the view that the Enlightenment tools of reason and the scientific method might have been designed by dead white guys, but they belonged to everyone, and they were the best tools for human progress that have ever been devised.
Racism was evil because it contradicted the foundations of this worldview, since it judged people not based on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin. And while America’s founders were guilty of undeniable hypocrisy, their own moral failings did not invalidate their transformational project. The founding documents were not evil to the core but “magnificent,†as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, because they were “a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.†In other words: The founders themselves planted the seeds of slavery’s destruction. And our second founding fathersâ€"abolitionists like Frederick Douglassâ€"made it so. America would never be perfect, but we could always strive toward building a more perfect union.
I didn’t even know that this worldview had a name because it was baked into everything I came into contact withâ€"my parents’ worldviews, the schools they sent me to, the synagogues we attended, the magazines and newspapers we read, and so on.
I was among many millions of Americans cosseted by these ideals. Since World War II, American intellectual and cultural life has been produced and protected by a set of institutionsâ€"universities, newspapers, magazines, record companies, professional associations, labor unions, cultural venues, publishing houses, Hollywood studios, think tanks, historical museums, art museumsâ€"that aligned, broadly, with those principles. As such, they had incredible powerâ€"power that demanded our respect because they held up the liberal order.
No longer. American liberalism is under siege. There is a new ideology vying to replace it.
No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism. Some say it’s “Social Justice.†The author Rod Dreher has called it “therapeutic totalitarianism.†The writer Wesley Yang refers to it as “the successor ideologyâ€â€"as in, the successor to liberalism.
At some point, it will have a formal name, one that properly describes its mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality. Until then, it is up to each of us to see it plainly. We need to look past the hashtags and slogans and the jargon to assess it honestlyâ€"and then to explain it to others.
Or maybe. It’s the original dream finally coming to fruition, albeit with a couple pimples that will work itself out....perhaps.
Or maybe nobody actually believes in "equality", they believe in having more for themselves, America's founding "fathers" included. Maybe "equality" is only ever used as a trojan horse for their own lust for power. In the age of faith, religion was the opium of the masses. Afterwards, it was ambition, or rather, the hope that you would one day become the next Rockefeller, the next Napoleon, the next Stalin.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 09:15:01 AM
Or maybe nobody actually believes in "equality", they believe in having more for themselves, America's founding "fathers" included. Maybe "equality" is only ever used as a trojan horse for their own lust for power. In the age of faith, religion was the opium of the masses. Afterwards, it was ambition, or rather, the hope that you would one day become the next Rockefeller, the next Napoleon, the next Stalin.
That's a little too cynical for me. I think some people do believe in equality. But here is an important caveat. Equality never will be perfect equality, and it doesn't have to be binary, as in you either have it or you don't. That would be an unrealistic way to look at it. You can have more equality or less equality, and you can work toward either, but I think most people want more, until I think about those yahoos that wanted to take over the nations capitol. They just wanted to take what they wanted, to steal or negate the votes of others as it pleased them, so maybe only slightly more than half want things to be fair (or more equal). But to say "nobody" I would disagree with.
QuoteYou can have more equality or less equality, and you can work toward either, but I think most people want more, until I think about those yahoos that wanted to take over the nations capitol. They just wanted to take what they wanted, to steal or negate the votes of others as it pleased them, so maybe only slightly more than half want things to be fair (or more equal). But to say "nobody" I would disagree with.
Your only argument in this post is "Hahahaha look at those trumptards, at least we aren't them!"
This is Martin Luther King's tomb. This is what pontificating about "equality" gets you in a nation of delusional, sentimental people, a pharaoh's burial.
(https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/mlk_nhs_doi_photo_tami_heilemann_tomb.jpg)
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 09:15:01 AM
Or maybe nobody actually believes in "equality", they believe in having more for themselves, America's founding "fathers" included.
Most Americans believe in equality but they disagree on what equality means or, more importantly,
how it should be implemented. For example, most Americans believe people should be treated equally under the law but they disagree on the role of government to create equal economic opportunities or economic outcomes.
They believe in "equality" because they seem themselves as the "underdog" in the grand scheme of things, or because they think "virtue" signalling about such things might earn them a following, no other reason.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 10:01:37 AM
They believe in "equality" because they seem themselves as the "underdog" in the grand scheme of things, or because they think "virtue" signalling about such things might earn them a following, no other reason.
Do you believe in equality and, if so, do you perceive yourself as an underdog?
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 10:01:37 AM
They believe in "equality" because they seem themselves as the "underdog" in the grand scheme of things, or because they think "virtue" signalling about such things might earn them a following, no other reason.
You really believe that so intensely? We will agree to disagree. Give me the virtual signalers then. I'll take virtue over self indulgence and greed any day of the week.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 21, 2021, 10:37:13 AM
Do you believe in equality and, if so, do you perceive yourself as an underdog?
There are about a billion things more important than equality, even from a humanitarian standpoint. As for whether or not I'm an underdog, I think it's more precise to say that I'm not where I want to be, just like people of all walks of life.
Quote from: SGOS on April 21, 2021, 10:43:19 AM
You really believe that so intensely? We will agree to disagree. Give me the virtual signalers then. I'll take virtue over self indulgence and greed any day of the week.
It's not virtue, it's "virtue", as in even the thing they're signalling for isn't necessarily good.. And "virtue" is very compatible with greed and self-indulgence.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 10:45:51 AM
There are about a billion things more important than equality,
I've told you a gazillion times not to exaggerate......
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 10:45:51 AM
And "virtue" is very compatible with greed and self-indulgence.
Yeah, I remember that Wall Street pitch from years ago,"Greed is Good." It's got a comfortable flow to the words and it fits on a bumper sticker, but I thought it was a load of horse shit.
Quote from: SGOS on April 21, 2021, 12:51:50 PM
Yeah, I remember that Wall Street pitch from years ago,"Greed is Good." It's got a comfortable flow to the words and it fits on a bumper sticker, but I thought it was a load of horse shit.
Of course you come up with the most uncharitable and editorialized interpretation of my words. I meant that "equality" isn't necessarily a virtue, but rather a "virtue", because there are a billion things more important than equality from even a humanitarian standpoint. Like meritocracy, or making sure the mentally ill don't take power, which could be seen as politically incorrect by some interpretations of the term "equality".
And yes, "equality" has generally been used as a pretext for allowing the losers of society to terrorize everybody else. So yes, it is 100% consistent with greed and self-indulgence.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 01:42:16 PM
And yes, "equality" has generally been used as a pretext for allowing the losers of society to terrorize everybody else. So yes, it is 100% consistent with greed and self-indulgence.
I don't see the 'losers of society' (that has many ways to be defined) that are terrorizing everybody else, but I do see the 1%'ers as doing that. Corps and the ultra wealthy have been doing it for decades.
Equality is a slippery word. It is kind of like the word beauty--it is defined as the user wishes. I think a fair society is what to shoot for; fair in the sense that everybody has a fair set of opportunities to live their own life as they want within the rules of the society they live in. And yes, that has to be better defined, as well.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 21, 2021, 02:30:16 PM
I don't see the 'losers of society' (that has many ways to be defined) that are terrorizing everybody else, but I do see the 1%'ers as doing that. Corps and the ultra wealthy have been doing it for decades.
Equality is a slippery word. It is kind of like the word beauty--it is defined as the user wishes. I think a fair society is what to shoot for; fair in the sense that everybody has a fair set of opportunities to live their own life as they want within the rules of the society they live in. And yes, that has to be better defined, as well.
Fine. 1%'ers are fucking us over. Fair enough. But the lumpenproles are blocking roads, pulling people out of their cars, etc. Who in their right mind wants that.
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 21, 2021, 02:40:53 PM
Fine. 1%'ers are fucking us over. Fair enough. But the lumpenproles are blocking roads, pulling people out of their cars, etc. Who in their right mind wants that.
Yep, the lumpenproles (where did you get that one??:)) are stupid and if nothing else, there are a huge number of stupid in this country. I am very weary of them, that's for sure. But the 1% are draining the life out of the country and partly by controlling the lumpenproles. I don't like either group! A pox on both their houses.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 21, 2021, 03:30:16 PM
Yep, the lumpenproles (where did you get that one??:)) are stupid and if nothing else, there are a huge number of stupid in this country. I am very weary of them, that's for sure. But the 1% are draining the life out of the country and partly by controlling the lumpenproles. I don't like either group! A pox on both their houses.
"Lumpenproles" is a standard Marxist term for the people who are too stupid or insane to be organized for productive action and are often under the more or less direct control of the bourgeoisie. This includes antifa, IMO.
Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema cozy up to corporate lobbyists, very friendly leaked audio.
We do got lots of dumb-ass bible misquoting rednecks. Oh yeah, they are all packing pistols and plus an AR somewhere in that truck too. Jesus Saves, goddammit ! I doubt I'll ever see any Antifa back in this swamp, LOL. They don't have 4x4s.
Nice leaked audio of a shouting match between Biden and left-wing activists.
Still doesn't know what a left-winger is...
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 26, 2021, 11:21:35 AM
Nice leaked audio of a shouting match between Biden and left-wing activists.
Krystal and Saagar are both pundits for populism, clearly articulated in their book
The Populist's Guide to 2020. It's unsurprising that a populist progressive like Krystal is going to be unhappy with a non-progressive president who is calling for Democrats and Republicans to work together. Personally, I support Biden's commitment to not contribute to the abuse of executive action. Of course, progressives are going to say there is "extreme danger" in something like not eliminating all student debt by executive action, something that a president can't do under the constitution. The ends of the political spectrum hate the middle and scream moderates are not doing enough (and, yes, yes... I understand the argument that Biden's not a moderate because "moderate" in America is right-wing everywhere else). I don't call a $2 trillion infrastructure plan, the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package, a new target of reducing emissions by 50 percent to 52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, and plan to significantly increase corporate taxes as "inaction." Will Krystal's prediction come to pass that if Biden doesn't give progressives what they want the Democrats will tank in 2022? I have no idea.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 26, 2021, 03:56:17 PM
Will Krystal's prediction come to pass that if Biden doesn't give progressives what they want the Democrats will tank in 2022? I have no idea.
I don't either, but I consider it in the realm of possibility. The extremes have this weakening effect on both parties. Republicans not as much. They tend to stick together more. But Democrats are all over the map, one of the disadvantages of relying on a more diverse crowd for support.
This from 2019 but according to FiveThirtyEight, there are six wings of the Democratic party (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/):
The Super Progressives
Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment. (Anti-establishment is a very fuzzy term, but in this piece, what I’m referring to is people who see part of their role as not just attacking Republicans, but also highlighting what they see as shortcomings of the Democratic Party itself.)
Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
The Very Progressives
Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment.
Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.
The Progressive New Guard
Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability†of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president.
Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.
The Progressive Old Guard
Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability†of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president.
Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.
The Moderates
More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment.
Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.
Conservative Democrats
Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues; often supportive of abortion limits; generally from conservative-leaning areas.
Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.
Overall I agree with those definitions, though I would probably move Pelosi, possibly Schumer and Feinstein to the Moderate category (and for Feinstein, probably closer to the Conservative in some regards).
I don't fit well in any of those categories. Someone would have to scrunch me into one of them they thought was closest. I do not consider myself liberal on economic issues, except that big spending is necessary to end recessions. So I don't fit well at that extreme. The other end is a horrible fit. And in the middle looks politically correct but pragmatically wishy washy. But "liberal on economic issues" is loaded with meanings and contexts. To a Republican, big spending is always good if its motive is to create tax breaks. Democrats are known for big spending, but that's not fair. They just spend a lot of the money differently. I'm financially cautious by nature. It's the way I run my own life. How that method applies to government, I'm not sure. So that particular issue prevents my access to the liberal end.
Never-the-less, those "which group do you belong in" puzzles are fun. This is where we could use Baruch's help. He's life's work is classifying others, and he could settle it all right now. But we would have to add Fascist Commie Pinko to the categories, or he wouldn't know where to put anyone.
Quote from: SGOS on April 27, 2021, 07:36:13 AM
I don't fit well in any of those categories. Someone would have to scrunch me into one of them they thought was closest. I do not consider myself liberal on economic issues, except that big spending is necessary to end recessions. So I don't fit well at that extreme. The other end is a horrible fit. And in the middle looks politically correct but pragmatically wishy washy. But "liberal on economic issues" is loaded with meanings and contexts. To a Republican, big spending is always good if its motive is to create tax breaks. Democrats are known for big spending, but that's not fair. They just spend a lot of the money differently. I'm financially cautious by nature. It's the way I run my own life. How that method applies to government, I'm not sure. So that particular issue prevents my access to the liberal end.
Never-the-less, those "which group do you belong in" puzzles are fun. This is where we could use Baruch's help. He's life's work is classifying others, and he could settle it all right now. But we would have to add Fascist Commie Pinko to the categories, or he wouldn't know where to put anyone.
I think it's more for elected officials than voters; I certainly don't fall under any of those categories, and the last year or so has really pushed my ideology firmly into "Marxist, but willing to compromise with Moderates on most issues" camp.
Which is also why I am far more annoyed nowadays when people call liberals "leftists", because if liberals are "radically left" then we are actually fucked.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 27, 2021, 12:27:23 PM
I think it's more for elected officials than voters; I certainly don't fall under any of those categories, and the last year or so has really pushed my ideology firmly into "Marxist, but willing to compromise with Moderates on most issues" camp.
Which is also why I am far more annoyed nowadays when people call liberals "leftists", because if liberals are "radically left" then we are actually fucked.
I don't think most people know what liberal, socialism, communism, nazi, conservative or patriot actually mean. It takes too much effort to figure out what they mean. And so, the stupid rule this country--and yes, we are actually fucked.
Here is another example for Krystal Ball on why I don't believe her statement, "Biden (is) throwing up his hands and setting expectations at the ground on what he can do."
White House proposes $1.8 trillion package that would dramatically expand education, safety net programs - Universal preschool and free community college are among a plethora of initiatives that would be paid for by tax increases and IRS changes. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2021/04/28/biden-american-families-plan/)
The White House on Wednesday unveiled a $1.8 trillion spending and tax plan aimed at dramatically expanding access to education and safety-net programs for families, the latest effort by President Biden to try to turn some of his campaign promises into new policy. ...
The White House says its proposal would provide every American with two years of tuition-free community college; prekindergarten for all 3- and 4-year-olds; and paid family and medical leave for American workers. Among its sweeping agenda items, the plan also calls for devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to fighting child poverty and ensuring affordable child care nationwide. ...
To pay for these initiatives, White House officials are also proposing $1.5 trillion in tax hikes aimed primarily at increasing the amount paid by wealthy Americans and investors. The White House aims to raise money through a sizable increase in enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service, as well as approximately doubling the capital gains tax rate for those earning more than $1 million per year â€" a measure that would apply to a small fraction of Americans but is likely to face resistance on Capitol Hill. ...
I think for a lot of harsh critics, they feel a need to come down hard, sometimes even intentionally unfairly. They may also feel a need to posture. Their agenda may be hidden or open. They may be trying to knock the moderate leaders out of their comfortable niche, or they simply want their voice to be heard, as opposed to being ignored. Especially so with the liberals who the party assumes are secretly devoted to, well, the party. There are a lot of worthwhile agendas out there that need a voice, and if they don't speak up, they will never ever be recognized, not in a million years. Maybe they realize that they will be ignored.
I don't think its as much being critical of the president as it is about just wanting to be heard. Are their needs unjustified? I don't know. Some of their needs don't match mine at all, but I recognize that there are more issues out there than just getting behind the leader. At least they are not storming the capital in paramilitary gear. Where we draw the line at what is reasonable is not universally agreed on.
I know this is a problem for a lot of Democrats. They want and need the unity and devotion that the Republicans get, but they are representing a herd of cats, not bobble heads.
But about Biden. I'm growing to like him, but this is always tentative. He is pointing more or less in some right directions, and he's being bold too. Bold may be a good thing. I'm not sure. Trump was also bold, so "bold" is not the end all be all of a good presidency. I'll know better in two years how I feel about Biden. At this point, I would say my strongest reaction to him is "surprise," a good surprise.
So far, Biden is doing a better job than I anticipated. With such hyperpartisan politics and dealing with a pandemic, I would give any president some leeway. As Trump learned, presidents are not kings and, as we learned from Trump, we don't want them to be. Ideally Congress should be making laws and the executive branch enforcing them but it doesn't work that way. Many Americans find it easier to blame the president rather than their congressional representatives, especially since many Americans can't name their representatives!
My neighbor informs me that the reason gas prices are so high is because Biden is driving up the price.
This is how I know the New York Times is a left wing rag. Because they never reported it.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 26, 2021, 11:39:55 PM
This from 2019 but according to FiveThirtyEight, there are six wings of the Democratic party (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-six-wings-of-the-democratic-party/):
The Super Progressives
Very liberal on economic and identity/cultural issues, anti-establishment. (Anti-establishment is a very fuzzy term, but in this piece, what I’m referring to is people who see part of their role as not just attacking Republicans, but also highlighting what they see as shortcomings of the Democratic Party itself.)
Prominent examples: Ocasio-Cortez , Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
The Very Progressives
Very liberal on economic issues, fairly liberal on identity issues, skeptical of the Democratic establishment.
Prominent examples: Bill de Blasio, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren.
The Progressive New Guard
Liberal on both economic and identity issues but also somewhat concerned about the “electability†of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence after Barack Obama was elected president.
Prominent examples: Stacey Abrams, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Julian Castro, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, Beto O’Rourke.
The Progressive Old Guard
Solidly center-left on both economic and identity issues, but very concerned about the “electability†of candidates and the appeal of ideas to the political center; generally rose to prominence before Obama was elected president.
Prominent examples: Joe Biden, Cuomo, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer.
The Moderates
More conservative and business-friendly than other Democrats on economic policies; somewhat liberal on cultural issues; anti-establishment.
Prominent examples: Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.
Conservative Democrats
Skeptical of liberal views on both economic and cultural issues; often supportive of abortion limits; generally from conservative-leaning areas.
Prominent examples: Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin.
Huh. I'm suddenly far more to the left than I actually consider myself since I very much straddle those first two boxes.
I note that "electability" is a big thing with the two semi-liberal groups who coincidentally have a vested interest in portraying their primary opponents as "too radical" (a claim mirrored by Trump and other far-right candidates) and therefore present themselves as the only remaining "reasonable" option.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 28, 2021, 11:56:49 AMAs Trump learned, presidents are not kings and, as we learned from Trump, we don't want them to be.
I wish that were the case.
Plenty of people cast their vote for a king (some twice) and that option lost by very narrow margins in some key states, Trump was allowed to do virtually whatever he wanted when in office - even pardoning his cronies and deliberately crippling the vote-carrying post office - and was shielded from prosecution under the bizarre logic that "you can't prosecute a sitting president" (which quickly morphed into "there's no need to prosecute an ex-president").
It was only the Beer Hall Putsch on Jan 6th that was a bit too far - and even then, there was an oddly mute reaction from our allegedly most patriotic, criticizing it only long after it was clear that the power grab had failed.
Americans are far more pro-king than I am comfortable with and there is precious little keeping us from a repeat with a different outcome.
Imho, we've had our Sulla but not yet our Caesar.
I can relate to the top 4 categories, but little in the bottom 2.
After a Year of Riots, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Vows to 'Take Our City Back from Antifa.' Color Us Skeptical. (https://pjmedia.com/columns/victoria-taft/2021/04/24/after-a-year-of-riots-portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-vows-to-take-our-city-back-from-antifa-color-us-skeptical-n1442441)
QuoteLast summer, as antifa and BLM rioters attacked the downtown Portland federal courthouse, set fire to the police union hall, hurled IEDs, blinded cops with lasers, and destroyed the Apple store, Mayor Ted Wheeler joined them. But that’s when President Donald Trump was in office and demanded Wheeler do something about the destruction. Wheeler tried to be the Jacob Frey-like cool mayor. Trump was the problem, not the misunderstood rioters, naturally.
But this time after the refurbished Apple store was again set on fire by rioters, and hours before the Derek Chauvin verdict was read, Wheeler put the city under a state of emergency and announced that, with the help of the public, he would “take back our city from antifa.â€
Recommended: Seattle Antifa Hate Group Threatens to Burn Down Church Over Event With Charlie Kirk
In a video Wheeler released, but did not put on his Twitter account, the mayor struck a new tone.
Our job is to unmask them, arrest them, and prosecute them.
Forgive us if we’re just a little bit skeptical.
Blinded to the truthful axiom of “that which gets rewarded gets repeated,†the trustafarian mayor, whose office windows literally look down on antifa destruction, has allowed the violent mob to ply their trade with impunity for the past year. He’s previously denounced the violence, but his flaccid words and weak denunciations have never been followed up with serious action. They were understood in the same manner they were delivered â€" “Come on you guys, I really mean it this time! If you don’t do what I say, I’ll tell mom!â€
But now that police officers have retired in record numbers or left in droves for worse pay but better mayors; now that he’s personally been attacked; now that business owners are screaming at him â€" again; and now that the district attorney’s office has become a revolving door for the violent mob, Wheeler has taken an unusual step and asked Portlanders to turn in antifa.
I just masturbated.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 30, 2021, 12:58:26 AM
I just masturbated.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk
Is this the new leftist tactic? Trying to make people too disgusted with them to hang around?
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 30, 2021, 01:07:09 AM
Is this the new leftist tactic? Trying to make people too disgusted with them to hang around?
Would it work?
I dunno, maybe.
(https://www.the-sun.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/10/NINTCHDBPICT000613306505.jpg?strip=all&w=960)
Or maybe not.
(https://mowermart.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Large-Chainsaw-HIre.jpg)
Quote from: arch warmonger on April 30, 2021, 12:44:00 AM
After a Year of Riots, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Vows to 'Take Our City Back from Antifa.' Color Us Skeptical. (https://pjmedia.com/columns/victoria-taft/2021/04/24/after-a-year-of-riots-portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-vows-to-take-our-city-back-from-antifa-color-us-skeptical-n1442441)
Thanks for the article, which also links to useful others such as "Dirty Tricks One Can Use in Street Fights," and ads for Tshirts advocating rebellion. The only thing that it didn't mention was that in Portland, "there were good people on both sides." I'm not sure why they left that out. Mayor Wheeler vowed to take back the city from the mob, but as the article points out, he didn't really mean it. He's a tricky one that Wheeler.
In Chilling Video, Antifa Doxes, Threatens to KILL Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler (https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2021/04/29/breaking-in-chilling-video-antifa-doxes-threatens-to-kill-portland-mayor-ted-wheeler-n1443543)
DNC chair agrees with James Carville on 'wokeness' problem, implores Democrats to ‘speak plain English’ (https://www.foxnews.com/media/dnc-chairman-jaime-harrison-james-carville-democrat-elitism-willie-geist-wokeness)
Quote from: arch warmonger on May 03, 2021, 04:08:31 PM
DNC chair agrees with James Carville on 'wokeness' problem, implores Democrats to ‘speak plain English’ (https://www.foxnews.com/media/dnc-chairman-jaime-harrison-james-carville-democrat-elitism-willie-geist-wokeness)
This article is along the same vein of persuasive discourse and the importance of meeting people where they are. I agree with the author that some progressives, for whatever reason, are reluctant to reframe their arguments in a way that appeals to conservatives.
The Language of Liberals (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-resistance-hypothesis/202104/the-language-liberals)
KEY POINTS:
- Reframing messages can make them more broadly appealing.
- Many liberals can't (or don't want to) reframe their messages.
- This dynamic must change if we're going to advance progressive goals.
A large body of research has shown that “meeting people where they are†is an effective political strategy. We can be more persuasive, and thus more successful, in creating positive change across society by understanding individuals’ motivations and appealing to them directly. Moral reframing is one way to accomplish this. When liberals and conservatives craft statements that appeal to each other’s moral foundations, they can garner more support for issues ranging from health care to military funding to environmental policies.
Say you support antidiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ folks. How would you rally other people to this cause? You might suggest that expanding antidiscrimination protections is the morally right thing to do because it’s ethical to treat everyone equally, or because it’s important to defend marginalized groups. These arguments would probably resonate with many liberals, who share strong concerns about fairness and compassion. But it would be less appealing to conservatives, who may have differing ideas about what is “fair,†may prioritize other moral concerns (such as respect for traditions and institutions), and may be apprehensive about how other groups’ rights clash with their own.
A reframed argument would instead focus on how LGBTQ+ individuals are proud and patriotic American citizens, because conservatives generally prioritize national loyalty as a core value. Researchers Matt Feinberg and Rob Willer found that by framing the argument in terms of group loyalty (compared to stereotypical social justice values), conservatives' support for LGBTQ+ legal rights significantly increases and is statistically about as high as liberals’ support. At a time when transgender folks’ rights are being taken away by GOP legislatures, we desperately need more support from conservatives. I suggest deploying more reframing techniques. ...
I don't know if that's going to happen. A lot of people are attracted to the left because of a personal sense of inferiority or at least marginality, which is compensated for by "intellectualism", or really, an ongoing effort to conspire against a society that rejects them, oftentimes for good reason. Here's a great article about liberalism being held back by elitism (https://newrepublic.com/article/142372/elitism-liberalisms-biggest-problem). They're not going to meet people where they are because they view them as dirt, and liberals convince themselves that conservatives are dirt people because they live in fear of them.
tl;dw Bernie says that Qanon and similar conspiracy theories arise out of a growing sense of economic insecurity, and is criticized by the DNC establishment for it. The fact that they are criticizing Sanders for this is interpreted (in my mind correctly) as a sign that the establishment is horribly out of touch with the economic realities of everyday Americans.
Quote from: arch warmonger on May 03, 2021, 05:25:09 PM
I don't know if that's going to happen. A lot of people are attracted to the left because of a personal sense of inferiority or at least marginality, which is compensated for by "intellectualism", or really, an ongoing effort to conspire against a society that rejects them, oftentimes for good reason. Here's a great article about liberalism being held back by elitism (https://newrepublic.com/article/142372/elitism-liberalisms-biggest-problem). They're not going to meet people where they are because they view them as dirt, and liberals convince themselves that conservatives are dirt people because they live in fear of them.
Good article. I agree with the author that the priorities of liberals who live on the coasts are not always the same as liberals who live in middle America, however, they need not be antagonist groups because on most issues they agree. Both want affordable, universal healthcare. Both want gun control measures that will maximize freedom while reducing firearm-related deaths and injuries. Both want a society where racial disparities are reduced or eliminated.
This glass-half-empty mindset must change, and it must change most dramatically with respect to how elite liberals view the rest of the country. There are plenty of liberals out there in middle America, and plenty of liberalish moderates, and plenty of people who lean conservative but who aren’t consumed by rage and who think Barack Obama is a pretty cool guy and who might even have voted for him. These people are potential allies. But before the alliance can be struck, elite liberals need to recognize a fundamental truth: All of these people in middle America, even the actual liberals, have very different sensibilities than elite liberals who live on the coasts.We live in a democracy and a majority is necessary to create positive changes. Democrats can be an open, welcoming party where a diversity of opinions and philosophies can be an asset rather than a liability if they focus on common goals. Democrats need the voters AOC attracts and the voters Joe Biden attracts.
After a year of protests, Portland residents have waning patience for antifa
(https://abcnews.go.com/US/year-protests-portland-residents-waning-patience-antifa/story?id=77511470)
QuoteRose City Antifa is one of the nation's oldest active antifa groups. Members rarely give interviews, but two who say they are part of antifa agreed to speak to "Nightline" as the situation in their city of Portland, Oregon, has become a prolonged and destructive stalemate.
Rose City Antifa members "Milo" and "Ace" use pseudonyms and they asked that their faces and voices be obscured for this report.
"The use of violence is a tactic of how we keep our communities safe," Milo said.
Much of the blame for the chaos, property damage and violence over the last year have landed on the self-described anti-racist, anti-facist far left organizers. The black-clad coterie entrenched in the city's protest movement now find themselves in a tense showdown with city officials.
Watch "Nightline" weeknights at 12:35 a.m. ET on ABC
"We've always had protests here. But to see some of the violent acts like the Molotov cocktails and some of the things thrown at officers has been really new to us," Portland's Police Chief Chuck Lovell told "Nightline."
Mayor Ted Wheeler has been outspoken against the group in recent months.
"The self-described anarchists who engage in regular criminal destruction don't want things to open up to recover," he said in a live video conference in April. "The city of Portland will not tolerate criminal destruction for violence ... for those who are involved in it let's make them hurt them a little bit."
"When the mayor says that he wants citizens and his law enforcement officers [to] make protesters 'hurt a little,' that is a pretty explicit threat," Milo said.
Amid the back and forth, Portland residents are left drained from the conflict and are increasingly decrying the property destruction thought to be perpetuated by antifa.
"I feel frustrated that this is all still going on," said Ian Williiams, owner of Deadstock Coffee, a sneaker-themed cafe downtown. "But I also feel frustrated that Black people keep getting killed. I feel frustrated that small businesses really aren't able to be successful during this time, especially in the state of Oregon."
Antifa claims they're defending their city not only against heavy-handed police tactics, but also from threats from far right extremists, groups like the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers -- leading to fierce standoffs.
"The use of violence is there to maintain safety for us and make sure that when people like Proud Boys or Nazis or fascists come to our city and want to do that harm, then we are not allowing that," Milo said.
They've received a sharp rebuke from the mayor, who is asking residents to help take back their city and be the eyes and ears of the Portland Police bureau.
"These people often arrive at their so-called direct actions in cars. And they're all dressed in all black. Our job is to unmask them, arrest them and prosecute them," Wheeler said at a video conference.
Individuals claiming to be antifa released a chilling video last week, containing a seemingly veiled threat against Mayor Wheeler and publicized his home address.
"The mayor of this city is undeserving of his position. He has made it abundantly clear that windows to him are more important than human lives," an unidentified voice in the video said. "Ted, we are asking for the last time that you resign. Blood is already on your hands, Ted. But next time, it may just be your own."
Neither Milo nor Ace say they know anything about that video to the mayor and defended their role within the community.
"Most of us are in this work to make our communities safe and to make our communities better," Milo said. "When we see that there are people that are coming to our home and to our city advocating violence against people of color, against queer people… then it is our responsibility as community members to confront that. We do not bring that fight. But we will meet it if it comes to us."
The group has become a lightning rod for controversy. They became known at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 when an man punched white nationalist Richard Spencer during an interview.
"Donald Trump wanted to make them a boogeyman for everything," said Mark Bray, a history professor who studies Aantifa. "Certainly prior to Donald Trump being in the White House, antifa was not a household name in the United States."
Despite their notoriety, the group sees their fight as a moral and just one. Milo and Ace say they practice community organizing and empowerment, which includes publicly outing alleged fascists and other dangerous elements.
"A lot of our work is … compiling evidence of people's online personalities and their online conversations and how a lot of times we see far right folks really engaging in hate speech and misogynistic language and threats of violence online," Milo said.
Many here, including some exhausted business owners, seem increasingly receptive to the mayor's tough talk.
"I'm thankful for everybody in Portland who feels the need to fight for justice, fight for rights, fight for safety and everything," Williams told "Nightline." "But it has definitely affected our business, all the protesting and everything, in that people who are coming to visit town actually feel really unsafe."
A year of unrest has at times forced this barista to double as his own security.
"I was standing outside one night and somebody was like, 'Hey, man, I want you to go ahead and get yours, bust the door,'" encouraging him to take part in the destruction, he said. "I was like, 'No, I'm protecting my business.'"
"I guess the message would just be like, well, 'cut it out. Like, why are you even doing this?'" he said. "You really should be pulling up with the nails and hammers and helping me board up, you know, then instead of trying to bust down."
Margaret Carter's legacy of public service runs deep in Portland. She served as the first Black woman in the Portland state senate. She sympathizes with protesters, but is pained by their destructive tactics.
"I marched during the days of trying to make a difference. My voice has always been out there, but never, never did we create violence," Carter said. "When you think in terms of small businesses that are being hit, who are working very hard to just prepare a meal for their families, that really got my heart."
Milo and Ace defend the destruction as a tactic to apply pressure to city leaders.
"There are a lot of reasons why people would engage in property destruction," Milo said. "I think that one of the reasons that people will break windows is a lot of times symbolic of the way that the city will protect things of material value, but not its people."
However, Carter asks whether the protests are truly legitimate or just random acts of looting.
"Some of the people that have been identified was not Black Lives Matter people," she said. "They were young white kids coming from across the country."
Self-styled citizen journalist Garrison Davis has been reporting on Portland's front lines over the past year. He's witnessed sympathies waning for destructive tactics of some protesters.
"There's been a growing animosity towards some of the protests among, you know, the population of Portland," he said. "A lot of the people are tired. A lot of people are exhausted, the police force is getting tired. We're unsure of what direction this will head."
America’s Deadly Domestic Extremism Worst In 24 Years, Reveals New FBI Report
Most extremist killings in 2019 were committed by white supremacists.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/deadly-domestic-extremism-worst-in-25-years-fbi-white-supremacists_n_60a0591ae4b03e1dd38a5b4e
Yeah--antifa is a HUGE problem!
And how can any rational person be opposed to groups who are anti-fascist ??! Ooops--used the 'r' word; most of this country isn't that.
Democratic strategist James Carville says that "wokeness" is a problem, and that the jargon-y language they use alienates working class people because it signals that they intend to talk around them. Left-wing agitators have used "wokeness" to disempower the working class and to give themselves power, and this has created a widespread opposition to them. Even more insidiously, it has become a tool amongst wealthy elites to disempower the working class and to keep them in a state of fear.
tl;dw Bernie Sanders' campaign staffers almost went on strike weeks before the caucus. They came to a deal, but Sanders sent down a directive to stop hiring activists and only hire people who want to do the work. The "us" in the slogan "Not me, us" meant "All 9 billion people on the planet", not "A small cabal of activists who want to hoard all the resources for themselves and self-actualize and other millennial bullshit." Exacerbating the problem is the hard fact that far-left campaigns offer far fewer opportunities for long-term political employment than more centrist campaigns, meaning that the potential opportunity cost from a labor battle is a lot lower.
Attacking the left after four years of that orange anti-science douche bag doesn't really resonate with me. Fact, I expect the POTUS to be able to express more than a reduction of everything to 'great' or 'terrible'. Trump makes Bush Jr seem like a Nobel Laureate in contrast and we are talking about a guy who attacked the wrong country because he "prayed on it" and gawd told him to (and all them nonexistent WMDs.)
I remember when conservatives could muster up some folks with a little brain power, William F Buckley comes to mind. Those days are gone and all that is left are chinless suck-ups like Moscow Mitch and Q-assholes in Viking hats breaking into government buildings and killing police officers. Yeah, if that make me an elitist, the fucking bar to way too low.
I don't make the news, I just report it. I'm not the one threatening to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign, I'm not the one trying to make everybody say "Latinx".
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 01, 2021, 10:22:21 PM
I don't make the news, I just report it. I'm not the one threatening to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign, I'm not the one trying to make everybody say "Latinx".
In the big picture...this is nothing. We have had decades of conservatism. The results: We see what big oil or coal and big religion and low taxes does for the "working class" in places like Louisiana and West Virginia. We see what our wars in Muslim countries have accomplished. Death and destruction, ISIS and endless Jihad. We see 600 thousand dead Americans despite scientific warnings about pandemics and idiotic arguments about vaccines and masks. We see a heating planet dying. We watched corporate America sell us out for cheap labor anywhere else but here, leaving us a shitty gig economy as financial criminals just walk away scot-free. Yeah, we are probably too stupid to survive. We like stupid.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 01, 2021, 10:22:21 PM
I don't make the news, I just report it. I'm not the one threatening to scuttle Bernie Sanders' campaign, I'm not the one trying to make everybody say "Latinx".
Yeah, right! Like Faux News. After all, Carlson and Hannity simply report the news. And Trump never lies.
Your own party hates you. All the people with real power in the DNC want you gone. The president you put in office said that "We need a strong Republican Party." What does that say to you?
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 02, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Your own party hates you. All the people with real power in the DNC want you gone. The president you put in office said that "We need a strong Republican Party." What does that say to you?
It says nobody cares about the value of your Russian rubles. Just another itty bitty gnat hanging around Putin's bunghole, LOL.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 02, 2021, 09:41:02 AM
Your own party hates you. All the people with real power in the DNC want you gone. The president you put in office said that "We need a strong Republican Party." What does that say to you?
Better be careful what you post or your wannabe dictator will throw you out of the white nationalist party; I know you believe your leader speaks only the truth--he is still president; better not say otherwise. And I have so much power that 'I' put him into the office of the president?
What does the word 'strong' mean to you? Being the white nationalist you are, most likely you are thinking of physical strength, not moral or compassionate strength. You seem to love to roll in trump's shit because he tells you to. That isn't strength. So, a strong Republician party would stand for something other than keeping trump and his minions in power. You seem to be a trump monkey, one of the weakest, stupidest, blindest people to ever exist. And I would be willing to bet you are also a christian.
I was talking about Biden, he specifically said we need a "principled and strong" Republican party.
tl;dw Scott Stringer was a left-wing, pro-union front-runner for the NYC mayoral race until he was hit with a sexual harassment allegation from Jean Kim, represented by Patricia Pastor. Many aspects of her allegations were soon debunked, but this was enough to crater his campaign.
What's interesting is that Patricia Pastor is a lawyer for a network of NYC construction companies that are rabidly anti-union and more specifically anti Scott Stringer. What's also interesting is that the businesses she worked for were infamous for viciously lewd behavior towards female employees, behavior that Patricia Pastor has never condemned publicly. If nothing else this episode shows the ease with which sexual harassment allegations can be falsified and weaponized against left-wing politicians even by people who don't care about sexual harassment.
tl;dw A new report from a centrist think tank blames the woke left and their taking minority votes for granted for the DNC's underperformance in the 2020 House and Senate elections. To add fuel to that fire, a border town in southern TX, normally a (D) holdout, voted for a Republican mayor, a sign of Hispanic distaste for the DNC and its brand.
Krystal and Sagaar keep pleading for Americans to focus on economic issues that benefit the working-class but voters are like, "I'm voting for Biden because I'm tired of Trump's tweets."
Not the voters. It's the politicians who always want to keep the culture war going so nobody talks about the money.
Quote from: arch warmonger on June 07, 2021, 04:49:03 PM
It's the politicians who always want to keep the culture war going so nobody talks about the money.
Are "the politicians" responsible for you coming to a forum about atheism and making every post about the culture wars? Have you made any posts on atheism? It's one thing to discuss atheism and religion then expand into other topics but politics seems to be the only reason you post. I'm not criticizing your politics but your lack of participation in other topics.
I admit my dissatisfaction isn't really about you but the decline in discussion of atheism, religion, and philosophy.
Hahaha I guess you could call me "atheism minus" as opposed to "atheism plus". And if you don't "break the buck" first, then the activists will just infect everything with their bullshit again, make everything about grabbing pie for themselves instead of increasing its size.
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/a7/f4/05/a7f405e908e6d6d0a4fa354e50f407db.jpg)