Jump to content

OnionAhaiReborn

Members
  • Content Count

    4,580
  • Joined

About OnionAhaiReborn

  • Rank
    coprophagously a-grin

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

4,993 profile views
  1. I suppose it depends on what you're considering incrementalist and what you're considering radical. How big a change should no longer be construed as incrementalist? There's probably no perfect society and no 'end point' to necessary change, so in that sense everything's incremental. But there are also clearly times when we move in leaps in bounds instead of tinkering around the edges. I look at the New Deal as being a pretty radical restructuring of the role of the federal government, and probably still the most important long term accomplishment of progressives, either radical or incrementalist. Certainly it's fair to say there were more radical alternatives, but I don't think that makes it incrementalist. If we look back a little further to one the defining issues of American history- slavery- the incrementalist record is pretty poor. Moderates condemned generations of black Americans to live as slaves, and in the end it took an extremely bloody civil war to end slavery anyway, and it happened very suddenly. Then, after radicals briefly tried to protect the Civil Rights of black Americans over the objections of moderates, there was about another century of segregation until, over a relatively brief timescale the Federal Government stepped in to end legal segregation, only after a mass movement demanded it.
  2. You could also just amend the Constitution to strip the Senate of all meaningful power while preserving equal suffrage of the states. Allow it to only force the House to revote on bills it rejects or something trivial like that.
  3. Running is the only exercise I do that I really enjoy. Of course there are times when it's difficult, if you're never uncomfortable you're never going to improve, but I never have any internal arguments over where I'm going to go for my run. I also swim, which is fine, and can be quite peaceful once I get going, but there's always a part of me that doesn't want to get into that pool, or tries to talk me into fewer laps. For strength training, it's a constant battle. I always want to skip those workouts, and it's all about willing myself through it.
  4. I found this pretty shocking, even for Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/john-bolton-book-trump-china-accusations-dictators
  5. I am somewhat sympathetic to your objection, but I'm not sure it's fair to say one needs to "read a lengthy dissertation to discover the 'true meaning'" of the "abolish the police." I think it can be explained pretty quickly and accurately that the meaning is abolish policing as we know it. Now, after that you may need to read a dissertation if you want to get into specifics, but that's the case for any serious issue. Maybe it's wishful thinking to believe that people will be willing to listen to another sentence or two after "abolish the police" is thrown out, but it really shouldn't be.
  6. I agree with the "fuck George W. Bush" sentiment, but fundraising for Republicans in 2018 is far from first on the list of his enormities.
  7. I guess it depends on what you mean by burning everything down and starting over. Obviously no one should seriously be suggesting that it's even possible to completely obliterate American culture and customs. But in the political realm, would it be such a terrible idea to scrap our absurd 18th century system of government that has us locked in a two party system that seems utterly unresponsive to the will of the people and incapable of meeting basically any of the formidable challenges we're facing? This kind of starting over has plenty of historical precedent.
  8. I haven't followed the discussion super closely so far but at the time I think it was pretty apparent that Pete and Amy dropped out because they thought doing so might help to avoid the outcome of Sanders heading into the convention with a plurality of delegates due to a divided field, making it difficult to deny him the nomination even though he wouldn't have a majority. Now, maybe that outcome would have been avoided even if they had stayed in, but I think the calculation was pretty transparent. They hoped to help a candidate whose ideology more closely matched their own while also currying his favor, so it was in their self interest, but it was also aimed at impacting the outcome of the primary.
  9. Worth noting that Biden has publicly stated his positions on ending the filibuster and court packing (he's against them): https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/10/14/20910445/2020-democratic-debates-climate-change-filibuster https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/supreme-court-packing/ But these aren't the only issues where Biden could be making a more aggressive case. I'd argue they're not electoral winners or losers, most voters will have little understanding of either issue. But I think something like advocating for handing out a lot more free money to people, as many Democrats now support, would be both good politics and good policy.
  10. I am going to vote for Joe Biden because he's unquestionably better than Trump in every way, including mental fitness. But it is simply not the case that only Sanders supporters and Republicans have raised concerns about Biden in this area. What's happened is that since Biden became the presumptive nominee, Democrats have circled the wagons and deemed it unacceptable to talk about it. But back earlier in the campaign this issue was raised by both mainstream rivals to Biden and even by his allies.
  11. I was only responding to your comment on how unsurprising the death threats are.
  12. You're right, it is not at all surprising. Without wanting to put words in his mouth, I think what larry is getting at here with the term "Biden bros" is that a great deal was made of Bernie supporters supposedly being particularly aggressive online and especially likely to cross lines with things like doxxing, without any evidence supplied beyond anecdotes. The retort then was that every group has bad eggs, but only in the case of Bernie supporters were these incidents being used to slur a much a larger group. Now we have incidents of Biden supporters aggressively going after Tara Reade- as you say, unsurprisingly, and we can safely assume the same would be happening no matter who the accused candidate was- but no one seems eager to draw conclusions about Biden supporters as a group based off this.
  13. I think we've both said all we can say about booting Biden from the ticket. Clearly you think it's a terrible idea and I don't. I'm wondering what you think the response to Reade's allegation should be? Is your stance truly that Democrats should all join together and just ignore it, uncritically accept Biden's denial? That's the obvious course and everyone suggesting otherwise is engaging in infighting and deserves Trump? Well, I did say in my first post that I think it's very unlikely he would be pushed aside without more allegations. I think it's fair to say that with only one accuser it's more likely that Biden voters will be angry. I think your concerns are fair. But I'm not convinced the backlash will be so extreme, especially this far from the general election, that doing so amounts to obvious political suicide. I think it's important to weigh the risk entailed in running Biden given Reade's allegation. I also believe Reade and think Biden stepping aside would unquestionably be the right thing to do if politics were not a consideration. I think that's the best I can sum up my position.
×
×
  • Create New...