Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

and remember how Obama did utterly nothing during the 2010 and 2014 campaigns to get democrats elected and it was a gigantic fucking colossal failure both times this strategy was attempted (oh sure, he made some endorsements and attended fundraising dinners that were only accessible to rich fuckers),

I'll be honest, this argument annoys me a lot. It wasnt his job to babysit the Democratic party. That why you elect DNC chairs who dole money out appropriately and have fundraisers etc...They should utilize his time most efficiently via scheduling rather than leave it up to him (because, you know, till 2016 being President was a full time job).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'll be honest, this argument annoys me a lot. It wasnt his job to babysit the Democratic party. That why you elect DNC chairs who dole money out appropriately and have fundraisers etc...They should utilize his time most efficiently via scheduling rather than leave it up to him (because, you know, till 2016 being President was a full time job).

Eh. He fired Dean and brought in DWS, and kept her because it would have been too much a pain in the ass to remove her (per his own words). I don't need him to be doing rallies all the time, but he really fucked over the party with his delegation to crappy people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sperry said:

Civility is important so that the replacement for Trump doesn't become some ultra left-wing lunatic. People get caught up in the echo-chamber that is politics on social media and the internet. Which is generally populated by a lot of mentally unwell people with very loud voices, and also is not representative of the population as a whole.  

Left wing politicians don't stand a stand in US elections, where the hell would an ultra left-wing candidate even come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Fucking QFT

Quote

It is telling that many of those who make their living in the political industrial complex, whether Democrat or Republican or Washington Posteditorial page, find the idea of socially shunning people because of their politics to be abhorrent. Their shudders are a symptom of the fact that DC is indeed a swamp—a friendly swamp, where all the gators and slugs and mudfish meet up at the end of the day for cocktails, because to them, politics is a job.

 

To the rest of us, politics is the use of power in a way that has very real effects on our lives.

 

Poverty is an affliction of history and the failure to remedy history’s crimes, of greed and self-dealing and the tax code.

 

Sickness is often an affliction of the political decision not to build a fair and equitable health care system, so that a small number of people can get rich instead.

 

Tens of millions of people around the world suffer under dictatorships that are supported by America to serve our own economic ends.

People die because of political decisions every day.

Politics is real.

This is what is on one side of our current disagreement: death, and human rights, and freedom, and equality.

And this is what is on the other side: wanting to eat at a nice restaurant without having anyone remind you that you are ruining people’s lives.

The sides of this scale are not even close to balancing yet

Fuck pelosi and all these fucking losers fetishizing civility. We can’t afford your copraphagic shit sandwich anymore, your civility fetish is too disgusting to swallow.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out elsewhere, Steve King retweeted an actual Nazi. The Republicans didn't even make a statement on it. 

Civility my ass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly, the SCOTUS recently chose to overturn the third-party doctrine and consider cellphone metadata at least partially protected by the 4th amendment. Roberts joined the four court liberals to protect Americans' privacy.
This is actually a big deal: if the Court indeed gets rid of the third-party doctrine, government surveillance of individuals could grind to a halt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html

 

Edited by Rippounet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DMBouazizi said:

You said:

And then:

The fact is the Dems continued to win states in which they should be "stomped" by the apparent white supremacy that ruled the day in each of the aforementioned elections as demonstrated by their victories in most of those states.  In fact, the only reason Carter won in 1976 was southern strategy, which flies in the face of a statement like "the truth is basically that Nixon used the culture war to stomp the american left's face in and the democratic party was left out in the wilderness for decades."  Because no, they weren't, they won the most white supremacist/"culture war" states possible immediately after his resignation.  Like I said, your depiction was fine as a generality, but also inarguably inexact.

But that doesn't contradict anything I said. Like, I feel the issue here is your own interpretation of what I mean by the domination of the US political sphere by conservatism and extending to some "they could never win southern states ever" stance I never took.

The New Democrats and the things that preceded them and they way they shaped the Democratic Party and it's inner workings are a product of that conservative domination. To get back to the whole actual point I was making, Clinton's stances in the 90s are very indicative of a trend within the Democratic Party as they desperately tried to win presidential elections again.

Edited by Shryke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff Sessions just gave a speech in LA where he whined about the “radicalized” speech on the left surrounding the issue of immigration. The “lunatic fringe” is driving the conversation according to the genuine white supremacist who justifies child internment camps with scripture.

Edited by Morpheus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This chicken shit country will give this scumbag administration typical burials when they die. Just white washing over what they are, because respect and civility!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, كالدب said:

FYI, that big long screed about Filipino dictatorship was taken from here: https://twitter.com/RinChupeco/status/1011459751660552192

Okay, thanks, because I was a little confused. I thought I'd have known if there was another lefty Filipino with Reagan hate here.

Edited by DanteGabriel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Okay, thanks, because I was a little confused. I thought I'd have known if there was another lefty Filipino with Reagan hate here.


Yea, I had that quote from earlier from Reddit, and I couldn't link her Twitter her because I can't actually do anything on twitter at the moment because my account is locked up for the next 6 days for mocking Rubio, Spicer, David Gergen pretty harshly. Which is funny considering how they allow Richard Spencer and Jason Kesler along with other neo nazis and white supremacists to tweet their genocidal bs without any sort of punishment. 

I believe I put her name at the bottom of the entire thing, so it would just take looking up her name to get to her twitter to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there's hope for y'all after all.

And be careful, Ty Ty, I'd hate to see you confused for a rightie when the day comes for real change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

White man with no skin in the game telling a woman of color she is being counter productive. LOL.

If you think Ormond has no skin in the game, you really have not been paying attention.

5 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Whoever said not to engage? You can engage Trump without sinking to his level, and if fact you should try to draw a stark contrast with him while having your political allies do the dirty work of mocking and belittling him.

Also, you’re not being civil to appeal to Trump. That’s just silly. There’s no point in debating him in the traditional fashion. You have to play to the crowd.  

Which crowd?

What is this crowd for whom civility is the deciding factor for whether they're going to vote Democrat?

Can you cite any polls showing that they even exist in significant numbers?

Are they a bigger group than the people who might desert the party if it's not seen to be forceful in its resistance?

And why is not locking kids up in cages not a 'stark' enough contrast to draw?

4 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Obama wasn’t on the ballot, and if he was, he would have crushed Trump.   

Not his point, though. Obama was civil and the right demonised him constantly. The idea you have appears to be that Obama/Trump switchers are the people who really care about civility - which is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, La Albearceleste said:

Which crowd?

What is this crowd for whom civility is the deciding factor for whether they're going to vote Democrat?

The constituents watching the campaign. Specifically those on the fence and those who didn't vote. You need the Democratic nominee to be able to contrast themselves with Trump's boorish behavior. 

Quote

Can you cite any polls showing that they even exist in significant numbers?

I can cite that less than 100,000 voters in three states are the difference between a Trump and Clinton presidency. It's not like we need to move mountains here.

Quote

Are they a bigger group than the people who might desert the party if it's not seen to be forceful in its resistance?

I seriously doubt that resistance voters would abandon the party in 2020 over not getting their ideal candidate. And they can still get a candidate who will put up a forceful resistance without jumping into the sewer with Trump. 

Quote

And why is not locking kids up in cages not a 'stark' enough contrast to draw?

You act like the public is rational. :P Don't be shocked if in a few months Trump starts claiming that he's the one who fixed the detention of children while Democrats were the ones who created it and were unwilling to fix it.

Oh wait....

You have to keep in mind, Americans have no attention spans and generally speaking, aren't deep thinkers. Ours is a shallow culture with people trapped in their screens. There's a decent chance the detention centers will have been largely forgotten by the time November, 2020 rolls around. 

Quote

Not his point, though. Obama was civil and the right demonised him constantly. The idea you have appears to be that Obama/Trump switchers are the people who really care about civility - which is insane.

So? I'm talking about going after the right. F them. I'm talking about going after the middle while holding your base. If you throw up an angry candidate whose main campaigning technique is to lash out at Trump, you're going to lose. You need someone who can appeal to a wide audience, otherwise we'll probably get a repeat of 2016, where the Dem wins the popular vote and Trump ekes out an EC win. 

Furthermore, I'm talking about the big picture in a post-Trump world. If we cannot fix the toxic nature of our culture, we're doomed. Doomed to gridlock. Doomed to not solving problems. Doomed to not taking care of the business of the people. Doomed as a nation. Things are bleak right now IMO, and I don't want to feed into what's causing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

Left wing politicians don't stand a stand in US elections, where the hell would an ultra left-wing candidate even come from?

Sanders? He's about as liberal as liberal gets, more or less. 

1 hour ago, DanteGabriel said:

Okay, thanks, because I was a little confused. I thought I'd have known if there was another lefty Filipino with Reagan hate here.

Wait, you're Filipino? I could have sworn you said your family came from Central America. 

58 minutes ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

Maybe there's hope for y'all after all.

And be careful, Ty Ty, I'd hate to see you confused for a rightie when the day comes for real change.

Ha, doubtful. I'd be more likely to be leading it than be caught up by it. People have always joked that I'm going to lead a political revolution some day, but I think that's mainly because I reject the concept of accepting other people's dogma. So be careful Sugarcube, Jaceland might not be safe from my impending tyranny! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gorn said:

1. Throughout the 70's, the Democratic congress proposed multiple single-payer health insurance proposals, all of which were turned down by Republican presidents (and Carter). Until very recently, this was considered to be an extreme, far-left stance in the democratic party.

2. Some of the major legislation they passed: Equal Right Amendment, War Powers Resolution, Federal Election Campaign Act, Ethics in Government Act, Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Act... Most of those would never pass today, even with Democratic majority.

3. In the post-Vietnam decade, Democrats were much less hawkish and more protective of civil liberties than today. Today, drone assassinations and Guantanamo are taboo topics in politics which didn't get touched even during recent full Democratic control of government. Also, you could never get something like PATRIOT Act or the Iraq War Resolution be accepted by the majority of US politicians in the 70's.

ETA: Also, Democrats used to be far more supportive of unions than today.

Single payer, the ERA, and FECA have always been popular among the Democratic base.  Not sure what change you see there.  The War Powers Resolution overrode Nixon's veto - it was a response to the unpopularity of Vietnam and had very little to do with the ideology of the Democratic Party.  Pretty much same goes for your third point.  The devastation of unions is a good point though.  Anyway, this concept that the Democrats were some liberal bastion 40 years ago is imaginary.  They are demonstrably more cohesively liberal now than they have ever been.

7 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

I agree with you completely. Was ripping on DMC's response, though less sarcastically mind.

I don't know where in my response(s) that I suggested I had any problem with what Waters said.  I mentioned Pelosi was smart not to respond because she's a target for GOP campaign ads.  That's just a fact, there's no upside in her engaging in the same type of rhetoric.  But as for this whole "civility" argument that apparently was a vibrant debate over the past twelve hours - I tried to read all the responses but quickly got bored - yeah I really don't give a shit.

2 hours ago, Shryke said:

But that doesn't contradict anything I said. Like, I feel the issue here is your own interpretation of what I mean by the domination of the US political sphere by conservatism and extending to some "they could never win southern states ever" stance I never took.

The New Democrats and the things that preceded them and they way they shaped the Democratic Party and it's inner workings are a product of that conservative domination. To get back to the whole actual point I was making, Clinton's stances in the 90s are very indicative of a trend within the Democratic Party as they desperately tried to win presidential elections again.

It most certainly does contradict the statement "the democratic party was left out in the wilderness for decades."  There's no interpretation needed there, what you said is just plainly wrong.  This was my only point - your penchant for exaggeration - and there really doesn't need to be so much back and forth on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'So? I'm talking about going after the right. F them. I'm talking about going after the middle while holding your base. If you throw up an angry candidate whose main campaigning technique is to lash out at Trump, you're going to lose. You need someone who can appeal to a wide audience, otherwise we'll probably get a repeat of 2016, where the Dem wins the popular vote and Trump ekes out an EC win.'

Nah. 

 

'Furthermore, I'm talking about the big picture in a post-Trump world. If we cannot fix the toxic nature of our culture, we're doomed. Doomed to gridlock. Doomed to not solving problems. Doomed to not taking care of the business of the people. Doomed as a nation. Things are bleak right now IMO, and I don't want to feed into what's causing that.'

Nah.

 

'Sanders? He's about as liberal as liberal gets, more or less.'

Sander's gig is stillborn. 

 

'Ha, doubtful. I'd be more likely to be leading it than be caught up by it. People have always joked that I'm going to lead a political revolution some day, but I think that's mainly because I reject the concept of accepting other people's dogma.'

God. No wonder everyone found me so fucking annoying back in the day. What a laugh.

---

FUCK CIVILITY. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×