|
HorseLord posted:have you ever considered that "most qualified and well-connected" in the contest of american imperial politics is actually terrifying rather than appealing what candidate should I vote for then
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:ok cool which candidate is that organized civil disobedience along with a black panthers-esue revolutionary movement
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:what candidate should I vote for then In before "None and start the revolution" E: ^ gently caress, too late.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:In before "None and start the revolution" lol nice try HorseLord posted:organized civil disobedience along with a black panthers-esue revolutionary movement ok cool how about something that will actually happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
The american political system will never present you with the chance of a decent human being getting into a meaningful position of power, because it's designed with a set of checks and balances specifically to make sure that can't happen, so the logical conclusion is to destroy it. That's literally the only meaningful thing you could do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Tell you what, give us a nice five-point ten year plan about how we can start the revolution given the current state of the American electorate How do we create a significant destabilizing movement for democratic usurpation of the oligarchy given that the vast plurality of voters are unlikely to want it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Accelerationism is a great idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Tell you what, give us a nice five-point ten year plan about how we can start the revolution given the current state of the American electorate That's a job for Americans, not me. Maybe if you weren't so loving lazy as to want everything handed to you, you'd have done it already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:That's a job for Americans, not me. Maybe if you weren't so loving lazy as to want everything handed to you, you'd have done it already. Ah yes, the classic Marxist mantra of "Class warfare is restricted to geopolitical borders. The proletariat of other nations are on their own" Workers of the specific nation and only that nation - unite! - Carl Marks
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
He thinks socialism in one country is a good idea that will work. He's not really that good at the internationalist requirements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
It's good that Hillary will command a strong federal law enforcement to break up violent radical organizations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:He thinks socialism in one country is a good idea that will work. I know you like to be Fig. 1 of what Michael Parenti was talking about when he described Pure Socialists but you could at least try some internal consistency - using "socialism in one country" as a cudgel against me won't work when you need to talk about the spread of "stalinist" satellite states that were controlled by moscow or w/e later. tho i would like to see your reconciliation of what you imply "socialism in one country" means with socialism then showing up all over eurasia, south america and africa, while "permanent revolution" lead to no revolutions. Mel Mudkiper posted:Ah yes, the classic Marxist mantra of "Class warfare is restricted to geopolitical borders. The proletariat of other nations are on their own" tell you what, you buy me a plane ticket and somewhere to live, as well as a cash fund big enough for 10 or 20 years, and i'll start you another american communist party. i'm not sure why you'd expect someone to found your next revolution from a bedsit in england? HorseLord fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:tell you what, you buy me a plane ticket and somewhere to live, as well as a cash fund big enough for 10 or 20 years, and i'll start you another american communist party. i'm not sure why you'd expect someone to found your next revolution from a bedsit in england? wow look at Che Guevara over here lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:wow look at Che Guevara over here lol that's a sincere offer. couple hundred thousand dollars, somewhere to live and a US visa and i'll absolutely dedicate my life to american revolutionary politics with a party office and political education lessons and serve the people programs and poo poo, because that's a coherent idea, that's a thing that i (or you! you're already in america!) could conceivably do. earnestly asking someone from a different country to send you how_to_create_american_revolution.pdf and then declaring them fake marxists when they roll their eyes is not a coherent idea
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:I know you like to be Fig. 1 of what Michael Parenti was talking about when he described Pure Socialists but you could at least try some internal consistency - using "socialism in one country" as a cudgel against me won't work when you need to talk about the spread of "stalinist" satellite states that were controlled by moscow or w/e later. tho i would like to see your reconciliation of what you imply "socialism in one country" means with socialism then showing up all over eurasia, south america and africa, while "permanent revolution" lead to no revolutions. I'd suggest that it also led to the cold war which did wonders to further entrench capitalism in the rest of the world, and most socialist countries have now integrated quite a lot of capitalism into their societies as well, which is a key contributing factor to why they are no longer as ostracised. The issue with tacking that kind of radical ideological change to geographjcal borders is that it provokes an equally powerful reaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
I disagree with her in the past but i don't hate her and i would be voting for her anyways and i would of voted for her in 08 if she got the nomanation. i was a bernie voter but i wasn't mad when she won.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'd suggest that it also led to the cold war which did wonders to further entrench capitalism in the rest of the world, and most socialist countries have now integrated quite a lot of capitalism into their societies as well, which is a key contributing factor to why they are no longer as ostracised. future historians will note this day as the time owlfancier almost discovered dialectics
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I'm not entirely comfortable with dialectics + nuclear weapons, especially when it didn't work last time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I'm not entirely comfortable with dialectics + nuclear weapons, especially when it didn't work last time. i don't know how you made the post you just replied to more cruel towards you in it's accuracy than I already intended it to be, but you just pulled it off i mean, god drat, you have no idea at all. none
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Love you too, babe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
WHat does hillary ever need to do to win the stalinist vote?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:WHat does hillary ever need to do to win the stalinist vote? if she strapped herself up with a dynamite vest and blew the whole loving us government away with her in one go it'd be cool but i don't think dynamite would be enough (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
HorseLord posted:if she strapped herself up with a dynamite vest and blew the whole loving us government away with her in one go it'd be cool 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
poo poo I don't know, Hillary seems like a decent person to me. She laughed at Gaddafi's death but she thought he was a cruel, evil bastard. She helps the big banks but I think she really believes that's the only way to cut deals for the underprivileged. I've never seen anything that proves her wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
rudatron posted:You're a moron. 'Anyone older than 30', give me a break. Either you're buying into 'if you live in a racist society you are racist' claptrap (which, weirdly, is only ever used to rationalize facile & unjustifiable allegations of racism), in which case that includes everyone, or you're using the normal person definition of racism, in which case Sanders isn't racist either. You can't have it both ways. your
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:really though imo the biggest part of it is that hillary clinton is the most prevalent example of a smart, capable woman excelling in a leadership role and millions of americans still struggle with that concept. like, look at how many people hated obama because he's black? as many people hate hillary because she's a woman, except it's more acceptable to be a soft misogynist in america in 2016 than a soft racist Seriously- where do you get the idea that any of that is true other than it sounding nice in your head? There's such a disturbing tinge of masochism in the American liberal\progressive brain that I just don't understand. Like, I get that there are misogynists and racists who exist and are real, but you really feel comfortable mind-reading 300 million people like that? No... guys... really.. WE are the real monsters... *gazes into sunset*
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
dont quote me
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
From the right, misogyny. From the left, people are (justifiably) scared shitless of Trump and feel you have to sweep every bad thing about Clinton under the rug. While just about every Clinton critic understands you're not going to bring about radical change to the country via the Presidential Election, it is still irksome that she doesn't have to work all that hard to win over the base because Trump has set the bar so very, very low. That some feel a need to put up a unified front for Hillary shuts down any possible criticism from the left because of the lovely orange clown.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
rum sodomy Rainbow Dash posted:From the right, misogyny. To add to this, it's interesting to note how the thread quickly tilts from "why people on the left hate Hillary" to her supporters immediately deflecting criticisms with demands for alternative candidates, or refusing to acknowledge she has any flaws and that the only possible reason anyone could hate her is misogyny, her political experience, and lies they heard. Well, people have listed a bunch of reasons they don't like her that aren't those, and no one's bothered to defend the policies on their merit, so they're legitimate criticisms. It's possible to criticize a politician and not have a good alternative candidate. Progressive ideologies will not advance if candidates are not allowed to be criticized. Hillary should be criticized precisely because an attack from the left would hopefully make her tack that direction to secure votes and support.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
I don't have many problems with Hillary personally, but she does have real flaws, and at least as regards the left politically, her candidacy has become a proxy front for the third way center in its war against the left. Which isn't really her fault, but still, gently caress those guys. It'll be interesting to see if the current reflexive rage at anyone who dares criticize her continues into her presidency and whether this cycle has precipitated a permanent split between the left and center of the party
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Oct 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:To add to this, it's interesting to note how the thread quickly tilts from "why people on the left hate Hillary" to her supporters immediately deflecting criticisms with demands for alternative candidates, or refusing to acknowledge she has any flaws and that the only possible reason anyone could hate her is misogyny, her political experience, and lies they heard. Well, people have listed a bunch of reasons they don't like her that aren't those, and no one's bothered to defend the policies on their merit, so they're legitimate criticisms. It's possible to criticize a politician and not have a good alternative candidate. Progressive ideologies will not advance if candidates are not allowed to be criticized. Hillary should be criticized precisely because an attack from the left would hopefully make her tack that direction to secure votes and support. I am a firm believer in once its election season, find the best choice and help them win. Once they win, they are the enemy until they are up for re-election again. I've seen where feet dragging about the candidate not being "good enough" leads. It leads to the other guy winning and things being objectively worse. The reason why we say "name another candidate" if you want to call her a neo-liberal warmonger is to point out that, even if your criticisms are true (I don't acknowledge this btw), she is still the best choice out of the 2 (or 4). The primary season is the time for challenging candidates to try and push the platform into your direction, and that is exactly what happened. Hillary's platform is demonstrably influenced by Bernie Sanders. But its no longer the primary. You have your choices. Pick the best one or get the gently caress out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Seriously- where do you get the idea that any of that is true other than it sounding nice in your head? There's such a disturbing tinge of masochism in the American liberal\progressive brain that I just don't understand. Like, I get that there are misogynists and racists who exist and are real, but you really feel comfortable mind-reading 300 million people like that? it's because that means the American people don't deserve any better than lovely centrist third way apparatchiks
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:it's because that means the American people don't deserve any better than lovely centrist third way apparatchiks They don't deserve our lovely politicians 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
I'm so happy that Hillary derangement syndrome is still really funny after like 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:To add to this, it's interesting to note how the thread quickly tilts from "why people on the left hate Hillary" to her supporters immediately deflecting criticisms with demands for alternative candidates, or refusing to acknowledge she has any flaws and that the only possible reason anyone could hate her is misogyny, her political experience, and lies they heard. It doesn't help when you repeat lies and vaguely disguised misogynist statements.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Book daeny eventually - and it always pisses me off that the book where she stopped marching on westeros and used the time to apply herself to learning statecraft is universally unpopular - the arc everyone hates. To be fair, that section isn't GRRM strongest writing, at least in my opinion. He wastes as much time with Daeny mooning over Daaaaaario~ as he spends with her learning statecraft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It doesn't help when you repeat lies and vaguely disguised misogynist statements. Would you like to actually point to a concrete example, or would you rather do that thing you usually do where you get people to try and guess what your argument is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Simple challenge. Name a movie with a heroine who is openly ambitious, portrayed in a positive light, without being a rape-and-revenge trope, that isn't based on a real woman. Tank girl
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Simple challenge. Name a movie with a heroine who is openly ambitious, portrayed in a positive light, without being a rape-and-revenge trope, that isn't based on a real woman. "Fury Road," motherafuckaaaaa (but, of course, that opens the can of worms about whether Furiosa is a feminist character, or just a female character who's acting like a dude)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:30 |
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Would you like to actually point to a concrete example, or would you rather do that thing you usually do where you get people to try and guess what your argument is? You have made accusations that the Democratic Establishment intentionally keeps progressive candidates suppressed in order to cater to big business donors and their interests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 05:38
|
|