|
As a reminder this poster unironically cited OWS as a representative organization for liberal causes, despite not existing in a meaningful capacity for nearly three years.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Oh poo poo, I forgot that Lawrence Lessig was a big backer of Americans Elect, the "election reform" scheme that was so obviously a dumb scam that only Thomas Friedman took it seriously. Ahahahah I was just thinking today that this poo poo reminded me of that :online primary' thing, whatever it was, that just took in money and went no where. Figures it's the same band of idiots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:As a reminder this poster unironically cited OWS as a representative organization for liberal causes, despite not existing in a meaningful capacity for nearly three years. That's actually kinda my point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Cantor lost because he made himself a prominent tea party vocal supporter in an effort to replace Boehner, then when that failed fell back into line and betrayed the batshit crazies he had been courting. Dude played with fire and got burned, his status as persona non grata with the tea party after the debt ceiling collapse was way more relevant to a primary than any amount of funding. Which is beside the point that money doesn't actually matter all that much in congressional elections (in fact it's debatable it matters much at all in elections in general, as I recall. People assume it has an effect but advertising and mass market campaigning hasn't really ever been demonstrably proven as the most important factor in elections), gerrymandered districts are, which deliver reliable seats to the majority of incumbents, who then leverage their position for monetary favours from industry. Mr. F, you really don't know what you're talking about. But please, by all means throw your support behind a project headed by Jack loving Abramoff, a man second only to Dick Cheney in concentrations of Evil and greed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:That's actually kinda my point. You... you do realize that there are other liberal organizations besides OWS, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Shouldn't the thread be goldmined at this point? I think we've gone through whatever entertainment value is going to be derived...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Shouldn't the thread be goldmined at this point? I think we've gone through whatever entertainment value is going to be derived... The PAC hasn't imploded or faded into hilarious obscurity like Americans Elect or Unity08 yet so it's got legs for some time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:As a reminder this poster unironically cited OWS as a representative organization for liberal causes, despite not existing in a meaningful capacity for nearly three years. Equating media coverage to existence is as bad as thinking that any musician not on MTV is a failure. Occupy is everywhere, just not the TV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Where is Occupy, right now. Claiming they exist in the new awareness of the wealth gap does not count.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:Cantor lost because he made himself a prominent tea party vocal supporter in an effort to replace Boehner, then when that failed fell back into line and betrayed the batshit crazies he had been courting. Dude played with fire and got burned, his status as persona non grata with the tea party after the debt ceiling collapse was way more relevant to a primary than any amount of funding. You know, i've been looking through articles about why Cantor lost and they go all over the place between him supporting immigration reform, then another article showing that the overwhelming majority of voters actually wanted immigration reform, to simply him being an rear end in a top hat to everyone, but whatever, it seems that every article called his loss shocking. Also, i'd like to see how often someone with such a big money disadvantage pulls an upset like this. I can understand if someone with a 4 million dollar war chest beats someone with a 5 million dollar one, but again, it was a 26 to 1 advantage. Edit: hit submit too fast, but is Jack Abramoff running the Pac or just being paraded around to advertise for the PAC because he's an expert on corruption? I mean, if it's the latter, i don't really care all that much, it's not like he'll ever have the ability to be a powerbroker anymore. Who What Now posted:You... you do realize that there are other liberal organizations besides OWS, right? Are they filling up the streets and getting elected to congress and making democrats poo poo their pants?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
I say someone goldmine this superb thread and make a new one so everyone can bitch about why or why not leftists are ineffective in the current political environment or whatever the gently caress is going on in this thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Are they filling up the streets and getting elected to congress and making democrats poo poo their pants? Is OWS? Like, aren't we at a point where we can admit OWS kinda only was able remind people that NYPD cops are kinda terrible to protesters still and not much else?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Is OWS? Uh, not sure if you're agreeing with me, but that's the point. The Tea Party has this laser like focus for hate and they're actually productive with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Are they filling up the streets and getting elected to congress and making democrats poo poo their pants? Those aren't necessarily good things, and as the Tea Party has shown, can be actively harmful things. -EDIT- You seem to think that radicalism and extremism are the best avenues towards positive change, and you're frustrated that political change is too slow. That's understandable to a point, but it's also incredibly naive. The Tea Party that you admire so much has been one of the most destructive political forces we've seen since McCarthyism. We absolutely do not want the leftist version. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
It's only harmful because it moves things farther right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:It's only harmful because it moves things farther right. Well, it's harmful because they are willing to burn America to the ground and piss on the ashes. A leftist organization that would be willing to shut down the government to get whatever little thing they want would be just as harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Because liberals will wander aimlessly (possibly with lanterns) looking for a honest man to make their leader. Would you rather liberals ask military commanders to not block their sunlight? v People fall for these things because they are desperate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Campaign advisor for Bush 2 and McCain, has since run or founded mega-centrist and scammy organizations like No Labels and Americans Elect, and voted Libertarian in 2012. Jesus Christ, and people just fall for this crap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:You know, i've been looking through articles about why Cantor lost and they go all over the place between him supporting immigration reform, then another article showing that the overwhelming majority of voters actually wanted immigration reform, to simply him being an rear end in a top hat to everyone, but whatever, it seems that every article called his loss shocking. Again, Primary. Most voters support immigration reform, but the Tea party emphatically does not. The much smaller voter pool for primaries is what is giving the Tea Party such crazy leverage over republicans. It's a shocking loss since a completely unknown candidate waltzed in and gutted the sitting House Majority leader, but the circumstances that created this possibility are particular to Cantor's situation, you couldn't just say this could be repeated with the same funding disparity in pretty much any other primary. Plus, while you do have a point that the left is less unified and galvanized than the Tea Party, it's super loving disingenuous to directly compare the two, as though labour unions, one of the principal galvanizing forces of the left, haven't been systematically crushed in the last 4 decades, while the Tea party has had rich idealogical lunatics like the Kochs and various flavours of southern 'job creators' to astroturf them into existence. You aren't upsetting our apple cart here with your startling revelations of the challenges of the North American left, and your smug condescension is either a deliberate attempt to get a response or betrays your deep naivete about the political balance that currently exists. Which, again, if you are willing to give any credence to an idea this stupid and any leeway to an organization that has Jack Abramoff as a spokesman, naivete would be a pretty much guaranteed bet. Also way to ignore the rest of my post and other posters points that the real issue of money in Politics is lobbying, not campaign spending. Talk about stunning upsets against big spending all you want, that does nothing to deal with the influence lobbyists have on Congress and the Senate, influence that tends to be stronger on new blood than incumbents. Until the old boys club of lobbyists and congress is much more directly addressed, pretty much any candidate that does get in its going to get sucked into it and just become another part of the problem. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Jul 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Those aren't necessarily good things, and as the Tea Party has shown, can be actively harmful things. Who What Now posted:Well, it's harmful because they are willing to burn America to the ground and piss on the ashes. A leftist organization that would be willing to shut down the government to get whatever little thing they want would be just as harmful. Well, i'm not sure a radical left version of the Tea Party would shut down government and just mirror whatever the tea party did (but a leftwing version of it), that's just speculation. And i don't 'admire' the tea party, except their ability to get elected and pissing off the biggest plutocrats. Mainstream Republicans just do whatever the opposite Democrats do just because, while Tea Partiers do what they do in the name of their ideology. I think that's an important distinction; i've listened to some of the tea partier rhetoric and many think corporate welfare/american adventures into countries where they don't belong, etc. is bullshit. I'd like to see what happens if the 'radical' leftists actually voted with some of the tea partiers on those common ground issues and we got some change. But if you want positive change some other way, what do you suggest?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Well, i'm not sure a radical left version of the Tea Party would shut down government and just mirror whatever the tea party did (but a leftwing version of it), that's just speculation. And i don't 'admire' the tea party, except their ability to get elected and pissing off the biggest plutocrats. Mainstream Republicans just do whatever the opposite Democrats do just because, while Tea Partiers do what they do in the name of their ideology. I think that's an important distinction; i've listened to some of the tea partier rhetoric and many think corporate welfare/american adventures into countries where they don't belong, etc. is bullshit. I'd like to see what happens if the 'radical' leftists actually voted with some of the tea partiers on those common ground issues and we got some change. in what way had the tea party opposed corporate welfare in anyway. They are entirely reactionary and completely misinformed. And also hugely racist. The Republicans are blocking all Democratic legislation because of the tea party, not in spite of them. They call Obamacare socialism, for God's sakes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well, it's harmful because they are willing to burn America to the ground and piss on the ashes. A leftist organization that would be willing to shut down the government to get whatever little thing they want would be just as harmful. I think a leftist faction with the will and means to deeply upset the world economy would be very cool.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Well, i'm not sure a radical left version of the Tea Party would shut down government and just mirror whatever the tea party did (but a leftwing version of it), that's just speculation. And i don't 'admire' the tea party, except their ability to get elected and pissing off the biggest plutocrats. Mainstream Republicans just do whatever the opposite Democrats do just because, while Tea Partiers do what they do in the name of their ideology. I think that's an important distinction; i've listened to some of the tea partier rhetoric and many think corporate welfare/american adventures into countries where they don't belong, etc. is bullshit. I'd like to see what happens if the 'radical' leftists actually voted with some of the tea partiers on those common ground issues and we got some change. Please don't ruin this thread which had a fun ten pages by engaging with a troll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I think a leftist faction with the will and means to deeply upset the world economy would be very cool. Well that's because you're an idiot. HTH Mister Fister posted:Well, i'm not sure a radical left version of the Tea Party would shut down government and just mirror whatever the tea party did (but a leftwing version of it), that's just speculation. And i don't 'admire' the tea party, except their ability to get elected and pissing off the biggest plutocrats. Mainstream Republicans just do whatever the opposite Democrats do just because, while Tea Partiers do what they do in the name of their ideology. I think that's an important distinction; i've listened to some of the tea partier rhetoric and many think corporate welfare/american adventures into countries where they don't belong, etc. is bullshit. I'd like to see what happens if the 'radical' leftists actually voted with some of the tea partiers on those common ground issues and we got some change. What Tea Partiers have you been listening to, because they certainly weren't in any meaningful positions of power. And they certainly wouldn't work on a leftist mirror-version of themselves because not working with the opposition is one of their key planks. Mister Fister posted:But if you want positive change some other way, what do you suggest? Educating voters, making them less susceptible to the kind of ads that campaign financing focuses on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Last post by me, going to bed (at least it's a bit more civil in this thread though.)quote:They are entirely reactionary and completely misinformed. And also hugely racist. Yes yes, the tea party are racist reactionary shitstains, i'm not going to disagree there. Samurai Quack posted:in what way had the tea party opposed corporate welfare in anyway. The Export-Import bank's charter is in danger of not being renewed because of the Tea Party. quote:The Republicans are blocking all Democratic legislation because of the tea party, not in spite of them. This is false, the top GOP leaders met right after Obama's Inauguration to agree to block everything Obama wanted to do even before the Tea Party went from being the Ron Paul dance party to a pain in the rear end of Democrats and Republicans alike. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/inside-obamas-presidency/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/ quote:They call Obamacare socialism, for God's sakes. Well yeah, they call everything socialism, i get it, they don't understand the meaning of the word.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Well I would definitely say that there is a bit of squeamishness in the character of the average liberal, which is kind of understandable in this tyool 2014, since we live in what is undeniably a liberal society. When you don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the status quo of course you aren't going to advocate for anything that is going to rock the boat too hard. How do you turn liberals into leftists is the actual task IMO
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Educating voters, making them less susceptible to the kind of ads that campaign financing focuses on. Voters are on the whole more aware than most people give them credit for. The most meaningful thing to be done is get out the vote campaigns and other projects to help disenfranchised voters (predominantly the poor and minorities) be able to actually take part in the system. Expanded vote hours, more voting locations, early voting, etc. That's where the fight needs to be. Especially in the light of all the bullshit voting restrictions pouring out of the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:
Abramoff isn't running the PAC, the only formal affiliation he has with them is that he participated in a really lovely AMA with Lessig on reddit to promote Mayday PAC. Abramoff is a tacit supporter, but is not in any position of authority in the PAC. Right now, Abramoff is on a speaking tour about "beating corruption" and selling a book about it. It's being brought up less as a "you're giving money to Jack Abramoff" thing as it is a "Lessig has such bad judgement that he would listen to Abramoff/ use him to sell his own lovely ideas." It just reflects poorly on Lessig's judgement. True, he won't have the ability to powerbroker anymore, but that was only part of the equation from the start for Abramoff. He is also very much about making himself rich, be it through making right wing propoganda films (which he did before lobbying), through his lobbying, through illegally muscling a casino owner out of his casino boat, through speaking fees, through potentially "consulting" with PACs....
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
oldswitcheroo posted:Abramoff isn't running the PAC, the only formal affiliation he has with them is that he participated in a really lovely AMA with Lessig on reddit to promote Mayday PAC. Abramoff is a tacit supporter, but is not in any position of authority in the PAC. Right now, Abramoff is on a speaking tour about "beating corruption" and selling a book about it. It's being brought up less as a "you're giving money to Jack Abramoff" thing as it is a "Lessig has such bad judgement that he would listen to Abramoff/ use him to sell his own lovely ideas." It just reflects poorly on Lessig's judgement. True, he won't have the ability to powerbroker anymore, but that was only part of the equation from the start for Abramoff. He is also very much about making himself rich, be it through making right wing propoganda films (which he did before lobbying), through his lobbying, through illegally muscling a casino owner out of his casino boat, through speaking fees, through potentially "consulting" with PACs.... No loving way that last one doesn't happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:No loving way that last one doesn't happen They are adamant that it's a symmetrical bipartisan problem http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/campaign-finance-reform-has-to-be-cross-partisan/372983/ so it makes sense that they need a right winger on board to bring up their cred with Republicans. Which just goes to show you that Lessig may indeed be as naive as his funders. What am I saying with this "may be" nonsense, he supported Americans Elect, of course he's naive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
The thing I still can't get over about Mr. Boyko is how he can pivot from "Well, I guess child abuse is wrong, strictly speaking..." and "D&D players need their own Stonewall" and "I'd gladly go anywhere to flee this corrupt kleptocracy we live in" to trying to run for political office in Texas in a few short years. That post where he tries to spin his past as this series of meaningful soul-searching experiences that inform his deep empathy for the people is comically absurd once you have an idea of his actual past. But damned if he didn't borrow as much as he could from Obama-era branding and marketing practices. For some reason it really drives home to me just how empty politics and politicians are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Mr. Pither posted:The thing I still can't get over about Mr. Boyko is how he can pivot from "Well, I guess child abuse is wrong, strictly speaking..." and "D&D players need their own Stonewall" and "I'd gladly go anywhere to flee this corrupt kleptocracy we live in" to trying to run for political office in Texas in a few short years. That post where he tries to spin his past as this series of meaningful soul-searching experiences that inform his deep empathy for the people is comically absurd once you have an idea of his actual past. But damned if he didn't borrow as much as he could from Obama-era branding and marketing practices. For some reason it really drives home to me just how empty politics and politicians are. No no, it's all explained in the book he self published that currently sits at number 2,571,532 on the Amazon best seller list...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
  https://web.archive.org/web/20100210140649/http://www.boykophoto.com/2010/02/i-climbed-mountain-today.html The man climbed up a very small mountain while in New Zealand, and probably learned some wisdom, like beat up children and run for office.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Samurai Quack posted:
Are there not advance polls in U.S. elections? The last election we had in Ontario had polls open at multiple locations every day for a full week, a week before the actual election day. The one before that had ten days of advance polling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Are there not advance polls in U.S. elections? The last election we had in Ontario had polls open at multiple locations every day for a full week, a week before the actual election day. The one before that had ten days of advance polling. Each state runs their own election that has to at least meet minimum standards, but every state is very slightly different. Here in Colorado you get a ballot in the mail 30 days before the election day and have that full time to fill it out and either mail it in or drop it off at the polling location, or you can go to the polling location to do the vote in person instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Are there not advance polls in U.S. elections? The last election we had in Ontario had polls open at multiple locations every day for a full week, a week before the actual election day. The one before that had ten days of advance polling. From what I understand (and what Fermun said) it's a crap shoot from state to state as to how progressive the voting standars are, but the GOP had been moving to restrict early voting in several states as part of their disenfranchisement campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Shouldn't the thread be goldmined at this point? I think we've gone through whatever entertainment value is going to be derived... Not until Jack Abramoff bilks the whole thing dry and disappears in some non-extradition country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
fermun posted:Each state runs their own election that has to at least meet minimum standards, but every state is very slightly different. Here in Colorado you get a ballot in the mail 30 days before the election day and have that full time to fill it out and either mail it in or drop it off at the polling location, or you can go to the polling location to do the vote in person instead. Samurai Quack posted:From what I understand (and what Fermun said) it's a crap shoot from state to state as to how progressive the voting standars are, but the GOP had been moving to restrict early voting in several states as part of their disenfranchisement campaigns. I still can't believe that in America the Free, there are people who are actively trying to stymie the vote, of all things. The thing that "people fought and died for." People say that. People fought and died for your right to vote. And yet some of the people in power are trying to make it harder to do that one thing, one of the few times where everyone is genuinely supposed to be equal. As long as you're 18, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if you're sick or healthy, no matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, everyone gets one vote. What kind of work do you have cut out for you in that one? In at least making voting as accessible as possible? How much money do you need for that? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Well, it's harmful because they are willing to burn America to the ground and piss on the ashes. A leftist organization that would be willing to shut down the government to get whatever little thing they want would be just as harmful. Just so I know for future reference, this is the part where you start scaremongering about leftist "radicals" without even bothering to examine what the left actually stands for in order to feel better about the fact that you're supporting a rightwing party owned by corporate interests, right? Leofish posted:I still can't believe that in America the Free, there are people who are actively trying to stymie the vote, of all things. The thing that "people fought and died for." People say that. People fought and died for your right to vote. And yet some of the people in power are trying to make it harder to do that one thing, one of the few times where everyone is genuinely supposed to be equal. As long as you're 18, it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, if you're sick or healthy, no matter your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, everyone gets one vote. Well, man, I have some bad news for you about America and freedom. Also just because people fought and died for something doesn't mean that it can't be rolled back by the powerful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Also, i'd like to see how often someone with such a big money disadvantage pulls an upset like this. I can understand if someone with a 4 million dollar war chest beats someone with a 5 million dollar one, but again, it was a 26 to 1 advantage. Happens more often than one might expect, usually when some profoundly unpopular businessman or politician with more money than charisma tries to brute-force an election by pouring in money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 08:23
|
|