|
some plague rats posted:It seems like this argument only makes sense in a world of perfect balance, where everyone is just a smooth, colourless orb with exactly the same power and standing in society...?
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Voting for Democrats is not "our job." Giving voters a reason to turn out for them is their job. They have been failing to do that pretty consistently over the past year. This kind of says it all, in a way. If we're a democratic republic, then it's no one's job to convince us to vote for them. It's our job to elect good people. Yes, I'm familiar with the arguments that we're not really a democratic republic anymore. Majorian's post just kind of made me sad is all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:54
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:If I did, the Democrat controlled government would throw me in a cell. So at the end of the day it's still Democrats preventing (legal and illegal) forms of halting the fascist threat. To be fair, most governments on the planet throughout history imprison you if you try and fail to overthrow them. Even that is taking it easy on the failure, traditionally.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Voting for Democrats is not "our job." Giving voters a reason to turn out for them is their job. They have been failing to do that pretty consistently over the past year. When I formally distanced myself from all national level politics this was a big part of it. I've been working too hard for too little my whole life and I know a "do my job because I'm too busy doing other things to get promoted" pitch when I hear it. It's not my job to vote for anybody, it's a whole extra hassle that I do for free, and if you can't even be assed to try to get me to then yeah I'm staying home gently caress you. Nobody with a Clyburn rep has had it any different than myself with a Hollingsworth one for example It sucks because the state level reps I actually could have contact with here were all really great people, they just had no support from above and no way to do anything in this blood red state. It's really not great for the politico psyche to watch people get churned up and spit out for a profit, or well at least maybe not for anybody who wants good things. McKinsey and Lis Smith types will get an adrenaline boost from it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:02
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:This kind of says it all, in a way. If we're a democratic republic, then it's no one's job to convince us to vote for them. It's our job to elect good people. Unfortunately, it's not really about electing good people. We've elected some good people over the past few years. But the system is structured to grind good people down, which is how you end up with things like Pelosi bullying AOC into voting "present" on funding Israel's Iron Dome, or the party leadership twisting Squad members' arms into voting for more police funding. It's how we get the "party of the people" refusing to fight for popular legislation, while allowing Republicans to pass things that are both unpopular and monstrous. As you say, we're not a democratic republic anymore, if we ever actually were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If that is the line of culpability, then does the fact that you aren't out trying to overthrow the corrupt institutions right now indicate your support for them and make you liable for their actions? They're far less culpable for their actions than those who spend their days defending & covering for those corrupt institutions, even when doing so entails intellectual dishonesty. Right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:08
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That depends on how it's implemented. In Connecticut, for example, sole proprietorships are eligible for Paid Family and Medical Leave benefits if they choose to participate. (They're also one of the only covered entities allowed to decline participation entirely.). It's certainly not a sure thing, of course. Huh, interesting. Does the state pay out, then? eta: Are indy contractors covered in the BBB bill? Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:If electoralism is a dead end, then what does a title matter when anybody who could achieve that title within the corrupt system would inherently be unwilling to dismantle it? By abiding by the results of an illegitimate process you are consenting to the results. If your reaction is to let the system just plod on as intended toward fascism, then the only conclusions that can be drawn from you being unwilling to act are that either the threat isn't real or you're culpable in the takeover. Man, this is some "and yet you participate in society; curious!" dead-end line of reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Man, this is some "and yet you participate in society; curious!" dead-end line of reasoning. This doesn't seem dead end to me at all. Their central premise is "agreeing to not abolish something is agreeing with it" which is something I think one could debate, and if you'd do that instead of citing a Bors comic it would probably be for the best alternately, roast me instead for misinterpreting all of this
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:14
|
|
|
Perhaps I was the one who misinterpreted it, because I often have a hard time following Leon's lines of reasoning, and because he tends to try to tease answers out rather than clearly state what he means. eta: eg, your edict here: Epic High Five posted:The recent trend of posters taking a hard line between "you agree with me" and "you are for all the things I hate" however, is not within the spirit or intention of either Debate or Discussion. If anybody finds themselves compelled to post something like "oh you don't want a communist on the SCOTUS, you must love rape" or "oh you vote, that must mean you love genocide and death" I strongly recommend they refrain from posting such things here, and for reference I say this as a non-voting communist. would seem to be germane to the post to which I replied, because challenging someone to provide revolutionary action or be complicit in institutional corruption did not strike me, when I read it, as being in good faith. And again, maybe I took away the wrong message, but that's how it read to me. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Do you think that the party leadership and consultant class view making sure Republicans lose those critical elections as top priorities? If so, what have they done/are they doing to achieve that goal? Got Trump out of office, for starters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:This doesn't seem dead end to me at all. Their central premise is "agreeing to not abolish something is agreeing with it" which is something I think one could debate, I mean, how? That whole idea is predicated not only on me having the power to abolish anything, but on no one else currently, right now, having the power to do so. It doesn't make any sense as an argument because it's completely divorced from any possible reality
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Got Trump out of office, for starters. Do you think having Joe Biden in office increases or decreases the chance of Dems getting wiped out in the midterms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:I mean, how? That whole idea is predicated not only on me having the power to abolish anything, but on no one else currently, right now, having the power to do so. It doesn't make any sense as an argument because it's completely divorced from any possible reality That's certainly something one could challenge them on - a baseline requirement of a class conscious revolution is certainly a weak point that can be prodded at Willa Rogers posted:would seem to be germane to the post to which I replied, because challenging someone to provide revolutionary action or be complicit in institutional corruption did not strike me, when I read it, as being in good faith. And again, maybe I took away the wrong message, but that's how it read to me. As you have described it is germane, absolutely, my pushback was primarily on how it substituted a Bors argument instead of your own. Memes can be useful but rarely hold up well as stand-ins even if they are the end result of a great understanding of the situation and a razor wit, as one cannot really assume that of anybody reading a public forums post Also yeah this is dependent on either/both you and I not misreading the original post
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:35
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:They're far less culpable for their actions than those who spend their days defending & covering for those corrupt institutions, even when doing so entails intellectual dishonesty. A lesser evil is still evil. You're just establishing floors and ceilings for what acceptable evil is if you think it is truly a threat to life, but also that you can wait it out for someone else to fix it. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Do you think having Joe Biden in office increases or decreases the chance of Dems getting wiped out in the midterms? That is shifting the goal posts. The question i responded to is what has been done. It appeared to be meant as a rhetorical question but I pointed out the obvious hole—Defeating Trump was by definition removing a fascist president from office. Now, to answer your rhetorical question, since midterms are terrible for incumbent parties we can expect large Republican gains any time the president is a Democrat, HTH. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:37
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Do you think having Joe Biden in office increases or decreases the chance of Dems getting wiped out in the midterms? Speaking as a red state former voter in a former purple state, I'd say this has way more to do with the party itself than any particular figurehead. Maybe Bernie would've introduced a new dynamic, but I'm only slightly more sure of that than I am that the party itself would've imploded itself to destroy him Corbyn-style than it would've left it to fate
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:40
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Got Trump out of office, for starters. As we're seeing, that doesn't drive up approval ratings, nor is it likely to drive out voters in November. quote:Now, to answer your rhetorical question, since midterms are terrible for incumbent parties we can expect large Republican gains any time the president is a Democrat, HTH. That's a cop-out answer. There are things that a president and their party can do to minimize those losses. Have Biden and/or the Dems in Congress done anything to staunch the bleeding? Majorian fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:42
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A lesser evil is still evil. Sorry, what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Now, to answer your rhetorical question, since midterms are terrible for incumbent parties we can expect large Republican gains any time the president is a Democrat, HTH. That is generally true. Political scientists call it the six-year itch when it happens in the second midterm. Since 1980, the only times the sitting president's party didn't lose congressional seats in the midterm were 2002 (reasons obvious I hope) and 1998. I'm not sure what factors led to the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:45
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A lesser evil is still evil. Assessing relative culpability - itself a very fraught subject - is entirely separate from assigning "acceptable" boundaries which isn't what I've gotten the impression is happening here. An evil is indeed evil despite its magnitude, but who was arguing that the lesser evil of voting for dipshit centrists is worse than the lesser evil of not voting at all? If anything this whole conversation seems extremely anti-voting for anybody
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The alleged shortlist for the Supreme Court Nominee: The real shortlist is probably just KBJ, but it’s considered good form to give a handful of candidates consideration as a show of political respect to them and their supporters, and to plan for a contingency where the nomination is derailed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:A lesser evil is still evil. That's why I believe in not voting for candidates & parties that support those corrupt institutions, even if & when it results in short-term pain for longer-term gain. It's the least I can do. The most I can do is working to provide & encourage support to candidates outside of that narrow schema. There are also non-electoral advocacy actions, like How Are U's climate-change activism (which I'm still interested in learning more about) or single-payer healthcare. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:46
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:That is shifting the goal posts. The question i responded to is what has been done. It appeared to be meant as a rhetorical question but I pointed out the obvious hole—Defeating Trump was by definition removing a fascist president from office. I mean personally I took the question as being one of what affirmative, ongoing actions are they taking to stop the republicans from winning thoroughly and enacting their agenda. "They don't have the presidency any more" doesn't fit that criteria at all, in my mind- sitting around going "well, we beat trump!" does nothing to stop the midterm wipeouts, and unfortunately for them the Dems seem to have nothing else planned beyond doing that
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Since 1980, the only times the sitting president's party didn't lose congressional seats in the midterm were 2002 (reasons obvious I hope) Sympathy votes for the pretzel attack on George W. Bush. Koos Group posted:1998. I'm not sure what factors led to the latter. The major thing people point to is a backlash against impeachment and a thriving economy/start of the dot com boom. It is also the year that Harrison Ford broke the record for being the oldest man ever named "People's Sexiest Man Alive" at age 55. Political Scientists generally haven't done much research on the role this played in the '98 midterms, so there isn't a ton of data on the impact. But, that also means that it hasn't been definitively ruled out as a factor, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's a cop-out answer. There are things that a president and their party can do to minimize those losses. Have Biden and/or the Dems in Congress done anything to staunch the bleeding? 92% yes in the senate.* More in the house. If their names are Manchin and Sinema, then no except for the stuff they did pass. I’ve been saying for 14 months the Dems needed 52 seats and didn’t get them. This is what a 50 seat majority looks like. I ain’t pretending that doesn’t suck. * math error, should read 96% yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:92% yes in the senate. More in the house. That's not at all how this works. If they didn't pass anything concrete to staunch the bleeding in the midterms, then the answer to my question is, "No, they didn't do anything." Voters by and large aren't going to turn out for the Dems because they intended to pass things, and would have passed those things, if it hadn't been for Manchin and Sinema. Again, the polls show this to be true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:57
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Now, to answer your rhetorical question, since midterms are terrible for incumbent parties we can expect large Republican gains any time the president is a Democrat, HTH. Do you think that might be because both parties operate as agents of capital and rarely do anything to improve the lives of the working class?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not at all how this works. If they didn't pass anything concrete to staunch the bleeding in the midterms, then the answer to my question is, "No, they didn't do anything." Voters by and large aren't going to turn out for the Dems because they intended to pass things, and would have passed those things, if it hadn't been for Manchin and Sinema. Again, the polls show this to be true. Especially given the post-election push to elect the two Dem senators from Georgia. I don't recall any caveats at the time to the promises of the benefits of their election, such as "Unless a rando Dem or two goes rogue."
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 04:59
|
|
|
Gentlemen, a deep breath with me, if you would...?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The major thing people point to is a backlash against impeachment and a thriving economy/start of the dot com boom. Clinton was also just broadly popular at the time; he performed much better against Dole than he did against Bush I.* There was no big boondoggle to eat away support like healthcare in the 1994 midterms or... healthcare in the 2010 midterms or... healthcare (of covid) in the 2022 midterms. The big thing was impeachment, and as you said, most people were on Clinton's side for that. *Perot is a factor but seemingly drew support from both parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Do you think that might be because both parties operate as agents of capital and rarely do anything to improve the lives of the working class? Sorry to single you out Mr. Bishyaler, but this is the sort of post I'd like to avoid when discussing these topics, because regardless of how right it may be, it's quite a common argument and you aren't adding anything to the form it typically takes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
Bishyaler posted:Do you think that might be because both parties operate as agents of capital and rarely do anything to improve the lives of the working class? No https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_United_States_elections E: nvm I think we’re meant to drop it
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Especially given the post-election push to elect the two Dem senators from Georgia. And unfortunately, Warnock is suffering in the polls for the party's failure to live up to its promises: https://twitter.com/PollsandOdds/status/1486424194564993032 If he loses his seat, I'll find that especially tragic, since he's been doing the legwork to get things like the $2000 checks passed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:10
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No No, that's a rebuttal I'd never seen before and I applaud it, even if it's a bit depressing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:And unfortunately, Warnock is suffering in the polls for the party's failure to live up to its promises: Warnock doesn't really seem to be suffering at all. He's polling at exactly the same margin he did when he ended up winning and polling 20+ points above Biden in favorability. And the Q poll has been the harshest for Democrats the last 6 months. Being at the same margin he was at in 2020 during a midterm election while Biden is at -20 net favorability in the state seems to be a shockingly good result. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jan 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not at all how this works. If they didn't pass anything concrete to staunch the bleeding in the midterms, then the answer to my question is, "No, they didn't do anything." Voters by and large aren't going to turn out for the Dems because they intended to pass things, and would have passed those things, if it hadn't been for Manchin and Sinema. Again, the polls show this to be true. Okay, but there’s no solution to “what can make Joe Manchin not suck” other than he personally needs to decide not to suck. And even if he did that and we ushered in a bunch of miracles without historical precedent it’s an uphill battle to inspire a bunch of base voters, de-inspire opposing base voters, and then placate the occasional Frank Luntz focus group dissatisfied-all-the-time “swing” voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Okay, but there’s no solution to “why does Joe Manchin” suck other than he personally needs to decide not to suck. I mean if this is true then what is even the point of having a democrat party?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:20
|
|
|
FYI: The 400 million free N95 masks the federal government is giving out (pretty late, but whatever) seem to be available now. I got three for free from Walgreens this afternoon and they had apparently just got them today. You can walk in and grab them at any major pharmacy chain and some state health organizations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:06 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:No Republicans had lost seats in 1934 and 1936 while FDR was president. In 1938 another recession hit and FDR was campaigning against members of his own party. There's more to this story than "peasants were ungrateful for the new deal" or "presidential party always doomed to lose seats"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2022 05:28
|
|