yes i think you're unfortunately right there.
"Our system is broken so we should fix it by electing more of the same people who were responsible for breaking it."
yes but haven't you yourself espoused some of that 'corrupt biden' stuff like trump&co. threw at 'wicked hillary' or whatever? it's just too easy. he's the same pro-business democrat guy.Jay wrote:
Hillary is, and was, even before she ran, vehemently disliked by a very large portion of the public. She has all the warmth of a neoliberal wonk.uziq wrote:
i am firmly of the view that battling a deranged populist-right candidate like trump can best be done by picking someone from the left of centre like sanders. biden is more reheated rice pudding. it didn't work with hillary and i'm not sure why they want to re-run the same close-run thing again.
dare i say it, that he doesn't provoke as much hatred because he's not a shrill woman?
disagree! I don't see the center-left as focusing on LGBT rights so much as countering action taken by centrists and right wing ideology. We shouldn't have to reverse DOMA, because DOMA shouldn't have existed in the first place. It's the political establishment that is focusing on these things, and the American left that is blamed for reversing these positions. Bernie Sanders has to constantly reiterate points regarding identity politics because of systemic injustice. Talking about how black people are disproportionately impacted by our justice system is not the American left engaging in racial politics - it's unraveling historic abuse, acknowledging institutional racism, etc. - addressing the problem. If the result of that is being too engaged with identity politics, and that won't get an American who discusses institutional imbalances elected, then our country has no chance at improvement.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not convinced Sanders would have been able to generate the enthusiasm he promised to win the general. He couldn't even do it to win two primaries.
I don't think the current brand of center left American politics is capable of winning nationally. It is too cucked. Too much focus on LGBT rights, women issues, and racial politics. You can go back to my old post near the start of this thread when I suggested the Democrats dial it back and nominate old white men again. I was proven right regarding how nominating a woman would go.
You're incorrigble. The social dynamics involved should be the starting point of your analysis or good luck participating in the reification of ethnicity in 'ethnic wars'.uziq wrote:
i’ll be sure to remember that the rwandan genocide was about access to water and bananas and not ethnicity.
I have nothing to add. Arguing with you is like stepping in quicksand. You may think you're going somewhere but actually you're drowning.
i have no problem acknowledging ethnic wars as a fact, and acknowledging that people do often kill one another with ethnicity in their minds, among other things.
talking about the 'reification of ethnicity' is well-meaning academese. it bespeaks the will to 'demystify' ethnicity as a concept, show it be meaningless, and hence have everyone get along. ok, sure. i also would love a communist utopia. i thought you were against deconstructionist marxists?
talking about the 'reification of ethnicity' is well-meaning academese. it bespeaks the will to 'demystify' ethnicity as a concept, show it be meaningless, and hence have everyone get along. ok, sure. i also would love a communist utopia. i thought you were against deconstructionist marxists?
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
I am not condemning the efforts made by Democrats to undue racial injustice and blah blah blah. I am saying that too many Democrat arguments and opposition to Trump/GOP is coached in social justice language. And it has the opposite intended effect. I mentioned this regarding the pandemic coverage. I see the march towards a more fair and socially equitable society as an inevitably. Instead of rubbing these changes in the face of traditionalist, the left should just quietly let these changes happen. A slower move towards a "stronger loving world" is preferable to the dysfunction we have now. Some of this dysfunction could be directly attributable to the "first woman president" people in '16.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
disagree! I don't see the center-left as focusing on LGBT rights so much as countering action taken by centrists and right wing ideology. We shouldn't have to reverse DOMA, because DOMA shouldn't have existed in the first place. It's the political establishment that is focusing on these things, and the American left that is blamed for reversing these positions. Bernie Sanders has to constantly reiterate points regarding identity politics because of systemic injustice. Talking about how black people are disproportionately impacted by our justice system is not the American left engaging in racial politics - it's unraveling historic abuse, acknowledging institutional racism, etc. - addressing the problem. If the result of that is being too engaged with identity politics, and that won't get an American who discusses institutional imbalances elected, then our country has no chance at improvement.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not convinced Sanders would have been able to generate the enthusiasm he promised to win the general. He couldn't even do it to win two primaries.
I don't think the current brand of center left American politics is capable of winning nationally. It is too cucked. Too much focus on LGBT rights, women issues, and racial politics. You can go back to my old post near the start of this thread when I suggested the Democrats dial it back and nominate old white men again. I was proven right regarding how nominating a woman would go.
Do you realise that nowhere am I contesting that people at some point start murdering eachother simply for belonging to different identity groups? Whether it be croat or serb, hutu or tutsi, iraqi sunni or shia, NI protestant or catholic. I hope you'd like to avoid splitting up every country along the ethnic, religious, tribal or other ('historical') lines people conjure. Do you see an Afghanistan reduced to its 300 tribal borders as an inevitability once that becomes the dividing line in war?uziq wrote:
i have no problem acknowledging ethnic wars as a fact, and acknowledging that people do often kill one another with ethnicity in their minds, among other things.
talking about the 'reification of ethnicity' is well-meaning academese. it bespeaks the will to 'demystify' ethnicity as a concept, show it be meaningless, and hence have everyone get along. ok, sure. i also would love a communist utopia. i thought you were against deconstructionist marxists?
Yes of fucking course the individual may have hacked his neighbours face in with a machete because he belonged to a different clan, but I hope that in the large scale mobilisation of violence you can look past such simplicities without also denying their reality. It's not mutually exclusive.
we basically agree and this has all been for nought. still it's fun and it passed a devilish hot day here on the porch.
by the way i literally have commissioned books on the balkans. the conflict is very interesting to me, away from all this gobbledygook about 'ethnic war'. and i think you confuse what 'editors' do with copy-editors/proofreaders. my job is/was not about putting full-stops at the end of sentences. you shouldn't tell editors of history to 'stick to publishing' about conversations on history. it makey no sensey!
by the way i literally have commissioned books on the balkans. the conflict is very interesting to me, away from all this gobbledygook about 'ethnic war'. and i think you confuse what 'editors' do with copy-editors/proofreaders. my job is/was not about putting full-stops at the end of sentences. you shouldn't tell editors of history to 'stick to publishing' about conversations on history. it makey no sensey!
Last edited by uziq (2020-05-20 15:22:30)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
now kissuziq wrote:
we basically agree and this has all been for nought. still it's fun and it passed a devilish hot day here on the porch.
Elections are decided by economics. Most people only care about jobs, and how they think the economy is going to do under that President. Everything else tends to be secondary. Does your candidate check a box on abortion, or LGBT issues? Sure, and that's really important to a small minority of people. The Democrats seem to be continually trying to cobble together all of the single issue voters, minorities, and the progressive elitist types and trying to win on that alone. They've alienated the middle class and the working poor because their only answer on economic policy is to tax the rich and redistribute it to people that are not the middle class or the working poor.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not convinced Sanders would have been able to generate the enthusiasm he promised to win the general. He couldn't even do it to win two primaries.
I don't think the current brand of center left American politics is capable of winning nationally. It is too cucked. Too much focus on LGBT rights, women issues, and racial politics. You can go back to my old post near the start of this thread when I suggested the Democrats dial it back and nominate old white men again. I was proven right regarding how nominating a woman would go.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
we both know that's un-godly.SuperJail Warden wrote:
now kissuziq wrote:
we basically agree and this has all been for nought. still it's fun and it passed a devilish hot day here on the porch.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
The working poor and middle class are stupid if gay politics convinced them to vote for right wing economic policy. I don't agree with the cuck politics of the democrats but I am not going to pretend that it is rational to vote away the social safety net because you don't like a mouthy young Latina politician from Brooklyn.Jay wrote:
Elections are decided by economics. Most people only care about jobs, and how they think the economy is going to do under that President. Everything else tends to be secondary. Does your candidate check a box on abortion, or LGBT issues? Sure, and that's really important to a small minority of people. The Democrats seem to be continually trying to cobble together all of the single issue voters, minorities, and the progressive elitist types and trying to win on that alone. They've alienated the middle class and the working poor because their only answer on economic policy is to tax the rich and redistribute it to people that are not the middle class or the working poor.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not convinced Sanders would have been able to generate the enthusiasm he promised to win the general. He couldn't even do it to win two primaries.
I don't think the current brand of center left American politics is capable of winning nationally. It is too cucked. Too much focus on LGBT rights, women issues, and racial politics. You can go back to my old post near the start of this thread when I suggested the Democrats dial it back and nominate old white men again. I was proven right regarding how nominating a woman would go.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
Going by the demographics of your town Jay your daughter's best friend is going to be a Latina from Honduras. Enjoying hosting Maria Fortes for a sleepover someday when AOC becomes president.
Eldest got into private school, my friend
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I did think the paragraph odd because many Republicans are single-issue voters on stuff like abortion or illegal immigration. Most Republicans I know who aren't pure anti-abortion voters are rural but run the gamut from poor to rich (ironically cause of union jobs) or rich yuppie types who predominantly already had wealthy parents.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The working poor and middle class are stupid if gay politics convinced them to vote for right wing economic policy. I don't agree with the cuck politics of the democrats but I am not going to pretend that it is rational to vote away the social safety net because you don't like a mouthy young Latina politician from Brooklyn.Jay wrote:
Elections are decided by economics. Most people only care about jobs, and how they think the economy is going to do under that President. Everything else tends to be secondary. Does your candidate check a box on abortion, or LGBT issues? Sure, and that's really important to a small minority of people. The Democrats seem to be continually trying to cobble together all of the single issue voters, minorities, and the progressive elitist types and trying to win on that alone. They've alienated the middle class and the working poor because their only answer on economic policy is to tax the rich and redistribute it to people that are not the middle class or the working poor.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not convinced Sanders would have been able to generate the enthusiasm he promised to win the general. He couldn't even do it to win two primaries.
I don't think the current brand of center left American politics is capable of winning nationally. It is too cucked. Too much focus on LGBT rights, women issues, and racial politics. You can go back to my old post near the start of this thread when I suggested the Democrats dial it back and nominate old white men again. I was proven right regarding how nominating a woman would go.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
Republican voters are the dumber of the two voter bases. A bunch of democrat voters are inspired to vote D because they want transfers from the wealthy and/or the treasury to them. The converse of of that are republican voters who want taxes reduced on their income and assets. All fine and good. The Republican base is also made up of a bunch of people who vote for symbolic reasons or take principled stands against blah blah blah. There is no democrat equivalent to constitutional conservatives. Democrats also don't commit historical abuse like conservatives tend to do by analogizing every part of history to whatever ongoing pet issue they have. I hate having to listen to some person quote a founding father out of context to disguise the fact they don't want to pay a sales tax on cigarettes or something.DesertFox- wrote:
I did think the paragraph odd because many Republicans are single-issue voters on stuff like abortion or illegal immigration. Most Republicans I know who aren't pure anti-abortion voters are rural but run the gamut from poor to rich (ironically cause of union jobs) or rich yuppie types who predominantly already had wealthy parents.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The working poor and middle class are stupid if gay politics convinced them to vote for right wing economic policy. I don't agree with the cuck politics of the democrats but I am not going to pretend that it is rational to vote away the social safety net because you don't like a mouthy young Latina politician from Brooklyn.Jay wrote:
Elections are decided by economics. Most people only care about jobs, and how they think the economy is going to do under that President. Everything else tends to be secondary. Does your candidate check a box on abortion, or LGBT issues? Sure, and that's really important to a small minority of people. The Democrats seem to be continually trying to cobble together all of the single issue voters, minorities, and the progressive elitist types and trying to win on that alone. They've alienated the middle class and the working poor because their only answer on economic policy is to tax the rich and redistribute it to people that are not the middle class or the working poor.
Roughly 40% of voters are independent and don't generally care about single issues that much. If they did they would likely be in a party already. Even within the parties, there are a lot of legacy voters that don't buy the entire party platform. Black people, for instance, tend to be lukewarm at best towards LGBT issues yet vote Democrat anyway. People's #1 issue on every poll is always the economy and jobs.DesertFox- wrote:
I did think the paragraph odd because many Republicans are single-issue voters on stuff like abortion or illegal immigration. Most Republicans I know who aren't pure anti-abortion voters are rural but run the gamut from poor to rich (ironically cause of union jobs) or rich yuppie types who predominantly already had wealthy parents.SuperJail Warden wrote:
The working poor and middle class are stupid if gay politics convinced them to vote for right wing economic policy. I don't agree with the cuck politics of the democrats but I am not going to pretend that it is rational to vote away the social safety net because you don't like a mouthy young Latina politician from Brooklyn.Jay wrote:
Elections are decided by economics. Most people only care about jobs, and how they think the economy is going to do under that President. Everything else tends to be secondary. Does your candidate check a box on abortion, or LGBT issues? Sure, and that's really important to a small minority of people. The Democrats seem to be continually trying to cobble together all of the single issue voters, minorities, and the progressive elitist types and trying to win on that alone. They've alienated the middle class and the working poor because their only answer on economic policy is to tax the rich and redistribute it to people that are not the middle class or the working poor.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i would rather read larssen and uzi's homoerotica than the last 10 posts in this thread.
Simpletons with simple worldviews offer simple reasons why people are so simple.
Duh, bro, it's just the economy! I saw it on an episode of west wing once!
Simpletons with simple worldviews offer simple reasons why people are so simple.
Duh, bro, it's just the economy! I saw it on an episode of west wing once!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3988
Your post was bad too.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i would rather read larssen and uzi's homoerotica than the last 10 posts in this thread.
Simpletons with simple worldviews offer simple reasons why people are so simple.
Duh, bro, it's just the economy! I saw it on an episode of west wing once!
Yeah, fight the man, man. Fight it real hard from your IT security director position in your multinational corporation. Yeah. I'm so fucking hard man, I grew up in the OC. Shit was real. I know them boys up in Compton just need to read them some Howard Zinn and we could start a revolution together! Yeah!KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
i would rather read larssen and uzi's homoerotica than the last 10 posts in this thread.
Simpletons with simple worldviews offer simple reasons why people are so simple.
Duh, bro, it's just the economy! I saw it on an episode of west wing once!
Please. You're the biggest hypocrite here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
aww come rest your fat noggin gently on my bosom. I'll feed you a warm bottle of milk, read you some beatrix potter and rock you to sleep.
You like to tell people why they do the things they do. It's all chaos and entropy and money.
Politics is more than checking boxes and issues. If anything, we should be unraveling complex interactions, not reducing them.
You like to tell people why they do the things they do. It's all chaos and entropy and money.
Politics is more than checking boxes and issues. If anything, we should be unraveling complex interactions, not reducing them.
It may work with your therapist one on one, rather more difficult to do with something as broad as politics.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
no, not really. It's a matter of want. If you want to understand someone or something, you take the time to learn. If you don't, you file them away according to your own dewey decimal system.
Sure, one on one that works. Does it work at any level above the hyper-local? Even at the county level you are just a demographic with an averaged expected reaction on x issue.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
no, not really. It's a matter of want. If you want to understand someone or something, you take the time to learn. If you don't, you file them away according to your own dewey decimal system.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat