Wednesday, 18 January 2017

"The nihilistic purity of the far left will kill us all."

quote [ I’ve been angry and disgusted about a lot of things since Election Day. But over the past few days I’ve been angrier than Jack Nicholson’s character from The Shining to see all these so-called “progressives” come out of the fucking woodwork to crucify Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) for voting against one amendment to a budget reconciliation bill that could have allowed Americans to buy cheaper imported prescription drugs from Canada — even though the amendment wasn’t going to become law ]

I'm not sure I endorse these sentiments, but let's have a spirited discussion about them!
[SFW] [politics] [0 Overrated]
[by lrdcthulu@5:26pmGMT]


steele said @ 5:37pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:5 Underrated]
"Far Left" in America 😂 I must've missed the day when all the Bernie Bro's were demanding we rise up and seize the means of production.

"We want a living wage so we don't go hungry! We want healthcare as a right so we don't go bankrupt if we get sick! We want the education we need to compete in the global economy!"

Fucking radicals.
LurkerAtTheGate said @ 5:54pm GMT on 18th Jan
And the group about to take power seems to respond with 'Fuck you! Fuck you! Fuck the global economy!' which I understand the first two but that third seems like it might backfire on 'em.
steele said @ 5:58pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:3 Insightful]
If my choices were presented as "Fuck the Global Economy!" or "Come! Be slaves in the global economy." I would also probably lean towards "Fuck the Global Economy!"
kylemcbitch said @ 8:20pm GMT on 18th Jan
I am loving the fact that Bernie being in support of a bill that a woman wrote is somehow proof that his supporters are sexist.

The amount of spin on this is fucking shameless.
steele said @ 8:34pm GMT on 18th Jan
We mustn't let American politics actually move to the left, next thing you know they'll demand to be treated like human beings!
kylemcbitch said @ 8:36pm GMT on 18th Jan
I really hope someone paid the author to write this. The idea that someone could honestly be this stupid is a troubling one.
steele said @ 8:52pm GMT on 18th Jan
I wouldn't say stupid. Some people just prefer the negative peace to the suffering required for positive peace. Nothing new there.
kylemcbitch said @ 8:55pm GMT on 18th Jan
I am sorry, but it's one thing to prefer something it's another to do absolutely no homework and to cover that fact try hiding it by front loading the conversation that anyone who'd disagree is a sexist.

Stupid is the only word I can think for this, because even if you agree with the underlying reason someone might do that it's incompetent.
sanepride said @ 11:00pm GMT on 18th Jan
If only these common-sense reforms weren't actually regarded as radical by mainstream voting America. Despite the relative popularity of Bernie Sanders and his agenda in the Democratic primaries, this is the ultimate lesson from this last election.
steele said @ 11:14pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Funsightful]
I call bullshit. Guy got 40% in the democratic primary while being portrayed as a fringe candidate and that's when he wasn't being ignored. As with the NYT article... Hell, as with Trump... you and many others don't seem to get how story presentation and frequency affects the electorate. You're analog in a digital world, sanepride.

The lesson is y'all need to get your heads out your asses and realize that as long as you're letting the far right dictate the conversation the center of gravity is always going to be in the right. That's why you need an actual far left instead of right lite. Concessions (aka incrementalism) will never be farther left than neoliberals will let them be. You shoot yourself in the foot by supporting them.
sanepride said @ 12:08am GMT on 19th Jan
Y'know what the real problem with incrementalism is? It takes too damn long. I don't like that inconvenient truth any more than you, and yet, your dreams of some kind of dramatic shift towards popular progressivism just seems to keep running into a brick wall, in this case a brick wall named 'Trump' and the 114th fucking Congress. I mean, don't stop hoping and organizing but in the end its the results that count- y'know the people who actually go and vote (or don't). You go ahead and blame the 'story presentation' (I assume you refer to the mainstream media, just like the right). If it's really that simple to affect the electorate into rejecting a sensible, progressive candidate (I'm talking about Sanders here) and in the end elect a sociopathic neo-fascist, than you have an even bigger uphill struggle than you realize.
Now the nice thing about incrementalism is that it accounts for steps backward, maybe ground can be won back. Meanwhile the hope of sweeping revolutionary progress seems more and more like that elusive million dollar lottery ticket. Just so you know, despite the improbable odds, I'm still rooting for it.
steele said @ 12:34am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2 Underrated]
LMAO! What results? Democrats control the governments of 4, count them! 4 states! Everything else is Republican controlled Legislature and/or Republican Governor. The House, The Senate, The Executive branch, REPUBLICAN! There is your results. There's where incrementalism got you. Yes, forever is too damn long.
sanepride said @ 1:12am GMT on 19th Jan
Laugh away comrade. Yep, it's a vast sea of Republicans, at the state and national levels. A definitive repudiation of incrementalism? Maybe. But not exactly conditions ripe for dramatic, progressive revolution, or whatever the hell you consider the alternative.
steele said @ 1:22am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Interesting]
Not with that attitude. But the attitude of revolution, protests, and resistance that's spreading all over social media? Yeah, I can work with that attitude. I'm more hopeful now than I have been in years.
sanepride said @ 1:29am GMT on 19th Jan
OK, let's just see if it makes the jump from social media to IRL.
My 'attitude' may be tempered by what I've already seen, but I'd be happy to be wrong about this.
hellboy said @ 4:30am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
If that's the lesson you learned you haven't been paying very good attention.

Sanders did well in spite of being the oldest candidate, being the only Jew, his lack of religious beliefs, his lifelong socialism, his lack of big donors, his complete lack of establishment support, almost zero endorsements, and his appalling deficit in media coverage. He gave the most well-funded, widely-endorsed candidate in history a serious scare. Imagine what someone like Obama could have done with that same agenda.

If you poll Americans and ask them if they think the government should help pay for medicine, if they think everyone should be able to get a good education, if they think people should be able to make a living working just one job, if they think the government should protect people from going bankrupt from medical bills, if they think people should be able to get healthcare insurance even if they've been sick before - if you avoid all the poisoned buzzwords like "socialized medicine" and "Obamacare" - most Americans are in favor of the progressive agenda. Even a lot of Trump voters. It's just that hardly anyone in DC is really trying to give it to them.
sanepride said[1] @ 5:00am GMT on 19th Jan
Sure, under all those circumstances Bernie did amazingly well, but he still lost. And while I probably can't convince you that his primary loss was due to anything other than shenanigans by the DNC, the Clinton organization, and their media lackeys, it's the numbers that count in the end, just like in the general election.
As for this wishful idea that 'most Americans' support the progressive agenda, I find this a dubious claim at best. I'd like to think we're moving in the direction that most Americans will come around in a generation or so, but no matter how you phrase it, you've still got vast swaths of electorate- many actually even dependent on government entitlements- who still deride the 'free stuff', or maybe they take it and just deride it when it's meant for 'those other people'. You don't have to use buzzwords, they'll be suspicious of anything having to do with gub'ment.
Sad fact is outside of the educated elite enclaves of the coasts and the cities, this is a country of angry, resentful, religious regressives. They may not be a true popular majority, but they sure as hell are an electoral plurality, and in the end that's what counts.
hellboy said[1] @ 5:19am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
Yeah, he lost - because she started with a 20 mile headstart. Warren would have destroyed her.

Those issue positions are not a wishful idea on my part, that's what consistently happens when you ask the right poll questions. Plenty of angry, resentful religious regressives want those things too. That's why you keep hearing people say they want to get rid of Obamacare but they want to keep the Affordable Care Act. Because they bought into the marketing.

The America that voted for Trump is essentially the same America that voted for Obama twice.
steele said @ 2:38pm GMT on 19th Jan
Where's my +1 Fire! 🔥🔥🔥🔥?
sanepride said @ 3:08pm GMT on 19th Jan
So the key I guess is to trick people into accepting what they really want, or at least what's good for them.
HoZay said @ 3:49pm GMT on 19th Jan
They voted for Obama, but then immediately voted for republican congress to make sure all those issues they favor would fail.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:21am GMT on 20th Jan
It's almost like idiots are easily swayed or something.
lilmookieesquire said @ 11:12pm GMT on 18th Jan
MFW Europe is radical.
sanepride said @ 11:48pm GMT on 18th Jan
In the eyes of mainstream voting America, yes MFW Europe is radical.
foobar said @ 11:55pm GMT on 18th Jan
MFW old man is old.
sanepride said @ 12:29am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:0 Underrated]
GTFO my lawn.
foobar said @ 12:31am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:0 Funsightful]
Well at least you know what that one means. ;)
bbqkink said @ 2:32am GMT on 19th Jan
That is the other thing Progressives act like the are a large voting block...we are 40% of the Democratic party and only 2/3 of them vote.We have to build coalitions, I keep bring up doesn't have to be blacks.

I keep saying this 80 % of the country makes less than $100,000

Forty-two percent of U.S. workers make less than $15 per hour.

If you can't find a constituency there you should turn in your politician card.
lilmookieesquire said @ 7:08am GMT on 19th Jan
That's because America has shifted right.
lilmookieesquire said @ 10:01pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:2 Underrated]
I think this guy is missing a major point that Bernie attracted a lot of libertarian (republican lite) learning people. Hilary didn't lose the election because of a few Bernie Bros. She lost the election because she had a weak platform and had no hook beyond "I'm not Trump". If that's your hook, that means your platform isn't attractive to enough voters.

If Hilary couldn't beat an unknown Obama, barely beat an 80 year old politician and actually lost the election to Trump... maybe that's on the democrats and their platform? Hilary is a policy wonk but trying to be a political figurehead is playing towards her weaknesses (she speaks like she is addressing the Harvard debate club).

Maybe if this guy wants to be mad, he should be mad that the democrats pissed away a once-in-my-lifetime-chance to swing the SCOTUS left. Or maybe he should be mad at the absolute failings of the American media.
eidolon said @ 10:19pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
The backlash against "identity politics" can be summed up pretty well by libertarian social liberalism. To a libertarian, it is enough that they don't actively oppress you themselves. As long as they don't fight to stop you from getting gay married, they feel they've done enough. They feel no obligation to fight for your right to get gay married.

Their social liberalism is very literally the do-nothing kind. On paper it might not sound so bad, but history shows that doing nothing to directly contribute to oppression helps it to flourish.

I don't think it's a secret I am not a fan of libertarianism. It depends on this idea that I can have my own little space and as long as I don't hurt anyone everything will be fine and I can trust that everyone else will do the same. It never works that way. Their idea that all our social services can somehow be broken up into discreet private units (so no government-controlled trash pick-up, private utilities which maybe have different infrastructure standards, all that jazz) sounds good in a very small box kind of way. When you open that box and spill its contents out into the world, it does not work.

I do believe that people are basically good. I believe that most of them would just leave eachother alone and do, if not the right thing, nothing too horrid. But the key word is most. A small percentage of people going off the rails is all it takes to drag us all under. We need a structured system that accounts for them and minimizes the damage. That system, by definition, would have to be proactive in the way a do-nothing do-gooder will never be.

At their best libertarians believe in a peaceable kingdom where everyone minds their own business and doesn't do anybody any harm. At their worst they're the sort who say, "I've got mine, screw you. It's good enough that I didn't actively hurt you, I have no obligation to help you."

Then again, maybe that's just the flavor of libertarianism I encounter in my neck of the woods. We all know the adage: A conservative in the south is a fascist in the northeast, and a liberal in the northeast is a communist in the south. Our right/left political scale is much less absolute in its cutoff points than would be convenient for us. This is part of why I think we should get to vote on a list of questions that all politicians would be forced to answer so that we can tell our reps exactly what it is we care about, and have them tell us what they'll do about it. That would be the sort of comprehensive and informed voting which might really help us.
sanepride said @ 12:19am GMT on 19th Jan
She lost the election because she had a weak platform and had no hook beyond "I'm not Trump"

...and beset by a campaign of false scandals and innuendo, and a policy wonk instead of a populist fear monger, and voter suppression, and...let's see, what am I forgetting...oh yeah, MISOGYNY.
hellboy said @ 1:28am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:3 Underrated]
Stop making excuses for the fact that you guys ran a SHITTY CANDIDATE.
sanepride said @ 1:37am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Insightful]
Shitty because she lost? I can accept that, but by that standard Sanders was also a shitty candidate. But if you mean shitty because that was how she was defined by ideological and misogynistic detractors on the left and the right- well that's not so much an excuse as an ongoing fact of life.
hellboy said @ 5:15am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2]
Mookie's right, she never developed a coherent, compelling campaign message beyond "this time it really is my turn" and "isn't Trump awful". In the very first debate she was asked how she would be different from a third term of President Obama and her answer was that the biggest difference was obvious: she was a woman. She never came up with a better answer. If Obama had said people should vote for him because he would be the first black president, we wouldn't have had a black president—not because of racism but because identity politics is a shitty way to win elections.

She was the second-least popular candidate in the history of modern American polling (you can guess who was first). You can blame some of that on misogyny and Republican vindictiveness, but plenty of it is her own fault. She has her husband's knack for self-inflicted wounds and her husband's inability to take responsibility for her own mistakes (until it's too late).

She ran as the most establishment candidate ever in a change election and came in with the baggage of NAFTA, DOMA, welfare reform, and Iraq.

She won the Democratic nomination by clearing the field of any serious opposition before it even started and by buying off the party through the Clinton Victory Fund and by stacking the DNC with Clinton loyalists and still nearly lost to an elderly socialist Jew no one had heard of (and who barely got any media coverage despite pulling the largest crowds of any candidate by far and having the highest approval rating of any candidate in any party); meanwhile, Trump walked through all 36 Republican candidates like they were made of tissue paper.

She ran the most expensive presidential campaign in history against someone who had no fundraising, no campaign staff, no ground game, and barely the support of his own party, and then her campaign didn't even listen to their own operatives in the battleground states she lost.

Most of all she lost because of the exact same mistake that Democrats keep making over and over again: thinking that resume is everything. The most crucial lesson of political campaigns that the DNC has never, ever managed to learn is this: in every single presidential election going back to 1972, the more emotionally compelling candidate has won. Trump was compelling. Unless you drank a septic tank full of DNC Koolaid, Clinton was not.
HoZay said @ 5:33am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2]
Sounds like policy and platform don't mean dick against compelling bullshit.
sanepride said @ 5:41am GMT on 19th Jan
And the sad thing is there's really something to this. Trump won because people voted with their hearts and not their heads. And despite the fact that this same paradigm may have also carried Obama to victory, twice, it also demonstrates how ultimately fickle and pliable the electorate is.
King Of The Hill said @ 6:24am GMT on 20th Jan
Head versus heart?


What about the rational people that couldn't vote for either candidate or chose a 3rd option?
sanepride said @ 4:37pm GMT on 20th Jan
I guess that's case-by-case. But I think the great Naomi Chomsky summed it up best when he said they made a terrible mistake (referring mainly to the anti-Clinton progressives).
foobar said @ 6:05am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Good]
Sanders didn't exactly lose, though, did he? There wasn't a free and fair primary, and he wasn't permitted to run in the real election.
sanepride said @ 6:43am GMT on 19th Jan
A lot of die-hard Sanders supporters make this argument. Maybe just because he's a good sport, but Sanders doesn't, he concedes that he lost- if not a fully fair primary, at least fair enough that his vote deficit was insurmountable.
But if you want to make that argument, then you can say that Clinton really didn't lose either- and she even got more popular votes. And yet...
foobar said @ 7:10am GMT on 19th Jan
Well, Clinton did lose the election as intended. I don't think you can argue that it's intended for the DNC to just pick the winner of the primary.

You can argue that Sanders wouldn't have won anyway, but he didn't get that chance.
sanepride said @ 3:21pm GMT on 19th Jan
I think the fundamental point of disagreement between me and the Sanders/Stein contingent here is that question of whether the broad electorate is really ready to embrace a platform as thoroughly progressive as Sanders offered. Whatever shenanigans the DNC may have played in the process I contend the actual vote suggests even registered Democrats aren't. Bernie did amazingly well, but in the end it just wasn't really that close.
foobar said @ 10:41pm GMT on 19th Jan
It would have been nice to find out.
Hactar said @ 1:08am GMT on 20th Jan
He won the democratic primaries by just about the same number of votes that Donald Trump won the election by: -3 million. I personally like my election results to actually represent the will of the people, but I guess we need to agree to disagree on that.
foobar said @ 1:56am GMT on 20th Jan
I didn't say he won, I'm just pointing out that he didn't lose either.
sanepride said @ 3:53am GMT on 20th Jan
Sorry, but not winning = losing.
foobar said @ 4:08am GMT on 20th Jan
No it doesn't. It's possible for there to be no clear winner.
sanepride said @ 4:28pm GMT on 20th Jan
I guess it's possible, but in this case we have a guy who is clearly going to be President for the next four years, who happens to be the antithesis of progressive values.
foobar said @ 8:31pm GMT on 20th Jan
Perhaps if the Democratic primary had been, well, democratic, that wouldn't have happened.
lilmookieesquire said @ 7:06am GMT on 19th Jan

1111 said @ 2:41am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:-1 WTF]
filtered comment under your threshold
eidolon said @ 5:06am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1]
I can't even parse this comment.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:40pm GMT on 19th Jan
I am glad I am not the only one at a total loss.
sanepride said @ 3:29am GMT on 19th Jan
The fact that India and even Pakistan can elect female leaders and we can't just makes it more pathetic.
"Trump that bitch"
Enough said.
HoZay said @ 5:37am GMT on 19th Jan
She lost the election because she had a weak platform
She ran on the most progressive platform ever. The platform never got any publicity because emails etc.
kylemcbitch said @ 2:33am GMT on 20th Jan
She ran on a progressive platform that people couldn't take seriously because of who she was. You can have the right message, but if the messenger suck the messenger sucks.
eidolon said[2] @ 6:44pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
I consider myself far left and unfortunately agree with many views in this article, though the anger and fervor are a turnoff for me. You all know what you did, if you haven't learned by now, a stern lecture isn't going to stop you.

I will highlight this particular passage because we saw and continue to see demonstrated here on SE: the large Bernie Bro/Zealot/Never Hillary cult made it clear that anyone who didn’t worship at the altar of Saint Bernie Sanders wasn’t a “real progressive” and therefore wasn’t worthy of their support unless they cleared an impossibly high bar.

We can be equally progressive but disagree on where progress needs to be made and how it ought to be made. I have nothing against, for instance, education, I simply do not believe it is the silver bullet that will improve all our lives. The law of supply and demand dictates that the more degrees we earn, the less any individual degree is worth. The idea that it creates an educated voter base is also misplaced because people aren't getting a degree to become philosopher kings, they are doing it to earn money because that is the message they have always received (and one my professor friends hate).

On the issue of Sanders' voting record, I had pointed this out before that his record was quite comparable to Clinton's, yet she was nailed to the wall for things Sanders got a pass on. It gave the appearance that his most fervent voters had two primary motivations they might not admit even to themselves: 1) Excuse their own debts to enrich themselves, everyone else be damned, and 2) Keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.

Some of the people who consider themselves the most progressive, when you look at what they wanted and who benefited, were the primary beneficiaries of the policies they championed. That means these people happened to align with the left, but under other circumstances, they would not have. Their motivations were selfish and it sickens me to be lectured by someone claiming to be selfless when they are anything but.

To put it another way, a poor person demanding help for the poor is correct and on the right side of history. However, that very same poor person, if they were rich, might change their tune, meaning they are not a progressive. If wealth did not change their position, then there's a better change their motives were pure.

Ultimately, there are no outsider politicians, only outsiders. To be a politician is an education and skillset, and simply being elected does not make one any good at those things, only years of service of will. This is a sick game, and it has its own abhorrent rules. Sanders knew that because he's not an outsider, he's a politician, just like any other halfway reasonable choice for the presidency. And just like them, his record will have blemishes on it. His supporters would not have been so insufferable if they would have just admitted and accepted that, realized that political purity is no more real than any other sort of human purity.

Politics is a sick game and you don't win by refusing to play.

Agree or disagree with anything else I have said, but listen when I tell you this: our best chance of seeing laws made against obstructionism is if the left obstructs as aggressively as the right has. When they do it, it's patriotic, when we do it, we're breaking the government and have to be stopped, even if that means government intervention.

Let's play by their shitty rules until they make laws to stop us (and consequently themselves).
foobar said[1] @ 10:17pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
Most of the people supporting Bernie would have happily also voted for someone like Warren, or any other progressive. This wasn't a Sanders/Clinton split, it was a progressive/neoliberal split.

I couldn't agree more with you on obstructionism. The left needs to take the gloves off and stop trying to deal reasonably with unreasonable people.
eidolon said @ 10:21pm GMT on 18th Jan
Could you please explain to me, in your own words, what you believe progressives are, what neoliberals are, what they have in common, and why they fail to find common ground.

This is not some challenge. I am not trying to make a point. I wish to understand your worldview. No articles. No citations. No sources. Those things don't vote. You do.

I want to understand.
foobar said @ 11:54pm GMT on 18th Jan [Score:2]
Neoliberals, aka the third way, are fiscal conservatives who will campaign on progressive causes to get elected, but who will not implement them if they challenge current power structures in any way. Obama is a good example of one; he helped LGBT causes, but favoured the banks over the people when restructuring the failed Bush economy, and was only willing to reform health care in so much as insurance companies could profit off of it.

Progressives are those who push humanity to improve itself, and thus cannot have a static definition or set of goals. More will be found as others are achieved.
sanepride said[1] @ 1:45am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:2 Informative]
FYI- the the actual definition of Neoliberalism, which bears only glancing resemblance to your fanciful explanation.
Nothing to do with modern ideological liberalism or progressive social causes, it's pretty much an economic philosophy that emphasized free markets, minimal governmental regulation, and unfettered trade. Much as you love to call Hillary Clinton and Obama 'Neoliberals', the term might be more accurately applied to someone like Paul Ryan or the Koch brothers. And yes, I recognize that you may draw little distinction between all these people.
foobar said @ 6:03am GMT on 19th Jan
Well, she asked me to put it in my own words, without outside reference. So I did.

I think it's fair to call foul on referencing Wikipedia here. It has a rather unfortunately extreme bias towards American libertarianism, and so isn't all that good on political philosophy.

Ryan and the Kochs are neoconservatives, which, granted, are just the social conservative mirror of neoliberals. They mouth social conservative viewpoints, but only enact them where there's no cost to their real financial goals.
sanepride said @ 6:38am GMT on 19th Jan
You're a little off on Neoconservatism as well. From an economic standpoint it's close to Neoliberalism- free market, minimal regulation, etc,, but with an extra dose of aggressive interventionalist foreign policy- exemplified by the Bush Doctrine. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Bolton would be better examples.
As for your perceived bias of Wikipedia- last I checked it was still basically crowd-sourced. There may be biases here and there- but American libertarianism? First I've heard that one.
foobar said @ 7:06am GMT on 19th Jan
It doesn't seem like we disagree much. Both are corporatist, fiscal conservative ideologies. One pretends to be socially conservative, and the other socially progressive, but neither do much more than pay lip service. I'm not sure I see much difference between Cheney and the Kochs, and neoliberals bomb just as many hospitals.

Crowd sourcing ultimately reflects the crowd one is sourcing from.
sanepride said @ 3:07pm GMT on 19th Jan
Mainly the difference is in foreign policy and interventionism. I think where we disagree is applying the term to centrist Democrats like Clinton or Obama. I guess if you want to use it as a pejorative, as opposed to an accurate ideological label, I can understand that. But I think it helps to know that the term 'Neoliberal' dates back to the early 20th Century and really has nothing to do with modern political liberalism.
Maybe the confusion arises from Bill Clinton's label as a 'New Democrat'- breaking with traditional Democratic economic liberalism and embracing centrist policies on economic policies while retaining general social liberalism.
foobar said @ 10:41pm GMT on 19th Jan
Is there that much difference, though? Obama didn't start any new wars (well, except Libya), but he's continued all of Bush's to this day.

I'm not the only one that treats neoliberal as synonymous with the third way.
sanepride said @ 3:49am GMT on 20th Jan
Obama did scale back Bush's wars, and he did very pointedly decline getting involved in Syria. But what distinguishes him from the neocons is the emphatic rejection of regime change by force.
And yes, you're not the only one using the term neoliberal in this way, seems there's a concerted effort at redefining.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 7:14pm GMT on 18th Jan
Sorry, I couldn't even get past the first paragraph before I rolled my eyes. Cory Booker is being crucified for a reason.

It just so happened that Booker’s vote took place on the same day he took the UNPRECEDENTED step in testifying against Sen. Jeff Sessions

Really, that's the excuse? Booker couldn't vote yes because he had to fight Sessions? Get the fuck out my face with that bullshit?

Not to mention that Booker and the other 12 Democratic Senators that voted against Klobuchar’s amendment voted in favor of a very similar amendment proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

And this bullshit. We've passed something exactly like the Wyden amendment twice. We know exactly why it doesn't work, and that is exactly why the Republicans who crossed the aisle for one of these votes didn't cross for the other.

But this author like so many apologist for Democrats is banking on the fact the average reader apparently lives in a fog that doesn't allow them to remember as far back as 2007, and keeps them from spending an hour on google.

Yeah, I can't take anything in this seriously. Sorry. This isn't trying to start a conversation, this is some whiny asshole trying to blame people who can read for the fact they can't and don't understand the issue except in the most superficial of ways.

Let me put this as plainly as possible: Any time someone brings up the Wyden amendment I reminded of the term "useful idiot." That was literally nothing more than a naked attempt to vote for something we know can't work (because we've been told it' impossible by the people who'd be responsible for doing it) just so those that voted for it can say they didn't really vote to block access to cheaper medication.

You can not possibly work in Washington, on healthcare legislation, and not be aware of this admission, or the prior two laws that made the admission a thing in the first place.

But please, tell me how holding someone responsible for that is sexist (because Sander's argued for a bill written by a woman? Are you fucking high?), or ignorant?
King Of The Hill said @ 6:28am GMT on 20th Jan
The author failed to mention (unless I didn't catch it) that Booker was the democrat with the highest campaign contributions from big pharma...

Wonder why he voted the way he did? That he can get away with it, even on a mostly symbolic vote should be what pisses people off.
Ussmak said @ 7:29pm GMT on 18th Jan
I myself was personally demonized all over the fucking place this election by 'progressives' for daring to say that Hillary STEALING the nomination wasn't just going to assure a Trump win, but that it was going to kill the democratic party outright.

Then people started supporting Antifa, and proved me right once again.

Enjoy your doom Neo-Libs. Now go ahead and argue about identity politics some more and how white men are responsible for all the evils in the world.
kylemcbitch said @ 7:51pm GMT on 18th Jan
Just gonna leave this here...
eidolon said @ 10:09pm GMT on 18th Jan
Which one do you think is the asshole here?
kylemcbitch said @ 10:20pm GMT on 18th Jan
I make no excuses, I am an asshole. However, at least I am not a stupid asshole.
eidolon said @ 10:36pm GMT on 18th Jan
You didn't ask for my advice. Feel free to ignore it. If you take nothing else away from this, it should only be that I care.

I do not recommend responding to the fans except to give gratitude for their attention. Do not engage with critical fans unless you really like to walk on beds of nails (in which case, Charlie Sheen it harder than Charlie Sheen).

When faced with criticism, your best bets are: Either say nothing (engaging them validates them and will often result in you looking like a jerk even if they also look like a jerk), or apologize in a way that sounds sincere. Note you do not have to change your behavior at all, just feeling that they were listened to and you cared enough to address their concerns in a kind way is enough to appease many critics.

They are only lashing out because they feel powerless and picked on. They were usually already sad about how life is going, and something you said or did added to it. You happen to become the target they chose to vent it all over because they can vent at you without destroying their friendships, career, or family. Your objectification gives them a sort of power. If you are famous enough, they don't even think of you are a real person, but as more of a mythic figure, and they don't necessarily believe you will read their message. They're just shouting into a void. Haven't we all at some point? If we're being honest with ourselves, yes, we have.

My catharsis came when I was taunting a drowning man who I didn't realize was earnestly drowning, who I didn't understand needed compassion and real help. I just assumed that because he was in a position of great power, he never needed help, but those are the people who most need help and who receive it the least. I wrote him a manual, which is now widely used at a large company, for dealing with media shit storms. I will always feel guilty for treating him as something both more and less than human, but as a result, I will always forgive people who do the same to me. It's human nature.

Just because you and I don't agree about a number of things does not mean I do not wish to see you succeed. You're a funny person who often makes me laugh, and I hope you find great success in your calling.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:03pm GMT on 18th Jan
I appreciate the advice, however asking any comedian to apologize sincerely for a joke is sort of like asking someone to clean up the confetti from a parade thrown in my honor. If a stupid person is offended by something I said, that usually means I am on the right track.

Now I get they might just be lashing out because they feel powerless. That doesn't mean I am going to respect their right to demand adherence to their worldview completely unchallenged. I don't NOT sympathize with their anger, but letting people get away with unleashing it for no fucking reason is not an option. As you are you are saying to Foobar, these people vote.
eidolon said @ 11:26pm GMT on 18th Jan
I disagree with you about them being stupid. A black man offended by a lynching joke isn't stupid. A comedian who makes one might be.

What's stupid is that they think the comedian who would make such a joke gives a shit that he hurts other people with his words.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 11:30pm GMT on 18th Jan
You're right, it fucking stupid to think that! I am glad we can agree. Clearly if I am forced to defend a joke I am going to use comedy in my defence. Do stupid shit, get stupid results?

Now, as for the lynching shit. If someone made such a joke, I'd have to hear it before I could say it's wrong. Blanket statements are the domain of idiots. Chris Rock makes lynching jokes. I've have person seen lynchings jokes that make fun of the lynchers for being hateful fucking idiots.

As far as not being idiots, we'll have to beg to differ. I generally find people that accuse me of shit they made up wholecloth to fucking idiots.
Ussmak said @ 10:10pm GMT on 18th Jan
I'm not reading all that shit because you're mad that your party has been exposed for the incompetent hypocrites they are.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:17pm GMT on 18th Jan
Who the fuck do you think I am?
foobar said @ 10:15pm GMT on 18th Jan
Not sure if that's a mistake or if you actually think progressives and neoliberals are the same thing.
Ussmak said @ 11:08pm GMT on 18th Jan
Seeing as how progressive as a term was co-opted by neo-liberals, and then used as bludgeon to crush any dissent to their schemes, yeah, it's the same fucking thing now.
foobar said @ 11:47pm GMT on 18th Jan
Who do you think neo-liberals are, and what do you think their schemes are.
Ussmak said @ 12:26am GMT on 19th Jan
The base of Clinton that began the process of tanking the party back in the 90's. Politico's who say they want equality, social uplifting and scientific advancement, but in reality, support authoritarianism, social deconstruction and scientific intolerance.

Basically just like Neo-Conservatives, only instead of lying about fiscal policy, they lie about social policy.

Now, go on and call me a racist, homophobic madman who just wants to watch people of color be enslaved so I can buy another Ford pickup.
foobar said @ 12:34am GMT on 19th Jan
Ok, but I'm not sure where the "social deconstruction" or "scientific intolerance" is.
sanepride said[1] @ 1:51am GMT on 19th Jan [Score:1 Underrated]
In this context I'm gonna guess that 'social deconstruction' = racial justice (and/or LGBTQ rights) and 'scientific intolerance' = anthropogenic climate change is established fact
foobar said @ 5:01am GMT on 19th Jan
I was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt...
bbqkink said[1] @ 10:56pm GMT on 18th Jan
Well I warned you folks...The Black vote is neither progressive or Liberal. It is highly religious and tribal. And progressives dared to attack the second most notable black politician.

The only way to deal with this is as a populist...if you use the established left vs. right mantra you will lose...expect more of this.


80% of the American people make less than $100,000 a year.
It doesn't matter your race color or creed. And if you think that your vote should be made for any other are being played!

If progressive can't make this argument they will lose.
kylemcbitch said @ 12:28am GMT on 19th Jan
Black people vote in a bloc, but I am not sure I am ready to ascribe more to it than that. It's not like the people who were not encouraged to vote were all white. Plenty of black people didn't vote at all. In fact, there much ado made about it in the media.

A simple google search for "black millennials voting" and you will see a number of late in the season pandering to their votes.

I am sure to some, if not many can understand not voting for someone you don't believe represents your views. It remains to be seen if they believe Cory Booker is that man.
bbqkink said @ 1:08am GMT on 19th Jan
I am not going down this rabbit hole with you again.

Progressives haven't made the sale with black voters because the churches control the vote and 3rd way Democrats have long standing relationships with them. If progressives can't find a way to communicate directly and make the populist case they will lose in the primaries. And if they rely on the black vote they will lose in the general.
kylemcbitch said[1] @ 1:13am GMT on 19th Jan
Because the progressive caucus has some sort of bad record when it comes to black issues? I am thinking this is a paper tiger, sir.
bbqkink said @ 1:22am GMT on 19th Jan
No because they don't pay as well as the 3rd way and black preachers need all the help they can get.

Black women are the reason Hillary won.
kylemcbitch said @ 1:28am GMT on 19th Jan
Can't blame me for a problem I can't possibly fix. The religious has been fleecing their congregations since the invention of religion. It's shouldn't be difficult to figure out you can be religious and not in the pocket of someone.

If a democrat can't be elected because they are compromised in such a way, I have every faith in the black community to find among their ranks people who are not.
bbqkink said[1] @ 2:17am GMT on 19th Jan
The third way has been regulars in black churches for decades...they usually screw them over but they go there and promise. The trick is take the churches out of the chain. Go directly to the barber shops, the beauty parlors, the gambling clubs and the gin joints, and the union halls...go the with an economic message.

HoZay said[1] @ 9:08am GMT on 19th Jan
You must be high as fuck right now. I want to see you at the barber shop explaining how identity politics is ruining the country.
bbqkink said @ 9:38pm GMT on 19th Jan
Man The neighborhood I live in is about a 50/50 mix black and white with an occasional Hispanic thrown in for good measure. And although I don't go to the barbershop we spend a lot of time on the porches and the topic does come up.

And I do believe there was one guy who did that last time.


I will repeat if you can't make the ecnomic message over the identity message you will lose. and if the media aren't going to let you make it on the news you need to get it out somewhere else...and if you are trying to talk to black folks you are going to have to go where they hang and barbershops are the first things that comes to mind.

HoZay said @ 10:25pm GMT on 19th Jan
I just think that whole identity politics is a RW talking point intended to drive a wedge between black and white.
bbqkink said @ 10:40pm GMT on 19th Jan
It is going to be the basis for primary politics in the Democratic party. I hope we can find a candidate that can make it all be irrelevant but I sure do see that person today.

Right now we a lot like the Republicans were before the stole the populist argument from the Democrats. You can't win the primary without the black vote and you can't win the general without the populist message.
kylemcbitch said @ 11:09pm GMT on 19th Jan
I would say yes, it is a right wing talking point and a scare word. However, it's something we need to have a grown up discussion about. This concept when applied to media easily creates both extremely lazy reporting (so and so is racist, please enjoy this click bait article) and creates the illusion that one side of the argument are completely unreasonable. It does this by giving the middle ground to detractors.

If someone who strongly believes in identity politics has a platform, they are not going to give room to someone who is on the same political side they are who disagrees with them. That is because identity politics is basically "you are with us or against us."

This gives all nuance to the detractors. I am sorry, but every issue is not that black and white. Pretending they are gives us the stupid shit we have now.
HoZay said @ 7:11pm GMT on 20th Jan
Someone who strongly believes in identity politics just got sworn in as potus. Identity politics is not a thing POC do, it's a white politician device to discredit racial/gay/gender progress.
kylemcbitch said[2] @ 8:11pm GMT on 20th Jan
I am not about to disagree there!

Trump is basically an angry white guy version of identity politics. I hardly think it's just people of color, feminist, or really just one group. It's just I can't help steer the side of the assholes.

Swing voters think they are smarter than other people. They want to convinced of something. When one side has no nuance the other side can claim it even if they themselves don't actually have it.

The appearance of complexity in views will draw that sort of person to them, the appearance of incomplexity in views will repeal them. If you ever watch Milo Yianapolis (I hate him) you still see him make this play in his debates. It's not an accident.

And lastly, we have to move away from this because unlike the GOP Democrats are the big tent party. The GOP can afford to play the race to the bottom version of infantile identity politics. We can't.
HoZay said @ 6:12am GMT on 19th Jan
Black voters are usually looking for racial progress, economic and social. If that isn't progressive to you, you're using your own definitions, like others on this page.
bbqkink said[2] @ 3:34pm GMT on 19th Jan
Black voters are usually looking for racial progress, economic and social.

Key on racial...not universal. The biggest moment in the black community is black lives matter. Haven't seen to many minimum wage rallys.

They are for the most part anti gay, anti Muslim, and that mostly comes from their Christian churches.

"But there's a reason I say "those progressives" instead of just "progressives": because not everyone in the Democratic base shares those particular passions, or those passions alone. For other progressives — many of them black or Latino — economic inequality is important, but so is racial inequality. They're extremely concerned about racial bias in policing, and about ending mass incarceration. They're concerned about the treatment of unauthorized immigrants, and about protecting voting rights (an issue like campaign finance where progressives are worried the integrity of the political system is at stake — and where the outcome doesn't look good for them)."

I know all politics is local, but black voters generally are only concerned with issues directly connected to their community. They have long relationships with 3rd way politicians and look at progressives as interlopers.

That is not to say they can't be convinced with an ecnomic message that is universal. It means it hasn't been done.

HoZay said @ 3:45pm GMT on 19th Jan
If you're only progressive on economic issues, you need another name for it.
bbqkink said[1] @ 3:50pm GMT on 19th Jan
Populist .

What would call it if you are only interest are racial issues.
HoZay said @ 4:06pm GMT on 19th Jan
bbqkink said[2] @ 4:15pm GMT on 19th Jan
Wrong race. Same philosophy.

And unless Democrats can make the ecnomic message number one, eliminate breaking the party into clans we will lose.

Let me say it again 80% of American earn less than $100,000 a year...45% make less than $15 and your party around those facts.
bbqkink said @ 12:26am GMT on 19th Jan
lilmookieesquire said[1] @ 7:02am GMT on 19th Jan
This is a nice counterpoint to the posted article:

hey will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.

But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake?
HoZay said[1] @ 9:03am GMT on 19th Jan
Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously.

Yet another definition of neoliberal. Aren't those just regular modern American conservative policies? The conservative Republicans always run on deregulation, Bush-Cheney privatised the military for the Iraq war, western Republicans want to sell off park land, the Republican congress opposed Obama's infrastructure plan by insisting on austerity as a response to the Great Recession, etc etc.

That's all just straight-up conservative, tho it is the reason for declining living standards. Just blaming the wrong people.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.

Posts of Import
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings