Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Obama Administration

19192949697100

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    No, but politics is an iterative process. You fail and fail and fail until you don't.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    Tach wrote: »
    If we were to pull out 100% right this moment (a logistical impossibility) the Afghan army & security forces would be wiped out and more than likely the Taliban would seize power again.

    Do you remember what they are like? What their government did to their people? Do you want that for the Afghans?
    No, no, remember, you're the one that hates brown people.

    mvrck.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    No, but politics is an iterative process. You fail and fail and fail until you don't.

    True.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    The question becomes tho, what happens when you get several candidates in the primary? Does the left really have a single overarching quality that they can rally to (such as the Republican/NeoCons and Religion)?

    And then does it serve us well to have a mirror of the GOP Primary we're seeing now (where the candidates are trying to court the outliers so hard that the inevitable attempt to swerve back to the middle is going to be whiplash inducing)? Just as "Conservatives say crazy things" is true, I don't doubt there are things to the left of my politics that would make me go "errr, guys... you're losing me here."

    I guess my big fear is not that the GOP goes full stop crazy, but that the "liberals" starts to fracture first, thereby allowing the full crazy to win because we're fighting amongst ourselves, and not able to put up a solid defense against it.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    mindspork wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    The question becomes tho, what happens when you get several candidates in the primary? Does the left really have a single overarching quality that they can rally to (such as the Republican/NeoCons and Religion)?

    And then does it serve us well to have a mirror of the GOP Primary we're seeing now (where the candidates are trying to court the outliers so hard that the inevitable attempt to swerve back to the middle is going to be whiplash inducing)? Just as "Conservatives say crazy things" is true, I don't doubt there are things to the left of my politics that would make me go "errr, guys... you're losing me here."

    I guess my big fear is not that the GOP goes full stop crazy, but that the "liberals" starts to fracture first, thereby allowing the full crazy to win because we're fighting amongst ourselves, and not able to put up a solid defense against it.

    That's the risk we have to take. It will be a long and destructive process which will evolve over time. We can learn from mistakes if we try.

    Liberals becoming a Tea Party entity would be a good first step from the current status quo. We've got to start somewhere or nothing will change.

    Harry Dresden on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Actually, they're pretty damn inaccurate. Polls from Afghanistan on the stay/go issue can swing maybe 50 percentage points hour to hour with the same sample size. The only real consistent results are that the Afghanis want the operations resulting in civilian deaths to stop but don't think the Afghani army is strong enough to stop all hell breaking loose.

    Citation please. What factual evidence do you have that the Afghani people are fine with being blown up, having their throats slit in the night, being occupied by a foreign power that doesn't speak their language, living in a war zone, seeing young men be disappeared in the middle of the night by men in ski masks and getting the freedom to do what the local drug baron supported by the US tells them to do is a popular sentiment?

    You are terrible at reading comprehension.

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    Liberals generally would not create a Tea Party-type entity, for the primary reason that they do not, and are unlikely to ever, have Koch Brothers money backing their plays, or news network that slavishly follows them around reporting whenever they pet a kitten.

    If you mean, simply have a grassroots group that works on their behalf... well, we've had a lot of those. Some of them even merit falsified scandals by fake journalists to destroy. (too soon?)

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    Liberals generally would not create a Tea Party-type entity, for the primary reason that they do not, and are unlikely to ever, have Koch Brothers money backing their plays, or news network that slavishly follows them around reporting whenever they pet a kitten.

    If you mean, simply have a grassroots group that works on their behalf... well, we've had a lot of those. Some of them even merit falsified scandals by fake journalists to destroy. (too soon?)

    Nope. Not soon enough IMO.

    I've retyped this response three times, because I'm not sure how to word it without having someone jump down my throat for it, but I wonder if part of the problem is we are, for lack of a better term, not willing to totally compromise ourselves in our attempt to 'gain power'.

    It seems to me that any step made in good faith to try to improve things on a social level is responded to with a SLOM-style attack from outside. And if any one of them is not refuted/gets through, regardless of validity of the strike, we recoil back to where we started, while 'the opposition' gets crazier and crazier, because we're too afraid to not offend anyone. We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

  • DracomicronDracomicron Registered User regular
    mindspork wrote: »
    We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The minute the left starts being about 50%+1 is the minute they stop deserving to have our support.

    I'm not just saying that because of "YAY IDEALISM", I'm saying it because the 50%+1 mentality is essentially what caused the Republicans to drive their bus off of the cliff. We're seen the results in slo-mo now. Republicans have been doing the minimum work to keep their evangelical+neocon+rich guy tripod together while generally only serving the needs of the rich guys for about 30 years now, and it has resulted in Rick "Dogfucking" Santorum.

    It is frustrating to see all the baseless attacks, but just keep repeating to yourself: "The Boomers will be dead soon. The Boomers will be dead soon."

    Gary Gygax wrote:
    ''The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.''
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    mindspork wrote: »
    Liberals generally would not create a Tea Party-type entity, for the primary reason that they do not, and are unlikely to ever, have Koch Brothers money backing their plays, or news network that slavishly follows them around reporting whenever they pet a kitten.

    If you mean, simply have a grassroots group that works on their behalf... well, we've had a lot of those. Some of them even merit falsified scandals by fake journalists to destroy. (too soon?)

    Nope. Not soon enough IMO.

    I've retyped this response three times, because I'm not sure how to word it without having someone jump down my throat for it, but I wonder if part of the problem is we are, for lack of a better term, not willing to totally compromise ourselves in our attempt to 'gain power'.

    It seems to me that any step made in good faith to try to improve things on a social level is responded to with a SLOM-style attack from outside. And if any one of them is not refuted/gets through, regardless of validity of the strike, we recoil back to where we started, while 'the opposition' gets crazier and crazier, because we're too afraid to not offend anyone. We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The party for everyone is a workable concept IMO. It just needs to be competently managed to please that many factions at once. It's more difficult to run successfully but with enough compromises and making sure all factions needs are cared for it could be a powerful force in politics.

    Harry Dresden on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    mindspork wrote: »
    We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The minute the left starts being about 50%+1 is the minute they stop deserving to have our support.

    I'm not just saying that because of "YAY IDEALISM", I'm saying it because the 50%+1 mentality is essentially what caused the Republicans to drive their bus off of the cliff. We're seen the results in slo-mo now. Republicans have been doing the minimum work to keep their evangelical+neocon+rich guy tripod together while generally only serving the needs of the rich guys for about 30 years now, and it has resulted in Rick "Dogfucking" Santorum.

    It is frustrating to see all the baseless attacks, but just keep repeating to yourself: "The Boomers will be dead soon. The Boomers will be dead soon."

    The difference is Republicans unite over things they hate, liberals unite over things they care about.

    Harry Dresden on
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    mindspork wrote: »
    We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The minute the left starts being about 50%+1 is the minute they stop deserving to have our support.

    I'm not just saying that because of "YAY IDEALISM", I'm saying it because the 50%+1 mentality is essentially what caused the Republicans to drive their bus off of the cliff. We're seen the results in slo-mo now. Republicans have been doing the minimum work to keep their evangelical+neocon+rich guy tripod together while generally only serving the needs of the rich guys for about 30 years now, and it has resulted in Rick "Dogfucking" Santorum.

    It is frustrating to see all the baseless attacks, but just keep repeating to yourself: "The Boomers will be dead soon. The Boomers will be dead soon."

    The difference is Republicans unite over things they hate, liberals unite over things they care about.

    Yeah. It's "You're different from us, but that's ok, we'll listen to your opinion" vs "NOT LIKE US KILL THE WITCH!"

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The difference between the far left and the far right is easily summed up thusly:

    vmcMyUg0THOlUYl6nilNvA.jpeg

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »

    There are plenty of critiques of the horrific handling of the war and aftermath there. Claiming we colonized them isn't one of them. We annexed the Philippines, appointed their Governor through the authority of the President of the United States, and collected taxation/tribute from them in the process. Yes I would say that is a rather different circumstance from the one in Afghanistan with the lines diverging significantly rather than running along the same plane.

    Oh my mistake then. I'm sure the Perfectly Democratically Elected Government that enjoys a majority support of the Civilian Population, with totally no ties no drug warlords is happy to have the US army in his country as honored guests bringing freedom. I'm sure the Afghan National Army is honoring US troops with freedom bullets and that there's totally no connection with the history of western colonialism and US perspectives on Afghanistan. You'd have to be crazy to draw those kind of conclusions. After all rapine and plunder are totally not on the table. Taxi drives being tortured to death in Bagram are super happy and understand the sacrifices they have to make.
    I'm sure Karzai doesn't mean it when he calls for Bagram to be turned over to Afghan control. Totally situationally necessary, not all related to to historical precedent. Nope not one bit.

    After all Obama ended abusive practices and continues to win the war on terror. Carry on fearless leader carry on. To stop now would be to let the terrorist win.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650242,00.html
    http://www.straitstimes.com/Project_Syndicate/Story/STIStory_772410.html
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/08/afghanistan-detainee-abuse-bagram.html

    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

    I'm sure liberals would have liked to run against them, they just don't have the resources or motivation to accomplish it.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    mindspork wrote: »
    We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The minute the left starts being about 50%+1 is the minute they stop deserving to have our support.

    I'm not just saying that because of "YAY IDEALISM", I'm saying it because the 50%+1 mentality is essentially what caused the Republicans to drive their bus off of the cliff. We're seen the results in slo-mo now. Republicans have been doing the minimum work to keep their evangelical+neocon+rich guy tripod together while generally only serving the needs of the rich guys for about 30 years now, and it has resulted in Rick "Dogfucking" Santorum.

    It is frustrating to see all the baseless attacks, but just keep repeating to yourself: "The Boomers will be dead soon. The Boomers will be dead soon."

    They may be driving the bus off a cliff, but they are the ones steering the bus and we are stuck as passengers.

    Santorum/Romney may be a joke in the presidential campaign, but downticked(all the way down) they got candidates for every spot. Dems can't say the same.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    mindspork wrote: »
    We're trying to be the party of everyone, while our opponents are trying to be the party of "50% +1"

    The minute the left starts being about 50%+1 is the minute they stop deserving to have our support.

    I'm not just saying that because of "YAY IDEALISM", I'm saying it because the 50%+1 mentality is essentially what caused the Republicans to drive their bus off of the cliff. We're seen the results in slo-mo now. Republicans have been doing the minimum work to keep their evangelical+neocon+rich guy tripod together while generally only serving the needs of the rich guys for about 30 years now, and it has resulted in Rick "Dogfucking" Santorum.

    It is frustrating to see all the baseless attacks, but just keep repeating to yourself: "The Boomers will be dead soon. The Boomers will be dead soon."

    They may be driving the bus off a cliff, but they are the ones steering the bus and we are stuck as passengers.

    Santorum/Romney may be a joke in the presidential campaign, but downticked(all the way down) they got candidates for every spot. Dems can't say the same.

    What's the line here?

    "People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »

    There are plenty of critiques of the horrific handling of the war and aftermath there. Claiming we colonized them isn't one of them. We annexed the Philippines, appointed their Governor through the authority of the President of the United States, and collected taxation/tribute from them in the process. Yes I would say that is a rather different circumstance from the one in Afghanistan with the lines diverging significantly rather than running along the same plane.

    Oh my mistake then. I'm sure the Perfectly Democratically Elected Government that enjoys a majority support of the Civilian Population, with totally no ties no drug warlords is happy to have the US army in his country as honored guests bringing freedom. I'm sure the Afghan National Army is honoring US troops with freedom bullets and that there's totally no connection with the history of western colonialism and US perspectives on Afghanistan. You'd have to be crazy to draw those kind of conclusions. After all rapine and plunder are totally not on the table. Taxi drives being tortured to death in Bagram are super happy and understand the sacrifices they have to make.
    I'm sure Karzai doesn't mean it when he calls for Bagram to be turned over to Afghan control. Totally situationally necessary, not all related to to historical precedent. Nope not one bit.

    After all Obama ended abusive practices and continues to win the war on terror. Carry on fearless leader carry on. To stop now would be to let the terrorist win.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650242,00.html
    http://www.straitstimes.com/Project_Syndicate/Story/STIStory_772410.html
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/08/afghanistan-detainee-abuse-bagram.html

    I understand that you enjoy hyperbole more than acknowledging that specific words have specific meanings, but yes the circumstances of Afghanistan are not really related to the American colonization of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. They are their own wonderful alloy of horribleness. Likely drawn more from our experiences in the recent past, arguably impacted mostly from the lingering effects of the Cold War and proxy battles amongst disparate groups through both influence client states and force via the armed forces, and the peculiar circumstances of the successes and failures of the past 12 years compounded by neglect and a political ratchet in favour of more bellicosity. Fortunately we are stopping things now so while circumstances are likely to continue to degrade it will likely improve over the medium term given a lack of such direct influence.

    tea-1.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

    I'm sure liberals would have liked to run against them, they just don't have the resources or motivation to accomplish it.

    It really doesn't take that many resources to run for the school board. If anything it just takes having local offices small enough to pay attention to what positions exist that you can run people for and a copier able to make enough forms to have people sign.

    tea-1.jpg
  • mindsporkmindspork Registered User
    moniker wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

    I'm sure liberals would have liked to run against them, they just don't have the resources or motivation to accomplish it.

    It really doesn't take that many resources to run for the school board. If anything it just takes having local offices small enough to pay attention to what positions exist that you can run people for and a copier able to make enough forms to have people sign.

    It's an anecdote, but about 10 or so years ago there was an election around here for "Board of Sewer and Water" or some sort of low level town council thing. 4 open seats. 3 people ran. top 4 vote getters got the seats.

    Some 18 year old HS senior thought it would be funny to get some of his buddies to write his name in on their ballot when they voted. Like 10 people did. It was enough for him to get 4th.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    mindspork wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    dontindent wrote: »
    The party are abandoning liberals more than liberals abandoning the party. Why should they stick around when they're the first faction to get ignored or spat on to appease the conservatives? One side constantly compromising isn't a good way to build trust with a voting bloc. There needs to be a give and take here.

    The data I've seen indicate conservative and moderate Democrats are the more reliable base, and so thats who the party caters to. You establish that no Democrat makes it through the primary process without being a bonafide Progressive by getting the liberal base to vote early, often, and consistently, and you'll get candidates running to the left as fast as Republicans run to the right.

    They're more reliable because the Democrats actually make an effort to court them. Had many Democratic politicians campaigned like Obama did in the presidential election on a national scale more liberals would have shown up to vote IMO.
    In the short term, though, we've got to suck it up and build that reliable base.

    Agreed.

    That said, that's only a first step. More liberals voting alone won't make all of the conservative Democrats swing left. They prosper from the status quo to much. But hopefully that can change with a sizable liberal base that can't be ignored in the future.

    That's what primaries are for.

    More liberals running would help more. Though you can't really get to one without the other.

    The question becomes tho, what happens when you get several candidates in the primary? Does the left really have a single overarching quality that they can rally to (such as the Republican/NeoCons and Religion)?

    And then does it serve us well to have a mirror of the GOP Primary we're seeing now (where the candidates are trying to court the outliers so hard that the inevitable attempt to swerve back to the middle is going to be whiplash inducing)? Just as "Conservatives say crazy things" is true, I don't doubt there are things to the left of my politics that would make me go "errr, guys... you're losing me here."

    I guess my big fear is not that the GOP goes full stop crazy, but that the "liberals" starts to fracture first, thereby allowing the full crazy to win because we're fighting amongst ourselves, and not able to put up a solid defense against it.

    Pretty simple one, really. Liberals are for fairness. Give everybody an honest shot at a fulfilling life.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    edited March 2012
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »

    There are plenty of critiques of the horrific handling of the war and aftermath there. Claiming we colonized them isn't one of them. We annexed the Philippines, appointed their Governor through the authority of the President of the United States, and collected taxation/tribute from them in the process. Yes I would say that is a rather different circumstance from the one in Afghanistan with the lines diverging significantly rather than running along the same plane.

    Oh my mistake then. I'm sure the Perfectly Democratically Elected Government that enjoys a majority support of the Civilian Population, with totally no ties no drug warlords is happy to have the US army in his country as honored guests bringing freedom. I'm sure the Afghan National Army is honoring US troops with freedom bullets and that there's totally no connection with the history of western colonialism and US perspectives on Afghanistan. You'd have to be crazy to draw those kind of conclusions. After all rapine and plunder are totally not on the table. Taxi drives being tortured to death in Bagram are super happy and understand the sacrifices they have to make.
    I'm sure Karzai doesn't mean it when he calls for Bagram to be turned over to Afghan control. Totally situationally necessary, not all related to to historical precedent. Nope not one bit.

    After all Obama ended abusive practices and continues to win the war on terror. Carry on fearless leader carry on. To stop now would be to let the terrorist win.
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,650242,00.html
    http://www.straitstimes.com/Project_Syndicate/Story/STIStory_772410.html
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/01/08/afghanistan-detainee-abuse-bagram.html

    I understand that you enjoy hyperbole more than acknowledging that specific words have specific meanings, but yes the circumstances of Afghanistan are not really related to the American colonization of the Philippines after the Spanish-American war. They are their own wonderful alloy of horribleness. Likely drawn more from our experiences in the recent past, arguably impacted mostly from the lingering effects of the Cold War and proxy battles amongst disparate groups through both influence client states and force via the armed forces, and the peculiar circumstances of the successes and failures of the past 12 years compounded by neglect and a political ratchet in favour of more bellicosity. Fortunately we are stopping things now so while circumstances are likely to continue to degrade it will likely improve over the medium term given a lack of such direct influence.

    Claiming there aren't common threads in American occupation of Asian countries is either facetious or wholly ignorant of history. Latching on to colonization and ignoring the words for word similarities in the "we must save them from themselves, to leave would be worse than to stay" invites comparison to straw man. If one can't make those kinds of simple and direct connections... IDK, there's nothing that can be said.

    Feel free to claim that Afghan people want us there. That their social institutions are not blatantly corrupted and non-democratic. Everyone acknowledges the current government would collapse immediately if the US military left. That must be because it enjoy so much broad support from the population.

    Seruko on
    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Feel free to claim that Afghan people want us there. That their social institutions are not blatantly corrupted and non-democratic. Everyone acknowledges the current government would collapse immediately if the US military left. That must be because it enjoy so much broad support from the population.

    And you can feel free to quote me claiming that or other statements that you want to attribute to me.

    tea-1.jpg
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    Obama's favorite Wire character is Omar.

    I liked one of the comments:
    When reached for comment, Romney stated that while he had never seen The Wire, he was friends with both studio heads and owners of companies that produced televisions.
    Seruko wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Obama is 97% Bush? Are you counting facts like being carbon-based lifeforms? Just because you can cherry pick a few things that look similar doesn't mean on a broad level that they have the same policies.

    Over and over again the same battle. Their positions on the economy, their foreign policy virtually identical. Obama is called a socialist appeaser but his foreign policy is following the bush time table, his economic policy is a continuation of the bush stimulus and tax cuts, with a side of extra tax cuts. Their social policy is different BFD.

    Did you miss the part where he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? The part that made those cuts especially awful? How he wants to close tax loopholes for corporations and the rich? Or how Obama boosts the economy with proven effective measures like stimulus spending on infrastructure rather than big tax cuts to "job creators"? He's got a plan for a nationwide high-speed rail network. Do these sound like Bush policies to you?

    Foreign policy: Do you remember Obama's stance on the Iraq war? How he thought it was a stupid idea? He didn't speed up the withdrawal timetable but that's a world away from the policy of starting absolutely unnecessary wars because yeee-haw.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    That article is inaccurate

    Omar is not a drug dealer, he's a stickup man!

    bar-cc-1.jpg
  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Obama's favorite Wire character is Omar.

    I liked one of the comments:
    When reached for comment, Romney stated that while he had never seen The Wire, he was friends with both studio heads and owners of companies that produced televisions.
    Seruko wrote: »
    RandomEngy wrote: »
    Obama is 97% Bush? Are you counting facts like being carbon-based lifeforms? Just because you can cherry pick a few things that look similar doesn't mean on a broad level that they have the same policies.

    Over and over again the same battle. Their positions on the economy, their foreign policy virtually identical. Obama is called a socialist appeaser but his foreign policy is following the bush time table, his economic policy is a continuation of the bush stimulus and tax cuts, with a side of extra tax cuts. Their social policy is different BFD.

    Did you miss the part where he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? The part that made those cuts especially awful? How he wants to close tax loopholes for corporations and the rich? Or how Obama boosts the economy with proven effective measures like stimulus spending on infrastructure rather than big tax cuts to "job creators"? He's got a plan for a nationwide high-speed rail network. Do these sound like Bush policies to you?

    Foreign policy: Do you remember Obama's stance on the Iraq war? How he thought it was a stupid idea? He didn't speed up the withdrawal timetable but that's a world away from the policy of starting absolutely unnecessary wars because yeee-haw.

    Yemen, Somalia, Libya. Expanded operations in Pakistan. No option off the table with Iran. Following Bush Policy just doesn't seem like a stark retreat from Bush to me.
    I've been pretty careful to say policies as enacted.
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.
    Obama's hands off approach to the SEC, same as Bush.
    Obama's handling of the war on terror? Same story.

    Obama the candidate said a lot of things that were in stark contrast to Bush. Obama the president, not so much.
    But ACA in 3, 2, ....

    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.

    Not really.

    tea-1.jpg
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

    I'm sure liberals would have liked to run against them, they just don't have the resources or motivation to accomplish it.

    I'm remember back to when I could first vote and Joe Ann Davis was still VA 1st district representative and the democratic party flat out told the one guy willing to run against her that they would not back him period. The thing was the guy wasn't crazy at all, it's that they figured they wouldn't win the seat and didn't want to spend anything on his run. The guy even told them that all he wanted them to do was to give him their blessing and label and he would do the whole campaign without any funding, just get him on the ballot as a democrat.

    That's the crap I'm referring to, much of the time it isn't that no one wants to run or really an issue of money, they just pussy out because they don't think there is any value in even token backing of someone in a race they have no shot of winning. They really shoot themselves in the foot because it's better to have you name out there, with someone running a campaign on shoestring (you just give them the party name and the ballot spot) and lose. Than to have no one on the ballot, despite having willing volunteers because that creates the illusion that most are content with the incumbent.

  • SerukoSeruko Ferocious Kitten of The Farthest NorthRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.

    Not really.

    It's not even arguable. Either you understand that facts are facts or you don't. Good Day Sir.

    "How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
    "You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
    "In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
    "In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
    I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Yemen, Somalia, Libya. Expanded operations in Pakistan. No option off the table with Iran. Following Bush Policy just doesn't seem like a stark retreat from Bush to me.

    You are extraordinarily dumb.

    A single tactical strike in Yemen, killing Somali pirates who committed an act of war and maybe throwing a single company over there to help knock out warlords causing shit along the border with Eritrea at the Somali's request, logistical support in Libya. None of these are even remotely close to the sort of stuff Bush did. False Equivalency ad absurdum.
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.
    Not really! Obama implemented a bunch of payroll tax cuts; Bush slashed capital gains taxes.
    Obama's hands off approach to the SEC, same as Bush.
    Congress more or less runs the SEC, not the Executive. There's nothing he can do about how shitty the penalties are until Congress makes them something more painful (which will never happen.) I haven't seen any indication that he's restraining the SEC.
    Obama's handling of the war on terror? Same story.
    Except for that time he immediately ordered an end to torture and attempted to close Guantanomo before Congress through a shitfit.

    Obama is not God-King of America. Your grievances, where they are not hyperbolic, more properly lie with Congress.

    sig.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Seruko wrote: »
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.

    Not really.

    It's not even arguable. Either you understand that facts are facts or you don't. Good Day Sir.

    I do understand that facts are facts. Which is why I consider your false representations to be wrong. PL 110-185 essentially just provided a new line on your tax form in order to receive several hundred dollars in your next return and expanded the eligibility for GSE's to secure mortgages. PL 111-5 did significantly more in both direct spending as well as in tax expenditures. Nevermind the difference in quintiles that were targeted by those tax expenditures besides. Good night, moon.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Mill wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Sticks wrote: »
    If enough people vote "for what they want" by going third party, politicians from the closest major party will indeed adjust to better represent your desires. Next cycle. After they get their asses handed to them this time around.

    You basically have to take a short term loss, and pray that it turns into long term gain.

    For the Presidency? That's...not really true. If you want to impact the party's overall stance on things you need to do it via primaries and via the legislature and States. If anything the Presidency is the least important since its constituency is so large you can't really move the median voter that much one way or the other.

    And this is how the far right has seized control, too. If you want to start a political movement in the United States, you start local and build an organization. You can't just jump into the national discourse with no support down ticket.

    If the left is serious about changing the narrative, they need to start off in municipal, county, and state elections. Most laws that effect the day to day are passed on the state level (education being the big one). Once you have a solid coalition, you move up into the congressional and state level offices. Get a few states on board and you start making moves toward a national movement.

    It's how the Republicans went from backwater free soilers to a nationally competitive party.

    At the same time, you have to vote for the candidate who most represents you, the "best option". Call it better of two evils if you must, but the only people who get helped by disenfranchisement are the people in power.

    Just want to say I fully agree with this. That's been one of my biggest issues with people left of the GOP ever since I could vote. The dems and liberals don't make an attempt to get people elected on the down ticket. The GOP was able to get control of the VA legislator and several towns, cities and counties because the people who lean left didn't bother to run anyone against them. Sure they may not win many of those, but if you start throwing you name out there people start to realize, "hey, I don't have to vote for this guy anymore because he isn't the only one on the ballot."

    I'm sure liberals would have liked to run against them, they just don't have the resources or motivation to accomplish it.

    I'm remember back to when I could first vote and Joe Ann Davis was still VA 1st district representative and the democratic party flat out told the one guy willing to run against her that they would not back him period. The thing was the guy wasn't crazy at all, it's that they figured they wouldn't win the seat and didn't want to spend anything on his run. The guy even told them that all he wanted them to do was to give him their blessing and label and he would do the whole campaign without any funding, just get him on the ballot as a democrat.

    That's the crap I'm referring to, much of the time it isn't that no one wants to run or really an issue of money, they just pussy out because they don't think there is any value in even token backing of someone in a race they have no shot of winning. They really shoot themselves in the foot because it's better to have you name out there, with someone running a campaign on shoestring (you just give them the party name and the ballot spot) and lose. Than to have no one on the ballot, despite having willing volunteers because that creates the illusion that most are content with the incumbent.

    This is definitely a problem for liberals. They need to be apart of the system and never back down from fights with politics. I'm unsure how to fix it. This attitude needs to change or we'll be stuck with the status quo.

    Harry Dresden on
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    me_and_obama.jpg

    I'm the one with the goofy grin on the left.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Very nice, Random.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • RandomEngyRandomEngy Registered User regular
    Seruko wrote: »
    Yemen, Somalia, Libya. Expanded operations in Pakistan. No option off the table with Iran. Following Bush Policy just doesn't seem like a stark retreat from Bush to me.
    I've been pretty careful to say policies as enacted.
    Obama's Stimulus Spending was incredibly similar to Bush's stimulus spending.
    Obama's hands off approach to the SEC, same as Bush.
    Obama's handling of the war on terror? Same story.

    Obama the candidate said a lot of things that were in stark contrast to Bush. Obama the president, not so much.
    But ACA in 3, 2, ....

    Do you remember Obama the candidate saying he wasn't against all wars, just dumb wars? Because he did. Libya: no ground troops needed, just air support for a while and we're done. Yemen/Somalia? Yeah, there's been strikes there. Obama has always said he'd go after terrorists wherever they were. Bush's policy was to act stupidly on shaky intelligence. Obama's policy is to kill terrorists. And you can't just add up the number of countries even faintly involved in military action to measure how war-y a president is.

    Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    *Looks at his hands*

    The other left?

    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    While there's something to be said for the questionable constitutionality of drone strikes on American citizens outside the US (which if I recall correctly one of these guys was), the Executive has a ton of constitutional leeway in military situations, and that power has only expanded since WWII. For example, EVERY President since its passage in 1973 has said the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, and no one has really challenged any of them on it. Targeting non-citizen terrorists with drone strikes does not violate constitution, if for no other reason than non-citizens outside the US have no constitutional rights.

    I think all things considered, Obama has been extremely moderate in terms of military action. In fact, I'd say it's where his careful, calculated actions and trust in his advisors and general tendency not to shoot from the hip has paid off. He could have dropped a whole mess of troops in Libya, and didn't. He could have continued to stick around in Iraq, and didn't. He could easily justify another five years in Afghanistan, and didn't. I think expecting him to end all US military actions and with the flip of a switch bring us back to isolationism is pretty goddamned crazy.

    Probably the largest criticism that can be levied at Obama in terms of a terrible expansion of Executive power was when he signed the NDAA. But we've been down that road, and I'm not going to rehash it here. There's a pretty strong argument that vetoing it was a battle he could not win. But whether Obama uses it or not, it's here to stay.

    steam_sig.png
    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    I think all things considered, Obama has been extremely moderate in terms of military action. In fact, I'd say it's where his careful, calculated actions and trust in his advisors and general tendency not to shoot from the hip has paid off. He could have dropped a whole mess of troops in Libya, and didn't.

    Even more tellingly, he could have dropped a whole mess of troops in Iran, during their election protests in 2009, and didn't.

    sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think all things considered, Obama has been extremely moderate in terms of military action. In fact, I'd say it's where his careful, calculated actions and trust in his advisors and general tendency not to shoot from the hip has paid off. He could have dropped a whole mess of troops in Libya, and didn't.

    Even more tellingly, he could have dropped a whole mess of troops in Iran, during their election protests in 2009, and didn't.

    Cause he was too busy apologizing and starting illegal wars, amirite?

    Lh96QHG.png
This discussion has been closed.