GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently August 24 19, 2:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:51 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28385
Location: extremely online
33anda3rd wrote:
What's gibberish is your unflagging inability to objectively and practically view the landscape and to instead demand that the politics of outsiders is the way into systemic change.

Yep! That's me! The guy who never misses an opportunity to vote for a democrat, regardless of how completely their views align with my own. I definitely don't support every incremental positive change I can because I unflaggingly dig my heels in and demand 100% ideological and practical purity. The guy who volunteered for such progressive paragons as Hillary Clinton and Kyrsten Sinema. 100% or nothing I say. You nailed me, bud.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:55 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7235
Location: Chicago, IL
Popeye_Card wrote:
The polls were still basically right too. What polls do not tell you though is turnout. The turnout in 2016 was much different than 2012 and 2008. Trump energized certain demographics that may not have voted in the past to get out there and vote for him. Hillary didn't get the same demographics to the polls that swept Obama to big victories in '08 and '12.


That's a factor. Also the Comey thing that came in the last minute happened too late to impact any polling and he gave those who were leaning toward a false equivalency vote an excuse to lean right. Clinton also won the pop vote by 2.1 points, and the closing polling had her between 3-4 points up. Comey plus normal uncertainty and margins of error in polls means that nothing earth-shattering happened with the numbers in 2016. In 2012 the polls missed by 2.7 points on average, which IIRC was further off than 2016, just no one wanted to hang Nate Silver in the town square because the person he projected to win did in fact win.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 9:57 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7235
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
What's gibberish is your unflagging inability to objectively and practically view the landscape and to instead demand that the politics of outsiders is the way into systemic change.

Yep! That's me! The guy who never misses an opportunity to vote for a democrat, regardless of how completely their views align with my own. I definitely don't support every incremental positive change I can because I unflaggingly dig my heels in and demand 100% ideological and practical purity. The guy who volunteered for such progressive paragons as Hillary Clinton and Kyrsten Sinema. 100% or nothing I say. You nailed me, bud.


We should probably agree that our values are entirely aligned and that we see elections and polls and likelihoods and messaging and some other stuff in a different way, and try to reel in the personal attacks and have a more mature dialog. For my part, I apologize for contributing to this. Deal?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 10:20 am 
Offline
Single A Minor League Player

Joined: June 28 19, 10:00 pm
Posts: 8
33anda3rd wrote:
IronPenguin wrote:
The problem with all of this is that it assumes our current capitalist system is good and just a case of mismanagement. Corporations are making more money than ever, and the workers are more productive while getting less. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Companies are only concerned about profits and give zero [expletive] about workers. All those criticisms you listed are regulatory problems that are inherent to finance and capitalism in general. All regulations do is slightly mitigate an inherent flaw. After all, when people are reduced to numbers on a spreadsheet, what does it matter if their lives are negatively impacted? Hell, what does climate change matter? That's way down the line, long term to companies means 5 years. In the current system, they have zero incentive to care.


We built an entire middle class out of organized labor and growing corporations in a capitalist society for a very long time.

We let too much BS slide with supply-side economics that chiseled away at it, starting in the 60s, ramping way up in the 80s (marginal tax rate was 70% in 1980 and 28% by 1989, that is criminal) and continuing today. A well-regulated system can produce widespread prosperity.


It's funny you say that, because right now I'm reading Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. He's not even remotely a socialist, but his book outlines all the ways that we actually built a middle class out of the worldwide destruction between 1910 and 1950. Before that, inequality was at a massive level, and now we are returning to the norm.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for thrill and I know you didn't direct the post about values being aligned at me, but I think you have a very skewed idea of political ideologies. Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of your posts seem to imply that you think that leftist and liberal are similar enough to be nearly interchangeable. For me at least, that's not the case. It's clear that you are a liberal, which I get. But that is not the same as leftist, and there's certain perspectives you should keep in mind when discussing these things. The general belief in the free market capitalist system, for example, is not a belief that I or many other leftists would share.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 10:54 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7235
Location: Chicago, IL
IronPenguin wrote:
It's funny you say that, because right now I'm reading Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. He's not even remotely a socialist, but his book outlines all the ways that we actually built a middle class out of the worldwide destruction between 1910 and 1950. Before that, inequality was at a massive level, and now we are returning to the norm.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for thrill and I know you didn't direct the post about values being aligned at me, but I think you have a very skewed idea of political ideologies. Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of your posts seem to imply that you think that leftist and liberal are similar enough to be nearly interchangeable. For me at least, that's not the case. It's clear that you are a liberal, which I get. But that is not the same as leftist, and there's certain perspectives you should keep in mind when discussing these things. The general belief in the free market capitalist system, for example, is not a belief that I or many other leftists would share.


Great post, though I do disagree. The difference in me and other posters here on the left side of the spectrum is not a belief in capitalism or the label of leftist or liberal. Rather, I see the practicality of US politics in a different way and as something very important. Communism was a worldwide failure, and even countries that seem like models for Democratic Socialism like Sweden end up having ebbs and flows of nationalism and problematic politics. It's just far too easy for the opposition party to campaign against what you're defining as truly leftist, including a belief that capitalism should be kneecapped. It's not that I believe in capitalism, it's that Americans largely believe in it. If we had a poll today and said take your pick, Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, the former would get like 85%+ of the vote. So I think we have to view US elections through the filter of: how do we elect the best stewards for our capitalism, since we're never getting rid of capitalism?

Where thrill and I disagree is: I see thrill saying that the way to fix this is to spread a message that falls under your definition of leftist, and these non-voters will wake up and go to the polls. I feel like there's an assumption there in which he's taking as a given that people don't vote because they don't have a Sanders type of platform to vote for--they do, it's Sanders, and he lost by a lot last time. I disagree vehemently that voter turnout is because there's no socialism to vote for that topples Wall Street and gives power to the people--and I apologize, thrill, if I'm misreading your intent, but that's how I read it. There are a ton of reasons people don't vote. Documented immigrants don't vote b/c they're afraid they'll get ID-ed and arrested. Black people don't vote because they don't trust any white American working in the system, including a democratic socialist. Kids don't vote because they don't realize their stake in the game yet and they're too busy with pop culture and don't know who they are as adults. They also believe in capitalism and that they'll make it, this being America. There are plenty of reasons people don't vote, and I think the assumption that creating a message that caters to one reason for why people don't vote, one subset, can never come at the expense of making sure you get the votes of the people who do vote with each election, who do participate. And most of them believe strongly in capitalism via The American Dream and stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 10:58 am 
Offline
just can't quit you.
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Posts: 24160
Location: Lost
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 11:08 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28385
Location: extremely online
33anda3rd wrote:
Where thrill and I disagree is: I see thrill saying that the way to fix this is to spread a message that falls under your definition of leftist, and these non-voters will wake up and go to the polls. I feel like there's an assumption there in which he's taking as a given that people don't vote because they don't have a Sanders type of platform to vote for--they do, it's Sanders, and he lost by a lot last time. I disagree vehemently that voter turnout is because there's no socialism to vote for that topples Wall Street and gives power to the people--and I apologize, thrill, if I'm misreading your intent, but that's how I read it.

I think our larger disagreement probably falls somewhere in this parameter, but the specific conflict that continually arises when we interact re: progressive messaging/philosophy is that you think it's more important to scorn/reach/affect/bring to heel the "bernie or bust"/bernie or trump voter while I think they should dismissed out of hand as idiotic lost causes, ignored, and those efforts redirected to try to turn the non-voter with progressive values into a voter with progressive values.

You seem to always apply a much more Sanders loyalist tag to me than is fair based on my explicitly stated opinions and also seem to be positioning your arguments with me and other more progressive posters here as if we all have the same purity test politics when I can only think of one poster here (amoco) who professes those standards for progressive politicians rather than addressing our specific points and opinions. You've become so strident that you assume everyone with any criticism of your opinions or the ideas you support, no matter how nuanced, is just as strident and entrenched as you are.

You also lose all self-awareness in your stridency. For example:
33anda3rd wrote:
I feel like there's an assumption there in which he's taking as a given that people don't vote because they don't have a Sanders type of platform to vote for--they do, it's Sanders, and he lost by a lot last time.

If Bernie's platform is such a loser, why has so much of his platform been co-opted to varying degrees by all of the legit primary candidates? It's a cognitive dissonance that's impossible to ignore unless you're in such an internet brain echo chamber that you're able to tune it out for the sake of tribal squabbling. You value incrementalism when it comes to justifying the establishment, but you ignore it when it comes to mainstreaming progressive political initiatives. The world-changing shift in perspective and understanding of concepts like single-payer healthcare, the fight for $15, free higher ed, and other Sanders platform policies is night and day and all he accomplished was coming in second in a primary 4 years ago. Pushing those ideas, not Bernie himself, further in the mainstream will of course require more time and organizing or, you guessed it, incremental progress. Duh. So we should fight less hard for it when we can see all that's happened since his primary campaign in '16? Absolutely [expletive] not. Fight harder.


Last edited by thrill on August 14 19, 11:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 11:14 am 
Offline
Single A Minor League Player

Joined: June 28 19, 10:00 pm
Posts: 8
33anda3rd wrote:
IronPenguin wrote:
It's funny you say that, because right now I'm reading Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. He's not even remotely a socialist, but his book outlines all the ways that we actually built a middle class out of the worldwide destruction between 1910 and 1950. Before that, inequality was at a massive level, and now we are returning to the norm.

I won't pretend to be able to speak for thrill and I know you didn't direct the post about values being aligned at me, but I think you have a very skewed idea of political ideologies. Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of your posts seem to imply that you think that leftist and liberal are similar enough to be nearly interchangeable. For me at least, that's not the case. It's clear that you are a liberal, which I get. But that is not the same as leftist, and there's certain perspectives you should keep in mind when discussing these things. The general belief in the free market capitalist system, for example, is not a belief that I or many other leftists would share.


Great post, though I do disagree. The difference in me and other posters here on the left side of the spectrum is not a belief in capitalism or the label of leftist or liberal. Rather, I see the practicality of US politics in a different way and as something very important. Communism was a worldwide failure, and even countries that seem like models for Democratic Socialism like Sweden end up having ebbs and flows of nationalism and problematic politics. It's just far too easy for the opposition party to campaign against what you're defining as truly leftist, including a belief that capitalism should be kneecapped. It's not that I believe in capitalism, it's that Americans largely believe in it. If we had a poll today and said take your pick, Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, the former would get like 85%+ of the vote. So I think we have to view US elections through the filter of: how do we elect the best stewards for our capitalism, since we're never getting rid of capitalism?

Where thrill and I disagree is: I see thrill saying that the way to fix this is to spread a message that falls under your definition of leftist, and these non-voters will wake up and go to the polls. I feel like there's an assumption there in which he's taking as a given that people don't vote because they don't have a Sanders type of platform to vote for--they do, it's Sanders, and he lost by a lot last time. I disagree vehemently that voter turnout is because there's no socialism to vote for that topples Wall Street and gives power to the people--and I apologize, thrill, if I'm misreading your intent, but that's how I read it. There are a ton of reasons people don't vote. Documented immigrants don't vote b/c they're afraid they'll get ID-ed and arrested. Black people don't vote because they don't trust any white American working in the system, including a democratic socialist. Kids don't vote because they don't realize their stake in the game yet and they're too busy with pop culture and don't know who they are as adults. They also believe in capitalism and that they'll make it, this being America. There are plenty of reasons people don't vote, and I think the assumption that creating a message that caters to one reason for why people don't vote, one subset, can never come at the expense of making sure you get the votes of the people who do vote with each election, who do participate. And most of them believe strongly in capitalism via The American Dream and stuff.


I see what you're saying, and I've definitely thought about the extent to which capitalism can be reformed from within itself. I don't believe that capitalism is the end state of all things however. Eventually, every single system has fallen and had a new one take its place. I think that's going to happen eventually, and I think that the charge will need to be led by America since every time a smaller country tries to implement any kind of socialist reforms, we interfere. (See: Contras in Nicaragua)

I still think there are a lot of fundamental differences in the worldviews that are discussed here. I also think that some of these viewpoints are changing more and more in America. My generation grew up after the Cold War, and red scare stuff isn't prevalent in our minds. We also had to deal with finding jobs in a post recession world, and watched the people that caused it get away free. For a lot of people, that's killed faith in the system. Many of the ones I've talked to from my hometown in rural Illinois don't know any of the theory behind it, but they can tell the deck is stacked against them. Some focus that anger at immigrants, others just think there's nothing to be done. That's where giving another option to those people comes in. People who have never voted before or stopped voting might just see the message that Bernie keeps pounding every chance he gets and recognize the truth to it. From there, it's not hard to see them finally feeling like someone is telling them the truth that's always been danced around before, and seeing a path forward for change that can really improve their lives. It's anecdotal, but one of my friends recently told me they've come around on Bernie after watching the Rogan interview because they had never heard him talk at length before. They are planning to vote for the first time ever in 2020, and are actually excited about a candidate for the first time in our lives.

I see the upcoming election as a chance to make a real leap forward. If we are going to avoid politics that might attract a small portion of racists despite there being no direct or indirect intention to do so, why should we cater to moderates who wouldn't vote Bernie over Trump? Shouldn't they be written off as lost causes too?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 11:17 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7235
Location: Chicago, IL
thrill wrote:
I think our larger disagreement probably falls somewhere in this parameter, but the specific conflict that continually arises when we interact re: progressive messaging/philosophy is that you think it's more important to scorn/reach/affect/bring to heel the "bernie or bust"/bernie or trump voter while I think they should dismissed out of hand as idiotic lost causes, ignored, and those efforts redirected to try to turn the non-voter with progressive values into a voter with progressive values.


I think those folks deserve some scorn, and I apologize if I've laid it on you falsely. I don't think BAS is the only one. I think if you think real hard you can pretty easily name a 2nd one on this board, and I think a couple are within reasonable doubt. I think those who claim a sort of moral stance on political issues who then go vote in a way that helps Trump win are hypocritical and don't deserve any moral high ground, and they don't deserve any intellectual high ground when they dismiss the notion that their vote was part of Trump's path to victory. There were a million little things that helped and that was one of them. They need to change their ways for us to have change.

thrill wrote:
You seem to always apply a much more Sanders loyalist tag to me than is fair based on my explicitly stated opinions and also seem to be positioning your arguments with me and other more progressive posters here as if we all have the same purity test politics when I can only think of one poster here (amoco) who professes those standards for progressive politicians rather than addressing our specific points and opinions. You've become so strident that you assume everyone with any criticism of your opinions or the ideas you support, no matter how nuanced, is just as strident and entrenched as you are.


Fair enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 2020 Election
PostPosted: August 14 19, 11:21 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28385
Location: extremely online
You don't have to apologize. We're just passing time posting here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1118 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group