Why doesn't anybody talk about the "pee pee tape" anymore?



Moderator: Ghost Hip

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 5:30 pm

Bassist_Diver wrote:As I've said before, AOC needs to learn two very important things if she wants to stay around for a while:

1. Demanding Congress adopt every single platform RIGHT FUCKING NOW never works and often breeds resentment and fractures/averts alliances. Especially if you do it in a situation where there's no way in hell the opposition-controlled sister chamber and White House will hop on board.

That's why you pass Medicare for All and Green New Deal bills - to force the opposition to vote down or veto these very popular policies.

It didn't work for the tea party

The forces behind the Tea Party effectively control the country today and rendered 3/4 of Obama's years as moot.

nor did it work with the alt right or Obama's first term, both of which were situations where the same party controlled Congress and the White House!

In 2009-10, Obama failed to lead from the front and enforce party discipline, which is why it was historically ineffectual for a single-party government.
He was obsessed with reasonable Republicans and bipartisanship, if he just proved how rational he was eventually the Republicans would come around.

Obviously, this was bullshit. The only bipartisan consensus this country has reached in the last 60 years has revolved around bombing people of color on the other side of the world, overthrowing people of color who get uppity and incarcerating people of color at home.


2. Her district is very left-leaning. My district is not. The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not. What she wants may very well work for her constituents, but as we saw in the 2018 election it does not mesh well with other parts of the country, even those that are younger and more left-leaning than their parents.

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Our public discourse is ruled by some vague idea of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" moderation being the common sense middle ground - thing is, there is no constituency for that. There are far more economically liberal and socially conservative voters than vice versa - and most fall into lib/lib or con/con.

Climate change is a guillotine hanging over all of our heads by a rapidly fraying rope. The political class's plan is, at best on the establishment Democratic side, to ignore it and continue kicking it down the road.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jrfox92 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:18 pm

jirodreamsofdank wrote:Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Okay, seriously.
I need to know what you're smoking.
Since I always forget:

Inconuucl wrote:You can't kill Strymon, it'll just resurrect 3 days later.

BitchPudding wrote:Despite all my rage, I am still just eating tacos in a cage.

Inconuucl wrote:Welcome to ilf, we have three jokes and twelve posters. <3
jrfox92

User avatar
IAMILFFAMOUS
IAMILFFAMOUS
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:23 am
Location: Akron, Ohio

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby dubkitty » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:06 pm

read some feckin' poll results, yo.
"we are all Romans
we live to regret it"--Bullen/Hayward/Williams, 1981

"exit this Roman shell
then you know you must leave the capitol"--Mark E. Smith, 1981

"your joys are counterfeit
this happiness corrupt political shit"--Richey Edwards, 1991

"the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder"--Richard J. Daley, 1968

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

SCARING THE CHILDREN SINCE 1970
dubkitty

User avatar
IAMILFFAMOUS
IAMILFFAMOUS
 
Posts: 11088
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:03 pm
Location: somewhere between Jerry Garcia and Neil Halstead...OK, Charlottesville if you must

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:09 pm

jrfox92 wrote:
jirodreamsofdank wrote:Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Okay, seriously.
I need to know what you're smoking.


The sweet leaf of... reality.

The two policy initiatives she's taken any kind of lead on thus far are the Green New Deal and taxing the hyper-wealthy, both of which polled with majority support among Republicans and supermajority support among Democrats. Neither of these should be a shock, as I said there's a significant bloc of economically liberal/socially conservative Americans and the GOP's donor class has been able to rope them in with culture war (and racism) for 50 years.

You could throw in Medicare for All, though I don't think you can credit her with any kind of leadership so far, which continually polls well.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:11 pm

Image
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jrfox92 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:49 pm

So, I looked up these "polls".
Saying that "republicans support AOC's policies" is quuuuiiiiiittteee a stretch to what the actual data shows.
NSFW: show
Image
Note the curious way that they poller decided to describe the GND, also, the time period.
Also note that the data shows just how small the data group is that even knows enough to be polled properly.
Image

So, I'd say that at best it's pretty much inconclusive and at worst, misrepresentative of how people view AOC's GND.

NSFW: show
This poll, on the other hand, kind of supports your argument regarding taxes, but it's certainly not a "majority".
Since I always forget:

Inconuucl wrote:You can't kill Strymon, it'll just resurrect 3 days later.

BitchPudding wrote:Despite all my rage, I am still just eating tacos in a cage.

Inconuucl wrote:Welcome to ilf, we have three jokes and twelve posters. <3
jrfox92

User avatar
IAMILFFAMOUS
IAMILFFAMOUS
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:23 am
Location: Akron, Ohio

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:01 pm

So the low end of GOP support for a 70% marginal tax rate is 45%, I've seen polls higher.
Let's take that poll as gospel - barely a minority among Republicans, a majority among independents and a supermajority among Democrats. How is that not a popular policy proposal?

That other poll... shows exactly what I said? Again, it's not a shock - Republicans have managed to terrify a populace that has historically been happy with government programs and public works by scaring them with "welfare queens driving Cadillacs." They still fundamentally like public works and infrastructure and the promise of a brighter future.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:03 pm

Overall, the country is governed well to the right of the public's economic ideology and in line with its social ideology.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby Benn Roe » Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:29 pm

Bassist_Diver wrote:The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not.


Jiro already said virtually everything I wanted to respond with, and then some, but the above quoted phrase needs some attention too. Are you implying that people stayed home in 2016 because Hillary was too far to the left? If anything, many people stayed home because she has historically been such a textbook moderate, she doesn't really stand for anything. Bernie forced her to the left, but nobody seemed to be buying it. But that's really the thing about this myth of the level-headed moderate, swooping in to enact sensible bipartisan compromise: what counts as "the middle" is constantly moving to the left, so moderates just come across as disingenuous and noncomittal to most people. I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.
Former Bands: Lazy Gaga, Kadis-kot, Pyramids, In First Person, the Holy Fucking Spirit, Take Down Your Art, A Petal Fallen
Benn Roe

experienced
experienced
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby Bassist_Diver » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:00 pm

jirodreamsofdank wrote:
Bassist_Diver wrote:As I've said before, AOC needs to learn two very important things if she wants to stay around for a while:

1. Demanding Congress adopt every single platform RIGHT FUCKING NOW never works and often breeds resentment and fractures/averts alliances. Especially if you do it in a situation where there's no way in hell the opposition-controlled sister chamber and White House will hop on board.

That's why you pass Medicare for All and Green New Deal bills - to force the opposition to vote down or veto these very popular policies.


That will get shot down in the Senate or vetoed by the dipshit in chief. All that does is delay implementing extremely important legislature. If they were separate bills this wouldn't be a problem, but doing everything in one-fell swoop has never worked.

It didn't work for the tea party

The forces behind the Tea Party effectively control the country today and rendered 3/4 of Obama's years as moot.

nor did it work with the alt right or Obama's first term, both of which were situations where the same party controlled Congress and the White House!

In 2009-10, Obama failed to lead from the front and enforce party discipline, which is why it was historically ineffectual for a single-party government.
He was obsessed with reasonable Republicans and bipartisanship, if he just proved how rational he was eventually the Republicans would come around.

Obviously, this was bullshit. The only bipartisan consensus this country has reached in the last 60 years has revolved around bombing people of color on the other side of the world, overthrowing people of color who get uppity and incarcerating people of color at home.


Nice strawman. None of those have anything to do with trying to implement legislation that pushes a majority of a platform in a single bill.

2. Her district is very left-leaning. My district is not. The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not. What she wants may very well work for her constituents, but as we saw in the 2018 election it does not mesh well with other parts of the country, even those that are younger and more left-leaning than their parents.

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Our public discourse is ruled by some vague idea of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" moderation being the common sense middle ground - thing is, there is no constituency for that. There are far more economically liberal and socially conservative voters than vice versa - and most fall into lib/lib or con/con.


LOL no. See above replies

Climate change is a guillotine hanging over all of our heads by a rapidly fraying rope. The political class's plan is, at best on the establishment Democratic side, to ignore it and continue kicking it down the road.


Refer back to my first point. Make it a separate bill and DON'T include all the other state-funded pieces that still scare the shit out of enough people to make the bill unpassable in the Senate.

Benn Roe wrote:
Bassist_Diver wrote:The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not.


Jiro already said virtually everything I wanted to respond with, and then some, but the above quoted phrase needs some attention too. Are you implying that people stayed home in 2016 because Hillary was too far to the left? If anything, many people stayed home because she has historically been such a textbook moderate, she doesn't really stand for anything. Bernie forced her to the left, but nobody seemed to be buying it. But that's really the thing about this myth of the level-headed moderate, swooping in to enact sensible bipartisan compromise: what counts as "the middle" is constantly moving to the left, so moderates just come across as disingenuous and noncomittal to most people. I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.


No, I'm implying a huge number of people voted for Donald Fucking Trump because Hillary is on the ticket. You're in Philly, which is traditionally very left. The midwest, however, is not. Look what happened when Bernie and AOC stumped for the hard left candidates in the more rural great plains - not a single one was elected. The country is indeed moving left, nobody is denying that, but there IS still a very large chunk of the population that is moderate

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/lea ... gains.aspx

If y'all want to make moderates less "disingenuous and noncomittal [sic]" you absolutely cannot shove everything down their throats at once and then shame them if they don't take it. That didn't work in 2016 when the dems went after everyone who wasn't on-board with identity politics. This shit takes time and until the dems realize this they're going to be fighting an uphill battle for a looooong time.
Image
The sea, once it casts its spell, holds one in its net of wonder forever. - Jacques Cousteau
Good dealings with: Vrom, Conky

Yamaha / Gallien-Krueger / Pedals
Bassist_Diver

User avatar
experienced
experienced
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:20 am
Location: Texas

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:48 pm

Bassist_Diver wrote:That will get shot down in the Senate or vetoed by the dipshit in chief. All that does is delay implementing extremely important legislature. If they were separate bills this wouldn't be a problem, but doing everything in one-fell swoop has never worked.


Yes, that's what I said: you force the opposition to deny people the policies they support.
'They' are separate bills - and technically speaking, I don't believe that there's a straight-up "bill" for the GND or Warren/Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez's various tax proposals either.

What is this "extremely important legislation" that's being delayed because there's a Medicare For All bill in committee?

Nice strawman. None of those have anything to do with trying to implement legislation that pushes a majority of a platform in a single bill.

What strawman? You said "it" - staking out a position considered radical - didn't 'work out for the Tea Party. I explained how it worked out incredibly well for the Tea Party. You may have missed the entire era between 2010 and 2018, but I didn't. I explained how failure to do anything like that rendered Obama's first two years with a Democratic Congress ineffectual - rather than lead he sought bipartisan consensus that was never going to come, neutering his signature 'achievement' (Obamacare) in the process. When you negotiate with yourself before you even start negotiating with the other side, you're going to lose.

LOL no. See above replies

The ones with polling that illustrates exactly what I said? Or the quadrant map I showed you that illustrated where the electorate actually lies?

Refer back to my first point. Make it a separate bill and DON'T include all the other state-funded pieces that still scare the shit out of enough people to make the bill unpassable in the Senate.

I don't know what the fuck you're even talking about...

There is no "Green New Deal" that is "passable in the Senate." None. Zip. Nada. Even the shit that wouldn't work - cap and trade schemes - is unpassable with the contemporary GOP.

The GOP is a party of the ultrawealthy who can ride out the future in their compounds and millenarian white evangelicals who are just waiting until Armageddon. They have nothing to offer.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jirodreamsofdank » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:01 pm

Benn Roe wrote:
Bassist_Diver wrote:I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.


More important than leftists, people of color. Somehow a person directly linked to the 'tough on crime' era of Democratic politics had relatively limited appeal to people who have borne the brunt of mass incarceration.

The Clinton campaign was explicit about their desire to win over 'moderate' Republicans - "for every blue collar Democrat we lose, we gain two suburban Republicans" - and the Bloomberg and Kissinger ass-kissing, etc.. And to no one's surprise, they didn't get those suburban Republicans.
jirodreamsofdank

committed
committed
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:23 am

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby dubkitty » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:32 pm

not to mention that the Clintons were also responsible for "ending welfare as we know it," which now means someone can only apply for food stamps for one period of a couple of months every five years. fuck those sellout bastards and the mule they rode in on.
"we are all Romans
we live to regret it"--Bullen/Hayward/Williams, 1981

"exit this Roman shell
then you know you must leave the capitol"--Mark E. Smith, 1981

"your joys are counterfeit
this happiness corrupt political shit"--Richey Edwards, 1991

"the policeman isn't there to create disorder, the policeman is there to preserve disorder"--Richard J. Daley, 1968

In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni

SCARING THE CHILDREN SINCE 1970
dubkitty

User avatar
IAMILFFAMOUS
IAMILFFAMOUS
 
Posts: 11088
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 2:03 pm
Location: somewhere between Jerry Garcia and Neil Halstead...OK, Charlottesville if you must

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby Benn Roe » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:48 pm

Eh? That's not how it works here. You have to recheck your eligibility every six months, but as long as you continue to qualify, you can keep your benefits indefinitely.
Former Bands: Lazy Gaga, Kadis-kot, Pyramids, In First Person, the Holy Fucking Spirit, Take Down Your Art, A Petal Fallen
Benn Roe

experienced
experienced
 
Posts: 570
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:36 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: apolitical/"abolition of civil rights" is wishful thinki

Postby jrfox92 » Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:17 am

jirodreamsofdank wrote:That other poll... shows exactly what I said?

That's what I'm saying, it didn't, imo.

jirodreamsofdank wrote:Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans.


jrfox92 wrote:
NSFW: show
Image

"Some members of Congress are proposing a 'Green New Deal' for the U.s. They say that a Green New Deal will produce jobs and strengthen America's economy by accelerating the transition from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy. The Deal would generate 100% ofthe nation's electricity from clean, renewable sources within the next 10 years; upgrade the nation's energy grid, building, and transportation infrastructure; increase energy efficiency; invest in green technology research and development; and provide training for jobs in the new green economy. How much do you support or oppose this idea?

Note the curious way that they poller decided to describe the GND, also, the time period.

My argument was that the question asked in the poll is misrepresentative of AOC's actual GND by omitting all the relevant information and thus the whole premise that the poll indicates actual support for her policy is false.
Add to that, the poll was made months before anyone even knew anything about the GND, which further cements my view that it doesn't actually support your claim.
This was the only poll I found regarding your claim. Since you made the claim, I posit that it's your responsibility to provide these supposed "polls" you saw, because all you've done is make claims with no actual basis as far as I can tell. :poke:
Since I always forget:

Inconuucl wrote:You can't kill Strymon, it'll just resurrect 3 days later.

BitchPudding wrote:Despite all my rage, I am still just eating tacos in a cage.

Inconuucl wrote:Welcome to ilf, we have three jokes and twelve posters. <3
jrfox92

User avatar
IAMILFFAMOUS
IAMILFFAMOUS
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:23 am
Location: Akron, Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Sponsored Ad. (Please no inflated/repetitive clicking. Thanks!)

Advertisements help support ILF


ilovefuzz.com is not responsible for user-submitted content. Users participate at their own discretion and risk.