Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Oh... and dems are the LYP? Little young party? Hehehe... (GOP) it seems like a pretty pendantic nickname if it's selfimposed. A bit shy of something like The First Order or the likes.

The term "Grand Old Party" is a traditional nickname for the Republican Party and the abbreviation "GOP" is a commonly used designation. The term originated in 1875 in the Congressional Record, referring to the party associated with the successful military defense of the Union as "this gallant old party"

Back in the 19th century the Republican Party  opposed slavery and was regarded as progressive. Abraham Lincon was a Republican president.  Things started to switch around in the 30s-40s.

Tbh I found out one day on a wikipedia binge about the American Civil War. It was astonishing to see how they turned about from being a kind-of-progressive party into one that is utterly reactionary.

Though tbh it's not an isolated example. History has plenty of examples of people doing turnabouts. In shorter time-spans even.

[LordBaal]

Oh so it is a noble nickname after all. And Ocasio-Cortez, from what I can gather from here seems a bit too enthusiastic and/or agressive, if true I guess she has her reasons to be like that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The Republicans were massively reactionary from the moment they ejected the radical abolitionists and went whole-hog on making nice with the slaver class. They merely embraced nastier social policies in the post-New Deal environment.

[WealthyRadish]

Neither party had any real ideological basis to differentiate them, both swinging widely between policy positions based mostly on whether they happened to be in control. Southern democrats, for instance, before starting the civil war by seceding over """state's rights""" had been proponents of federal power over the states just years prior while it suited them (i.e. while they controlled it).

Really, both parties were essentially criminal organizations squatting on the system (which only appropriated any real political direction from external popular movements if forced to do so) until... until... well...

[LordBaal]

Really, all parties are essentially criminal organizations

FFY

[PTTG??]

Ok, so the problem here is not specifically that parties change their political and philosophical goals and foundations in order to remain relevant. The problem is when a party becomes more loyal to itself than to the government it is a part of -- which is caused by a change of those values.

Nor is it reasonable nor plausible to imagine a scenario in which a new form of government immune to factionalism emerges without violent upheaval. There does remain the plausible scenario in which parts of existing factions are co-opted and made acceptable.

The flexibility of parties is what gives them strength. Facing that strength by trying to tear them down will be unsuccessful. Subverting that strength by redirecting the party from within stands a chance at success.

[sluissa]

Just looking over the 538 poll numbers... and I'm just filled with the feeling that we're going to get another 4 years of Trump. Biden is pulling out all the stops to be as hateable as Clinton was. Still leading in the polls by a slim to decent margin though. Less than a month away from the first primaries.

It's going to be a repeat of 2016. It's going to be a repeat, and I'm not even sure we can stop it now.

The biggest hope was that either Warren or Sanders would gain a little perspective and they'd start working together, either on the same ticket, or by one agreeing to drop out. Together they would have had enough support to beat back any of the other candidates. Now we've got this feud between them and I'm not sure if there's a big enough chunk of Sanders or Warren voters that would switch sides at this point.

I haven't been all that positive on the democratic field for a while now. But this... this is a low point.

[PTTG??]

It's a prisoner's dilemma of sorts.

Speaking of people who should be prisoners, here's trump.

[Superdorf]

I've been watching the live broadcast of Trump's impeachment trial. I dunno if anything'll come of it-- my hopes aren't too high-- but it's surely entertaining to hear the accusing lawyers lay down their case! 

You can find the broadcast here.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Remember: Sanders is the only person bringing in voters who aren't part of the Democratic coalition that is already proven failed by 2016, and they're not interested in "Blue Unity". They're only here for him. You can't scold them out of it and you can't force them to vote otherwise. And because of that, a vote against Sanders is by definition a vote for Donald Trump.

This isn't hard to see the outcome of. Back Sanders and we get to erase Trumpworld, oppose him and the crisis only escalates. We have to pick the candidate who is able to bring together the strongest coalition of voters possible, even if he's not your first choice.

[Greiger]

So far like sanders more than anyone else I've seen.  That said, Armok, I hate how that is how our system works.  You can hate someone yet still have to vote for them because otherwise the guy you hate more wins.

Everything has not so much become a popularity contest its more who do you hate LEAST that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  It shouldn't work like that.

Sorry bout griping about the obvious, back to your regularly scheduled ameripol.

[MrRoboto75]

I've been watching the live broadcast of Trump's impeachment trial. I dunno if anything'll come of it-- my hopes aren't too high-- but it's surely entertaining to hear the accusing lawyers lay down their case! 

You can find the broadcast here.

You're paying a hundred times more attention than republican senators actually at the trial.  Congratz.

[Folly]

Armok, I hate how that is how our system works.  You can hate someone yet still have to vote for them because otherwise the guy you hate more wins.
Everything has not so much become a popularity contest its more who do you hate LEAST that has a snowball's chance in hell of winning.  It shouldn't work like that.

FWIW, thanks to the House of Representatives your vote probably doesn't matter anyway, unless you happen to live in a swing state.

[sluissa]

Remember: Sanders is the only person bringing in voters who aren't part of the Democratic coalition that is already proven failed by 2016, and they're not interested in "Blue Unity". They're only here for him. You can't scold them out of it and you can't force them to vote otherwise. And because of that, a vote against Sanders is by definition a vote for Donald Trump.

This isn't hard to see the outcome of. Back Sanders and we get to erase Trumpworld, oppose him and the crisis only escalates. We have to pick the candidate who is able to bring together the strongest coalition of voters possible, even if he's not your first choice.

Uh huh. Sure. Because that's constructive. That helps. /s

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's the hard truth of the matter, so it's about the only thing that could help. I'm not memeing, not really. Under this shell somewhere is the 2016 MSH case for Bernie, which is the same then as it is now - he's the one that can realistically win and also the one that could preserve the future of this society.

And perhaps one of the only ones. The Bush-Clinton consensus is as crashed as a political paradigm gets. After Trump, there's no way people will give a mandate to politicians who insist on the old ways of running these elections. And Bernie is the only candidate who has both recognized that and has a strong path to victory.

Do I take some satisfaction in Bernie unironically being the unity candidate after all the smug bullshit to come out of the corporate Democrats? Of course I do. And if Bernie sits the Oval Office instead of Trump or the medical sarcophagus keeping Joe Biden legally alive, you better believe I will be an insufferable motherfucker on every medium I frequent for the next four years.

But like it or not, I'm also right.