General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 573

The point is, there is a fight that demands radical change, yet yields incremental change. If, however, the demands are compromised, middling, or predicated on center right reforms, for example, then you'll get nothing precisely because those dynamics are bound up in defending status quo structures.

 

What fight is being referenced? The original post was a broad generalization.

Slightly off topic, but just a thought: I think that our state based representative republic is going to almost always lead to incremental change, by design. Also, I wonder if there was a way to normalize and chart this — progressive change - if we would see an acceleration over the past three decades or so. Anecdotally, I would not be surprised if that were true.

 

The fight against neoliberalism, as represented by Clinton, is what is being referenced. Or, to use another example, if you're anti-war, then the it makes more sense to be involved in a movement against it than to vote for a candidate that openly embraces militarism.

As to the second comment, well, yes, the point is to keep very specific relations in place. But, crises-induced ruptures have periodically created spaces in which broader modifications can occur. It has become much more difficult as state apparatuses have become increasingly anti-democratic, e.g., voter suppression, the reduction of power in municipalities, the gap between what voters want and the Washington consensus, and the latter's direct connection to the stability of an unaccountable economic class.

 

Hmm. Well, I am so far not convinced that's an effective strategy, especially against an ideology (such as neoliberalism). I guess time will tell there, but I do think promising (and delivering) incremental change is a viable strategy on certain, specific, topics. (Even when I, personally, wish it took 1/100th of the time it ends up taking.) As to the second point, I don't think many people vote based upon one specific issue — and I would probably guess that the higher the office the more compromise one is willing to make when comparing to the available alternatives. Being anti-war, and advancing the movement of those principles, isn't for me intrinsically tied to one specific vote. Being involved in anti-war movements, or demonstrations, or advocating for the advancement of those principles in various fashions can stand alongside voting for a candidate you disagree with on that specific issue, but either agree with on other issues, or believe is a better alternative to the other options. I accept a % of what I agree with and a % of what I don't agree with with every single vote I cast, and I'm going to assume that's probably going to be true unless I, myself, was running for office (which I don't ever see happening).

True, but would you not concede that specific compromises alongside incremental changes has also led to modification? I don't see it as zero sum or mutually exclusive.

What's the argument being used to show that it's become more difficult over time? Again, anecdotally, it feels like the last 10 years of my life begot more "change" than the previous 10 years. But, I'm basing this all off my own view, and am totally willing to concede I'm wrong as hell; I'm curious what I can read/what data suggests the opposite. We've discussed this before, but I think I am more cynical than you when it comes to what the voters want vs what Washington does/wants/consensus. One, because not enough people vote. Two, because I am cynical and disagree with a very large percentage of the electorate on a vast number of issues and think they actually do want things I think are wrong, bad, evil, horrible, etc. Three, because the polls on a variety of these topics don't show me that the electorate actually want something all that different to begin with. Four, because the same people keep getting voted back in, e.g. everyone hates everyone else's representative.

 

I know this is off topic, but just to back a few pages, I think that still living at home with your parents stigma is about to fuck something up for me.

 

I missed that page.. I'm in that boat. It kind of sucks both that I am stuck here and occasionally have to deal with people using that stigma against me. But I'm happy to have a place while my health is being sorted out, and know I could have it worse.

But anyway, I hope everything's okay and gets worked out for you. Don't really know what it is, but I know the feeling of being in that kind of situation.

 

Haven't had opportunity to read through them completely, but from Obama's interview:

 

Children’s crusade: Trump’s “movement” is a bunch of whiny, frightened infants who can’t handle democracy

 

the weird thing about this is that complaining the system has been rigged by elites isn't necessarily "wrong"

 

Yeah, agreed. Though his supporters seem to think that everything is rigged against them, when the mere fact that he is their party's nominee is enough to think otherwise

 

If establishment Republicans were rigging the system, Jeb! would be their nominee

 

Hope everything's okay.

 

Lol

 

Oh it's nothing really.

You see, telling someone you still live with you parents can lead to not having sex.

 

8 Years in Obama’s America, By Barack Obama and 60 Other Players and Witnesses

It's remarkable to look at the year 2009 in this article and think just how dramatically the scope of American politics and culture have changed over the past 8 years.

 

Can confirm. The simple fact of being out of my childhood home for 1 month has been dramatically beneficial for this. Strange stigma

 

He acknowledged in the statement that they've killed people (which is totally a thing that you can argue against). So I guess I don't see what's LOL worthy about what he said.

 

nicknaming a day dedicated to murdering people "terror tuesday" seems pretty glib about killing people

 

Where's it say they've nicknamed it that?

 

Blasphemous.

 

...

 

Don't be obtuse. Where in the reporting? Where in the piece does it actually say that they used that nickname?

 

did you not click on greenwalds link? ctrl+f "tuesday"
"David Axelrod, the president’s closest political adviser, began showing up at the “Terror Tuesday” meetings, his unspeaking presence a visible reminder of what everyone understood: a successful attack would overwhelm the president’s other aspirations and achievements."

 

Now where there does it actually say that they used that nickname? As opposed to possibly referencing a name that others have ascribed to it?