General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 278

In the case of France, you have someone who did offer that. Now they're out of the race. The person left that stands in opposition to fascism doesn't want to integrate any of his ideas into his platform and his followers are expected to march over to him in lock-step. As for your actual post, my point of contention is, you actually have to offer it to them in the first place. Democrats, including Obama, have not done so. So, for example, the two things that left an indelible mark on the American electorate has been our intervention in the Middle East and the financial crisis. Those issues persist. You can talk about Dodd-Frank and yet, if my pension is gone, if I have to go from $50,000 a year to $20,000, if I have to lose my house and the government has done nothing, what does this demonstrate to me? I remember when Obama got into office. I remember people thinking he was going to do the 21st century new deal and then I remember the moment at which he staffed his cabinet with bankers and the architects of the financial crisis. And so, since we can't talk honestly about why things are the way they are, we have to project outward It isn't the fault of the elites, it is the racists. It isn't that Obama failed in many respects, it is that they, the mindless masses, just didn't comprehend the state of affairs. It isn't that Hillary ran a shambolic campaign, it is that the left undercut her. And on and on.

 

How did this "look at all the liberals 'fine' with genocide" meme get started? The entire conversation yesterday or whenever started with me saying I wasn't "fine" with anyone being murdered ... and I've read a good portion of this thread, who's actually "fine" with any of the stuff on these lists that keep getting thrown out there? I've seen like 10 posts total with people being "fine" with anyone dying in mass numbers ... and that wasn't ever from the "neoliberals."

 

It should be, but it isn't because the other person being bad isn't a vision for someone who lives in abject poverty, who doesn't want more austerity. And good for macron, I guess. I don't particularly trust the polls and from what I can see, he hasn't been trying to win them over.

 

lol holy shit. It's pretty apparent you don't actually read peoples posts here if you think literally anyone here thinks "liberal ideology" is "god incarnate".

Also I used to get a bunch of dms on the old AP board about talking to the commies, so you're not special there.

 

I don't acknowledge the fact that I am fine with genocide, but vote for this person who is fine with genocide.

 

M
A
R
G
I
N
A
L

D
I
F
F
E
R
E
N
C
E

 

obviously implicated actions by ones stated words speak louder than words. don't know what to tell you.

 

lol or you could just admit that the democratic party happily turned the other way when it came to their candidate being cool with apartheid, drone striking civilians, mass deportations, etc etc

i treat memes like kitsch that i'm so doggedly behind on that i'm actually ahead of the curve on the cultural turnaround on them

yeah and i mean i'm free to say it's some gross bullshit that they call a man who killed foreign civilians and said nothing about our ally's perpetuation of mass killings their "daddy" while positioning themselves as the party of the disenfranchised and culturally minded

 

Kind of like how not doing everything one can to prevent fascism from coming to power implies one is fine with fascism coming to power...

 

at the risk of being super simplistic, if you consider Israel as a nation is one big settlement, where would you have those "displaced" Israelis go in a single state solution? This is me assuming that a partial removal of settlements is insufficient

 

Well, you could start with "I'm wrong as hell, I've provided by far the worst take in this politics thread over at least the last week, and I'm talking out my ass without a clear understanding of what exactly it is im saying."

If you're looking for suggestions, I mean.

 

Well, I'm technically part of the "democratic party" and I know I and many, many others were never "happy" with the candidate being "cool" with any of these things, nor did we turn the other way around them. Nor were we cool with the primary candidate that was apparently "cool" with this as well, it's why a lot of us voted for Bernie Sanders and why many of us have been involved in trying to stop all of these things, etc. etc. etc. for over a decade now. Again, your penchant for these sweeping broad absolute statements is just fucking ridiculous.

 

I was going to respond later and in more detail, but I thought he was being a little purposely obtuse with some of those questions. I thought it was rather obvious that a two star solution obviously would be "current borders where they are, settlements where they are are fine", etc.

 

last year* get your facts right. you've been reading too many trump tweets.

 

True. I think he's rubbing off on all of us at this point. Sorry for being mean

 

An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)

The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.

Damn did that end up being prescient, and does it still remain well said.

 

Sounds like a lot of neoliberal hooey to me, sir.

 

Another thrilling round of "everything is fucked" vs. "everything isn't that fucked", the eternal debate continues

 

Tell me that you're alright, / That everything is alright. / Please tell me that you're alright, / That everything is alright

 

Give me a reason to end this discussion.

 

No, I understand that exactly. My point is, that is still bad, and still results in millions of displaced Palestinians, and those who are able to live in their homes would not be living in an area geographically inclined toward prosperity. That is, with current borders, the Jewish state would control most access into and out of the Palestinian state, the vast majority of the water and farmable land in greater Palestine, etc.

 

Do emojis not sh

Wow SUPER UNFORTUNATE typo there, that should say "Wouldn't be", not would be. Like most of my Jewish friends think Israel has pushed way too far into Palestinian land, etc. not all of them, but most.