In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 28 2016 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Republican National Convention currently is not allowing open carry of guns. Let that sink in for a second (amendment).
Interesting, considering how heavily they pretend that only "good fellas" have guns and totally should be able to carry them even in schools and stuff, in case bad stuff happens.
The people behind the petition are quite suave, I think. It's a cheeky yet possibly quite impactful way of giving shape to the 2nd Amendment doublespeak employed by NRA folk.
On March 28 2016 05:57 oneofthem wrote: all the sanders agitprop in caucus states must be a sight to behold. it is a full on revolution with revolutionary use of media, so voter manipulation charges always to craft narrative instead of raising genuine issues of concern.
im just curious about the mental state of people who get so attached to such a terrible candidate and platform. bird seems in the right ballpark
revolution needs a vanguard party to avoid this vulgar bird brained populism. Hillary supporters understand and accept this
not sure what you are implying here. the aspect of bernie mania i highlight with the term revolution is at the tactical level. accepting radical and manipulative tactics and embracing the radicalizing effect this has on followers.
i think you are quite missing the point of revolution if you think revolutionaries are attached to a platform proposed in a conventional party primary
On March 28 2016 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Republican National Convention currently is not allowing open carry of guns. Let that sink in for a second (amendment).
Interesting, considering how heavily they pretend that only "good fellas" have guns and totally should be able to carry them even in schools and stuff, in case bad stuff happens.
The people behind the petition are quite suave, I think. It's a cheeky yet possibly quite impactful way of giving shape to the 2nd Amendment doublespeak employed by NRA folk.
Not entirely sure why that'd be needed - a tiny bit (not even that much, like "don't put your face in open flames, it hurts") of common sense would already suffice.
People were that stubborn/willfully blind/purposely ignorant for so long, i doubt this has any impact.
On March 28 2016 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Republican National Convention currently is not allowing open carry of guns. Let that sink in for a second (amendment).
Interesting, considering how heavily they pretend that only "good fellas" have guns and totally should be able to carry them even in schools and stuff, in case bad stuff happens.
The people behind the petition are quite suave, I think. It's a cheeky yet possibly quite impactful way of giving shape to the 2nd Amendment doublespeak employed by NRA folk.
Not entirely sure why that'd be needed - a tiny bit (not even that much, like "don't put your face in open flames, it hurts") of common sense would already suffice.
People were that stubborn/willfully blind/purposely ignorant for so long, i doubt this has any impact.
Two things: first, common sense is not so common in US politics . Second, I think you're overlooking the opportunity presented by the disillusionment Trump both represents and has inflicted on the Republican Party. Forcing conservatives to put their money where their mouth is is pretty much what got Trump to where he is today, so taking a shot at another facet of Republican Party hypocrisy seems worthwhile I'd say.
On March 28 2016 05:57 oneofthem wrote: all the sanders agitprop in caucus states must be a sight to behold. it is a full on revolution with revolutionary use of media, so voter manipulation charges always to craft narrative instead of raising genuine issues of concern.
im just curious about the mental state of people who get so attached to such a terrible candidate and platform. bird seems in the right ballpark
revolution needs a vanguard party to avoid this vulgar bird brained populism. Hillary supporters understand and accept this
not sure what you are implying here. the aspect of bernie mania i highlight with the term revolution is at the tactical level. accepting radical and manipulative tactics and embracing the radicalizing effect this has on followers.
i think you are quite missing the point of revolution if you think revolutionaries are attached to a platform proposed in a conventional party primary
they are obviously not trying to run for policy changes. it is designed to propose a possible vision.
however, this vision is lacking stairs to the pearly gates. would only lead to frustration by those who do not see why the 'enemies' reject it
im not rejecting the aspirational politics, contrary, need to also have a grasp of the possible and the causal linkages to make that vision inform pragmatic action.
On March 28 2016 11:50 farvacola wrote: Again, this notion that you can baselessly equate political dynamics across both sides of the aisle needs a lot of unpacking that is not being done. I know it's fun to play the role of Wolf Blitzer and use phrases like "tea party of the left" without doing any work in actually substantiating the equivocation, but there is ample reason to regard the tea party phenomena as one inherently bound with fundamental values of conservatism turned political game of capital. Consequently, the act of glossing over these translation problems relative to Sanders' impact/influence on the Democratic party ends up being nothing more than candidate-specific demagoguery.
commonalities are vast. antiestablishment. shadowboxing vs conspiratorial antagonists leading to lack of compromise. lack of actual policy focus. will alienate mainstream
Keep showing off the fact that you have never followed a presidential primary before (or don't understand how one works) as you continue this game of over-simplified fear mongering like it's the new fashion. It does a great job of signaling to others that you're not concerned with the realities of electoral dynamics vis a vie the tenets of progressive politics.
what the fuck are you even talking about now? sandernistas want to overthrow the party establishment and do their thing. are you refusing to acknowledge the vast similarities with the tea party movement on the right?
On March 28 2016 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Republican National Convention currently is not allowing open carry of guns. Let that sink in for a second (amendment).
Interesting, considering how heavily they pretend that only "good fellas" have guns and totally should be able to carry them even in schools and stuff, in case bad stuff happens.
The people behind the petition are quite suave, I think. It's a cheeky yet possibly quite impactful way of giving shape to the 2nd Amendment doublespeak employed by NRA folk.
I wonder if the GOP will ever try to divorce itself from the NRA. I mean isn't that org not even that popular among gun owners? You can still be pro gun but tell the NRA to fuck off. They can probably get away with it too because the current climate of trying to get money out of politics (and the failure of some big spenders IE Jeb) would put them in a position to get away from that nasty org while appealing to the masses that they are pro-gun but not crazy and not controlled by special interests such as the NRA but do it for "pure" beliefs in gun rights.
On March 28 2016 11:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The Republican National Convention currently is not allowing open carry of guns. Let that sink in for a second (amendment).
Interesting, considering how heavily they pretend that only "good fellas" have guns and totally should be able to carry them even in schools and stuff, in case bad stuff happens.
The people behind the petition are quite suave, I think. It's a cheeky yet possibly quite impactful way of giving shape to the 2nd Amendment doublespeak employed by NRA folk.
I wonder if the GOP will ever try to divorce itself from the NRA. I mean isn't that org not even that popular among gun owners? You can still be pro gun but tell the NRA to fuck off. They can probably get away with it too because the current climate of trying to get money out of politics (and the failure of some big spenders IE Jeb) would put them in a position to get away from that nasty org while appealing to the masses that they are pro-gun but not crazy and not controlled by special interests such as the NRA but do it for "pure" beliefs in gun rights.
why would the GOP want to divorce itself from the NRA? They attack almost specifically democrats and are extremely effective in the south on that regard. The current climate of trying to get money out of politics helps the party who isn't trying to get money out of politics as it gives them a significant advantage in money. Whats the point of even being for gun rights if you don't get political power out of it?
On March 28 2016 11:50 farvacola wrote: Again, this notion that you can baselessly equate political dynamics across both sides of the aisle needs a lot of unpacking that is not being done. I know it's fun to play the role of Wolf Blitzer and use phrases like "tea party of the left" without doing any work in actually substantiating the equivocation, but there is ample reason to regard the tea party phenomena as one inherently bound with fundamental values of conservatism turned political game of capital. Consequently, the act of glossing over these translation problems relative to Sanders' impact/influence on the Democratic party ends up being nothing more than candidate-specific demagoguery.
commonalities are vast. antiestablishment. shadowboxing vs conspiratorial antagonists leading to lack of compromise. lack of actual policy focus. will alienate mainstream
Keep showing off the fact that you have never followed a presidential primary before (or don't understand how one works) as you continue this game of over-simplified fear mongering like it's the new fashion. It does a great job of signaling to others that you're not concerned with the realities of electoral dynamics vis a vie the tenets of progressive politics.
what the fuck are you even talking about now? sandernistas want to overthrow the party establishment and do their thing. are you refusing to acknowledge the vast similarities with the tea party movement on the right?
Sanders wants to overthrow the party establishment? By running for election within the Democrat party's primary election?
What?
You're really proving the guy's point. Primaries are establishment. Bernie Sanders is running to be the established Democrat candidate. He isn't running as a 3rd Party, and has made it clear he would never do that. The Tea Party, on the other hand, has often threatened to remove itself from the Republican Party. Bernie's "movement" has been entirely created and promoted due to his Presidential candidacy. It begins and ends with one person's candidacy.
The Tea Party was a movement unto itself, and only after its creation did it promote numerous candidates, across all states and government branches.
Anytime anyone runs for President in a Primary against the more popularized candidate, that makes them "anti-establishment", akin to the Tea Party? Really? This stuff isn't even a "stretch", it's just outright fallacy and mis-characterization.
On March 28 2016 11:50 farvacola wrote: Again, this notion that you can baselessly equate political dynamics across both sides of the aisle needs a lot of unpacking that is not being done. I know it's fun to play the role of Wolf Blitzer and use phrases like "tea party of the left" without doing any work in actually substantiating the equivocation, but there is ample reason to regard the tea party phenomena as one inherently bound with fundamental values of conservatism turned political game of capital. Consequently, the act of glossing over these translation problems relative to Sanders' impact/influence on the Democratic party ends up being nothing more than candidate-specific demagoguery.
commonalities are vast. antiestablishment. shadowboxing vs conspiratorial antagonists leading to lack of compromise. lack of actual policy focus. will alienate mainstream
Keep showing off the fact that you have never followed a presidential primary before (or don't understand how one works) as you continue this game of over-simplified fear mongering like it's the new fashion. It does a great job of signaling to others that you're not concerned with the realities of electoral dynamics vis a vie the tenets of progressive politics.
what the fuck are you even talking about now? sandernistas want to overthrow the party establishment and do their thing. are you refusing to acknowledge the vast similarities with the tea party movement on the right?
Sanders wants to overthrow the party establishment? By running for election within the Democrat party's primary election?
What?
You're really proving the guy's point. Primaries are establishment. Bernie Sanders is running to be the established Democrat candidate. He isn't running as a 3rd Party, and has made it clear he would never do that. Bernie's "movement" has been entirely created and promoted due to his Presidential candidacy. It begins and ends with one person's candidacy.
The Tea Party was a movement unto itself, and only after its creation did it promote numerous candidates, across all states and government branches.
Anytime anyone runs for President in a Primary against the more popularized candidate, that makes them "anti-establishment", akin to the Tea Party? Really? This stuff isn't even a "stretch", it's just outright fallacy and mis-characterization.
my judgment is based on the moves sanders has made and would be making, also the radicalization of this group.
i dont want to belabor the point but you will see the deep divide surface. the washington establishment in economics and fp are irreconcilable with the sanders populism. give it a few months when sanders is holding out on endorsement over tpp etc.
On March 28 2016 13:36 xDaunt wrote: So the Tea Party didn't elect its politicians within the established political framework? That's news to me.
Tell me where I said that? Yes, they did.
But what you're talking about was something created not OUT of any particular election. The Tea Party wasn't about promoting a candidate.
Forget it, I forgot this is the deliberately-obtuse thread.
Sorry, I'm not very sharp right now after a weekend of gluttony and drinking.
You can't differentiate the Tea Party and the Sandernistas on those grounds. The allure of Sanders isn't the person. It's the platform -- no different than with the Tea Party.
EPT
. Second, I think you're overlooking the opportunity presented by the disillusionment Trump both represents and has inflicted on the Republican Party. Forcing conservatives to put their money where their mouth is is pretty much what got Trump to where he is today, so taking a shot at another facet of Republican Party hypocrisy seems worthwhile I'd say.
