War Room Lounge V43: STEM is Overrated

[Jack V Savage]

If he can't get things done without it(which I agree is likely), he may need to change his position. But, there is no reason to assume bad faith on his part

There is, I think. And that is that the filibuster as it's been used since 2009 is obviously horrible, and no one thinks that it's good on principle. If you think the majority is going to pass terrible policy, you're glad to have it, but if you're in the majority, you wish it weren't there. From a neutral perspective, what benefit is there to fundamentally changing the nature of the Senate like that? I guess if you're a true conservative, you would support making it really hard to change the law on principle? But given that it just recently started being used that way, you'd have to be an odd sort of conservative.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You're changing the conversation here, though. He was specifically talking about the grassroots left-wing insurgency ("the left's takeover") of 2015 on, not the left half of the country in general. The left as a force within and without the party is very coherent and strong; it's not a matter of arriving at ideological agreement so much as it is bringing the rest of the Democrats to heel.

To digress a little, it seems to me that the main threat that the Real Left makes to bring the rest of the party to heel is that they're going to throw the election to the far right, which putting aside the morality of it, leaves something to be desired in terms of strategy, especially if they suspect that the people who are supposed to respond to the threat secretly want to move to the right.

 

[BarryDillon]

To digress a little, it seems to me that the main threat that the Real Left makes to bring the rest of the party to heel is that they're going to throw the election to the far right, which putting aside the morality of it, leaves something to be desired in terms of strategy, especially if they suspect that the people who are supposed to respond to the threat secretly want to move to the right.

I think it may be time to start a new progressive party that is more responsive to the needs of the people, is truly anti-war, and doesn't fall prey to "reaching across the aisle".

The Democratic Party is still functioning as though the Republican Party is acting in good faith. That's very dangerous.

 

[Trotsky]

To digress a little, it seems to me that the main threat that the Real Left makes to bring the rest of the party to heel is that they're going to throw the election to the far right, which putting aside the morality of it, leaves something to be desired in terms of strategy, especially if they suspect that the people who are supposed to respond to the threat secretly want to move to the right.

Truthfully, I've never seen that "threat" presented anywhere except here with Anung and, to a lesser extent, VivaRev, both of whom are pretty odd ducks ideologically (with Viva, especially, his position is clearly that if the left won't indulge his worker populism, then he'll go to the Republicans for at least indulging his social conservatism). It's presented as a prediction, sure, because of the systemic critique of the country's economy and political system, but not an active "we Marxists are all going to vote for Donald Trump."

Also, as an aside, in speaking about this systemic issue, one thing I do like about O'Rourke and Buttigieg (who I have soured on considerably since becoming more familiar with him) is their rhetorical commitment to expanding or reinforcing democracy. It may not result in any actual policy achievements, but I think it's a winning argument since it forces the Republicans to actively oppose broadly popular policies like election day-holiday and automatic voter registration and characterize them as a "power grab," which was/is a really bad fucking look and it shines a light on how meaningless the GOP's accusations are.

 

[NoDak]

 

[Falsedawn]

I think it may be time to start a new progressive party that is more responsive to the needs of the people, is truly anti-war, and doesn't fall prey to "reaching across the aisle".

The Democratic Party is still functioning as though the Republican Party is acting in good faith. That's very dangerous.

Problem is that the stratification is bound to have the opposite effect of what you think. Even if a new party is truly left and galvanizes a base representative of that aim, the name recognition and entrenched infrastructure of the Democratic party would keep those that are either only mildly displeased or happy being center-right. That's a not insignificant amount of people.

The way to do what you want to do is to create a "Trump Party", use that fracturing to move the overton window left again, and force the center right to make a decision to either go far right or moderate for the new (old) status quo. How far left you go is largely dependent on how much political capital you have in the cache, but it could be done.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

 

[Trotsky]

"There's no slippery slope" they said

 

[Trotsky]

Seriously, I can't believe there isn't a thread on this from one of the resident arbiters of morality

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/5/...vEk2Xt5-qg6FAGkLJZCriXOiZWIYxsIA2VTp6YaIiUU9c

 

[BarryDillon]

Seriously, I can't believe there isn't a thread on this from one of the resident arbiters of morality

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/5/...vEk2Xt5-qg6FAGkLJZCriXOiZWIYxsIA2VTp6YaIiUU9c

 

[Fawlty]

I promised myself I'd give Tulsi's Rogan appearance an honest listen, and she still sounded like vapid populist AIDS. Sorry.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I promised myself I'd give Tulsi's Rogan appearance an honest listen, and she still sounded like vapid populist AIDS. Sorry.

What I want to know is why she's even a thing here. I guess it's radio shows/podcasts? The media I consume doesn't even notice her existence, but in the WR, she's everywhere.

 

[Trotsky]

What I want to know is why she's even a thing here.

I think you can do it. Think about who she was interviewed by.

 

[Higus]

What I want to know is why she's even a thing here. I guess it's radio shows/podcasts? The media I consume doesn't even notice her existence, but in the WR, she's everywhere.

Because she's *perceived* as less...accommodating to Muslims compared to other left wing candidates.

 

[Fawlty]

What I want to know is why she's even a thing here. I guess it's radio shows/podcasts? The media I consume doesn't even notice her existence, but in the WR, she's everywhere.

The Rogan appearances play the biggest part in that, her "both sides" crap plays very well in this subforum, she talks shit about Democrats nonstop, wants everyone to forget about the Mueller report, and she's eerily fond of dictators. I think all of that makes her popularity on this sub...intersectional...if I can be a bit of a dick about it. Also the Muslim thing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Three good answers.

 

[Trotsky]

Because she's *perceived* as less...accommodating to Muslims compared to other left wing candidates.

And my guts tells me that her low voice (for a woman) plays some part in making her more palatable to right-wingers who are quick to get their misogyny boners all pricked up by a gender stereotype (thinking of women with more feminine ways of speaking like AOC and Liz Warren).

But, admittedly, I could also be imputing to them my own biases, as I find her voice pretty sensual.

 

[Fawlty]

And my guts tells me that her low voice (for a woman) plays some part in making her more palatable to right-wingers who are quick to get their misogyny boners all pricked up by a gender stereotype (thinking of women with more feminine ways of speaking like AOC and Liz Warren).

But, admittedly, I could also be imputing to them my own biases, as I find her voice pretty sensual.

Thumb clit?

 

[Trotsky]

Thumb clit?

Stop it.

 

[Fawlty]

Stop it.

I'm just speculating, geez.



It's like Andre the Giant in a rowboat.