Support NeoGAF

[Secret Character]

Man, good on these few journalists for sticking to their guns on this. Don't get bullied by Spicer.

 

[Officerrob]

This is amazing

 

[Spider from Mars]

Sphincter getting a light tight up there.

 

[pigeon]

The Chapo crew don't make rape jokes. They don't oppress anybody. There are no receipts and there's no smoking gun.

This is definitely the thought process I use when I'm actually interested in social justice rather than just trying to relentlessly defend something I like and suppress any cognitive dissonance I might be feeling

 

[whyamihere]

You know.

Hillary's supporters have had to -- rightfully -- understand that a lot of the criticisms levied at Hillary over the campaign season (and especially the primary) were fair, and that she maybe was the wrong candidate for this time, and made some huge mistakes that we were maybe too blind to see at the time that other people have noticed.

However.

There are a simultaneous significant number of leftists who, because they've been okay with blaming Bernie's loss on the DNC or on other conspiratorial elements, have shunned themselves from their own ability to be introspective. Weigel brought this up on the Dig when he was pushed by Daniel Denvir.

The lack of introspection is very bad if the left wants to be more successful going forward, because it absolves all responsibility from themselves. I see this a lot with those on the left who are unwilling to listen to criticism (something lots of people do) in terms of trying to build a movement that can cover all of its bases.

One of the reasons why I think the dirtbag left is not helpful.

 

[kirblar]

How many of those seats were from the South, where Democrats certainly weren't liberal or progressive? A lot of them, because Obama being elected was the final straw for a lot of them. The party hasn't moved to the right, it's very clearly moved to the left (rightfully!). Which has resulted in a lot of conservative Democrats losing influence in the party and seats in legislatures. It is truly baffling why you think it is the other way around.

And parties are always less popular than actual people, especially in the past decade. The current Democratic Party is more popular now than the Republican Party in 2009, fwiw

Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, etc. all gone now.

/|\

 

[Doc Holliday]

Man, this economy is going to crash hard with the amount austerity measures.

 

[Valhelm]

How many of those seats were from the South, where Democrats certainly weren't liberal or progressive? A lot of them, because Obama being elected was the final straw for a lot of them. The party hasn't moved to the right, it's very clearly moved to the left (rightfully!). Which has resulted in a lot of conservative Democrats losing influence in the party and seats in legislatures. It is truly baffling why you think it is the other way around.

And parties are always less popular than actual people, especially in the past decade. The current Democratic Party is more popular now than the Republican Party in 2009, fwiw

I don't think the Democrats have moved to the left. They've reacted to changes in popular opinion on gay marriage, drug use, which is great! But this has been accompanied by an unnecessary and cowardly series of concessions to the right on healthcare, education, labor, and foreign policy. If we focus on everything but civil liberties, the Republicans and Democrats are much more similar than they were in 1980.

The Democrats shouldn't be finding common ground with Republicans on healthcare. They need to oppose and obstruct every big of the Republicans' aggressive agenda, while also proposing cogent left-of-center solutions that not only provide an alternative to Trump, but also go beyond the policies that Obama pursued.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

The Chapo crew don't make rape jokes. They don't oppress anybody. There are no receipts and there's no smoking gun.

The accusations of them being bigots all boil down to their association with Nick Mullen, another podcast guy who makes a lot of stupid jokes. He isn't part of Chapo.

Some earlier Chapo eps use some casually ableist language, but nothing worse than you'd hear in an average comedy film. They toned this down because their fans asked them to stop.

The stuff you posted is a member of this group explicitly defending this Mullen person and what they say by basically saying "lighten up."

Then you go on with "yeah, they said offensive shit but it's in a lot of movies so lighten up."

 

[The Technomancer]

This isn't about Chapo, Pigeon. It's about your stalwart opposition to left-wing policies in every political discussion. If you earnestly believe that socialism can be achieved through incremental social democratic reforms, fine. But this attitude is unhelpful because the track record for such change is pretty awful. Hard-right conservatives occupy most of our elected offices and are trying to The welfare state in the US is unraveling as inequality spirals out of control.

Radical left-wing change is and has always been necessary to create and preserve inequality, because it gives something bigger for the right to fight against. Divisive grassroots action drove the civil rights movement and labor movement before that, not slow and technocratic reformism.

A left-wing turn in the Democratic Party would not only embrace an insurgent movement of disaffected young voters, thus securing the long-term viability of the Democratic party, but also help ameliorate the horrors that the Republicans are currently wreaking on our country. I don't believe continued advocacy for unpopular and unsuccessful center-left solutions is productive. And I don't believe you can be a socialist while exerting so much energy on shutting down socialist advocacy.

So I'll respond, because I'm in a pretty similar position to Pigeon, although he's more articulate than I am:
I do not think socialist progressivism, with all that's needed, is popular enough within the US to actually win majority support required for rapid implementation. I think that progress in this country is slow because you basically have to keep tricking it, without showing your actual hand during campaigns. I think you need to be deceptive frankly, and the current crop of leftist dem socialists seem to think that not only is democratic socialism secretly popular but that running openly on it will basically win us the country back and it's "stupid" to think otherwise. Pigeon and I seem to share a lot of reservations about this

 

[Valhelm]

So I'll respond, because I'm in a pretty similar position to Pigeon, although he's more articulate than I am:
I do not think socialist progressivism, with all that's needed, is popular enough within the US to actually win majority support required for rapid implementation. I think that progress in this country is slow because you basically have to keep tricking it, without showing your actual hand during campaigns. I think you need to be deceptive frankly, and the current crop of leftist dem socialists seem to think that not only is democratic socialism secretly popular but that running openly on it will basically win us the country back and it's "stupid" to think otherwise. Pigeon and I seem to share a lot of reservations about this

I totally understand your concerns. But social democratic solutions aren't unpopular. Polling suggests the opposite. State solutions to relieve poverty and oppression are so popular that the Democrats have no reason to shun them.

You're totally right that not every electorate will want a far-left agenda! I think a 50-state solution is an effective and appropriate way to regain Democratic control of local houses. But Democrats who fight back so virulently against social democratic proposals aren't helping their party or the country. A more progressive national agenda, and a radically left agenda in places that want it, can help the Democrats gain the support of the majority.

This is definitely the thought process I use when I'm actually interested in social justice rather than just trying to relentlessly defend something I like and suppress any cognitive dissonance I might be feeling

I don't think the Chapo crew are bigoted. If you have receipts, feel free to share them.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I don't think the Democrats have moved to the left. They've reacted to changes in popular opinion on gay marriage, drug use, which is great! But this has been accompanied by an unnecessary and cowardly series of concessions to the right on healthcare, education, labor, and foreign policy. If we focus on everything but civil liberties, the Republicans and Democrats are much more similar than they were in 1980.

The Democrats shouldn't be finding common ground with Republicans on healthcare. They need to oppose and obstruct every big of the Republicans' aggressive agenda, while also proposing cogent left-of-center solutions that not only provide an alternative to Trump, but also go beyond the policies that Obama pursued.

Look at the ideology of the average Democrat in 2008 vs now. It is very clearly more to the left now than before.

Your feelings about this are not based in fact.

 

[whyamihere]

How are Democrats more of the right or the same of where they were in 2009? What?

 

[Emarv]

Look at the ideology of the average Democrat in 2008 vs now. It is very clearly more to the left now than before.

Your feelings about this are not based in fact.

I heard this a ton from young Bernie people last year. Felt ahistorical. Don't know Valhelm's age or history. Just something I know I personally had to deal with last year.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

The 2016 Democrat platform was like the most liberal platform ever from a major party. The DNC is currently lead by its most liberal head ever, with a co-chair that's even more liberal than him. Their presidential candidate in 2016 was more liberal than their candidate in 2008 and 2012.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Oh my God, Pelosi is dissing Trump and Ryan as evil know nothings in that interview.

Read past headlines.

 

[kirblar]

I heard this a ton from young Bernie people last year. Felt ahistorical. Don't know Valhelm's age or history. Just something I know I personally had to deal with last year.

People 25 and younger didn't actualy live through Dubya. (at least, in that they were politically aware of what was going on.)

We're going to be screwed every 8-12 years because of this kiddiot factor.

And it's worsened now by the way people bubble off on the internet.

 

[jtb]

To quote Pelosi as "finding common ground with Republicans" is so utterly disingenuous.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I haven't listened beyond some of their late stuff last year so I'm more speaking about stuff I'm seeing from people I follow and its correlation with what appears to be Chapo listenership, but there are two things in particular that have been bothering me:
-An attitude that treats those who aren't in total alignment as actors in bad faith specifically. Not just that other people are wrong, but that they're willfully not right

-A cathartic approach to political commentary dressed up as "being genuine" (see the good faith point above) that I'm not actually convinced of the utility of. Which is fine, entertainment doesn't need utility, but a lot of people think that this mode of expression is a utility the left can use for political gain

This piece crossed my feed last night:
http://reallifemag.com/the-laugherators/
And while I'm trying to keep my opinions here separate from the contents there, because it requires a much more in depth knowledge of their actual day in, day out content, it is an interesting critique.

I just got the chance to sit down and read this, it was very interesting and I'll have to think a lot on this. I appreciate the response.

 

[Hindl]

The 2016 Democrat platform was like the most liberal platform ever from a major party. The DNC is currently lead by its most liberal head ever, with a co-chair that's even more liberal than him. Their presidential candidate in 2016 was more liberal than their candidate in 2008 and 2012.

To the far left these points are basically deception. The platform seemed liberal, and Clinton presented herself as aligning with those ideas, but it was all a lie. They didn't really believe those things, no matter what evidence you show them. And once they have that belief, no amount of facts will change their opinion. That is one of the main reasons I actually looked at horseshoe theory, because it's basically the same thing the far right does

 

[kirblar]

To quote Pelosi as "finding common ground with Republicans" is so utterly disingenuous.

In the 2008-2009 leadership debacle (Obama having Rahm, Obama delegating to the Senate, etc.) she was the one person who actually got shit done.

If we get a DDD setup in 2020, I really, really hope she's still around.

 

[Rebel Leader]

Skype!

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

In the 2008-2009 leadership debacle (Obama having Rahm, Obama delegating to the Senate, etc.) she was the one person who actually got shit done.

Right. The House passed the public option, even with a whole lot of blue dogs. Pelosi is incredible at her job.

 

[metalslimer]

Pelosi doesn't get enough credit for how hard she had to work to get the ACA passed

 

[whyamihere]

Oh my God, Pelosi is dissing Trump and Ryan as evil know nothings in that interview.

Read past headlines.

Yeah, just read the article. That was a shitty pull quote.

 

[Spider from Mars]

Ah yes, the common misconception that receiving less funding is a cut.

Less is more, friends. Especially when it comes to funding of medical research.

 

[Hubbl3]

There's this assumption in Washington, that if you get less money then it's a "cut" - Sean Spicer.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

If that is true Sean why not have the military become more efficient, why just throw more money at it?

You cannot have it both ways bro.

 

[The Technomancer]

I just got the chance to sit down and read this, it was very interesting and I'll have to think a lot on this. I appreciate the response.

Thanks. And again, I'm not personally familiar enough with their work to say much about it materially, it just started becoming a common denominator in some ways that got me thinking this morning

 

[whyamihere]

HE IS THE WORST

@TheFix
Mick Mulvaney is a very good advocate for Trump and this budget

 

[Pandora012]

If that is true Sean why not have the military become more efficient, why just throw more money at it?

You cannot have it both ways bro.

The military is special case, say increase spending then everyone is on your side. Even if this fucks them over.

 

[Valhelm]

To the far left these points are basically deception. The platform seemed liberal, and Clinton presented herself as aligning with those ideas, but it was all a lie. They didn't really believe those things, no matter what evidence you show them. And once they have that belief, no amount of facts will change their opinion. That is one of the main reasons I actually looked at horseshoe theory, because it's basically the same thing the far right does

What evidence? Hillary has a history of being imperialistic, anti-single payer, and anti-labor. As secretary of state, she oversaw bombing campaigns of seven countries that the US has no business being involved in. Her sudden changes in social policy threw her ideals into question, and left me unconvinced that her policy proposals would be followed-through. Now, congressional Democrats are worryingly friendly with the GOP, even with Trump at the helm.

I can understand the insistence that moderate, incremental changes are more pragmatic, but in practice this strategy cedes ground to the right and loses elections. November 8th should have destroyed all credibility for sober technocracy and turned the Democrats in a more forward-thinking direction.

 

[whyamihere]

Now, congressional Democrats are worryingly friendly with the GOP, even with Trump at the helm.

They're literally doing the exact opposite of this.

Her sudden changes in social policy

There are real things to criticize Hillary on. This is really stupid, and you don't want to go down this path when literally every Democrat -- even Bernie Sanders! -- has changed their mind on gay marriage.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Spicey accused Britain of collaborating with Obama to wiretap Trump.

May takes infinite Ls.

 

[Blader]

Now, congressional Democrats are worryingly friendly with the GOP, even with Trump at the helm.

We must be looking at two different Congresses.

 

[B-Dubs]

What evidence? Hillary has a history of being imperialistic, anti-single payer, and anti-labor. As secretary of state, she oversaw bombing campaigns of seven countries that the US has no business being involved in. Her sudden changes in social policy threw her ideals into question, and left me unconvinced that her policy proposals would be followed-through. Now, congressional Democrats are worryingly friendly with the GOP, even with Trump at the helm.

I can understand the insistence that moderate, incremental changes are more pragmatic, but in practice this strategy cedes ground to the right and loses elections.

What the what? There's a lot of stuff you can call her and complain about, but anti-single payer?

Also, the second bolded comment is literally not happening. Where the hell are you getting that from?

And she was far from the only person to flip on gay marriage in the last few years. I mean damn dude.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

There really are times where I wish I could just lock myself in a bunker for four/eight years with all this shit, I swear.

 

[Valhelm]

What the what? There's a lot of stuff you can call her and complain about, but anti-single payer?

Also, the second bolded comment is literally not happening. Where the hell are you getting that from?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

We must be looking at two different Congresses.

Even Warren and Sanders have confirmed Trump nominees. I think that's dangerous and unacceptable. The advocacy against Sessions and DeVos was amazing, but we're not seeing that elsewhere.

 

[B-Dubs]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

Do you only read headlines or are you just allergic to context? Like, seriously, the only way you get "she's against single payer" from that is if you ignore the context in which the comments were made as well as the comments themselves. You're better than this.

 

[Blader]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/

A statement likely informed by her very public and bruising experience in fighting and losing for single-payer healthcare.

 

[kirblar]

Do you only read headlines or are you just allergic to context? Like, seriously, the only way you get "she's against single payer" from that is if you ignore the context in which the comments were made as well as the comments themselves. You're better than this.

Especially this part:

In 1994, when advocating for comprehensive health care reform as first lady, Clinton told reporters that if Congress didn't pass a reform bill that year, the nation would eventually embrace a single-payer plan.

"If, for whatever reason, the Congress doesn't pass health care reform, I believe, and I may be to totally off base on this, but I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system," she said. " I don't even think it's a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single payer system will sweep the country... It will be such a huge popular issue... that even if it's not successful the first time, it will eventually be. "

Gee, I wonder why she's so jaded on the subject now....

 

[AlphaDump]

Do you only read headlines or are you just allergic to context?

...dont confuse ignorance with malice..

 

[Hindl]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/



Even Warren and Sanders have confirmed Trump nominees. I think that's dangerous and unacceptable. The advocacy against Sessions and DeVos was amazing, but we're not seeing that elsewhere.

You do realize Hillary had a brutal and ugly healthcare fight in the 90s where she advocated for single-payer down the road and got torn apart right? And that experience, along with other shit that happened while she was first lady, was why she refined her image and appeared so "fake" and buttoned up to modern liberals?

 

[whyamihere]

No one

Has ever

http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/

"The Vermont Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that under the Vermont Constitution, all citizens of the state have the same right to the benefits of marriage," Sanders said at the time. ”I applaud that decision. Vermont has once again shown itself to be a leader in the struggle for human rights."

But the court also said that the Vermont legislature should decide the issue. Many prominent Democrats, including Sanders' successor as mayor of Burlington and a gubernatorial nominee, spoke out in favor of gay marriage, but Sanders kept mum.
Peter Freyne, a locally beloved Vermont writer and opinion writer whom Sanders later lauded as ”the best political reporter in the state of Vermont," accused the then-Congressman of obfuscating on his gay rights position.

”Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders' position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth ... from a rhinoceros," Freyne wrote. Freyne described repeated attempts to hear Sanders' views on gay marriage, and the congressman only said he "supports the current process" in the state legislature. Though Sanders was not in the Vermont state legislature at the time, it was a hot topic in his home state at the time.

"It's an election year, yet despite the lack of a serious challenger, The Bern's gut-level paranoia is acting up," Freyne wrote.

In 2006, when the Bush White House proposed an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Sanders spoke out against the Republican plan, saying it was "designed to divide the American people."

Changed their opinion

But when Sanders was asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said no. ”Not right now, not after what we went through," he said.

On gay rights or gay marriage

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/...riage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

When serving as mayor of Burlington, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a ”major priority" for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, ”probably not."

 

[Valhelm]

A statement likely informed by her very public and bruising experience in fighting and losing for single-payer healthcare.

I don't think defeatism is helpful at all. If incremental change is really the road the Democrats should go down, then they need to promise something at the end of the tunnel.

One of the biggest problems with Hillary, and Democrats at large, is their inability to provide an attractive and hopeful vision of the future. Since Reagan, most Democratic advocacy has been reactive. We can't just counter all the regressive proposals of the GOP, we need to bring the overton window to the left and drag the Republicans with us.

You do realize Hillary had a brutal and ugly healthcare fight in the 90s where she advocated for single-payer down the road and got torn apart right? And that experience, along with other shit that happened while she was first lady, was why she refined her image and appeared so "fake" and buttoned up to modern liberals?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but wasn't Hillarycare just a beefed-up version of Obamacare? Instead of offering a public option to health insurance, it mandated access to private services.

If this is not the case, then I don't understand why Hillary used this experience as an excuse to move to slide right on the issue, rather than reviving her past advocacy at a time when so many Democrats were clamoring for a public option.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/



Even Warren and Sanders have confirmed Trump nominees. I think that's dangerous and unacceptable. The advocacy against Sessions and DeVos was amazing, but we're not seeing that elsewhere.

I'm having serious questions about your age. 1. Running on single-payer is a losing bid and that's all she was saying. 2. Hillary was the largest advocate for leftward health care solutions in the 90s. I'm pretty sure that included single-payer.

Also the Presidebf gets his cabinet ffs. You can't just tear down the established memes of peaceful transfer of power to spite your face.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Are you, though? Half your post history is defending status-quo Democrats from left-wing criticism and clinging to a failing establishment in the name of pragmatism.

Pigeon is not officially not left enough.

Please tell me that there isn't a purity test.

 

[Plinko]

I mean, I guess I don't get the doubling-down on the wiretapping claims when the Senate Intelligence Committee confirms there is zero evidence. What benefit is there other than sowing discord within the IC and distrust from Americans?

Is the secret goal to get quality IC members to quit?

 

[Blader]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-single-payer-health-care-will-never-ever-happen/



Even Warren and Sanders have confirmed Trump nominees. I think that's dangerous and unacceptable. The advocacy against Sessions and DeVos was amazing, but we're not seeing that elsewhere.

The advocacy against Sessions and DeVos was necessary because they are particularly horrible people for those jobs (and in general). Not all of Trump's nominees are nightmarish horror shows, and treating them as such because they were nominated by Donald Trump is short-sighted and obfuscates who the real dangers in the cabinet are. Should Senate Dems have voted against David Shulkin (an Obama appointee!) for VA solely on the grounds that he was nominated by Trump? Are Elaine Chao and Ryan Zinke as equal threats to the republic as Mick Mulvaney and Tom Price?

Despite what the yes-or-no vote system may imply, there are shades of grey here in determining the best people for the job. And acknowledging that, as a Democrat, you're rarely if ever going to get your ideal cabinet nominees from a Republican president. You need to weed out the typical Republicans from the dangerous ideologues and bigots.

I don't think defeatism is helpful at all. If incremental change is really the road the Democrats should go down, then they need to promise something at the end of the tunnel.

One of the biggest problems with Hillary, and Democrats at large, is their inability to provide an attractive and hopeful vision of the future. Since Reagan, most Democratic advocacy has been reactive. We can't just counter all the regressive proposals of the GOP, we need to bring the overton window to the left and drag the Republicans with us.

No, defeatism isn't helpful, but at the same time shouldn't multiple defeats of single-payer systems over the last couple decades tell you something?

 

[Doc Holliday]

In all my years of watching daily briefings, this is by far the craziest one I've witnessed.

My god, Spicer doubling down on Trumps insanity and Mulvaney's cold blooded defense of of a shitty budget.

I really hope people come out and vote next time.