Crow posted:Imo the best thing probably would be to have our cake and eat it too! Since no sensible candidate will win (like that Rocky Anderson guy), its better if a nominally "left/liberal" candidate like Obama wins, at the same time as everyone hammers in the terrible things he's doing, and how close it is to what Bush/Republicans were doing. So: let's use this thread to catalogue Obama's specific atrocities! I'll start with the easy one: open wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, secret wars in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Now you! Go!
Crow posted:
Imo the best thing probably would be to have our cake and eat it too! Since no sensible candidate will win (like that Rocky Anderson guy), its better if a nominally "left/liberal" candidate like Obama wins, at the same time as everyone hammers in the terrible things he's doing, and how close it is to what Bush/Republicans were doing. So: let's use this thread to catalogue Obama's specific atrocities! I'll start with the easy one: open wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, secret wars in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Now you! Go!
honestly I suspect he's just too chickenshit to stand up to the CIA/Pentagon dudes who run US foreign policy and the Goldman Sachs & co. dudes who run US monetary policy and he's literally just a scared idiot telling himself sweet lies to get by while he reads his lines for the cameras
tam posted:Crow posted:
Imo the best thing probably would be to have our cake and eat it too! Since no sensible candidate will win (like that Rocky Anderson guy), its better if a nominally "left/liberal" candidate like Obama wins, at the same time as everyone hammers in the terrible things he's doing, and how close it is to what Bush/Republicans were doing. So: let's use this thread to catalogue Obama's specific atrocities! I'll start with the easy one: open wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, secret wars in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Now you! Go!honestly I suspect he's just too chickenshit to stand up to the CIA/Pentagon dudes who run US foreign policy and the Goldman Sachs & co. dudes who run US monetary policy and he's literally just a scared idiot telling himself sweet lies to get by while he reads his lines for the cameras
does that change anything
tam posted:Crow posted:
Imo the best thing probably would be to have our cake and eat it too! Since no sensible candidate will win (like that Rocky Anderson guy), its better if a nominally "left/liberal" candidate like Obama wins, at the same time as everyone hammers in the terrible things he's doing, and how close it is to what Bush/Republicans were doing. So: let's use this thread to catalogue Obama's specific atrocities! I'll start with the easy one: open wars in Libya, Afghanistan, and Iraq, secret wars in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. Now you! Go!honestly I suspect he's just too chickenshit to stand up to the CIA/Pentagon dudes who run US foreign policy and the Goldman Sachs & co. dudes who run US monetary policy and he's literally just a scared idiot telling himself sweet lies to get by while he reads his lines for the cameras
i bet hes an evilweasel
gyrofry posted:
does that change anything
it certainly suggests that voting doesn't
tam posted:gyrofry posted:
does that change anythingit certainly suggests that voting doesn't
i mean does the theory of obama as impotent puppet have any implications that are different from the theory of obama as actively malicious
gyrofry posted:
i mean does the theory of obama as impotent puppet have any implications that are different from the theory of obama as actively malicious
nothing huge or game-changing, and I think he does have a good deal of independence outside those areas. really it has more to do with me trying to figure out how the structure of the hidden state has evolved since the Iran-Contra era and who and what calls the shots in the present CIA/ATF/whatever drug-running money-laundering system, although I'm nowhere near a point where I'm comfortable setting out serious hypotheses on the subject
tam posted:gyrofry posted:
i mean does the theory of obama as impotent puppet have any implications that are different from the theory of obama as actively maliciousnothing huge or game-changing, and I think he does have a good deal of independence outside those areas. really it has more to do with me trying to figure out how the structure of the hidden state has evolved since the Iran-Contra era and who and what calls the shots in the present CIA/ATF/whatever drug-running money-laundering system, although I'm nowhere near a point where I'm comfortable setting out serious hypotheses on the subject
yeah, to me it just makes me think of ghost whispers and palatial intrigue surrounding him, with no explicit threats, but spectres floating above the King's head. frankly, though, it's still pathetic, he's just a common man that succeeded in his lust for power, and he's keeping the demons at bay by obliging them. * gesticulates wildly* here, we see the old misanthropic slogan, "Man is pathetic!" *morphs into zizek*
btw, have you seen this? http://my.firedoglake.com/rogershuler/2011/09/07/obama-advisors-feared-a-coup-if-the-administration-prosecuted-war-crimes/ see the implicit threat? Hello? mcfly??? anybody in there?
like look at the numbers for 2008: about $1.64 billion was spent by presidential campaigns. of that, the national left campaigns combined (nader + mckinney) accounted for less than 0.3% of that money. if you include kucinich then it is about 0.6% of all money spent. chris dodd came sixth in iowa and then dropped out and he spent more money than all "left" candidates combined. so they are playing a game where they are supposed to win 51% of the votes with somewhere around 1% of the resources of the big campaigns, it's craziness. ron paul's first moneybomb back in 2007 raised about as much money as nader's whole 2008 campaign.
Crow posted:
yeah, to me it just makes me think of ghost whispers and palatial intrigue surrounding him, with no explicit threats, but spectres floating above the King's head. frankly, though, it's still pathetic, he's just a common man that succeeded in his lust for power, and he's keeping the demons at bay by obliging them. * gesticulates wildly* here, we see the old misanthropic slogan, "Man is pathetic!" *morphs into zizek*
btw, have you seen this? http://my.firedoglake.com/rogershuler/2011/09/07/obama-advisors-feared-a-coup-if-the-administration-prosecuted-war-crimes/ see the implicit threat? Hello? mcfly??? anybody in there?
yeah. transition teams and who they talk to are another thing I need to look into when I have time to get a better handle on this. obviously there's discontinuities to be analyzed there, which is useful for these sorts of things. the other thing to look at is internal party factions and such, but trying to figure that stuff out involves reading liberals 
getfiscal posted:
the main problem faced by the left is that left campaigns are given almost no financial or institutional support by the same people who say they back the same candidates. the left also doesn't have experience building opportunities at lower levels of government that make higher-level campaigns possible. so basically its suicidal to run for the left and only perennial candidates who think losing is noble will do it.
like look at the numbers for 2008: about $1.64 billion was spent by presidential campaigns. of that, the national left campaigns combined (nader + mckinney) accounted for less than 0.3% of that money. if you include kucinich then it is about 0.6% of all money spent. chris dodd came sixth in iowa and then dropped out and he spent more money than all "left" candidates combined. so they are playing a game where they are supposed to win 51% of the votes with somewhere around 1% of the resources of the big campaigns, it's craziness. ron paul's first moneybomb back in 2007 raised about as much money as nader's whole 2008 campaign.
hmmm anti-capitalists or "left" candidates don't have a lot of money to spend on campaigns? u should write up a post about this earth shattering revelation
HuH?!? a little midget pixie elf from ohio says et phoned his home and told him hitler's secret family recipe to white supremacy is social-democracy? Yeah sounds great - NOT. LIBERAL DEMOCRACY SUCKS, now listen to my song ♪let's go, tsuke yuki no ose♪
AmericanNazbro posted:
♪let's go, tsuke yuki no ose♪
ＲＥＴＴＵＣＥ ＭＡＫＥ ＧＯ！
ＷＩＴＨ ＴＨＥ ＰＩＳＳＩＮＧ ＯＮ ＳＮＯＷ ＲＥＴＳ，
ＰＥＲＣＵＬＡＴＩＮＧ ＢＥ。
discipline posted:
the worst thing about obama is how he vindicated the legions of cynical non-voters in marginalized communities nationwide
whose rule determines the margin? which indifferent surveyor witnessed its quantifiability?
aerdil posted:
and i'm the deluded crazy marxist.
same
discipline posted:
no it's probably the secret wars, trying to justify guantanamo and indefinitely detaining american citizens, also the unrepentant and completely shallow self-serving zionism
The second Obama complained that the U.S. was spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they had a $79 billion dollar surplus due to their oil revenue during the '08 election it was over.
At that point it was clear to anyone with a conscience and any shred of humanity that the at least 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians was payment enough for whatever "sacrifice" the United States made in that country.
Nothing was surprising after that.
aerdil posted:
hmmm anti-capitalists or "left" candidates don't have a lot of money to spend on campaigns? u should write up a post about this earth shattering revelation
but the money is there. i don't mean for anticapitalists per se, i mean for social-democrats like nader. i mean if all the people who voted nader in 2008 gave like $50 each for 2012 to a candidate then that candidate would have $37.5 million to work with, which is a lot more than he did. if millions of people gave something like that then the campaign might have some money to work with for ads. which isn't crazy and it would probably get a lot of attention.
getfiscal posted:aerdil posted:
hmmm anti-capitalists or "left" candidates don't have a lot of money to spend on campaigns? u should write up a post about this earth shattering revelationbut the money is there. i don't mean for anticapitalists per se, i mean for social-democrats like nader. i mean if all the people who voted nader in 2008 gave like $50 each for 2012 to a candidate then that candidate would have $37.5 million to work with, which is a lot more than he did. if millions of people gave something like that then the campaign might have some money to work with for ads. which isn't crazy and it would probably get a lot of attention.
so why doesnt thsi happen
babyfinland posted:
so why doesnt thsi happen
well left candidates need a social basis to work from, and in the US the social basis for this (the labour movement) is small and mostly connected to the liberal party (democrats). in most western countries the labour movement created their own parties (labour uk, ndp canada) to push for reforms, in the US they just established a client relationship with the democrats. which is schematic but basically i think it is true - the only way a third party left candidate would have a chance of winning power is if the labour movement had shifted to them early on, abandoning the democrats. and most people know that won't happen because labour bureaucrats are rich as all hell. getting close only matters with hand grenades, most powerful people don't run for things they aren't going to win.
getfiscal posted:babyfinland posted:
so why doesnt thsi happenwell left candidates need a social basis to work from, and in the US the social basis for this (the labour movement) is small and mostly connected to the liberal party (democrats). in most western countries the labour movement created their own parties (labour uk, ndp canada) to push for reforms, in the US they just established a client relationship with the democrats. which is schematic but basically i think it is true - the only way a third party left candidate would have a chance of winning power is if the labour movement had shifted to them early on, abandoning the democrats. and most people know that won't happen because labour bureaucrats are rich as all hell. getting close only matters with hand grenades, most powerful people don't run for things they aren't going to win.
cold cold world mang
getfiscal posted:
in the US they just established a client relationship with the democrats
why do you think this ended up differently in the US than the rest of the world?
getfiscal posted:
aerdil posted:
hmmm anti-capitalists or "left" candidates don't have a lot of money to spend on campaigns? u should write up a post about this earth shattering revelation
but the money is there. i don't mean for anticapitalists per se, i mean for social-democrats like nader. i mean if all the people who voted nader in 2008 gave like $50 each for 2012 to a candidate then that candidate would have $37.5 million to work with, which is a lot more than he did. if millions of people gave something like that then the campaign might have some money to work with for ads. which isn't crazy and it would probably get a lot of attention.
even for socdems like nadar, the people voting for him aren't usually (ignoring his bourgeois hippie supporters) the kind of folks who have the disposable income to flop down 5 big-ones on a long-shot political candidate. and even $30million will always always be outspent. the small threat those ads would represent would quickly get swatted down like a fly by an opposing candidate's $200 million or more saturation of the airwaves. the money will never be there. this is basic inequality of material means stuff..
grassroot initiatives will always be the only way "anti-business"/"progressive" candidates get elected on the local level. and it's an impossible model for a national election.
gyrofry posted:
why do you think this ended up differently in the US than the rest of the world?
i think maybe because the US labour movement was way more racist than other places. like the labour leaders used to routinely make secret demands that, say, janitorial staff at ford motor company wouldn't mostly be blacks. so there was a sense in which the mainstream of the labour movement was steeped in white privilege, which made them easy targets for class collaborationism. this made it so that the interwar period where most social-democratic parties became big was the same time that labour fused with the democrats in the US. and blacks could either join in for scraps or start nationalist factions which they did, but they couldn't translate nationalist factions into a political movement capable of taking power because of their subordinate and minority position.
this isn't to say that they were all (white and black workers) duped or bad or something, they won increases in the social wage (some access to health care, public colleges, some welfare benefits). but most of the benefits didn't go through the social wage but rather for higher wages for white workers in certain areas because a social wage is a class victory which can't easily be captured.