tpaine posted:

aerdil posted:

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-exempts-syria-airstrikes-from-tight-standards-on-civilian-deaths-183724795.htmllol, obama. greatest president.

so is anyone still not convinced he is worse than bush

Yes, as Slavoy Zizek says, when in a position of political superiority you must place heavy demands on the enemy, not immediately come to the table willing to make compromises.

chickeon posted:

is anyone convinced it matters at-fucking-all who is in the Big Chair at the head of the empire? there's continuity in US foreign policy going back 100 years or more, it matters very little who is in front of the camera on CNN. the main differences are stylistic ones in the propaganda used to further the same agenda no matter what

what if it was ralph nader

chickeon posted:

is anyone convinced it matters at-fucking-all who is in the Big Chair at the head of the empire? there's continuity in US foreign policy going back 100 years or more, it matters very little who is in front of the camera on CNN. the main differences are stylistic ones in the propaganda used to further the same agenda no matter what

it matters a tiny but nonzero amount to a part of the us population in a pretty material way. in the long term it probably doesn't matter but in the short term slightly less aggressive cuts to welfare, birth control availability, environmental exploitation and so on have some impacts on people's lives and a lot of the time that's enough to get people to vote democrat, slowing the slide of the middle class/petit bourgeoisie into the proletariat

c_man posted:

chickeon posted:

is anyone convinced it matters at-fucking-all who is in the Big Chair at the head of the empire? there's continuity in US foreign policy going back 100 years or more, it matters very little who is in front of the camera on CNN. the main differences are stylistic ones in the propaganda used to further the same agenda no matter what

it matters a tiny but nonzero amount to a part of the us population in a pretty material way. in the long term it probably doesn't matter but in the short term slightly less aggressive cuts to welfare, birth control availability, environmental exploitation and so on have some impacts on people's lives and a lot of the time that's enough to get people to vote democrat, slowing the slide of the middle class/petit bourgeoisie into the proletariat

does being poor and unnecessary make you a proletarian though

c_man posted:

is the "obama accelerationist theory of proletarian social revolution" the idea that you should vote for obama as an accelerationist tactic, or that you should vote for republicans as an accelerationist tactic?

regardless of specific leftist leaning, no leftist sghould vote for a democrat president because that political position only amounts to the ideological veneer given to the actions of national capital. a democrat president doesn't do anything different from a republican but at least if its a republican in office the contradictions of capitalism won't be labeled as "socialism" and liberals might actually oppose USA's wanton imperialism instead of attempting to justify it through mealymouthed pretzel logic

c_man posted:

daddyholes posted:

on the other hand your vote for president doesnt fucking matter to anyone

well how about local races, which i understand tend to have a larger effect on the community anyway?

this is important to me because it was on these grounds + organize labor or kill yourself + i have no backbone that let some people from our grad student union convince me to go with them and try and convince union households to Not Vote Republican, and i need to know how slimy i should feel about it + how many hitlers of fascism that counts for

HenryKrinkle posted:

besides, ideologically consistent liberal "anti-war" types aren't really anti-imperialist. they opposed the Iraq War on pragmatic imperialist grounds.

I understand that but it still got those clown parading into the streets in opposition to the war