Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20837
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by bad_teammate

  1. We're talking tens of millions of people, so this just doesn't make sense. I have no interest in arguing any counterfactuals about Kamala's campaign specifically, but there is zero reason to not jump at the chance to do Rogan unless you're a sociopath who can't talk to people like a human or your head is so far up your own ass that you think you're too good for it. It's not even a question that the Democrats need someone who can do that. Anyone who doesn't take advantage of Rogan and Rogan-like opportunities is a waste of our time in terms of major candidates going forward. He is there to set up softball questions and get to know people. He doesn't challenge or try to play hardball. There's not going to be a different Rogan audience in the future. It's going to be the same one.
  2. Right. What we can do is make ourselves attractive to voters on our own terms and not simply by building up how bad Trump is. First of all because it doesn't work, and second of all because Trump is now a lame duck and won't even be running in 2028. I'm stunned. I didn't know until yesterday this was a thing they did. All the neocon shit aside... why? What was the point? Is there a contingent of voters out there who care about Liz Cheney? WHO EVEN KNOWS WHO LIZ CHENEY IS!?!? No Joe Rogan, though. Nope. Not tens of millions of persuadable dudebros who fucking looooved Bernard and would pat themselves on the back for listening to a whole 3 hours of Kamala awkwardly laughing or whatever it is she did on the trail.
  3. This, also, does not matter and will not hurt him.
  4. No hold on Banks, he was letting go once the defender changed direction.
  5. I really try not to just live in the world of laughing at how stupid people like Sack are, but "my billionaire friends are going to break the necks of the elite" is pretty fun. I gotta admit it. That's a good time right there.
  6. Me: "replace 'Bernie Sanders' with 'a Democrat whose core desire is to advocate for the economic betterment of the poor and working classes while talking like a non-robot (like Biden/Trump and unlike Harris/Vance)'" You: "You’ve said that 'populism is Bernie Sanders and that’s the solution.'" This is what I meant by thanking you for either reminding me of your style or making it obvious to me for the first time. It lets me know things I need to know regarding how to respond or whether to respond. That kind of purposeful and intentional dishonesty is instructive and helps me figure out whether or not you are someone who is wanting to converse honestly (a useful thing) or if I should just respond to you in a Socratic way where I'm actually talking to the larger audience because that's the useful thing.
  7. We are all salty as fuck right now lol
  8. I've been disconnected from this whole thing for so long I either forgot your whole deal or this is actually new to me. Thanks for educating me.
  9. In terms of how to perform it for voters: Bernie Sanders on Joe Rogan I mean that both specifically (watch/listen so you can hear what 202x American populism can sound like) and generally (replace "Bernie Sanders" with "a Democrat whose core desire is to advocate for the economic betterment of the poor and working classes while talking like a non-robot (like Biden/Trump and unlike Harris/Vance)" and replace "Joe Rogan" with "any major platform where millions and millions of reachable voters will pay attention regardless of whether or not that venue is socially acceptable"). I am someone who believes there should not be such a thing as a billionaire, but I don't even care about having any political party or politician advocate for what I believe. In terms of a policy: "Every American should have free healthcare" Not access to preferred advantage plan shopping opportunities via a friendly and easy-to-use app. You're alive in America and you need a thing, you get the thing. When health insurance industry stooges step in to try and design some laughable plan that involves pre-tax income withholdings you, as the politicians, point at those corporations and you name them and you tell the people that those corporations, by name, are OK with them dying so they can make profit. And that's important because the people already KNOW these private health insurance corporations are OK with them dying so long as they can stand in the middle and siphon off mountains of cash. You're not telling them anything they don't already experience and know. We, as Americans, live it every single day and DC actively encourages it. So be the guy who will speak the truth on behalf of the people in the face of power.
  10. Populism and pluralism are not in necessary conflict, especially when the population in question is massive and diverse, as ours is. All I'm seeing is extremely vague fear-mongering. What, specifically, is your worry when someone advocates a larger populism within the Democratic party? Death camps for Christians? Slightly higher taxation on billionaires? If what you're interested in here is just kind of a higher level discussion of populism and pluralism in a non-specific sense that isn't directly applied to the 202x political situation in America then that's not really of any interest at all to me.
  11. This is a great example of just saying a lot of words without saying anything. What are you even talking about? What do you think "populism" is?
  12. "I may not be Dale Earnhardt, but I smashed into the fucking wall because I couldn't turn left!"
  13. It is both true that Americans have never had it so good in general and that this fact should never be wielded as a political cudgel. There's not actually a disagreement there.
  14. A thread in which monied whites laugh at the misfortunte of minorities and the poor. Cool.
  15. The DNC is not the Democratic Party. (This is going to get pointlessly minute, ugh)
  16. Right, of course. Obama became the thing he hated, as many do. And that's OK, because we should be very happy to just cast off our old heroes and bring new ones in, because this isn't about the individual politicians, it's about the people.
  17. Trump didn't get here because he overtook the RNC from within and schemed his way. No. Trump's rise was grassroots and authentic. It came ENTIRELY from the masses loving Donald and steamrolling an apparatus that fucking HATED Donald. I know this will be dismissed as the whining of a Bernie Bro, but try to understand 2015/16 because it really matters in thinking about how to build power. - Hillary had, since 2012, been literally tying the DNC's finances to her re-election. The debate schedule, the number of Democratic candidates in the debates, and even the questions were a co-production of DNC/Hillary 2k16. Talking points and approved messages for campaigns that wanted DNC funding/support were a co-production of DNC/Hillary 2k16. Everything was run to try and clear the field for the candidate chosen by the apparatus and to validate the messaging of that candidate. - The RNC, gearing up to replace Obama, had their own messaging goals and establishment candidates (not nearly as monolithic and incestuous as the DNC at the time, though). Trump rode the golden escalator and the establishment candidates bristled and objected and the RNC bristled and objected. Then the Grassroots God Emperor fucking stomped their faces in because he said "fuck you" directly to the establishment apparatus and told the people he loved them. 2016 Dem: Apparatus selects chosen candidate ahead of time, humiliating loss 2020 Dem: Apparatus intervenes later to push the selection of an establishment candidate, decent win 2024 Dem: Apparatus doesn't even pretend to give the people a choice, humiliating loss We don't need the apparatus to make decisions about which candidates or even which messages. We need it to be a means of distributing nationally-raised money to candidates who prove themselves in their own cities/counties/states. That's it.
  18. If Trump kills the DNC I might have to hand-deliver him a McDonald's Diet Coke. I don't mean that in an accelerationist or pouty sense, but genuinely excited about the potential to eliminate an apparatus that actively suppresses grassroots organization and distributed decision-making within the larger progressive movement. In the wake of Shitbird's victory, I've listened to about 8 hours of Pod Save America in the background while I do other things and the national Democrats should just shut up and find ways to let these podcasters run their messaging. Not hiring them into campaigns or putting them into the apparatus, but shut the fucking apparatus down and let the messaging get distributed. No central clearinghouse run by the Pelosis of the world and their billionaire friends. We could do that. It would be great.
  19. Nice, Multicultural Populism vs Hateful, Bigoted Populism Yeah, basically.
  20. * I make big list of my enemy's hypocrisies and lies * I show enemy and his supporters * My enemies and their supporters ignore it * They show me a list of my politicians' hypocrisies and lies, which I also ignore * I lose again * I start making another list, which will truly own them with logic this time
  21. I am not capable of seeing Obama (especially the aughts-version of Obama) as a Trump-type figure. You will have to explain it slowly because even the thought of someone making that case activates my reptilian brain and makes me want to load one of my guns lol
  22. No. The future can be much, much, much brighter than that. Ignore Trump, he sucks. He's awful. Not just repellant to our aesthetics and values, but he's actually garbage at building anything meaningful. Look very slightly back in the past to see what we can actually do.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...