Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Dear God, that's what this is all about? Me having a laugher at Hillary as Maleficent (and even using the Angelina Jolie Maleficent-as-misunderstood-heroine version, to boot)??

Here was my thought process:

1. See drawing of Bernie as Cinderella with bird on hand.
2. Think "what Disney character would Hillary be that has a bird?"
3. Discard most Disney princesses because no bird.
4. Look at Disney villains.
5. Discard Jafar.
6. Do image search "Hillary Clinton Disney character"
7. Discard image of Hillary as the Wicked Witch, because that's unfair and unfitting.
8. Consider Maleficent -- strong-willed, vengeful, but ultimately heroic. Also has cool bird.
9. Cannot even be arsed to Photoshop Clinton's face in.
10. Post image.
11. ?? ??
12. PROFIT.



I will also note that you've had plenty of fun memeing Trump, Cruz, et al. as Covenant noted several pages back. It's only when Clinton-senpai gets mocked that you go all yandere.

I will disagree with MSH in that I don't think Clinton and Sanders are mutually opposed. Which is what makes the vitriol even more frustrating. It's the difference between light blue and dark blue versus blood red. But the narrative I've seen (some of it here, but much more of it elsewhere) is "LIGHT BLUE you stupid misogynist greedy Bernie Bros! You lazy college kids just want free everything and are stupid enough to believe him! America will never settle for dark blue, why do you hate America? Do you want Trump to win? #BernieSoWhite can't win, so the only reason he's still running is because of his ego! Go back home and cry in your parents' basement, and get a job while you're at it!"

So yeah. Maybe I'm only 50% opposed on principle to Clinton (because economics, which you did not respond to in the slightest) but I'm sure as fuck more than 50% opposed to *those* kind of supporters.

[smjjames]

As Strife said earlier, we are facing crap choices on both sides and we've been through horrible presidents before, Nixon, Hoover (although he unfairly got the blame for the crash and got tarred and feathered for the attempts to fix), um, Zachary Taylor...... Arguably Andrew Jackson......

[Owlbread]

Quick question about Sanders: Is what he (and his supporters) call 'socialism' actually supposed to mean 'social democracy'?

If yes, follow-up question: Why do they insist on calling it 'socialism'? Is it just to be edgy/to have a nice catchy word? Because it certainly isn't helping the discourse.

According to the classical definition, "Social Democrats" believe in achieving Socialism through gradual reform of the state rather than a revolution. All Social Democrats are therefore Socialists, just as Communists are also Socialists. The definition has, unfortunately, become quite hazy/confused over time as various centrists in formerly moderate Socialist/Social Democrat parties (e.g. Labour Party in UK) hijacked the term "Social Democracy" as a new, catchier name for "Third Way". It also hasn't been helped by Socialists who are clearly Social Democrats that now call themselves "Democratic Socialists" instead, which is a much broader term in itself.

[smjjames]

It is, and they do it because americans wouldn't know what social democracy was if it rammed a cactus up their ass.

Yes, nevermind that the US itself is a social democracy. The electorate still largely has no idea what the blazes one is, and "socialism" is about the only way to get the point across.

And that, I guess.

The republicans labelling Obama and various other people as 'socialist' further obsfuscated the term, which doesn't help things either.

[Helgoland]

It is, and they do it because americans wouldn't know what social democracy was if it rammed a cactus up their ass.

Yes, nevermind that the US itself is a social democracy. The electorate still largely has no idea what the blazes one is, and "socialism" is about the only way to get the point across.

But Socialism and Social Democracy are two very distinct concepts! Never in a thousand years would I even take a proper Socialist seriously, but anyway I consider myself a Social Democrat. (It doesn't help that in Germany in particular there's been a lot of bad blood between Social Democrats and Socialists/Communists.)

So yeah, if Bernie misuses the terms like that: Fuck him, and fuck all his supporters who abuse the nomenclature like that. You're not helping, you're making things worse.

Quick question about Sanders: Is what he (and his supporters) call 'socialism' actually supposed to mean 'social democracy'?

If yes, follow-up question: Why do they insist on calling it 'socialism'? Is it just to be edgy/to have a nice catchy word? Because it certainly isn't helping the discourse.

According to the classical definition, "Social Democrats" believe in achieving Socialism through gradual reform of the state rather than a revolution. All Social Democrats are therefore Socialists, just as Communists are also Socialists.

That's hardly the modern usage of the words though. Using it in that sense is obfuscating at best.

[smjjames]

It is, and they do it because americans wouldn't know what social democracy was if it rammed a cactus up their ass.

Yes, nevermind that the US itself is a social democracy. The electorate still largely has no idea what the blazes one is, and "socialism" is about the only way to get the point across.

But Socialism and Social Democracy are two very distinct concepts! Never in a thousand years would I even take a proper Socialist seriously, but anyway I consider myself a Social Democrat. (It doesn't help that in Germany in particular there's been a lot of bad blood between Social Democrats and Socialists/Communists.)

So yeah, if Bernie misuses the terms like that: Fuck him, and fuck all his supporters who abuse the nomenclature like that. You're not helping, you're making things worse.

Quick question about Sanders: Is what he (and his supporters) call 'socialism' actually supposed to mean 'social democracy'?

If yes, follow-up question: Why do they insist on calling it 'socialism'? Is it just to be edgy/to have a nice catchy word? Because it certainly isn't helping the discourse.

According to the classical definition, "Social Democrats" believe in achieving Socialism through gradual reform of the state rather than a revolution. All Social Democrats are therefore Socialists, just as Communists are also Socialists.

That's hardly the modern usage of the words though. Using it in that sense is obfuscating at best.

Blame the Republicans for trying to keep the Red Menace alive.

[Frumple]

Don't really blame bernie on that one. The fault mostly lies with the conservatives dragging the nomenclature further right. Mostly by way of smj's note.

Also, if you called yourself a social democrat a majority of the american electorate would think you're a socialist. That level of demarcation just isn't something much of the US voting populace cares to exercise. Maybe bernie's making it worse, but if he wasn't there, either term would be pretty much synonymous in US political discourse with "goatfucker", instead of how it's almost being treated due to him and his ilk. Basically, it may be making things worse across the pond, but it's arguably an improvement on our side of it.

[Owlbread]

So yeah, if Bernie misuses the terms like that: Fuck him, and fuck all his supporters who abuse the nomenclature like that. You're not helping, you're making things worse.

That's hardly the modern usage of the words though. Using it in that sense is obfuscating at best.

It's really not worth getting into debates over terminology and labels; it ultimately boils down to preference and what you think fits best for you. You choose one definition, I choose mine. It's like those debates I used to get into on here a while ago with our American friends about the use of the term "Liberal" when I thought they really should say "Social Democrat" or something but we can spend a hell of a lot of time getting into that without actually debating policies, something I don't do nearly enough, I must admit.

[Flying Dice]

I actually think Bernie Sanders is great, and I hope he's changing the dialogue by running.  He's an actual progressive, an actual liberal even, and it's impressive how much support he's getting.  I think that's a good sign.

I just think that, as president with an uncooperative congress, Clinton will get more done with incremental change.  Sander's ideas are perfectly reasonable, except congress won't pass them.  Obama had good ideas too (mostly).

Though to be fair, just because I think Sanders is pretty cool, doesn't mean that other people should automatically hold Clinton in the same regard.  I don't get why they treat her like the fucking antichrist, and act like the reasons are so obvious that they need not be shared, but they're welcome to their strong opinions.

Here's a writer for the Nation during the '08 campaign giving a good account of one of her blatant fair-wind policy-shift lies.
Unlike most all democratic leaders in the Americas, Clinton refused to even verbally denounce the coup that ousted Manuel Zelaya.

She also sleeps with the fossil fuel lobby.

In 1993 her healthcare proposal catered to the profit-seeking needs of HMOs. In 2008 her healthcare position supported private insurance and the pharmaceutical industry. She only became a supporter of Obamacare when it was seen as the politically viable path, and continued to dismiss the possibility of a single-payer system.

Here's a rather concise assessment of her backers and what's behind her recent move to the left.

Clinton is a blatant political animal who will adopt whatever policy positions will get her elected and keep the funding rolling. For now, that happens to include some leftist rhetoric beyond the aspects of social-justice stuff that she's been relatively consistent on. When I voted for Obama, I knew that I was voting for someone who was a leftist on some counts but tied to a lot of the same old right-wing economic advisers. I got what I voted for: moderate reforms (mostly blunted by obstructionism) and At-Least-It-Ain't-Romney. I could stomach him, I suppose, given that there weren't any viable and attractive options.

This election's different. We've got a viable progressive candidate, and pretty much the entire Republican field is composed of unelectable clowns. If Sanders doesn't win the nomination I'm voting third party because I'm disgusted by this assumption that Clinton has a right to my vote just because she can pretend to be progressive for a year or two. And if Trump wins I'm buying a rifle and taking a one-way trip to Washington.

[smjjames]

The problem is that you guys in Europe seem to have lost the negative factor attached to 'Socialism', while a lot of people still do here in the US, so, the republicans use it to confusing effect.

[Frumple]

Yeah, you probably would have gotten more traction there (it's largely an apt statement) if anything related to socialism, even the watered down social democrat stuff, hadn't been what amounted to a cuss word in the US for the last... few decades. Admitting as a liberal that you're actually a social democrat would have been roughly like admitting you have regular carnal relations with eels, so they don't. Even if it is the more accurate term.

As smj kinda' ninja'd me on. Eh.

[Owlbread]

The problem is that you guys in Europe seem to have lost the negative factor attached to 'Socialism', while a lot of people still do here in the US, so, the republicans use it to confusing effect.

I think at least in Scottish and even UK terms, for a very large part of the population (i.e. the working class, or those who would historically belong to said class) being a "Socialist" is seen a positive thing and entire communities of working class people have identified as Socialists for well over 100 years now. The negative factor was never really there, we never had McCarthyism.

[Flying Dice]

Yeah, it's like, the two worst things you could do as a U.S. politician would be admitting to being a socialist or an atheist. Having either of those in the open will kill your chances of (re)election in a substantial portion of the 'states.

[Helgoland]

The problem is that you guys in Europe seem to have lost the negative factor attached to 'Socialism', while a lot of people still do here in the US, so, the republicans use it to confusing effect.

Here's the thing: We never really had that. The Social Democratic Party of Germany is the oldest party of the country. Our first properly elected parliament contained a helluva lot of those guys. Our intellectuals have been Social Democrats or Communists for ages. Similar things hold for the rest of Europe. It's the US that's exceptional in this regard, not Europe.

So yeah, if Bernie misuses the terms like that: Fuck him, and fuck all his supporters who abuse the nomenclature like that. You're not helping, you're making things worse.

That's hardly the modern usage of the words though. Using it in that sense is obfuscating at best.

It's really not worth getting into debates over terminology and labels; it ultimately boils down to preference and what you think fits best for you. You choose one definition, I choose mine. It's like those debates I used to get into on here a while ago with our American friends about the use of the term "Liberal" when I thought they really should say "Social Democrat" or something but we can spend a hell of a lot of time getting into that without actually debating policies, something I don't do nearly enough, I must admit.

Eh, with 'Socialism' it's sorta different. There's a lot of literature on the subject, and Marx's own terminology can be considered a standard of sorts. A Socialist is qua linguistics someone who espouses Socialism, there's no arguing about that - and what Socialism is can be found in Marx's works.

Americans being uncultured, unenlightened colonists doesn't matter here at all

[Lord Shonus]

More accurately, the connotation of socialism in the US is precisely the same as full-blown nationalize every factory, stand every rich family against a wall, burn every church communism. Actual socialist policies aren't actually all that unpopular (witness the "third rail" status of Social Security, for example), but the name is poison.