GasBandit
Staff member
When the struggle is your life, your identity, your reason to exist, a possible solution is just as much a threat as an oppressor.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Which is something a lot of Gay Marriage proponents found out when it suddenly became legal. Some of them had made plans to switch focus to another issue (which is fine, professional advocacy has it's place) or to dissolve and join another movement (which again, is fine, because these movements always want professionals with a certain skill set) but many people suddenly realized that without this issue to rally behind, they really didn't have any focus in their life. It's like soldiers coming back from war: you beat the enemy, so you ether need to find another to fight or learn how become a civilian again.
I'm not saying I don't sympathize with their desire to accomplish whatever it is they are fighting for, but if they can't see the larger game at work, they don't deserve to be players.
I've seen reports that the "Black Lives Matter" protestors weren't actually associated with the movement, particularly it wasn't started because of Michael Brown, but rather because of Trayvon Martin, who was killed by George Zimmerman. However, that seems like the sort of embarrassed denial you see whenever someone associated with a movement goes too far, ie "those aren't really GamerGaters" or "those aren't our kind of Christians", etc.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, or when a professional agitator, or "community organizer," becomes President, and then spends 8 years still acting like he's on the campaign trail instead of actually in charge, still being outraged by every problem and promising he'll have to get to the bottom of it - pretending to still be an outsider.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hmm, I'm not sure I see how that's an example of a struggle defining an individual.
It's a struggle to fill their checkbooks, as they are defined by their wealth and power, not their beliefs. If they aren't rich and powerful, they believe they are nothing.
West. Fucking. Virginia. The "War on Coal."
At the upper levels, it's clearly just a cash grab. But the miners? The guys who think this is THE ONLY way they'll make it? That it's worth protecting their heritage as coal miners, even if it means health problems and destroying their environment for the peanuts they get? That's identity politics. It's not even an identity worth protecting... the only reason people want to keep it is because you need basically no education to do it and West Virginia routinely ranks low on education standards. No one wants to try and fix the problem because it's a problem you can't fix easily.
These people are slaves begging to keep their chains. How fucked up is that?
GasBandit
Staff member
True, but that doesn't mean they'd turn away a multibillion dollar windfall because it is a solution that would invalidate their struggle to be wealthy.
The sad part is it's been beaten into their heads by generations of mine owners and politicians. It's why I didn't vote for anyone actually on the midterm ballot. All it was was a contest to scream "FUCK OBAMA!!" the loudest.
I voted, but I voted for 100-year old ex-Congressman Ken Hechler instead for every slot.
If the bribe wasn't big enough, they'd say no, even if they needed the money.
You've worded the exasperation of practically every socialist and communist about the general population, ever. Whether or not they're right is another matter, of course.
Anyway, most of us are, to a more or lesser extent, slaves wanting to keep our chains. Plato's cave and all that. The rut you live in is safety. Freedom is dangerous. The Man's strongest weapon is our own need to fit in and have a place to belong. I can keep spouting semi-random phrases like that all night long - point is, most of us are fiercely protective of our identity, even if it's an identity that hurts us or holds us back. See: immigrants clinging to ideals and ideas that have become outmoded in their home country, people fighting against progress that doesn't affect them, etc etc.
GasBandit
Staff member
Funny, that's what I say when explaining the *rise* of socialism in the U.S. Easier to be kept than responsible.
That's chains of capitalism vs chains of socialism, but if labeling any situation that way, it's essentially saying chains vs change, and that if you're not constantly changing, then you're a slave to the present situation. Which is needless; not all change is good.
Them's fighting words for the progressives over here, even though I agree.
Besides, chains aren't necessarily evil, either. Even though Gassy may disagree, the Social Contract is pretty essential even though it limits freedom.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, in my example, the change IS the chains. Change isn't unidirectional, or even bidirectional, necessarily.
It's fighting words to business over here. I see that firsthand at my job, my boss will go through random periods of needing to upend everything we do because if we keep doing things the way we have been, even though they're good practices, the business will die. Which isn't true, but I'm not going to say that.
Whenever it comes to jobs, it's always whatever job you have versus being homeless and/or dead. Because when you lose your job, there is no guarantee you'll get another one. So anything that threatens your livelihood is a horrible prospect.
That is ultimately the bad aspect (that's often forgotten) of most environmental plans out there: how are you going to provide unskilled jobs for all those you throw out of work at coal mines, oil wells, or any other "dirty" source.
Basically, a person doesn't care about all the other issues if you're out of work and about to be homeless.
"new" Coke, "thin" Oreos, Code Red MtDew, Crystal Pepsi, Cran-Flavor-of-the-week.
Plenty of examples of "We must change to remain 'fresh!'" when there was really no need except for the anxiety of higher-ups.
--Patrick
Listing him as a republican seems disingenuous. The republican party back then was nothing like it is now. The republican party 20 years ago wasn't anything like it is now.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yeah, if I'd actually created the image, I wouldn't have bothered listing his political affiliation. Though, I think you mean 50 years ago, not 20. The republican party of 1995 was not all that different.
It was definitely into the same things, but it was more like a 6 to today's 11.Yeah, if I'd actually created the image, I wouldn't have bothered listing his political affiliation. Though, I think you mean 50 years ago, not 20. The republican party of 1995 was not all that different.
We've been over this before, 1995 was only ten years ago.Yeah, if I'd actually created the image, I wouldn't have bothered listing his political affiliation. Though, I think you mean 50 years ago, not 20. The republican party of 1995 was not all that different.
GasBandit
Staff member
New polls are out in the wake of last thursday's debate, and they're pretty surprising.
Donald Trump is still the frontrunner, despite the theatrics, with about 26%
Ted Cruz is in second with 13%
Ben Carson comes third with 11%
and Carly Fiorina (who wasn't even in the "big boys" debate) and Marco Rubio are tied for 4th.
What do these candidates have in common? They're relative outsiders. Cruz and Rubio are tea party agitators, largely ostracized and villified by established Republican leadership, and Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are private citizens as opposed to career politicians.
My take on this? The debate might not have been watched by as many potential republican primary voters as they think, and people are still answering polls based on name recognition. Furthermore, they're fed up with establishment/country club republicans, and are polling as far away from them as they can. It's still way to early to even gauge momentum, but it is an interesting indication of how polls might react to debates - or rather, how they might not. At least in the early parts of what promises to be an excruciatingly long primary process.
Donald Trump is still the frontrunner, despite the theatrics, with about 26%
Ted Cruz is in second with 13%
Ben Carson comes third with 11%
and Carly Fiorina (who wasn't even in the "big boys" debate) and Marco Rubio are tied for 4th.
What do these candidates have in common? They're relative outsiders. Cruz and Rubio are tea party agitators, largely ostracized and villified by established Republican leadership, and Trump, Carson, and Fiorina are private citizens as opposed to career politicians.
My take on this? The debate might not have been watched by as many potential republican primary voters as they think, and people are still answering polls based on name recognition. Furthermore, they're fed up with establishment/country club republicans, and are polling as far away from them as they can. It's still way to early to even gauge momentum, but it is an interesting indication of how polls might react to debates - or rather, how they might not. At least in the early parts of what promises to be an excruciatingly long primary process.
We are still at least 6 months until the first primary vote is held. Front running now is meaningless. It will come down to the best debater that can raise money for attack ads.
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh I agree, meaningless, but I didn't think reasonless, until now.
Interesting quick one from 538 about how the favorability numbers are the ones to watch this far out, not the "who will you vote for?" question, because the field of candidates is too wide to make that question useful when there is going to be so much narrowing and refining of positions over the next few months.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/did-the-debate-hurt-or-help-trump-watch-his-favorability-numbers/
Essentially, when the rubber finally meets the road and people have to pick someone, favorability is a good predictor for who people will flock around as outlying candidates pull out/implode/can't make a mark/etc. And Trump is current high on favorability.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/did-the-debate-hurt-or-help-trump-watch-his-favorability-numbers/
Essentially, when the rubber finally meets the road and people have to pick someone, favorability is a good predictor for who people will flock around as outlying candidates pull out/implode/can't make a mark/etc. And Trump is current high on favorability.
I think it's going to be an interesting election cycle... the Republicans aren't about to let someone they can't control (Trump) get the nomination, but Trump is more than willing to split the conservative vote by going third party just out of spite. On the other hand, voters are still lukewarm over Hillary and Bernie is loosing steam with his inability to deal with black voters who are (justifiably) upset that no candidate is trying to do ANYTHING about the police.
There's still plenty of time for another candidate to sweep in though.
There's still plenty of time for another candidate to sweep in though.
Last cycle we had Cain, Perry, and even Michelle Whackadoodle spend time as front runners before January. IIRC none of them lasted past New Hampshire.
Fiorina vs Hillary would be fun just to see mysoginists lose their shit.
Bernie vs Trump would be fun to see how the US would vote given the chocie between "socialism" and "...I have no words".
Really, numbers now are still quite meaningless, but I maintain hope for pretty much anything except Bush vs Clinton III.
Bernie vs Trump would be fun to see how the US would vote given the chocie between "socialism" and "...I have no words".
Really, numbers now are still quite meaningless, but I maintain hope for pretty much anything except Bush vs Clinton III.
Bernie vs Paul. Two nearly diametric points of view. C'mon... C'mon guys. That would be awesome.