[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am by no means "rich", but I do own a luxury automobile, have a mortgage in a good school district, and have a functional 401k. I am generally pretty socially liberal and have a white hot hatred for the Republican Laffer Slope orthodoxy. I may be a bit better off than many Americans, but I am not the 1% and I certainly don't think I am the problem.

I also recognize that in the grand history of "revolutions", it is folks like me that end up taking it in the crotch while the very rich run off to guarded tax havens or nations who pander to their capital. So yeah, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about all this "revolution" talk.

Well, let's hold up here.

We're talking more about revolutions like the Reagan Revolution, or the Republican Revolution in the 90s. Whatever ill-effects those 'revolutions' had was not due to civil disorder or some kind of radical upheaval disrupting the peace.

Marketing! Regardless of your intentions when you use the word Revolution what the public associates it with is armed revolt. Unless you really want to die on that hill, use better branding. People hate Revolution, they're receptive to Change, and are mostly positive on Progress, even when those three things are 90% the same.

Zona wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am by no means "rich", but I do own a luxury automobile, have a mortgage in a good school district, and have a functional 401k. I am generally pretty socially liberal and have a white hot hatred for the Republican Laffer Slope orthodoxy. I may be a bit better off than many Americans, but I am not the 1% and I certainly don't think I am the problem.

I also recognize that in the grand history of "revolutions", it is folks like me that end up taking it in the crotch while the very rich run off to guarded tax havens or nations who pander to their capital. So yeah, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about all this "revolution" talk.

Well, let's hold up here.

We're talking more about revolutions like the Reagan Revolution, or the Republican Revolution in the 90s. Whatever ill-effects those 'revolutions' had was not due to civil disorder or some kind of radical upheaval disrupting the peace.

Marketing! Regardless of your intentions when you use the word Revolution what the public associates it with is armed revolt. Unless you really want to die on that hill, use better branding. People hate Revolution, they're receptive to Change, and are mostly positive on Progress, even when those three things are 90% the same.

Granting that for sake of argument, as far as people being afraid that the reality is going to live up (or technically down, I guess) to the marketing, it won't.

As far as whether you're right about messaging, I'm not sure Revolution is an entirely negative word in the U.S. When it's spun as a red revolution it scares people, but when it's seen as something home grown and patriotic, Americans love that word.

As far as what people are positive on in our hyper-polarized politics? Mostly reminding them of how much they have to fear from the other side. The word they're probably most receptive to is Defend or something like it.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

As far as whether you're right about messaging, I'm not sure Revolution is an entirely negative word in the U.S. When it's spun as a red revolution it scares people, but when it's seen as something home grown and patriotic, Americans love that word.

It's ironic you're posting this just days after a bunch of angry, heavily armed white dudes showed up at state capitals to harass and intimidate lawmakers and did so under the guise that they were all über patriots who were fighting against the oppression and tyranny of a government that was just trying to keep their dumbasses alive and healthy.

The only Americans who love a "home grown" and "patriotic" revolution are white supremacists who think revolution means turning the clock back to 1850 so that white men, no matter how f*cking stupid and worthless they actually are, stay on top of everything and everyone who isn't a white man stays in their pre-assigned and subservient roles.

There's no positive connotation for revolution on the left, nor should there be. A portion of the left, like say my parents, who worked their asses off to save up a decent retirement, hear the cries on the left for a "revolution" as a direct attack on them and something that's going to f*ck with what they worked their entire lives to achieve.

As Bernie learned during the primary the base of the Democratic Party--older black people--aren't down for revolution. They know this is America and the odds of them coming out ahead--or even--in a revolution are grim.

The only group on the left that's consistently calling for a revolution are young people who haven't been involved in politics for very long, who have fully ensconced themselves in a social and information bubble that actively encourages more extreme and polarized positions and reactions, and who are increasingly rejecting any notion of compromise or deviating from what they feel is the one true path.

America absolutely needs to change. But that change is going to take hard work, time, and compromise because that's literally how our political system is set up work. Talk of "revolution" is counterproductive at best.

The only group on the left that's consistently calling for a revolution are young people who haven't been involved in politics for very long, who have fully ensconced themselves in a social and information bubble that actively encourages more extreme and polarized positions and reactions, and who are increasingly rejecting any notion of compromise or deviating from what they feel is the one true path.

That’s one take.

Another is that the reason the youth are calling for sudden, massive systemic change is that they’ll be the ones suffering due to America constantly kicking the can of climate change and economic disparity for so long that the country probably won’t survive through their generation in a recognizable form. Hell, it might not even survive through our generation in a recognizable form. As counterproductive as talk of revolution might be, we no longer have time for gradual change and compromise, and it may already be too late either way.

When you shuffle the deck with a "revolution", you really don't know what is going to sort out. The smart money, however, is on established power bases expanding their power and exploiting the opportunity left by the vacuum. Even in the best intended of revolutions, it is painfully rarely that the parties interested in measured reform win out.

My coworker from Shiraz once told me that the university students just wanted to Shah gone and were optimistic that their reforms would be enacted, but in retrospect realized that they never had the power base to rule once the Royalists were gone.

Paleocon wrote:

I also recognize that in the grand history of "revolutions", it is folks like me that end up taking it in the crotch while the very rich run off to guarded tax havens or nations who pander to their capital. So yeah, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about all this "revolution" talk.

I think that is definitely something that progressives often miss and it hurts our chances to effect real change. You see it in this topic often. The system is killing minorities, people are dying because they can't afford healthcare, and everything is going to come crashing down Mad Max style if we don't do something now! That's certainly a reality for some people, but for most people the system is working well enough. Most people are supportive of policies to help those who fall through the cracks (hell, most Republicans support universal healthcare), but constant doomsday rhetoric and treating people who like their healthcare insurance as the enemy is just going to turn away allies that are needed to win. And that's what they are, allies. People who won't benefit from M4A themselves, but want to help those without health insurance.

A wealth tax and a Medicare for All Who Want It program would be very popular with democrats. I'd imagine it would even be popular with republicans.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

As far as whether you're right about messaging, I'm not sure Revolution is an entirely negative word in the U.S. When it's spun as a red revolution it scares people, but when it's seen as something home grown and patriotic, Americans love that word.

It's ironic you're posting this just days after a bunch of angry, heavily armed white dudes showed up at state capitals to harass and intimidate lawmakers and did so under the guise that they were all über patriots who were fighting against the oppression and tyranny of a government that was just trying to keep their dumbasses alive and healthy.

uh, that's part of what I had in mind, in fact.

I guess everyone was right--Americans really don't get irony.

There's no positive connotation for revolution on the left, nor should there be. A portion of the left, like say my parents, who worked their asses off to save up a decent retirement, hear the cries on the left for a "revolution" as a direct attack on them and something that's going to f*ck with what they worked their entire lives to achieve.

That's like, literally the distinction I drew.

Holy sh*t, it's even the part of what I said that you quoted.

You want me to read what you have to say, and you won't even read the things of mine you quote?

What a waste of my time.

edit: eh, this part goes too far--no way I'm losing posting privileges over your sad shtick.

Paleocon wrote:

When you shuffle the deck with a "revolution", you really don't know what is going to sort out. The smart money, however, is on established power bases expanding their power and exploiting the opportunity left by the vacuum. Even in the best intended of revolutions, it is painfully rarely that the parties interested in measured reform win out.

My coworker from Shiraz once told me that the university students just wanted to Shah gone and were optimistic that their reforms would be enacted, but in retrospect realized that they never had the power base to rule once the Royalists were gone.

The thing about analogies is that they're only as good as the parallels are strong.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

this place is better without Jayhawker, and it would sure be a lot better if you were the next to go.

Love you too, boo.

OG_slinger wrote:

Love you too, boo.

What can I say--I think people who represent us the way you do are *far* more of detriment than people talking about revolution.

Djinn wrote:

The system is killing minorities, people are dying because they can't afford healthcare, and everything is going to come crashing down Mad Max style if we don't do something now! That's certainly a reality for some people, but for most people the system is working well enough.

well, um, until two months ago!

also, it was working well enough because of the ticking time bomb of the Baby Boomers hitting retirement age had only started to go off.

I was really wondering how a stock market propped up by retirement savings was going to fare when so many people tried to retire at the same time.

I'm pretty sure Medicare doesn't pay for long-term skilled health care, and Medicaid takes your house when you die after it drains the rest of your estate if you rely on it.

I don't think the system was working well enough for anything but ignoring the future. We were basically just eating our seed corn to distract us from how badly we were doing.

Honestly, I could watch a verified video of Biden going all Marky Mark on a Korean grocery store owner and I would still vote for him just to keep Trump away from another four years.

Paleocon wrote:

Honestly, I could watch a verified video of Biden going all Marky Mark on a Korean grocery store owner and I would still vote for him just to keep Trump away from another four years.

IMAGE(https://media1.tenor.com/images/c304916d3a7ca3f1d8d20b03be0323cd/tenor.gif?itemid=12150372)

I don’t understand this performance art where people in this thread brag about all the terrible things they’re willing to tolerate Biden doing and yet still vote for Trump.

It's less about support for Biden than it is about signalling how much they hate Trump.

Stengah wrote:

It's less about support for Biden than it is about signalling how much they hate Trump.

I get that. I hate him too. I don’t feel the need to catalogue all the awful things Biden could do before losing my vote.

The Democratic Party could just nominate someone else.

DSGamer wrote:
Stengah wrote:

It's less about support for Biden than it is about signalling how much they hate Trump.

I get that. I hate him too. I don’t feel the need to catalogue all the awful things Biden could do before losing my vote.

The Democratic Party could just nominate someone else.

I'm sure they have Bloomberg waiting in the wings just in case.

I'll vote for Biden unless he says the Star Wars prequels are the best trilogy. That's just going too far.

Top_Shelf wrote:

French Revolution was insanely bloody and directly led to Napoleon and years of Continent-wide war.

But in the end, France got a good government out of the process, so that was unusually good in terms of revolutions. The vast majority don't do even that well.

bekkilyn wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Stengah wrote:

It's less about support for Biden than it is about signalling how much they hate Trump.

I get that. I hate him too. I don’t feel the need to catalogue all the awful things Biden could do before losing my vote.

The Democratic Party could just nominate someone else.

I'm sure they have Bloomberg waiting in the wings just in case. :)

More likely Andrew Cuomo at this point.

OG_slinger wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

this place is better without Jayhawker, and it would sure be a lot better if you were the next to go.

Love you too, boo.

~mod~
Cheeze_pavilion, thanks for editing that out, despite others still seeing it and the record still existing for us to see on the back end. I appreciate your recognizing the misstep, and attempt to walk it back, eventually. You have a long history of honing the art of skirting lines to an nth degree, but you've crossed it here and your track record does you no favors. Please sit down and be quiet from any D&D threads for a few weeks (Until after May 17th).

Edit: As you've disabled forum PMs, and none of the email addresses from your various accounts are valid, my only current option is to post all of this publicly.

Not two pages ago I asked people to stop bringing up Jayhawker's name in this thread. Too many people here can't seem to keep on task due to their preferences for going at each other's necks and using one another as ammunition to do so. This thread will be locked as the urge to resist beating a dead horse seems to be too great for too many for it to stay on rails.

No more new U.S. election threads until June. Perhaps that'll be enough time for folks to calm down and move on from being too distracted by previous interpersonal derails.