• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

'17 Specials & '18 Midterms Thread

MHBDemon said:
lol, go off king. You didn't confront me with any facts. You stated a bunch of very general positions/outcomes, void of any policy, that most everyone here should agree with.
Click to expand...

Do you have links to DSA "policy" that I could look through? Genuinely curious. Because what I've seen from the DSA so far has generally been a bunch of very general positions and outcomes, void of any policy. The few that I've seen (Bernie's health care plan and his Amazon bill), have been pretty bad. Surely you know things like "healthcare being FREE at point of service and covering everyone under one plan. No copays, no fees, etc. Free mental health, free access to reproductive health" is not actually policy either.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Its a fact that the Green Party is not the Democratic Party, yet for some stupid fuckin reason you believe that every Democratic candidate is entitled to Green party votes.
Click to expand...

The reason is the Green Party will never win anything.

Waste of you’re voice. Like planting banana plants in Maine just bc you like bananas and because you can.
 
ImTheCaptain said:
The reason is the Green Party will never win anything.

Waste of you’re voice. Like planting banana plants in Maine just bc you like bananas and because you can.
Click to expand...

So therefore anticapitalist, eco-socialists should support a capitalist party that just lifted a ban on accepting fossil fuel money just so their voice isn't wasted?
 
You guys simultaneously tell us to look at candidates when it comes to progressives but vote against your imposed view of the entire D platform
 
tiltdeac said:
Do you have links to DSA "policy" that I could look through? Genuinely curious. Because what I've seen from the DSA so far has generally been a bunch of very general positions and outcomes, void of any policy. The few that I've seen (Bernie's health care plan and his Amazon bill), have been pretty bad. Surely you know things like "healthcare being FREE at point of service and covering everyone under one plan. No copays, no fees, etc. Free mental health, free access to reproductive health" is not actually policy either.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it helps to parse what we mean by policy. In my discussion with RJ, maybe I meant more that it lacked specifics. What are you looking for? If you asked the same question of either of the major parties, would they be able to answer it with a unified, consistent "policy?"

Right now, DSA is very decentralized and each chapter does what they think works best in their community. If you wanted more specific stuff, maybe look at LA with the work DSA did on rent control, or supporting a public bank. In Austin, DSA worked really hard on paid sick leave for fast food and other service industry employees. Personally, I'm mainly interested in prison abolition, so the work that I want to do is around ending cash bail, investing in mental health and housing instead of jails, and providing community led alternatives to police.
 
MHBDemon said:
You are conflating outcomes with how we get there.

Prisons would be a good example. I'm a prison abolitionist. You have told me before that you think I'm crazy. So therefore, we don't agree. "I do agree with prison reform" is not policy. How do you plan to reduce our prison population by 80%?

If you are truly a "prison abolitionist", you'd have to oppose having prisons for murderers, child molesters, rapists, arsonists and other violent criminals.

I stated my positions on medicare for all. Those include healthcare being FREE at point of service and covering everyone under one plan. No copays, no fees, etc. Free mental health, free access to reproductive health. As I recall, you disagreed.

If you mean FREE without any taxes or employer involvement, then you are living in a dream world. How do the nurses get paid if there are no taxes? How about the janitors? The medicines?

I believe in the liberation of all LGBTQ people, but I don't think that is possible under capitalism, so we don't agree on how we get there.

We agree on the goal as we agree on many other things which you REFUSE to admit. You'd rather hate me than work with me (and others) to find solutions. The major difference is I understand I'm not getting 100% of what I want versus your refusal to accept anything less.

Everything else in your post, "make voting easier," support for generic "civil rights", is just substance-less stuff that most everyone would agree on.
Click to expand...

The difference is I've acted on those issues. Have you put your freedom or your life on the line for any of these issues?

Of course you have conveniently neglected all the DSA major issues on which we agree. That makes it easier for you. The three major issues on their website are Medicare for All- which I agree with them; Strong unions- again I agree with the website and Electoral Power- this is repetitive- I also agree with them. But you won't admit we agree.
 
RJKarl said:
The difference is I've acted on those issues. Have you put your freedom or your life on the line for any of these issues?

Of course you have conveniently neglected all the DSA major issues on which we agree. That makes it easier for you. The three major issues on their website are Medicare for All- which I agree with them; Strong unions- again I agree with the website and Electoral Power- this is repetitive- I also agree with them. But you won't admit we agree.
Click to expand...

You just flatly don't agree with our medicare for all platform. I don't know why you keep saying you do. I'm looking at the medicare for all DSA pamphlet I had at my desk, and it says "Free at the point of service: All Healthcare costs will be financed through tax contributions based on ability to pay; no copays, no fees, no deductibles, and no premiums. Ever." and "Universal Coverage: Coverage for all United States residents - non-citizens included."

Do you agree or disagree?
 
MHBDemon said:
So therefore anticapitalist, eco-socialists should support a capitalist party that just lifted a ban on accepting fossil fuel money just so their voice isn't wasted?
Click to expand...

Yes, why is that such a hard concept to grasp? No one is saying that their opinion is lesser or carries no weight, but by voting the way they choose to, they are giving the party that will be so much fucking worse an advantage.
 
MHBDemon said:
You just flatly don't agree with our medicare for all platform. I don't know why you keep saying you do. I'm looking at the medicare for all DSA pamphlet I had at my desk, and it says "Free at the point of service: All Healthcare costs will be financed through tax contributions based on ability to pay; no copays, no fees, no deductibles, and no premiums. Ever." and "Universal Coverage: Coverage for all United States residents - non-citizens included."

Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I agree and have always agreed. However, taxes are premiums...
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Yes, why is that such a hard concept to grasp? No one is saying that their opinion is lesser or carries no weight, but by voting the way they choose to, they are giving the party that will be so much fucking worse an advantage.
Click to expand...

Because i think you are saying their opinion is lesser when you say "fuck all those people." Look, the overwhelming majority of people I know in DSA and other leftist orgs vote democrat as a form of harm reduction. Like I don't think Laura Kelly is going to save us, but its easier for people to organize if they aren't threatened by white supremacy. I think we probably agree on that. I just don't think it makes any sense to shame individual voters or a collective group of 40k green party voters, or non voters, for their choice, ESPECIALLY when it seems people would rather spend more time lecturing those people, than attacking oppressive institutions or examining the very real reasons why people are turned off by the Democratic Party.
 
I understand the anger/frustration Democrats have of liberal 3rd party supporters not voting for the better of two evils. I also think until Democrats show genuine support of those 3rd parties in terms of enacting or promoting more progressive law/platforms they're going to struggle motivating those people to help them win. And I think both sides are ruining their chances of achieving their goals by not reaching a common ground.
 
Not sure there’s common ground between voting for one party over another party except for teaming up against the other part(ies). If both parties work individually they’ll always lose.

That’s how multiparty systems work anyway.
 
PhDeac said:
Not sure there’s common ground between voting for one party over another party except for teaming up against the other part(ies). If both parties work individually they’ll always lose.

That’s how multiparty systems work anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If Democrats made environment/drug reform/whatever an actual policy issue they ran on they would hopefully get some of those 3rd party supporters on their side. I'm dont think 3rd party supporters trust Democrats to represent their causes though.
 
But that’s the thing. I don’t understand how someone thinks voting for the Green Party is going to advance their environmental policy goals when there’s no chance the Green Party candidate will get elected.
 
PhDeac said:
But that’s the thing. I don’t understand how someone thinks voting for the Green Party is going to advance their environmental policy goals when there’s no chance the Green Party candidate will get elected.
Click to expand...

It's their only leverage. If Democrats don't want to talk to them in terms of actually policy proposals to get their vote, why would those Democrats enact their policies once in power? The Green Party is showing their voting power, Democrats need to find a way to get it. I dont think complaining is going to get it done. Make part of the Green party's policy part of your platform. I think both sides are being stubborn and I understand, but I dont see either finding solutions to work together. Just blaming one another while Republicans turn the country to shit.
 
HuskyDeac said:
Yeah, that's kind of my point. If Democrats made environment/drug reform/whatever an actual policy issue they ran on they would hopefully get some of those 3rd party supporters on their side. I'm dont think 3rd party supporters trust Democrats to represent their causes though.
Click to expand...

But they can be 10000% certain Republicans won't and won't ever listen to them at all.
 
HuskyDeac said:
It's their only leverage. If Democrats don't want to talk to them in terms of actually policy proposals to get their vote, why would those Democrats enact their policies once in power? The Green Party is showing their voting power, Democrats need to find a way to get it. I dont think complaining is going to get it done. Make part of the Green party's policy part of your platform. I think both sides are being stubborn and I understand, but I dont see either finding solutions to work together. Just blaming one another while Republicans turn the country to shit.
Click to expand...

Ocasio-Cortez ran as a Democrat
 
Just an example of being smart and using the system rather than running as a third party trash can for votes
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Just an example of being smart and using the system rather than running as a third party trash can for votes
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I get how it relates to my discussion of the voters who are voting 3rd party rather than Democrat or Democrat candidates reaching out to those 3rd party voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top