• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Biaggi’s Second Opium Den

Not disagreeing but overrated as in "not as good a person as people think they were" or overrated as in "wouldn't have been as successful as people think they would be"?
kinda both honestly. the scopes monkey trial is an overrated flaw of bryan’s, but his 1896 nomination was actively destructive to african-americans in the south, and the idea that it was HIM who shifted the democratic party to the progressive left is incredibly arrogant and stupid. wilson and roosevelt disliked those who represented the former populist movement and indeed when the democratic party fully embraced civil rights, it came at the hands of the people bryan most alienated (urban workers, immigrants, and machines) and was opposed by the people he garnered the most support from.

i do think 1896 was a year that had terrific potential for political change, and bryan utilized that potential as best he could but he also DEFINITELY wasted it and sold a winnable election for the populist movement by being an annoying protestant
 
i do think 1896 was a year that had terrific potential for political change, and bryan utilized that potential as best he could but he also DEFINITELY wasted it and sold a winnable election for the populist movement by being an annoying protestant
Who do you think would have been the best reform candidate for 1896?
 
Who do you think would have been the best reform candidate for 1896?
ben tillman
probably richard bland; he could’ve picked up a lot of voters bryan lost while holding the populist coalition together but tbh the populist party being absorbed into the democrats was so damaging it might’ve been better if they just ran some bourbon democrat and debs or watson got to run third party
 
1969-1973: James Gavin (Democratic)[1]
1968 def. (with John Connally) Richard Nixon (Republican), George Wallace (American)
1973-1981: John Tower (Republican)[2]
1972 def. (with George Murphy) James Gavin (Democratic), Hunter Thompson (Independent)
1976 def. (with George Murphy) Hubert Humphrey (Democratic), Hunter Thompson (Freak Power)

1981-1989: Chuck Robb (Democratic)[3]
1980 def. (with George McGovern) George Murphy (Republican), Morton Downey Jr. (Pro-Life)
1984 def. (with George McGovern) Frank Borman (Republican)

1989-1995: Bob Dole (Republican)[4]
1988 def. (with James Traficant) George McGovern (Democratic), Lowell Weicker (An American Party)
1992 def. (with James Traficant) Russell Means (Democratic)

1995-1997: Strom Thurmond (Republican)[5]
1997-2001: Larry Flynt (Democratic)[6]
1996 def. (with Evan Bayh) Liddy Tower (Republican), Evan Mecham (Conservative)
2001-2005: Bob Smith (Republican)[7]
2000 def. (with Al D’Amato) Larry Flynt (Democratic)
2005-2013: Paul Kagame (Democratic)[8]
2004 def. (with Joe Biden) Bob Smith (Republican), Richard Stallings (Independent)
2008 def. (with Joe Biden) Tim Pawlenty (Republican)

2013-2021: Michael Huffington (Republican)[9]
2012 def. (with Gary Franks) Joe Lieberman (Democratic)
2016 def. (with Gary Franks) Tom Cruise (Democratic)

2021-????: Eileen Donahoe (Democratic)[10]
2020 def. (with Brian Schweitzer) Gary Franks (Republican)


[1] An outsider, campaigning against the political establishment both of his own party and that in Washington is elected in a time of great change, but due to his inexperience, is unable to produce the change he wants, losing re-election after a series of unfortunate events.
[2] A young Southerner is elected after years of his party wandering the political wilderness. Despite his election being seen as a victory for radicals in his party by political opponents, he grows to moderate, and, although personally popular, is weighed down post presidency for controversial scandals and ties to a wealthy Jew who died controversially.
[3] The son-in-law of a former president bogged down by disappointment in his own party, he defeats a young maverick in the primary using racial rhetoric before using “Good Ol’ Boy” tactics to win not just one, but two elections. Elected as a peacemaker and relative moderate, is remembered as a bumbling Southern fool who started not one (Uganda) but two (Sudan) disastrous wars in the same region.
[4] Failed presidential candidate, oft-mocked and hated, finally enters the presidency a bitter and furious man in the midst of a disastrous war in a three-way race with a comically vile and corrupt vice president. Spends his term reshaping the world in his image, stuffing the court, and breaking his political enemies down. Wins in one of the biggest landslides in modern American history against a radical midwesterner and then throws it all away in a vain attempt to hold onto power.
[5] Incredibly old and racist man from a Southern state who switched parties due to Richard Nixon enters office due to a shock choice as Vice President and the personal failings of his predecessor. Opposition fear-mongers about him but he fails to get anything of purpose done as president due to split congress; idolized by the most annoying members of his party.
[6] Media-savvy man with a pornographic past breaks every major political rule and is elected president after defeating the wife of a former president thanks in part due to the failures of the previous administration and a vote-splitting former Southwestern governor. Spends his entire time in office mired in controversy, but maintains a cult following. Is defeated in a controversial election and tries to hold onto power, before being defeated. Dies while campaigning for a nonconsecutive term.
[7] Former Republican congressional leader fucks around and ends up in office due to scandal surrounding the incumbent president. Spends much of his term as a footnote, but exits the scene of one of the most disastrous wars in American history (Uganda) and pardons his predecessor to much fanfare and controversy. Loses re-election after a primary to his right to an outsider representing a dying wing of the party.
[8] Transformative candidate once a member of a foreign-controlled political group runs with his biggest primary opponent, a man of extensive foreign policy experience, and defeats an incumbent president. Pushes through much of his agenda, arguably saving his party and movement after a scandal-filled presidency, and despite his strong ideological commitments, militarism, and arguable war crimes, becomes incredibly popular among Americans, destroying his opponent for re-election by unfathomable margins.
[9] The first president of his kind, he utilizes charisma and media savvy to open the minds of the country to a man like him as president. Defeats a maverick within the opposing party and a cultist and despite high hopes for his presidency, largely bungles it, and arguably makes things worse for his community. His chosen successor, increasingly unpopular and scandal-tied, is defeated for re-election, destroying his legacy.
[10] A foreign policy wonk, she utilizes an incredibly racist campaign to be elected president, grows very popular due to foreign policy successes but things begin to sour as the economy declines and radicals within her party begin to want more…
 


the way anti chinese brainrot effects americans actually needs to be studied in schools. it’s undeniable to all but the most mccarthyite reactionaries that china is a capitalist country (as if capitalism and communism are different at all), one that would be an incredibly valuable ally with america. one of the worst things to come out of trump’s election is the perception that we (american liberals) need to be “tough” on china for votes. not only is it stupid foreign policy, stupid electoral policy, but it’s also ACTIVELY DESTRUCTIVE and harmful to chinese-americans just trying to live their lives here.
 
the way anti chinese brainrot effects americans actually needs to be studied in schools. it’s undeniable to all but the most mccarthyite reactionaries that china is a capitalist country (as if capitalism and communism are different at all), one that would be an incredibly valuable ally with america. one of the worst things to come out of trump’s election is the perception that we (american liberals) need to be “tough” on china for votes. not only is it stupid foreign policy, stupid electoral policy, but it’s also ACTIVELY DESTRUCTIVE and harmful to chinese-americans just trying to live their lives here.
Wait, let me get this straight:

-On one side we have a progressive, liberal democracy with government-run healthcare and education for all that also has comprehensive civil liberties protections (including being the only country in the region with gay marriage).

-On the other side we have an authoritarian, right-wing anarcho-capitalist nightmare led by a sentient 1930s imaginary teddy bear that engages in neoimperialism and modern-day feudalism required to fuel a permanent underclass with no social safety benefits.

Why the actual fuck should we choose the former? Why would a leftist suggest we choose the former?

I don't see any reason aside from Mick Wallace contrarianism but you don't fit that bill, so I'm legit at a loss.
 
Wait, let me get this straight:

-On one side we have a progressive, liberal democracy with government-run healthcare and education for all that also has comprehensive civil liberties protections (including being the only country in the region with gay marriage).

-On the other side we have an authoritarian, right-wing anarcho-capitalist nightmare led by a sentient 1930s imaginary teddy bear that engages in neoimperialism and modern-day feudalism required to fuel a permanent underclass with no social safety benefits.

Why the actual fuck should we choose the former? Why would a leftist suggest we choose the former?

I don't see any reason aside from Mick Wallace contrarianism but you don't fit that bill, so I'm legit at a loss.

why would any "leftist", with the knowledge that the United States, the political actor that represents us, is a concretely imperial capitalist power, actively advocate for the continued use of public funds to arm a state for war with a rival imperial power? this isn't money the United States military is sharing out of the kindness of it's heart, this is blood money sapped from funds that could be used to either improve public services for American workers or actively improve diplomatic relations with the PRC that is instead going towards arming a state that could not fend off of a Chinese Invasion and it is being shared with the explicit understanding that this money is an insurance policy to allow for American corporations to continue to exploit cheap near slave labor (Taiwan is neofuedal as well dude! they were literally founded and have been largely maintained by the fucking Kuomintang!) and natural resources/available markets in Taiwan.

there are no protagonists in this story and acting like the United States can somehow be an honest and just actor in the context of realpoltik by funneling massive amounts of arms/private and public capital into a largely vassalized nation state to fend off a rival power with a similar economic doctrine to American capitalism is absolutely absurd. it is not a "leftist" position to encourage and actively contribute through state policy massive wars of imperial expansion. u can't pick sides like this is a movie, u don't have that liberty living in the literal center of capitalist and imperial hegemony in the world.
 
why would any "leftist", with the knowledge that the United States, the political actor that represents us, is a concretely imperial capitalist power, actively advocate for the continued use of public funds to arm a state for war with a rival imperial power? this isn't money the United States military is sharing out of the kindness of it's heart, this is blood money sapped from funds that could be used to either improve public services for American workers or actively improve diplomatic relations with the PRC that is instead going towards arming a state that could not fend off of a Chinese Invasion and it is being shared with the explicit understanding that this money is an insurance policy to allow for American corporations to continue to exploit cheap near slave labor (Taiwan is neofuedal as well dude! they were literally founded and have been largely maintained by the fucking Kuomintang!) and natural resources/available markets in Taiwan.

there are no protagonists in this story and acting like the United States can somehow be an honest and just actor in the context of realpoltik by funneling massive amounts of arms/private and public capital into a largely vassalized nation state to fend off a rival power with a similar economic doctrine to American capitalism is absolutely absurd. it is not a "leftist" position to encourage and actively contribute through state policy massive wars of imperial expansion. u can't pick sides like this is a movie, u don't have that liberty living in the literal center of capitalist and imperial hegemony in the world.
Cheap near slave labor? Taiwan has a higher HDI and lower GINI than most western countries.

Neofuedal? Taiwan has free elections and the current President is decidedly not a member of the Kuomintang, and was re-elected in a landslide. The Kuomintang itself has voting membership in the parliament less than the Dems in much of New Deal Consensus America.

Is Taiwan not capable of making a decision based on the hands they have been dealt? China is breathing down their necks. Are they just supposed to refuse US assistance because the US is an imperialist power?

America isn't the worst country in the world. I believe a good word for this is "critical support".
 
Why the actual fuck should we choose the former? Why would a leftist suggest we choose the former?
i’m a liberal not a leftist guys comeon get with the script america quite literally cannot have leftists we’re already a capitalist country
America isn't the worst country in the world. I believe a good word for this is "critical support".
a) we’re one of the better ones (i’ll try to think of a better one)
b) i think it’s very stupid to start conflict, waste money, and utilize propaganda against a country that has not really started any wars in its modern state, is rapidly progressing, is almost exactly the same as us, and with whom an alliance or even just a 2013-era consensus would make things significantly better for most things on earth. let’s not forget that china is currently playing peacemaker in the middle east and could very well do the same in ukraine, this is a country that good relations with would be beneficial!

also it would be stupid to assume china’s gonna invade taiwan lol that shits just not happening ever no one’s that suicidal/dumb
 

tierlist for presidents based on greenlandic policy
S tier: Franklin Roosevelt
A tier: Donald Trump, Harry Truman, Andrew Johnson
B tier: William Taft, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon
C tier: Every president before 1867
D tier: Every president after 1867 not listed
F tier: Lyndon Johnson
 
Liberia, also known by detractors as Mississippi-in-Africa has 179 congressional districts and 3 senators, making it the 28th-largest congressional delegation in the United States. Liberia’s congressional delegation includes the 139th district, currently the easternmost congressional district of the United States.

The large black “Americo-Liberian” population of Liberia has led to large Republican majorities in the state. However, the “Native Liberian” population, long disenfranchised, usually sides with the Democratic party, or more local parties, such as the Liberian People’s Party, which aim to create better conditions for Native Liberians in the country.

Liberia is one of four “majority-minority” states, along with Dominica, Greenland, and Hawaii. However, unlike those states, courts have mandated “white-opportunity” districts, a controversial practice that has led to much anger amongst groups, particularly Native African ones, who still face extensive gerrymandering in the state. Liberia’s 3rd and 25th districts are both plurality white, reflecting small white populations in the costal cities of Buchanan and Jefferson. Both districts are heavily Republican, owing to the extreme wealth of the residents who live there, and the Americo-Liberian Republican regime is often blamed for the prominence of these seats.
 
Back
Top