|
stone cold posted:If you are doing all that stuff and seem pretty okay with Dems, then why not vote for a Democrat?
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not seeing any evidence building a Democratic base in Idaho is any easier than building a Socialist base in Washington. I think both are effectively impossible (at least to achieve by voting) so any realness of a party just doesn't factor in. no political change is possible ever, dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:Circumstances may change in the future, and under those new circumstances we can adopt new strategies, but unless you've got a reason to believe circumstances will change, or a plan to effect change, we've got to work with what we've got. You are the most passively passive-aggressive little poo poo I've ever seen try to argue. Those "new circumstances" that you are trying to be so vague and mystical about are more easily defined as "more people voting D", which will happen if, let me just put this in simple terms for your fourth-grade reading comprehension level, more people vote D. The way we get there? Get more people to vote D. That means less third-party voting, less not voting, less throwing away ballots, more D votes, more early votes, and more deliberate and consistent GOTV efforts. All this poo poo is achievable, all this poo poo is doable, and here you are moaning like a loving Shakespearean tragic character about how it's just too hard and too much effort and it won't matter unless *wiggles fingers* circumstances chaaaaaaaange. Which really just means someone else doing the hard work for you. gently caress you. gently caress you and your entitled, privileged, safe little world where everyone else is already doing the hard work for you. Vote third-party. No-one will care, but in a few months you will look back and realise that you're one of a small number of people who didn't help turn Hillary's victory into a landslide. You'll get used to lying about who you voted for because you're sick of people telling you that you helped Trump, which is exactly what you are doing by voting third-party. You'll get sick of explaining that your state was all voting against Trump anyway so it doesn't matter and you can't really be held responsible. Ten years from now, twenty, you'll still have been one of the few people who decided to help Trump. You'll never be able to go back and change it even when you loving grow up and realise how much of a petulant little poo poo you were about the need to compromise and unify. If that ever happens. It won't, unless circumstances change. You are the only one who is to blame for your vote. As safe as your state might be, you are to blame if you choose to send that vote to a pack of grifters rather than putting it toward striking down hard-right rape-and-riot nationalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You are the most passively passive-aggressive little poo poo I've ever seen try to argue. Those "new circumstances" that you are trying to be so vague and mystical about are more easily defined as "more people voting D", which will happen if, let me just put this in simple terms for your fourth-grade reading comprehension level, more people vote D. The way we get there? Get more people to vote D. That means less third-party voting, less not voting, less throwing away ballots, more D votes, more early votes, and more deliberate and consistent GOTV efforts. All this poo poo is achievable, all this poo poo is doable, and here you are moaning like a loving Shakespearean tragic character about how it's just too hard and too much effort and it won't matter unless *wiggles fingers* circumstances chaaaaaaaange. Which really just means someone else doing the hard work for you. quote:gently caress you. gently caress you and your entitled, privileged, safe little world where everyone else is already doing the hard work for you. Vote third-party. No-one will care, but in a few months you will look back and realise that you're one of a small number of people who didn't help turn Hillary's victory into a landslide. You'll get used to lying about who you voted for because you're sick of people telling you that you helped Trump, which is exactly what you are doing by voting third-party. You'll get sick of explaining that your state was all voting against Trump anyway so it doesn't matter and you can't really be held responsible. Ten years from now, twenty, you'll still have been one of the few people who decided to help Trump. You'll never be able to go back and change it even when you loving grow up and realise how much of a petulant little poo poo you were about the need to compromise and unify. If that ever happens. It won't, unless circumstances change. quote:You are the only one who is to blame for your vote. As safe as your state might be, you are to blame if you choose to send that vote to a pack of grifters rather than putting it toward striking down hard-right rape-and-riot nationalism. twodot fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
This thread is 40 pages. Was campaign finance mentioned already? If we got the oodles of 1% money out of politics, we could have government financing apportioned to votes per party. And that would give Democrats in Alabama, Republicans in Vermont, or third party voters anywhere a justification to vote. And guess what? As a side benefit it would also ~~~un-skullfuck the policy positions of major political parties~~~ so that we didn't HAVE to have discussions like, "you're opening the window for Big Oil to win the election if you don't vote for Big Medicine, you horrible heartless privileged sack of poo poo."
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Blame for what? "oh no, Trump lost my state by a huge margin, if only I voted for Clinton Trump could have lost by marginally huger margins! I will surely regret this for years to come!" And now we're back to "My vote doesn't matter." I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Somfin posted:And now we're back to "My vote doesn't matter."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
When is the Democratic party going to be purged of Pro-Wall Street elements? Only then will I vote for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:When is the Democratic party going to be purged of Pro-Wall Street elements? When you stop unironically using Shillary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Julian Assange talks to John Pilger about Hillary's emails, typically the stuff the US news is suppressing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:When you stop unironically using Shillary. Hillary voters are literally loving retarded 'hey this guys an idiot and electing him would energize the left' vs. 'hey I know her husband an her get money from the same governments that support ISIS and they might have been the reason why half a million Iraqi children died in the 90s and that they were cool with heading right back to Iraq to finish the job in 2003, but sexism, racism, biggotry are the most important things to my fragile triggered mind.' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Hillary voters are literally loving retarded I love the insane stupidity of this statement. "Hm, yes, Donald Trump winning would be the good thing. The left will be energized by our loss of the Supreme Court by possibly as much as a generation and the whole-throated support of insanely regressive policies by a Republican-dominated government. Surely a bit of racist, sexism and bigotry is a reasonable outcome for an 'energized' left because nothing energizes people more than powerlessness and hopelessness."
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Sethex posted:'hey I know her husband an her get money from the same governments that support ISIS and they might have been the reason why half a million Iraqi children died in the 90s and that they were cool with heading right back to Iraq to finish the job in 2003, but sexism, racism, biggotry are the most important things to my fragile triggered mind.' the most important things to my fragile triggered mind are the supreme court, the paris accords, public education, the economy and healthcare, and i'd rather not spend 4 years systematically dismantling all of these things like trump keeps explicitly saying he's going to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:the most important things to my fragile triggered mind are the supreme court, the paris accords, public education, the economy and healthcare, and i'd rather not spend 4 years systematically dismantling all of these things like trump keeps explicitly saying he's going to do. All of these ol' shill will do only in terms that her wall street bankers find acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:When is the Democratic party going to be purged of Pro-Wall Street elements? Some people will always genuinely believe in the system. We could do better to at least get rid of the people who are simply being paid off to believe in it. Hillary'a biggest blunder this year was this thing: QUESTION: Why are you so tight with Wall Street? HILLARY: 9/11. I represented New York during the aftermath. Wall Street fat cats gave huge to charity with my urging, and we formed a bond over that. MODERATOR: 9/11? Really? You want to change your answer? HILLARY: Nope. 9/11. It's true. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
So, again, why is the concept of voting systems other than FPTP so evil? If FPTP is what make wasting votes such an issue, why would using something like Instant Runoff Voting be a bad thing? Why would letting people vote third-party AND ALSO Democrat be wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I love the insane stupidity of this statement. dude, you're arguing with a libertarian who is like two posts away from going puppetmaster
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:All of these ol' shill will do only in terms that her wall street bankers find acceptable. What's the alternative?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
You're pretty dumb if you think the Paris accords mean a goddamned thing. I also question how much you understand about our federal system of government if you think Trump can singlehandedly dismantle K12 education.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Nixon did a pretty good job of loving poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
call to action posted:You're pretty dumb if you think the Paris accords mean a goddamned thing. I also question how much you understand about our federal system of government if you think Trump can singlehandedly dismantle K12 education. I'm amazed that someone too young to remember George W Bush's presidency is posting on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Hillary voters are literally loving retarded My first thought was that the guy you mentioned was Sanders though, and energizing the left would be another reason not to vote for him. That would at least be ideologically consistent with a large portion of democrats, and actually make sense. A Trump presidency on the other hand is definitely not going to make up for the damage he can do, by "energizing the left", even ignoring foreign policy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:All of these ol' shill will do only in terms that her wall street bankers find acceptable. I hate this criticism because I never hear it lobbied against any male presidents. Somehow you fuckers always use this narrative for Hillarya nd Hillary alone despite other candidates making mad bank off speaking fees. Look just admit it, you are upset you're not well-known enough that you can't skin millions off bankers for talking for a few hours. And you are impotently taking out your frustrations on (imagined) imperfections of the only realistic leftist candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 08:53
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I hate this criticism because I never hear it lobbied against any male presidents.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:oh you know except for all of them No, whenever I hear this criticism for like Obama, it's always "the lobbyists are creating so much obstruction that the President has his hands tied!" Well, okay there are some dumbfucks that say "we are all owned by the corporations, man" but they are few and far between I assume you all are above that (please tell me you are.if you're not, permit me my delusion so I'm not even more disappointed in thid-party voters) When it comes to Hillary though, "oh she was paid x amount of money by goldman sachs ergo she's their personal sex slave" There is a difference
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 09:31
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I hate this criticism because I never hear it lobbied against any male presidents. Somehow you fuckers always use this narrative for Hillarya nd Hillary alone despite other candidates making mad bank off speaking fees. SSNeoman posted:No, whenever I hear this criticism for like Obama, it's always "the lobbyists are creating so much obstruction that the President has his hands tied!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Seems like you're covering your bases here. Either people are being sexist by not accusing male presidents of the same, or they're dumbfucks if they do. They're actually dumbfucks in either case, because it's a stupid loving opinion, the former just has a bonus slice of sexism too. In both cases it's intellectually lazy. "the lobbyists are creating so much obstruction that the President has his hands tied!" is not a presidential criticism. It's a criticism of the current system where lobbyists interfere with the political process. When it comes to Hilalry For Some Reason we must all assume she'll welcome such obstructionism in the name of personal profit. Or even more absurdly, she'll cut a deal and fulfill favors to rich people in the name of profit. Just. Just think about that for like...two seconds. Really, just think. In what loving plane does that make sense?? Hillary can give a speech and earn six figures and she will soon have the most powerful office on the planet. Why the gently caress would she want more money?? If (and this is a big, BIG if) she needs more scratch after that, she'll simply ttravel across the country in 8 years talking about her experiences as the first female president. Then she'll spend the rest of her life brushing her teeth with Cristal. And despite this, despite many other politicians accepting speaking fees from banks, despite everything, only Hillary gets this criticism unloaded onto her from her supporters. I really. wonder. why.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 10:24
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:When it comes to Hilalry For Some Reason we must all assume she'll welcome such obstructionism in the name of personal profit. uhh that's not why people think she's owned by the banks she's a mainstream candidate from a major party with significant financial backing of them, she's as owned by them as obama, bush, clinton 1, etc etc have always been problem isn't where the parties are different, it's where they are the same https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/sectors.php A Buttery Pastry posted:Seems like you're covering your bases here. Either people are being sexist by not accusing male presidents of the same, or they're dumbfucks if they do. To be fair most team blue voters are so amped up at this point anyone not with them is against them. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but when's the last time Obama pulled a big speaking fee from banks? He went from baby Senator to President pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Maybe I'm just ignorant, but when's the last time Obama pulled a big speaking fee from banks? He went from baby Senator to President pretty quickly. Uhh look at who funded his campaign
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No, whenever I hear this criticism for like Obama, it's always "the lobbyists are creating so much obstruction that the President has his hands tied!" Were you even there when there was campaign obama vs real obama? She was paid by Goldman Sachs, and then there's what she actually said to Goldman Sachs. She said she was brave not to go after them after 2008 and they applauded. This is not someone who is going to do anything they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
There is a legitimate concern that during Bill's presidency, he picked Bob Rubin and Larry Summers as treasury secretaries, and they remain friends of the Clintons. Very Bad things happened during the second Clinton administration on that front. I think the realistic view is that Hillary knows that people are paying attention now in a way they weren't then, and turning a blind eye to Wall St will throw any chance at public support of her presidency directly into the toilet. I think she's a lot more worried about losing the growing progressive base for the Dems than she is about pissing off Wall St. I don't think she'll be as aggressive or principled as Sanders or Warren on the issue, but I trust her to be a politician and go the way the wind is blowing. It's easy to say "well she's bought and paid for" but if that's as far into the issue as you can think, you're either not very bright or not trying very hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
 holy poo poo you are that dumb.I got no words. Well thread, thank you. This has been an eye opening experience for me. I now know I should never ever respect third party voters for their political opinions. Apparently they're all a bunch of sanctimonious morons with political opinions equivalent to those of your typical high school student. Is there any other way you guys would like to disabuse me about third party voters? Like I dunno, what's your opinion about fluoride? I'm fascinated to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. twodot posted:Maybe I'm just ignorant, but when's the last time Obama pulled a big speaking fee from banks? He went from baby Senator to President pretty quickly. Give him a year. He's an excellent speaker and I guarantee that in a year he'll be rolling in money like scrooge mcduck. EDIT: this avatar is pretty bad Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I now know I should never ever respect third party voters for their political opinions. Apparently they're all a bunch of sanctimonious morons with political opinions equivalent to those of your typical high school student. oh come on lets not pretend you didn't already think this also loling at the idea that the big parties are bought and paid for by the financial industry is some kind of conspiracy
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:
Wait wait wait. What do you think about fluoride?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
I think fluoride is good + cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Give him a year. He's an excellent speaker and I guarantee that in a year he'll be rolling in money like scrooge mcduck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:If Obama hasn't taken speaking fees, and Clinton has then that seems like a pretty good reason to treat them differently. The speaking circuit is a common thing for politicians to do once they leave office. It's one of the least controversial things ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:If Obama hasn't taken speaking fees, and Clinton has then that seems like a pretty good reason to treat them differently. You're comparing two things that aren't comparable. Obama wasn't in a position to take speaking fees before he became president because nobody was interested in a freshman senator from Illinois.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:14 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:the big parties are bought and paid for by the financial industry What does this actually mean and how does it work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:49
|
|