|
IRQ posted:If that's not what it's about then people should stop trying to say that it is. There are plenty of GOOD reasons to vote. Saying not voting is a vote for trump is just as disingenuous as saying both sides are equally bad. I think there's just a misunderstanding, or miscommunication of what the consequences of non-voting are. The bottom line is that if you have the right to vote, you should use it, period. I can't think of any good reasons NOT to vote. SlothfulCobra posted:http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/5/254291/- Fair enough. I guess as far as I could tell (at the time) W was just dumb (not having a frame of reference for his younger self or familiarity with '90s Texas politics.) The previously mentioned alcohol abuse doesn't help, and to be fair to him, Reagan, and Trump, old age will contribute to cognitive decline in most people (although Bernie's doing pretty well.) On the same subject, did you watch/hear the Comey testimony today? The McCain part was painful; it really sounds like he's on his way out.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:I wonder if this week will all be about the UK clusterfuck that is going on along with the testimony The UK Election and Comey's testimony are important for sure, but I hope there's at least something on the CHOICE Act because wow this thing seems to be actively hostile. Yes, let's return the banks to the exact scenario that allowed the 2008 crisis. This is a good plan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:11
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:The UK Election and Comey's testimony are important for sure, but I hope there's at least something on the CHOICE Act because wow this thing seems to be actively hostile. Yes, let's return the banks to the exact scenario that allowed the 2008 crisis. This is a good plan. It's a great plan if your goal is to assassinate the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Quit blaming Hillary and blame yourself. But it doesn't, that's just a fact. That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. Have you considered reading the thread? And yes I did hold my nose and vote for Hillary fwiw. Millions of people more than did for Trump doing that doesn't absolve her of being a terrible candidate and running a terrible campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Dragonatrix posted:The UK Election and Comey's testimony are important for sure, but I hope there's at least something on the CHOICE Act because wow this thing seems to be actively hostile. Yes, let's return the banks to the exact scenario that allowed the 2008 crisis. This is a good plan. It just doesn't make sense. Regulations help banks by stopping them from stupid poo poo that anywhere but the short run screws them over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
IRQ posted:But it doesn't, that's just a fact. That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. Have you considered reading the thread? Make up your mind. You have voted but you have spent most of this discussion saying your vote doesn't matter which quite frankly is worse than not voting. So what is it? Does voting matter or not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Make up your mind. You have voted but you have spent most of this discussion saying your vote doesn't matter which quite frankly is worse than not voting. That depends on where you live and what your politics are,, but you still should vote even if it doesn't matter. The further down the ticket the more it matters. Yes, you may be a socialist in Alabama, but you should still stand and be counted, just know that it doesn't matter. Does this make it sound futile and pointless? Yeah, because a lot of the time it is, our system is hosed up and broken. Which I think is a lot more honest than trying to wrap it up in bullshit like "not voting is a vote for trump."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:This. Martin god drat O'Malley would have performed better, and had the republicans put up someone normal like Rubio this would have been a blowout loss for the Dems,  WampaLord posted:This attitude is why she lost, by the way. Also
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
IRQ posted:That depends on where you live and what your politics are,, but you still should vote even if it doesn't matter. The further down the ticket the more it matters. Yes, you may be a socialist in Alabama, but you should still stand and be counted, just know that it doesn't matter. Does this make it sound futile and pointless? Yeah, because a lot of the time it is, our system is hosed up and broken. Garbage. You tell people to vote telling then it doesn't matter. It matters not matter where you live. You are suppressing your own vote for no drat reason. Who is it to say you will lose? If you don't vote you don't know. You have to play to win. Just because you have chosen glass half empty doesn't mean you should or have any right to spread it. You might as well work for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Garbage. You tell people to vote telling then it doesn't matter. It matters not matter where you live. You are suppressing your own vote for no drat reason. Who is it to say you will lose? If you don't vote you don't know. You have to play to win. e: I just hope that you appreciate the irony of using a lottery slogan when trying to say voting always matters. IRQ fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Jun 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:It just doesn't make sense. Regulations help banks by stopping them from stupid poo poo that anywhere but the short run screws them over. Yes but regulations are morally wrong, because free market etc. Also bear in mind that the people that get screwed over often aren't the people that actually caused the problems in the first place. SOME banks got screwed, but others made a mint. So while the people advocating for deregulation of the banking industry are the worst kind of scum con men, they aren't doing it for no reason. They know how to inflate a bubble and then divest themselves from it before the collapse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:You have to play to win.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:Oh, and to the guy who said "great job loving the downballot": you realize you can vote there and abstain on the big one, right? Which is EXACTLY what many leftist grassroots groups recommended and did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
TXT BOOTY7 2 47474 posted:had the republicans put up someone normal like Rubio this would have been a blowout loss for the Dems, as shown by it still being a blowout loss downballot which means plenty of people voted R there but not for President. Yet the Republicans seem to not believe any of this because they continue to behave as a rubber-stamp for Trump since they want his supporters in the midterms. WampaLord posted:This attitude is why she lost, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
IRQ posted:
So? You can't win if you don't vote. Voting always matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:No, he made a well-written post about how one side gets to lie constantly and get away with it, and the other side is under constant scrutiny and has to back down from any minor "infraction." Seriously, Trump lies constantly and gets adoring followers, overwhelming power, and Congressional lackeys for his transgressions. When have the Republicans faced actual consequences for their lies and actions? They get to lie about destroying the environment, lie about their voter suppression efforts, they can even do nothing and still get paid for it (shut down the Federal Government, refuse to allow Obama to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, obstruct efforts to reform American healthcare and then when that fails try to repeal all of the popular advancements, etc.) The list goes on and on. The two political parties play under different rules. No matter how much fancy formatting you throw in, you literally reinforced my statement. Gyges posted:It was pretty much a purposeful affectation to make it easier to win in Texas. He just stayed in character for so long that it became his default. From what little of his post Presidential interviews I've seen, he's noticeably less W now that he's retired to paint bad pictures. Still all about that stupid accent of his though, probably worked too hard to get it and had little reason to lose it. Jeb on the other hand, moved from Texas to the snob hills of the far northeast, and look how that worked for him. It does though, change my opinion of how savvy GWB was. I mean I had a great time making fun of his stumbles but seriously, if you record me talking with my friends and then record me standing up in front of a crowd and trying to sell them on something, I'd be a babbling mess in comparison. coyo7e fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:"ehhhh, my vote doesn't matter anyway and both sides are crooks, I'll stay home." This seems significantly more likely. I honestly fail to see why abstaining from voting for Hillary makes a relevant point about your political dissatisfaction, though. I voted for Bernie in the primary to voice my feelings about HRC; his numbers there were a concrete metric the Dems could look to that demonstrated voter support for a progressive platform (and Hillary's rhetoric was probably pushed left because of it, for whatever that was worth.) In the General, not voting simply communicates voter apathy. It makes the perceived mandate of the opposite party look stronger, and doesn't say anything specific about what malcontented Dems thought. And, I mean, sure it's less relevant outside of a swing state. I just don't understand the point. Votes aren't actually about your political ideals in the abstract, they're about your preference within a limited pool of options. Maybe you want pad thai for dinner, but if you're going to a pizza place, you should probably speak up if your choices are pepperoni pizza or a calzone filled with dogshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Xealot posted:This seems significantly more likely. Now, see this I will agree with. Hillary was a loving horrible candidate that never should have gotten near the nomination in 08 OR in 16, but she did, and in the end not voting at all or just not for her (if and only if you live in a swing state) over Trump doesn't send a message to the dems that they loving suck and don't represent your interests, it just fucks everyone over for four years. We had a chance to make our voices heard in the primaries (and if you live in a closed primary state, you should register dem just to vote in that even if you're really more of a communist!), and you should definitely vote in those, but that didn't work out for reasons we don't really need to get into. gently caress you Donna Brazile. And the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
I vote in a swing state that actually has a "None of the above" option that is effectively the same thing as not voting but actually leaves a recorded count of your protest vote. I used it. Clinton won here anyway. And this poo poo still won't be fixed until states give their EVs proportionally to their popular vote instead of 100% of their EVs to a candidate with a tiny majority or even without a majority of votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:LOL, I'd love to see the statistics (if there are any) of people who actually took the time to go down to the polls just to vote for downballot and NOT for president. Then let's compare it to the much more likely apathetic "ehhhh, my vote doesn't matter anyway and both sides are crooks, I'll stay home." I agree, I doubt many people did this. But if people felt they absolutely couldn't vote for Hillary or Donald, that's what they should have done. Never don't go to vote, unless it's truly a hardship for you (which is the case for many people, given R's attempts to disenfranchise people) -- even if you just draw a cock and balls on your ballot, at least you can say you took part in the democratic process. Even if places where a spoiled ballot isn't specifically counted as anything, there will be a discrepancy between voter turnout and counted votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Did you even read what I said? You just reiterated my statement. "the two sides play differently - but I'm tired of that so I'm going to use the other side's strategy now!" is what you're saying. aka "taking up the alt-right playbook". No, it's not the same thing. You're acting like "playing hardball" is the "alt-white strategy" when it's really just what Recucklicans have been doing for years. You're giving way too much credit to a fringy alt-white movement that only has momentum because their racist candidate actually got enough retards to vote for him (and our electoral process is retarded.) All we were endorsing was that the left should just say "gently caress it" and stop apologizing for free speech, not to literally adopt the alt-white's tactics (including but not limited to trolling and harassing other people, let alone acts of violence.) I think the part of your post that I took the most umbrage with was the equation of liberals standing up for themselves to the alt-white's actions. You read too much into Destruya's post; it wasn't about acting like the enemy, it was advocating stopping apologizing for utilizing our First Amendment rights. Did you even read what he wrote?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
I think the animosity sprung from my appropriation of "lean in." Probably could've avoided the whole thing if I'd just said "HTFU," but even that kind of has a "snowflake" connotation to it, so I was hosed either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
Well I mean I was already aware about the specific association of "lean in" but I totally knew where you were going, and yeah he was technically right to bring up the women's empowerment reference, but I think that's what threw him off and caused him to misinterpret the spirit of the text. "HTFU," aside from making me think of Eve Online, also has more of a defensive connotation to it, when in actuality we want to emphasize being aggressive instead, not in terms of harassing the enemy but simply asserting our rights. In that sense, you weren't hosed because what you wrote was right on. For another, very relevant example of what we're talking about, there's the whole Reza Aslan situation. He also lost his association with CNN for kind of poo poo-talking about the Orangutan-in-Chief, (and then apologizing!) except he really didn't say anything worse than what li'l Donny himself has already said, and of course the latter hasn't received much in the way of consequences for the terrible poo poo he's said/done; in fact, Trump got a job where Reza and Griffin lost theirs for doing far less.  (I like how that article also points out that the Trump supporters that CNN explicitly hired to create controversy are all still employed there.  )
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 07:44
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Well I mean I was already aware about the specific association of "lean in" but I totally knew where you were going, and yeah he was technically right to bring up the women's empowerment reference, but I think that's what threw him off and caused him to misinterpret the spirit of the text. Reza Aslan is a piece of poo poo, and Believer was a fairly dumb, bordering on offensive, premise for a show, but that specific thing isn't what he should've been fired for. Honestly, it reminded me of the Bill Maher controversy last week: you can get away with doing subtle, offensive poo poo for a long time, but then you say something plainly offensive, even if it's not actually as harmful or bad as the rest of the poo poo you've done, and the world ends.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
I think Lewis Black said it best. Instead of paraphrasing it.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaU70Qeb0Cc Now, that analogy aside... until a third party rises up and poses an actual threat, which is something that's going to take more than an idiotic pothead running for the party with the idiotest platform imaginable, we are stuck in a lesser-of-two-evils choice. You can look at it as a greater-of-two-goods choice, or a good-versus-evil choice, but at the end of the day, you should go out and vote for the least worst candidate. Because whether you like the candidates or not, one of those top two guys is going to run the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Unless we rewrite the Constitution, America will always be a two party system with occasional periods where one party has imploded and and a new party hasn't solidly risen from it's ashes. It's the nature of first past the post with a non-parliamentary system and a strong national executive. Theoretically a 3rd party could coexist, but they would have to first rise up and control enough legislative seats that they could conceivably take control of one or both houses of congress. Even then there would have to be a glaring ideological difference between that third party and both the Democrats and Republicans that would keep the system from cannibalizing one of the 3 parties and returning to 2 party stasis. 3rd Party Presidential vanity runs are 100% stupid, doomed to failure, and even if they were somehow to win via magic could only do so via monkey paw. All policy and action would be fought tooth and nail by the openly hostile Legislature, have no ideological shills in the Judiciary, and there would be no political cover from the near certain calls for impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
A third party would influence the current status quo if people simply ran for Congress instead of the Presidency. Coalition concessions. That would require people to have loving nuance though, and not flip out if getting a higher minimum wage means working with people who love guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I 100% agree with your second paragraph, though. Hopefully once people start dying off over the next ten and fifteen years we can get those swing states to elect less pieces of poo poo retards. I've been hearing this hope for almost two decades now, and it ain't gonna happen. The old shitheads who die off are replaced by potentially shittier young shitheads. There's never a shortage of College Republicans after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
raditts posted:I've been hearing this hope for almost two decades now, and it ain't gonna happen. The old shitheads who die off are replaced by potentially shittier young shitheads. There's never a shortage of College Republicans after all. I think it's less that and more that the Boomers aren't gonna be all dead for a long time. Like my mom is a Boomer and she's only 62, so waiting for their entire generation to die off is gonna take even more decades. After all, most polls show that the young overwhelmingly are anti-Trump and anti-Republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:
Here's the way I see it: As a citizen, you should always utilize your vote, even if you're not obligated to do so. But as a candidate, you should not expect people to vote if you don't give them something to vote for, because they're not obligated to do so. I've found that a lot of people have trouble processing that second bit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Oh, something that I keep forgetting to post is that the other day, I got a message from a hemodialysis nurse at my hospital. She must've been new, because I noticed she signed it with her name and title, which included "DaVita," as in the dialysis centers that John covered a few weeks ago.  I had no idea that my hospital outsourced any of our dialysis work, which disturbed me a little.PT6A posted:Reza Aslan is a piece of poo poo, and Believer was a fairly dumb, bordering on offensive, premise for a show, but that specific thing isn't what he should've been fired for. Honestly, it reminded me of the Bill Maher controversy last week: you can get away with doing subtle, offensive poo poo for a long time, but then you say something plainly offensive, even if it's not actually as harmful or bad as the rest of the poo poo you've done, and the world ends. I never watched his show, but I haven't had any problems with Aslan over the years. (Am I missing something?) You're right in that he, Griffin, [and potentially Maher] shouldn't be fired or persecuted simply for exercising their free speech rights, particularly considering what others get away with (and then we get back into the Trump situation and what other cucks like him get to do.) Also Aslan was pretty much telling the truth about Trump being a PoS, so, uh, yeah, that's not exactly something that should be punished!  Craptacular! posted:A third party would influence the current status quo if people simply ran for Congress instead of the Presidency. Coalition concessions. Yeah, I agree with you but will point out that this kind of already did happen here with the Tea Baggers, and that wasn't particularly a positive experience. What did we get out of that, crazies and a government shutdown? (But also I guess the "Freedom Coalition" opposed the AHCA, so....  ) I guess then let's try a third party that's not batshit insane!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
raditts posted:Here's the way I see it: I see a caveat regarding the second statement that require a third statement. A citizen should vote for what is best and rational for the country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Quit blaming Hillary and blame yourself. I blame Hillary and I voted for her. I blame the entire DNC for shutting down Bernie and the media outlets for making GBS threads on and ignoring him and mocking his supporters, and yet I still voted for Hillary. I'm even in a blue state, I "didn't need to" vote for Hillary and yet I still did, and yet I still acknowledge she was a lovely candidate and the DNC needs some serious restructuring or "soul-searching" or something that I don't feel like it's ever going to get. I'm seriously worried about 2020 because of this, I don't think the establishment Democrats learned a single goddamn thing and it's scary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Atomizer posted:Yeah, I agree with you but will point out that this kind of already did happen here with the Tea Baggers, and that wasn't particularly a positive experience. What did we get out of that, crazies and a government shutdown? (But also I guess the "Freedom Coalition" opposed the AHCA, so.... Well, the tea party was a quasi-astroturf thing that combined Old People's concern that young people getting health care subsidy would leave less on the table for them, with the conservative movement's ideals that one should forever be attacking liberals always. It hasn't helped that both parties have cooperatively taken an all-or-nothing stance on anything. The NRA actually attacked Trump briefly, even though he said all the right things policy-wise about guns, because he once said that he didn't approve of hunting animals. He never said he would stop anyone, even pointed out that his own kids do it (this is what prompted the discussion) and that he simply doesn't personally approve of it but isn't stopping anyone. But that kind of differentiating between feelings and policy wasn't even allowed, the fact that his response was anything less enthusiastic than getting erect at the thought of deer hide being shredded by buckshot rounds simply wasn't good enough for the lobby. That all-or-nothing approach has been part of the problem, and the left has isolated a vertical slice of it in this battle between this assumption that people who want entitlements for everyone are somehow at philosophical loggerheads with the people who think that minorities require special advantages. King Vidiot posted:I'm seriously worried about 2020 because of this, I don't think the establishment Democrats learned a single goddamn thing and it's scary. The rest of the world is getting to understand that it can't rely on America to be the leader that it had been since WWI ended until it impaired it's judgment and went to Iraq. Those days are never coming back, and the good news is if we continue to be more conservative than most of civilization the rest of the world outside our borders is learning to ignore us as the privileged kid who wants nothing to do with you. So in that regard, I'm fine with the losing and the Republican control continuing until the Democrats figure their poo poo out. Because something like Hillary Clinton failing the country after running as the hawk candidate is a good thing. Yes, it contributes to the post-Reagan image that the Republicans are our default ruling party and the Democrats can only win if they gently caress up, and that this country is one of the most conservative modern civilizations on Earth. But that's just a stereotype. But if the Democrats ran using Republican dogma and it actually WON? That's worse because then the stereotype becomes the truth. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
raditts posted:I've been hearing this hope for almost two decades now, and it ain't gonna happen. The old shitheads who die off are replaced by potentially shittier young shitheads. There's never a shortage of College Republicans after all. It's not that we don't have an endless supply of young shitheads, it's that the Republican Southern Strategy is a liability in a less white America. The question isn't old people dying off, it's what the tipping point of young people who aren't white dudes is. Especially since most of the dying generation for the last two decades has been the Silent Generation, who are your Roosevelt New Deal types and not the more conservative Boomers. The Left have been hoping that it's just around the corner for decades, but unless the Republicans get around to taking their own 2008 and 2012 post mortem advice it will come.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Good episode last night. Could've used more Lord Buckethead, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
That clip of him talking at what I assume is some kind of debate was aces. "It. Will be. A poo poo-show." Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Lord Buckethead is genuinely amazing and my one regret is that I couldn't vote for him last week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:That clip of him talking at what I assume is some kind of debate was aces. I just couldn't get over Lord Buckethead's personal juxtaposition involved in that whole scene. On the one hand, he's preposterous: his outfit is absurd, his name fits the outfit, and his platform fits his name. It's all crazy. And then he goes and makes the most salient point about Brexit that I think I've ever heard, and it's something I bet a lot of people who take their British politics seriously never even considered--that whichever of the two likely PMs that the UK ends up with, it will be 1 of them, neither of whom are particularly impressive, against 27 other leaders... and yes, that will indeed be a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 15:23
|
|