|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I'm beginning to think that centrists and centrist media are less neoliberal ideologues and more just run of the mill cover-your-rear end middle managers but with Ivy League credentials.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Paolomania posted:I'm beginning to think that centrists and centrist media are less neoliberal ideologues and more just run of the mill cover-your-rear end middle managers but with Ivy League credentials. I think this is accurate but they probably legitimately don't want their taxes to go up either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think this is accurate but they probably legitimately don't want their taxes to go up either. Why would middle class dipshits working in public broadcasting need to have their taxes go up? Eat the -rich-.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think this is accurate but they probably legitimately don't want their taxes to go up either. So what, poor people don't want to die, that is a more legitimate concern.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
The same sort of person that works at a desk and thinks $15 an hour minimum wage is going to destroy every service industry is probably the same sort of person that feels any tax increase means they will get less money which is more important than anything else. Neither of those are going to affect them (unless they are like my friend that was working as a newspaper reporter for $10 an hour before she finally had enough).steinrokkan posted:So what, poor people don't want to die, that is a more legitimate concern. Yeah I agree I probably should have said "earnestly" instead of "legitimately" which was badly phrased on my part. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Sep 15, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:That is exactly what is being encouraged. You can hypothetically predict that literally any not-positive coverage (or, in this case, uh....internet posting?) could possibly have a non-zero negative impact on an election. But this is a very dangerous sort of logic to use that inevitably leads to totally insane ideas like not even running a contested primary in the first place (after all, the competition itself stands to potentially weaken the winner in the general election). At the end of the day, it makes sense to argue against things people say (about Hillary or whoever) that are actually wrong, but saying that the mere existence of criticism itself is harmful is a terrible idea. Also, I don't even disagree with the idea of arguing against someone who reveals that they don't plan on voting (or plan on voting for Trump/third party) in a swing state. But statistically most of the people you see criticizing Hillary voted for her and would vote for other mainstream candidates as well under those circumstances. As is, bringing it up any time you see criticism is nothing more than a concern troll. To be completely honest, every time I see this sort of concern trolling I immediately interpret it as the person not having an actual argument against the point(s) presented.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
I am fine with criticism. I am fine with primarying. But the accelerationism goes beyond just the squawking of NFS. Like say, Condivs reaction a few weeks back to me saying I would unapologetically vote for a centrist Dem senator in a general election against a Republican horror show. Calling someone a lovely person for taking that position is in fact discouraging turnout in a swing election. It's certainly a form of accelerationism in addition to obnoxious moralizing (from someone living in France, no less? Just sayin' if the France thing is true it's someone with minimal skin in the game telling progressives how to advance our goals... and also I would point out what we are doing is no different than someone voting Macron because Le Pen has to be stopped.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I am fine with criticism. I am fine with primarying. But the accelerationism goes beyond just the squawking of NFS. I don't think I was here for that conversation, but it kind of feels like there was more to this conversation than what you're describing...:
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I don't care who gets primaried but in the general I will not apologize for voting to keep the seat from going to some Tea Party crazy. See here and ensuing discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:See here and ensuing discussion. Read through, and while there is a disagreement on some basic principles, I didn't pick up anyone advocating to vote for Trump (unless later CMC popped in). The main disagreement from my reading was that you felt that if your A choice from the party loses in the primary, then you'll vote for B choice because it's better than the GOP's guy. Condiv was more coming from the angle that if the candidate fails to meet the voter's standard, it's acceptable to vote 3rd party or sit it out. If Condiv said something to the effect of "Well if the perfect socialist candidate doesn't win the primary, it's better to vote for the other guy because gently caress the system and everyone in it. Hail gay satan!" then you would be correct on the accusation of him being an accelerationist. You guys are pretty much disagreeing on your personal voting strategies; NFS/CMC/random shitpost-and-run fucks are your real "Trump loving everything over will bring people back to the unions!" accelerationists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
This is a two-party republic. Any 3rd party vote is a vote for the winner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:This is a two-party republic. Any 3rd party vote is a vote for the winner. Exactly; the Democratic and Republican parties are filled with losers, and should be left to die. Instead of the lesser of two evils, vote for a winner; support your local DSA candidates.™
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:This is a two-party republic. Any 3rd party vote is a vote for the winner. i just can't get behind this, but i can see the logic in the thinking i just don't personally agree i didn't vote for HRC and i live in a swing state but it didn't matter, she won bigger here than most places in the country. in fact, if "didn't vote" was a candidate she still would have won here. so in this scenario, i definitely don't see my vote as a vote for the other guy
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i just can't get behind this, but i can see the logic in the thinking That's why I said a vote for 3rd is a vote for the winner, not "the other guy".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. Nothing more. If they support your agenda and outlook, vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Yelling at individual voters is pointless. If CMC tries to quote this and act smug, when we call you a Trump voter, we're not yelling at you for your choice (well, some of us are) we're just using it as proof you're a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:That's why I said a vote for 3rd is a vote for the winner, not "the other guy". Hillary didn't win, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
And thank God, too. The current protesting and grass roots efforts against Trump and the GOP will do more to push single payer getting passed in CA and elsewhere than do-nothing, status-quo centrist Hillary ever would with a supermajority and nine Democratic SCOTUS members.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Read through, and while there is a disagreement on some basic principles, I didn't pick up anyone advocating to vote for Trump (unless later CMC popped in). The main disagreement from my reading was that you felt that if your A choice from the party loses in the primary, then you'll vote for B choice because it's better than the GOP's guy. Condiv was more coming from the angle that if the candidate fails to meet the voter's standard, it's acceptable to vote 3rd party or sit it out. Also, the whole topic of voting like this is only ever brought up because people don't have any other legitimate argument. Like, they know that something bothers them about what leftists (or whoever) are saying, but they can't really articulate what (or they know that if they articulate it, it wouldn't make them look good). So they resort to these bizarre concern trolls about how such criticism might help Republicans or whatever. My personal feeling about voting for a non-Democrat for President in a swing state is that it's pretty much objectively a bad decision, but that it's not exceptionally stupid or offensive (unless they actually voted for the Republican, which is pretty awful). Everyone believes and does some wrong things, and voting third party or not voting is pretty low in terms of sins. It's more useful to continue to push for candidates who more people will actually want to vote for, because merely asserting that other people are making sub-optimal decisions accomplishes jack poo poo. When looking at large populations, it's just a fact that they don't spontaneously change their behavior without any sort of environmental aspect stimulating them to do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
My agenda is the elimination of the constitution and the enactment of a second republic Where's my candidate
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:My agenda is the elimination of the constitution and the enactment of a second republic I preferred your pro-hillary gimmick posting tbh, this poo poo is just sad
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Also, the whole topic of voting like this is only ever brought up because people don't have any other legitimate argument. Like, they know that something bothers them about what leftists (or whoever) are saying, but they can't really articulate what (or they know that if they articulate it, it wouldn't make them look good). So they resort to these bizarre concern trolls about how such criticism might help Republicans or whatever. So what's your qualification for all this mind reading/psychoanalysis you do? If you actually bother to follow the threads of conversation, maybe I don't like being called a centrist shill lord or whatever for saying, yeah, I vote strategically. And since this is debate & discussion on something awful dot com I am debating and discussing it. Perhaps you should read your own mind and ask why if the voting thing is such a small matter why you tacitly don't have a problem with it being the basis for calling folks ITT the dreaded C word but will defend with thousands of words the folks who pull tha poo poo from the charge of accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
It's also goalpost shifting as gently caress to start with "what accelerationism?" then pull this whole song and dance of "that's not what's really bothering you now watch as I vaguely speculate what I think actually is because I haven't gotten that far pulling your motivations out of my rear end yet" when I give you a concrete example of what I've been talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
strategically voting for a slaveowner is still voting for a slaveowner no thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
If you're too chickenshit to withhold your vote when your party sells you out then they will literally never stop loving you over because there is zero incentive for them to do so. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:If you're too chickenshit to withhold your vote when your party sells you out then they will literally never stop loving you over because there is zero incentive for them to do so. HTH. this is a pretty good point leftist always complain about the democratic party taking them for granted, and the actions of the party seem to reinforce that some might say "well then get involved and change it from the inside!" but that's an incredibly challenging thing to do. that's playing the game by their rules, where money and influence makers hold all the institutional power. sure, it sounds like a good idea, but its like hillary telling that girl "well, why don't you run for office." it scenario makes me think eugene debs' socialist party. the democrats saw that the socialists were peeling voters away, so they adopted some of the planks of the socialist platform and undercut the socialists. debs' was a long time democrat before joining the socialists, even going to the illinois state legislature, but got fed up with them because they were never able to do anything good. but ironically it was him joining the socialists that got the democrats to change. obviously every situation is different, and no one solution works for everything. but that's why i find it hard to just lay down a blanket statement like "voting third party is bad." sometimes trying to change things from within is the right thing to do. like when i registered democrat to caucus for bernie after years of being a registered independent. sometimes voting for someone outside the two party system is the right thing to do, like when i didn't vote for hillary (or trump). for all the realpolitik about the two party system, there are other factors in play as well Mister Facetious posted:And thank God, too. oh man, i agree with this so much. there's no way this stuff would gain ground under hillary. but it also makes me cautious because thinking about it i'm getting serious deja vu from the bush-era democrats. the bush-era dems said all the right things and made all the right promises. but as soon as they took power in 2006 they proved to be completely full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:In my more cynical moods, I've thought that Fred Rogers did a disservice by teaching children that they are loved in a cold, unforgiving world and that by pulling the wool over their eyes he created adults who weren't fully mentally equipped to handle reality, who had their own children and the cycle continued. Maybe you should have some kids and raise them in Myanmar or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:I preferred your pro-hillary gimmick posting tbh, this poo poo is just sad I said this during the primaries with respect to "vote for a candidate you agree with" too
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:If you're too chickenshit to withhold your vote when your party sells you out then they will literally never stop loving you over because there is zero incentive for them to do so. HTH. Sound like soft accelerationism to me. You essentially are saying things should get worse so that some good thing can happen sometime in the future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:some might say "well then get involved and change it from the inside!" but that's an incredibly challenging thing to do. that's playing the game by their rules, where money and influence makers hold all the institutional power. sure, it sounds like a good idea, but its like hillary telling that girl "well, why don't you run for office.". Insofar is this accurately describes the challenges of the left with respect to the Democratic Party, these problems are only exacerbated with respect to a general election
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:So what's your qualification for all this mind reading/psychoanalysis you do?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:More thought and effort goes into every single Ytlaya post than you've expended for the entirety of your posting history. Frankly this entire thread should just be Ytlaya dunking on idiot poo poo posters such as yourself while the rest of us point and laugh and otherwise don't bother contributing because it isn't necessary. Hope this helps. I agree it would be better than you posting sick poo poo about wanting to shoot people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Sound like soft accelerationism to me. You essentially are saying things should get worse so that some good thing can happen sometime in the future. No, this is capitalism and democracy together; you vote with your wallet, and your currency (in this case, literally) is your vote.   The Free Market majority of ideals has decided to withhold(sp.?) its democratic capital.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Voters are not allowed to wield their votes to affect politicians and policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Insofar is this accurately describes the challenges of the left with respect to the Democratic Party, these problems are only exacerbated with respect to a general election i don't understand what you're saying, could you rephrase it or explain it to me? separate thought: to show how hard it is to try and change things from the inside, remember that the democrats have actual SUPER-delegates and from my memory of the election they played very strongly in the narrative. their pledged votes were frequently counted alongside state votes to exaggerate the lead of hillary and show bernie as doomed. really even the idea of super-delegates is absurd but i digress
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Sound like soft accelerationism to me. You essentially are saying things should get worse so that some good thing can happen sometime in the future. Labor movements achieved all their successes by the threat of workers withholding labor. Why shouldn't voters exercise the same form of leverage against their representatives? Why even bother with democracy if representatives are entitled to their slice of the electorate?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Labor movements achieved all their successes by the threat of workers withholding labor. Why shouldn't voters exercise the same form of leverage against their representatives? Why even bother with democracy if representatives are entitled to their slice of the electorate? The smart time to withhold votes is in a primary, broadly speaking. There needs to be some common goal for coalition politics to work. That's how I see things working for progressives, as defined by the vast majority of Democratic voters. Now an unironic "full communism" person might see things differently, but I actually think that's an incredibly small subset of votes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
If Hillary had won then prominent DNC figures wouldn't feel pressured to support Universal healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Labor movements achieved all their successes by the threat of workers withholding labor. Why shouldn't voters exercise the same form of leverage against their representatives? Why even bother with democracy if representatives are entitled to their slice of the electorate? The difference is when a union withholds their labor, the business is shut down and it has a noticeable effect. When the left withholds their votes, they just get lumped in with the other 50% of the country that doesn't bother voting. I'm not saying you need to vote for Hillary, but not voting gets you nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The smart time to withhold votes is in a primary, broadly speaking. You mean the ones the party leaders rig behind the scenes and where establishment candidates start the race with a bunch of free votes in the form of superdelegages? No thanks. I'll just not vote for human garbage as a general rule if that's alright.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:21
|
|