|
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 pretty sure the US instigated both of those wars
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
And for all the rhetoric, leftists are going to bend the knee in 2020 and vote for Harris and Booker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And for all the rhetoric, leftists are going to bend the knee in 2020 and vote for Harris and Booker. I might run, then I'll vote for me, WHAT THEN shrike82?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And for all the rhetoric, leftists are going to bend the knee in 2020 and vote for Harris and Booker. Only true leftists vote Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:And for all the rhetoric, leftists are going to bend the knee in 2020 and vote for Harris and Booker. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
Like I said, it must be sad to spend 4 years in a self-righteous rage about neolibs and then have to vote for "more prisons" Harris or "Wall Street" Booker in 2020. Do what I do - Sanders in the primaries and Trump in the generals. I've been pretty happy with what he's done to the centrists so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
I assume most leftists don't actually operate on horseshoe theory like you seem to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
that booker's willing to come out for single payer should be a hint that, like I've been saying, single payer isn't at all incompatible with neoliberalism writ large, which should have been obvious given how other countries have single payer while being part of the same global neoliberal order
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:I assume most leftists don't actually operate on horseshoe theory like you seem to. Quite a few leftists ITT voted for Trump e.g. Kilroy, CallToAction, NFS. Something like 20% of Bernie voters ended up voting for Trump. So a minority but not insubstantial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:34
|
|
|
I think that many of these guys are just saying that they support single payer because they don't actually believe there's any chance of passing it, and if there was, they can just come up with some bullshit reason to tank it like they did in California.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Something like 20% of Bernie voters ended up voting for Trump. So a minority but not insubstantial. Alot of those people were independents or Republican registered. Aka: Probably weren't going to vote for Hillary and/or a Democrat anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Exactly which is why it's particularly funny to see certain posters literally whip themselves up in a righteous anger about centrists over and over and over again but still bend the knee to vote for a neolib. It's so impotent to see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:41
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Quite a few leftists ITT voted for Trump e.g. Kilroy, CallToAction, NFS. it's creepy as gently caress that you keep assigning this one specific lie, specifically, to me, whenever you get the chance get help
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Something like 20% of Bernie voters ended up voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Actually it means that Bernie would have won, because he had the actual crossover appeal that the Democratic establishment only thought they did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Quite a few leftists ITT voted for Trump e.g. Kilroy, CallToAction, NFS. Ten percent Thirteen percent of Hillary voters broke for McCain btw
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 10:19
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:12%, apparently. Half the total of Hillary primary voters that voted for McCain. BENGHAZI 2 posted:Ten percent lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
tsa posted:Guessing south korea would disagree with this sentiment. game show buzzer
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:that booker's willing to come out for single payer should be a hint that, like I've been saying, single payer isn't at all incompatible with neoliberalism writ large, which should have been obvious given how other countries have single payer while being part of the same global neoliberal order Or he could just be lying for convenience because he know it won't pass And I voted for Stein actually, couldn't bring myself to vote for Trump and I knew a Stein vote would be slightly more morally defensible and equally enraging to the people that post here. It's funny as gently caress that I have a Trump voting reputation though considering I've never said or done that, I guess when you piss off enough whiny libs they just assume you're hitler call to action fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Sep 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Exactly which is why it's particularly funny to see certain posters literally whip themselves up in a righteous anger about centrists over and over and over again but still bend the knee to vote for a neolib. just fyi, trump is a neolib, too, lol if you actually fell for his messaging
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Describing the liberal-centrist outlook toward military force as "Just War Theory" is giving them way too much credit. No, Just War
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Does Just War Theory include a relentless terror campaign involving drones which may occasionally kill US citizens without due process?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
BadOptics posted:Does Just War Theory include a relentless terror campaign involving drones which may occasionally kill US citizens without due process? If it let's them pump up the military-industrial complex (it does) then absolutely. Money is way more important than the occasional citizen or busload of children.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Lmao Hillary gave a eulogy for Edie Windsor, the woman who brought the case that overturned the defense of marriage act. Just don't worry about how it was her husband who passed it in the first place, and how she gave a passionate speech arguing in its favor. loving hell.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
 Wow she lied even about the origin of her name. This kind of pathological lying is no different than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:
Is this actually true? Because I really, really want it to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
call to action posted:Is this actually true? Because I really, really want it to be. it's all true. she even lies about drinking water https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909206793133412353
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
That whole tweet thread is great. https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909397622288470016 "Sorry America, we're just too darn
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol One of us (probably me) remembered the numbers wrong, the point is that the Bernie voter breaking right is a fairly small group and also less than broke for McCain in 08
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
this thread is amazing https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909408205129883648
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sam_kriss/status/909388087494627329
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Any form of political engagement beyond donating money, retweeting soundbites and wearing t-shirts (if you are REALLY out there) is just impractical radicalism and just doesn't jive with our perfect system!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Any form of political engagement beyond donating money, retweeting soundbites and wearing t-shirts (if you are REALLY out there) is just impractical radicalism and just doesn't jive with our perfect system! Millennials killed active engagement with politics, but also if they engage with politics it's not good because they are way further left and they're mean to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
call to action posted:Or he could just be lying for convenience because he know it won't pass that's seriously his gimmick - it wasn't a mistake he made that's just a thing he does probably some psychosis related to voting for trump despite considering himself a "leftist" - at any rate don't worry about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
I think it's a good thing that Hillary is doubling down on and confirming our worst suspicions about her political positions. That wing of the Democratic Party needs to die for good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:shrike82's gimmick is saying people voted for candidates that they didn't vote for He does that about a whole lot of other topics as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
edit: Just in the interests of being as honest as possible, I'll admit I'm biased in the sense that I knew and was the sort of person with the intentions described, and so when I see posts like yours I can see myself making the exact same arguments in the past. I realize this is intrinsically pretty condescending. But I've never seen any reasonable alternative explanation for this stuff. The only thing close to an actual argument that I've seen is stuff along the lines of "the way leftists are attacking liberals is counterproductive", but those arguments never have any concrete evidence supporting them. While you could say the same about the opposite ("leftists attacking liberals is helpful"), but the difference is that leftists also have an ideological reason for what they're doing. (And you could obviously make a pretty plausible argument that stuff like the current shift to the left regarding healthcare policy would never have happened without the enthusiasm and anger from the left, though that's virtually impossible to prove or disprove.)yronic heroism posted:So what's your qualification for all this mind reading/psychoanalysis you do? Well, I'm totally open to someone giving an actual reason for this behavior. Like, just say "nearly all my posts are contrarian towards leftists because of (insert presumably rational reason for doing this)." The key thing about this specific topic is that the people in question rarely if ever actually argue along ideological/policy lines. If a Republican comes into the chat, you can at least say "this person is saying X policy/ideology is wrong, and I disagree because Y", but like 99% of these liberal -> leftist arguments consist of vague insinuations. People do things for reasons, and there must be some reason why people feel so compelled to argue against leftists. The most likely are that they either genuinely disagree with leftists ideologists (in which case they should be explicit about it) or there's something else bothering them that they can't articulate. Maybe I'm wrong and some of these folks just had a bad experience being dumped by a leftist ex-boy/girlfriend or something, but the key point is that they never provide any reasonable explanation for their behavior and attitude. To be frank, the criticism of "well, a certain percent of people criticizing the Democratic candidate might not vote Democratic, therefore they shouldn't do so" is transparently stupid. So I'm left with no choice but to assume that someone making that argument is either really stupid or is making it because they either can't articulate or don't feel comfortable articulating their real reason. To contrast it with what leftists post, the main difference is that someone can at least attack them on the basis of ideology. Like, it's also possible that a leftist has some dumb reason for disliking liberals and/or conservatives, but the difference is that they're at least still making arguments a person can disagree with. Like, maybe they're not being honest when they say they believe socialism is superior to the status quo, but at least there's something tangible there to argue against. Anti-leftist contrarian posts are almost always weird insinuations about how the person is either secretly racist or somehow made the Democrats lose the election; they're almost never about the ideas themselves. Like, I'm someone who also votes strategically and if someone starts arguing about why they think voting third party or whatever is better I would argue against them. The difference is that you're repeatedly and seemingly deliberately confusing criticism with the assumption that the person making the criticism would never vote for the person they're criticizing. This is very dishonest. People who aren't disingenuous will selectively reply to the best arguments of a given side, rather than selectively pointing at the people who are bad at articulating an argument and using it to justify their own views (leftists are also sometimes guilty of this, though it's not universal in the same way it is with the contrarian anti-leftist posters). i'm not sure what you're talking about regarding the centrist stuff. I agree that many people use that specific term far too much, but the problem is that it can be difficult to come up with a short concise term to refer to people whose actions generally act to benefit the status quo. If someone claims to hold leftist views but spends virtually all their time posting about how dumb leftists are, I think it's reasonable to assume that maybe they aren't being totally honest. yronic heroism posted: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. There are two problems here. The first is that there's a difference between accelerationism as an ideological stance (i.e. someone who takes actions because they actually think it's a good idea to make things worse in order to hypothetically make them better later) and people who take actions that might in effect be accelerationist but without that intention. Under the latter interpretation, you can call literally everyone who doesn't vote Democratic an "accelerationist." It's possible for people to want to vote third party for reasons that, while wrong, aren't accelerationist. The second problem is that you're cherry picking individuals and using it to tar a bigger group of people, which is especially dishonest since the larger group in question usually do vote Democratic. It's fine to argue with a specific person over why you think voting third party (or whatever) is wrong, but it is obvious that you're attempting to attribute the worst elements of peoples' posts to everyone you disagree with. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Nah, I'm calling out the bad posts in this thread. Which are many, and by very prolific regular posters, including the one who started the thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Nah, I'm calling out the bad posts in this thread. Which are many, and by very prolific regular posters, including the one who started the thread. Unless you're singling out this one for some reason (you are). Also your bad post radar is not calibrated well and I fear you're missing a lot of bad posts you could be addressing. This should get you started: https://forums.somethingawful.com/query.php?action=posthistory&userid=142988
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Nah, I'm calling out the bad posts in this thread. Which are many, and by very prolific regular posters, including the one who started the thread. I mean, fair enough I guess, but think of it this way: How would you feel if someone popped into a global warming thread and like 95% of their posts were just calling out the mistakes made by the pro-global warming* posters? It's only natural to assume someone is opposed to something if they put nearly all their time into being contrarian towards those who support it, and that analogy is actually fairly generous because it's assuming the contrarian stuff in question is actually always valid and true. Tone is also important; it's possible to disagree with people without being clearly insulting and while still indicating that you're broadly on the "same side." Also, some degree of biased/irrational energy is inevitable with any sort of passionate/emotional ideological movement, so I don't think there's really any point in nitpicking over such things unless they're actually things officially or predominantly supported by the movement as a whole. As a side note, regarding the "same side" thing, I think it's important to distinguish between posters like Condiv and posters like, say, shrike82. Condiv is pretty terrible at arguing things and is often very credulous towards believing stuff that happens to be convenient, but his general goals seem to be good and his heart appears to be in the right place (he kinda reminds me of the stuff I might have posted if I was in my early 20s in the current political climate). I don't feel that people like him are actually causing any harm (and if anything their energy might be beneficial), because anyone who is put off from leftism just because they saw a random person make a irrational internet post never would have been an ally to begin with. This is contrasted with someone like shrike82 (and I think also NFS and a couple others), who is clearly motivated more by antipathy towards Democrats/liberals than any real desire to help people. Those people make me more concerned, because I feel like they don't really have any deep ideological commitment to leftism and more just use it as an avenue by which to vent their anger at a certain type of person. I could see them easily being flipped to believing and supporting some nasty stuff if they felt it would "stick it to Hillary Clinton/Cory Booker/whatever" (and we kinda literally see this with the people who voted Trump). *in the sense of thinking it's a real thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2017 01:06
|
|