The democrats are still a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are still a waste

Bernie _______ This poll is closed.
would've won!	87	34.52%
has won!	45	17.86%
will win!	56	22.22%
is winning!	64	25.40%
Total:	124 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

ikanreed: Sep 25, 2009; I honestly I have no idea who cannibal[SIC] is and I do not know why I should know.

syq dude, just syq!

Dear Democratic party who is totally reading this post,

It is not that Hillary was a worse candidate than Donald Trump or even a comparatively decent Republican. It's that a quarter of this country is actively evil and/or retarded and will vote for a republican no matter how lovely.

You must have some goddamn affirmative reason for the non-poo poo Americans to vote.

The end.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 18:16

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

They also made almost no difference whatsoever in the 2016 election.

No individual voter made the difference so why talk about voting at all you guys. :psyduck:

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:07

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

yronic heroism posted:

No individual voter made the difference so why talk about voting at all you guys.

You may as well be blaming an individual voter, for all the impact Stein and Johnson voters had on the outcome of the election.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:09

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

It's in the world's best interest for their vote share to remain as negligible as possible rather than creating another 2000. Yes, voting Nader was dumb, lol at the person acting like this is a controversial statement. Even most of his own voters basically realized this in 04 and 08.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:13

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

yronic heroism posted:

No individual voter made the difference so why talk about voting at all you guys.

this but unironically

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:14

ikanreed: Sep 25, 2009; I honestly I have no idea who cannibal[SIC] is and I do not know why I should know.

syq dude, just syq!

Majorian posted:

You may as well be blaming an individual voter, for all the impact Stein and Johnson voters had on the outcome of the election.

There were a couple states where the sun of third party votes were greater the difference between Hillary and ugh.

That's got nothing on the fact that non voters were the problem, and Trump voters were disgusting human waste we would all be better off without.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:14

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

yronic heroism posted:

It's in the world's best interest for their vote share to remain as negligible as possible.

It would be considerably more in the world's best interest if the Democrats started running candidates who inspire and make good on their promises, and stopped distracting from their own failings by pointing towards a group of people who didn't have that much of an impact on the 2016 election.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:14

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

close to 50% of the country made the ethical choice and did not cast a vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton

they should be lauded, not shamed

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:15

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

It would be considerably more in the world's best interest if the Democrats started running candidates who inspire and make good on their promises, and stopped distracting from their own failings by pointing towards a group of people who didn't have that much of an impact on the 2016 election.

We can make more than one observation at the same time.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:16

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

yronic heroism posted:

No individual voter made the difference so why talk about voting at all you guys.

Maybe the candidates are more important than individual voters, and hence maybe your lot should take some responsibility for pushing the only candidate bad enough to lose to Trump?

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:17

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

NewForumSoftware posted:

close to 50% of the country made the ethical choice and did not cast a vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton

they should be lauded, not shamed

I don't think it was a choice for a great many of those voters, which is a problem.

yronic heroism posted:

We can make more than one observation at the same time.

Well, but you don't make the bigger, more important observation at all, which is the problem. It would be one thing if centrists like you criticized Stein or Johnson voters, but then spent a lot of time criticizing Democratic strategists, their failed candidates, smug centrist media figures, etc. But you don't.

Majorian fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Sep 28, 2017

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:17

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

NewForumSoftware posted:

this but unironically

I think it's good to talk about voting strategies and what are the best strategies for people, in general, to employ to reach their goals, but yeah spending effort castigating John Q Voter for voting for their most preferred candidate is just going to reinforce the fact that Democrats suck and have no intention of representing third party voters' views, so why would Democrats expect third party voters to vote for them?

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:18

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Cerebral Bore posted:

Maybe the candidates are more important than individual voters, and hence maybe your lot should take some responsibility for pushing the only candidate bad enough to lose to Trump?

If I pushed :abuela:

indeed I should.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:19

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

I don't think it was a choice for a great many of those voters, which is a problem.

Well, but you don't make the bigger, more important observation at all, is the problem. It would be one thing if centrists like you criticized Stein or Johnson voters, but then spent a lot of time criticizing Democratic strategists, their failed candidates, smug centrist media figures, etc. But you don't.

Actually I do because I have a life outside these dead forums where that's already the consensus view.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:20

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

yronic heroism posted:

If I pushed indeed I should.

Well, but it has less to do with you defending her, and more to do with the fact that you only seem to punch left. (and down)

yronic heroism posted:

Actually I do because I have a life outside these dead forums where that's already the consensus view.

But I don't interact with you IRL - only here, on these dead forums. So I don't really care about what opinions you express IRL, only the opinions you express that I can read.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:20

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

dont confuse yourself Cerebral Bore yronic isn't here to advocate for any political or position, just to gracefully self own himself trying to play gotcha cards

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:21

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

Well, but it has less to do with you defending her, and more to do with the fact that you only seem to punch left. (and down)

Nah if I were punching down I would still be engaging with NFS.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:22

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

yronic heroism posted:

Nah if I were punching down I would still be engaging with NFS.

You're criticizing Stein voters to distract from the Democrats' failure. I'm not sure how much more punching downward you can manage.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:23

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

You're criticizing Stein voters to distract from the Democrats' failure. I'm not sure how much more punching downward you can manage.

I don't see how noting a fact (the ones I know are truthers) is so triggering for you.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:26

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

All the black people I know are criminals and thieves? Why does this bother you so much to hear?

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:27

THS: Sep 15, 2017

the ones i know aren't truthers

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:27

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Is there anything more liberal than passing off your own sheltered life experiences as a "fact"?

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:28

Majorian: Jul 1, 2009

yronic heroism posted:

I don't see how noting a fact (the ones I know are truthers) is so triggering for you.

You know, here's the thing - I fully acknowledge that a lot of them are truthers, anti-vaxxers, and otherwise complete idiots. I don't have much respect for Stein or Johnson voters, at least those who live in "purple" states. (those that live in solid blue or red states, we're cool) But you're not here to talk about how silly those voters can be. You're here to blame the Democrats losing the 2016 election on Stein and Johnson voters, in order to distract from how massively the Democrats failed.

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:30

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

If dumb liberals didn't have some convenient scapegoat they might have to confront the fact that they're not as smart as they think they are, and we can't have that now can we?

# ? Sep 28, 2017 23:42

VideoGameVet: May 14, 2005; It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion. It is by the juice of Java that pedaling acquires speed, the teeth acquire stains, stains become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my bike in motion.

Guy Goodbody posted:

I will never understand why Democrats attack people who vote for left wing third parties. They did it to Nader voters too. Yeah, they didn't vote for the Democrat candidate, but the Republican voters not only didn't vote for the Democrat, they also voted for the Republican. They're the people you should me mad at, imo.

Because MATH.

FLORIDA 2000

George Walker Bush 2,912,790 48.847% Republican
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635% Green

Nader had a speaking engagement on Iraq, in my town in 2003. I wanted to rent a "sign truck" so bad THANKING him for the Iraq war.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VideoGameVet posted:

Because MATH.

FLORIDA 2000
code:
George Walker Bush	2,912,790	48.847%	Republican
Albert Arnold Gore Jr.  2,912,253	48.838%	Democratic
Ralph Nader                97,488	 1.635%	Green  
Nader had a speaking engagement on Iraq, in my town in 2003. I wanted to rent a "sign truck" so bad THANKING him for the Iraq war.

So do you think attack people for voting for their most preferred candidate or running candidates that don't suck and care about policies that will help people is more likely to win elections? Like I see these numbers and think "Why the gently caress couldn't Gore pick up 600 more of Nader's voters?" PS if you want to us spacing for formatting use the [code] directive, and don't use tabs.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:12

Guy Goodbody: Aug 31, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

VideoGameVet posted:

Because MATH.

FLORIDA 2000

George Walker Bush 2,912,790 48.847% Republican
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635% Green

Nader had a speaking engagement on Iraq, in my town in 2003. I wanted to rent a "sign truck" so bad THANKING him for the Iraq war.

I am not a mathemagician, but it would've taken 538 Nader voters voting Gore to swing that, right? But it would've taken only 269 Bush voters voting Gore to give Gore the election.

Does my math check out? If so, aren't the Bush voters more responsible for Bush being elected?

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:19

karthun: Nov 16, 2006; I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!

Guy Goodbody posted:

I will never understand why Democrats attack people who vote for left wing third parties. They did it to Nader voters too. Yeah, they didn't vote for the Democrat candidate, but the Republican voters not only didn't vote for the Democrat, they also voted for the Republican. They're the people you should me mad at, imo.

During the 2000 election Nader argued that electing Bush would be good for the environmental movement because Bush would be bad for the environment. There was some crazy back and forth between Carl Pope and the Nader Campaign between late Oct 2000 and early Nov 2000. I can't find the original letters but this was one of Carl Pope's responses to Nader.

quote:

Dear Ralph:

Yesterday you sent me(and many other environmentalists) a long letter defending your candidacy and attacking "the servile mentality" of those of us in the environmental community who are supporting Vice-President Gore.

I've worked alongside you as a colleague for thirty years.

Neither the letter nor the tactics you are increasingly adopting in your candidacy are worthy of the Ralph Nader I knew.

The heart of your letter is the argument that "the threat to our planet articulated by Bush and his ilk" can now be dismissed. But you offer no evidence for this crucial assertion. Based on the polls today Bush is an even bet to become the next President, with both a Republican Senate and a Republican House to accompany him.

You have referred to the likely results of a Bush election as being a "cold shower" for the Democratic party. You have made clear that you will consider it a victory if the net result of your campaign is a Bush presidency.

But what will your "cold shower" mean for real people and real places?

What will it mean for tens of millions of asthmatic children when Bush applies to the nation the "voluntary" approach he's using in Texas to clean up the air. And what about his stated opposition to enforcing environmental standards against corporations?

What will it mean for Americans vulnerable to water pollution when Bush allows water quality standards to be degraded to meet the needs of paper mills and refineries as he has consistently done in Texas, most recently at Lake Sam Rayburn? And what if he eliminates federal financial support for both drinking water and water pollution, as his budget calls for and his record in Texas (46th in spending on drinking water) suggests?

What will it mean for communities of color and poverty located near toxic waste sites, when Bush applies his Texas approach of lower standards and lower polluter liability to toxic waste clean-up?

What will a Bush election mean to the Gwich'in people of the Arctic, when the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is turned over the oil companies and the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd on which they depend are destroyed and despoiled?

What will it mean for the fishing families of the Pacific Northwest when Bush amends the Endangered Species Act to make extinction for the endangered salmon a legally acceptable option? If he refuses to remove the dams on the Snake River or reduce timber cutting levels to preserve salmon?

What will it mean for millions of rural Americans whose livelihood, health and communities are being destroyed by unregulated factory feeding operations, if Bush weakens the Clean Water Act? When he appoints Supreme Court justices who complete the task of shutting down access to federal courts for citizens trying to enforce environmental laws?

What will it mean for the wildlife that depend upon our National Forests when Bush undoes the Clinton-Gore Administration reforms, reverses their roadless area protection policy, and restores the timber industry to the mastery of the forests and the Forest Service that it enjoyed under his father? If he doubles, or triples, the cut on those Forests?

What will it mean for millions of people in Bangladesh and other low-lying countries when an American refusal to confront the problem of global warming unleashes the floods and typhoons of a rising ocean upon them?

Your letter addresses none of these real consequences of a Bush victory. Nor has your campaign. Instead, you indulge yourself in the language of academic discourse when you claim:

"Bush's "old school" allegiance to plunder and extermination as humanity's appropriate relationship to our world speaks a language effectively discounted by the great tradition of naturalists from John Muir to David Brower. Bush's blatant anti-environmentalism will lose corporate favor as it loses popular support. It is a language of politics fading rapidly, and without a future."

Candidate Bush may well be speaking a fading language. So was candidate Reagan in 1980 when he ranted that trees caused air pollution. It is power, however, not language, that determines policy. President Bush would be vested with the powers of the government of the United States, and he is an even more devoted servant of environmental counter-revolution than Reagan ever was.

Because your letter is couched in this language, so divorced from the real world consequences of your candidacy, and the real world choices that face Americans, it is difficult to respond to all of its selective misrepresentations and inaccuracies. A few samples, however, may show you why I am so disappointed in the turn your candidacy has taken:

You claim that "Earth in the Balance" was "an advertisement for his calculated strategy and availability as an environmental poseur." Can you offer a single piece of evidence to support this quite astonishing statement?

You claim that the Clinton Administration stood up to the oil industry on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge only because "focus groups have shown him he cannot give" it up.In fact, most polls show that the public is somewhat split on this issue, and there are certainly no focus groups I know of showing that it is a third-rail which no President can cross at his peril. Can you cite your evidence?

You lament that the Administration has "set aside lands not in National Parks, but rather in National Monuments...." You are surely aware that a President cannot legally create national parks, which require an act or Congress; nor can you be under the misapprehension that this Congress with Don Young as the head of the House Resources Committee and Frank Murkowski as his counterpart in the Senate would have designated these areas as parks however long a battle Clinton and Gore might have fought. No, you simply took a cheap shot, and ignored the facts.

You have also broken your word to your followers who signed the petitions that got you on the ballot in many states. You pledged you would not campaign as a spoiler and would avoid the swing states. Your recent campaign rhetoric and campaign schedule make it clear that you have broken this pledge. Your response: you are a political candidate, and a political candidate wants to take every vote he can. Very well -- you admit you are a candidate -- admit that you are, like your opponents, a flawed one.

Irresponsible as I find your strategy, I accept that you genuinely believe in it. Please accept that I, and the overwhelming majority of the environmental movement in this country, genuinely believe that your strategy is flawed, dangerous and reckless. Until you can answer how you will protect the people and places who will be put in harm's way, or destroyed, by a Bush presidency, you have no right to slander those who disagree with you as "servile."

You have called upon us to vote our hopes, not our fears. I find it easy to do so. My hope is that by electing the best environmental President in American history, Al Gore, we can move forward. My fear is that you, blinded by your anger at flaws of the Clinton-Gore Administration, may be instrumental in electing the worst.

Sincerely yours,

Carl Pope
Executive Director
The Sierra Club

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:42

Fame Douglas: Nov 20, 2013; by Fluffdaddy

Guy Goodbody posted:

I am not a mathemagician, but it would've taken 538 Nader voters voting Gore to swing that, right? But it would've taken only 269 Bush voters voting Gore to give Gore the election.

Does my math check out? If so, aren't the Bush voters more responsible for Bush being elected?

You've cracked the code, Democrats should pander to Republican voters instead. But considering that election, swinging the supreme court or abolishing the electoral college would have been other possible solutions.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:46

Freakazoid_: Jul 5, 2013; Buglord

I like this thread better than uspol, for what that's worth.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:50

Guy Goodbody: Aug 31, 2016; by Nyc_Tattoo

Fame Douglas posted:

You've cracked the code, Democrats should pander to Republican voters instead. But considering that election, swinging the supreme court or abolishing the electoral college would have been other possible solutions.

Oh poo poo we're moving all over the place now. Is the problem the Nader voters for not voting Gore? Or is the problem the Democrats being too far right to get the Nader voters?

Because one of those I agree with

# ? Sep 29, 2017 00:56

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

yronic heroism posted:

It's in the world's best interest for their vote share to remain as negligible as possible rather than creating another 2000. Yes, voting Nader was dumb, lol at the person acting like this is a controversial statement. Even most of his own voters basically realized this in 04 and 08.

Yeah ideally everyone would vote for the lesser of two evils in the general election in a two-party system, and get involved in party politics at least to the point of voting in primaries and hopefully other things like attending local party meetings, voting for delegates to the DNC, etc. Then the Democratic party would very quickly become a party of the people essentially by definition and there would be very little party elites could do about it.

But in the absence of that, in an imperfect world, it might behoove the party elites to try to approximate a party of the people to the best of their ability, both because it's the right thing to do and because it will win them elections - as opposed to lashing out at people who are already on the fence whether to bother to show up to the polls for them in the first place.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:09

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

VideoGameVet posted:

Because MATH.

FLORIDA 2000

George Walker Bush 2,912,790 48.847% Republican
Albert Arnold Gore Jr. 2,912,253 48.838% Democratic
Ralph Nader 97,488 1.635% Green

Nader had a speaking engagement on Iraq, in my town in 2003. I wanted to rent a "sign truck" so bad THANKING him for the Iraq war.

Looks to me like 5.825 million voted a right wing candidate, and all of them got what they wanted.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:52

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

You know, here's the thing - I fully acknowledge that a lot of them are truthers, anti-vaxxers, and otherwise complete idiots. I don't have much respect for Stein or Johnson voters, at least those who live in "purple" states. (those that live in solid blue or red states, we're cool) But you're not here to talk about how silly those voters can be. You're here to blame the Democrats losing the 2016 election on Stein and Johnson voters, in order to distract from how massively the Democrats failed.

Nah they failed bigly. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. It's too bad this thread focuses so much on psychoanalyzing other goons and posting stupid poo poo about how Democrats in the Senate should have booed McCain or whatever (thus ensuring that there would not be 51 no votes to ACA repeal, but I guess it's too much to ask that we acknowledge cause and effect anymore).

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:53

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

NewForumSoftware posted:

All the black people I know are criminals and thieves? Why does this bother you so much to hear?

Maybe it is Democrats who are the real racists against clueless white truthers and anti-vaxxers. Checkmate, centrists. :smuggo:

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:56

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Kilroy posted:

Yeah ideally everyone would vote for the lesser of two evils in the general election in a two-party system, and get involved in party politics at least to the point of voting in primaries and hopefully other things like attending local party meetings, voting for delegates to the DNC, etc. Then the Democratic party would very quickly become a party of the people essentially by definition and there would be very little party elites could do about it.

But in the absence of that, in an imperfect world, it might behoove the party elites to try to approximate a party of the people to the best of their ability, both because it's the right thing to do and because it will win them elections - as opposed to lashing out at people who are already on the fence whether to bother to show up to the polls for them in the first place.

All of those can be done and the green share of the vote can be shamed down to 04/08 levels though.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 01:58

THS: Sep 15, 2017

fact is you can't change the voters. it's the variable you can't change. it's political nihilism to blame them, the only variable you can change is how you campaign to win them over. everything else is just loving whining that you didn't get your way. we all know the system sucks and most people are so demoralized or distracted that they don't vote. that's not going to be any different for the conceivable future, so maybe put someone out there who has some kind of vision of a better future or at the very least promise free stuff people want and can easily understand

# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:03

yronic heroism: Oct 31, 2008

Majorian posted:

But I don't interact with you IRL - only here, on these dead forums. So I don't really care about what opinions you express IRL, only the opinions you express that I can read.

You will also find not one post defending the Clinton campaign or the party's decision to announce her in my 2015-2016 post history.

# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:20

forbidden dialectics: Jul 26, 2005

308,000 DEMOCRATS- more then 3 times Nader's total voters - voted for Bush. What the gently caress is wrong with you people?

https://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 18:16

D.Ork Bimboolean: Aug 26, 2016

Heaps of Sheeps posted:

308,000 DEMOCRATS- more then 3 times Nader's total voters - voted for Bush. What the gently caress is wrong with you people?

https://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

Yes, but, uh, why waste a convenient scapegoat?

# ? Sep 29, 2017 02:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are still a waste

«‹›15 »