|
RottenK posted:is Northam just spineless or is there some bigger reason for him making GBS threads his pants every time there's even a slightest chance that he did something to upset racist whites It's because he came up in a political era when Virginia was a lot less blue, like basically all politicians here over forty, or hell thirty, and hasn't really internalized that it's okay to just let it roll off your back, the urban areas have got you. This is why our governors always do better in office, by the way. They don't have to run in this kind of election again and their instincts aren't fighting them.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Potato Salad posted:A question that almost asks itself: "What common grievances lead to the interpretations Condiv and t_d derive?" It's valuing purity, which is a very conservative way to think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Here, let me repost this insanely asinine thing from the Trump thread:
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
RottenK posted:is Northam just spineless or is there some bigger reason for him making GBS threads his pants every time there's even a slightest chance that he did something to upset racist whites The Muppets On PCP posted:ralph northam is an empty suit whose sole reasoning for running is to punch his ticket for a future senate bid
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Boon posted:I do get that. I also understand that the inequality isn't uniform and the Democrats are a party where each vies to make they're priority THE priority. I actually agree with the general logic behind voting for the lesser evil in the general election, but what I don't understand is why someone's primary (and in this case sole) reaction would be to get angry and irritated with the people who don't want to vote for pretty lovely Democratic politicians. There are two aspects to this that are dumb: 1. You don't change behavior on a large scale through explaining why it isn't pragmatic to not vote. If you actually cared about results, you'd focus on trying to get politicians to change their platforms and messaging in a way that made people enthusiastic towards voting for them. Like, when I see someone who doesn't want to vote for Democrats, my default response is "man, it sucks that the Democrats can't inspire any enthusiasm in people." I have trouble understanding the mindset that would instead default to "grrr, why can't these people just make the pragmatic choice and vote for the lesser evil." It's a weird place for a person to automatically direct their ire. 2. There's no evidence that leftists not voting is actually a notable problem (at least relative to any other demographic not voting). Nothing indicates that the percent of leftists who stayed home is different than the percent of any other politically engaged demographic within the Democratic Party. This begs the question of why these people are the ones receiving so much negative attention from mainstream liberals. So while I actually agree with the general logic of "staying home in the general election doesn't help anything," I can't help but wonder why the same people who complain about lack of leftist support virtually never direct criticism towards Democratic politicians. I could understand if you were making the argument in favor of voting while simultaneously condemning Democrats for their actions that lead to this lack of enthusiasm, but that's almost never the case. It paints a picture of a person who is primarily driven by an irrational distaste for the radical left. edit: Also, I feel there's a fundamental difference in the way mainstream liberals (I guess including yourself?) view Democrats and the way leftists do. It seems that many liberals view Democrats as "not ideal, but still pretty good," but leftists view them as "better than Republicans, but still really bad." The important thing to realize is that the Democratic Party is dramatically far from the sort of ideology and policy that the radical left desires. They aren't even in the ballpark of the sort of wealth redistribution that leftists believe is vital to the creation of a remotely equitable society. Heck, one could even convincingly argue that the Democrats cause more harm than good if you look back more than 10 years or so (there's a good chance Bill Clinton did more bad than good, for example). I think this is why you end up with a disconnect where liberals view the radical left as being obsessed with "purity," when in reality a large portion of the left is compromising when it comes to politicians like Bernie Sanders. No one in the Democratic Party is advocating for what really needs to be done, but at least he seems willing to move things in the right direction. The rest of the party seems to consider a 5% increase on taxes for the super wealthy to be the bleeding edge of progressive policy. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
lol at people who were jerking off about Tulsi being one of the good dems https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/926570874358173696
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:So while I actually agree with the general logic of "staying home in the general election doesn't help anything," I can't help but wonder why the same people who complain about lack of leftist support virtually never direct criticism towards Democratic politicians. I could understand if you were making the argument in favor of voting while simultaneously condemning Democrats for their actions that lead to this lack of enthusiasm, but that's almost never the case. It paints a picture of a person who is primarily driven by an irrational distaste for the radical left. I think usually people don't feel the need to repeat every single point they agree with before addressing the point they disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think usually people don't feel the need to repeat every single point they agree with before addressing the point they disagree with. I'm talking about the greater context of a person's posts/rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with someone arguing why they think voting is better than not voting, but I'm talking about a greater trend where many posters in D&D literally never criticize the Democratic Party while giving a disproportionate negative focus to the left*. There's also a strong tendency to not only disagree on a point, but to insinuate bad things about the left as a whole in the process. *Honestly I don't really mind if someone just wants to bad-mouth Republicans or whatever; I can understand if someone just feels more comfortable attacking an easy target like Trump. The problem is that the same people often get really irritated when the left attacks Democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:lol at people who were jerking off about Tulsi being one of the good dems Who was doing that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:07
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Who was doing that? There was only one person who was actually really assertive that Gabbard is cool and good and that's call to action, as far as I know. But yeah gently caress Gabbard, she's pretty awful and she's probably gonna be one of the 20+ Dems that runs in 2020 so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Wasn't she at the infamous Putin dinner?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
you're thinking of Jill Stein
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
No there was a Dem there too I thought. Or I'm seriously misremembering something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wasn't she at the infamous Putin dinner? No she's the one who is in bed with Indian far-right parties and is anti-war in the same way Steve Bannon is, i.e. gently caress Muslim people but America First. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There was only one person who was actually really assertive that Gabbard is cool and good and that's call to action, as far as I know. I, GreyjoyBastard, think it would be really cool if a Hindu politician became prominent and successful in the United States. *finger on monkey's paw curls*
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Boon posted:Yeah okay, we all get that, but 350 million people don't just shift opinion on a dime. We can't even get ~50 presumably educated and engaged people in this thread to agree. The question is how it benefits anyone to be the person coming into discussions and saying "whoa let's not demand too much, change happens slowly." If you think an idea is good, you should advocate for it. No one benefits from preemptively setting expectations low (or, even worse, condemning people with higher expectations). You can argue that people should vote for politicians who are merely a lesser evil without simultaneously telling people they shouldn't demand more. Change won't happen unless politicians see a bunch of constituents demanding something. If every constituent said "well, I understand why it might not be possible to do (insert good thing) yet" the politicians would have no reason to change anything. I feel like the real reason for this stuff is "some liberals have the general impression that modest expectations signal that a person is reasonable and mature." It's basically people acting out this flawed mental image they have of what it means to be the mature and reasonable "adult in the room." It's the same reason liberals are often looking for excuses to compliment conservatives; they perceive "being willing to agree with their enemies sometimes" as something that signals maturity. But this isn't how you make change happen. You make change happen by enthusiastically expressing your support for the things you actually want to happen (or anger towards the things you dislike). If everyone in the country just said "well, we must be reasonable and not set our expectations too high" nothing would ever be accomplished. edit: Boon posted:Here's what I don't understand. If all of this is true, why are we not arguing for mandatory voting as the utmost priority. Why has no one mentioned that in the last... 100s of pages? It SIGNIFICANTLY changes the money issue and if you're right, the elected candidates. Why would you tell people to temper their expectations and then come out with a proposal that's at least as radical and unlikely to happen as anything they've proposed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Edit: joke didn't work, I failed myself and god tonight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I, GreyjoyBastard, think it would be really cool if a Hindu politician became prominent and successful in the United States. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
I used to defend Tulsi but the hits against her just kept piling up. First Zack Snyder, now this 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:I used to defend Tulsi but the hits against her just kept piling up. First Zack Snyder, now this Did Snyder do something other than make bad movies I haven't heard of?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
CineD gaslit me into thinking his films were subversive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:CineD gaslit me into thinking his films were subversive. lol there there
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Since elections are about mobilizing your base (a strategy that has given Republicans great success in the house since at least 2000) being an overly compromising wet blanket candidate is setting yourself up for failure. The dems bench is mitt Romney's and Jen Bushes
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:CineD gaslit me into thinking his films were subversive. You must never go there, it's a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Wasn't she at the infamous Putin dinner? The infamous Putin dinner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 11:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:No there was a Dem there too I thought. Or I'm seriously misremembering something. Tulsi met Assad for lunch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:The infamous Putin dinner. Hosted by Bill Cosby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
I'm against mandatory voting on the simple facts that it obscures the unpopularity of our parties amongst the general public, and forces them to participate in powering the Lesser Evil, lowest bidder style. If it's a guarantee that everyone will vote, then the least worst candidate only has to worry about being a microbe better than the second least worst candidate, rather than compelling others to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:That ad says he advocated for life sentences for violent sexual predators and longer sentences for gang members but don't let reality get in the way of smearing a democrat 3 days before a critical election. Phew, and here I was worried that the ad was bad!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'm against mandatory voting on the simple facts that it obscures the unpopularity of our parties amongst the general public, and forces them to participate in powering the Lesser Evil, lowest bidder style. Even in places with mandatory voting, you can still vote for an alternative party or spoil your ballot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Even in places with mandatory voting, you can still vote for an alternative party or spoil your ballot. If you dont even want to vote, you're not going to bother doing either instead of checking the least disgusting box. Path of least resistance, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Except people do that. Australia's vote in 2010 saw 6% of their ballots spoiled. It's not even hard to do - you just submit your voting card without having filled anything out and bam - spoiled ballot. If you want to talk about paths of least resistance, to me that's what qualifies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If you dont even want to vote, you're not going to bother doing either instead of checking the least disgusting box. Path of least resistance, and all that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Except people do that. Australia's vote in 2010 saw 6% of their ballots spoiled. You can draw a really big penis on your ballot. Do it right and it also counts as a valid vote!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Endorph posted:Writing down whatever is way easier than actually ticking a box. Like, tick literally nothing, or write down 'jesus' or 'harambe.' the brainpower required to decide which box is least disgusting is way more effort than either of those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Yeah donkey vote is always an option, no shame in it, just make it clear what you're doing so you don't get the scrutineers in a tizzy come tallying the votes. Anyway continuing the Australia example, even with mandatory voting we have two distinct major parties and various smaller parties that are to the left, the right and inbetween of the them that have representation in the lower and upper houses. Being forced to vote doesn't inspire mediocrity by itself, it requires a voting system that only allows for it. Preferential voting and actual 3rd party presence on the ballot do a world of good and if you're picturing the overhaul of your electoral system to have mandatory voting but can't picture either or both of those coming with it, well that's a little sad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
With all due respect, 6% spoilage doesn't really compare to the what, 70% nonvote in america? Not to mention I sincerely doubt Aus's nonvoters would equal 6% without threat of fine. Have you seen their politicians? I'm not saying 'this becomes impossible', rather 'this rewards and encourages unsavory behavior'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Rincewinds posted:Tulsi met Assad for lunch. Yes that's it. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:With all due respect, 6% spoilage doesn't really compare to the what, 70% nonvote in america? Not to mention I sincerely doubt Aus's nonvoters would equal 6% without threat of fine. Have you seen their politicians? We currently have a totally optional and unnecessary same sex marriage postal survey that exists for stupid loving reasons, there's no need to fill it out at all and it's a bigger hassle to participate because you have to find a post office box to drop it in at. 78% of us managed to do it so far and we're not done yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:With all due respect, 6% spoilage doesn't really compare to the what, 70% nonvote in america? Not to mention I sincerely doubt Aus's nonvoters would equal 6% without threat of fine. Have you seen their politicians? we get pretty near 50% voter participation in presidential election years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2017 15:07
|
|
