|
Kilroy posted:And what the gently caress business does a rich white lawyer have running for state office, as a Democrat, in loving Alabama? This should raise eyebrows. who do you think runs for office? rich white lawyers if you're a democrat and rich white used car salesmen if you're a republican
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:who do you think runs for office? rich white lawyers if you're a democrat and rich white used car salesmen if you're a republican
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It seems awfully unrepresentative of the Democratic electorate anywhere, but particularly in that state. quote:According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Alabama's median household income rose to $42,849 in 2013, an increase of about three percent from the 2012 figure of $41,574. The increase was higher among minority groups: median income in black households rose 6.2 percent over 2012, while income in Hispanic households rose 10.6 percent. http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com...nders/16226769/
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Getting all petulant and pissy that a voter won't vote for a politician to murder them for profit just because he's nicer about it than the other guy is pointless (although it's at least a more rational reaction than 2016 D&D's hubristic mantra "well we don't need your votes because Blue Wall so just stay home if you don't like it" *loses electoral college in the worst defeat in 28 years with razor-thin margins in states they thought were in the bag*). Mocking voters doesn't work. Shaming voters doesn't work. If we want someone whose priority is not dying pointlessly from treatable illness to vote for us, we need to offer them what they need to survive, full stop. We need to excite them and give them something to believe in or they just won't show up, especially in the face of massive voter suppression that makes voting a big hassle and personal sacrifice for them. But if we peel off one-third of them, we win. That would be game over and the GOP would no longer even be a national party at that point. We don't have cater to their "racial grievance", but we can say "here is some stuff you're going to get that will improve your life". And we need people running for office who don't have a history of standing for the opposite of all that. The ones who are still turned off because brown people get help too - gently caress those people. And the ones who are too brainwashed with the libertarian bullshit, all 250,000 of them nationwide probably, we don't need. If as a Democrat you are offended that there are some Trump voters who are voting along with you and completely in line with your own best interest, then I suggest you get over that. We're not targeting them. This isn't Ossoff running a campaign focused on suburban Republicans who will never vote for him. But those who want to come along for the ride: the poorest ones who need help the most, I think socialists have a message they will be receptive to. And it beats trying the loving Panera Bread strategy yet again with predictable results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
We don't have to win a single Trump voter if we got more of the people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote again in 2020, notably. We don't have to directly cater to Trump voters at all, if there are unicorn Trump voters who are willing to vote for economic progressivism without racism they'll come along for the ride regardless. It's the Democratic voting base that needs to be energized and engaged, in the immediate term anyway. Edit: as a point of clarification, I'm arguing for moving left. I just don't think that rhetorically "we need to win Trump voters" is particularly true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Getting all petulant and pissy that a voter won't vote for a politician to murder them for profit just because he's nicer about it than the other guy is pointless (although it's at least a more rational reaction than 2016 D&D's hubristic mantra "well we don't need your votes because Blue Wall so just stay home if you don't like it" *loses electoral college in the worst defeat in 28 years with razor-thin margins in states they thought were in the bag*). Mocking voters doesn't work. Shaming voters doesn't work. If we want someone whose priority is not dying pointlessly from treatable illness to vote for us, we need to offer them what they need to survive, full stop. We need to excite them and give them something to believe in or they just won't show up, especially in the face of massive voter suppression that makes voting a big hassle and personal sacrifice for them. this is the key part, tbh. as a result of incalculable arrogance and stupidity on the part of the democratic party, republicans are in a position to make the people most likely to vote for democrats have a ludicrously hard time doing so. you need to produce candidates who will make people willing to endure hardship for the sake of voting for them. "i'm less bad than him" and "but what if the kiddyfucker... WAS A BLACK GUY" do not scream 'you should sacrifice your time and energy on my behalf.' and you need to make people willing to do that. spoiler warning: no matter how dearly the Ossoff team would have preferred to believe it, you ain't gonna do that by proclaiming mexicans aren't people and abortion's now negotiable as far as you're concerned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We don't have to win a single Trump voter if we got more of the people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote again in 2020, notably. We don't have to directly cater to Trump voters at all, if there are unicorn Trump voters who are willing to vote for economic progressivism without racism they'll come along for the ride regardless. It's the Democratic voting base that needs to be energized and engaged, in the immediate term anyway. We can win the presidency doing that. We can't win the House or Senate or take back all the state houses we've lost and they're just as important.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:We can win the presidency doing that. We can't win the House or Senate or take back all the state houses we've lost and they're just as important. Perhaps, but that is going to depend massively on what House or Senate seat we're discussing. Like I said, this is coming down to a debate on "do we have to run to the center to win shithead suburbanites" or "can we run left to win usually un-engaged voters and demoralized Dem base voters." I believed in the former until Virginia happened, but now I am not so sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:We can win the presidency doing that. We can't win the House or Senate or take back all the state houses we've lost and they're just as important. man, if only there was some policy that establishment democrats dismissed as, and I quote, "never, ever going to happen" that polled exceedingly well with the people we need to win... real loving poser here...
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We don't have to win a single Trump voter if we got more of the people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote again in 2020, notably. We don't have to directly cater to Trump voters at all, if there are unicorn Trump voters who are willing to vote for economic progressivism without racism they'll come along for the ride regardless. It's the Democratic voting base that needs to be energized and engaged, in the immediate term anyway. Remember how it turned out that almost all of those voters were lifelong Republican voters who turned out for Obama because Bush was so toxic after 2006 or so? We might get a bunch back in 2020, but like in 2008 it will be despite rather than because of who has the Democratic nom. Edit: Okay, those were specifically the Obama-to-Trump voters. The Obama voters who stayed home in 2016 had more to do with massive upticks in voter suppression since 2012 than any other single cause.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Have you looked at the loving tax bill Voting for lovely Dems has made this all possible so its sort of a stopgap, aint it? So long as lovely dems are the sort of lovely dem that is committed to creating an environment where not only does fascism flourish but attempts to resist it actively crushed, then sorry but no. It doesnt matter how much harm they "prevent" because they are just time shifting it and putting more lives at risk. gently caress voting for people that will slow down things getting worse - the Dem needs to be at least good enough to move us in the direction of things getting better or they arent worth voting for. In Alabama that still leaves the dem super worth voting for though. Manchin is abso loving lutely not though, he and the whole state machine needs to be kicked to the curb if we are ever gonna start making gains in that state. Yeah it might suck short term to take that risk but dont act all self righteous over the fact that other people might think about consequences beyond the now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Remember how it turned out that almost all of those voters were lifelong Republican voters who turned out for Obama because Bush was so toxic after 2006 or so? We might get a bunch back in 2020, but like in 2008 it will be despite rather than because of who has the Democratic nom. wouldn't be shocked to learn that was true, but where'd you hear that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Remember how it turned out that almost all of those voters were lifelong Republican voters who turned out for Obama because Bush was so toxic after 2006 or so? We might get a bunch back in 2020, but like in 2008 it will be despite rather than because of who has the Democratic nom. So then what do you do about the voter suppression? What do you do to engage with young voters? What is your plan?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:We don't have to win a single Trump voter if we got more of the people who voted Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote again in 2020, notably. We don't have to directly cater to Trump voters at all, if there are unicorn Trump voters who are willing to vote for economic progressivism without racism they'll come along for the ride regardless. It's the Democratic voting base that needs to be energized and engaged, in the immediate term anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Potato Salad, would your arguments apply if OUR candidate was the child rapist? Because it seems like it does. Would you really let the Republicans kill all those people just to keep someone you disagree with about raping children out of office, or would you enthusiastically back a dem child rapist if it gave us that one more senator we needed to protect healthcare and prevent the tax bill?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I kind of assume that non-voters generally mirror regular voters in how they approach politics (aside, from, you know, the not regularly voting thing). Which is to say, I don't look at the 120M or so eligible voters who didn't vote, and see 120M Democrats. Probably about half of those might as well be Trump voters. And I think if you energize the Democratic base you're going to energize the Republican base as a reaction to that because so many of them are spiteful fucks. But if the energy is coming from a place of "we're going to fix all the broken stuff and everyone is going to benefit" and it's credible, as opposed to the consultant strategy of energizing Dems which always boils down to "look at how awful these loving Republicans are", that reaction will be significantly muted. Some of them will cross over - maybe not in 2020 exactly but definitely down the line assuming Democrats actually execute on the message and deliver results. Oh I don't think it's reasonable to expect we can win all of the non-voters, especially since a lot of them are children or otherwise legally can't vote. I just think that rhetorically "we need to appeal to the Trump voters" is a trap, both because it's generally not true and immediately puts a lot of people on edge since it usually leads into a dumb "identity politics are the problem, run colorblind" type of argument. "We need to engage the Democratic base and entice progressive-sympathetic non-voters" is more accurate imo. I think that Dems should run on healthcare, higher minimum wage, college funding, dismantling voter suppression, ending the War on Drugs, and prison/police reform. That platform right there could probably blow the Republicans out of the water for a generation and you don't have to directly appeal to a single Trump voting gently caress directly to do it, the "good ones" will come.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Perhaps, but that is going to depend massively on what House or Senate seat we're discussing. Bingo. A socialist just beat Virginia's Republican whip by something absurd like 15 points by running on issues important to voters rather than by sucking up to evil corporations for donations. "But he's bad" from his opponent failed. A transwoman did the same by exciting voters on their neglected issues while her opponent tried to run on "she's bad" and lost hilariously despite the serious centrist consensus bring that both seats were safe R. Jones might still win by following the old playbook because Moore is that bad. I hope he does. I also hope he and the Democrats abandon the poo poo Ossoff/Hillary/Kerry strategy of failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Oh I don't think it's reasonable to expect we can win all of the non-voters, especially since a lot of them are children or otherwise legally can't vote. I just think that rhetorically "we need to appeal to the Trump voters" is a trap, both because it's generally not true and immediately puts a lot of people on edge since it usually leads into a dumb "identity politics are the problem, run colorblind" type of argument. "We need to engage the Democratic base and entice progressive-sympathetic non-voters" is more accurate imo. And on the way out they're going to be screeching to high heavens about how the party is being taken over by Trumpists, and I think we need a good answer to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The thing is, the second you do that you "out" yourself as a Bernie-bro or whatever, are informed you're not a "real Democrat", and are probably going to be accused of voting for Trump as well. Like I said I don't think these sort of people are an electoral force at all, but the party itself is loving packed with them and they need to go. I mean, the standard line is that leftists want to abandon social issues to push a colorblind no war but the class war. If you declare that the goal should be to energize the base, the base is disproportionately of color and women, so we should run to the left on social issues as well as economic issues, then that claim is no longer true. To be clear, we should run to the left on issues important to minority groups because it's the right thing to do and expand minority rights, but the simplest way to shut down people saying that you are weak on minority rights is to be strong on minority rights. The worst thing we could do is argue that minority rights are situationally disposable if we think it will earn us Trump voters, because Trump voters are by and large the same old shithead suburbanites that always vote R. The DSA tries really hard for this and I respect the hell out of them for it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:So then what do you do about the voter suppression? What do you do to engage with young voters? Voter suppression is a tough nut to crack, especially since it's tightest in a lot of places where Republicans have a lot of control already and are tightening the grip while they can. It needs a lot of approaches. Some is going to have to be challenging in the courts. Another part is making hard use of a 2018 wave if we get one. Building awareness and shifting public opinion helps too. Even Republicans can often be swayed by demonstrations of what those liberals can do with gerrymandering if you let them, for example. Registration drives and other private-funded ways to get people to the polls are great too. Young voters are a different matter. Really they're engaged as hell, at least a lot of them. Problem is that consistently through modern US history young people just are a lot less likely to vote, regardless of who's running or what the issues are. It hasn't gone down really, but it hasn't gone up either. Fortunately since it's not like people actually become more conservative with age the left-leaning youth will become more likely to vote every cycle as they get older, and as long as Republicans keep diving into crazy the new 18 year old voters will get bluer every year. Provided we make it easy for them to vote, which means breaking down voting barriers is part of that too. We've seen a lot of recent lessons of how relatively small vote swings make for huge policy changes lately, and that's convincing a lot of people I know who were previously in the "eh, does it matter, they're all politicians" camp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The worst thing we could do is argue that minority rights are situationally disposable if we think it will earn us Trump voters, because Trump voters are by and large the same old shithead suburbanites that always vote R.  I mean basically what I'm saying is that I think by running exactly the platform you're describing, we peel off Trump voters. No extra effort needed nor desired. I was quite clear that the ones who are turned off because minorities get help too, can get hosed. But I do think that there are centrist Dems who will use that appeal of the platform among a subset of Trump voters, as a weapon against the left. I think this because it's already happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Are... are you suggesting that I've done this? No, I'm saying that "we should appeal to Trump voters" is often a lead in to that kind of argument and it primes people to be defensive. I'm sure we would peel off a non-trivial amount of Trump voters with such a platform, I'm just not convinced that there's any way we can reasonably target Trump voters specifically in a way that doesn't involve some degree of give on minority rights. Another thing, about a hypothetical way to positively appeal to Trump voters, is that we need to actually find people who live in these areas and are coming from the grassroots to run. We need more Paula Swearingen types, people of the community who have credibility. I also stand by my idea that the best thing we could do is recruit local POC, women, and LGBT people to run for office. They don't have to say anything about social issues to have credibility and they will energize the base by being progressive and representing marginalized communities in a visible way. Huge upset victories like Danica Roem or that nice lady who won out in, what was it, Oklahoma? As well as young black progressives winning office for Southern mayorships. The future of the party lies in our young and up and coming progressives and our young progressives are disproportionately minorities, and I think we should embrace them. Running local is also important, the fact that Danica Roem's victory was built primarily on loving traffic of all things is illustrative. Edit: I'm sorry I've actually misread this post, we're in agreement. My bad. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:51
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:wouldn't be shocked to learn that was true, but where'd you hear that? I saw a number of pieces about it over the summer and fall. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/may-not-be-as-many-trump-democrats-as-previously-imagined.html was one of them that turns up on a quick search.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, the standard line is that leftists want to abandon social issues to push a colorblind no war but the class war. Okay but isn't the truth that centrists are the ones doing this eg: "I'm Ralph Northam and Gillespie's right that Mexicans want to rape and murder your daughters" And isn't it the truth that the centrist strategy "appeal to racist FYGM suburbanites by trying to sound like the Republicans they vote for" is a lot more amenable to abandoning social issues than leftism which is not only willing to take on the white supremacist institutions of capitalism but also has always been fighting alongside the civil rights movement in the postwar era. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay but isn't the truth that centrists are the ones doing this eg: "I'm Ralph Northam and Gillespie's right that Mexicans want to rape and murder your daughters" There's a reason I prefaced that statement with "the standard line is." Like, if we accept that the archetypal BernieBro cutout is a straight white cismale nerd who thinks that pesky identity politics are the reason he doesn't have free healthcare and college, then the simplest way to shoot down the charge is to be an outspoken advocate for minority rights coupled with economic leftism. Which we should be anyway, so that's easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, the standard line is that leftists want to abandon social issues to push a colorblind no war but the class war. Not that it's emblematic of the movement or ideology as a whole at the moment but progressive movements in the past have had a recurring problem where the sort of white person that'd probably vote Republican or centrist somehow gets the mic for a moment and fucks everything up for everyone else. Hell, the modern Democrat party is literally an example of this. I'd say it was sabotage but really it's just a historically recurring thing in many progressive movements that there's a certain class of sheltered or ambitious dickhead who either intentionally or unintentionally only wants to achieve some measure of progress for the majority --- ie, white people who are heterosexual, cis, or whatever. It's lead people to being extremely sensitive about the possibility of being dicked over yet again. Especially when the opposition party seems to vacillate between homicidal rage and quiet hatred at the idea of some of those minority group's even existing. Incidentally, if the leftist faction of the Democrat's ever manages to retake power you'll see probably see them bail like rats onto the newborn left leaning movement and try to use their entrenched position and resource to co-opt it from the inside so they can retain power. Which ties into this and explains how the pendulum would eventually start swinging back to where it is right now. Which of course provokes more skepticism from the voting base the next time someone talks about improving the lives of people in this country. There's a reason why so many civil and economic rights for minorities came from movements solely dedicated towards their benefit. Ditto for why many people are naturally suspicious and on guard of being sold out. Because in the past century or so there's been a track record of there being a good distribution of propaganda saying that everyone should come together over ____ cause only for the cultural majority to solely reap the benefits when it was time to pay up and help everyone out. If you dig up old propaganda pieces for various political efforts you can even see what I mean. That's also reason why the old saying "A rising tide lifts all boats." gets scoffed at so often in some areas of the country. Because that same sort of mentality was used to basically cajole people out to the polls when it was helpful for the political class only for their to be little gain for minority voters. Hence the sensitivity to it happening again. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There's a reason I prefaced that statement with "the standard line is." Like, if we accept that the archetypal BernieBro cutout is a straight white cismale nerd who thinks that pesky identity politics are the reason he doesn't have free healthcare and college, then the simplest way to shoot down the charge is to be an outspoken advocate for minority rights coupled with economic leftism. Which we should be anyway, so that's easy. Oh sure, we should no matter what, and doing so will hopefully blunt that cynical attack from the Republican-lite centrists in the minds of voters. However I doubt it will win over anyone making that charge, based on what I saw here in D&D from the "but will breaking up the banks solve raaaaaacism" crowd who mostly flipped on a dime when Northam started race-baiting: "don't you dumb leftists know that we have to throw minorities under the bus to win, that's politics"
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh sure, we should no matter what, and doing so will hopefully blunt that cynical attack from the Republican-lite centrists in the minds of voters. VitalSigns, I think it's time you gave up on trying to convince JC of anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:VitalSigns, I think it's time you gave up on trying to convince JC of anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
"gently caress people who have very real things to lose imminently." -This thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
I wish I was privileged enough to not need to compromise in a state election in Alabama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"gently caress people who have very real things to lose imminently." "gently caress all those people that establishment Dems throw under the bus at every turn, including PoC, foreigners, and anyone queer who isn't NPH or Ellen" -you
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
I wish I was privileged enough to pretend that all the dead Iraqis and Afghanis are just the price to pay to smite those mean old republicans and don't count as real people because:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I wish I was privileged enough to not need to compromise in a state election in Alabama. Wasn't the biggest dropoff in Dem votes last year people making under $30,000/yr because they are (a) the target of Republican voter suppression in GOP-controlled states and (b) unenthusiastic because they (rightly) believe the Democrats side with the plutocrats against them anyway Accusing poor people in GOP-controlled states of not voting because they're "privileged" is pretty rich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wasn't the biggest dropoff in Dem votes last year people making under $30,000/yr because they are (a) the target of Republican voter suppression in GOP-controlled states and (b) unenthusiastic because they (rightly) believe the Democrats side with the plutocrats against them anyway I'm accusing the poor for...being...suppressed? Mate, voter suppression by REDMAP racial districting, by lack of automatic voter registration, by lack of opportunity is one of the soapboxes I harp on hardest. Having missed a few crucial local elections and a general in my time because between hours at {fast food chain here} and family obligations barred me from making the polls in person while early voting was cleverly engineered to make me take a provisional ballot because I was moving so much... Hold the gently caress on, this was originally about privileged, presumably white straight male online faux lefties like yourself who don't really stand to lose any reproductive, civil, or marriage rights and are subsequently doing pro bono work for the GOP. Don't you loving change the subject
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 13:47
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I wish I was privileged enough to pretend that all the dead Iraqis and Afghanis are just the price to pay to smite those mean old republicans and don't count as real people because: Yes, because fuckos have killed untold numbers of innocents, we need to do whatever we can to NOT stop the party whose president is intentionally igniting war in Palestine
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
"We've already killed millions, what's a few thousand more?" -Fighter Jet Avatar Internet Man Where you're ultimately falling flat on your face here is in reading the current political situation and accepting that a crossover vote from progressive primary to Dem final election is the best thing we can do for humanity at this specific juncture, abroad and at home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 13:51
|
|
|
I've probably deeply lowballed the human cost (thousands) of Moore winning, too. What's the stats on losing the ACA, some two to three dozen million uninsured in a decade, with a million or two of those preventatively dead? Come the gently caress on, its worth the compromise here. Especially if there is absolutely anything that could be done by a neutered Senate to slow or stop the instigation of war in Israel/Palestine. Or not approve future American involvement. There's not much we can do, but we can do what we individuals can to give the opposition party votes needed to continue holding the line against ACA repeal and maybe even the Have you seen Trump's video saying that sanctuary cities really should be sanctuary for Real Americans? We're living in Hitlerville, USA and for some reason you're enabling it. gently caress the demofuckingcrats for putting us here, gently caress the theft of the primary snd election from Bernie, gently caress Clinton's race baiting campaign for snatching defeat, gently caress everything about the seizure of DNC operations in 2015, gently caress the 400 party electors who put Tom Perez in over Keith Ellison, gently caress the nearly unanimous support for killing middle eastern brown people in the 2000's, gently caress it all. But also gently caress you for preferring to live in a delusional state of mind where you're living in Primaryland and aren't taking into account what actions right now do the most good for humanity. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
One of two people will be elected to senate, one is a confirmed pedophile and aspiring slaver. That's it, sum total and end. If the democratic candidate had harassed a trans woman of color at work while drone bombing a child wedding he would still be a man of honor and integrity by comparison. If Hitler invades hell we throw our support behind Satan. Rallying the apathy of your enemy with crocodile tears is a really boring and obvious tactic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 08:41 |
|
|
It's had to be restated a zillion times: shaming and raging over individual votes is pointless and worse than useless. The point is that voting has been made as hard as possible for many people and the Democrats have been excellent at giving them no motivation to go through the effort to do so. Your feelings don't matter. You have to figure out how to get these people to vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 14:26
|
|
