|
It's because the Left has "It's okay to be different" as, like, a central tenet for their platform. Which is loving weak. Maybe they should hold off on that until they have culturally annexed and destroyed all of their enemies.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Refusing to compromise with your enemy and labeling their supporters as morons are not the same thing. They lost because the Clinton team’s strategy was to pick up “moderate” Republicans who hate her guts and would rather stay home or hold their nose and vote for Trump than ever vote for her. This of course backfired, as none of those people voted for Clinton and a significant portion of those to her left stayed home. I was not defending republicans. Politics will never move in any direction if people hold to their hard lines on everything 100% of the time. Even in the same party there will be different lines and if nobody budges we'd accomplish even less than the pathetic amount we already do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:34
|
|
|
Aramek posted:It's because the Left has "It's okay to be different" as, like, a central tenet for their platform. Which is loving weak. Maybe they should hold off on that until they have culturally annexed and destroyed all of their enemies. Honestly the best way to go would be convincing the right that there's a way to profit from all that stuff. If you just portray it less as a cultural revolution and more of a business opportunity, you'd win most of them over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:I was not defending republicans. Politics will never move in any direction if people hold to their hard lines on everything 100% of the time. Even in the same party there will be different lines and if nobody budges we'd accomplish even less than the pathetic amount we already do. I strongly disagree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:39
|
|
|
so let's just drop the pretense and adopt a one party system so we can all unite in our true purpose of serving the rich without having to pretend like our voice or opinion matters. Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:so let's just drop the pretense and adopt a one party system so we can all unite in our true purpose of serving the rich without having to pretend like our voice or opinion matters. Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed If the Democrats and Republicans realized that they were effectively the same and merged it might open the doors up for actual alternatives, so yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 15:50
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:If the Democrats and Republicans realized that they were effectively the same and merged it might open the doors up for actual alternatives, so yes https://i.imgur.com/t2HwVgs.mp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:If the Democrats and Republicans realized that they were effectively the same and merged it might open the doors up for actual alternatives, so yes
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
If you think that's a galactic brain take you should talk to a tankie some time
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:If you think that's a galactic brain take you should talk to a tankie some time I was going for "Pretty weird that these two groups whose leaders have more or less the same beliefs are presented as 'the two extremes' in political discourse"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Honestly the best way to go would be convincing the right that there's a way to profit from all that stuff. If you just portray it less as a cultural revolution and more of a business opportunity, you'd win most of them over. the republicans have ceded the stance of pro-business party to the democrats, they are currently the pro-death party. you need to pitch policy as a scourge with which god will cleanse the earth from the sins of the wicked and then maybe you'll get them on board
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:the republicans have ceded the stance of pro-business party to the democrats, they are currently the pro-death party. you need to pitch policy as a scourge with which god will cleanse the earth from the sins of the wicked and then maybe you'll get them on board maybe we can cleanse the sinners only in foreign lands instead to keep them happy without having to make up some false pretense about terrorism or whatever, i don't know, i'm not a politician.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Bash the fash! gently caress nazis! Kill all pigs!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Violent protest might be more direct, but you better have a huge backing for it that are just as devoted to it as you are before you start it. The reality is most people in the US are too complacent to risk giving up all they have for their ideals, no matter what ideals they are. The wannabe revolutionaries talk a big game on the internet but when it comes down to actually doing something the farthest they are willing to go is throwing pepsi cans or sucker-punching people and fleeing before the cops get them. If I were to better refine my opinion I would say that there should be real consequences for people who abuse power and try to manipulate systems to be in their favor. The frustration with non-violent protest for me is that it doesn't seem like it's ever really done anything, and invoking the name of MLK has been a favorite tactic of people who are just so goddamn unscrupulous and you just loving know it's just to screw with people's heads to make them think that they should just use the power of frowny faces and coal in peoples stockings to make changes. MizPiz posted:Both MLK and Gandhi never advocated for strict non-violence, their legacy is being specifically used to qwell any sort of effective resistance to the status quo. Both presented themselves as the alternative to a violent uprising and both worked with groups that did advocate for vioent action. Yeah I guess I should have more than a surface level understanding of these things before I have an opinion on them, but ugh. Frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:They lost because the Clinton team’s strategy was to pick up “moderate” Republicans who hate her guts and would rather stay home or hold their nose and vote for Trump than ever vote for her. This of course backfired, as none of those people voted for Clinton and a significant portion of those to her left stayed home. isn't that essentially what happened tho? clinton won the popular vote by turning a significant number of moderate republicans, enough that she still had the bigger numbers - numbers comparable to '12 obama - and she at least threatened to flip some reliably red states (trump won by the smallest margins in recent history in places like texas) even tho working class people who previously voted obama in the rust belt states shifted allegiances in droves, enough to shift the electoral vote behind her back (which incidentally contained like 7 faithless electors iirc, not a good sign for either candidate) while enough people voted overall to be greater than '12 and quite close to '08 i think it's safer to say clinton's message, while intending to break down partisan lines by courting from both, mostly courted from the middle class or higher
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
hard counter posted:isn't that essentially what happened tho? clinton won the popular vote by turning a significant number of moderate republicans, enough that she still had the bigger numbers - numbers comparable to '12 obama - and she at least threatened to flip some reliably red states (trump won by the smallest margins in recent history in places like texas) even tho working class people who previously voted obama in the rust belt states shifted allegiances in droves, enough to shift the electoral vote behind her back (which incidentally contained like 7 faithless electors iirc, not a good sign for either candidate) while enough people voted overall to be greater than '12 and quite close to '08 She lost several states that hadn't gone red since Reagan because she wouldn't even make an attempt to appeal to those working class voters who had gone for Obama and the moderate Republicans didn't go her way. Her popular vote victory is entirely because of Trump being the worst candidate in history.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
it sorta sounds like we agree except for me saying she may have actually appealed to certain moderates on her own instead of just being the not-trump option, since he's awful enough to budge certain staunch republicans i'm willing to accept both can be true to certain extents 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
hard counter posted:isn't that essentially what happened tho? no. clinton's R vote share was basically the average of Obama's 2008 and 2012 numbers, and equivalent to Kerry's 2004 numbers. And this was against the least popular Republican candidate since Nixon. Clinton's messaging was really tone deaf and courted middle class families and business interests but the voting base split mostly along traditional party lines, with low income votes going overwhelmingly D and middle and upper class votes going overwhelmingly R. It was an entirely turnout driven election. It wasn't decided by blue collar democrats crossing party lines, it was decided by them staying home.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Clinton's messaging was really tone deaf That's putting it nicely. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YttscNOoAjA
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
I voted Obama both times. Couldn't bring myself to vote for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:no. clinton's R vote share was basically the average of Obama's 2008 and 2012 numbers, and equivalent to Kerry's 2004 numbers. And this was against the least popular Republican candidate since Nixon. consider for the moment that obama in '08 managed a comparatively commanding win after the reputedly disastrous presidency of w bush, no doubt soaking up a significant number of republicans disillusioned by bush's economic turmoil on his path to democratic victory, obama's victory in '12 was by much slimmer margins and fell along more traditional voting lines with a modicum of inertia, for lack of better word, still favoring obama while kerry faced a president bush whose popularity was already beginning its steep decline (not that bush was popular in his first election, but immediately following 9/11 his approval was through the roof) - it would make complete sense that a hillary campaign that did successfully court some republicans to cross voting lines would produce these figures in R vote share, it's only by assuming that previous elections like obama in 2008 were completely unexceptional that you can ignore these results; very few, if any, elections are wholly unexceptional part of the reason why i mentioned that the overall voter turnouts in '16 were comparable to '08 and bigger than '12 was that i'm skeptical of the staying home narrative as tho there was the expectation of drastically more voter precipitation than usually expected, if working class democrats stayed home there would need to have been an exceptional and almost exactly compensatory shift in the voting participation habits of all other demographics . . . at least in the figures released in the immediate aftermath of election that did not seem to happen, it mostly favored a trump stealing the working class vote narrative which i think is the one still holding up hard counter has a new favorite as of 20:38 on Feb 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
I voted for Trump in every election except the ones he won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:no. clinton's R vote share was basically the average of Obama's 2008 and 2012 numbers, and equivalent to Kerry's 2004 numbers. And this was against the least popular Republican candidate since Nixon. Hillary had a lot of problems, really. She still managed to win the popular vote but a lot of her campaign seemed be "vote for me I'm not a Republican!" Kerry did the same thing and it failed hideously. Plus there was all of the baggage that the right wing hate machine piled on her back as well as the fact that the Democratic leaders have been trying to ramrod her through whether the voters liked it or not for quite a while. She's a pretty blatant machine politician running at a time when people are getting extremely fed up with machine politicians. The attitude of "hey let's target swing voters, completely ignore rural areas, and barely pay attention to our base" was a recipe for disaster. There was just so much wrong with the whole thing the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:That's putting it nicely. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YttscNOoAjA that is just embarrassing. Especially given the whole "We are the only sane folks, ney, philosopher kings? Free college? Pshah! Look at Trump! This is woke right?" attitude of the hill campaign. Edgar Allen Ho has a new favorite as of 01:15 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
Every time I see DNC Fight Song, I take a moment to appreciate the unknown hero who decided that the backing vocals should consist of nothing but the word "dumb" on repeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
Every time I see the problems with voting for Clinton boiled down to "but her emails" I get a little angry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
It's frustrating that otherwise functional adults could look at those two bad candidates and not see glaring differences in how less bad she was. It's that same stupid "beep boop authority?" bullshit that Libertarian fuckheads infect everything with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
I wish celebrities wouldn't respond to the NRA on twitter. The NRA posted a gif of Leslie Knope from Parks and Recreation and now all the cast members are replying to it and telling them to go gently caress themselves. I have to believe the NRA did it intentionally to provoke such a response. Even Nick Offerman responded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
That assumes everyone who voted but didn't vote for Hilary voted for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Not voting is such an alien concept to me. Like, we have a first past the post, winner take all system. You *have* to pick between the two at the end. I'm sorry you have to make a decision between two things you don't like, but you have to choose. Directly gently caress you if you don't. Do what you are told.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Not voting is such an alien concept to me. Like, we have a first past the post, winner take all system. I'll hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils in most situations but this attitude is why our political system is so hosed in the first place. Nobody has any incentive to make things better if they can count on your vote because the other guy is worse. And in Hillary's specific case, everyone thought she was going to skullfuck Trump. Some media outlets gave her a 90% chance of winning. 538 got slammed for only giving her like 70%. So anyone on the fence would see that and think "why bother voting for this person I loathe if they're going to win anyway?" Henchman of Santa has a new favorite as of 19:50 on Feb 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Anybody who claims to be a leftist but didn't vote to try and keep the openly fascist candidate out of power is full of poo poo and don't truly believe what they claim to. First past the post is dogshit but you're going to have work with it until there's a big enough outcry to rightfully change it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
First past the post is a garbage system that encourages things like gerrymandering and voter apathyAccordion Man posted:Anybody who claims to be a leftist but didn't vote to try and keep the openly fascist candidate out of power is full of poo poo and don't truly believe what they claim to.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Yeah, I will amend that anyone that could vote, because gerrymandering is a mountain of bullshit on to itself. I guess that what I'm really trying to say is that any leftist that thinks accelerationism is a good thing is a selfish idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Not voting is such an alien concept to me. Like, we have a first past the post, winner take all system. gently caress you, no one is obligated to vote just because "you know how the system works." If a candidate isn't capable of convincing people to vote for them, then they don't deserve those votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Mu Zeta posted:I wish celebrities wouldn't respond to the NRA on twitter. The NRA posted a gif of Leslie Knope from Parks and Recreation and now all the cast members are replying to it and telling them to go gently caress themselves. I have to believe the NRA did it intentionally to provoke such a response. Even Nick Offerman responded. Does it bother you that they are responding to the NRA, that they are doing it on Twitter or that people involved in the show are responding at all? Because it seems to me that this isn't much different than musicians who have had to contact politicians that they disagree with politically to ask them not to use their songs at campaign events. Maybe you are right that it was intentional but I can't imagine the NRA thinking "Ha! This will really show the cast and crew of Parks and Rec!" A better gif they should have used was from when they visit Ron's mom and Leslie asks "Why do you have so many guns?" and Ron's Mom responds with "This is America, isn't it? Then I don't have to answer stupid questions on my own property."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:gently caress you, no one is obligated to vote just because "you know how the system works." If a candidate isn't capable of convincing people to vote for them, then they don't deserve those votes. Wrong. You are a Citizen, and as a Citizen, you have a duty to always vote, because we are all part of the wonderful machine of Civilization. Don't be a fuckup, do what you are supposed to. quote:First past the post is a garbage system that encourages things like gerrymandering and voter apathy 100% is, but, take a wild guess at which one of the two parties would be way, way easier to bully into changing things? Vote in shitass leftists until they have a majority, you then stamp the gently caress out of their weakness until they change things for the better. Nobody honestly believes that you can do this same thing to any of the right's politicians. Y'all can whine about milquetoast dems forever, but put the screws to them until they harden up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Aramek posted:Wrong. You are a Citizen, and as a Citizen, you have a duty to always vote, because we are all part of the wonderful machine of Civilization. If you keep voting for them then you're not putting the screws to anybody.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:If you keep voting for them then you're not putting the screws to anybody. OTOH you could argue that not voting just lets other people put the screws to you. At least vote at the state and municipal level even if you’ve written off the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:OTOH you could argue that not voting just lets other people put the screws to you. At least vote at the state and municipal level even if you’ve written off the federal level. I can get behind that. Even just primary elections have ridiculously low turnouts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2018 21:52
|
|