|
Jaxyon posted:I actually was supporting changing it by voting.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:A bunch of folks refusing to argue outside of strawmen, snide remarks, and sarcasm, and I'm the one jerking off? snide remarks? sarcasm? my god, have they no shame?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:What if you're not gaining control until the party is so weak that you can't do anything with that power? then so be it. we can't correct the course of the party without taking risks. the dem party has made drat sure of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:A bunch of folks refusing to argue outside of strawmen, snide remarks, and sarcasm, and I'm the one jerking off? Don't try to hide your own idiocy by pointing at a bigger idiot. You have offered nothing. No argument at all, just a useless shrug and a "Politics, eh, what can you do?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
imagine how many less posts you'd have to make defending your bad views if you just said what they were instead of reciting the bad dem whinebook we've been hearing about for the past 10 years
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then so be it. we can't correct the course of the party without taking risks. the dem party has made drat sure of that. Are the folks who are going to be in prisons, disenfranchised, denied civil rights, going to OK with the gamble you took on their backs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are the folks who are going to be in prisons, disenfranchised, denied civil rights, going to OK with the gamble you took on their backs? almost certainly since the dems are not going to do anything about any of those things that's why schumer didn't even put up a fight for dreamers. and dems will not roll back trumps disasterous tax cuts. and why obama kept the spying program from bush alive and strengthened it. and why the dems voted to give trump even more spying powers. and why dems voted to deregulate the banks. and why dems are helping cops cover up the murders of the disenfranchised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are the folks who are going to be in prisons, disenfranchised, denied civil rights, going to OK with the gamble you took on their backs? you're making the exact same gamble, only gambling on slaveowners to do anything about those things, it's a joke
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:49
|
|
|
self unaware posted:imagine how many less posts you'd have to make defending your bad views if you just said what they were instead of reciting the bad dem whinebook we've been hearing about for the past 10 years How many times do I have to say I support voting for lesser evil if you're in a close election and changing the Dems from within?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are the folks who are going to be in prisons, disenfranchised, denied civil rights, going to OK with the gamble you took on their backs? Hey maybe in 30 years your grandkids won't get cut down like dogs in the street by the cops. Thanks for your vote!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:How many times do I have to say I support voting for lesser evil if you're in a close election and changing the Dems from within? yes we know you support voting for slaveowners in close elections to... "change the dems from within"? crazy that none of us have thought of that and you're here to explain this new fangled strategy to us, real good stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I agree with changing the party from the inside, but I don't see how strengthening the GOP helps get leftist change in Dem leadership. It looks to me like you'd get the oppposite. Basically it has to be case by case. I won't hold it against someone for voting for an establishment-backed Dem if they're not too bad (I will differ from some of my Chapo colleagues here when I suggest that such candidates actually do exist). I might even do it myself, from time to time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Are the folks who are going to be in prisons, disenfranchised, denied civil rights, going to OK with the gamble you took on their backs? It's a gamble either way because most of the dems in power do not support social justice, abolishing ICE, or enacting registration reform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
self unaware posted:yes we know you support voting for slaveowners in close elections to... "change the dems from within"? I never said that it was a new strategy. Gonna stop replying to you, you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I never said that it was a new strategy. oh so you want to pursue the strategy that brought us Trump good stuff, I guess you're a nazi, not a leftist. think of how much quicker this would have been if you were just honest from the start also i'm glad my posts make shitlibs like you uncomfortable, it's half the reason i post here. go post on dailykos if you want to screech about decorum in posting 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:It's a gamble either way because most of the dems in power do not support social justice, abolishing ICE, or enacting registration reform. Zero of Republicans in power support any of that. I think Democrats can be pushed in the direction of social justice, but Republicans are an idiot cult.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Zero of Republicans in power support any of that. I think Democrats can be pushed in the direction of social justice, but Republicans are an idiot cult. Doesn't that mean voting for dems is the gamble?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Zero of Republicans in power support any of that. I think Democrats can be pushed in the direction of social justice, but Republicans are an idiot cult. no they can't. they had multiple chances. each time, they fold. social justice requires making a stand, and making a stand is too risky for the democrats and so they always chicken out or give up the ghost. like they did on dreamers
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Voting lesser evil no matter what in favor of the Democrats has been the strategy since Gore lost "because of Nader" and that resulted in eight years of Bush, a second Obama term where he couldn't do anything because so many seats in Congress were lost over his tenure, and now a fully Republican federal government led by Trump that has no issue with open corruption and anti-Democratic measures. It's a loving terrible strategy and the only reason it gets propagated is it supports bad Democratic leadership's decisions to pass lovely policies in their personal favor and use marginalized groups as hostages.Jaxyon posted:Zero of Republicans in power support any of that. I think Democrats can be pushed in the direction of social justice, but Republicans are an idiot cult. Nancy Pelosi couldn't even be assed to support the kneeling NFL players. They aren't doing poo poo for social justice if it requires anything more than lame posts on twitter. Condiv posted:no they can't. they had multiple chances. each time, they fold. social justice requires making a stand, and making a stand is too risky for the democrats and so they always chicken out or give up the ghost. like they did on dreamers Exactly. The Democratic party has based its political strategy on zero risk and social justice will always require a risk because it is inherently against the status quo. Just look at both Clinton and Obama steering wide of gay marriage in 2007 and then suddenly being ok with it once it became popular. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
self unaware posted:turns out concern trolling about political strategies isn't effective if you don't have a better one Hey, that was the Whig parties argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:Voting lesser evil no matter what in favor of the Democrats has been the strategy since Gore lost "because of Nader" and that resulted in eight years of Bush, a second Obama term where he couldn't do anything because so many seats in Congress were lost over his tenure, and now a fully Republican federal government led by Trump that has no issue with open corruption and anti-Democratic measures. It's a loving terrible strategy and the only reason it gets propagated is it supports bad Democratic leadership's decisions to pass lovely policies in their personal favor and use marginalized groups as hostages. and even then, they were only just ok with it. they didn't actually put in the work to make gay marriage a thing, outside groups had to do all that on their own also, i forgot about pelosi selling out blm. manchin did that poo poo too. but i suppose it's ok to vote for a racist if he's some tiny amount less racist than the other guy. except for the primaries of course, where it's totally cool to support the most racist candidate possible because he has the best chances of winning according to the same group of idiots who thought it was totally ok for hillary not to campaign in blue states. Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Jun 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Zero of Republicans in power support any of that. I think Democrats can be pushed in the direction of social justice, but Republicans are an idiot cult. Yeah that liberalism won't change anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Vote for Joe Manchin because we need an anti-abortion, anti-EPA, NRA member in the Senate to stop the Republicans from electing an anti-abortion, anti-EPA, NRA member!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Vote for Joe Manchin because we need an anti-abortion, anti-EPA, NRA member in the Senate to stop the Republicans from electing an anti-abortion, anti-EPA, NRA member! It's not a gamble, it's a sure thing!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Doesn't that mean voting for dems is the gamble? Everything's a gamble, unless you can see the future. Doesn't mean things are equally as likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everything's a gamble, unless you can see the future. Remember when we all took your gamble for the past 20 years and ended up with a reality TV show host as president? Forgive me for being skeptical of your ability to judge what is likely and what is not. Your political insight is poo poo and the political insights of the people you're voting for are poo poo. 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everything's a gamble, unless you can see the future. yes, it's incredibly unlikely that dems will help on social justice when they're pushing for and trying to elect a bunch of republicans with a D next to their name. manchin has never been an ally on social justice, and they're pushing for little baby manchins wherever they can. so voting harder for them is vanishingly unlikely to help any of the people you claimed to care about
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:36
|
|
|
Don't forget the Rahm strategy of cops and troops with a D next to their name. Those guys are gonna be great at social justice reforms and ending needless military spending. It's a sure bet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, it's incredibly unlikely that dems will help on social justice when they're pushing for and trying to elect a bunch of republicans with a D next to their name. manchin has never been an ally on social justice, and they're pushing for little baby manchins wherever they can. so voting harder for them is vanishingly unlikely to help any of the people you claimed to care about If your asking me that whether it's more likely to change the party where at least some of the people involved care about social justice, or whether it's more likely that by conceding power at all levels of covernment to the party that actively creates social injustice, some powerful challenger to them will appear and take power.... Yeah I'd go with the former being way more likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Nobody is conceding power, they are building parallel institutions to replace the currently failing ones. Changing the Democrats isn't the goal, replacing them is. But yeah, feel free to smugly post "let's just double down" while ICE continues to traffic children
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
The change from within only happens from a place of weakness, not strength. If Hillary had won there is absolutely 0 chance of Dems even talking about Medicare for all or 15 dollar minimum wage
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If your asking me that whether it's more likely to change the party where at least some of the people involved care about social justice, or whether it's more likely that by conceding power at all levels of covernment to the party that actively creates social injustice, some powerful challenger to them will appear and take power.... then you're an idiot. cause right now, what we have is a party that spent 2016 saying they cared about social justice supremely, to the detriment of economic reforms of any stripe, and then spent the next two years absolutely failing to try to defend social justice in the least. and you think that voting in a bunch of cops and former republicans (the people that actively create social injustice, remember!?) is going to make the party care more about social justice, or have some sliver of a chance to. that's just boneheaded you know what might actually help, voting-wise? ONLY voting for people who actually give a poo poo about social justice!! no manchins, no cops, no rahm emmanuels, and no former republicans! if you vote in cops and former republicans, they are not going to use their newfound power as dem representatives to help you enact social justice reforms. they're going to use their power to fight it! so don't give them power to fight against you from within the party! hth
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:The change from within only happens from a place of weakness, not strength. If Hillary had won there is absolutely 0 chance of Dems even talking about Medicare for all or 15 dollar minimum wage I'm willing to agree with that, but even if you told me that before the election, I wouldn't have advocated voting Trump over Hillary, because I figured the fallout from his presidency would be worse than 4-8 years of mediocre democrats. I think weakness can be an opportunity, but I am not for actively ceding elections. At a local level, I don't know how much effect the presidential election had on minimum wage laws. Definitely the active progressive or leftist candidates on primary season has made a difference at state and national level. I doubt De Leon would be challenging Feinstein if Hillary had won.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:55
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I wouldn't have advocated voting Trump over Hillary Jaxyon posted:A bunch of folks refusing to argue outside of strawmen 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:And the solution is never ever "run better candidates" it always boils down to "blame the voters" The thing that proves the dishonesty of the people on the other side of this argument is that they nearly always put far more effort towards condemning non-voters than they do condemning the Democratic Party. If they really cared about outcomes, they would focus almost entirely on the latter. But they don't (usually because they're already very privileged and don't actually have much emotionally invested in the idea of material change). edit: Like, I actually think Jaxyon is technically correct in that voting for the least bad option is technically optimal, but I feel like merely having the desire to argue so much with people who don't want to vote for bad politicians is revealing about what his actual priorities are. As far as I'm concerned, not voting for bad Democrats is a "technically sub-optimal, but 100% understandable" decision, and I would never feel the need to try and argue with someone who doesn't want to vote for one of these people. It's no different than telling a black person they need to vote for a racist in an election where both candidates are open racists. Even if it might be technically optimal to vote for the lesser evil, it's really lovely to blame that person for not wanting to give any sort of support to such a bad person. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing that proves the dishonesty of the people on the other side of this argument is that they nearly always put far more effort towards condemning non-voters than they do condemning the Democratic Party. And then people on the other side say you are OK not voting/voting protest because privilege protects you from the consequences and allows you to maintain uncompromising position, and that if you really cared about outcomes, you'd be fighting for the least worst outcome in every situation. That's why these conversations seldom go anywhere. Everybody is trying to claim the high ground of "least priveleged/most left/most woke".
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing that proves the dishonesty of the people on the other side of this argument is that they nearly always put far more effort towards condemning non-voters than they do condemning the Democratic Party. how many times are you going to dump this pile of paragraphs before you give up trying to explain to these people why they are morons? you're giving a guy who's literally posting "double down on the current strategy" way too much benefit of the doubt he's technically correct? it's just a joke, quit trying to excuse his garbage opinions the center doesn't need any defending and the entire "it's game theory!" strategy falls apart when you appreciate the fact that politics is not a race, it's a marathon 90s Rememberer fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
If you vote for a bad dem, you're not hurting him, you're helping him. He will be in power and will have the time and means to spread his influence, help his cronies and establish/strengthen a power base. All of these things weaken future challengers. If he loses he doesn't have the power and he also carries the stink of a loser. I don't see any logic in the statement that voting for Manchin/Cuomo/whoever in the general somehow helps Swearangin/Nixon/some other challenger in a future primary, it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:37 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:And then people on the other side say you are OK not voting/voting protest because privilege protects you from the consequences and allows you to maintain uncompromising position, and that if you really cared about outcomes, you'd be fighting for the least worst outcome in every situation. The consequences of excusing everything about bad candidates and just expecting votes by default has been a decade of decimating losses. Continuing to support that is clearly bla bla privilege whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 03:32
|
|