|
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. any other canards you'd like to throw out? also i notice you haven't suggested a viable alternative to what we've been proposing to fix the dems. it's pretty rich to suggest that privilege is protecting us, when you're advocating for an option where things go to poo poo for us for forever, with no change except the dems getting shittier year by year
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Telling people to vote for the lesser evil will just depress the vote and result in a lower turnout. I don’t want to my vote to go to someone who wants to hurt me slower than the other guy. I want progress. I bet a lot of other people feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Telling people to vote for the lesser evil will just depress the vote and result in a lower turnout. I don’t want to my vote to go to someone who wants to hurt me slower than the other guy. I want progress. I bet a lot of other people feel that way. This seems to be proven true by the past 5 decades
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
The idea of voting for the lesser evil is supposed to be something that is done in incredibly dire circumstances. Like there was a primary between two candidates and the good one suddenly died right before the election and the other bad one won by default. Then you have the lovely guy going up against a white supremacist and you have to hold your nose because fate just worked out badly that time. It's NOT supposed to turn into a party's entire political strategy allowing them to be corrupt and lovely but JUUUUUUST a little better than the other guys. Creating a situation where you place the moral choice on the voters to support garbage because it's suddenly all their fault if the garbage loses and nazis get elected is incredibly backwards. It also takes out all the agency of the elected officials who have way more ability to influence things than some random voter. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner didn't need to deregulate the banks and Warner specifically didn't need to help Haspel. However they did so now people have to have the ethical decision to support them or not while they just smile all the way to the bank since they won't face the repercussions of their bad decisions or if they lose their seats to a Republican. It's frankly disgusting and while it may be the "best choice" voting for these guys is not going to ever move the party left. I don't know what the solution is since our system is broken at a fundamental level and both parties don't want anyone to shake things up that interferes with their grift. It just really pisses me off when you have smug assholes say "if you don't vote for poo poo Dem that opposes helping [X] group, you are the fascist that doesn't care about [X] group." The good cop doesn't want to help the person being interrogated anymore than the bad cop does. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:26
|
|
|
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. And you know, maybe they're right. It's not out of the question that the American public are terrible racists and won't vote for good policies, but the idea that the people who want change are the ones protected from consequences, and not the ones that have calculated that, whelp, it turns out the least worst thing to do is to do nothing is absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Telling people to vote for the lesser evil will just depress the vote and result in a lower turnout. I don’t want to my vote to go to someone who wants to hurt me slower than the other guy. I want progress. I bet a lot of other people feel that way. Everybody wants progress. They disagree on how to get there. twodot posted:I know people will argue this, but it's completely backwards, at least one person will argue 2+2=5, that doesn't make a real argument. If Democrats were actually interested in helping people they would have nominated La Riva, and leftists wouldn't have anything to complain about and there would be no "uncompromising position" because Democrats would just be openly supporting good policy. Leftists are the ones fighting for the least worst outcome (otherwise known as "best"), people comfortable with the status quo are the ones insisting that change is unnecessary/impossible/undesirable. Saying that's 2+2=5 is bullshit. There's definitely some truth to that and if you've spent any time in leftist groups you know I'm right. Plenty of people take positions that are shielded by privilege and call themselves leftists. Plenty of people in vulnerable groups are active Democrats and pushing from the left. Democrats pushed Newsom because they thought he could win. He got 30% of the vote. La Riva got a fraction of a percent. A fascist got 25%. Newsom's an empty suit, but I'd vote for him before Cox. I had Eastin in the primary but she only did 3%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Saying that's 2+2=5 is bullshit. There's definitely some truth to that and if you've spent any time in leftist groups you know I'm right. Plenty of people take positions that are shielded by privilege and call themselves leftists. Plenty of people in vulnerable groups are active Democrats and pushing from the left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everybody wants progress. They disagree on how to get there. And I’m not joking about the border wall thing. Manchin literally said it. Why should we vote for someone like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, "you're only advocating for change because you know change will fail and you are fine with change failing because of your privilege" That's not what I said. I said that people(generally privileged white leftists) are willing to take chances with ideological purity/uncompromising positions because if they're wrong, they're shielded. They're not saying "gently caress vulnerable people", they're saying "I am willing to take this risk" with the psychological backing of their privileged position. quote:is an insane conspiracy theory at the level of 2+2=5. Bad math is a conspiracy theory? quote:Like at least one person is doing that, sure, but who cares? People advocating for good policies are good to have. People who are advocating for the status quo are the people you need to be concerned about if they are only advocating for the status quo because they know they personally benefit from the status quo. I've met many leftists who advocated for hardline positions that might gently caress over their comrades, just as i've met many leftists who are actively poo poo towards sexism and racism because they think economics is the only part of leftism that matters. I'm not sure who's advocating for the status quo here, because it would appear that everyone in the conversation wants change. They just disagree on how to accomplish it. You simply attempting to paint people you disagree with as people who don't want change to bolster your position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's not what I said. I said that people(generally privileged white leftists) are willing to take chances with ideological purity/uncompromising positions because if they're wrong, they're shielded. They're not saying "gently caress vulnerable people", they're saying "I am willing to take this risk" with the psychological backing of their privileged position. quote:I've met many leftists who advocated for hardline positions that might gently caress over their comrades, just as i've met many leftists who are actively poo poo towards sexism and racism because they think economics is the only part of leftism that matters. quote:I'm not sure who's advocating for the status quo here, because it would appear that everyone in the conversation wants change. They just disagree on how to accomplish it. You simply attempting to paint people you disagree with as people who don't want change to bolster your position. edit: "We need bad policy to win elections" or "We need bad politicians in our caucus to achieve a majority" are at least theoretically defensible strategies, but they have clearly abandoned any sort of high ground.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Tim Kaine is a piece of poo poo and if you think he's a lesser evil you're a goddamn moron. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/congress-may-declare-the-forever-war/562175/?utm_source=atlfb quote:Proposed by Senators Tim Kaine and Bob Corker, its radicalism approaches that of a constitutional amendment. Their new AUMF would subvert an article at the core of the Constitution, gutting a vital protection against tyranny devised by the Framers. It would authorize multiple existing wars without even debating them individually. It would empower Trump and his successors to unilaterally wage war in new countries, expand their ability to indefinitely detain prisoners without charges, and empower them to unilaterally kill individuals even inside the United States.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's not what I said. I said that people(generally privileged white leftists) are willing to take chances with ideological purity/uncompromising positions because if they're wrong, they're shielded. They're not saying "gently caress vulnerable people", they're saying "I am willing to take this risk" with the psychological backing of their privileged position. Any possible "risk" inherent with that is still smaller than the risk you take by letting bad dems double down on poo poo that we know doesn't loving work, so it seems like your entire argument rests on entirely false premises. E: Jaxyon posted:Everybody wants progress. They disagree on how to get there. And by the way, this is complete horseshit. The Manchins and other bad dems of his ilk don't want progress at all, they just want to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of themselves and their cronies. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok, and people who advocate for the status quo are taking the chance they are discarding improvements that could be realized with the psychological backing of their privileged position, that's completely symmetric except that people advocating for change are advocating for improvements, they clearly have the moral high ground. Everyone thinks they're advocating for improvements, even outright bigots. That's a trivial statement. quote:Again, bad people exist everywhere, that's symmetric except that leftists have bad people who are advocating for good policy and non-leftists have bad people who advocate for bad people. That's dumb. Non-leftists have good people advocating for bad policy, and bad people advocating for bad policy, and good people advocating for good policy. "not me is bad" is a hella dumb way to see the world. quote:Charitably, the Democratic party except that they are actively pursuing bad policies while preserving the status quo (see: banking regulations). The Democratic party has a mix of policies that range from good to horrible. But they aren't advocating for the status quo either. Banking regulation is step backward, not status quo. Single Payer is a step forward, not status quo. At best, you could argue that Republicans are advocating for the status quo, but they're really advocating for regression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Any possible "risk" inherent with that is still smaller than the risk you take by letting bad dems double down on poo poo that we know doesn't loving work, so it seems like your entire argument rests on entirely false premises. My argument that you're "countering" here is that you can portray both sides as having people who are self-interested and protected by their privilege, and you haven't shown that premise to be false, and the only counter I've seen is "that's not true but if it is I'm OK with it". quote:And by the way, this is complete horseshit. The Manchins and other bad dems of his ilk don't want progress at all, they just want to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of themselves and their cronies. This isn't a discussion of people who like Manchin vs Leftism, nobody likes Manchin except West Virginia because it's a messed up place. I don't like Manchin, neither do the ~filthy liberals~ who disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Everyone thinks they're advocating for improvements, even outright bigots. That's a trivial statement. quote:That's dumb. Non-leftists have good people advocating for bad policy, and bad people advocating for bad policy, and good people advocating for good policy. quote:The Democratic party has a mix of policies that range from good to horrible. But they aren't advocating for the status quo either. Banking regulation is step backward, not status quo. Single Payer is a step forward, not status quo. At best, you could argue that Republicans are advocating for the status quo, but they're really advocating for regression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, there's plenty of people openly not arguing for improvements for the least privileged. See: Democrats. No, national Democratic policy argues for improvements to the least privileged. Whether they are getting there or whether their policies are good is a different story. quote:Non-leftists have bad policies yes, this is no different from saying "racists have bad policies". Many non-leftists probably don't realize why their policies are bad, and they just need education, but we can't sit here in 2018 and think "Actually, capitalism is good". Non-leftists also have good policies. A binary view of the world is dumb. quote:It's obvious from their actions they are attempting to preserve the status quo. Attributing Single Payer to the Democrats is thoroughly absurd. Youre saying there are zero democrats supporting single payer?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Tim Kaine is the dumbfuck behind this: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/congress-may-declare-the-forever-war/562175/?utm_source=atlfb Like how does continuing to support this guy solve us anything? The Republicans have nominated yet another open white supremacist so it's a choice between that and a guy that wants to give Trump unconstitutional war powers because it would make things nice, legal, and bipartisan. We were getting at this in the Trump thread but "experienced" politicians aren't always good, especially when they try to solve problems in overly complicated and typically unhelpful ways because they are adverse to solving them more simply but conflicts with their doners or even their own benefit. I'm not going to tell anyone that doesn't want to vote for Kaine's insane forever war bullshit (with a side of bank deregulation) that they are fascists because they don't vote for him implicitly. He's actively bad and making things worse; he's not some benign boring "not full communism now but otherwise left-wing" choice or whatever strawman argument liberals want to smack down. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
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. No, it doesn't work that way, because arguing against non-voters is objectively not effective. It is not a course of action that actually cares about material outcomes. It is a simple fact that the most effectve way to get more people voting against Republicans is to make the Democrats become a party that people actively want to vote for - not giving logical arguments about how it's technically sub-optimal to not vote for less-bad politicians. Not voting for bad people, even when it's the optimal choice, is one in the endless list of "technically irrational but understandable" choices people make. As I think I said before (can't remember), would you make this same sort of argument against a black person who chose not to vote for an open racist politician who was still objectively less bad than his/her opponent? Probably(/hopefully) not, because it's completely understandable that they wouldn't want to give any sort of support to a person who is hostile to their interests, even if the other person is even more hostile. The exact same reasoning applies to many of the people who don't want to vote for bad Democratic candidates. edit: There's also a very good chance that the sort of attitude represented by folks like you arguing that people should vote for politicians who are hostile to their interests (even if less so than their opponents) is actively harmful and contributes to negative voter enthusiasm, but it's impossible to really disprove or prove that. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Radish posted:Tim Kaine is the dumbfuck behind this: Tim Kaine is utter poo poo, the alternative is a white supremacist. I have no doubt that an open white supremacist would support any bad policy Tim Kaine has, and also never ever vote with Democrats. It sure is a hosed up lovely choice. I'd like it to be a white supremacist vs a good person. I'd like there to be no White supremacist on the ticket. If it's a close election, I'd vote for Tim Kaine, holding my nose. That sucks but that is reality right now. If you vote for the white supremacist, it's going to be actively worse for everyone. The Joe Manchin situation is similar. These are who is on the ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Love too vote for foreverwar
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
The issue is the Tim Kaines use their position and authority in order to push more Tim Kaine styled candidates nationwide. You can't move left as long as he is in office. I don't know what the solution is, but continuing to support him, while constantly admitting he is trash, is not sustainable. We've had twenty plus years of this sort of strategy and we are now in a situation where not only do we have Donald Trump in office, we have the guy that ran against him as VEEP trying to give him the ability to detain people in this country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:My argument that you're "countering" here is that you can portray both sides as having people who are self-interested and protected by their privilege, and you haven't shown that premise to be false, and the only counter I've seen is "that's not true but if it is I'm OK with it". That's a completely vacuous statement. Jaxyon posted:This isn't a discussion of people who like Manchin vs Leftism, nobody likes Manchin except West Virginia because it's a messed up place. They like him enough to argue that the fucker deserves to be protected at every turn, so how about no?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Liberals loving love Manchin, they constantly defend him and get mad when he's is attacked for being bad. Look at the difference in anger they show at Manchin saying he may have to support Trump compared to the people saying that Kaine blows and they are going to stay home.quote:It would empower Trump and his successors to unilaterally wage war in new countries, expand their ability to indefinitely detain prisoners without charges, and empower them to unilaterally kill individuals even inside the United States. Like what the hell, this is absolutely insane. Like I can't wait for President Bannon in 2024 to order a hit on someone he declared a terrorist and then the Democrats have to sheepishly ignore it since they wrote the legislation that allowed it to happen. I bet Kaine threw a party last night when he found out he gets to run against a white supremacist and doesn't have to give a poo poo about what anyone thinks at all since what are you going to do let a white supremacist win?? Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, national Democratic policy argues for improvements to the least privileged. Whether they are getting there or whether their policies are good is a different story. Yeah, they say that, this is true. What you have missed is that the bad dems are lying when they do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:No, it doesn't work that way, because arguing against non-voters is objectively not effective. It is not a course of action that actually cares about material outcomes. It is a simple fact that the most effectve way to get more people voting against Republicans is to make the Democrats become a party that people actively want to vote for - not giving logical arguments about how it's technically sub-optimal to not vote for less-bad politicians. Not voting for bad people, even when it's the optimal choice, is one in the endless list of "technically irrational but understandable" choices people make. Black folks who have a choice between two racists often stay home. But black folks who have the choice between a lovely Democrat and an openly racist gently caress generally go out and vote hard for the lesser evil. Because they will be directly get hosed by the racist. But people in this and other threads poo poo on voting lesser evil. quote:edit: There's also a very good chance that the sort of attitude represented by folks like you arguing that people should vote for politicians who are hostile to their interests (even if less so than their opponents) is actively harmful and contributes to negative voter enthusiasm, but it's impossible to really disprove or prove that. I think that's a decent argument and is probably true. I also think that having a openly fascist bigots continuing to be in charge contributes to lack of enthusiasm in the long term even if it fires up people in the short term. Currently, having trump in charge is leading to some gains for leftist candidates, which is great, and also big gains for establishment candidates, which is less great. There's not really any easy answers here, but the cavalier attitude of "let the establishment fail" that I see people advocating here doesn't sit well with me. It's not as easy as that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, they say that, this is true. What you have missed is that the bad dems are lying when they do. Uh no, I didn't miss that bad politicians lie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:There's definitely some truth to that and if you've spent any time in leftist groups you know I'm right. Plenty of people take positions that are shielded by privilege and call themselves leftists. Plenty of people in vulnerable groups are active Democrats and pushing from the left. When it specifically comes to these intra-left arguments, the people arguing against the radical left are nearly always very privileged. I can count the exceptions to this I have encountered on these forums on, uh, two fingers. The specific state of "being a young-ish left-leaning person who is irritated with leftists/the radical left" seems to almost always coincide with being very privileged. This obviously isn't to say that most liberals are privileged; I'm specifically referring to the ones who are aware of the radical left and take contrary positions to them in arguments like this, and those people are pretty uncommon. Most liberals just don't have much awareness of the radical left, or knee-jerk oppose them due to being older and having a default view that radical left-wing politics aren't serious or possible. The ones who have actually engaged with them and take contrary positions are exceptions. I'm pretty convinced at this point that the "the radical left is privileged" stuff is almost entirely projection. Jaxyon posted:"not me is bad" is a hella dumb way to see the world. lol there is nothing dumb about thinking that your ideology is good and other peoples' is bad. This stuff isn't subjective; some ideas are just flat-out bad. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Jun 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Radish posted:Liberals loving love Manchin, they constantly defend him and get mad when he's is attacked for being bad. Look at the difference in anger they show at Manchin saying he may have to support Trump compared to the people saying that Kaine blows and they are going to stay home. No, liberals don't love Manchin. Many hate him and want him primaried. Most feel he's a necessarily evil because he's the only Democrat that can currently win that seat in WV. If your choice is between a poo poo guy and a white supremacist, yeah vote for the poo poo guy if it's a close election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:08
|
|
|
Liberalism at its inception was created to give the privileged access to benefits reserved to people by birthright. It's inherently privileged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:When it specifically comes to these intra-left arguments, the people arguing against the radical left are nearly always very privileged. I can count the exceptions to this I have encountered on these forums on, uh, two fingers. The specific state of "being a young-ish left-leaning person who is irritated with leftists/the radical left" seems to almost always coincide with being very privileged. This obviously isn't to say that most liberals are privileged; I'm specifically referring to the ones who are aware of the radical left and take contrary positions to them in arguments like this, and those people are pretty uncommon. Most liberals just don't have much awareness of the radical left, or knee-jerk oppose them due to being older and having a default view that radical left-wing politics aren't serious or possible. The ones who have actually engaged with them and take contrary positions are exceptions. I don't doubt that you're pretty convinced that your beliefs are correct and that people who criticize you are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Liberalism at its inception was created to give the privileged access to benefits reserved to people by birthright. It's inherently privileged. Yep.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:No, liberals don't love Manchin. Many hate him and want him primaried. Most feel he's a necessarily evil because he's the only Democrat that can currently win that seat in WV. You are wrong. The ire towards Paula Jean Swearengin was real and when Manchin won there was smugness because they were vindicated their Serious choice was given credibility. There was a lot of anger at the idea that the primary was unfair when the party gave Manchin obvious support. If you think liberals oppose Manchin, outside of the most tepid reproaches, I think you are very naive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:You are wrong. The ire towards Paula Jean Swearengin was real and when Manchin won there was smugness because they were vindicated their Serious choice was given credibility. There was a lot of anger at the idea that the primary was unfair when the party gave Manchin obvious support. If you think liberals oppose Manchin, outside of the most tepid reproaches, I think you are very naive. If you think that people thinking that Swearengin couldn't win equates to a deep abiding love of Manchin, I'd say you are really naive. They're arguing that Manchin is the pragmatic choice, and you're arguing that Swearengin is the correct choice. You're having two different discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Black folks who have a choice between two racists often stay home. But black folks who have the choice between a lovely Democrat and an openly racist gently caress generally go out and vote hard for the lesser evil. Because they will be directly get hosed by the racist. Ah, I want to focus on this because this is where you're not understanding things (and it also reveals a bunch about your worldview and how you perceive politics). Basically, what you wrote here reveals that you don't perceive the Democrats as bad; you're basically explicitly saying that there's a fundamental difference between them and "an open racist" such that it's acceptable to not vote for the latter but wrong to not vote for the former. The misunderstanding is that leftists view the status quo, and those who preserve it (this includes most Democrats) as a deep evil that is absolutely on the level of open racism. Your post basically reveals that you don't consider the sort of evils perpetuated by the Democrats as being on the same level as open racism. But I don't think it makes sense at all to draw the line there. The current state of things, and those who allow it to continue, are absolutely beyond the pale. As things currently stand, the overwhelming majority of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small percent of the population while millions suffer. The actual material effects of racism continue unabated (with no serious efforts on the part of Democrats to end them), and we continue to murder countless people through our actions abroad. It is completely reasonable for someone to view this as equivalent to "open racism," especially if the person in question is poor or otherwise disadvantaged. There is no fundamental difference between a black person not wanting to vote for a racist hostile to their interests and anyone else suffering under the status quo not being willing to vote for someone who is willing to let them remain that way. Even if it's still optimal for them to minimize harm through voting for the lesser evil, I'm not going to condemn that person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If you think that people thinking that Swearengin couldn't win equates to a deep abiding love of Manchin, I'd say you are really naive. No. You don't put your finger on the scale and then say you are just being pragmatic. You don't look at an election where the clearly ideologically worse candidate (Manchin is bad both socially and economically) won and gloat. As I said you can see the anger at regular people not voting Democrat and then the off hand dismissal of criticisms against Manchin when he does worse by actually suggesting he will cross party lines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Ah, I want to focus on this because this is where you're not understanding things (and it also reveals a bunch about your worldview and how you perceive politics). Basically, what you wrote here reveals that you don't perceive the Democrats as bad; you're basically explicitly saying that there's a fundamental difference between them and "an open racist" such that it's acceptable to not vote for the latter but wrong to not vote for the former. Literally all voters who aren't Republicans see wealth inequality as a huge problem that causes suffering. Including people who identify as liberal. What you seem to be saying here is that black folks don't understand structural inequality are just voting on a misunderstanding of what racism is. What I'm saying is that, given your hypothetical about black voters(and it played out in Alabama), black folks do understand the difference between open bigotry, and the more indirect(but still existent) bigotry of more centrist policy, and make what they perceive to be a rational decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Literally all voters who aren't Republicans see wealth inequality as a huge problem that causes suffering. Including people who identify as liberal.  source your quotes please.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Uh no, I didn't miss that bad politicians lie. You do seem to miss the obvious implications, though. Jaxyon posted:If you think that people thinking that Swearengin couldn't win equates to a deep abiding love of Manchin, I'd say you are really naive. Like right here. What the gently caress is this horseshit framing? Centrists don't give a poo poo about pragmatism, as made obvious by literally everything they've done since 11/9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:
You think the average Dem voter loves inequality?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Like right here. What the gently caress is this horseshit framing? Centrists don't give a poo poo about pragmatism, as made obvious by literally everything they've done since 11/9.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2018 19:32
|
|
