|
Aren't you people still trying to claim that the people from Pissmark, South Dakota aren't really racist, they're just feeling "economic anxiety"?
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
And some classism too. The cherry on top of the centrist sundae.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:22
|
|
|
Pissmark has an average income of $95,000 a year per household, but its good to see you never miss a chance to be a self righteous rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Aren't you people still trying to claim that the people from Pissmark, South Dakota aren't really racist, they're just feeling "economic anxiety"? who cares half these chuddy hellholes voted for Obama twice so clearly they're not that racist
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
Bismarck has a median income of about 57k. And it's also hilarious how you're focusing on a city with multiple colleges and ignoring the rest of the state. Like a true lib.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:who cares Ya they are. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/on-road-western-pennsylvania/
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:04
|
|
|
Obama is one of the good ones
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Bismarck has a median income of about 57k. And it's also hilarious how you're focusing on a city with multiple colleges and ignoring the rest of the state. Like a true lib. Bismarck is in North Dakota, dumbass. I was dismissively making up a CHUD city in the middle of a CHUD state, to follow on from Shitstain, Wyoming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Aren't you people still trying to claim that the people from Pissmark, South Dakota aren't really racist, they're just feeling "economic anxiety"? The fact that you think racism and economic structural realities aren't deeply intertwined is at the center of your delusion, Fulchrum. It makes you come off as a whiny sore loser. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Centrist: We can't do anything progressive because too much of the country is racist Clearly his argument is that electoralism isn't the way to radical change
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Bismarck is in North Dakota, dumbass. I was dismissively making up a CHUD city in the middle of a CHUD state, to follow on from Shitstain, Wyoming. You made me look up how ND voted since Clinton and  abuela flailed hard there after Obama cleaned up 2 cycles in a row. So thanks for that, puppet master.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Ok but the city of Verycoolsville, MS is 0% white and has an average annual household income of 5 and supported bernie over Hillary so
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:44
|
|
|
The weird thing about the logic folks like Fulchrum use is that, using their standards, it is impossible to ever support or approve of a politician or political movement that isn't already dominant and holding office (though for some reason mainstream Dems who lose are not subject to this same rationale). Because he uses the fact that they haven't already won as "evidence" that they're worse (and would let Republicans win or something), there is never a circumstance where he would support a non-status quo political movement. It's like it never occurs to them how bizarre this is, and how their logic would have resulted in opposing all sorts of important historical political movements. I wish they would just be honest about disagreeing with the political goals of the radical left; at least there's room for a discussion there. Their various comments heavily implying that material inequality isn't a real (or at least serious) problem basically hint at their real ideology (which is basically a desire to defend the status quo against Republicans). It's easier to discuss politics with actual libertarians or conservatives, because at least they make their ideological disagreement explicit. Discussing things with Fulchrum's brand of liberal is some bizarre exercise where you have to work around the convoluted logic scheme they've constructed to oppose anything outside of the status quo. Usually if you boil things down, the core issue with their logic is that they demand this absurd/impossible level of proof for the efficacy of any departure from the status quo, while treating the liberal status quo as the default that requires an impossible level of proof that it's not the optimal option. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Back the gently caress up several steps there - what important political movements ever gained any form of power directly against the wishes of a majority of the population, without ever bothering to try and change the populations views first? Apart from minority rule dictatorships?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 06:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Back the gently caress up several steps there - what important political movements ever gained any form of power directly against the wishes of a majority of the population, without ever bothering to try and change the populations views first? Apart from minority rule dictatorships? The Civil Rights Movement, which topped at ~39% white approval, didn’t meaningfully seek out to convince white people to not be racist or poo poo, it just made it publicly embarrassing for the United States to continue legal apartheid despite most white people either supporting said apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The Civil Rights Movement, which topped at ~39% white approval, didn’t meaningfully seek out to convince white people to not be racist or poo poo, it just made it publicly embarrassing for the United States to continue legal apartheid despite most white people either supporting said apartheid. Actually, yes it loving did. The movement was overwhelmingly concerned with optics and swaying people to their side. For fucks sake, you think that 39% just happened? That's incredibly disrespectful to their hard work. Do you have any idea how many women they rejected making an issue over til they got to Rosa Parks? And I didn't say the white population. What were the movements approval rates for the total population? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Back the gently caress up several steps there - what important political movements ever gained any form of power directly against the wishes of a majority of the population, without ever bothering to try and change the populations views first? Apart from minority rule dictatorships? twodot posted:Even if we were to agree that a majority of Democrats want Clinton's policies over Sanders, the correct reaction to that is to support more leftists politicians to move the Overton window left, and pick up more voters by convincing them leftist policies are good. You don't observe that Republicans won the last election, so we need to start doing Republican things, because that's loving stupid. Fulchrum posted:No, the correct thing to do is to let the people choose the candidate they want, just as we did in 2016. Besides, leftists portraying hostility to the establishment and a lack of funding as a feature, not a bug, can't whip around and then demand they still get establishment support and money. Also just lol at "The results of 2016 were good, and we should repeat them". twodot fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
twodot posted:Uh, I literally argued in favor of changing the population's views and you fought me: Wait, are you saying that the party itself should favor these views and politicians, or you as an individual?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Wait, are you saying that the party itself should favor these views and politicians, or you as an individual? edit: Perhaps you are implying you yourself are the party incarnate? twodot fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you think I'm a member of the party itself, or the party itself incarnate such that "we" would include "the party itself"? I'm saying I dont care who you support in the primary, but if they lose, suck it up, and if you dont like nominee, blame the person you supported for being poo poo. Then think about why they're poo poo, then maybe dont support someone poo poo next time. Even if it's the same person, so long as they have figured out why they were poo poo. The party as a whole has no reason to move left unless there is repeated demonstrable political success by leftist candidates. And I will remind you, one person is not repeated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:The party as a whole has no reason to move left unless there is repeated demonstrable political success by leftist candidates. edit: This conversation is very funny to me. I'm saying "If politicians aren't willing to help people, why bother to support them?". You're saying "Democrats will never commit to helping people who need it, you should support them anyways". Like I'm totally willing to believe you when you say Democrats have no interest in solving actual problems, but it doesn't really build an argument in favor of voting for them. twodot fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:23
|
|
|
As long as you disregard electoral success, you'll never BE in a position to help anybody. At best you'll be like if the Greens didn't have Putins hand up their rear end, in a world of unchecked unopposed Republican rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:As long as you disregard electoral success, you'll never BE in a position to help anybody. At best you'll be like if the Greens didn't have Putins hand up their rear end, in a world of unchecked unopposed Republican rule.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
Fulchrum: "Well you tried your hardest and failed. The important lesson is: never try."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'm saying I dont care who you support in the primary, but if they lose, suck it up, and if you dont like nominee, blame the person you supported for being poo poo. I'm not really feeling motivated to follow this dictum, given that I live in California and me voting for a third party is probably not going to hand the state to the GOP. (particularly in this senatorial election) My vote is probably put to better use reminding establishment Dems that they are poo poo and need to get out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 07:57
|
|
|
Didn’t Bernie voters flock to Hillary? I didn’t because Benghazi, but I’m pretty sure a majority of Bernie people nutted up and went HRC in the general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:51
|
|
|
Dirk Pitt posted:Didn’t Bernie voters flock to Hillary? I didn’t because Benghazi, but I’m pretty sure a majority of Bernie people nutted up and went HRC in the general. 90% of them at last check, significantly higher than Hillary voters that went on to vote Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:90% of them at last check, significantly higher than Hillary voters that went on to vote Obama. So it appears to me that Fulchrum is projecting after the PUMA crew let their feelings be known in 2008. Dirk Pitt fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
90% of those who voted, a point you keep trying real hard to ignore. No numbers on those who stayed home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
Anyone got that collation of DNC ads ran during the primary that happened to only feature Hillary? Bit of a coincidence, that, must be totally unrelated to how Hillary's campaign had veto rights over all DNC communique.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 11:32
|
|
|
How many of them came after Bernie lost any real chance of winning and was just hanging in out of spite?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 11:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Hell, we know this from recent history. 2004 election came down to one thing - gay marriage. Bush was against it, Kerry wasn't. Was gay marriage the right thing to do? Irrelevant in this instance, because the electorate was heavily against gay marriage. The dems moved faster than the population, however, and they got their asses handed to them. hey fulchrum, as a bisexual poster let me personally say gently caress you you're a gigantic piece of crap and it's hosed that you think doing the right thing should wait for political expediency
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hey fulchrum, as a bisexual poster let me personally say gently caress you Please tell me why getting George W. Bush re-elected was a good thing, according to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Please tell me why getting George W. Bush re-elected was a good thing, according to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Please tell me why getting George W. Bush re-elected was a good thing, according to you. gently caress you fulchrum stick up for homophobes and oppression elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
I'm not the one saying it was a good thing that an oppressive homophobe like George W. Bush was re-elected. You are. Seems to me like you're sticking up for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
The only person who can stop a bad homophobe is a good homophobe, thank you for this jewel of moral philosophy, Fulchrum
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
Or in the context of your dumb as poo poo example, Kerry had a better platform than Bush, so it would have been better for the people had he won. To win and ensure his platform would be implemented, he should have abandoned his platform and adopted the Bush platform. Genius!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 13:49
|
|
|
Imagine how much progress Democrats could make if gays had no rights, women couldn't vote, and slavery was still legal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Imagine how much progress Democrats could make if gays had no rights, women couldn't vote, and slavery was still legal. Then they could appoint a blue ribbon commission to study the matter (hey, we're clearly better than the other guys.) The Democrats don't actually have any core values beyond maintaining the destructive status quo but be willing to give up on some social issues if there is a political cost of not doing so. Their only defense is that the other guys are worse (or they really hope they are). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 14:02 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 13:59
|
|
