USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

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.

no, you're the one saying that the lgbtq community should've been thrown under the bus cause you think pandering to homophobia would've increased the dems' chances. you're the one saying the dems should've oppressed the lgbtq community more cause you think it would've won them the election. gently caress you you piece of poo poo

Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Aug 7, 2018

# ? Aug 7, 2018 14:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 23:56

Iron Twinkie: Apr 20, 2001; BOOP

There is no future for the Democrats in appealing to the millions of Obama voters that stayed home and there is absolutely no future in presenting a vision that can energize and include half the country that is too alienated, disenfranchised, and beat down to bother with this poo poo anymore. The only future for Democrats is in supporting theocratic white supremacy so they can shave off the Proud Boys and Neo Nazis in the Panera Breads across America that also want brunch to be great again.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 14:42

Motto: Aug 3, 2013

Fulchrum rapidly approaching being one of those guys who was all "dems responding to the bathroom issue caused trump"

# ? Aug 7, 2018 14:43

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!: May 31, 2006

Motto posted:

Fulchrum rapidly approaching being one of those guys who was all "dems responding to the bathroom issue caused trump"

"approaching"

the only question remains to see if he will go full JeffersonClay and start blaming the party's loss on its foolish mistake in treating black people as human

# ? Aug 7, 2018 15:30

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Majorian posted:

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.

Nah what they did, was they sent some people around to ask the locals "excuse me are you racist?" And it turns out a lot of people - most people, in fact - answered "yes". Then they looked at the economic situation there like median income, etc., and while it's absolutely true that the wealth of the area, like anywhere else, is being sucked dry by global capital, in the meantime the white folks there are doing okay: median household income is like $98,000. Therefore it is imperative that Bernie Sanders - who I will remind you isn't even a Democrat - never be President and furthermore that the Democrats focus solely on fighting for more diverse CEOs and boardrooms.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 16:48

MSDOS KAPITAL: Jun 25, 2018

Nancy Pelosi is going to remain the leader of the Democrats in the House - and by extension the putative leader of Democrats nationally (because they aren't winning the Presidency again) until it's literally just the handful of remaining Democrats trying to eke out meaning from the movements of her desiccated corpse as it sways in the wind.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 16:51

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

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?

See, this is the point where you're making a bunch of baseless assumptions - namely that no one is trying to change the population's views. Clearly progress is being made on that front, since the left is far more prominent than it was in the recent past. Heck, you can even call discussions in threads like this "trying to change peoples' views." It's also very highly questionable whether certain left-wing ideas even don't have majority support in the first place; it's basically impossible to get a "genuine" figure on this, with opinions varying wildly depending upon how the poll in question is phrased. Most people probably fit in the "don't know" category for most policies. At the end of the day, there's no way to really confirm if your idea has majority support unless there's a really huge gap in polling (like 80% supporting something or being against it).

Also, there is obviously nothing wrong with believing something is right and trying to make it happen even if it doesn't yet have majority support. For some reason I rarely see people like you making these same arguments when, for example, the government increases military spending (i.e. "you shouldn't increase it unless polls show a solid majority of people support it!"). It's transparently absurd to expect there to be (sometimes impossible to acquire) proof that literally everything you want the government to do currently has majority support. I think that you realize this on some level, which is why you always try to reframe the argument as some weird "SO YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE" thing.

To use the more recent example of gay marriage, I can guarantee you that it wasn't the people whining at LGBT activists about supporting pro-gay marriage candidates before it gaining majority support that helped it ultimately come to pass. As I said before, if you disagree with the goals of the left, make that argument. Because it is very easy to reframe your attitude in the context of past political movements and immediately identify it as something harmful (or at the very least definitely not helpful).

Fulchrum posted:

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.

As I said before, this argument is absurd because it can be used against literally any political movement that doesn't yet hold power. Using the logic you've expressed in this thread, there is never a point where you won't oppose change to the status quo, because the status quo by definition represents those who currently have the most political success. Also, there have been multiple examples of more left-wing candidates victories (not sure where you got the idea there's only one), but that's irrelevant, because even if there weren't it's still important for individual citizens to speak for their cause. How else do you expect it to become more popular in the first? Your view is also bizarrely amoral and completely ignores that there's inherent value to electing left-wing candidates.

edit: Basically, a world where most people share Fulchrum's views is a world where every political movement is snuffed out in its crib, because they would all be immediately opposed due to not spontaneously manifesting with majority support.

Fulchrum posted:

Please tell me why getting George W. Bush re-elected was a good thing, according to you.

hahah holy poo poo, is he actually arguing that supporting gay marriage was a bad thing and lost the 2004 election? Does this guy think that people just spontaneously change their views? Like the Civil Rights Movement was only acceptable because a bunch of people spontaneously changed their mind (because it certainly couldn't be because of years of activism - those activists were evil after all, what with Opposing The Will Of The Majority).

Main Paineframe posted:

He's also wrong. Kerry opposed gay marriage in 2004. Fulchrum has either either forgotten or deliberately obfuscated where the "gay marriage hurt Kerry" narrative came from, because it's far more vile than that.

I suspected this might be the case, since 2004 seemed kind of early for a Democratic presidential candidate to support gay marriage.

Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Aug 7, 2018

# ? Aug 7, 2018 17:03

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Condiv posted:

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

He's also wrong. Kerry opposed gay marriage in 2004. Fulchrum has either either forgotten or deliberately obfuscated where the "gay marriage hurt Kerry" narrative came from, because it's far more vile than that.

It came from anti-gay centrists who proposed that civil rights advances that had absolutely nothing to do with Kerry (such as the MA Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in the state) had swung the election by pissing off GOP voters, and therefore Kerry's loss was entirely the fault of the uppity minorities who refused to entirely abandon their quest for equal rights during an election year.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 17:35

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Main Paineframe posted:

He's also wrong. Kerry opposed gay marriage in 2004. Fulchrum has either either forgotten or deliberately obfuscated where the "gay marriage hurt Kerry" narrative came from, because it's far more vile than that.

It came from anti-gay centrists who proposed that civil rights advances that had absolutely nothing to do with Kerry (such as the MA Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in the state) had swung the election by pissing off GOP voters, and therefore Kerry's loss was entirely the fault of the uppity minorities who refused to entirely abandon their quest for equal rights during an election year.

i'm not entirely surprised that fulchrum was cribbing notes from homophobes

# ? Aug 7, 2018 18:01

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

If it wasn't for those damned ungrateful [gays/blacks/russians] we'd have won the election!

# ? Aug 7, 2018 18:06

Ghost Leviathan: Mar 2, 2017; Exploration is ill-advised.

Motto posted:

Fulchrum rapidly approaching being one of those guys who was all "dems responding to the bathroom issue caused trump"

I'm reminded of how we still have centrists holding a grudge over Al Franken.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 18:13

Nothus: Feb 22, 2001; Buglord

Main Paineframe posted:

He's also wrong. Kerry opposed gay marriage in 2004. Fulchrum has either either forgotten or deliberately obfuscated where the "gay marriage hurt Kerry" narrative came from, because it's far more vile than that.

It came from anti-gay centrists who proposed that civil rights advances that had absolutely nothing to do with Kerry (such as the MA Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage in the state) had swung the election by pissing off GOP voters, and therefore Kerry's loss was entirely the fault of the uppity minorities who refused to entirely abandon their quest for equal rights during an election year.

I thought it was because right wing activists put anti-gay marriage referenda on the ballots of key states like Ohio to whip up evangelical turnout. Not that it wasn't also used as an excuse to punch left when Kerry lost.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 18:15

Dirk Pitt: Sep 14, 2007; haha yes, this feels good; Toilet Rascal

Ghost Leviathan posted:

I'm reminded of how we still have centrists holding a grudge over Al Franken.

Curious what the intersection is with Hillarymen. Has to be close to 1:1

# ? Aug 7, 2018 18:15

Heck Yes! Loam!: Nov 15, 2004; a rich, friable soil containing a relatively equal mixture of sand and silt and a somewhat smaller proportion of clay.

Ghost Leviathan posted:

I'm reminded of how we still have centrists holding a grudge over Al Franken .

Dirk Pitt posted:

Curious what the intersection is with Hillarymen. Has to be close to 1:1

I can only speak for myself. I was a bernie primary voter, hillary general voter. Hell, I freaking wanted franken to try to run in 2020, and was caught in the cult of personality a bit. As soon as the first accusation broke I wanted him out. It amazes me to this day that people defend him, or say he shouldn't have stepped down. Even if it was a hit job on ONE of the accusations, the other 8-10 weren't.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:04

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

"Was gay marriage the right thing to do? Irrelevant."

fuckin laser blast that onto my tombstone because I'm dead

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:40

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Condiv posted:

whoa fulchrum i can't believe you'd stab abuela in the back like this

Also I liked how Kerry really had nothing in the offering in 2004. He just wanted to draw down in Iraq, he talked about healthcare but made not even the vague bs Obama did, the difference between him and bush on gays was he wouldn't actively be lovely.

Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Aug 7, 2018

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:43

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

Attempting to remove politics from the ethical sphere (an impossibility, politics IS ethics)is the secret true meaning of Third Wayism

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:44

hobotrashcanfires: Jul 24, 2013

Calibanibal posted:

Attempting to remove politics from the ethical sphere (an impossibility, politics IS ethics)is the secret true meaning of Third Wayism

I am ready to walk the path toward mystic calibanibalism

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:51

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

sexpig by night posted:

"Was gay marriage the right thing to do? Irrelevant."

fuckin laser blast that onto my tombstone because I'm dead

Let's be honest, it is an excuse to actually not push on any issue until the public is so overwhelmingly for it (and doesn't cost the wealthy anything) that it nearly impossible not to support it.

That said, I wonder how much politicians actually care about any of this beyond how it affects their career and future kickbacks/rewards.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 19:59

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Nothus posted:

I thought it was because right wing activists put anti-gay marriage referenda on the ballots of key states like Ohio to whip up evangelical turnout. Not that it wasn't also used as an excuse to punch left when Kerry lost.

There were a bunch of those, too, but guess where everyone (including a certain familiar face who's up for reelection this year) stuck the blame? Feinstein straight-up blamed the gays for helping Bush win, and Barney Frank complained that the "mass weddings" in San Francisco were too scary and spooked the straights into opposition.

I've found several articles saying essentially the same thing, including one from the Failing New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/05/politics/campaign/some-democrats-blame-one-of-their-own.html

quote:

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 4 2004 - A year into his job, Mayor Gavin Newsom could hardly be more popular. A survey last weekend put his approval rating among San Franciscans at 80 percent.

Polls show that a mainstay of the Democratic mayor's support has been his stance on same-sex marriage. But with his party reeling from Senator John Kerry's defeat on Tuesday, Mr. Newsom's decision in February to open City Hall to thousands of gay weddings has become a subject of considerable debate among Democrats.

Some in the party were suggesting even before the election that Mr. Newsom had played into President Bush's game plan by inviting a showdown on the divisive same-sex-marriage issue.

Most of the talk has been behind closed doors. But when Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat and Newsom supporter, answered a question about the subject at a news conference outside her San Francisco home on Wednesday, the prickly discussion spilled into the open.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Ms. Feinstein said of the same-sex marriages here. "I think it gave them a position to rally around. I'm not casting a value judgment. I'm just saying I do believe that's what happened."

"So I think that whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon," she added. "And people aren't ready for it."

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who was a witness at the first same-sex marriage at San Francisco City Hall, said she received a flurry of angry e-mail messages on Thursday from people upset about Ms. Feinstein's public dressing down of Mr. Newsom.

The topic was also raised with Mr. Newsom himself at a news conference on Wednesday and when he was a guest on a radio talk show here Thursday morning. He said he had no regrets.

Some of his backers were less restrained. In an interview, Ms. Kendell accused Ms. Feinstein of looking for "easy scapegoats."

"Shame on Senator Feinstein and other Democratic leaders for latching to the most facile and shallow of explanations for the results," she said. "What Mayor Newsom did really accelerated the conversation and the movement, and I will never accept an analysis that says a leader who stands for equality and fairness and who has the courage of his convictions is doing the wrong thing."

One openly gay member of Congress, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, disagreed. Mr. Frank was opposed to the San Francisco weddings from the start and told Mr. Newsom as much before the ceremonies began. He urged the mayor to follow the Massachusetts path, which involved winning approval for the marriages in court before issuing licenses.

In a telephone interview on Thursday, Mr. Frank said he felt vindicated by the election results. In Massachusetts, every state legislator on the ballot who supported gay rights won another term. By contrast, constitutional amendments against gay marriage won handily in 11 states -- including Ohio, an important battleground -- in large part, Mr. Frank said, because of the "spectacle weddings" in San Francisco.

Mr. Frank said Mr. Newsom had helped to galvanize Mr. Bush's conservative supporters in those states by playing into people's fears of same-sex weddings.

Had the Massachusetts approach been followed, he said, "I think there would have been some collateral damage" in the election, but "a lot less."

"The thing that agitated people were the mass weddings," he said, adding, "It was a mistake in San Francisco compounded by people in Oregon, New Mexico and New York. What it did was provoke a lot of fears."

"He created a sense there was chaos," Mr. Frank said of Mr. Newsom, "rather than give us a chance to show, as we have in Massachusetts, that this doesn't mean anything to anyone else."
...

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/GAY-MARRIAGE-Did-issue-help-re-elect-Bush-2677003.php

quote:

GAY MARRIAGE: Did issue help re-elect Bush?

2004-11-04 04:00:00 PDT Washington -- San Francisco did not vote for President Bush, but the pictures of wedded gay and lesbian couples streaming from its City Hall last February may have helped return him to the White House.

Those pictures and a Massachusetts court decision to allow same-sex marriage proved to be, if not political poison for Democratic challenger John Kerry, not exactly a tonic, either.
...
Some, however, fiercely denied that their drive for marriage equality contributed to Kerry's narrow loss. The Massachusetts senator opposed a federal constitutional ban.

"There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that gay marriage tipped the scale in any state," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Others -- from California Sen. Dianne Feinstein to leaders of the Christian right to outside analysts -- disagreed.

Meeting with reporters outside her San Francisco home Wednesday afternoon, Feinstein was asked whether Mayor Gavin Newsom's issuance of marriage licenses -- which Bush cited as a factor in his decision to support a federal constitutional ban -- had caused a problem for Democrats.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Feinstein said. "It gave them a position to rally around. The whole issue has been too much, too fast, too soon."

Several gay leaders insisted, however, that the marriage measures were mostly in states Bush was expected to carry anyway. Even Ohio's measure, they insist, did not hurt Kerry.

They also defended their legal drive for marriage rights, which won a historic victory with the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts last November that ushered in the nation's first same-sex marriages last spring and triggered a national storm over gay and lesbian unions in the middle of a presidential campaign.

"It's hard for me to say Goodridge tipped everything when these folks were making anti-gay law a centerpiece of their strategy since 1996," said Mary Bonauto, the lawyer for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who won the case.
...

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=230634&page=1

quote:

Was Same-Sex Marriage Partly to Blame for Kerry Loss?

WASHINGTON, Nov. 5, 2004 -- When Massachusetts' highest court legalized same-sex marriages and the mayor of San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, it ignited a firestorm across the country.

At the time, some Democrats feared such moves might create a backlash against the Democratic Party in the 2004 election. Today, many Democrats say those fears were realized.

"I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor. "I think it gave them a position to rally around."

Conservatives agree.

"The people behind the lawsuits to strike down marriage in courts have seriously misjudged the views of the American people," said Matt Daniels, president of a public policy group called the Alliance for Marriage.
...

# ? Aug 7, 2018 20:21

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

There isn't enough wood in America for the necessary number of guillotines.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 20:43

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

hobotrashcanfires posted:

I am ready to walk the path toward mystic calibanibalism

You must.... find your own path, brother

# ? Aug 7, 2018 22:13

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Leftists just really, really cannot take even the tiniest bit of criticism, and will rage forever against the basic facts of politics.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 22:50

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Fulchrum posted:

Leftists just really, really cannot take even the tiniest bit of criticism, and will rage forever against the basic facts of politics.

you literally made up a guy's position because you were so busy parroting regressive talking points you didn't stop to think about history you (presumably) lived through, my dude

# ? Aug 7, 2018 22:54

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

sexpig by night posted:

you literally made up a guy's position because you were so busy parroting regressive talking points you didn't stop to think about history you (presumably) lived through, my dude

No, people made up my position. I was simply drawing from the position that the poster attacking me gave. I said it was a bad thing that Kerry lost in 2004. They attacked me, so the only logical position is that they think its good that Kerry lost.

You can't just call history "regressive talking points" because they disagree with your blind belief that taking positions that the bulk of America disagrees on has no form of consequences whatsoever. And then, because you know you don't have the internal strength to give any kind of coherent answer to the question of balancing results with ethics, you just decide its easier to try to reframe it in terms of two options, so you won't have to even consider it.

Dirk Pitt posted:

Curious what the intersection is with Hillarymen. Has to be close to 1:1

In that 0 is close to 1, maybe. Huge amount came from Bernie Bros and people decrying it as :decorum:

, since it was holding Democrats to a standard that Republicans would never meet.

But of course you need to memory hole that poo poo, because you are perfect and good, and no leftist could ever do anything wrong.

Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Aug 7, 2018

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:05

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

lol near everyone who still thinks Al was framed is some #resist loser you loving herb

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:35

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

Leftists just really, really cannot take even the tiniest bit of criticism, and will rage forever against the basic facts of politics.

what other minority groups should be abandoned in service of "the basic facts of politics" fulchrum? black people? immigrants? or is LGBTQ being abandoned enough for you?

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:36

forbidden dialectics: Jul 26, 2005

im very excited to see the hillfolk to twist themselves into mental knots and end up voting for trump in 2020

"ahh so u want trump to WIN i see!!" - fulcrum
/
:goonsay:

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:37

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Condiv posted:

what other minority groups should be abandoned in service of "the basic facts of politics" fulchrum? black people? immigrants? or is LGBTQ being oppressed enough for you?

See? Exactly like I predicted. Dogmatically refusing to even engage in the question and instead preferring to try to reduce it to two extremes.

forbidden dialectics posted:

im very excited to see the hillfolk to twist themselves into mental knots and end up voting for trump in 2020

"ahh so u want trump to WIN i see!!" - fulcrum
/

I don't see why they'll have any problem voting for Corey Booker. I'm more interested to see how many knots the leftists need to twist themselves into to try and claim its everyones fault but theirs that their candidate, who was totally going to win, didn't.

Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Aug 7, 2018

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:40

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

See? Exactly like I predicted. Dogmatically refusing to even engage in the question and instead preferring to try to reduce it to two extremes.

your question is bullshit to cover for you carrying water for homophobes you piece of poo poo. that you are a diehard hillary fan is one of the strongest indictments of her I've ever seen. go gently caress yourself you scumsucking piece of poo poo

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:47

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Condiv posted:

your question is bullshit to cover for you carrying water for homophobes you piece of poo poo. that you are a diehard hillary fan is one of the strongest indictments of her I've ever seen. go gently caress yourself you scumsucking piece of poo poo

Continuing to refuse to engage in the question doesn't seem to disprove that you refuse to engage in the question.

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:51

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

Continuing to refuse to engage in the question doesn't seem to disprove that you refuse to engage in the question.

why would i engage the questions of a homophobic scum sucking sociopath? what would I gain from debating your "oppress gay people for questionable political gain" theory?

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:54

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

So we're back here again. Why do you continue to insist that George W. Bush being re-elected was a good thing for the LGBT community?

# ? Aug 7, 2018 23:59

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

So we're back here again. Why do you continue to insist that George W. Bush being re-elected was a good thing for the LGBT community?

he wasn't elected cause of the gay community so your question is bullshit. it's just a sad, lovely cover for your fygm attitude with regards to the rights of minorities, so you can go gently caress yourself homophobe

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:04

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

AND EVEN IF HE WAS ELECTED CAUSE OF THE GAY COMMUNITY, THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE THE PARTY OF THE DOWNTRODDEN. IF YOU CAN'T GET BEHIND THAT FULCHRUM THEN MARCH RIGHT INTO THE FASCIST REPUBLICAN PARTY WHERE YOU BELONG. THE DEM PARTY SHOULD NOT ABANDON ANY MINORITY GROUP IN THE NAME OF SHEER POLITICAL EXPEDIENCE.

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:10

Motto: Aug 3, 2013

lol at still hanging on to "Bernie Bro" even as a troll

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:11

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

So that's a yes, then, you do believe that its a good thing that George W. Bush was re-elected.

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:12

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Fulchrum posted:

So that's a yes, then, you do believe that its a good thing that George W. Bush was re-elected.

that's a gently caress you. march on into the republican party if you want the LGBTQ and other minority communities to take a back seat to your convenience shithead

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:13

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

condiv thinks its good that hitler was elected, i cannot fathom why and they wont explain themselves

# ? Aug 8, 2018 00:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 23, 2024 23:56

Ytlaya: Nov 13, 2005

Fulchrum posted:

No, people made up my position. I was simply drawing from the position that the poster attacking me gave. I said it was a bad thing that Kerry lost in 2004. They attacked me, so the only logical position is that they think its good that Kerry lost.

Don't lie. This is you:

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.

You are clearly stating that the election came down to gay marriage and it was the reason they lost. You then followed by later saying that Bush was even worse for gay marriage, very obviously implying that it was the wrong decision to support it (which is funny given Kerry didn't even support it).

# ? Aug 8, 2018 01:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL THUNDERDOME: "Democrats Bad" Containment Zone

«‹›217 »