|
Harik posted:I know why our poo poo media is doing it. I'm calling it out here, on these forums, where people should know better. It wasn't pence she was helping though, it was some other guy. Daines, for his daughter's wedding.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Harik posted:I know why our poo poo media is doing it. I'm calling it out here, on these forums, where people should know better. It wasn't pence she was helping though, it was some other guy. It was Daines for his daughter's wedding but had she voted 'no' Daines wouldn't have had to come back, Pence would have had to come over and break the tie. So like it wasn't even helping out some misogynist rear end in a top hat attend a family event, it was just giving political cover to Mike Pence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:This would actually be so much funnier than them voting R considering how many Trump thread guys have screamed at me for pages on end about how there's literally nothing worse than not voting. Except they're not the same people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It was Daines for his daughter's wedding but had she voted 'no' Daines wouldn't have had to come back, Pence would have had to come over and break the tie. If Daines was there, She could have stuck to her No, let him get confirmed anyway after putting Manchin on the spot where he could either vote Yes and be the confirming vote, or No and be the one who forced a tie. Then both sides could point the finger at him and Collins gets off scott-free. I can't see it as anything other than not forcing Daines to have a helicopter land next to the bridal party as soon as the vows were said whisking him back for his vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Motto posted:I also don't want to drag it out there but "dedicated Republican/lazy Democrat bases" is such a weird narrative that feels like taking D&D arguments as representative of general voting patterns. It's a narrative that functions as a coping mechanism in the face of (often extremely obvious) unravelling of democratic processes no one will address out of fear of rocking the boat too hard that it costs them material and political power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Harik posted:Look at all that republican personal responsibility. It's my vote that made it happen, not any of the unpopular policies put forward by the slate of unpopular candidates being run by the party too stupid to know how the loving elections work. This is a good post, and highlights something that has always bugged me about the people who rant about non-voters. Even if you believe their choice is sub-optimal (and I even kinda agree in the sense that "vote blue no matter who" sorta makes sense as a harm reduction thing), this stuff doesn't just randomly happen. There's a reason people aren't voting, and the only way that will change is through choices the party itself makes. People aren't going to suddenly decide to start voting for candidates they didn't like before just because enough people make arguments about why voting for the lesser evil is optimal. Paracaidas posted:Fair enough? Not trying to cause you poo poo, just haven't seen any NeverBern posts so I'm wondering what I'm missing. The most common attitude isn't usually direct opposition to Sanders, since there isn't really any way to do this while retaining the appearance of being remotely left-ish in politics. It usually consists of just repeatedly concern trolling about various issues people are "worried" about (concerns that, for some strange reason, are never expressed - or at least remotely to the same degree - towards other more mainstream candidates). As I said in the thread, it's basically setting the stage for people to "reasonably" decide that, even though they like Bernie, maybe (insert whoever becomes the other main 2020 candidate) is a better choice. I actually don't think this opposition to Bernie is usually directly a policy thing, at least with the sort of person I'm referencing (since there are actual centrist types who are directly opposed to his politics, but I don't think they're very common on this subforum). While I think these people don't really care much if Bernie-style social democratic policy is passed, I also don't think they're particularly opposed to it. I think it's more of a personality/culture thing, where they are just completely unwilling to be enthusiastically supportive of a candidate the dreaded leftists are also enthusiastic towards. I think they have the presence of mind to not rally behind someone quite as bad as Biden or Booker, but Harris/Gillibrand are definitely possible (especially once the campaign season media spins start popping up and providing prefabricated counter-arguments for left-wing criticism of them, like they did back during 2016). Majorian posted:You don't know what Freep or Stormfront are if you think this. I think Skex is different than many of the other "anti-leftist derangement syndrome" D&D posters, in that his opinion seems to just be heavily influenced by being an older person who has spent far longer exposed to negative stereotypes of the radical left (and also longer learning to associate attacks against Democrats with people being Republican). He actually bothers me less than some other posters, I think because his particular brand of anti-leftist thought will die out with older generations (and is also just kind of goofy and exaggerated, like with that bizarre Malcom X comparison from a while back).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
I'm never ever going to let that Malcom X thing go because holy poo poo it's offensive if you've ever watched his speeches past the clips they use in bad documentaries. People really need a refresher on the civil rights movement that isn't whitewashed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:I'm never ever going to let that Malcom X thing go because holy poo poo it's offensive if you've ever watched his speeches past the clips they use in bad documentaries. I thought Eyes on the Prize was good, but I'm not sure how it compares to what else is out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
Or maybe people genuinely hold a different opinion than you  You disagreeing with someone's reasoning, arguments, or concerns doesn't make them invalid. That you don't find them compelling doesn't make them pretextual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Harik posted:Why does Murkowski keep getting a pass for voting Yes after her state told her not to and she promised not to? Because I didn’t remember who that was/know they did that but also gently caress that person. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
Murkowski unlike Collins and Machin also didn’t attention whore for this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is tromp thread making the "plantation" line keep coming to mind?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
I want to read the post about pragmatic liberal Malcom X.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
Harik posted:Why the gently caress is tromp thread making the "plantation" line keep coming to mind? No, that's not right. "Democratic Plantation" is a lie about the welfare state. What's the one that's basically "Minority voters are captive voters that we can ignore because who the gently caress are they going to turn to, republicans?" Because that's what I keep thinking of in the Trump thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 06:43
|
|
|
Harik posted:No, that's not right. "Democratic Plantation" is a lie about the welfare state. What's the one that's basically "Minority voters are captive voters that we can ignore because who the gently caress are they going to turn to, republicans?" Why do people unironically accept right wing framing like this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 06:45
|
|
|
Harik posted:No, that's not right. "Democratic Plantation" is a lie about the welfare state. What's the one that's basically "Minority voters are captive voters that we can ignore because who the gently caress are they going to turn to, republicans?" The kind of irritating thing is that I can partially understand where their arguments are coming from; basically they're arguing that not voting for Democrats is bad because it's allowing the additional people who suffer under Republicans to do so. Sorta like not pulling a switch that would save some lives, or something (though that analogy is flawed in that an individual's choice to vote in most cases doesn't have a direct impact, and they're ignoring the influence actual politicians/media have over the situation). In their minds, non-voters are privileged people who are willing to let others suffer in order to satisfy their own goals (which are portrayed as being relatively insignificant or unrealistic). And this mental image makes them really angry! The problem is that there are obvious limits to this logic that most people would agree with. For example, I don't think any non-lovely person would get mad at a black person for not voting for an openly racist politician, even if they were technically the lesser evil. Or at the very least they certainly wouldn't condemn them for it, even if they still think voting is technically optimal in that situation. And this is basically the same principle behind some of the people who don't vote for Democrats; if you're living a poo poo life under the status quo and the Democrats are hostile towards attempts to improve that, I'm sure as hell not going to chastise you for not actively giving them your support. And I'm going to be extremely suspicious about the priorities of anyone who gets super irritated and angry at such people, particularly when they rarely (if ever) show such negative sentiment towards actual party leadership/politicians (people who, you know, have actual power). Another thing I notice is people acting like suffering is something that only, or primarily, happens under Republicans (or as a result of Republican rule). But this is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of suffering and injustice that takes place in our country (or as a result of our country's actions) would also take place under Democratic leadership. Like, that is an undeniable fact. The Republicans may be undeniably worse, but at the end of the day most bad things are a result of bipartisan elements of the status quo. Paracaidas posted:Or maybe people genuinely hold a different opinion than you I can absolutely truly state that their concerns aren't reasonable, at least in the greater context of the primary and potential participants; this isn't a subjective thing. The downsides they present are unequivocally minor and irrelevant relative to the advantages Sanders has over the current alternatives, and my point about them selectively choosing to only care about such downsides with that one specific politician is also true (the selectively targeted nature of these doubts and "concerns" is probably the biggest solid proof that they aren't just genuine feelings someone spontaneously had). I'm not claiming that they're making some concerted/intentional effort to discredit or discourage the idea of a Sanders run, but rather that they're seeking justifications for a pre-existing desire to not support him (and given some of these people even have a history of butting heads with the left in these threads, this is a pretty natural conclusion to arrive at).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Why do people unironically accept right wing framing like this? Me or the trump thread people who keep insisting that party loyalty is mandatory?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
Harik posted:No, that's not right. "Democratic Plantation" is a lie about the welfare state. What's the one that's basically "Minority voters are captive voters that we can ignore because who the gently caress are they going to turn to, republicans?" I was listening to the Citations Needed ep on The West Wing earlier today and they played an excerpt where one of the lead characters straight up said more or less that, lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Motto posted:I was listening to the Citations Needed ep on The West Wing earlier today and they played an excerpt where one of the lead characters straight up said more or less that, lol Except when I found out IRL that toby wasn't wrong when the sonic boom of the secret military shuttle landing woke me up
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
Harik posted:No, that's not right. "Democratic Plantation" is a lie about the welfare state. What's the one that's basically "Minority voters are captive voters that we can ignore because who the gently caress are they going to turn to, republicans?" It's called mainstream Dem establishment thought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I can absolutely truly state that their concerns aren't reasonable, at least in the greater context of the primary and potential participants; this isn't a subjective thing. The downsides they present are unequivocally minor and irrelevant relative to the advantages Sanders has over the current alternatives, and my point about them selectively choosing to only care about such downsides with that one specific politician is also true (the selectively targeted nature of these doubts and "concerns" is probably the biggest solid proof that they aren't just genuine feelings someone spontaneously had). I'm not claiming that they're making some concerted/intentional effort to discredit or discourage the idea of a Sanders run, but rather that they're seeking justifications for a pre-existing desire to not support him (and given some of these people even have a history of butting heads with the left in these threads, this is a pretty natural conclusion to arrive at). It must be comforting, to have such certainty that people who disagree with you do so on pretext, rather than for mundane reasons like "having different experiences" or "coming at things from a different perspective" or "genuinely caring about things I find 'minor and 'irrelevant'". Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 13:07
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The unearned confidence you have in your ability to divine the true intent of those who disagree with you is at once remarkable and enviable. "wlel, that's his beliefs, and have to respect that" is a recipe for never being able to call your opponents wrong, friend. try it! just once, allow yourself to consider the possibility that your opponent is engaging in bad faith. a whole new world will open to you!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:29
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:"wlel, that's his beliefs, and have to respect that" is a recipe for never being able to call your opponents wrong, friend.  opinions can be both genuinely held and completely wrong
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
if you'd prefer to just call them morons, that's also an option
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Here's my quixotic repost about strategy and marketing: I'm proposing this as a way of divining political strategy at a more abstract level. It feels like a problem we ran into at my old job. I used to work for one of the Big Two Standardized Testing Companies. We had a test that was for high school juniors and seniors, a college admissions/readiness test, one of the three-letter-acronym ones. I was in the marketing department. Well, when test registration deadlines were approaching, we'd send out millions of emails to high school juniors and seniors, ostensibly to market this test to them. That's right: we were charged with selling a standardized test to high school kids, the people who are most resistant to wanting to engage with that content or that product. There were two schools of thought: 1. Tell them about the benefits of our test. Every college in the US accepts it! You can choose which of your scores you send, to which colleges! You can...tell us what you're interested in! 2. You sell them on what college gets them. You sell them on fun late nights talking with friends in the dorm. You sell them on meeting people who care about the same things they do. You sell them on higher lifetime earnings. You sell them on competition to get the best score. Those are two fundamentally different approaches. One seeks to, essentially, make better customers for standardized tests out of loving high schoolers, which to me seems like a loving stupid approach. No high schooler gives a gently caress if every college in the US accepts your test, right? That's like saying your car comes with FOUR, COUNT 'EM FOUR WHEELS. The other approach, number 2 up there, took it for granted that it was a miserable loving gate they had to get through to get the things they really wanted. It accepted them as they are, and did not have any illusions about how excited (or not) they would be for a loving standardized test, a high stakes one that they dreaded because it meant they could or could not more easily get to college. Which do you think would work better? To me, it's obvious. You go to market with the message you think will appeal to the people where they are. This thread [edit: The Trump Thread], however, seems like they'd be intent on the first strategy, by and large, for reasons that are still mystifying to me today except when understood as a strong ideological, partisan preference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
Is the world just or unjust? We report, you decide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
I want to say thank you for the well thought out post and analysis selec, idk why it goes over so poorly in that thread. I think SA in general has an issue with status quo conservatism masquerading as reasonable common sense. Notice how worked up people get about topics like Israel/Palestine, BadDems/GoodDems, Gunhaving/gun grabbing. There are crazies on both sides of these debates, for sure, but the ones seeking to shut down debate/quarantine it to specific threads always seem to be on the Israel/BadDems/Gunhaving side.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:I want to say thank you for the well thought out post and analysis selec, idk why it goes over so poorly in that thread. I've said it before, we need a Dems Are Good thread, and enforce it like we do any Dems Are Bad, because it will shake out the obvious thing that I think I'm seeing, which is that really it's not even Dems Are Good, it's just Dems Are, and any opinion about why/what they Are isn't allowed except for crowing when it gets you what you want. It's basically a TV/IV thread in there where you are only allowed to observe/cheer for Walter White/Don Draper, and any discussion that veers from that even to ask why they did what they did isn't allowed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
selec posted:Here's my quixotic repost about strategy and marketing: Those strategies aren't exclusive is the thing; rather they're mutually reinforcing. It's fine both to yell at individual people and to push for systemic change. It's both the responsibility of candidates to Be Better and the responsibility of voters to Be Better. Ultimately candidates bear a greater share of that responsibility but sometimes people just want to scream at the idiots who think "hurf durf I dunno I don't want to endorse the system by voting in it" is morally valid. Or from another angle: right now, the Republicans control all the system levers. Democrats can't (for example) make Puerto Rico a state right now (to shift the Senate's representation issue) or abolish photo ID requirements or pass a new VRA at the federal level. So the tools Democrats (and leftists and progressives) have right now are pretty much limited to the rhetorical -- how do we motivate progressives to get to the polls? And one way to do that is by espousing better policies (i.e., Medicare for all, "let's make PR a state!", etc) , another way is by yelling at individual people, and both should be attempted. There's room for both carrot and stick here. selec posted:It's basically a TV/IV thread in there Yeah, that's basically where the people in the Trump Thread are, for better or worse. That's what a lot of the posters in that thread basically want it to be: a TVIV thread for the Trump Reality Show. I think most people reading the Trump Thread have it bookmarked and are just checking it to stay current on the Trump News of the Day and to make random posts about barbecue or whatever. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:35
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:hey skex can you remind us what your stance on vote-splitters is again My position on vote splitting is that it's loving stupid. Just like voluntarily disenfranchising is. As far as the Cortez thing goes, she won the primary and everyone should vote for her which is perfectly loving consistent with my vote straight D every time (though I don't vote straight ticket because I live in Texas so there isn't always a D to vote for and in those cases I'll vote for whoever is not R) Anyone who votes for Crowley deserves just as much grief as those who don't vote because the Democrat in the election doesn't pass their personal purity test. This really isn't complicated at all. You vote your heart in the primary, you vote D in the general with the understanding that you can't accomplish poo poo to improve peoples lives unless you have power and the path to power in the United States runs through the two parties. Revolution isn't on the table regardless of how much you want it to be. Plus even if it was it's far from a forgone conclusion that it would result in the outcome that you desire while it is certain that a lot of people would end up suffering and dying one way or another. Also I will reiterate that not one of you have provided examples of any concrete things that you are doing to achieve your long-term goals. The choice at this point isn't between your ideal and the current Democrats, it's between the current Democrats (who have already started moving left) and the Republicans who oppose everything that you claim to believe in and are actively working to cement their political power by disenfranchising the very people who you claim to care about. Also just because you vote strategically doesn't mean that you can't do other things to advance your goals. The Panthers were so successful in their activism that that Fascist gently caress Hoover declared them public enemy 1. Every advance in history to improve the lives of people has been purchased through blood, sweat, tears and lives. Abandoning the field to the Republicans is an insult to their sacrifices and sets us back on all issues because now when or more precisely if we get back into a position where we can make changes we have to make up the lost ground before we can start working towards more progress. The Right is currently trying to turn the clock on social progress 150 years and priority one for everyone on the Left (and yes liberals are Leftists) should be removing them from power. Once that's accomplished we can fight over the best way forward. BTW I will note that every 2020 contender on the Democratic side has come out in favor of MFA, however their ability to deliver on that promise is predicated on control of the house and Senate and due to how the Senate works whoever wins this year's election will be in office for the next President's first term. Not to mention that down ballot races will be instrumental in how new districts are drawn in the wake of the 2020 census so control over those state governments is critical to ensuring that the Republicans cannot gerrymander themselves into power for another decade. The political Left really needs to learn how to be effective in the acquisition and use of political power. Also on this whole "just gonna wait for the revolution" bullshit I'll remind you that the political Left in the United States has chosen to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm so its not like we're prepared to go to actual war and don't fool yourself a revolution is a war so hoping for it is really loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:39
|
|
|
Skex posted:
Source your quotes I loving love it when these Smartest Minds In The Room turn out be totally loving politically illiterate why should we listen to you when you're showing us how dumb you are You say "ideal vs current Democrats" as if any leftist agrees with Liberal ideology. These aren't matters of purity, anyone on the left has irreconcilable disagreements with liberals, as if our ideologies are mutually exclusive. Phi230 fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
The biggest issue I have with the BadDems thread is they constantly state that there are structural issues that prevent good Dems from winning the Senate by running on good policies, because there are simply too many red states. As if red states are a thing that exist in nature, unconnected to politics or ideology, and the Democrats are powerless to change that. The idea of being able to win voters over, like, Appalachia, or the upper Midwest or whatever is just completely unexamined, despite those places being regular dem strongholds even after the civil rights act drove re-alignment. There’s basically no credence given to the power of political parties to change opinions or realign voting patterns despite that being exactly how a lot of those places turned red in the first place. Democrats simply have no way to appeal to rural voters and the only option is to run lovely candidates for them and wait for them to die off or move to cities and become liberals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Skex posted:This really isn't complicated at all. You vote your heart in the primary, you vote D in the general with the understanding that you can't accomplish poo poo to improve peoples lives unless you have power and the path to power in the United States runs through the two parties. Hey dumbshit, have you at all planned on addressing the fact that this strategy literally contradicts itself if people actually followed it? E: YOLOsubmarine posted:The biggest issue I have with the BadDems thread is they constantly state that there are structural issues that prevent good Dems from winning the Senate by running on good policies, because there are simply too many red states. As if red states are a thing that exist in nature, unconnected to politics or ideology, and the Democrats are powerless to change that. The idea of being able to win voters over, like, Appalachia, or the upper Midwest or whatever is just completely unexamined, despite those places being regular dem strongholds even after the civil rights act drove re-alignment. It's because having a buncha conservative shits with D next to their names is useful as an excuse for the Dem leadership to not do anything that might inconvenience the capitalist class. This poo poo you describe is just another entry in an endless list of excuses for why it just has to be this way. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Under this plan of "incrementalism now, incrementalism tomorrow, incrementalism forever" how many years do you ballpark it would take to completely transform the economy, destroying ~1/3-1/2 of it, and remaking the remainder into a new globally compliant system? Neoliberalism by 2040!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Those strategies aren't exclusive is the thing; rather they're mutually reinforcing. It's fine both to yell at individual people and to push for systemic change. It's both the responsibility of candidates to Be Better and the responsibility of voters to Be Better. Ultimately candidates bear a greater share of that responsibility but sometimes people just want to scream at the idiots who think "hurf durf I dunno I don't want to endorse the system by voting in it" is morally valid. Hey, thanks for the earnest response. This is a good post. I would say that the strategies aren't exclusive, but rather the second one (offer better candidates and policies) is what you use to get the first one (make a better set of voters) done. Accept that voting is inconvenient, even difficult if you're poor, and that this is the basic state of affairs until we can make real fixes to the system. Just go in with that knowledge: voting is hard, and by default people do not do it. Now: how do you overcome that? You make it so attractive to vote that no matter how hard it is, people will do it. To go back to the standardized test example, you accept that testing sucks, but you make it an important gate most people have to get through to get into college. People really, really want to go to college, enough that they will go through the misery of a standardized test, sometimes multiple times, to be able to get it. I think the central problem the Democrats face is that what "college" is or looks like in this metaphor is absolutely not clear. What's on offer? Can you frame it in a way that a typical non-voter would step on their own mother's face to get it? Until you've got that locked down, you're going to see similar results to what you've seen previously. Make it so goddamn simple what you get by voting Democrat that it's self evidently the most obvious thing people are gonna want to do. You gotta promise the pony. You gotta promise the free stuff. You don't get people to vote by saying "Hey, not only does voting suck, but you're going to need to use this Excel sheet to figure out what if anything you get for voting for us." Especially when the other side is already employing the advertising scheme I'm describing. We all hate Trump, but it was never a problem for him to promise the world, and tell them who their enemies were. If you aren't willing to do that, you aren't willing to win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:The biggest issue I have with the BadDems thread is they constantly state that there are structural issues that prevent good Dems from winning the Senate by running on good policies, because there are simply too many red states. As if red states are a thing that exist in nature, unconnected to politics or ideology, and the Democrats are powerless to change that. The idea of being able to win voters over, like, Appalachia, or the upper Midwest or whatever is just completely unexamined, despite those places being regular dem strongholds even after the civil rights act drove re-alignment. Universal healthcare is above 50% popularity in like every state so why cant dems run on it, even in conservative states?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:Universal healthcare is above 50% popularity in like every state so why cant dems run on it, even in conservative states? The secret is that Dems are ideologically driven to not support Universal Healthcare
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Skex posted:My position on vote splitting is that it's loving stupid. Just like voluntarily disenfranchising is. ah-ah-ah, Skex. dodging the question. what do we say about vote-splitters. the people who willfully attempt to split the vote away from the democratic party's candidate. are they our enemies, Skex. is Joe Crowley your enemy. or is he your ally in the fight against those disgusting Leftists. he is not both, you see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:21
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:ah-ah-ah, Skex. dodging the question. what do we say about vote-splitters. Come 2020 Skex is gonna bitch and moan about how leftists made him vote for Trump
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
selec posted:What's on offer? Can you frame it in a way that a typical non-voter would step on their own mother's face to get it? Until you've got that locked down, you're going to see similar results to what you've seen previously. Yeah, that's all fair. There are a very few Democrats that do seem to get this (AOC, to a lesser extent Beto), but most of the establishment democrats and almost all Democrats over age 50 still give every appearance of just not caring that much about actually winning races; the most charitable interpretation is that they're all still mentally locked in the Reagan Era and the much more probable explanation is that they're interested in lining their own pockets.At the broader systemic level yes absolutely progressives and socialists need to be running for office and winning primaries by taking the heads of establishment dinosaurs. AOC is a great potential model and the various groups backing her have shown us how that can be done. At at individual voter level in the current reality, though -- that's an explanation for low voter turnout, not an excuse for it. Like, I work with disadvantaged populations, and do a certain amount of voter-rights education and voter registration as part of my work. I know how many people get hosed over hard by photo ID requirements, etc. But end of the day . . . until the current Republican party is forced out, no one is in a position to listen to those excuses or ameliorate them; the only option that individual people have is to leap the hurdles thrust at them anyway and vote anyway. We have to walk over the broken glass and get to the polls anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:23
|
|