|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. Its all nice and fun to talk about voter suppression in an abstract way such that you can "leap over the hurdles anyway" as if its that easy. Voter suppression works, if it were as easy as you say then voter suppression wouldn't work.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. When you are dealing with mass, consumer-level work like trying to sell a product or get a vote, focusing on an individual conversion is chasing failure. It's common, though! The marketers I worked with would want to drill down into what one individual person who got mad and responded to our marketing email said or experienced. And I would constantly reply to them: is this a valuable use of your time? I don't care about one complaint. I care about 1% of our respondents having the same complaint. Until you can show me 10,000 emails angry about the same thing, this is an absolute waste of your time, and a chase of failure, rather than success. You absolutely cannot think of, or worry about, what one individual voter thinks or does unless the intent of that action is to have an effect at a mass scale; think of Gillum going out with his chief of staff yesterday to chainsaw trees after the storm. That's a political move at an individual level that is intended to have mass scale effects. You keep saying "we have to do this" but the individual voters are not the problem. The inability or unwillingness of the democrats to craft a set of policies and messages, and find candidates who can credibly spread them, is the problem. You cannot care about the people who don't buy the product except as a challenge to get them to buy it at a mass scale. That's why Schumer's thing about losing voters in rural areas but picking them up in suburbs, strategically, wasn't the wrong way to think about it; he had the scale right. He just had a totally hosed up idea of what would happen at that scale. You can keep saying "okay, things suck but we have to do this" but the people on SA, by and large, are of the demographics who are going to get out and vote. That's not who we need to think about. Think about the non-voters, especially at the lower end of the economic spectrum. That's who you need to target and win over to get out. There is no "okay it sucks but we have to get them to the polls" because that will not happen until they feel pulled there. You can't just magic people to the polls unless you have something on offer that they want, and I don't know how many times or ways people need to explain "we're not the really lovely people in power right now" is a losing message for that purpose until the message sinks in. It's not good. No other product or service is advertised that way. No roofing company talks exclusively about how poo poo it is to have rain come into your home. Tide does not advertise by talking poo poo about Cheer constantly. Chevy does not sell you on how crap Toyota is. Yet somehow we keep picking that strategy, even in this very conversation, for selling a political message to voters. It will not work, it never has worked, and I don't know what the problem is short of people can't stop talking about how poo poo the other guy is. We all get that. He is. We're not who we need to convince to go to the polls.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Its all nice and fun to talk about voter suppression in an abstract way such that you can "leap over the hurdles anyway" as if its that easy. Voter suppression works, if it were as easy as you say then voter suppression wouldn't work. No poo poo it works, that's exactly my point. The problem is exactly and precisely that it works. Once it's in place, there aren't that many remaining [legal] options at an individual level, short of just yelling at everyone you know to go loving vote. You can also do things like encouraging people to get registered, connecting them with ride services (uber and lyft are running get-to-the-polls promotions!), you can travel around physically meeting people directly and registering them (which I do), but those are all variations on shouting at people to go goddam vote. selec posted:When you are dealing with mass, consumer-level work like trying to sell a product or get a vote, focusing on an individual conversion is chasing failure. It's common, though! The marketers I worked with would want to drill down into what one individual person who got mad and responded to our marketing email said or experienced. And I would constantly reply to them: is this a valuable use of your time? I don't care about one complaint. I care about 1% of our respondents having the same complaint. Until you can show me 10,000 emails angry about the same thing, this is an absolute waste of your time, and a chase of failure, rather than success. I think the missing part of this conversation is that I'm not a marketer. The "marketers" in this analogy are democratic party candidates and democratic party apparatus. Everything you're saying is absolutely correct -- for them. But until I individually somehow manage to seize control of the means of party production, I'm just one disconnected person (at least as far as my posting here goes). To the extent I'm not, yeah, part of the response is removing roadblocks that suppress voter turnout (i.e., making sure people's voting registrations are current, that they've got transport to the polls, etc.) , and part of it is by encouraging the Few Good Candidates who are taking that need for better systemic messages to heart (i.e., donating to AOC or Bernie endorsed candidates, etc.) And those are both things I do & have done. To continue your analogy, you're trying to sell a better marketing strategy -- and you're correct, it IS a better marketing strategy -- to the company's janitors or its customers, not the company's marketers. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The secret is that Dems are ideologically driven to not support Universal Healthcare Pretty much. The cover of “they’re all just too racist, we can’t possibly win there without running actual republicans” is simply a way to avoid having to promote policies that are inconsistent with the desires of the well-heeled folks who run the Democratic Party and actual want private health care and a weak labor movement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
I’d take you more seriously if Bernie Sanders hadn’t taken copious amounts of poo poo from liberals and centrists for daring to primary Hillary at at all. Remember how Democrats accused the divisive primary of weakening her in the general? That was fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Skex, I'm still curious, how long do you think it will take incrementalism to complete transform the US economy and society? Will it be faster than every other social change in the history of human civilization?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 18:34
|
|
|
Let me bring something else into this that I haven't seen discussed yet. Has anyone read the series of articles Taibbi did during primary season about how accessing DCCC resources works in real terms, what's required of a potential candidate to get their help? Reading how any well-meaning teacher who ran for something for the first time this year was coldly told "Hey, come back with 10 rich people ready to give you lots of money or lose our number" was really disheartening, and I think it answers the question of "why can't we get anyone but milquetoast corporatist schmucks to run as Democrats?" It is because such people, the ordinary Americans that were told in the wake of Trump "Hey, run for something!" are being actively screened out of the process before their candidacy even begins. Their attempts at changing the makeup of our legislative bodies are being smothered in their cribs. If you have the ability, check those articles out. We do have good people running in some of these primaries. But outliers like AOC aside, it sure seems like the party very actively allows only the chosen to actually compete and win. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed if you want better candidates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Let me bring something else into this that I haven't seen discussed yet. Has anyone read the series of articles Taibbi did during primary season about how accessing DCCC resources works in real terms, what's required of a potential candidate to get their help? Reading how any well-meaning teacher who ran for something for the first time this year was coldly told "Hey, come back with 10 rich people ready to give you lots of money or lose our number" was really disheartening, and I think it answers the question of "why can't we get anyone but milquetoast corporatist schmucks to run as Democrats?" It is because such people, the ordinary Americans that were told in the wake of Trump "Hey, run for something!" are being actively screened out of the process before their candidacy even begins. Their attempts at changing the makeup of our legislative bodies are being smothered in their cribs. If you have the ability, check those articles out. We do have good people running in some of these primaries. But outliers like AOC aside, it sure seems like the party very actively allows only the chosen to actually compete and win. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed if you want better candidates. Not only that, you've got members of house democratic leadership traveling to other states to get non-corporate dems to drop out of contested primaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
B B posted:Not only that, you've got members of house democratic leadership traveling to other states to get non-corporate dems to drop out of contested primaries. Right. Hillary folks bristled at the notion that she never wanted the real challenger she had in Bernie, and yet the proof of this thought process shows up again and again in house races all over the country. I saw the same here in CA-49, local paid operatives bullying the non-chosen candidates to drop out or using GOP smears to torpedo their campaign. It's real poo poo. It's no accident why it's the same folks year after year. It's a concerted effort.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Let me bring something else into this that I haven't seen discussed yet. Has anyone read the series of articles Taibbi did during primary season about how accessing DCCC resources works in real terms, what's required of a potential candidate to get their help? Reading how any well-meaning teacher who ran for something for the first time this year was coldly told "Hey, come back with 10 rich people ready to give you lots of money or lose our number" was really disheartening, and I think it answers the question of "why can't we get anyone but milquetoast corporatist schmucks to run as Democrats?" It is because such people, the ordinary Americans that were told in the wake of Trump "Hey, run for something!" are being actively screened out of the process before their candidacy even begins. Their attempts at changing the makeup of our legislative bodies are being smothered in their cribs. If you have the ability, check those articles out. We do have good people running in some of these primaries. But outliers like AOC aside, it sure seems like the party very actively allows only the chosen to actually compete and win. This is a major problem that needs to be addressed if you want better candidates. quote:Beals tells the story of both calls in rapid-fire, caricaturized form. He had expected to be asked more about his background, his beliefs, what his policies were, what his campaign strategy might be. Lol it’s all about money not policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Lol it’s all about money not policy I genuinely cannot see how people like Skex can read these things and short of insisting it's all Fake News think "WELL just primary the bad dems!" is a meaningful or helpful contribution. If the entire mechanism of the party is built to counter the kinds of things we want to get done by primarying incumbents, and in fact is built to counter primarying them successfully, then why engage? Why not focus on first defeating Democrats and either starting a new party or simply stealing the wreckage of the DNC if this is the level of cooperation we can expect for Doing It The Right Way?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
selec posted:I genuinely cannot see how people like Skex can read these things and short of insisting it's all Fake News think "WELL just primary the bad dems!" is a meaningful or helpful contribution. If the entire mechanism of the party is built to counter the kinds of things we want to get done by primarying incumbents, and in fact is built to counter primarying them successfully, then why engage? Why not focus on first defeating Democrats and either starting a new party or simply stealing the wreckage of the DNC if this is the level of cooperation we can expect for Doing It The Right Way? Well, let's give skex a chance to read and respond first. But make no mistake, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST in trying to push the party left.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
selec posted:I genuinely cannot see how people like Skex can read these things and short of insisting it's all Fake News think "WELL just primary the bad dems!" is a meaningful or helpful contribution. If the entire mechanism of the party is built to counter the kinds of things we want to get done by primarying incumbents, and in fact is built to counter primarying them successfully, then why engage? Why not focus on first defeating Democrats and either starting a new party or simply stealing the wreckage of the DNC if this is the level of cooperation we can expect for Doing It The Right Way? Presuming we're keeping the discussion within the bounds of the options allowed by law, there really aren't any good options. The whole point of systemic oppression is that it oppresses. The system is designed to make popular change difficult, that's the point of the system. So the question becomes one of deciding which are the best cards in a bad hand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Presuming we're keeping the discussion within the bounds of the options allowed by law, there really aren't any good options. The whole point of systemic oppression is that it oppresses. The system is designed to make popular change difficult, that's the point of the system. This is why I think we have to start working more and more at the local level and build community resilience. Developing the infrastructure to make our most local communities more interconnected, mutually involved, and self-reinforcing is political action that is legal, safe, and effective. Even if you're living in a red state that bans public discussion of climate change in 2 years, that annual block party will save lives when the hurricane or wildfire hits and people remember their neighbors are humans. Strengthening our communities and making them more adaptable and our institutions more responsive will be of use no matter what our political futures hold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Presuming we're keeping the discussion within the bounds of the options allowed by law, there really aren't any good options. The whole point of systemic oppression is that it oppresses. The system is designed to make popular change difficult, that's the point of the system. Right, but this is exactly why it's ridiculous to blame (non)voters. I personally vote straight dem even though that means supporting Bob loving Menendez, but how can someone blame the average apolitical person for not motivating themselves to go out on a Tuesday night -- possibly to a distant or crowded polling place, thanks to republican voter suppression -- and pull the lever for someone who clearly does not give a poo poo about them? For someone who doesn't even live in the same social or economic world?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is why I think we have to start working more and more at the local level and build community resilience. Developing the infrastructure to make our most local communities more interconnected, mutually involved, and self-reinforcing is political action that is legal, safe, and effective. I agree with this 100%. People don't know their neighbors anymore, but they argue with distant strangers online. Community bonds are fraying, and this allows "othering" to flourish. "All politics is local," well, yeah. We need to start somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Verus posted:Right, but this is exactly why it's ridiculous to blame (non)voters. I personally vote straight dem even though that means supporting Bob loving Menendez, but how can someone blame the average apolitical person for not motivating themselves to go out on a Tuesday night -- possibly to a distant or crowded polling place, thanks to republican voter suppression -- and pull the lever for someone who clearly does not give a poo poo about them? For someone who doesn't even live in the same social or economic world? Well, if they can't blame the voters they'd have to accept that the dems are a waste and that doesn't fly in the world of team politics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:The greatest sin of Democrats and the Democratic party is their total silence on the death of even the slightest resemblance of a democracy. They ignored CrossCheck, why should this time be any different?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
selec posted:When you are dealing with mass, consumer-level work like trying to sell a product or get a vote, focusing on an individual conversion is chasing failure. It's common, though! The marketers I worked with would want to drill down into what one individual person who got mad and responded to our marketing email said or experienced. And I would constantly reply to them: is this a valuable use of your time? I don't care about one complaint. I care about 1% of our respondents having the same complaint. Until you can show me 10,000 emails angry about the same thing, this is an absolute waste of your time, and a chase of failure, rather than success. Even ignoring stategy/pragmatism, even the moral argument is very flawed. Even if you believe that not voting is morally wrong, it's only morally wrong at (or more realistically considerably lower than) the level literally everyone commits constantly. It is basically equal to not walking outside and giving a homeless person $10 (or otherwise using it charitably), except the latter probably actually causes more net good in the end than voting does. Basically the point is that even if you can compose an argument that not voting is technically immoral, it's immoral to a fairly insignificant degree compared with the inaction pretty much everyone participates in* (and it's especially egregious when someone materially privileged - and let's not kid ourselves; that's most of the people saying this stuff - makes these arguments, since by simply having such wealth/assets they are vastly more immoral than a person is through simply not voting). The problem is that they act like not-voting = causing Republicans to be in power, as if the specific individual bears 100% of the responsibility, which is absolutely absurd. It is literally no different than saying "if everyone gave $100 to this charity it would have a big positive effect, therefore by not giving that $100 you are responsible for the absence of the good that charity would have caused." So, as with almost all examples of liberals being dumb, the cause is that they have no sense of proportionality or scale. They may technically be right most of the time when they say things are right or wrong, but they selectively give heavily disproportionate focus to the (arguably) wrong things that they irrationally care a lot about, while mostly ignoring those they don't. Chuck Schumer being a terrible person may elicit a "yeah, he kinda sucks and I was he was better," while a non-voter will elicit a "YOU SMUG PIECE OF poo poo LEFTIST, YOU'RE THE REASON FOR TRUMP!!" * Which is why it's important to focus on institutions and those who hold power, rather than individuals selec posted:I genuinely cannot see how people like Skex can read these things and short of insisting it's all Fake News think "WELL just primary the bad dems!" is a meaningful or helpful contribution. If the entire mechanism of the party is built to counter the kinds of things we want to get done by primarying incumbents, and in fact is built to counter primarying them successfully, then why engage? Why not focus on first defeating Democrats and either starting a new party or simply stealing the wreckage of the DNC if this is the level of cooperation we can expect for Doing It The Right Way? Playing devil's advocate, the most reasonable response to this I could expect is "well, what other option has a better chance of succeeding?" Though at that point he'd be making an actual "nothing matters" argument, which would be exceptionally ironic given that seems to be the go-to insult used against the left. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Presuming we're keeping the discussion within the bounds of the options allowed by law, there really aren't any good options. The whole point of systemic oppression is that it oppresses. The system is designed to make popular change difficult, that's the point of the system. I think the core argument of the left is that it's important to acknowledge and inform people about the way the system is aligned against their interests, since doing so is necessary in order to stand any realistic chance of making fundamental changes in the future. This is why the reaction these folks have to the left annoys me so much; they're basically trying to shut down anyone pointing out systemic resistance to positive change (often through those stupid "nothing matters" insults) and encourage them to work through the system in a way that is doomed to fail. But it is important that people understand things are aligned against them! That isn't "nothing matters"-ing; it's the complete opposite! It's supposed to make people get angry and upset and want to attack our institutions themselves. It is bad for them to be falsely optimistic that they can achieve change through the institutionally-approved channels! Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
I was catching up on the Trump thread, and holy gently caress I did not expect "Not only would I vote for Literally Roy Moore as long as he had a 'D' next to his name on the ballot, but I think that anyone who would not support and volunteer for him is a terrible person" to be an actual argument made in this thread. I mean, I'm not surprised, but it was definitely unexpected. A bit more surprising was that a sizable amount of the thread seemed to agree, and that people who do not agree that Rapey McRapist (D) deserves your vote are either privileged, monsters, or both. That's not even hyperbole, just putting posts by the same people together; someone invoked Republican support of Roy Moore as a thing to be emulated, and later, when explicitly asked if the female volunteers abandoning Bredesen over his Kavanaugh support are bad people, answered with an emphatic yes. (Also brought Lieberman up as another person they would support, for some reason? Which made it funny when evilweasel later said that no one was defending Lieberman, because someone actually had already done so.) Somehow this did not attract the deluge of scorn it deserved; instead, people who disagreed with this notion were, again, called monsters by at least one poster. Another one insinuated that people who disagreed were Russians, which to their mind is probably the same thing. This was well before the idiocy with stuff like donating to Gary Johnson(?!), too. It was among the posts that started the derail, in fact, if I recall correctly. I don't think it was easy to miss. Not getting into the argument as a whole (which featured a lot of people talking past each other and arguing with what they imagined the other side to be rather than actually addressing what the other person was actually saying, followed by some self-righteous masturbation from a few people, and would have been pointless to engage with had I been awake when it happened anyway) or anything, it's just, loving hell. I get the "vote for uninspiring/flawed candidates even if you don't like them because the alternative is worse" argument and such, which is why among other things I voted for Hillary in 2016 (even though, as a Californian, I could be 100% certain that a "protest" vote or whatever would have been safe, if pointless), but arguing that we need to elect monsters who would do the things we're supposedly voting for to prevent the other side from doing those things seems utterly absurd to me. It was a step short of arguing that stopping the Republicans requires becoming the Republicans ourselves; even looking at it through the lens given it seemed utterly unjustifiable and counter to the purported goals. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
I was surprised and disheartened at that discussion. I threw my two cents in a few times but when I saw the runaway train it became after a few hours, I mostly punched out. But holy poo poo have these times caused some people to disappear up their own leftist assholes and come out the other side. "Not voting for OUR rape apologists is enabling Trump!!!" is some loving alternate universe level galaxy brain poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
The Gary Johnson donation was funny as gently caress tbh and that the thread made it an indictment of the dude who did it instead of the dude who couldn't turn off the bile for a single second to name a Dem for that little donation to go to, with literally 0 conditions other than "give me a dem to send it to who supports good things" attached to it, was super telling.
Oh Snapple! fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
I actively like Johnson because I pseudo one issue vote on stuff like legal pot and non-intervention overseas. Obviously 99% of his agenda is poo poo, but that's how I feel about Dems too. The point I was making, however, is Dems who insist voters owe them their votes are actively hostile to potential voters who raise concerns, which is what drives people away. I got called a fascist for asking the guy to find a dem for me to donate to. If they wanted to mock me it should have been because he said he would probably confirm Kav which was the thing I was railing at dems for in the first place. I only thought to check after I sent it which is why I kept making donations. Had to balance the blatant idiotic hypocrisy lol. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:44
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:I was surprised and disheartened at that discussion. I threw my two cents in a few times but when I saw the runaway train it became after a few hours, I mostly punched out. But holy poo poo have these times caused some people to disappear up their own leftist assholes and come out the other side. "Not voting for OUR rape apologists is enabling Trump!!!" is some loving alternate universe level galaxy brain poo poo. You may want to make a second consideration of the political inclinations belonging people going to bat for Lieberman, Bredesen and Roy Moore(D).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:51
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:You may want to make a second consideration of the political inclinations belonging people going to bat for Lieberman, Bredesen and Roy Moore(D). I may, yeah. Easy to assume that's a primarily leftist thread but there's nothing stopping a CHUD from showing up and trolling, is there? But I could just swear some who have expressed leftism were on the page I described but...who knows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
The Trump thread did have to be prodded into not standing behind Franken, so I'm not surprised to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:I was catching up on the Trump thread, and holy gently caress I did not expect "Not only would I vote for Literally Roy Moore as long as he had a 'D' next to his name on the ballot, but I think that anyone who would not support and volunteer for him is a terrible person" to be an actual argument made in this thread. I mean, I'm not surprised, but it was definitely unexpected. A bit more surprising was that a sizable amount of the thread seemed to agree, and that people who do not agree that Rapey McRapist (D) deserves your vote are either privileged, monsters, or both. I think the Trump thread is experience what PJ would call a compaction cycle. The "vote blue no matter who" posters are getting forced to confront what their ideology looks like in practice. Manchin voting for Kavanaugh broke some of the regular posters in that thread more than they want to admit, cause the thread has essentially been one big bad Dem "derail" for the past few days. It seems like there have been fewer posts in general to that thread lately, as well. The softer "vote blue" supporters are probably finding it harder to justify their position, and so they don't care to post. According to PJ's framework, in the next few weeks once the cycle is complete, all that will remain in the Trump thread are the radically pro-succ dem supporters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
I'm sticking around, for one. But I will not ever buy into this "we need to beat their team sports with equally strident team sports on our side of the fence" logic that I see out and about these days. You do not become what you oppose, that's rank hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:I'm sticking around, for one. But I will not ever buy into this "we need to beat their team sports with equally strident team sports on our side of the fence" logic that I see out and about these days. You do not become what you oppose, that's rank hypocrisy. What the left opposes is a bunch of genocidal fascists and "becoming" them is the same as calling them mean names to you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:45
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:What the left opposes is a bunch of genocidal fascists and "becoming" them is the same as calling them mean names to you. I'm just not getting your point here. I apologize.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Euphoriaphone posted:I think the Trump thread is experience what PJ would call a compaction cycle. The "vote blue no matter who" posters are getting forced to confront what their ideology looks like in practice. Manchin voting for Kavanaugh broke some of the regular posters in that thread more than they want to admit, cause the thread has essentially been one big bad Dem "derail" for the past few days. It seems like there have been fewer posts in general to that thread lately, as well. The softer "vote blue" supporters are probably finding it harder to justify their position, and so they don't care to post. My guess is that, after enough time passes, they'll be able to just forget about it. Nanomashoes posted:What the left opposes is a bunch of genocidal fascists and "becoming" them is the same as calling them mean names to you. I think you're misreading their post; they're referring to "becoming them" in the sense of supporting Democrats who do the same things as Republicans, not them "breaking decorum" or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think you're misreading their post; they're referring to "becoming them" in the sense of supporting Democrats who do the same things as Republicans, not them "breaking decorum" or whatever. Ah yes, this. Sorry if my wording was confusing and thank you for clarifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
RESPECT THE PROCESS, I SAY, AS I AM ARRESTED FOR BEING A DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN STAFFER Voter suppression efforts have moved from "make poo poo up about voter registration drives and then lie repeatedly until the Democrats roll it up" to "Throw out voters, then make poo poo up and have your goons arrest people after hearing they're Democrats." Can't wait to hear calls for bipartisanship after this nonsense. Big Hubris fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 02:44
|
|
|
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. What about those of us who live in districts or states where a Democratic victory is all but assured, but the Dem nominee is completely awful? For example, why should any progressive or leftist vote for Schumer, when he's almost certain to win, but does a very bad job of representing them? Why shouldn't they vote third party, or leave that part of their ballot blank, instead? Majorian fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:I may, yeah. Easy to assume that's a primarily leftist thread but there's nothing stopping a CHUD from showing up and trolling, is there? But I could just swear some who have expressed leftism were on the page I described but...who knows. Hate to break it to you, but liberals aren't leftists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
Nobody gives a poo poo if you don't want to sound like a mad angry "Republican", we're gonna be mad as gently caress next year and in 2020 and we're gonna dominate mother fuckers and the centrists will be annihilated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What about those of us who live in districts or states where a Democratic victory is all but assured People thought that in Wisconsin and Michigan too. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 07:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:People thought that in Wisconsin and Michigan too. Source ure quotes. E: And if we're talking about places where people made bad assumptions, I think we'll have to start with Brooklyn. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 07:41
|
|
|
Surely the Democrats will speak out against the violence in New York and not just allow the lie that liberals are violent to keep gaining steam as our garbage media continues to repeat right wing messaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Democrats are absolutely on board with the 'violent antifa thugs' messaging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 14:34
|
|
