|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Democrats are absolutely on board with the 'violent antifa thugs' messaging. Too bad they are so incompetent they couldn't keep it to antifa and all Democrats and their leaders are now "violent."
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And if we're talking about places where people made bad assumptions, I think we'll have to start with Brooklyn. Well yeah. "Better assumptions than the Hillary campaign made" is the lowest bar in modern history. I get voting third party if the Dem is so succ you don't care whether they when or lose. I don't get voting third party if you want the Dem to win and you're just assuming they don't need your vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
What does "succ" mean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well yeah. If the Dem is so terrible that they manage to lose a reliably blue area, then that's an indictment of the Dem. If so many people looked at the Dem and thought "gently caress that guy, I can afford not to vote for him" that he managed to lose a blue bastion, I feel like the real problem there doesn't rest with the voters! That's the fundamental thing here. If a Dem is so crap that they can't even turn out their own base, and manage to lose a race that should have been a shoe-in as a result, it's hardly the voters' fault! Like, yeah, the voters probably didn't want the Republican to win. But in that case, it sure seems like they weren't too happy about the prospect of the Dem winning either! And that suggests a deep problem, one with a more complicated solution than just berating the base. When Martha Coakley lost MA to Scott Brown, people didn't say it was the voters' fault - they correctly pointed their fingers at her for running a notoriously awful campaign. But now that the left is getting louder, suddenly the voters are the fuckups and all the establishment candidates are perfect? Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the Dem is so terrible that they manage to lose a reliably blue area, then that's an indictment of the Dem. If so many people looked at the Dem and thought "gently caress that guy, I can afford not to vote for him" that he managed to lose a blue bastion, I feel like the real problem there doesn't rest with the voters! You are seeing this in that one district in Florida where Hillary won by a wide margin and the useless Democrat that doesn't seem to care looking to lose.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 17:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the Dem is so terrible that they manage to lose a reliably blue area, then that's an indictment of the Dem. If so many people looked at the Dem and thought "gently caress that guy, I can afford not to vote for him" that he managed to lose a blue bastion, I feel like the real problem there doesn't rest with the voters! No I agree with you 100% if voters aren't coming out it's a systemic issue (namely the party running poo poo candidates or a poo poo platform or both). Majorian was talking about what to do with his individual vote, I understand voting third party if he wants the Dem to lose/doesn't care if the Dem wins or not (I may not agree most of the time but it's a valid choice and it's the candidate's fault for not giving Maj a reason to vote for him). I don't understand voting third party if he thinks the Dem is going to win anyway, but he wants the Dem to win so much that he'd vote D if he thought it might be a close race. What if the race is closer than you thought? And what kind of message does that send anyway, I'll vote against you when it doesn't matter but don't worry about earning my vote because I'll come home in a close race?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I agree with you 100% if voters aren't coming out it's a systemic issue (namely the party running poo poo candidates or a poo poo platform or both). What kind of message does it send? None at all! If the politicians cared what the voters had to say, they'd ask about it or do some polling, rather than trying to divine voter sentiments solely from final vote counts. As for the more general intent of your question, all it really signifies is that: 1) we have an insanely hosed up electoral system where voters sometimes feel that their vote literally does not matter at all and sometimes feel that they literally have no choice but to vote for someone they hate 2) "vote for me, I may suck but the other guy is even worse" is a terrible campaign strategy It's a matter of personal satisfaction, not some kind of ultra strategy. It means they don't have to grapple with ethical issues or really work out the question of what happens if the Dem loses, because they know their vote doesn't matter even a bit, so they can just do what they want to since personal feeling are the only reason to even bother showing up to the polls in their area!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Crazy thought. If you appeal to non-suppressed voters with ideas that will make a big positive impact on their lives (while at the same time not abandoning minorities or appealing to their dumber philosophies) you might be able to win enough support to fix the system for everybody. EDIT: HAHAHAHA holy poo poo someone got so mad at me in the Trump thread that they actually spent money to buy me an avatar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well yeah. I’m in California. I’ll vote for de Leon to get Feinstein out, but trust me - Newsom does not need my vote to win. I’d be saying the same thing about Schumer if I lived in NY, with the added benefit that Schumer is the shittiest of shitlibs. e: also it’s less about sending a message and more about giving third parties who represent my values better more of a profile. Majorian fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Oct 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Yes I agree with all that and have said it a bunch of times. If someone individually asks me "should I personally bother to vote" I'd still tell them yes in most cases, even though I don't believe shaming or haranguing voters is an effective strategy for a political party obviously. Majorian posted:I’m in California. I’ll vote for de Leon to get Feinstein out, but trust me - Newsom does not need my vote to win. I’d be saying the same thing about Schumer if I lived in NY, with the added benefit that Schumer is the shittiest of shitlibs. I get that reasoning if you don't want/don't care if Schumer wins (at this point he's making deals to put right-wing nutjobs in district courts so his Republican friends can go home and campaign to get reelected, and he has an impregnable grip on power within the party, so maybe him somehow losing a general election might be good for the Democratic Party long-term) What I don't get is saying "but if I think it will be close I'll vote for Schumer because at the end of the day I want him to win." If you want him to win, vote for him. If you don't want him to win, don't vote for him, it doesn't matter how close the election might be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
My feeling about the voting thing is that it's like if someone asked me "hey, I have $5 to burn; should I mail it to (insert some worthwhile charitable cause) or should I buy some candy?" I'd say "I suppose the former, it's better than nothing," but I also wouldn't flip out and think they're a bad person if they did the latter. Basically it is, at worst*, a minor sin of inaction, equal to an infinite number of similar sins literally everyone commits constantly. The reaction to it is not only dramatically exaggerated, but stands out in contrast to their lack of a negative reaction (or at least nearly as strong of one) to the actual politicians who make bad or harmful decisions. * since it's still actually entirely possible that Democrats losing in the short term could have a longer term positive effect, even if it's not necessary provable or likely
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes I agree with all that and have said it a bunch of times. Some people don’t want to needlessly support evil. That’s the whole point of the “lesser evil” argument, is acknowledging that Schumer or Clinton does evil, but the consequences of not-them are worse. The argument is no longer compelling if their victory is certain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Some people don’t want to needlessly support evil. That’s the whole point of the “lesser evil” argument, is acknowledging that Schumer or Clinton does evil, but the consequences of not-them are worse. The argument is no longer compelling if their victory is certain. This is an argument for not voting for those people regardless of how close the race might be tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes I agree with all that and have said it a bunch of times. But I’d rather Schumer keep his seat than have a Republican take it, just as I’d rather have Newsom as governor than Cox. As bad as both of those shitlibs are, they at least publicly share a sliver of my values, whereas their Republican challengers don’t/wouldn’t. But Newsom is up by around 15 points, last I checked. It’s California. Unless there’s a Comey memo about him, he doesn’t need my vote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But I’d rather Schumer keep his seat than have a Republican take it, just as I’d rather have Newsom as governor than Cox. As bad as both of those shitlibs are, they at least publicly share a sliver of my values, whereas their Republican challengers don’t/wouldn’t. But Newsom is up by around 15 points, last I checked. It’s California. Unless there’s a Comey memo about him, he doesn’t need my vote. As a new Yorker I can safely say I don't want Schumer in that seat, period. I'd be more willing to say that of KG than Cucky.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
On the contrary, neolib Democrats create conditions for fascism to rise and when it does, they collaborate with it and generally refuse to fight it in any meaningful way so lesser evilism really is a matter of fascism now or later. Of course, the liberals in this sub forum are so dedicated to bourgeois democracy they will refuse to acknowledge any other way to do politics and choose "fascism later" every time rather than meaningfully change things so they dont have to make that choice
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:52
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:As a new Yorker I can safely say I don't want Schumer in that seat, period. I'd be more willing to say that of KG than Cucky. That’s fine, I don’t live there, so I don’t have much of a handle on how he is for New Yorkers - just that he’s the literal worst on a national level.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is an argument for not voting for those people regardless of how close the race might be tho. I’m saying someone can find lesser evilism compelling in contested races but pointless in uncontested ones. Not all moral systems are deontological, in fact in our increasingly compromised world few really are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 18:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That’s fine, I don’t live there, so I don’t have much of a handle on how he is for New Yorkers - just that he’s the literal worst on a national level. He's the worst on all levels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:You are seeing this in that one district in Florida where Hillary won by a wide margin and the useless Democrat that doesn't seem to care looking to lose. call her donna shalalol: Shalala faced some criticism for her response to a nationally publicized custodial workers' strike at the University of Miami, which lasted from February 28 to May 1, 2006. Critics called UM's custodial workers among the lowest paid university-based custodians in the nation and alleged they were not earning a living wage. The strike prompted Shalala to raise wages. Shalala was also criticized for living in luxury while the custodians did not have health insurance.[21] Shalala criticized union organizer's tactics, including a sit-in that she said prevented students from attending classes. *** In 2015, Shalala was named to head the Clinton Foundation. She followed her tenure as president of the University of Miami with being named chief executive officer of the Foundation.[24] According to The New York Times, Chelsea Clinton helped persuade Shalala to leave the Miami position, move to New York and head the foundation. *** Following a September 2015 Clinton Global Initiative event held at the Sheraton New York, Shalala fell ill. It was subsequently reported by a foundation statement that she had suffered a stroke. *** Shalala served as a member of the board of directors of Lennar Corporation from 2001-2012.[28][29] She served on the board of directors of Gannett Company from 2001 to 2011, retiring because of age limits.[30] The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported on the conflict of interest of Shalala sitting on boards of property development companies. *** In an interview with CBS Miami, Shalala stated that she supports universal healthcare coverage. However, she also said that she opposes a Medicare For All single-payer healthcare system because she believes that individuals who like their current employment-based healthcare plans should be able to keep them.  why an almost 80-yr-old clinton lackey might lose her congressional race.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But I’d rather Schumer keep his seat than have a Republican take it, just as I’d rather have Newsom as governor than Cox. As bad as both of those shitlibs are, they at least publicly share a sliver of my values, whereas their Republican challengers don’t/wouldn’t. But Newsom is up by around 15 points, last I checked. It’s California. Unless there’s a Comey memo about him, he doesn’t need my vote. Chuck Schumer is actively damaging to the democrats. If chuck schumer lost his seat at least we wouldn't have the most incompetent Senate minority leader of all time around. Also, Hillary would have lost in 2020 to Trump But Not A Moron, people who didn't vote in swing states have left us better off in the medium term. 'Always vote dem' only makes sense when you aren't iterating it (and even not always then, in Schumer's case.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:
Christ, why don't these old fucks just retire? You're 80 years old and you've had a stroke already, don't you want to enjoy your last years in peace? I know the answer, though, they're addicted to the power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Schumer as leader is probably way more damaging than a generic Republican Senator in his seat. Schumer as one out of the Democratic congress isn't really too much of a problem, but him being leader and not only pushing a way further right agenda than Democrats in general support, but being generally incompetent and obviously a pathetic, uninspiring dork makes him very dangerous. Based on Senate  I don't see him ever being ousted as long as he wants the job and he's such a tool he'll hang on to it until he dies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Chuck Schumer is actively damaging to the democrats. If chuck schumer lost his seat at least we wouldn't have the most incompetent Senate minority leader of all time around. Isn’t that position based on seniority? I wonder how many Dem Senators you’d have to go through the line to find a suitable replacement. How far down is Sherrod Brown?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
God I wish it was based on seniority, then we'd only need to keep actually good people around for long enough. It's an election among the dems, so as long as bad dems keep making their way into the Senate they'll elect bad dem Senate leadership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:God I wish it was based on seniority, then we'd only need to keep actually good people around for long enough. It's an election among the dems, so as long as bad dems keep making their way into the Senate they'll elect bad dem Senate leadership. Oh does it work that way? Hm. I don’t know why I remembered it being seniority based. Also lol at the idea that these people voted for Schumer to be leader.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
jesus christ this tweet and the replies. https://twitter.com/RonaldKlain/status/1051225461701926913
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:jesus christ this tweet and the replies. The proximate cause for this is this article in The Intercept, which is pretty loving savage by the by.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 03:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/CobraKeiser/status/1050907599351291906?s=20 Having no plan is the best plan. -Democrats
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:God I wish it was based on seniority, then we'd only need to keep actually good people around for long enough. It's an election among the dems, so as long as bad dems keep making their way into the Senate they'll elect bad dem Senate leadership. Be careful what you wish for - Feinstein would probably end up with the job before long. And take my word for it, you don't want that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The proximate cause for this is this article in The Intercept, which is pretty loving savage by the by. "The Republican party is full of racists and warmongers so vote for Lindsey Graham and Nikki Haley!" HAHAHAHAHA Max Boot is a living turd
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 09:32
|
|
|
The Democrats that want to ally with Never Trumpers fall into two subsets which you can clearly see in the replies to those tweets. 1. Absolute idiots. People that don't question these guys that supported the GOP through the Bush administration and the way they treated Obama through his terms. Guys that even now keep saying the "reasonable" conservatives can take back the reins and then list ghouls that three years ago were considered tea party lunatics. The thought of "hmm this guy seems to have supported all the things Trump actually does consistently with the GOP for years but suddenly has a problem when the leader is a little too open about it" might not be actually that interested in non-Republican interests. 2. Blue Dog Assholes. These guys are primed to switch and vote Republican the second Democrats start talking about raising upper class taxes or actually tackling systemic oppression if it means that they have to combat their own privileges. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:34 on Oct 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
i'm so tired of this "trump took over the gop" garbage. the gop took over him. he self-radicalized on fox news and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 12:26
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i'm so tired of this "trump took over the gop" garbage. the gop took over him. he self-radicalized on fox news and poo poo. Yeah exactly. Trump was radicalized by GOP messaging and wasn't "in" enough to know what parts were Serious and which parts were for the red meat voters. So he just vomits everything from email forwards like it's all true. Every Never Trumper would be absolutely on board Trump V2.0 that knows how to be "dignified" when he's doing even worse stuff than now as shown by their support of Bush and McConnell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 12:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:The Democrats that want to ally with Never Trumpers fall into two subsets which you can clearly see in the replies to those tweets. The funny, or rather not funny thing about the bolded part is that when shitlibs do things like this it would logically follow that as the GOP becomes even more unhinged the window of establishment respectability automatically moves towards the right as more and more far right shits get lumped into the "moderate conservative" column once somebody even worse shows up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The funny, or rather not funny thing about the bolded part is that when shitlibs do things like this it would logically follow that as the GOP becomes even more unhinged the window of establishment respectability automatically moves towards the right as more and more far right shits get lumped into the "moderate conservative" column once somebody even worse shows up. It's absolutely the intent of third wayers like Clinton and Obama, but the people in that twitter conversation probably honestly think the likes of Frum and Kristol are good people now because beating Trump (and then ending all fighting right there once Reasonable conservatism is back) is so important.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Radish posted:It's absolutely the intent of third wayers like Clinton and Obama, but the people in that twitter conversation probably honestly think the likes of Frum and Kristol are good people now because beating Trump (and then ending all fighting right there once Reasonable conservatism is back) is so important. Honestly, it is probably because there isn’t that much daylight between thirdwayism and Reaganism in the first place. If anything the whole thing about bipartisanship was to find a middle ground between the center-right and the traditional right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i'm so tired of this "trump took over the gop" garbage. the gop took over him. he self-radicalized on fox news and poo poo. Did Fox News exist when the Central Park 5 were a thing? It seems like Trump has been a shithead for basically ever, he and the Republicans were basically made for each other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 15:18
|
|
|
he was always a racist but he was the sort of apolitical democrat a lot of the crowd he hangs with was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:he was always a racist but he was the sort of apolitical democrat a lot of the crowd he hangs with was. I mean, I think taking out full page ads calling for the execution of black people is actually above average racism tbh. He also was running for that one weird racist third party label in 2000 or 1996, wasn’t he?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2018 15:31
|
|