Fulchrum posted:

Those judges clearly have your vote too, since you desperately, desperately want to reward the Republican party for putting Kavanaugh on the court.

Fulchrum posted:

Those judges clearly have your vote too, since you desperately, desperately want to reward the Republican party for putting Kavanaugh on the court.

Majorian posted:

Nah, I'm not the one who insisted on handing Trump the presidency by nominating the worst possible candidate against him.

Phi230 posted:

the deciding vote, even

Fulchrum posted:

Its amazing how the all powerful Bernie who would have easily crushed Trump just couldn't manage to beat Hillary, even though you insist she can't beat anyone.

Fulchrum posted:

I'll talk about how Manchin is likely to still keep his seat, whereas leftists wanted desperately to reward Republicans by giving his seat to them, if you'd prefer.

Now, what have Republicans done that you leftists are so desperate to reward them for?

Matt Zerella posted:

Y'all just keep taking the bait.

Majorian posted:

We've already explained to you, time and time again, how that happened. Sorry if explaining it at even a 1st-grade level is too advanced for you.

Prester Jane posted:

LOL. I'm rewarding the Enemy by criticizing an unfaithful ally who has just betrayed us in an extremely costly way. I've seen that exact form of self-delusion many times before; written a fair number of effortposts about it in point of fact. I'm not even going to bother wading in to any of that twisted knot of self-delusion in the above post.

You've never perceived yourself as having any skin in the game, and it really shows.

Fulchrum posted:

And I think the person who wants the Dems to actually win is the person who acts like they have skin in the game, not the person who demands that Dems lose elections and give up all power, just to perform utterly meaningless and inconsequential acts.

Fulchrum posted:

Yeah, you've loudly screamed bias and rigged and screeched nonstop, but I'm looking for an actual explanation that holds any water and shows how the DNC actually affected the outcome in any way.

Prester Jane posted:

Please Mister Affluent white male- lecture this minority some more on how superior your decisions are and how disagreeing with your guidance is tantamount to treason. I forgot that expecting elected Democratic officials to go down fighting for my rights even if they are going to lose was extremely childish of me. I don't understand these things. Please scold me some more until I except the superior wisdom of your completely detached worldview.

Majorian posted:

It holds water with pretty much everyone except people like you, who still think Third Way-ism is the way to go. When someone has been as demonstrably flat-out wrong as often as you have been, that's kind of all the proof we need.

Fulchrum posted:

And by go down fighting, you mean just publicly kill themselves and give more power to the enemy, right? Going down fighting implies there will be any consequence to the enemy whatsoever for their actions, not directly making the enemy stronger. So, we go right back to the question of why you think the GOP should be rewarded with a permanent Senate seat.

Fulchrum posted:

So your response is "Well, if Bernie was a bad candidate then we wouldn't say he's perfect. We all believe he's perfect. Therefore, he must be a good candidate". Astounding use of logic there.

Majorian posted:

Where are you getting this "Bernie is perfect" nonsense from? It's almost as if you're...projecting?

Fulchrum posted:

And by go down fighting, you mean just publicly kill themselves and give more power to the enemy, right? Going down fighting implies there will be any consequence to the enemy whatsoever for their actions, not directly making the enemy stronger. So, we go right back to the question of why you think the GOP should be rewarded with a permanent Senate seat.


So your response is "Well, if Bernie was a bad candidate then we wouldn't say he's perfect. We all believe he's perfect. Therefore, he must be a good candidate". Astounding use of logic there.

Fulchrum posted:

Those judges clearly have your vote too, since you desperately, desperately want to reward the Republican party for putting Kavanaugh on the court.

Fulchrum posted:

Ah, so you're admitting that Bernie's failure in the primary was entirely his own fault? Well, it took you long enough, but glad you're admitting this "Bernie would have won" crap was always nonsense.

readingatwork posted:

The size of your coalition means nothing if it’s aimless, corrupt, and unwilling to act. On the other hand if you expell the counterproductive elements what you’re left with may be smaller but it will also be a much more powerful political force because those problem members are no longer around to undermine your efforts and poison your brand.

I believe PJ actually explained this pretty well a while back using a snowball vs an iceball as a metaphor. It would be worth digging up if anyone remembers where it is.

Prester Jane posted:

I think the saddest part about your existence Fulchrum is that you are genuinely confused why the rest of humanity doesn't collectively behave in the way that you have decided is best for them. You freeze it out perfectly after all, why won't people simply recognized that doing exactly as you think they should is the only correct path for words?

The future holds so very many painful lessons for you. I don't envy you your journey through this world, not one tiny bit.

Not a Step posted:

Is there a word for hostage taking, gaslighting and abuse commited by an entire political party?

Fulchrum posted:

Yes, I'm sure if there were 40 Democrats who all voted against Kavanaugh, then theres no possible WAY he could have ever gotten through.

The minority party cannot do poo poo and has no impact, and you only stop being the minority by getting more people. So, its more like a snowball versus being wafted by a fan.

readingatwork posted:

I believe PJ actually explained this pretty well a while back using a snowball vs an iceball as a metaphor. The post would be worth digging up if anyone remembers where it is.

readingatwork posted:

The size of your coalition means nothing if it’s aimless, corrupt, and unwilling to act. On the other hand if you expell the counterproductive elements what you’re left with may be smaller but it will also be a much more powerful political force because those problem members are no longer around to undermine your efforts and poison your brand.

I believe PJ actually explained this pretty well a while back using a snowball vs an iceball as a metaphor. The post would be worth digging up if anyone remembers where it is.

Prester Jane posted:

Pragmatics centrism cannot fail, it can only be failed.


Google "compaction cycle". And technically that's a metaphor for how extremist groups tend to radicalize overtime in reaction to stress, but the idea of becoming a more effective weapon by forcing out squishier members still applies.

Fulchrum posted:

A compaction cycle doesn't apply to positions of power. You don't gain power by actively rejecting it, for fear that you'd just be rendered too impure by taking it.

Prester Jane posted:

You uhhhhhh..... don't actually understand what a compaction cycle is. This is gibberish.

Fulchrum posted:

Yes, I'm sure if there were 40 Democrats who all voted against Kavanaugh, then theres no possible WAY he could have ever gotten through.

The minority party cannot do poo poo and has no impact, and you only stop being the minority by getting more people. So, its more like a snowball versus being wafted by a fan.

readingatwork posted:

Politics is about so much more than raw vote counts and committee chairmanships. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Fulchrum posted:

A group going through a systematic purging of less extreme members in order to make their average viewpoint more extreme.

Now, how does expelling one of those members who holds a senate seat, help in getting more senate seats?

Fulchrum posted:

A group going through a systematic purging of less extreme members in order to make their average viewpoint more extreme.

Now, how does expelling one of those members who holds a senate seat, help in getting more senate seats?

Prester Jane posted:

In summary: politics is inherently transactional. You fight for me, I fight for you. You betray me, I destroy you.

Manchin betrayed me. So I seek to destroy him- both as a practical matter and as a warning to others. It's that simple.

reignonyourparade posted:

Well if that member makes enough people go "wow the dems are poo poo, not worth getting on my boss's poo poo list to take the time off to vote" it could very well be a net gain to not have him around so people don't do that. If bredesen loses after pissing off his base by himself saying he would've voted for kavanaugh, that manchin goes unpunished may be what made him feel he could do that.

Prester Jane posted:

Manchin's senate seat is of no value whatsoever because he will never side with the Democrats against the Republicans, even if the Democrats do manage to retake the Senate. A fair-weather allies no I lie at all, and you are far better off without a fair-weather I lie no matter how potentially useful they may theoretically be. Because if they are openly a fair-weather I lie then they will never ever ever ever come through for you once they have demonstrated that they will betray you and demand not merely forgiveness- but obedience and praise for their wisdom in betraying you.

To you this whole thing is an abstract exercise, a game to be strategically navigated. And in your mind Manchin's potential to vote Schumer as majority leader in the Senate outweighs any potential damage he could inflict on minority groups. You don't view yourself as being directly impacted or having your life directly harmed by Manchin's decisions, this is all just a hypothetical exercise in whimsy for you. That's why it never occurrs to you that Manchin will never actually side with Schumer against McConnell. In your mind he's never betrayed you personally and this you cannot comprehend that he will betray you just as readily as he has betrayed me when given the opportunity to do so.

This all comes from a place of extreme privilege. You expect minorities like me to eat public betrayal after public betrayal and still give enthusiastic support to people who actively betray us and make our lives worse. And you are prepared to scold us for making any attempt to assert our rights the very moment asserting our rights conflicts with your own interests. You don't know anything about the world outside of that sheltered little bubble you've experienced- and until you are forcefully removed from that bubble there is no hope of having a real conversation with you.

Schumer isn't going to undo the damage that Kavanaugh does to transgender and LGBT rights. Why the gently caress should I care if Schumer ever becomes Senate Majority Leader? It will make no difference in my quality of life because Schumer is not going to fight for me when it matters. I refuse to support people who refuse to support me. End of discussion.

I'm a frog that takes it very seriously when a scorpion waves their stinger around in my face and says they will sting me the moment it's convenient to do so. I take the Scorpion at his word the first time.

Prester Jane posted:

In summary: politics is inherently transactional. You fight for me, I fight for you. You betray me, I destroy you.

Manchin betrayed me. So I seek to destroy him- both as a practical matter and as a warning to others. It's that simple.

Fulchrum posted:

Prester Jane posted:

Please Mister Affluent white male- lecture this minority some more on how superior your decisions are and how disagreeing with your guidance is tantamount to treason. I forgot that expecting elected Democratic officials to go down fighting for my rights even if they are going to lose was extremely childish of me. I don't understand these things. Please scold me some more until I except the expert wisdom of your completely detached worldview.

Fulchrum posted:

Bredsen will likely be punished by his voters for going against their wishes. Manchin would have been punished by his voters for going against their wishes if he had voted against Kavanaugh. You are asking for the establishment to override what the voters say and to throw him out

Ytlaya posted:

Let's ignore voting for a second, since most people in this thread do not live in a place where they can vote for or against Manchin (or most of the other non-presidential candidate Democrats mentioned in these threads). What is wrong with expressing negative sentiment towards a politician who does something bad? If your answer is "because expressing negative sentiment could hypothetically depress Democratic enthusiasm and thus turnout," that logic can lead to a lot of very strange conclusions (like that primaries shouldn't exist in the first place and all intra-party dissent should be silenced - and it would also apply to stuff like you attacking Bernie Sanders, who has a reasonable chance of winning the 2020 primary).

I would think that, even if you think people are obligated to vote for Democrats, you would still agree that allowing the expression of negative sentiment is a reasonable compromise. And if you think the negative sentiment is actually wrong then you should be making that argument instead (for example, arguing that it isn't actually bad when Manchin does something like vote for Kavanaugh).


Note the absence of anything contradicting your accusation of being affluent in his reply, even though contradicting it would be an extremely easy opportunity to get a rhetorical "win" (that is, if it actually weren't true).

Fulchrum posted:

Bredsen will likely be punished by his voters for going against their wishes. Manchin would have been punished by his voters for going against their wishes if he had voted against Kavanaugh. You are asking for the establishment to override what the voters say and to throw him out

Fulchrum posted:

Bredsen will likely be punished by his voters for going against their wishes. Manchin would have been punished by his voters for going against their wishes if he had voted against Kavanaugh. You are asking for the establishment to override what the voters say and to throw him out


I do like how the left has just completely and totally memory holed the healthcare debate, the tax bill and Net Neutrality. Nope, Kavanaugh voted with Republicans on this thing, therefore, he will always vote with Republicans forever and eternity.

What I want to know is what damage Manchin has inflicted upon minority voters? What, precisely, are the votes that Republicans were going to lose, but Manchin intervened to help them win in? Because those and those alone are the ones that you could ever claim Manchin has actually hurt minority voters with, even if you completely ignore how his Republican replacement would have voted. Everything else, you are just blaming Manchin for Republican cruelty. Completely absolving Republicans of all responsibility and saying that its all Manchins fault because of how he needs to vote to keep his seat. Because, since this is a performance to you, you don't blame the villains for acting villainous.

Even now, you continue to give such enthusiastic support to the Republicans by continuously attacking the Dems, because again, you continue to not hold them to any account or consequence for their action. You'd rather see them rewarded for it.

This is where it all comes down to - you completely eliminate even the concept of holding Republicans accountable from your mind. Because you don't really care about the end results, you only care about holding Dems to the standard of "will they throw away all power just over a meaningless and empty gesture", and if they don't meet that standard, then the Republicans just deserve to be rewarded.

If you claim to be a frog who is aware of the scorpion, then you would back, to the loving hilt, the thing that kills scorpions but doesn't kill frogs (I dunno, a grasshopper mouse? A bat? I don't know animals). Instead, you only criticize that other animal for the time they failed to stop a scorpion stinging a frog, and the Scorpion deserves to kill them for it. Completely absolving the scorpion of all consequences.

The fact that your analogy didn't even HAVE an analog for the Republicans kind of proves my point. You don't even take them into consideration as a factor.


So you're admitting you fight for the Republicans, then?Tell me, what part of their rampant attack on transgender rights did you consider to be "fighting for you"?

Matt Zerella posted:

Dark spirit CrowleyLiker69 has invaded!

readingatwork posted:

Which voters? There are many and they often have wildly contradicting interests and goals. Have you considered that perhaps by tossing Manchin out we'd then have the opportunity to reach out to a different, not-lovely constituency?

reignonyourparade posted:

I'm saying that it's possible for it to be strategically useful to throw him out. There are some close races, if he depresses enthusiasm it might cost them the senate. Hell they're only at 75% for taking the house, he could very well cost them the house.

Prester Jane posted:

The actions of my enemy does not excuse betrayal from an ally. I cannot directly influence my enemies decisions, however I can directly influence the decision of the coalition my betraying ally is part of. I must demonstrate to this coalition that there are consequences for betraying me so that this coalition will not betray me in the future. This is not hard. This is politics 101, this is how Humanity has always worked and unless we evolve into some presently inconceivable higher form this is how Humanity will always function.

My support is earned, it is not a given. And incurring my wrath by betraying me carries with it certain inevitable consequences.