|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Where did you put the dogs, Joe 
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Adopt that Ted Cruz dog. e; can’t get the image to embed, but shown here: https://m.imgur.com/r/PoliticalHumor/dwm2CnN yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:A good use of the time we have left is to completely destroy any enthusiasm for any candidate that may improve the situation at all while others rabidly for vote for someone that will accelerate our demise while we cross our fingers and pray for the political messiah to arrive. The left isn't the one "destroying the enthusiasm," and the whole premise that they are is every bit as crazy as the sort of stuff you see Republicans say. The issue with your framing is that you seem to view things as a choice between "someone who will help" and "someone who will help a bit more" (or act like even a milquetoast social democrat is some wild and crazy outlandish thing to ask for) and think that people being "spoiled" by not being willing to be enthusiastic about the former. But that isn't what's actually happening; it is very debatable whether mainstream/status quo Democrats even represent an improvement (once you factor in all the pros and cons, many of which occur through our military violence abroad), and the difference in outcome between the sort of ideology of a milquetoast social democrat like Bernie Sanders and your average status quo Democrat is likely even bigger than the difference in outcome between status quo Democrats and Republicans (for example, the amount of benefit that would come from something like MfA is likely greater than the amount of additional harm represented by Republicans being elected compared with a more "moderate" Democrat).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 03:05
|
|
|
Yeah where is this evidence that criticism of the Democratic Party dampens enthusiasm, Democrats just picked up more house seats than in the waves of 2006 or 2008
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:In case you were thinking that Biden might not be running Given his predilections, he should've named the dog Minor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:All dogs are good dogs, but I never really understood how "working dogs" like the Australian Shepherd, German Shepherd, Bernese Mountain Dog, Dobermans, and Boxers all became very popular indoor and pet breeds in the US. Same reason SUVs and bro trucks are a thing and popular among suburban white people who never leave the paved road, possibly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah where is this evidence that criticism of the Democratic Party dampens enthusiasm, Democrats just picked up more house seats than in the waves of 2006 or 2008 The 2010 midterms. Still wondering wtf no one is floating Abrams for 2020, she's a bad rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The left isn't the one "destroying the enthusiasm," and the whole premise that they are is every bit as crazy as the sort of stuff you see Republicans say. This would be a debatable proposition if Republicans didn’t take every opportunity through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and court manipulation to rig the game to make your even-better-than-status-quo-but-still milquetoast solutions systematically impossible to enact in practice. Good luck with any kind of populist left policy when legislatures are gerrymandered to be +20% Republican. And the Republicans decide who gets to vote with what equipment and hours. Oh, and the Republicans have appointed all the judges who will decide on whether to approve the rules the Republicans came up with. Republicans win because no matter how fratricidal their intraparty battles are, they close ranks at the end of the day and don’t give up. And, to bring this back to 2020, the best candidates absolutely will need to point out exactly how the GOP has rigged the table, much like Abrams has been doing. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Alternate take: no matter how fratricidal their intraparty battles are, at the end of the day Republican office holders do whatever the Republican base demands of them, and the demand is always tax cuts, loving Dems, and racism because the highly effective conservative propaganda machine has spent decades telling them thats what they want. If the Democrats were half as good at crafting a coherent message, selling it to voters, and then acting on that message they would probably do better
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:48
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Same reason SUVs and bro trucks are a thing and popular among suburban white people who never leave the paved road, possibly. A lot of working breeds are very intelligent and trainable which are generally desirable traits for pets, so that probably has a lot to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This would be a debatable proposition if Republicans didn’t take every opportunity through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and court manipulation to rig the game to make your even-better-than-status-quo-but-still milquetoast solutions systematically impossible to enact in practice. Good luck with any kind of populist left policy when legislatures are gerrymandered to be +20% Republican. And the Republicans decide who gets to vote with what equipment and hours. Oh, and the Republicans have appointed all the judges who will decide on whether to approve the rules the Republicans came up with. This still seems to be implying that there's some issue with Democrats "giving up" and making the decision to not vote that is intrinsically tied with the left fringe of the party (my guess is that it's mostly tied to the sort of voter who just isn't politically engaged). And it's not productive regardless, since you're not going to magically make people vote more frequently for candidates who don't appeal to them (and it's also debatable whether some hypothetical "all Democrats reliably vote" outcome would even be better in the long run, since it might have just resulted in the contemporary Democratic Party staying the same as it was during the Clinton years). Speaking of which, is there actually any evidence that Republicans are more reliable voters once you account for stuff like the Republican voter base on average being older/whiter/richer and not being as strongly affected by voter suppression? I don't exactly think this isn't the case, but I see this asserted a lot with the implication that there's some ideological cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 05:54
|
|
|
[quote="Ytlaya" post=""489946771”"] Speaking of which, is there actually any evidence that Republicans are more reliable voters once you account for stuff like the Republican voter base on average being older/whiter/richer and not being as strongly affected by voter suppression? I don't exactly think this isn't the case, but I see this asserted a lot with the implication that there's some ideological cause. [/quote] I don’t know. Whether the cause is ideological or not, the point is the strategy works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Speaking of which, is there actually any evidence that Republicans are more reliable voters once you account for stuff like the Republican voter base on average being older/whiter/richer and not being as strongly affected by voter suppression? I don't exactly think this isn't the case, but I see this asserted a lot with the implication that there's some ideological cause. There is. At least for partisanship, which is not 100% the same as ideology, but it broadly tracks. Millennial Republicans in 2016 voted about 9% higher over their national representation and millennial Democrats voted 6% lower than their national representation. 27% of millennials are self-identified Republicans, but Millennial Republicans are 36% of all millennial voters. 61% of millennials are self-identified Democrats, but Millennial Democrats are 55% of all millennial voters. If you look at those in relative terms, then the difference is huge. The increase from 27% to 36% is a ~33% over-performance. 61% to 55% is a ~10% under-performance. White millennial Republicans are about 4% more likely to vote than white millennial Democrats. Even if they weren't, the fact is that being older/whiter is correlated to higher voting levels and higher levels of Republican support. That means, that at the end of the day, the average Republican is going to be more tolerant of voting for a candidate they dislike or aren't enthused about than the average Democrat. It's generally going to be more productive to work out how to overcome that rather than trying to determine the exact ratio of how much of it is correlation and how much is causation. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That means, that at the end of the day, the average Republican is going to be more tolerant of voting for a candidate they dislike or aren't enthused about than the average Democrat. That ONLY follows if Republicans candidates are equally likely to disliked by their voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:That ONLY follows if Republicans candidates are equally likely to disliked by their voters. Republican over-performance in actual voters compared to registered voters is consistent across candidates. Dole, McCain, Bush, and Trump all did slightly better with actual voters than they did with registered voters. The gap is even bigger in midterms, where there is generally a much broader ideological spectrum among candidates than in Presidential elections. It is pretty safe to say that the average Republican is more likely to vote than the average Democrat with equivalent levels of enthusiasm for a candidate. Obviously, there are a bunch of asterisks; like if you only look at a single election in a Democratic wave year you might have Democratic voters meet or exceed their national representation. Or you might have a situation where independent voters are overwhelmingly tilted towards a 3rd party candidate or massively out of sync with voters at large. But, I don't think those apply here. The recent conversion of some Republican leaners to identify as independents might mean that that the numbers aren't quite as bad as it looks. Even if the gap is less bad than it looks, the gap still exists. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:23
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Alternate take: no matter how fratricidal their intraparty battles are, at the end of the day Republican office holders do whatever the Republican base demands of them, and the demand is always tax cuts, loving Dems, and racism because the highly effective conservative propaganda machine has spent decades telling them thats what they want. This lets them off the hook. The propaganda machine exists because they want tax cuts, loving Dems, and racism, and just tells them how to get it. By voting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:All dogs are good dogs, but I never really understood how "working dogs" like the Australian Shepherd, German Shepherd, Bernese Mountain Dog, Dobermans, and Boxers all became very popular indoor and pet breeds in the US. boxers may have been bred as hunting dogs, but everything i've seen about them nowadays says that they make great family dogs. having had 2 of the lil buggers i agree. they can be a bit rambunctious, but they settle down nicely in mid-old age and are certainly no where near as troublesome as herding dogs or high energy dogs like dalmatians. plus they're super loyal, loving, and just love being around the family so in other words, its pretty easy to understand why they are popular house pets (i think the us kennel club has them ranked like 3 or 4 for best breeds for families)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:52
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:boxers may have been bred as hunting dogs, but everything i've seen about them nowadays says that they make great family dogs. having had 2 of the lil buggers i agree. they can be a bit rambunctious, but they settle down nicely in mid-old age and are certainly no where near as troublesome as herding dogs or high energy dogs like dalmatians. plus they're super loyal, loving, and just love being around the family Boxers and Border Collies are examples of a working breed that was eventually bred to be somewhat more suitable for indoor life over time. I just wonder how people decided to start a multi-decade journey to make a working dog semi-suitable for indoor living. There are some working dog breeds that they don't even bother with and some that they have been trying for decades to breed into domestication for indoor life, but can't do it. So, why those breeds? They've been trying for nearly 60 years with Bernese Mountain Dogs and some types of Shepherds, but even the best behaved and trained ones will eventually go stir crazy and destroy a house or bond with a person and attack anyone who tries to go near them. I don't get why someone decided to try and reverse hundreds of years of evolution in the Bernese Mountain Dog to get to get to a point where they only destroy the house and bite once a month. And despite the constant warnings about that happening, they have been shooting up in popularity (and sadly shooting up in the number of dogs in shelters) in America for the last 10 years. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 06:57
|
|
|
A lot of the more desirable working breeds for indoor pets are popular because they don't have as much of a "hear an unfamiliar noise, flip the gently caress out and alert the family" instinct so common in small dogs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Boxers and Border Collies are examples of a working breed that was eventually bred to be somewhat more suitable for indoor life over time. I just wonder how people decided to start a multi-decade journey to make a working dog semi-suitable for indoor living. There are some working dog breeds that they don't even bother with and some that they have been trying for decades to breed into domestication for indoor life, but can't do it. So, why those breeds? my experience with border collies is that they're loving nightmares. herding dogs need to work. i can't speak to boxers being bred as more docile. from what i've read its a relatively new breed (like late 1800s, early 1900s) so i find it doubtful that such a transformation occurred, but i haven't seen anything to point it being true or not so i don't know. both my sisters, one for a long time, worked as vet techs and i've never heard them say anything about that also, there is a big difference in the type of work certain dogs do. its the required intelligence of things like herding or the boundless energy of fire engine chasing that dalmatians were bred for that makes them so troublesome. perhaps hunting lends itself to a more social and agreeable nature? i dunno, i just have had boxers and read about boxers and i don't remember seeing anything about a domestication breeding regimen. from what i've read they were bred as large game hunters who's job it was to grab and hold until the hunter could catch up. that's why they have the iconic flat muzzle; it lets them breath while clamping down on something not trying to argue too hard here, all in good fun talking about a really cool breed of dog. edit: just watched a thing that says modern boxers are very different from the breed in its infancy, so surely there is some truth to what you were saying. i guess its weird to think that for a minority of its existence it was very different. i'm happy to say it looks like you were right. for me, they've been different for so long its almost like a different breed. since the 1890s they've been companion dogs, in the 1830s they were working dogs. there does seem to be a marked distinction between early and modern RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Border collies are great on farms and everyone I've ever met agrees it's terrible to keep one in the suburbs. Greyhounds (ex-racers are routinely adopted out in a lot of places iirc) actually do pretty well as domestic dogs, iirc, they actually tend to be couch potatoes, aside from the tendency to occasionally see something twitch in a bush half a mile away and zoom off at a zillion miles an hour without warning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Border collies are great on farms and everyone I've ever met agrees it's terrible to keep one in the suburbs. my best friend had a rescued retired greyhound and yup, that's exactly how she was cool as hell to see her take off after a squirrel though. they're soooooooo fast
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
CubanMissile posted:A good use of the time we have left is to completely destroy any enthusiasm for any candidate that may improve the situation at all while others rabidly for vote for someone that will accelerate our demise while we cross our fingers and pray for the political messiah to arrive. I like how, to this poster, "human survival should be an optimization criteria" is too much to ask for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This lets them off the hook. The propaganda machine exists because they want tax cuts, loving Dems, and racism, and just tells them how to get it. By voting. They don't though, or didn't in the past. Tax cuts generally don't benefit the core of Republican voters, but they've been bundled into a concentration propaganda campaign to portray 'liberals' as people ideological opposed to them. There has been a focused, decades long concerted effort to villainize 'tax and spend', big government loving, Democrat voting, latte drinking liberals who want to replace the true sons of the soil with illegals and their black allies. The result has been people who should be natural Democrat allies joining the Republican party and voting against their interests to own the libs. Of course, this was coupled with the Democratic party *actually* abandoning people who should be natural Democrat allies and leaving them to the conservatives, basically creating the modern gently caress up that is America. But no, I'm not letting them off the hook. I'm saying there is a fundamental agreement between the conservative message, the desires of the conservative electorate, and the actions of conservative representatives. You're saying conservatives always close rank around their representatives no matter what they do, and I'm saying thats a bald faced loving lie. Conservatives happily excommunicate any representative who doesn't pass the conservative purity test, and their representatives know that and fear them. Even Trump had to pretend to give a poo poo about religion during the primary. Democrats fundamentally do not fear their constituency and scoff at purity tests - unless its the right wing voters they so desperately crave the approval of - which is a serious problem. Democrats should absolutely be held to purity tests, and should absolutely know deep down that siding with conservatives on any issue means they will lose, even at the expense of a conservative taking the seat. Democrats should fear upsetting their base as much as the Republicans do. Democrats should also stop trying to make conservatives their base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 08:47
|
|
|
Yeah the propoganda machine exists to turn people who want tax cuts, people who want racism, and people who want to gently caress dems into people want tax cuts, racism, and to gently caress dem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 09:04
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Yeah the propoganda machine exists to turn people who want tax cuts, people who want racism, and people who want to gently caress dems into people want tax cuts, racism, and to gently caress dem. Thats not true though. Like, read through a history of Kansas sometime. But even then its not important, the important thing is that conservative representatives fundamentally fear their base and Democrats fundamentally fear the conservative base as well. That should probably change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
Yeah, Dems want the affluent/missle class/suburban part of the Republican base to change sides in exchange for tax cuts and the destruction of the social safety net, while also keeping the poor part of their own base and giving them jack poo poo in return (or even hurting them) other than identity-based stuff (more female/black/LGBT CEOs).
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
I had an Australian shepherd / border collie mix and he was rad. Did have to take him to the dog park every day though and keep teaching him new stuff or else he'd get bored. He didn't wreck anything when that happened though. Also, he wasn't very fond of children, which was fine by me since I'm not either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 10:16
|
|
|
Skex posted:The 2010 midterms. But they were criticized for the past two years and they won, so clearly "Dems being criticized" can't be why they lost in 2010
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 11:46
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:
Dude, this excommunication process happens by voting in the primary. So let the primary be as  as the public can stand, fine. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for votes against a literal fascist piss-baby in the 2020 general unless Dems nominate Steve Bannon or something, is my point. I want MFA and a bunch of education spending, and will vote that way in the primary, but I’m not gonna piss myself on purpose and stay home if I don’t get exactly what I want right away because, get this, that’s what the fascist wants me to do.Re dogchat: I saw this headline in NYT and thought it was about Biden. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Nov 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
The conservative takeover of the Republican Party was decades in the making and they spent a lot of time in the relative political wilderness while it was happening. Saying that the republicans ended up where they are now because their base is reliable and pushed them right is ahistorical. The conservative wing pushed the party to the right for fifty years and dragged the voters with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 18:53
|
|
|
I wonder if Jay Inslee will run?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 19:09
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I wonder if Jay Inslee will run? he's been noised around and i brought him up once a twice in the course of my random googling i don't remember this thread having an opinion on whether he was Good or Bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
YOLOsubmarine posted:The conservative takeover of the Republican Party was decades in the making and they spent a lot of time in the relative political wilderness while it was happening. Saying that the republicans ended up where they are now because their base is reliable and pushed them right is ahistorical. The conservative wing pushed the party to the right for fifty years and dragged the voters with them. It also really helped that the Dems willingly abandoned labor and rural areas at around the same time to go for the surburbia and coastal urban vote. Conservatives had very little external resistance to remaking the party around 'moral' wedge issues because no one was offering any alternative message. Rurals should have been loyal Dems for life based on electrification, the farm bill, and stuff like anti-trust preserving small towns. But the Dems stopped pushing that as a party around the same time the ultra conservatives decided to make race, religion, and 'freedom' the wedge issues, things for which government cannot provide solutions. The ultra conservative takeover of the Republicans from the 'moderate' business loving professional class was a long and bloody project that certainly extended well beyond the primaries. The conservatives only look like a united front because the base has spent decades fighting a civil war and flogging any candidate who stepped out of line. The Dems, meanwhile, learned the opposite lesson because they scooped up enough exiled business loving 'moderates" to make up for the crumbling of their traditiinal base and are now a schizophrenic party divided between being Reagan Republicans and FDR Dems. Also the primary process is poo poo because top Dems freely admit they pump more money and resources into the side they like best. The primaries are not a sufficient leash on the party. They broke it, its their fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:It also really helped that the Dems willingly abandoned labor and rural areas at around the same time to go for the surburbia and coastal urban vote. Conservatives had very little external resistance to remaking the party around 'moral' wedge issues because no one was offering any alternative message. I like this post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 21:37
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:I like this post. me too actually the way i explained it recently was that the dems used to have those demographics because they offered economic benefits, but steadily stopped offering that the republicans came in and said, "well, we're not going to give you economic benefits, but neither will they. at least we'll satisfy your prejudices, which is more than the dems can even say"
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Alternate take: no matter how fratricidal their intraparty battles are, at the end of the day Republican office holders do whatever the Republican base demands of them, and the demand is always tax cuts, loving Dems, and racism because the highly effective conservative propaganda machine has spent decades telling them thats what they want. Isn't a big part of that how the GOP can win because it's less demographically and ideologically diverse? I know it's easy to say that the Democratic Party is uninspiring, but I think a big part of that is major constituencies within the party have very different agendas and concerns. It's part of why many people of color I know were skeptical of Bernie Sanders and more partial to HRC while many of the Sanders supporters I knew were tearing their hair out over the stated reasons for that skepticism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
The obvious problem with the "Dems stopped offering poor people a promise of a better life so they turned to racism" narrative is the 1964 electoral map. Those southern whites didn't turn against LBJ because they thought the Great Society was too modest, or because Goldwater was promising them universal health care. Racism-based appeals are just really salient.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The obvious problem with the "Dems stopped offering poor people a promise of a better life so they turned to racism" narrative is the 1964 electoral map. How in the name if sweet gently caress are you so monumentally stupid that you take an election that clearly shows an economic message working literally everywhere except the deepest of the deep south and pretend that it supports the argument you're making?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:How in the name if sweet gently caress are you so monumentally stupid that you take an election that clearly shows an economic message working literally everywhere except the deepest of the deep south and pretend that it supports the argument you're making? To acknowledge that requires their taxes going up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2018 23:10
|
|