|
Mellow Seas posted:I would just like to take a second and note that nobody even came close to addressing, let alone answering my questions. It's because your question is objectively loving stupid and the answer is painfully obvious How does not voting for Democrats convince them to change? Really?
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Radish posted:If Louisiana citizens are so right wing that they don't care about abortion rights, why is it such a big deal if people stay home? Not every demographic has yet reached perfect purity on progressive causes. Poorer people have widespread poor opinions about abortion, but is the nominally more leftist party just going to abandon all poor people? African Americans still lag in support for gay marriage, and that is the wrong opinion, but what can you do? Just have the progressive party never engage with a majority of black americans and their issues until they self purify out all bad opinion? Can you have a leftist party that boycotts engaging with the poor because the poor lack perfect education and upbringings? Some people are working for more progressive lives than they have even if they aren't themselves perfect progressives. If we could nerve staple everyone to make them vote right or whatever I guess that'd be convenient, but it's not how it is. And every region and demographic has their own definition of what is right and left wing to them. Someone in a country with the death penalty for homosexuality that fights to have it reduced to just a fine is still the good guy, especially if he succeeds and is a hero, even if he failed to be woke enough to know to fight for total equal rights. He opened a path for that to come next once he did as far as he knew was right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:People seem to be talking past each other. I think we all get that there are major problems with Democratic leadership and priorities. How, though, does not voting for Democrats in two-party elections work to fight that leadership? On the finer grain we’ve been discussing, how does not voting for the Democrat help women keep and get rights? How does voting for them necessarily help given the fact that one of the most powerful people in the party is on record as not actually giving a poo poo about keeping the party in line on those issues
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
People don't vote for Democrats because they look at the Democrats and go 'gently caress it, I could be at home masturbating/watching Game of Thrones/desperately trying to catch up on sleep and this poo poo isn't worth it'. The bare minimum is not enough, especially when Democrats can't deliver that. They are not advertising a product that people want.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:It's because your question is objectively loving stupid and the answer is painfully obvious I can understand an argument for how voting doesn’t help. How does it hurt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Not every demographic has yet reached perfect purity on progressive causes. Poorer people have widespread poor opinions about abortion, but is the nominally more leftist party just going to abandon all poor people? African Americans still lag in support for gay marriage, and that is the wrong opinion, but what can you do? Just have the progressive party never engage with a majority of black americans and their issues until they self purify out all bad opinion? Can you have a leftist party that boycotts engaging with the poor because the poor lack perfect education and upbringings? What benefit is obtained by supporting leaders who have proven they will strip away human rights from their constituents whenever it benefits them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:I can understand an argument for how voting doesn’t help. How does it hurt? If being a succdem is enough, absent any other factors, to guarantee that somebody loses any election, then either the Democratic party will stop supporting succdems or the actual good parts of the party will split off into a new party without all the dead weight (which also won't support succdems). In order for being a succdem to be bad enough to cost someone an election, people have to actually stop voting for succdems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
It's going to be super fun if Biden wins and suddenly the majority of Democrats want racism, pro life, usury, and doing what the Republicans want in general to be the platform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:What benefit is obtained by supporting leaders who have proven they will strip away human rights from their constituents whenever it benefits them? What proof do you have that there is a silent pro choice majority in the 2019 Deep South? Not every group of people is as perfect as you, some people want better lives but aren’t perfectly educated on all modern thought yet. So it’s a victory to have better people win elections even if it’s not as good as more progressive areas would elect.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Voting for the Democrat doesnt seem to have done much for the women of Louisiana. You really seem to keep a dodge up about the Third Position you seem to advocate for, when the election only allows two candidates, from a wider first round field? Please, describe what is the right action that should have occur there instead. Nevvy Z posted:"But they voted for Hitler." Common canard - Hitler's party was not close to a majority when he was put in. I do say however all those who did vote for Hitler and his party in November 1932 deserve what they reaped in the ensuing war. Prester Jane posted:Within the American system the governor of a state is an extremely powerful position, and any governor is de facto in a leadership position within their party because of the immense power they wield. It seems you keep refusing to answer the question. What national party does Governor Edwards control I can also well see that the DCCC is not "official organ of democratic establishment", that appears to be DNC and DCCC appear to be an organ for specific election of lower house representatives. Perhaps I am severely misreading things, but that is quite much difference from a governor. Would you care to explicate that party which is not Democrat and not Republican but can win all these governates and legislature seats instead? No matter how much one keens, your country only has legal path to office for winning majority of some manner of voting count, even though some of the "voting" is ludicrous indirect like for the presidentcy. I assure you your country is not special in having to settle for parties that do not mesh well with individual voters, our last election had a final round behind a want-be Hitler and the world's blandest central-Napoleon. Maybe you should ask the other people in Louisiana why they have such strong anti-abortion support? But you seem to keep making this very crazy mistake of pretending a governor is dictator creating law, when it is the legislature that passed it by very wide margin. I looked up the last legislature vote on the law, it was 79 in favor and 23 against it. That is a 77% favor rate among the legislature and unless I miss something serious that is a margin that means they could and would have overridden the veto power if the governor did not sign. Thus the law becomes valid in either scenario. And that is down to all the other people the Louisiana voters gave their vote too. Eminai posted:If being a succdem is enough, absent any other factors, to guarantee that somebody loses any election, then either the Democratic party will stop supporting succdems or the actual good parts of the party will split off into a new party without all the dead weight (which also won't support succdems). In order for being a succdem to be bad enough to cost someone an election, people have to actually stop voting for succdems. Whatever a "succdem" is, why have past decades of losses in the country not gotten rid of them, if your thesis is valid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What proof do you have that there is a silent pro choice majority in the 2019 Deep South? Not every group of people is as perfect as you, some people want better lives but aren’t perfectly educated on all modern thought yet. So it’s a victory to have better people win elections even if it’s not as good as more progressive areas would elect. What objective is served by supporting leaders who have proven that they will strip human rights from women if they perceive a personal benefit in doing so? How many of other peoples rights are you willing to trade away in the name of the greater good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:Common canard - Hitler's party was not close to a majority when he was put in. Oh yeah that's the issue
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:You really seem to keep a dodge up about the Third Position you seem to advocate for, when the election only allows two candidates, from a wider first round field? Please, describe what is the right action that should have occur there instead. What objective is served by supporting leaders who view will use their power to strip human rights away from people? How many of other peoples human rights do you think should be traded in exchange for appeasing fascists?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
oh my god, all of you are absolute loving turds well actually all democratic candidates for office and the democratic leadership are all actually all a schrodinger experiment if you think about the extended democratic party universe. did you know that america has this thing called first past the post!?!?? what about that republicans are bad? like no loving joke, the response to a democratic governor rubber stamping one of the most aggressive and regressive abortion limitations is unironically “well, what are you gonna do? maybe it’s called flyover country for a reason” jesus loving christ
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:What objective is served by supporting leaders who have proven that they will strip human rights from women if they perceive a personal benefit in doing so? This is an insanely simple question that is not getting an answer, lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:You really seem to keep a dodge up about the Third Position you seem to advocate for, when the election only allows two candidates, from a wider first round field? Please, describe what is the right action that should have occur there instead. This post is only barely beaten out by the guy saying towards the top of the page that gay rights are cool, but black people disagree (they don't). Question: Why is it that poo poo dems can't even put up a token resistance to the absolutely most abhorrent culture war bullshit that the GOP wants to pass? Sure, even if the governor didn't sign it the legislature would probably ram it right on through, but what is the loving harm in making a completely risk free stand for the least morally ambiguous poo poo ever? I'd ask dumb rhetorical questions like "have these loving people never heard of leadership before?" or "how the gently caress do these idiots think politics works?", but the truth is that none of these people you're sitting here apologizing give the slightest poo poo about anyone like you or me. The only situation in which they're even remotely worth your time is if you're organizing to primary their asses out of the party. e: loving christ I forgot the worst part and I don't want to rearrange my post quote:"Would you care to explicate that party which is not Democrat and not Republican but can win all these governates and legislature seats instead? No matter how much one keens, your country only has legal path to office for winning majority of some manner of voting count, even though some of the "voting" is ludicrous indirect like for the presidentcy. I assure you your country is not special in having to settle for parties that do not mesh well with individual voters, our last election had a final round behind a want-be Hitler and the world's blandest central-Napoleon." These center-right Democratic party dipshits have lost literally over a thousand seats across the country in less than a decade. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:What objective is served by supporting leaders who view will use their power to strip human rights away from people? You are the one claiming you supported him, why did you vote him? You also still do not show that this small state governor controls the whole party or anything like that. You seem unwilling to say you're going to do anything of use. You're going to join the big majority of your country who already does not vote, which has not yet produced the "leadership" you claim to want despite decades. I have already stated that outright revolution is a fine situation to choose, you just need to be willing to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Well personally I can't really talk about what I'm doing to destroy the US (as it involves illegal activity).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:What proof do you have that there is a silent pro choice majority in the 2019 Deep South? Not every group of people is as perfect as you, some people want better lives but aren’t perfectly educated on all modern thought yet. So it’s a victory to have better people win elections even if it’s not as good as more progressive areas would elect. it sure was a victory for womens rights to elect a guy who stripped them away nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:You are the one claiming you supported him please cite
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:50
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:This is an insanely simple question that is not getting an answer, lmao It has been answered repeatedly. The answer is also manifestly clear. Every time it’s been explained however, the point is swatted away with round 10,000 of the Dems are a Waste echo chamber.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It has been answered repeatedly. The answer is also manifestly clear. Every time it’s been explained however, the point is swatted away with round 10,000 of the Dems are a Waste echo chamber. then you should be able to easily repeat it or quote someone explaining why its good to elect people who are fine with stripping away rights as long as they're a dem
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 04:51
|
|
|
nepetaMisekiryoiki posted:You are the one claiming you supported him, why did you vote him? I'm gonna need a citation on that one chief. Now, setting that issue to the side for a moment, could you please answer a simple direct question: "What benefit is obtained by supporting leaders who have made it clear that they will strip your human rights away if they see a personal benefit in doing so?" Bonus follow up: "Why do you think that other people should make a sacrifice of their human rights that you are not making yourself?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:"What benefit is obtained by supporting leaders who have made it clear that they will strip your human rights away if they see a personal benefit in doing so?" The benefit is that after decades of living in poverty you have not become as enlightened as prester jane and do not understand that abortion is actually good after half a century of propaganda saying it's bad, but you also understand that you live in the poorest state and your brain with the highest rate of having hook worms in it of any state and realizes things should be better and that you would like to let in some progressive policy even if some of the lowest rated schools in the entire country have not prepared you to be perfectly woke in all ways at all times. So people vote for things that aren't great, but are improvements over what they had. And the candidates they elect reflect that, instead of reflecting ideal candidates no one there will elect. Lots of people and lots of electorates are imperfect or even bad, but the answer to that is not to block them from ever improving in any way unless they can bootstrap every vice and and ignorance they ever acquired away in one fell swoop.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
So there isn't one but you're gonna be a butthole Like you didn't answer the question you just continued to be a dipshit ajout how it's really just being Too Darn Woke BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
Also lol at their brains literally don't work because they probably have hookworms but also they definitely are doing the calculus to weigh abortion against other issues you fuckin dweeb Also shout out at condescending to the goon who has posted openly about being homeless and schizophrenic and her hosed up childhood like she can't possibly understand being poor and fed bullshit
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:So people vote for things that aren't great, but are improvements over what they had. Losing your human rights is not an improvement, it's a regression. And you know that, but you're feigning stupidity here in order to make some sort of asinine point. Please try reformulating your response without outright lying this time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Lots of people and lots of electorates are imperfect or even bad, but the answer to that is not to block them from ever improving in any way unless they can bootstrap every vice and and ignorance they ever acquired away in one fell swoop. 2 steps back gets you one step forward! I can't imagine how this isnt winning over minority voters left and right
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:46
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The benefit is that after decades of living in poverty you have not become as enlightened as prester jane and do not understand that abortion is actually good after half a century of propaganda saying it's bad, but you also understand that you live in the poorest state and your brain with the highest rate of having hook worms in it of any state and realizes things should be better and that you would like to let in some progressive policy even if some of the lowest rated schools in the entire country have not prepared you to be perfectly woke in all ways at all times. So people vote for things that aren't great, but are improvements over what they had. And the candidates they elect reflect that, instead of reflecting ideal candidates no one there will elect. Lots of people and lots of electorates are imperfect or even bad, but the answer to that is not to block them from ever improving in any way unless they can bootstrap every vice and and ignorance they ever acquired away in one fell swoop. Last I saw, an overwhelming majority of the country supports gay marriage and also the availability of abortion, so I'm really not sure where you get this "the poors and blacks are too stupid to have nice things, and this is why Democrats being functionally indistinguishable from Republicans is woke, achtually" idea from. e: I'll give you some help. Right wing activist organizations target smaller, poorer districts because they're infinitely cheaper to run in. Also the Democrats are loving complicit. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:52
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Also lol at their brains literally don't work because they probably have hookworms but also they definitely are doing the calculus to weigh abortion against other issues you fuckin dweeb I have received a number of letters from people who thanked me for my work because it helped them de-radicalize, and I've also written several extensive pieces about Accelerated Christian Education* that made pretty substantial contributions to the overall understanding of the complex web of political interests behind that particular brainwashing program. *the curriculum that the cult I was raised in used at the tiny rural private school I was mostly educated k-8th in. (And I do mean tiny, like 60 students total k-12th tiny) But naw the real problem is I don't understand how difficult it is to overcome fundamentalist Christian brainwashing, social isolation, or poverty. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
This thread is even worse than the old 'lesser of two evils voting' thread with the completely worthless centrist id being just laid bare, goddamn. Like holy poo poo, what is wrong with you people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:This thread is even worse than the old 'lesser of two evils voting' thread with the completely worthless centrist id being just laid bare, goddamn. Ah yes the one where I was told I was wrong to accept nothing less than 15/hr minimum wage, by some of the people itt A classic
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 07:49
|
|
|
just a quick question. what are we supposed to #votebluenomatterwho for? it used to be because the dems would protect minorities, women, and immigrants. now we have elected democrats refusing to stand up for dreamers, hiding evidence of police murdering black people so they can get more easily re-elected, and helping republicans rip away abortion so what is #votebluenomatterwho defending?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 11:55
|
|
|
Condiv posted:just a quick question. what are we supposed to #votebluenomatterwho for? it used to be because the dems would protect minorities, women, and immigrants. now we have elected democrats refusing to stand up for dreamers, hiding evidence of police murdering black people so they can get more easily re-elected, and helping republicans rip away abortion It was for SCOTUS appointments but now Democrats are too weak to get those without Senate control so they've moved the goal posts to voting rights. The issue is that the Democrats have been so untrustworthy there's no reason to believe they won't abandon that issue as well the moment the Bailey's say that they don't want that to Schumer's psychosis. That and every time a Democrat betrays everyone it doesn't count because they aren't the official leader (which is no one) no matter how influencial or powerful they are. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Jun 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
It really boils down if you implicitly find the current state of the US to be acceptable or not, if you do then voting for Democrats makes some type of logical sense.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 12:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It really boils down if you implicitly find the current state of the US to be acceptable or not, if you do then voting for Democrats makes some type of logical sense. That might be true if the dems ardently, stridently fought to maintain the status quo. As we’ve seen, they aren’t. They give ground to the republicans when they don’t have to. They cherish the thought of compromising with an increasingly right wing Republican Party, and the only thing they fight stridently against is the left gaining any influence. When you have the dem establishment front runner saying he can work with Mitch McConnell, you don’t have a party that’s fighting to keep things the way they are, you have a party of republican collaborators
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 12:26
|
|
|
Interesting. Why do you all think Republicans being in complete control will be any better?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 12:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:It was for SCOTUS appointments but now Democrats are too weak to get those without Senate control so they've moved the goal posts to voting rights. The issue is that the Democrats have been so untrustworthy there's no reason to believe they won't abandon that issue as well the moment the Bailey's say that they don't want that to Schumer's psychosis. If voting in NY is any indication of how the establishment dems think voting rights should work then we're hosed. Condiv posted:That might be true if the dems ardently, stridently fought to maintain the status quo. As we’ve seen, they aren’t. They give ground to the republicans when they don’t have to. They cherish the thought of compromising with an increasingly right wing Republican Party, and the only thing they fight stridently against is the left gaining any influence. Remember when they were openly hostile to gay marriage until the supreme court drug them kicking and screaming into supporting it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Interesting. Why do you all think Republicans being in complete control will be any better? They already are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The benefit is that after decades of living in poverty you have not become as enlightened as prester jane and do not understand that abortion is actually good after half a century of propaganda saying it's bad, but you also understand that you live in the poorest state and your brain with the highest rate of having hook worms in it of any state and realizes things should be better and that you would like to let in some progressive policy even if some of the lowest rated schools in the entire country have not prepared you to be perfectly woke in all ways at all times. So people vote for things that aren't great, but are improvements over what they had. And the candidates they elect reflect that, instead of reflecting ideal candidates no one there will elect. Lots of people and lots of electorates are imperfect or even bad, but the answer to that is not to block them from ever improving in any way unless they can bootstrap every vice and and ignorance they ever acquired away in one fell swoop. If you are willing to give up the abortion issue just because it's hard to fight for it, why should I, a Muslim, trust you not to give up my rights when it's hard to fight for? Why should an LGBT person trust you with their rights? Why should an African American trust you with theirs? Giving up on abortion isn't just giving up on one issue, it's showing that you will give up on every issue the minute things get tough. If you can't protect their rights, you sure as gently caress aren't going to try to protect mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:If you are willing to give up the abortion issue just because it's hard to fight for it, why should I, a Muslim, trust you not to give up my rights when it's hard to fight for? Why should an LGBT person trust you with their rights? Why should an African American trust you with theirs? Nancy pelosi doesn't make all the candidates in a lab and then assign them out and doesn't make the electorate then place them on the board where she wants. The anti-abortion guy was the candidate democrats there voted for. What can you do about that other than have faith in people that they have made an honest mistake and will become better if the pain they live under is fixed? If everyone votes wrong all the time then what can you do in a democracy at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2019 16:23
|
|