|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't know if they're too dumb, but they certainly aren't highly motivated to explore information sources that would offer them a different, more left perspective. You don't have to be a brain genius to wonder whether MSNBC could have a vested interest in moderating anti-capitalist views given their ownership. Let’s be honest, it’s more than just the occasional dumb panelist or columnist. It’s like every loving day.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:45 |
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't know
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:29
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:I don't know if they're too dumb, but they certainly aren't highly motivated to explore information sources that would offer them a different, more left perspective. You don't have to be a brain genius to wonder whether MSNBC could have a vested interest in moderating anti-capitalist views given their ownership. It's not like corporate, center right media stops the left from getting airtime, they just make sure to spin the left as being idiots and monsters. Totally different you see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 01:31
|
|
|
ross perot in hell posted:Yeah that makes sense, I too have blacked out my memory of what american foreign policy and the CIA have done to every left of center world government and am a big special opinion boy just like you, KN. The funny thing is that you don't even need any sort of deep conspiracy; it's just obvious that people are going to be unlikely to promote messaging that goes against their own interests, and media companies are owned by the wealthy and have other wealthy organizations and people as their main clients. The wealthy may disagree amongst themselves about various things, but the one thing almost all of them can agree about is that they want to continue being wealthy. KingNastidon posted:Yeah there's a difference between something being the moral and righteous belief and broad public sentiment coming to that conclusion. But the voters ultimately came around and the issue was resolved at the ballot box without bloodshed. Is this a joke? There was this thing called the Civil War. Slavery wasn't ended at the ballot box without bloodshed  More broadly, your arguments in this thread seem to mostly revolve around a completely ahistorical and counterfactual belief on your part that public opinion isn't extremely heavily influenced by mainstream media. This is just really stupid and wrong; there isn't really much more to say about it than that. The only reason it's even become as popular as it has in the last few years is that things reached such a dire point that people began losing trust in institutions, and Bernie Sanders existed as a credible enough figure (as a Senator) who could provide a platform for certain ideas to be heard on a national level. The existence of the internet also probably helped a lot; television/newspapers don't have the almost complete control over political messaging that they used to have (though they still control the public opinion of most older voters and a significant portion of younger ones still). Also, what is even the point of saying the things you're saying? What use is there to pointing out "clearly this thing hasn't achieved enough popularity to have been achieved yet"? As best I can tell, your message seems to be "because the left hasn't won yet, they must be doing something wrong; therefore you shouldn't support Bernie Sanders (or something)." This is deeply illogical though. Your message might make sense if the left were experiencing a decline (since in that case a change in strategy might be in order), but the opposite is the case! In fact, it's rather suspect to suddenly show such great "concern" during a period when the left is on the rise. Almost as if you aren't happy with this trend. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
Yeah I believe he knows that and is insinuating that it was wrong for the Republicans to win the election on a Free Soil platform in 1860 because the South started a war in response, we should have just turned all of North America into an evil slave empire instead of half of it and then waited until every last Southern State changed their minds on slavery in their own time without any divisive agitation, in order to eventually incrementally abolish slavery by consensus, so never.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Is this a joke? There was this thing called the Civil War. Slavery wasn't ended at the ballot box without bloodshed Ok, that is amazing and I can't believe I missed it. VitalSigns posted:"well if you're so right, then why haven't the slaves been freed already, Mr Douglas? KingNastidon posted:Yeah there's a difference between something being the moral and righteous belief and broad public sentiment coming to that conclusion. But the voters ultimately came around and the issue was resolved at the ballot box without bloodshed. Now that's the power of creative thinking!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:25
|
|
"
Ytlaya posted:Is this a joke? There was this thing called the Civil War. Slavery wasn't ended at the ballot box without bloodshed Yes, in that something as clearly morally abhorrent as slavery took decades and decades of gradual progress and even then there wasn't enough broad public support to end it nationally without civil war. Destroying capitalism and eating the rich may take a few years. Ytlaya posted:As best I can tell, your message seems to be "because the left hasn't won yet, they must be doing something wrong; therefore you shouldn't support Bernie Sanders (or something)." This is deeply illogical though. Your message might make sense if the left were experiencing a decline (since in that case a change in strategy might be in order), but the opposite is the case! In fact, it's rather suspect to suddenly show such great "concern" during a period when the left is on the rise. Almost as if you aren't happy with this trend. I think Sanders does certain things wrong tactically, but generally he is uniquely good as a messenger. Especially because he doesn't fear going on fox news or pod save america which many here seem to oppose [while also saying leftist voices aren't provided popular platforms to share the good news]. I don't share all his long term policy goals but think he's unquestionably the best democratic candidate given his life's work and demeanor in the face of Trump. Leftism is in ascension, or at least the democratic party and media is lurching to the left relative to 4 or 10 or 20 years ago. The "concern" is maybe the full democratic electorate isn't quite at the point where they're willing to vote for the most left candidate available. That's exemplified by the relative support of various M4A plans that the thread rejected for months and months. And while that's unfortunate given the challenges the country faces, it doesn't make every other candidate in the race a fascist republican nor those that choose to vote for them. The field as a whole is running on a platform that's significantly more progressive than Obama and there's no indication that's going to change, just not as fast as you'd like. No one is saying not to support Bernie, but when other people do not it doesn't mean they lack agency for their political preferences given the brainwashing of their lib masters. They're going to have to be dragged there because it's what they genuinely feel is right and normal based on lived experiences and a desire for stability.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Yes, in that something as clearly morally abhorrent as slavery took decades and decades of gradual progress and even then there wasn't enough broad public support to end it nationally without civil war. Destroying capitalism and eating the rich may take a few years. i recommend getting started now, by voting for bernard sanders to be the nominee for president
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1154795948062773248 Whoops looks like fellowships are unpaid internships after all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 02:52
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:when other people do not it doesn't mean they lack agency for their political preferences given the brainwashing of their lib masters. edit: Follow up: Do you know what advertising is? twodot fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:But the voters ultimately came around and the issue was resolved at the ballot box without bloodshed. Oh come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Leftism is in ascension, or at least the democratic party and media is lurching to the left relative to 4 or 10 or 20 years ago. The "concern" is maybe the full democratic electorate isn't quite at the point where they're willing to vote for the most left candidate available. That's exemplified by the relative support of various M4A plans that the thread rejected for months and months. And while that's unfortunate given the challenges the country faces, it doesn't make every other candidate in the race a fascist republican nor those that choose to vote for them. The field as a whole is running on a platform that's significantly more progressive than Obama and there's no indication that's going to change, just not as fast as you'd like. It isn't clear from any of this what your point is supposed to be. The only thing I can think of is that you're upset people don't feel more positively about the non-Sanders candidates. I do not see what else anyone is supposed to conclude from what you're saying, and how you want them to change their behavior. When people say they dislike the other candidates, it is completely irrelevant how other non-left-leaning Americans might feel. No one has an obligation to feel positively towards candidates who don't share their values just because a majority of Americans/Democrats don't feel the same. Most people arguing against you in this thread believe that supporting the things Sanders does is the very least someone should do, and that it's deeply morally wrong to not do so. Nothing you are saying meaningfully contradicts this. It is an exercise in frustration trying to get you people to actually make a clear point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
I love the idea of pretending you're not just enabling nationalists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/beardedcrank/status/1154881857395314688 Pretty solid poll for Bernie despite the slight drop in his overall numbers. Biden cratering is a really good sign.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:18
|
|
twodot posted:So you are saying you don't understand the distinction between people having agency and people being influenced by a deliberately created environment? At the present moment about 70-80% of likely democratic voters are supporting a candidate other than Sanders as their first choice. If you had to take a stab in the dark, what percent of that is due to current lib media bias vs. they aren't currently receptive to leftist policy, people they associate with leftist policy, or Bernie himself? And whether that's 1-100%, what is your proposal to change that?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Biden's going to keep falling. He's down more than 10% nationally from where he was when he declared.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Being bad is not a defense of their character. Maybe its better this way, they would only be absorbing rightist thoughts anyway
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Biden's going to keep falling. He's down more than 10% nationally from where he was when he declared. His performance at Wednesday's debate is gonna drop him out of the top 3, is my prediction
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:At the present moment about 70-80% of likely democratic voters are supporting a candidate other than Sanders as their first choice. If you had to take a stab in the dark, what percent of that is due to current lib media bias vs. they aren't currently receptive to leftist policy, people they associate with leftist policy, or Bernie himself? And whether that's 1-100%, what is your proposal to change that? edit: I will acknowledge my personal proposal to change most anything is "glorious revolution". If you've got a better proposal, present it, or, again, shut up. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:His performance at Wednesday's debate is gonna drop him out of the top 3, is my prediction Its do or die for him
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Biden's going to keep falling. He's down more than 10% nationally from where he was when he declared. Biden is about where he was when he declared. His initial polling bump wore off but he is recovering from his first debate performance. If we are using declines from the maximum polling point, Bernie is also significantly down. And is currently fighting for a distant second. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 04:59
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:His performance at Wednesday's debate is gonna drop him out of the top 3, is my prediction i dunno expectations for him are probably sufficiently lowered this time around even if he mr magoos it again the reaction won't be quite as drastic
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:08
|
|
twodot posted:I will acknowledge my personal proposal to change most anything is "glorious revolution". If you've got a better proposal, present it, or, again, shut up. Well, I'd prefer people don't spill blood if democratic primary voters don't nominate bernie sanders. My proposal is to take a big ol sigh, shrug your shoulders at the inability to convince people of a better alternative, and then keep working at expanding the window of discussion as boomers die off and electoral victory becomes more likely. Think of how much of Bernie's 2016 platform became the foundation for many other candidate's policies three short years later. That isn't a terribly brave stance and my name won't be etched in stone, but I also won't be gunned down screaming "Elizabeth Warren was a Republican until the 1990's!" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:34
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:i dunno expectations for him are probably sufficiently lowered this time around even if he mr magoos it again the reaction won't be quite as drastic I think there are a lot of people who didn't watch the last debate that will see this one, so it could still be bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:My proposal is to take a big ol sigh, shrug your shoulders at the inability to convince people of a better alternative
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Well, I'd prefer people don't spill blood if democratic primary voters don't nominate bernie sanders. My proposal is to take a big ol sigh, shrug your shoulders at the inability to convince people of a better alternative, and then keep working at expanding the window of discussion as boomers die off and electoral victory becomes more likely. Think of how much of Bernie's 2016 platform became the foundation for many other candidate's policies three short years later. Holy poo poo are you insinuating that Bernie supporters are going to start murdering innocent people in the streets? What evidence do you have for that at all? Or by “spilling blood” do you mean “accurately calling people out and it hurts their feelings to realize they’re not actual woke”?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Love how all this ignores the urgency of climate change. Guess the science must be wrong if politicians and the media aren’t giving it proper coverage. We should just wait a decade and ignore science because that’s easiest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:49
|
|
|
Lol unironic 'demographics are destiny' too
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:At the present moment about 70-80% of likely democratic voters are supporting a candidate other than Sanders as their first choice. If you had to take a stab in the dark, what percent of that is due to current lib media bias vs. they aren't currently receptive to leftist policy, people they associate with leftist policy, or Bernie himself? And whether that's 1-100%, what is your proposal to change that? It's impossible to really discuss this because you seem to have a strange understanding of how people form opinions. It's not an all or nothing thing; people form their opinions from a combination of what they see and hear in society, media, and their social life, as well as their own personal experiences. Media/society undeniably have the biggest influence, since that's where people get most of their information. If the media bombards them with the idea that, say, Medicare for All is unrealistic or will make it hard for Democrats to get elected, that opinion will start to feel more reasonable to most people (who don't have anything approaching a coherent ideology and are more or less blank slates who will agree with anything that "sounds right," and the mainstream media has the loudest and most common voice). The idea that most people's opinions are somehow some genuine thing that spawned directly from their True Soul (or whatever you're trying to imply here) is obviously nonsense. People decide things based upon the information they have access to, and most of that comes from the mainstream media and their social circles (which generally consist of people who also get their information from the media). twodot posted:Ok you unironically believe better things aren't possible, and that we should do nothing to improve the lives of other human beings. That makes sense. Why are you posting here? And why are you calling the people who think we can change things misguided? Describe to me the evidence that led you to believe that there is no way to improve the lives of our fellow humans. You probably already know this, but the answer (as it is with most of these guys) is that they dislike the "radical left" and are very irritated at what they perceive to be immaturity (and also take great offense at what the left's beliefs imply about their own ethics). They likely have a mental image of leftists being neckbeard failsons or whatever, as opposed to intelligent liberals who are educated and work professional jobs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:You probably already know this, but the answer (as it is with most of these guys) is that they dislike the "radical left" and are very irritated at what they perceive to be immaturity (and also take great offense at what the left's beliefs imply about their own ethics).
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:04
|
|
twodot posted:Ok you unironically believe better things aren't possible, and that we should do nothing to improve the lives of other human beings. Cutting off someone's quote mid sentence to avoid acknowledging the context the next sentence provides is VitalSigns stuff. Do better. RasperFat posted:Holy poo poo are you insinuating that Bernie supporters are going to start murdering innocent people in the streets? Maybe I misinterpreted his intent. I assumed the revolution following Bernie's electoral defeat in the democratic primary would require some action against party members and the media to dispose them. If it's just making some snappy tweets then we've been fighting in the revolution since 2015, comrade. Ghost Leviathan posted:Lol unironic 'demographics are destiny' too Kill the boomers given the cross tabs, talk up a mobilized base of youths with extremely high voter participation rates and are receptive to socialism, and reject that progress can eventually be made via demographic changes because it's what some libs said once and they lost an election with the popular vote.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Cutting off someone's quote mid sentence to avoid acknowledging the context the next sentence provides is VitalSigns stuff. Do better. edit: By which I mean don't post a plan that is "Do nothing until demographics make everything better". You asked for a plan, now give me a better plan. twodot fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:06
|
|
twodot posted:Post a single plan. Continue to run progressive challengers in primary elections everywhere to force more moderate democrats to adopt leftist positions similar to what Bernie and AOC have done in a few short years. It doesn't matter if they win as long as they're loud. Support leftist media such that there are good alternatives to MSNBC or NYT op-eds for those that are willing to seek them out. Continue public pressure on elected officials and others in positions of power and influence no matter who wins the democratic primary or the general. Very uninspiring, I know. If you want me to advocate for armed revolution because Bernie doesn't win the primary it's not going to happen. I can't get my own poor rear end diabetic rust belt parents to not vote Trump despite them being caricatures of folks that are voting against their own financial interests and stated morals. I'm not ready to get lit up by a cop because some wine aunt thinks Kamala is fierce enough to stand up to Trump in a debate.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Continue to run progressive challengers in primary elections KingNastidon posted:My proposal is to take a big ol sigh, shrug your shoulders at the inability to convince people of a better alternative
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:Post a single plan. mod edit: nope (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:24
|
|
twodot posted:Please address the conflict here. Sure, let me quote the whole post so you can read the remainder of the sentence and the following sentence: KingNastidon posted:Well, I'd prefer people don't spill blood if democratic primary voters don't nominate bernie sanders. My proposal is to take a big ol sigh, shrug your shoulders at the inability to convince people of a better alternative, and then keep working at expanding the window of discussion as boomers die off and electoral victory becomes more likely. Think of how much of Bernie's 2016 platform became the foundation for many other candidate's policies three short years later. It's quite consistent now, no? Ghost Leviathan posted:The Republicans already have a plan to counter demographic change and it is in action And the logical alternative is stand up to the libs and refuse to vote blue no matter who! *fumbles my phone reading today's push alerts about the supreme court decision* KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
The Republicans already have a plan to counter demographic change and it is in action
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:25
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:It's quite consistent now, no? twodot fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
So Bernie Sanders has dragged liberals kicking and screaming into giving token concessions to his extremely popular policies and you say the left should shut up be grateful and immediately stop doing everything that's been working for them after they were shut out of the process for decades?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:45 |
|
twodot posted:It is not. A person who believes lives are on the line isn't sighing or shrugging. If you want to rest on your fainting couch because another 100,000 people died because of American policies then do it, but don't pretend you are in the same fight. Please don't post a link to your periscope in July 2020. I still enjoy following the pro wrestling threads here. Ghost Leviathan posted:So Bernie Sanders has dragged liberals kicking and screaming into giving token concessions to his extremely popular policies and you say the left should shut up be grateful and immediately stop doing everything that's been working for them after they were shut out of the process for decades? No? Where did I say that? I don't think armed revolution is the answer to Bernie getting 2nd or 3rd place in the primary. Especially when Harris and Warren have lifted large portions of their 2020 platform from 2016 Bernie. One electoral defeat doesn't mean the left has to stop doing activism or pushing better candidates in the primaries. Sucks we may get a bit crispier in our elder years, but for some reason telling people they either have to vote Bernie or prepare to face death via climate change or the revolution probably won't result in them embracing leftist rhetoric. KingNastidon fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jul 27, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2019 06:55
|
|