|
Who will you vote for in 2020? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Biden |
|
425 | 18.06% |
| Trump |
|
105 | 4.46% |
| whoever the Green Party runs |
|
307 | 13.05% |
| GOOGLE RON PAUL |
|
151 | 6.42% |
| Bernie Sanders |
|
346 | 14.70% |
| Stalin |
|
246 | 10.45% |
| Satan |
|
300 | 12.75% |
| Nobody |
|
202 | 8.58% |
| Jess Scarane |
|
110 | 4.67% |
| mystery man Brian Carroll of the American Solidarity Party |
|
61 | 2.59% |
| Dick Nixon |
|
100 | 4.25% |
| Total: | 2089 votes | ||
|
Mellow Seas posted:As long as we're being all "I didn't actually say that" about things. I'm wondering if you're literally ever going to stop reducing others' arguments to strawmen, it seems to be the only trick you know when someone's made an argument you don't like and you don't know how to respond to it.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Yeowch, there has been a trend to use ACORN as symbol of pure Democratic weakness with the narrative that this really strong and good organization was disbanded solely because of James Okeefe's videos. While that was definitely the trigger, people within the organization stole millions of dollars, and that gets ignored in the story. That really is the point I was trying to make. And there is a difference between the story with an internet video scared Democrats into defunding this otherwise really good organization and an internet video sparked events that led Democrats to abandon an organization that had done good things, but had shady leadership that refused to cut ties with a family that stole millions of dollars and not only hid their crimes for a decade, but pushed out board members who were trying to clear past corruption. As for your hypothetical about ACORN's lack of funding causing 16. Who the gently caress knows man. From my personal experience, I really don't have a high opinion of them, but that's obviously limited. Between the infighting at the top and the possibility of further investigations, it's not really clear ACORN would have continued to exist. Regardless, a lot of their money was and would probably continue to be wrapped up in legal fees outside of the actual defunding. Ideally, Democrat and Liberal power players should have worked behind the scenes to cajole ACORN to get itself together and the Democrats defended them based on their intent and new leadership. The end of the day, ACORN had been leveraged against Obama in '08, their leadership was a mess, and he just said gently caress it despite the purpose of the group being noble. But I do think people present the more simplified version of the story where Democrat cowardice is more pronounced to the point of being illogical. And it's not true. While I think the wisdom of the Democrats and the actual impact of the defunding are worth debating, I'm just going to tell you that I'm not going to engage in the equivalency you're trying to draw between my earlier posts and me clarifying the history of ACORN. V I don't think that's an unfair takeaway, but i'm obviously being a little more understanding to the Democrats. V Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jul 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Two things can be true at once: one, that there were corrupt dealings within ACORN. Two, that Democrats are spineless and caved in to unreasonable GOP demands to get rid of an organization that, despite whatever flaws, had done a lot of good for voter registration.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:40
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:you wildly underestimate how much politicians want to stay in office Most Democratic politicians are not at risk of losing their seats, though. Most are not exposed to Republican challengers with a high chance of defeating them. I don't think that the Democratic Party passing that bill is as fundamentally impossible as them passing something like MfA is (which is literally 0%), but I also definitely wouldn't bet on it. There's a reason why they haven't passed such a bill in the past (likely the fact that getting too many people to vote threatens them in primaries), when all the same reasoning you're giving now also applied. Basically, significantly increased enfranchisement is a net harm for Democrats with noncompetitive seats, since all it does is increase the risk of them being primaried. As mentioned, I wouldn't say it's completely impossible (because it doesn't directly run into conflict with a major Democratic stakeholder), but it absolutely isn't some obvious win for most Democratic politicians. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:which is why I did not say those things. i have pointed out a curious hypocrisy. a simple resolution to that hypocrisy is, of course, that the speaker is a huge racist, but I am doubtful even someone who actually was a huge racist would admit to that. To be fair, I'm pretty sure the real reason is just "the leftists are using this as an argument, so it must be wrong" and then all the reasoning follows from that. I think that explains at least 90% of the dumb augments in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:harm reduction. Can we stop using this term? It's really gross to appropriate it this way. A safe injection site is harm reduction. If the staff at a safe injection site were found to have been sexually assaulting the users, it is not appropriate to say "but it's harm reduction! Surely getting groped is better than ODing in the streets."
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/boknowsnews/status/1288212348780544002?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Most Democratic politicians are not at risk of losing their seats, though. Most are not exposed to Republican challengers with a high chance of defeating them. they haven't passed anything yet because dems haven't had both houses of congress since before the supreme court struck down the key parts of the 1965 voting rights act
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Can we stop using this term? It's really gross to appropriate it this way. A safe injection site is harm reduction. If the staff at a safe injection site were found to have been sexually assaulting the users, it is not appropriate to say "but it's harm reduction! Surely getting groped is better than ODing in the streets." it essentially encapsulates a lot of the pro-biden arguments though. that is precisely why many people find the lesser evil support of Biden distasteful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
What's important to keep in mind about the ACORN thing is that the Dems have not been in a hurry to replace the organization with a similar infrastructure since, so it's not just about deciding the morality of the outfit itself but reflecting on the Dem's desire for such an outfit to exist at all. Remember when all of Obama's organizational frameworks in 2008 were scrapped as soon as he came into office? You can see the wasted effort in how much more effective Trump has been in keeping his base organized with a far less popular presidency. It's not that the Dems don't want to win, it's that they don't want to earn a win because that would require proposing actual policy as opposed to just promising a change in management, which may alienate donors they only get scraps from anyway. But those scraps keep the elites afloat and matter more than actually winning. The Democrats' only hopes for relevancy is that the public grows sick of the Republicans every eight years and they can benefit from a wave election here or there. The idea of a 1932 mandate is anathema to them. In fact, the idea of a mandate election of any kind freaks them out from how disappointed people were with ACA after their supposed supermajority. They do not want to lead, they want to manage. That's not a party. That's a controlled opposition. They are not interested in having power. They are not interested in change. They are not interested in diverting the path of this country. They view themselves, simply, as a wing of the Republican Party that appeals better to urbanites and rich PoC, and they'd be right. To make an extra point about "politicians want to stay in office"... only so far as it doesn't cost them a lobbying position afterwards. So... not really? Election is a grift, not even an ego project, and it's more important to maintain all avenues of grifting then it is to stick with one essential grift. Probably Magic fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
So if I'm understanding this right, it looks like both Biden and Trump are going to do their very best to blame the protests on each other, which basically confirms my suspicion that Biden's going to crack down on the protests harder and more competently than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:I'm wondering if you're literally ever going to stop reducing others' arguments to strawmen, it seems to be the only trick you know when someone's made an argument you don't like and you don't know how to respond to it. Carrying YMB's water is even more hilariously terrible than being YMB. Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:the fact that you are a person arguing for the moral necessity of voting for a rapist out of one side of your mouth, while talking about how people organizing black people to vote didn't deserve defending due to their moral faults out of the other, leads me to inquire what about the second group's intransigence rendered them more worthy of judgement. gently caress off, Thunderbeast. "I'm considering your argument and it appears to me that you are a massive racist, unless there is other information that I'm not considering" is calling somebody loving racist, I'm not playing your loving idiot games. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:So if I'm understanding this right, it looks like both Biden and Trump are going to do their very best to blame the protests on each other, which basically confirms my suspicion that Biden's going to crack down on the protests harder and more competently than Trump. Just look at how obama handled Ferguson and Occupy
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
Bootleg Trunks posted:Just look at how obama handled Ferguson and Occupy Yes, exactly. e: Mellow Seas posted:Carrying YMB's water is even more hilariously terrible than being YMB. Son of Thunderbeast fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:they haven't passed anything yet because dems haven't had both houses of congress since before the supreme court struck down the key parts of the 1965 voting rights act there wasn't any voter suppression going on before Shelby County? I don't think that's right
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:they haven't passed anything yet because dems haven't had both houses of congress since before the supreme court struck down the key parts of the 1965 voting rights act My point is that voter disenfranchisement and other issues directly tied to the ability of Democrats to win (like gerrymandering) have existed for a long time and there hasn't been any significant attempt to address them. Using your logic, they would have attempted to do so since it would be an "obvious win." Timeless Appeal posted:Yeowch, there has been a trend to use ACORN as symbol of pure Democratic weakness with the narrative that this really strong and good organization was disbanded solely because of James Okeefe's videos. While that was definitely the trigger, people within the organization stole millions of dollars, and that gets ignored in the story. That really is the point I was trying to make. But...there really isn't a difference. The whole argument is that the Democratic ended the organization in response to an exceptionally pathetic right-wing attack. Either this is true, or the Democrats used it as an excuse to end an organization they were already planning on ending (which is possibly even more stupid, because it's pointlessly giving the impression that it was only in response to the video).
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
I'm sure Biden making his campaign all about prosecuting anarchists counts as some form of harm reduction if you're interested in protecting private property and wearing a big, dumb grin as your face like everything is fine and dandy as the new president murders people in the shadows where you don't have to see it and feel bad about the consequences that come with your government of choice. Not so much if you're wanting to do something about that 'fascism' thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
I'm not properly caught up on the platform thing, but: call and/or write the Democratic national convention delegates from your district/state and make clear you're mad. The platform isn't finalized or adopted, there's still time to influence it. and they might very well listen because i can personally assure you nobody contacts their delegates, it'll make them feel important and special (it's actually not a bad idea to also contact your DNC members for similar reasons, both the "nobody ever gives them the attention they feel they deserve" thing, and they're elected by a hilariously small voterbase and anyone who cares enough to email them is distressingly likely to care enough to influence their reelection) Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jul 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But...there really isn't a difference. The whole argument is that the Democratic ended the organization in response to an exceptionally pathetic right-wing attack. Either this is true, or the Democrats used it as an excuse to end an organization they were already planning on ending (which is possibly even more stupid, because it's pointlessly giving the impression that it was only in response to the video). ACORN was used against Obama already --> Bunch of poo poo has been coming out and they're caught up in investigations --> Republicans are using this bullshit video to rally around defunding them --> We either have to give clear support and possibly watch it blow up in our faces if more investigations come out OR just let them go because they might end up on life support regardless The more simplified version is: The video comes out --> Republicans say defund ACORN --> Dems say 'Yes sir" I think the mistake people are making in their telling of the story is the GOP strategy wasn't about the video. The video was just a trigger to get them to box the Dems into defending ACORN when they knew it might blow up in their face if more embezzlement stuff was uncovered. I think it's a jump to say they were secretly planning to defund them all along. The more likely answer was that they were just going to continue to quietly keep their distance from it while maintaining funding. It's really not out of the realm of reality that ACORN was doomed regardless, but that's speculative. It's also not to say there's not daylight to critique the Democrats on what happened. It's an incredibly lovely story no matter what. Timeless Appeal fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jul 28, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm not properly caught up on the platform thing, but: call and/or write the Democratic national convention delegates from your district/state and make clear you're mad. The platform isn't finalized or adopted, there's still time to influence it. I have something to show you. https://www.newyorker.com/news/john...From%20%251%24s
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My point is that voter disenfranchisement and other issues directly tied to the ability of Democrats to win (like gerrymandering) have existed for a long time and there hasn't been any significant attempt to address them. Using your logic, they would have attempted to do so since it would be an "obvious win." Previously they did address it with the VRA. Which was struck down shortly after they lost congress. The vra was an obvious win, that's why republicans found a way to gut its enforcement mechanisms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Previously they did address it with the VRA. Which was struck down shortly after they lost congress. What makes you think that wouldn't happen again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
I assume they'll try it again. what difference does that make?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:I assume they'll try it again. what difference does that make? Like you are talking hypothetical voting acts being passed that would include protections that were struck down before by SCOTUS. So what is the point?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Biden's next big move is obvious. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 01:15
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm not properly caught up on the platform thing, but: call and/or write the Democratic national convention delegates from your district/state and make clear you're mad. The platform isn't finalized or adopted, there's still time to influence it. Why would they give a poo poo? I don't belong to the class they represent. I belong to the class that they are paid to oppose.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:Why would they give a poo poo? I don't belong to the class they represent. I belong to the class that they are paid to oppose. No, they're not. National delegates receive no money from the party (this is actually a bit of a problem with the expensive in-person conventions most years) and the amount of money spent on their election is zero-to-negligible. I was a state delegate this year, strongly encouraged other goons to seek state and national delegateship, and refuse to disclose whether or not I am a national delegate.  I think DNC members also receive no money from the party, and the amount of money spent on their election is also negligible in most (all?) states. They are somewhat more influenceable by money than delegates in the sense that their remit includes maximizing and spending party funds, but they're less personally interested in receiving donations than literally any actual public servant. and i specifically gave a couple reasons they would give a poo poo right there in that post
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think when you look at the full story, the Democrat logic is this: why not just call them on the embezzlement? why take the long way around to not defending them? i understand what you’re saying but it just makes the democrats look even shittier since they’re either complicit and cowardly or just cowardly. it also hurts the argument that they are worth supporting at all imo
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:No, they're not. National delegates receive no money from the party (this is actually a bit of a problem with the expensive in-person conventions most years) and the amount of money spent on their election is zero-to-negligible. I was a state delegate this year, strongly encouraged other goons to seek state and national delegateship, and refuse to disclose whether or not I am a national delegate. The Democrats are a capitalist party that exists to serve capitalist interest, how is this difficult for you? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 01:59
|
|
|
is pepsi ok posted:The Democrats are a capitalist party that exists to serve capitalist interest, how is this difficult for you? We can directly influence the members of that party who are surprisingly vulnerable to being ousted and who control the national platform (for whatever it's worth, but apparently that's "some" given the anger about it). We can also oust them, but that's for 2022 and 2024 at this point, so instead I was suggesting a way that individual goons could have a surprisingly large impact by pestering people who almost everybody forgets exist. The Democrats don't have to be a capitalist party that exists to serve capitalist interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:We can directly influence the members of that party who are surprisingly vulnerable to being ousted and who control the national platform (for whatever it's worth, but apparently that's "some" given the anger about it). this also applies to the republican party. i really don’t understand what the point is of defending the democratic party if the arguments are that we can change them into being Not Democrats
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:We can directly influence the members of that party who are surprisingly vulnerable to being ousted and who control the national platform (for whatever it's worth, but apparently that's "some" given the anger about it). How well is that influence working, given the votes they just took regarding the party platform?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
I get where Greyjoy is coming from, but the fact that this is messaging for the base makes it worse. If this is "only" party messaging, why wouldn't you at least lie to look like you were going to pursue M4A and legal weed to get "Bernie bros" onboard? They weren't even willing to do that much, which doesn't bode well for the party's willingness to give the left a proverbial "seat at the table".
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:No, they're not. National delegates receive no money from the party (this is actually a bit of a problem with the expensive in-person conventions most years) and the amount of money spent on their election is zero-to-negligible. I was a state delegate this year, strongly encouraged other goons to seek state and national delegateship, and refuse to disclose whether or not I am a national delegate. When Tom Perez was elected there was a massive push by sanders supporters to call these DNC members, it didn’t do anything, in fact Keith Ellison told everyone to stop
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
drat it feels good to not be voting for Joe In November.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I get where Greyjoy is coming from, but the fact that this is messaging for the base makes it worse. If this is "only" party messaging, why wouldn't you at least lie to look like you were going to pursue M4A and legal weed to get "Bernie bros" onboard? They weren't even willing to do that much, which doesn't bode well for the party's willingness to give the left a proverbial "seat at the table". nah, the platform draft is inadequate at best / bad on the issues I've seen complained about, i'm suggesting this stuff because it can still be improved (and a reversal would be a good sign on several levels) Terror Sweat posted:When Tom Perez was elected there was a massive push by sanders supporters to call these DNC members, it didn’t do anything, in fact Keith Ellison told everyone to stop A fair point on the DNC part member part then. - Calling/emailing delegates could still do things, because the convention hasn't happened yet and the platform hasn't been adopted, unlike the Perez election which was p much a done deal. If anything, I'd expect the convention membership to be inherently well left of the DNC membership, because national delegates tend to be less establishmenty than DNC members for a variety of reasons that can be loosely summarized as "a lot of them are pretty much randos". - I stand by my call to get lefties into convention delegate spots in 2022 and 2024, and use that to take over the DNC. Seriously, the next Texas convention will be - iirc, I wasn't actually particularly focused on the representation adjustments even though I feel really strongly about leftist turnout for delegate spots - a maximum of ten thousand or so delegates. This last one was in the 4-5k range, but let's go with 10k. If every state has 10k state delegates (they don't) and the American left can turn out 300k people, we can 100% take over every state convention and thus a strong DNC majority. If the American left can't turn out 300k people, then we can't win elections or engage in viable direct action or launch a vanguardist revolutionary communist coup either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Seriously, the next Texas convention will be - iirc, I wasn't actually particularly focused on the representation adjustments even though I feel really strongly about leftist turnout for delegate spots - a maximum of ten thousand or so delegates. This last one was in the 4-5k range, but let's go with 10k. If every state has 10k state delegates (they don't) and the American left can turn out 300k people, we can 100% take over every state convention and thus a strong DNC majority. If the American left can't turn out 300k people, then we can't win elections or engage in viable direct action or launch a vanguardist revolutionary communist coup either. This would do a whole hell of a lot more good than adding 300k more votes to the green party candidate in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 03:02
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:This would do a whole hell of a lot more good than adding 300k more votes to the green party candidate in 2020. I mean, I don't hate the argument for pushing for the 5% mark, especially if it's coupled with downballot support for good Dems. It's inadequate to convince me personally, but particularly for people who refuse to vote for Biden under any circumstances for various reasons? Sure, great. Beats staying home, and might in fact objectively improve national politics. A GIANT PARSNIP posted:People who want to vote green in the general can still show up to state dem conventions and try to flip them. yeah i guess I forgot to say that there's no reason not to do both Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Jul 29, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I mean, I don't hate the argument for pushing for the 5% mark, especially if it's coupled with downballot support for good Dems. It's inadequate to convince me personally, but particularly for people who refuse to vote for Biden under any circumstances for various reasons? Sure, great. People who want to vote green in the general can still show up to state dem conventions and try to flip them. The DNC isn't going to follow you into the voting booth and refuse you entry in the future if you vote green.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 03:12
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:why not just call them on the embezzlement? why take the long way around to not defending them? i understand what you’re saying but it just makes the democrats look even shittier since they’re either complicit and cowardly or just cowardly. it also hurts the argument that they are worth supporting at all imo Not that it's a saving grace for the Dems or the funding cut, but I do want to clarify that ACORN didn't just vanish. It fractured. A lot of chapters rebranded or were absorbed into other non-for-profits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
anecdotal but, the bernie campaign was doing similar outreach with a similar demographic of supporters in similar places to where i always saw acorn back when they were a thing like almost 1:1 the same
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 04:09
|
|