|
PhazonLink posted:doesnt the Bible have a debt Jubilee? so Mike supports Dark Biden cancelling all that student debt, right? Also the musk thread said that dem prez challenger got birdbanned, so the dude either personally slighted musk or musk is bending the knee to dark biden. The Bible also says that you should pay back anything you borrow and only the wicked abscond from their debt. The hypocrisy angle has been hit in every which way for the last several hundred years and isn't going to convince them of anything. The Bible is intentionally vague and contradictory on a lot of issues. You could easily make an argument that basically anything is biblically sound other than worshipping another god.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The Bible also says that you should pay back anything you borrow and only the wicked abscond from their debt. Even that can be fine so long as you worship Jehovah as the #1 god
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:doesnt the Bible have a debt Jubilee? so Mike supports Dark Biden cancelling all that student debt, right? Also the musk thread said that dem prez challenger got birdbanned, so the dude either personally slighted musk or musk is bending the knee to dark biden. As long as Iowa is first in the Republican primaries, we'll never see the Shmita year accumulate any bipartisan support. Agricultural lobby won't stand for it. FLIPADELPHIA posted:You can't own them by quoting scripture that contradicts their hatreds and bigotries. You can't own them by posting at all. It's just fun to joke about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Even that can be fine so long as you worship Jehovah as the #1 god Nah, that is the one pretty hard and fast rule in Abrahamic religions. There is one god and anything else is idol worship. The first commandment speech he gives literally says that there can be no other gods in your life because they don't exist and worshipping other gods would be idolatry. Unless you mean non-literal "gods" like power or whatever. You can be power-hungry as long as you don't value it above god.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Even that can be fine so long as you worship Jehovah as the #1 god Jehovah is not their big wet daddy 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Parties have often historically reacted to a disappointing loss by doubling down and assuming they weren't pure enough. Concluding that what the people need is to really see the (crazy, horrifying at the time to the middle) difference to win them back. Parties will eventually get tired of losing and do whatever they have to do to become more competitive. What I believe: Losing elections either Does or Does Not make a political party move in some way or another, depending on a multitude of factors that may or may not depend on achieving a streak of wins, and might depend on a landslide election or two, and might be a function of material circumstances outside of the control of individual voters or political party functionaries. In short, I don't even think you're wrong, I think you're backsolving from the narrative you prefer to highlight the facts you need and elide the complicating variables.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nah, that is the one pretty hard and fast rule in Abrahamic religions. There is one god and anything else is idol worship. The first commandment speech he gives literally says that there can be no other gods in your life because they don't exist and worshipping other gods would be idolatry. Not really too hard and fast a rule for US Brand Christianity. Literal golden loving idols of Trump and they're all "bet you feel owned now, lib  "It's all window dressing for hatred and bigotry in the US. Don't treat it as anything else. It's not sincere beliefs, it's useless word chaff so they can own the libs and hurt the out groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:This has nothing to do with whether Clinton defeating Trump in '16 would, as claimed, energize the moderate wing of the Republican party. I disagree. Right now the Democrats make a lot of hay with “holy poo poo look at those guys over there!” And they’re not wrong. If the GOP were less horrific then the Democrats would be forced to be more active on the issues people care about. Which they’ve actually been better with with Biden around than before, in a lot of ways, but still not nearly far enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Nah, that is the one pretty hard and fast rule in Abrahamic religions. There is one god and anything else is idol worship. The first commandment speech he gives literally says that there can be no other gods in your life because they don't exist and worshipping other gods would be idolatry. In modern Abrahamic religion (as in, after collision with Greek philosophy), yes. Maimonides allowed no ambiguity here. But if we're talking Bible, the Bible has many verses which are traces of an earlier henotheistic tradition which is also backed by archeological finds in Palestine-Israel. Here's an article about it on the context of Deuteronomy: https://www.thetorah.com/article/are-there-gods-angels-and-demons-in-deuteronomy Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I disagree. Right now the Democrats make a lot of hay with “holy poo poo look at those guys over there!” And they’re not wrong. If the GOP were less horrific then the Democrats would be forced to be more active on the issues people care about. Which they’ve actually been better with with Biden around than before, in a lot of ways, but still not nearly far enough. Why does "active on the issues people care about" necessarily mean going to the left, farther away from the average American voter? Why can't it mean something more conservative like Clinton or stubbornly moderate like Obama, who were both very popular and successful in their elections? Why wouldn't the Democrats instead try to retain their more moderate voters, the ones most at risk for switching to the GOP by positioning the party as more moderate? I don't know how the parties would be different in '20 if Clinton had beat Trump in '16, and I don't believe anyone else knows either. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Oct 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
shimmy shimmy posted:I don't know why but I'm weirdly amused by the fact that it's apparently police procedure to say 'we know you're in there!' even if you don't actually think that. I mean, shoot your shot I guess "Hello Mr. Card are you home? Turn the blinders once if you're there, twice if you're not. Thanks for your cooperation!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
The Top G posted:Who are these people you encounter that are so knowledgeable & passionately opinionated about the various styles of socialized medicine programs? People I’ve met just want to pay less for—or even afford—their healthcare. Anyone who actually cares enough to get involved in the debate has an idea of how things are going to work in a "good solution" vs a "bad solution" and when it looks like something is actually going to come up for a vote they dive right into deciding whether they want to go for it or fight it since it will get in the way of something better. Are they knowledgeable? No, at least not as much as they think, and that's half the point. Most people who want to just pay less for what they have are part of that majority that's generally satisfied with the health care they get. They get real real touchy if you tell them the system/plan they're currently in is outright going away rather than getting cheaper. They butt heads with people who think that all universal health care is somewhere between Canada and the UK, and assume that any new system that doesn't rip most/all of the health care sector out entirely and replace it with something new is just a meaningless bandaid. Then there's the sizeable portion of people who actually work in said health care sector. Most of them are people doing useful jobs and not rent-seeking middlemen, and will continue to have decent job opportunities under any new solution, but they will face varying levels of disruption depending on the details. "The devil's in the details" doesn't require a bunch of chin-stroking intellectuals or nerds with spreadsheets to be vicious. Fork of Unknown Origins posted:On the first point, the point was that it takes multiple cycles. Regan won twice then Bush won. That’s 12 years of one thing. We haven’t seen that long term success from the Democrats in my lifetime. It wasn't three elections, it was five. While Reagan perfected the era of Southern Strategy Republicanism, Nixon invented it and rode to two landslide victories. There was an entire generation where Democrats only won a single election due to Watergate temporarily embarrassing Republicans, and he (unjustly or not) was a relatively weak one-termer whose name was associated with "humiliating failure" in the public eye for years afterward. Decades where the White House was basically a done deal for Republicans and everyone "knew it." Democrats still held Congress for most of that, but that was a heavy drop from their 1960s supermajority and relied heavily on conservative Democrats who were on board with most of what a Republican administration would propose. Plenty of people who voted for Clinton in 1992 didn't even remember a world where conservatives weren't racking up the wins.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Parties have often historically reacted to a disappointing loss by doubling down and assuming they weren't pure enough. Concluding that what the people need is to really see the (crazy, horrifying at the time to the middle) difference to win them back. Parties will eventually get tired of losing and do whatever they have to do to become more competitive. Many Republican politicians reacted to Obama's win by tacking at least a little toward the middle. But the direction the party takes is ultimately dictated by the voters, not the politicians. Trump's primary victory was the fruit of decades of efforts by right-wing activists to push the conservative base to the right. Meanwhile, his general election victory fatally weakened the moderates by demonstrating that they lacked a substantial base, and emboldened the radicals by disproving the traditional argument that a candidate needs some crossover appeal in order to win general elections. If Trump had lost in 2016, I think it would have at least delayed the MAGA stuff for a few years, because the moderate wing could argue (both to voters and to themselves) that that stuff is an election-loser and has to be watered down to win on the national stage. Trump's victory conclusively demonstrated that not only did the base love that poo poo, but also that the overall electorate wouldn't necessarily be driven off by it. That's why GOP politicians fell in line so quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Trump's win made two things true for Republican candidates: 1) it made them all vulnerable to a primary challenge from the even-crazier right, leading to a race to the bottom, and 2) it proved that "just radicalize as many people as you can" was a valid strategy to electoral victory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Sure, but I also believe that we shouldn't have to vote alongside doing all of that if none of the options are palatable level of "less bad" as it were. Everyone is going to have different lines on that level but I think it is more than a bit strange to demand people vote when none of the options are ones you agree with even on some things or on things that directly damage you. Yeah, but in actual reality, life is immensely better under the rule of incompetents who won't protect you than under the rule of guys actively introducing and passing HR26039 "cancel healthcare, extra guns, and it is now legal to hunt minorities for sport" Not voting for dems doesn't make things better. Mediocre shitlib Hilldawg lost and we got Sleepy Joe, not a radical leftist. It is possible to actually agitate for change while also voting, but then, it's much easier to stay at home and feel proudly leftist. Believe me, the country has tear gassed me before, posting at home is better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Many Republican politicians reacted to Obama's win by tacking at least a little toward the middle. But the direction the party takes is ultimately dictated by the voters, not the politicians. Trump's primary victory was the fruit of decades of efforts by right-wing activists to push the conservative base to the right. Meanwhile, his general election victory fatally weakened the moderates by demonstrating that they lacked a substantial base, and emboldened the radicals by disproving the traditional argument that a candidate needs some crossover appeal in order to win general elections. Something else I should have mentioned last post is that margin of victory matters too. Obama had a solid first victory but the second was narrower, Biden's still more, and Clinton 1992 had the confounding factor of a strong third party candidate (whether or not he swayed the race) giving cover to the idea that the party doesn't need sweeping changes to win. It's not like the Democrats losing five elections by relative landslides with red maps coast to coast. The post-2016 Republican reaction to a Trump loss would have been different than the reaction to victory, but "a narrow loss easy to blame on a billion things" would have been a lot different than the scenario many on the left went in assuming, where Clinton/Bernie were inevitably going to trounce a reality show clown and the real political question was which Democratic faction would rule the coming years. You can absolutely argue that electoral dynamics have changed enough that those Nixon/Reagan victory maps aren't possible any more, but the difference between election results then and now definitely had an effect on people's thinking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Trump had lost in 2016, I think it would have at least delayed the MAGA stuff for a few years, because the moderate wing could argue (both to voters and to themselves) that that stuff is an election-loser and has to be watered down to win on the national stage. Why would voters listen to this argument? If they were very responsive to rational argumentation about their self interest, they probably wouldn't be potential MAGA Republicans. Voting is a matter of emotion, identity, and perceived civic duty, it's not always responsive to rational argumentation. For example, after Romney lost in 12, the RNC released a very well-argued, evidence-backed autopsy report saying that the party needed to make more appeals to ethnic minorities and go more moderate on immigration. Then in 2016, voters nominated the most extremely anti-immigrant candidate available.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Thanqol posted:My point is that after losing, a political party adopts the ideas of the winner, in the hopes that it stops losing. this is demonstrably untrue the Dems didn’t move rightwards after Kerry lost in 04, the GOP didn’t move left after Romney lost in 2012, Labour didn’t move right after Miliband in 2015, and the GOP sure as poo poo aren’t moving left now
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Trump had lost in 2016, I think it would have at least delayed the MAGA stuff for a few years, because the moderate wing could argue (both to voters and to themselves) that that stuff is an election-loser and has to be watered down to win on the national stage. Trump's victory conclusively demonstrated that not only did the base love that poo poo, but also that the overall electorate wouldn't necessarily be driven off by it. That's why GOP politicians fell in line so quickly. But the thing that I think is going to bite them in the rear end long term is them not realizing that more people voted for the loser . The only reason Trump and the GOP won was a) the electoral college favors dirt over population. b) Clinton was a horribly damaged candidate with years of baggage attached to her c) No other real democratic candidate was interested in running against Clinton d) 3rd party actors interfering with the election. Had all four of those things not been true Trump would have crashed and burned hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Cimber posted:c) No other real democratic candidate was interested in running against Clinton Because they would have lost, right? 2016 Clinton had wide support among voters, a strong network, lots of energy to elect a woman for President, a great donor base. As I can see it the only way to run against her was a grassroots insurgency from the left which Bernie, more than anyone else, was best positioned to do - and it still didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Matt Gaetz just put out a video where he seems to claim that the Republican Chairman of the Ways and Means committee is a closeted gay man that has asked Republican members of congress to keep his secret. However, he called Gaetz a liar and now Gaetz is outing him to prove that he has been lying for the last 20 years. I've never really heard Gaetz much before and wow he is a nasty, vindictive piece of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:But the thing that I think is going to bite them in the rear end long term is them not realizing that more people voted for the loser . The only reason Trump and the GOP won was Don't forget that Trump ran on a total lack of record in office and was willing to say anything to anyone, building his platform as he went along based on what got him more cheers. Voters literally thought he was the more moderate candidate. It's likely Trump was the only one in that whole 2016 clown car that would have beat Clinton because even if the others were less likely to do random stupid stuff they weren't picking up the people who thought they wouldn't be hard right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Every time I see a photo of Matt Gaetz's face straight on, I just imagine a character creator and clicking the slider labeled "Face size" and sliding it all the way down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
The best explanation for Matt Gaetz's appearance is that he and Jim Jordan are just Beavis and Butthead grown up
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Trump's win made two things true for Republican candidates: Another extremely important element in the race was successfully convincing GE voters that you are not actually extreme while successfully dog-whistling your base into enthusiastically supporting you. Trump's support and poll numbers collapsed within months as the people realized what they had done, the GOP lost the house 2 years later, and Trump lost re-election to an objectively poor candidate. Trump's election has put off the GOP's reckoning to the point where they are actually close to re-nominating their big orange loser.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Time to direct people to my effortpost on reactionary rhetorics again. I think the hole in this is this:. The argument of perversity is a reaction. Arguments and movements for progress occur and then there is reaction (in the form of these rhetorical devices). But it’s a loop. Their perversity arguments also cause our further reactions, it happens in a spiral or circle. So one can spot, identify, respond to an argument of perversity, but that’s still in the loop or spiral. That also continues to cause reaction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:GOP house reps are like a bunch of middle school girls. It's all 'he said, she said, I'm not inviting you to my birthday party poo poo.' Glad these people are running the country. He's doing it for the most awful reasons, but there's a philosophical argument to be had about whether it's ok to out Republican politicians. I'm already seeing people in this thread trying to explore Smith's level of anti-gay rhetoric and the answer appears to be "About the standard or slightly less", so I say, gently caress 'im.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Time to direct people to my effortpost on reactionary rhetorics again. The argument that specific narrower changes or shifts are insufficient and therefore should not be considered, like the argument that the push for specific changes are futile, are both part of the reactionary playbook used to sabotage good faith discussion. There's a reason Republican talking points targeting Democrats and leftists reliably focus on equivocation between the parties, and setting ever-shifting standards for what counts as "really mattering". I'd just love to vote for someone who does not support genocide in Gaza and can offer something beyond "voting for me means you won't get killed at home". Literally all I want out of these discussions at this point. I want to be told why I need to vote for Democrats for a reason that isn't "but the other guys will kill you and everyone you love".
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'd just love to vote for someone who does not support genocide in Gaza and can offer something beyond "voting for me means you won't get killed at home". Yeah, I wasn’t watching footage of Gaza on Russian TV or whatever, just reading American media is enough if you ignore the constant context-setting and mediation that tries to shove it into a jingoistic box. It’s also insulting to liberals; it’s a thought-terminating cliche that tells them they have no responsibility to pay attention to viewpoints other than the ones they already do, because those viewpoints might be an infohazard. Feels infantalizing and condescending, like being an adult who is told to close your eyes when there is nudity onscreen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
I'm just so loving sick of being forced into this position by both parties. That the best we get is that I won't die at home if I just turn my head away while they commit genocide overseas. That the best argument for why we don't have healthcare is that the other guy wants to kill me. It makes me feel awful and it makes me wonder why we don't value our own lives. Edit: I am having a very hard time reconciling recent actions and while I've always hated vote blue no matter who I've always agreed they are harm reduction. Today they just feel like harm deference. I can vote for them and defer the harm to people I don't know instead of myself and my family and friends. I'm not allowed to have a choice that does not bring harm to innocents, that's not available. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Oct 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 18:46
|
|
|
Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics. When we get closer to an important election and those topics are used more often to just shut down debate and discourage people from talking about what they want to talk about, then this board has often banished those arguments into their own containment thread(s), but we aren't there right now. Randalor posted:Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill? Sure, and most members do file bills they care about no matter who is in charge! What tends to happen to the minority party's bills is they get referred to committee, and then the committee.... well gosh, committee time is valuable and limited, so we just didn't get around to your bill this term, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Why would voters listen to this argument? If they were very responsive to rational argumentation about their self interest, they probably wouldn't be potential MAGA Republicans. They did listen to that argument - as long as it was bringing them wins. They tolerated Bush, even if they thought by 2008 that he was RINO scum who hadn't done half the poo poo they wanted. The problem is that the "you have to water down your positions to win" argument becomes much less persuasive when the watered-down positions aren't winning anymore. McCain's loss launched the Tea Party, and Romney lost in 2012 while the Tea Party candidates were taking seats all over the place in 2010 and 2014.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:08
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill? Any member can write a bill. The speaker refers those bills to relevant committees where they die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I think the hole in this is this:. The argument of perversity is a reaction. Arguments and movements for progress occur and then there is reaction (in the form of these rhetorical devices). But it’s a loop. Their perversity arguments also cause our further reactions, it happens in a spiral or circle. Yes, you have identified why trolling works and why the people doing this should be removed. Gumball Gumption posted:I'd just love to vote for someone who does not support genocide in Gaza and can offer something beyond "voting for me means you won't get killed at home". The Democrats, individually, and if you want to be specific to the presidential vote, Biden, have advocated and done numerous specific things that are good unto themselves, but the decision to vote for one party over another is necessarily going to involve a contrast between the person being advocated for and the positions of their opponents. You are seeking a more selectively presented, less accurate rationale. Rigel posted:A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics. No, they are, in fact, violating the rules. quote:A. Act in good faith. Dishonesty erodes trust, leads us to incorrect conclusions, and obviously encourages users to assume bad faith, with all the problems that causes. quote:II. Ensure your posts add to discussion. You have identified why and how these arguments are used to sabotage discussion, and you are choosing to allow them do to exactly that. You have chosen not to enforce the rules. In turn, you are telling the trolls that they can continue to do this, and you are telling everyone else to leave the forum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill? karthun posted:Any member can write a bill. The speaker refers those bills to relevant committees where they die. One exception is a discharge petition. Members can force a vote on a discharge petition against the objections of the Speaker or Committee Chairs if a majority of the House agrees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Can any member of the house bring forward bills? Can we see the Dems troll the Speaker by bringing forward bills that codify the "extreme left" views of that long-haired hippie, Jesus Christ, complete with Bible quotes backing the bill? In the house the speaker effectively possesses a veto. They are in charge of scheduling votes and if they do not wish to see a bill pass then they simply do not schedule the vote. There is a manuever called a discharge petition but it requires 218 members of the house to sign it but it is extremely rare that it is used since a speaker who is regularly being overruled by the house is not going to be speaker for much longer. If theres enough political will the speaker can be overridden but the minority does not have the power to force the majority to take inconvenient votes that can be used in attack ads except in rare circumstances like when you try to pass bills by reconciliation in which case any amendment anyone wants has to be debated and voted on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:I'd just love to vote for someone who does not support genocide in Gaza and can offer something beyond "voting for me means you won't get killed at home". Was this your line in the sand in 2020? It's always easy to find something major to criticize a politician for. I mean, we're the loving USA, our history is extremely dark. While it's gotten much better as time passes, we still have a lot of baggage. Gumball Gumption posted:I'm just so loving sick of being forced into this position by both parties. That the best we get is that I won't die at home if I just turn my head away while they commit genocide overseas. That the best argument for why we don't have healthcare is that the other guy wants to kill me. It makes me feel awful and it makes me wonder why we don't value our own lives. Biden has done immensely better with reigning in US caused deaths in foreign countries. He ended a war, hasn't started another war, done a fantastic job at reigning in drone strikes, etc. You can pretend that all politicians lust for (or at least commit) overseas genocide, but reality is that there has been an immense difference between Biden and previous president. And to get ahead of it, of course his stance on Israel sucks. But, as I alluded to above, I can't imagine anyone who has a chance at being president that would actually have a good stance due to how big of an ally Israel is (unfortunately). Note: this isn't to try to encourage you to "vote blue no matter who". It's just to push back on your claim of not even reducing harm when you look at it from a global perspective Kalit fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Oct 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:20
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:He's doing it for the most awful reasons, but there's a philosophical argument to be had about whether it's ok to out Republican politicians. I'm already seeing people in this thread trying to explore Smith's level of anti-gay rhetoric and the answer appears to be "About the standard or slightly less", so I say, gently caress 'im.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that America is rapidly approaching a new stage in its existence where what 'the voters' might want or think is normal might be different from what is important to the health of the nation. Like if the fundamental structure of Democracy is under attack and it would be 'too radical' to propose a change in how we vote or how elections are run, and instead Democrats just pinky swear they'll make things normal again if you elect them, that's not a viable long-term strategy but it would probably be fairly popular among Democrats. Or compromise, feel-good programs to reduce climate change are probably fairly popular but they don't actually protect us from climate change. And if you then turn around and tell me that I'm probably right but that the Democrats have no incentive to run unelectable candidates on unpopular platforms no matter how much our country requires those changes to survive, I will return to you with the fact that our system is fundamental broken and needs to be radically restructured. quote:A quick note on "voting doesn't matter" doom/apathy arguments and/or "Dems bad" debates: as irritating and report-producing as those two subjects may be to some people, they are not forbidden topics of discussion, and current events do occasionally cause them to become relevant topics. I want to point out that while I'm clearly frustrated, I don't align with 'Voting doesn't matter'; 'Voting is insufficient' would be closer to my position. I don't even think Democrats are bad. I just think they are an emergent consequence of our society and the systems in place do not allow them to change quickly enough to react to the problems of this century. I would prefer to be wrong. Mendrian fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Oct 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Time to direct people to my effortpost on reactionary rhetorics again. The argument that specific narrower changes or shifts are insufficient and therefore should not be considered, like the argument that the push for specific changes are futile, are both part of the reactionary playbook used to sabotage good faith discussion. There's a reason Republican talking points targeting Democrats and leftists reliably focus on equivocation between the parties, and setting ever-shifting standards for what counts as "really mattering". A few days ago, McConnell came out and said that he backs Biden on Israel funding. Obama once compared himself to 90s republicans Lucan’s. Schumer suggested going after Republican votes at the expense of Democratic votes. The equivocation is coming from inside the house. And like Gumball, I would very much love to vote for a democrat who doesn’t support genocide here or abroad, who supports free healthcare and all of the other good poo poo we want. I have and will still vote for candidates that support my values, but I won’t vote for those who won’t. Im not going to vote for a leopard who is going to eat my face
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 19:24
|
|
