XyrlocShammypants posted:

Lol all you want. 65 million people voted and very area specific results decided the election.

Dan Didio posted:

I don't really understand how you read that as a comment on you.

Xae posted:

To be honest I found it nearly incomprehensible and I was taking a guess at you calling me patronizing.

XyrlocShammypants posted:

Let's start with what you mean by suppress. Or maybe we can be less hyperbolic

TheRat posted:

I too think that the amount of votes I can gather in California matters at all in the grand scale of things. The smaller states don't matter at all, because no one cares about electoral votes. After all, it's all about that vote count.

Crowsbeak posted:

You know I think you should probably work on your own posts before you say that to anyone else.

Dan Didio posted:

I like to think this has taught you a valuable lesson about assumptions.

UV_Catastrophe posted:

Very soon, democrats will control the country

TheRat posted:

I'm sorry. I'm not clever or confident enough to match up to this level of smugness.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

when the apparently brain dead morons that decided a kick to a dick for no reason what so ever was a great idea botch 2018 and 2020

Raskolnikov38 posted:

well if i could tell the future i'd be using it to buy lotto tickets

Xae posted:

Well, since the post was directed at me and I "both downpl[ed] the vote's importance, and point out that both were good options" it was pretty reasonable to believe that the following clause was intended to apply to me as well.

If you don't want people to try and read tea leaves about your intentions feel free to start writing coherently and not have huge run on sentences that switch topics and audience several times.

Nevvy Z posted:

If you really believed it was gonna happen you could probably come up with some kind of approximation of the argument that convinced you. Why should anyone take you seriously otherwise?

TheRat posted:

If there was anything the 2016 elections taught us, it's that smug liberal cunts will never take you seriously no matter what you say, so why even bother?

E:

Nevvy Z posted:

So, you don't actually have any idea what's going to happen

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, I am pretty skeptical both the Democrats or Republicans can self correct at this point and the current silent (or not so silent) political crisis the US is experiencing is only going to get worse. Third parties can't effect major state/federal level change in the US simply based on our electoral system and state level political mechanics. I think someone like Sawant is about best case scenario.

Furthermore, a independent political pressure group (especially a left-leaning one) would have to be willing to stay home to have any real leverage which is probably not going to happen either.

I don't think the difference between Ellison and Perez was that drastic, but there was some daylight on key issues (trade, lobbying, Israel...arguably finance). My honest hope wasn't that Ellison would be a secret leftist, but that it would give a small opening to balance its traditionalist-centrist wing. In the end, even that small opening proved impossible.

That said, I kind of see the Democrats and the US as a whole running out of time. While the long-held hope has been demographics will be enough to stabilize the Democrats, it doesn't seem to be working at either the state or federal level. Moreover, the GOP is only going further right and more openly authoritarian.

Raskolnikov38 posted:

neither do you jackass

Raskolnikov38 posted:

given the track record of the democrats for the past 6-8 years, it is my belief that evidence points to them continuing to gently caress up

XyrlocShammypants posted:

What a zinger, we use the electoral college! Wow! No one ever thought about that. The question was about the size of the base and in total or in smaller localities the Democrats can easily regain what was lost (or gain on top of what they had). Actually visiting Wisconsin and Michigan will do wonders.

Nevvy Z posted:

How though? what kind of fuckup do you think perez is gonna make that ellison would not have, when ellison was his deputy?

XyrlocShammypants posted:

Raskolnikov38 posted:

my concern has always been the party writ large rather than the chair. half of the 400+ party leaders decided either further inflaming or not caring about the division in the party was a good idea and that does not bode well i feel

Pikavangelist posted:

Didn't seem to help in Pennsylvania, though.

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, I am pretty skeptical both the Democrats or Republicans can self correct at this point and the current silent (or not so silent) political crisis the US is experiencing is only going to get worse. Third parties can't effect major state/federal level change in the US simply based on our electoral system and state level political mechanics. I think someone like Sawant is about best case scenario.

Furthermore, a independent political pressure group (especially a left-leaning one) would have to be willing to stay home to have any real leverage which is probably not going to happen either.

I don't think the difference between Ellison and Perez was that drastic, but there was some daylight on key issues (trade, lobbying, Israel...arguably finance). My honest hope wasn't that Ellison would be a secret leftist, but that it would give a small opening to balance its traditionalist-centrist wing. In the end, even that small opening proved impossible.

That said, I kind of see the Democrats and the US as a whole running out of time. While the long-held hope has been demographics will be enough to stabilize the Democrats, it doesn't seem to be working at either the state or federal level. Moreover, the GOP is only going further right and more openly authoritarian.

Nevvy Z posted:

Ok. What division? Is it significant? did they know about it? Who did you contact to let them know how you feel?

Crowsbeak posted:

I'll make this very simple as you don't seem to have the ability to understand more advanced language. Your posts are nothing but hyperbole. So to suggest anyone not be hyperbolic in their posts

XyrlocShammypants posted:

This post makes as much sense as "Obama was suppressing Ellison behind the scenes." Which is to say no sense at all

XyrlocShammypants posted:

You clearly don't understand what hyperbole is so we are done.

Calibanibal posted:

The perez-led democratic party is for all intensive purposes a new wing of the republican party and its supporters are the practical equivalent of trumpsters

Condiv posted:

Even this thread has people popping in to say they're done with the dems.

Condiv posted:

Perez winning was a win for islamophobes like trump and the centrists of the dem party.

Lightning Lord posted:

Everyone should be banding together to call these people idiots. I don't care if you wanted Greene to be chair. Acting like this is what our enemies want.

Lightning Lord posted:

Everyone should be banding together to call these people idiots. I don't care if you wanted Greene to be chair. Acting like this is what our enemies want.

TheRat posted:

I agree. Let's repeat what worked so wonderfully well in 2016. If you just yell and insult people a little bit more you'll be unstoppable!

TheRat posted:

I agree. Let's repeat what worked so wonderfully well in 2016. If you just yell and insult people a little bit more you'll be unstoppable!

Lightning Lord posted:

Everyone should be banding together to call these people idiots. I don't care if you wanted Greene to be chair. Acting like this is what our enemies want.


Source your quotes please and thank you.

XyrlocShammypants posted:

*organizes fart in*
*interrupts civil rights heroes with boos and taunts*

XyrlocShammypants posted:

*interrupts civil rights heroes with boos and taunts*

Condiv posted:

Here you go https://twitter.com/jstein_vox/status/835878035513556992

Personally I don't like that islamophobes run our party, and I don't want to vote to elect islamophobic dems