|
It's generally hard to tell how much of a chance you would have had in contests that you've totally written off, yes. This doesn't mean that you should keep throwing game after game though, which is what Joy Reid et al seem to have picked as their preferred way forward.
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Taerkar posted:I'm certainly not in favor of writing them off as that only ensures that the situation gets worse. I just don't feel that progress there is something that can be expected, especially in the short term. Well, again, you can't know how much progress you can make unless you actually try. Basically this is why you need a 50-state strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
There Bias Two posted:I think if you dig deep enough into every person's past actions, you'd find a reason to condemn almost each and every one of them. I don't think heroes really exist, at least not ones who are influential AND paragons of humanity in every way. Pal, there's a bit of a difference between somebody being a douchebag at some point in their life and somebody who literally enslaved their own children.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A lot of this country is conditioned to believe that TAXES = BAD. That position is much harder to sell when every single voter is getting a clear and direct benefit out of the deal.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
axeil posted:Like it or not, the left is going to have to work through the Dems/DNC. Sabotaging it isn't helping anyone. It's good that you've relized that sabotaging the democrats by still batting for the person who blew the most important presidential election in living memory is bad, and it's nice that you'll stop doing that. axeil posted:CALLING FOR A PRIMARY CHALLENGE OF A SITTING, POPULAR PRESIDENT IS A BIG loving DEAL lol. If the president is that popular the challenge in question will go literally nowhere and nothing will be affected. So logically the only thing that could be a big deal to you here is to not think that Obama is some mythical demigod that can do no wrong and must never be opposed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:I can't immediately think of any 'Primary the sitting president' event in US history that did not end badly for the party in question, at least not any serious one. As I said, if the president is that popular the challenge won't be serious, because it'll fail immediately.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Though if past trends held true in such a case, we'd have 47% as our president instead. The gently caress does this even mean?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Leftists are running, I'm more making fun of how harsh posters are on centrists when there's literal white supremacists in the white house. It's because said centrists shat the bed so bad that there now are literal white supremacists in the White House, plus they show no signs of learning from their absolute bedshitting unless they're dragged to good positions kicking and screaming, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A hypothetical primary challenge from the left in 2012 would have likely resulted in Mitt "47%" Romney becoming president. lol gently caress no. You can't seriously have this bad of an understanding of politics, can you? awesmoe posted:that's why its good that when leftists get advice from someone who has personal experience with the situation (say, a page in her book and a few minutes in an interview talking about 'hey, here's how these specific actions made the loss more likely' ) they are able to calmly digest that and accept those criticisms without lashing out. lol if you honestly think that Clinton's book actually is about giving advice and honest criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Explain then how I'm wrong. Because Obama, being massively popular with the people who vote in the dem primaries, would at worst have wrapped up the nomination a few weeks later than when he did. Now how about you explain exactly how your little fantasy scenario is within the realm of the significantly probable?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:There, I bolded the key part of what I said earlier that is being ignored. This is some incoherent-rear end bullshit, and I think you know it since you won't even commit to actually spelling out your argument.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:A hypothetical primary challenge of Obama that would have any real effect upon his policies would have to last long enough to get some obvious momentum showing for those more progressive views compared to his platform. A blip of a primary challenge that doesn't win any early primaries isn't going to last long and thus isn't likely going to have much of an effect. One that wins a few primaries or cat least makes them close will likely carry on for a number of months, assuming that they do concede before it gets to the convention. Yeah, but if the president actually is popular like, say, Obama in 2012, the primary will be a blip on the radar. Therefore your claim that primarying Obama would somehow have led to Romney willin the general is hella dumb. Majorian posted:His argument is that serious primary challenges to incumbent presidents (or semi-incumbents, in the case of Humphrey in 1968) usually turn out badly for the party in question. The problem with his logic, though, is that those challenges only really cause a lot of damage to incumbents who are already extremely weak. Johnson was unpopular, to say the least, in 1968, and Humphrey suffered for that. (he also lost support from the extremely byzantine nature of his nomination) Carter had a lot of self-inflicted wounds going into 1980, and he wasn't very good at bullying Democrats in Congress to do what he needed them to do. Teddy was a vainglorious, undisciplined egomaniac, at least at that point in his career, and he didn't do the Democrats any favors in the way in which he challenged Carter. But Teddy was also a unique figure, given his pedigree and the nonstop pressure for him to take up the torch from his brothers. I don't think one should assume that every primary challenge to a Democratic incumbent will turn out that way. Yeah, this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:dunno if any republican could've been elected in the immediate wake of nixon Especially not after loving pardoning Nixon. Hellblazer187 posted:We also have Reagan challenging Ford. Three data points is not enough to prove anything, but it's still 3 out of 3 if you count 1968. It's not because you have the causality reversed. As has already been pointed out, serious primary challenges only happen when the sitting president is already very weak. If the president is popular primary chalenges either don't materialize or they're squashed in short order. Thus it's not the primary challenge that's hurting the president, it's the president hurting that makes the challenge possible.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:How do you think that would play out in a county with deep ethnic divisions and very high gun ownership rates? Better than taking some uneducated hotshots, teaching them that everybody in wider society is out to get them and then giving them de facto legal impunity for their actions except in the most egregious of cases.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:If there's a utility company going around painting poles that are to be cut down, you'll find a perfect correlation between paint and pole removal. That doesn't mean paint makes poles fall down. There is no logical mechanism by which they paint could fell the pole, whereas the effects of lead poisoning are pretty well researched and the causal link is definitely there. So the situations here are pretty darn different. Jizz Festival posted:In the topic at hand, there could be a third thing that caused both increased exposure to lead and increased likelihood to commit crimes. Sure, there could be. But until a plausible one is presented, one is justified in going with the best explanation available.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
You should be pro sex worker and anti sex work. E: Or at least anti actually existing sex work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
I think the big sticking point among leftists isn't the idea that racism exists on the left, because it sure as hell does exist and thus should and must be addressed, but that the liberal establishment and commentariat have a laser focus on the racism that does exist on the left while quietly sweeping the racism that does exist in the centre under the rug, and then using this purported moral superiority as a silencing and erasing tactic against the left.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh word, where does that happen? In approximately one bazillion thinkpieces shat out in the past year and a half. Also every time you post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The people saying "what about the racist liberals". If you actually made a good-faith effort to even acknowledge let alone adress the racism in the liberal establishment we wouldn't have to, you know?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Who are "you libs"? How am I one of them? How have I failed to address the racism of the liberal establishment? People who subscribe to the well-known political ideology of liberalism. Because of your opinions. By not acknowledging that it even exists. EDIT: LunarShadow posted:I mean, my solution is just wall the lot if them come the revolution. Joking aside, I ain't a liberal or a centrist. Default assumption ( at least for white folk)is they are racist until proven otherwise, That's a wall I can support. I wasn't addressing said post to you though, just to Nevvy. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Of course they do. The upshot is no one should use "what about the other guys" as a deflection. Nevertheless, they persist. Maybe you should work on bettering yourself?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:How so? First you could learn what whataboutism actually means, and then you could address what I wrote in at least semi-good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:CB guess if you were just saying "yeah, but the other guys are racists too" then yeah. I agree. Buddy, not to stick it to you or anything, but look at this here: Cerebral Bore posted:I think the big sticking point among leftists isn't the idea that racism exists on the left, because it sure as hell does exist and thus should and must be addressed, but that the liberal establishment and commentariat have a laser focus on the racism that does exist on the left while quietly sweeping the racism that does exist in the centre under the rug, and then using this purported moral superiority as a silencing and erasing tactic against the left. So maybe read stuff a bit more carefully next time?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Let me roleplay a centrist dem for a second. Except that's not what I was addressing ya dingus. I was addressing the fact that the centrist establishment would never acknowledge its own racism in any significant way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yikes, from 85% to 74%. a stunning rejection Let me guess, you're not going to need those votes anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:To what end? As mentioned, to be able to use their purported not-racistness versus the left's purported super-racistness to silence criticism from the left. And don't even pretend that this hasn't happened.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Show me people purporting this? Didn't you resolve to better yourself and try to post in semi-good faith? You're relapsing, pal. EDIT: Koalas March posted:what if instead of circular firing about racist accusations we talk about combating racism and our goals to reform the justice system from top down. Disband every police department in America and build up a new peacekeeping organization directly integrated in and responsible to the communities they serve, with every officer serving in a community being subject to immediate dismissal from office on a successful recall vote in said community. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Sep 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/911398115806023680 Sir, that is a slander. Bad Dems take strong stands on the necessity of funneling money to the rich and bombing people in the third world.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
Even if we lived in some just world where the US does military interventions out of pure humanitarian concerns as opposed to naked imperialism, it's obvious that the US miltary-political leadership isn't competent enough to pull off any kind of successful nationbuilding, so the very premises of the neocon argument are false.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
axeil posted:That said, it doesn't mean I automatically think that anything America does is bad because America is bad. That's a juvenile philosophy. Actually it's the rational position absent evidence to the contrary. Just apply to every imperial power.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
A good step would be to make all police officers subject to recall elections in the communities they're supposed to serve, so that minority communities can vote the racist shits off the force. EDIT: If this means that all officers are voted off the force, it'd be a nice bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Found the first problem with your idea. There's a whole lotta systems that are really good at making that not happen. Well, that's true. But on the other hand, if the US ever gets to the point where my idea is actually enacted and minorities get an actual say when it comes to policing, I'd assume that they'd have gotten rid of voter suppression as well.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty much 100% pro union, it's just that "we should get rid of teachers unions so that we can fire the bad & under performing ones, school reform now" never seems to come up in D&D. It's cause teachers don't kill people on the reg.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Oprah woulda won.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Y'all might consider doing what most other western nations do and have a professional civil service that helps your elected representatives draft laws. Besides that there's no logical reason that having lots of lawyers in Congress helps with getting good laws on the books because a) Congress is a political body and there's no reason to believe that any juridically ideal (or even good) law could actually pass without being amended to poo poo in the majority of cases and b) lawyers are perfectly capable of being dumbshits and/or fanatical ideologues, e.g. any GOP congressperson who happens to be a lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"Hm yes gently caress lawyers. Lawmakers should know less about the law and the senate should be in a worse position to evaluate judicial nominees. Also full tort reform now." Yeah, if only they had more lawyers in the Senate we totally wouldn't have a clown like Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:This is true since most lawyers are Democrats. Your descent into self-parody is quicker than usual today.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Dumb internet leftists from the idiot thread are also largely anti-intellectual hacks. How surprising. Law isn't a very intellectual profession, sorry to say. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The strongest advocates of Gorsuch in the Senate were: lol, nice try buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
The funny thing here is that the only peeps ITT who have strong opinions on what professions congresspeople should come from are the people who are yelling about how there just has to be an overrepresentation of lawyers.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 02:18 |
|
|
Lot of petty bourg ITT getting mad because they're not getting the automatic deference they've come to expect.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 20:21
|
|