|
Before we really get going, I'd like to say a prayer of thanks to 8BS for projectile vomiting in the trump thread so hard that it splashed on guyovich's shoes, and he used a tissue to wipe them off and discarded the tissue and that became the new USPOL thread. Amen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 15:18 |
|
Majorian posted:But they're so young! Why, 14-year olds are practically babies! If we sought justice from them, that would ruin their lives forever and ever, and it's not like this 8-year old hulking menace is going to be permanently traumatized for being lynched and almost killed! Bet you 10 bucks the police meant their mistake was in not tying the knot better, rookie mistake. Don't worry, they'll be sure to show them all about how to tie a noose so this won't happen again.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:This literally never happened. Not as widespread as condiv thinks it was, but there were quite a few people screaming about how bernie didn't care about black people ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707 ) and it's not that big of a leap to go from "bernie doesn't care about black people" to "everything bernie wants doesn't help black people." There was a lot of gross poo poo happening during 2016 everywhere. Hell, there were people yelling about how Clinton was racist, too: https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/ So, yeah, it did happen.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 20:31
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:There's a strain of leftism that wants to believe "no war but the class war," and in so doing they do not give proper attention to issues of racial equality. That is a far, far cry from "calling minimum wage increases racist." Your statement being true does not preclude my statement from being true. Another way of putting it: There's a strain of center leftism that wants to believe "no war but the race war" and in doing so they do not give proper attention to issues of economic equality. This does not mean you're one of them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
When I was a lot younger my sister and I were on our way to school in a half hour commute or so, and it was the first time I had listened to any Kanye when that opening drum line from black skinhead came out. When I made the lovely remark of "Why can't he make his point without yelling" she gave me the most direct and razor sharp answer I had ever heard on this subject that cut through a lot of my unnoticed white privilege: "Because no one was listening when he said it quietly." If you ask the question of why BLM is protesting a thing, you should probably ask yourself first if they're doing it because we weren't listening the first time. Also black skinhead is now one of my favorite songs of all time.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Glad to see DR is as lovely in other threads that aren't the CA politics thread. Dude argued that California would have as much bargaining power as Vermont to negotiate lower medicine prices if we implemented single payer here, so obviously socialists should just sit the gently caress down and listen to the centrist and conservative adults in the room. And it wasn't even close to the dumbest thing he's argued for in there.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 09:29
|
|
Taerkar posted:That the police are where many wannabe-soldiers end up doesn't help any, neither does the 'We are police, you are civilians' attitude and the other such pseudo-military terminology that they throw around. One of my favorite Pratchett novels is when he sent his commander of the watch back in time via goofy circumstances and he ended up as a sergeant in the old watch that was full of assholes, grifters, and thugs. Through the entire novel, people keep asking the question "who watches the watchmen" (hur hur) and the answer the novel gives is that your police need to not be shitbags and hold themselves to a higher standard, and if they can't they can get the gently caress out of the police force. It also enforces this by the leader of the city appointing a commander who is explicitly anti-shitbag and spends more time trying to be a good cop than to just keep people in line, the idea being that a chief of police who isn't a shitbag will work to get shitbags out of his force. I don't really like the idea of the answer being they need to just be better, but the largest issue I see in police departments across the US right now is they just aren't held to a higher standard. This doesn't mean they need to be more professional or whatever the gently caress, it means they need to understand the standard for success in being a cop is being part of the community, being able to defuse situations instead of escalating them, and to do their part to actually make their communities healthier. There are a lot of individual cops who do good work and try their best, but they're fighting an uphill battle that they really shouldn't be.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 19:26
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:
We're all cucks here. Also it's actually real easy to fight for more than one thing at a time, so if someone is giving you that better season bullshit they aren't fighting for anything but a status quo you'd like to change. Not a good ally, SAD.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2017 09:12
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I mean Nate Silver basically proved that minus Comey this would be true. Doesn't mean we should go back to Clinton (we shouldn't) but this is actually a true thing. Given the demographics and a pretty astounding amount of income inequality, this should have been a slam dunk win for democrats at all levels, and it wasn't. Talking about Comey and such is missing that point. Clinton should have been able to ride in on a tide of 1000 years of liberal darkness based purely on people being pissed off about their lack of economic stability and their personal rights being chomped away at no matter what was brought up.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Yo, police killing children and getting away with it isn't a problem of police unions, it's a problem of a justice system that refuses to clean its own house of the filth. Police unions being strong isn't the problem, the people who should be challenging them not doing it is the problem. You don't have to undercut unions at all to fix this problem. You have to push the justice system to do its loving job. And I loving hate that I have to be on DR's side in this, jfc people. Although I'm glad he decided to argue for removing teachers' unions because he cannot hold a logically consistent thread in his own argument lol.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 21:32
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The justice system is not doing its job because the nation is in love with police, isn't it. The unions could aid the reform process by standing up to abuse of power within its ranks, until they do so, they contribute to the stalemate. Yeah but the police union isn't in the wrong here. Look at it like a piece of machinery that isn't working because something's caught in the gears. The way to fix it is to remove the thing in the gears, not decide the gears are garbage and need to be gotten rid of. The way to fix this is to fix the problems in the justice system that create a lenient atmosphere for lovely cops who kill people, and what the police unions do is irrelevant to fixing that problem. Granted, the largest part of the problem is still that a way bigger portion of american voters don't believe there is a problem, and that's probably going to take a lot longer and be more complicated than the fix to the justice system. Office Pig posted:Actually to me it sounds like you're on Main Paineframe's side of the argument: Thank god.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
What matters is that they aren't assholes, not that they are lawyers. Voting is supposed to keep real assholes out but we done broke democracy somethin fierce this time.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 09:38
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Yeah it's totally cool that you have to be rich and well-connected to become a politician. The real problem is rude people. That's a different problem from "Lawyers shouldn't be politicans" which is a really dumb thing to argue because it doesn't loving matter either way. I'm not sure how you fix making sure people from lower economic status can become politicians, and this is a huge problem that does need a fix or some kind of leveling policy, but I do know that banning lawyers from being politicans won't fix it because then you'd probably end up with nothing but business peeps writing laws in our current atmosphere. If you wanna argue that business peeps are smarter than lawyers then lol have I got a bridge to sell you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 22:23
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Last few pages of this thread are hysterical Especially when you realize steinrokkan is just peeing in the thread and everyone else is splashing each other thinking it's a real debate. Godspeed, steinrokkan
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 22:28
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not worried about lawyers being evil or something, but having too many of one specific profession acting as our leaders is a bad idea in general We're arguing that it doesn't matter and you're latching on to a really weird thing to argue about because there's no evidence "lawyers" are why trump is president or whatever the gently caress, and banning "lawyers" won't solve the actual problem of the inability of people of lower economic status to participate in politics and become politicians. You haven't identified the problem so you're flailing about lawyers being mean or something and it's not a good look. Also scientists are starting to become more involved in politics specifically because of Trump. The main reason they didn't is because of the main reason they became scientists in the first place: what they care about is the science and understanding new things, not writing laws.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2017 22:48
|
|
)? engineers? teachers? foremen? just about anyone with leadership experience is a good fit for congress imo, and having your congressperson be a lawyer doesn't seem to bring much in the way of advantages when a ton of other congresspeople are too. and when congress has lawyers that can work for and draft laws for congresspeople, well it's really not super necessary that legislator A be a lawyer
Jizz Festival posted:I never advocated for banning lawyers. I was arguing against people claiming that lawyers dominate congress because they make great legislators. And I never argued that they make better legislators than other people. You're being obtuse and misinterpreting what a lot of people in the thread are saying with this. Keep in mind that it all started with this Kilroy posted:It would get the loving lawyers out, at least. and if you're going to paint me and many others with the same brush as like one guy then don't be surprised when it happens to you, too.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2017 06:30
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You're massively missing the point. The second amendment doesn't reserve the right to the militia, and you're willfully blind to that. It's right there in the grammatical structure. Hence my question: with my word substitution into an identical sentence structure, who is the right reserved to? Oh you loving didn't. Trying to apply any grammar rules to how the founding fathers wrote the constitution is a loving travesty of ignorance you dipshit. You didn't even word substitute the language correctly you disingenuous gently caress: quote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If you wanted this to mean what you want it to mean, it'd read: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You could also remove the and and add words to the end to make it clear, and there are still a million problems with this sentence structure because it's really just a list with a floating "shall not be infringed" clause at the end and no way to tell what's a list and what's an aside or what actual rights are attached to that clause, but that's kinda the point isn't it? They wanted it to be interpreted by others as time went on. Grammar is used to convey the meaning of the words used, so if there is no grammar there is also no meaning. The writers of the time took a haphazard approach to everything regarding sentence structure and grammar, so gently caress off with you trying to argue it's what it says in a correct grammatical sense. This poo poo does not make sense and it's why 250 years of legal scholars have been fighting about it for its entire existence. If you wanna have an argument about the rulings on it and interpretation, fine, but that's not what you're trying to do with this bullshit and you can shove it back up the rear end you pulled it out of. We've seen how a pedantic gently caress can drive an argument into the ground based on gun minutiae, you really don't want to see grammar nerds gently caress you into oblivion with their pedantry on this. Just go back to arguing about the legality of police checking your gunsafe or something.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 19:27
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's an explanatory clause that in no way restricts the nature of the individual right articulated in the subsequent clause. This has been subject to extensive legal, historical, and grammatical analysis and is wholly uncontroversial outside of internet smuglords going for idiotic "well you aren't in a regulated militia" one liners, and some of the stupider members of congress. That's cute, but that's not close to the argument you were making. You were making an "It's clear that they meant X" argument about the second amendment, a set of words that has been argued about for over 2 centuries by many many people much smarter than any of us, and tried to argue the merits of your side very ineffectually by pointing to text (that wasn't actually what the original text was) and saying it means what you think it means and that's why you're right. I'm not not talking about interpretations or whatever the gently caress you wanna yell at someone about. You made a lovely dumb intellectually dishonest argument and now you're trying to move the goalposts like a good right winger. gently caress off and come back when you have something worthwhile to say.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 23:44
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I'm not convinced they have the capability or foresight to plan something so subtle and intricate and if they do they'll probably botch it. They're definitely capable of planning it. They're even more capable of loving it up, and as long as the opposition knows what they're doing it'll be a lot harder to get it done. The executive order part will definitely happen, but whether they get the tax reform bill through with it all is a whole nother story.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 05:44
|
|
ColonelDimak posted:This is one of the most disingenuous arguments I've seen "Disingenuous Arguments" is DR's actual real life middle name. I'm still going to point out that DR bold facedly argued that California couldn't have single payer because Vermont couldn't do it and California having an economy the size of France's doesn't matter when it comes to drug price negotiations. The only thing to really discuss when DR is involved is if he's just being an intellectually dishonest little poo poo or if he really believes all of the dumb poo poo he spews all day every day. I'm leaning toward the former but I could be persuaded.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 07:14
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I feel the argument you and others are trying to make here is fundamentally flawed. My point is, in response to people who say they don't want to outlaw hunting weapons, most of the weapons Whitman used (pretty much all of them save the carbine and pistols, which I can't find any notes suggesting he used, he certainly wasn't making hits at 500yds with any of them) fit that description. If you're OK with letting people keep "hunting weapons", are you saying you're OK with mass shootings as long as the perpetrators keep the casualties below 20? What Whitman was was the first mass killer of his kind. There were factors that didn't exist back then that do now, like the way police respond to mass shooting events and the way people view certain kinds of activities. For example, before the sniping actually began in the UT shooting, quote:As Cheryl Botts and Don Walden entered the reception area from the observation deck, Walden noticed Whitman's guns and assumed that he was going to the observation deck to shoot pigeons. Whitman smiled, "Hi, how are you?" as they went down to the elevator. This was even before he shot the family coming up the stairs and two people escaping to get help, and all of this was still before the first shots were fired from the tower into random people below. When that started, people thought it was an antiwar protest, and there were people telling victims who had been shot to get up because they didn't realize what was happening because, again, this poo poo hadn't happened before. Police radios were only in cars, there was no such thing as a SWAT team, hell, the police had a 12 gauge shotgun and pistols, nothing that could return fire to where he was. Whitman had an hour and a half where no one even came up the tower to try and stop him, versus the security guard who got shot in Vegas for checking that stairwell that seemed to be the shooters' escape route and seemed to be the impetus for him killing himself. BTW, Investigation Discovery made a pretty decent episode on this particular shooting ( https://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/a-crime-to-remember/full-episodes/the-28th-floor ) that's worth watching. It spends a decent amount of time showing how shocked people were that someone would do something like it, and the police weren't really sure what they should be doing. Hell, the media didn't even know what they should be doing and they started listing the names of victims from the emergency room while the shooting was still going on. It was absurdly different from what happens now, so using it as a data point is a really really bad idea. Now, there were other factors at work as well, like Whitman's therapist who knew he was thinking about doing this but couldn't tell anyone because of confidentiality rules that have since been changed to allow for a therapist to say something if their patient says they want to go out and murder a shitload of random people and things like that, so you could also base it as an argument for better health care measures we can take, although we've taken some already specifically because of Whitman already. My point is we've learned pretty much all we can about what to do about mass shootings from Whitman, so it's time to look to newer examples to learn what we can and do what we can do to mitigate what can happen, like banning rifles that allow someone to spray bullets with impunity much faster in order to do much more damage before a SWAT team can get to them. LITERALLY MY FETISH fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
How do you feel about the CDC not being able to conduct research on gun violence in America? It seems like you enjoy raw data, but right now there's a dearth of it because the apparatus meant to find out about these things isn't allowed to conduct any studies about it. I'm curious if you'll argue some dumb slippery slope bullshit like republicans do when anyone brings it up or if you'd be okay with more data on the subject to have a more informed discussion.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
I mean, I knew about the Harvey Weinstein stuff years ago because a goon I play games with works in the movie industry and told us about it. I was more surprised at how many people didn't know about it, tbh. And the worst part about this stuff is the only people who can do anything about it are actually the victims. You can't step up as a secondhand witness or with a secondhand account as evidence, it just won't hold. The only thing that kept Weinstein out of trouble was his continued power over his victims because of his power in Hollywood, and Obama couldn't have changed that even if he knew unless he had victims he could refer his AG to or whatever his avenue would be. It's why supporting victims who lay down allegations is so important and why the culture of not believing rape victims is so toxic and why the report rate for sexual assault was under 50% last I checked.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 07:56
|
|
Condiv posted:there were a lot of things he could've changed, including at the minimum not palling around with weinstein. he could have also pressed to have this poo poo investigated too. as we already know, there were people who tried to file charges against weinstein for sexual assault that got shut down cause of the power imbalance, and we also know that it's not exactly an uncommon thing in hollywood (or any area of the US where men hold disproportionate power over women). obama could've made it a part of his administration to root that poo poo out and provide a better society for women, and that would've been great. My entire point is if the victims aren't willing to come forward there is no path to criminal charges. What, do you think Obama can just go "I think you're guilty, lock him up!" and guards just pop out and take him away? If there is no one who is willing to press charges or come forward, what the gently caress is an investigation going to do? There's no body, just rumors and victims who stayed silent so their careers wouldn't be ruined, and even if those victims have evidence they'd still have to come forward with it. It's loving bizarre how much you don't seem to understand about how the justice system works and why this poo poo is so bad. It's like you only just now are seeing why it's so hosed up that only 40% of rape victims report what happened to them and now you're throwing a tantrum because the person you feel is literally magical didn't stop them because he's not actually magical. The fixes for this problem have to come from a lower level (us). There is no single person who can just wave their arm and make the changes necessary to fix all rape. Also take a look at the DNC donor list sometime, there's bound to be a lot of really lovely people there because rich people are lovely people. If you wanna argue that Obama should have done X thing within his power because he knew Y even though you don't actually know if he knew Y at the time, then sure. Go ahead. It's still a really dumb loving argument that misses the lesson to be had about Weinstein (that waiting for people in power to fix the problem is loving stupid because either the person in power IS the problem or everyone else would rather let the status quo go on because it also sustains their power). LITERALLY MY FETISH fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 08:28
|
|
Also Malia Obama was working as an intern for Weinstein this year, and that'd be a real bizarre thing for Obama to let his daughter do if he knew Weinstein was a sex predator. VitalSigns posted:No of course not you can't lock up an American citizen without due process. That's unconstitutional. This is America. Serious concerned people wouldn't stand for it. No, missile strikes would have been too big. That's what the drones are for.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 08:41
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm pretty sure you're only allowed to do that to Michael Bay. It's definitely how Bay would want to go out: At least 40 missiles slamming into his mansion and a crater 60 feet deep. I hope they remember to drop american flags from an airplane over the rubble and the US Navy orchestra marches in carrying a stage with Springsteen on it blasting the national anthem.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 08:50
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Because nobody expected better from McConnell or Ryan. Yeah, definitely. Given everything we know, the most likely thing was he heard rumors about it but didn't want to believe it for pick-your-own-reason and that's why he didn't distance himself or keep Malia out of the internship. It's one of the many many reasons expecting a single person in power to suddenly just be better will never work. Supporting victims and making sure they don't feel like the world is against them for telling the truth is the strongest path to fixing this issue, and it takes all of us to do it and correct that lovely culture. I'm actually kind of heartened because, while I still see people pulling out the "allegations are not evidence" card with rape victims, I see it a lot less than I used to about Weinstein and that DEFY media guy who makes the honest trailers on youtube. It tells me people are finally starting to realize this poo poo has to be taken seriously.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 08:59
|
|
Majorian posted:Publicly exorcizing the rapists out of the former party will help remove the latter party from power. And that's what's happening. Who came out in defense of Weinstein once this all came out? And IIRC several democrats have already donated the money they got from Weinstein to various charities, although I'm fuzzy on the details. I'll take a second and look it up RQ. edit: here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/us/politics/democrats-harvey-weinstein.html
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 19:39
|
|
Ytlaya posted:"It's okay to criticize Democrats, but you must do so very politely and repeatedly establish that the Republicans are still worse." I think it's okay to couch it within the idea that we're supposed to be better, but this weinstein poo poo is democrats being as bad as republicans and they need to be seen fixing the problem. Looks like they are, though, and I still like Olbermann's response to republicans demanding the money be given back: Republicans should have to donate the money they got from Ailes and O'Reilly to RAINN as well. It gets democrats to be better, calls out republicans for not being better, and hits pretty much all the right points that should be hit without getting into some weird RWM narrative bullshit. It's also still a criticism of democrats because it draws a direct parallel with them and republicans doing the same thing.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:06
|
|
MizPiz posted:Rapist don't rape literally every woman they come in contact with; someone can know someone else is a rapist and still feel secure about sending their daughter to work for them given their position and the power they wield. This is a really dumb loving take that assumes Obama is a robot who ran a risk assessment and determined it was safe for his daughter to be in the same position as other people who got raped because there was only a 2% chance of her getting raped or sexually assaulted. It's not a hill you wanna die on, dude.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:44
|
|
Talmonis posted:Apparently Griffin v. California argues that a refusal by invoking the fifth amendment cannot even be commented on by a judge or the prosecution. It doesn't seem to make much sense outside of the constitutional context though. It seems to allow a defendant the ability to hide evidence via omission without any logical consequence of doing so. It's not illogical, it's having a different goal. If your goal is to reduce the amount of power the justice system has over vulnerable individuals and prevent abuses, it's very logical. That's why saying something is "illogical" doesn't mean anything and why leaving behind that kind of thinking is necessary to understanding the justice system. And also to not being a lovely person.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
The most hosed up part about this is that the main reason for their outbreaks is because of overworked staff. They pay okay per person, but they don't have enough people on every shift on average to really keep up with the demand. Chipotle's actually pretty good to its employees, mandatory breaks and all that, plus optional health and dental if you wanna pay into it, pretty basic plans, though. The big issue is the amount of work the average chipotle employee performs is loving absurd. This is 100% a case of "I'd love to see one of these dumb loving bankers try to work even a half shift at their local chipotle without losing their god damned mind." Source: I spent 6 months as a crew member working prep. I still eat there, though. I'm okay with human suffering because I put in my time and there's nothing gross about what they do to make the food. (except the mild, because tomatoes aren't cut fresh in house, they come in prediced packages and I won't touch that poo poo if I can help it because I have no idea where they come from or how fresh they are, but they're only used in the pico so w/e, plus pico is basic bitch poo poo, get corn and tomatillo green next time, add some hot if you like it hotter)
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:37
|
|
Grapplejack posted:I legitimately don't know how they're expected to get staffing costs under 27%. I would assume a majority of their costs are paying their staff; there's no way overhead or ingredient sourcing can cost that much. Ingredient sourcing for chipotle is actually kinda complicated, mainly because they go out and find local farmers to supply their stores for most stuff. It was really heartening at the store I worked at how many people came out and specifically got cheese and sour cream for their burritos because that stuff came directly from the dairy farm just outside the city and they wanted to support the local farmer. Generally, though, one farm for an ingredient can cover a really wide area, so they go back to those farms or farming communities when they open a new store to make a new contract, but it will always be a good bit more expensive to do it with only local farmers than going to the giant factory farms. IANAL and I only know the broad strokes, but organizing suppliers from all across the country vs just a few agribusinesses has to be more complicated and expensive. There is a chipotle corporate, obviously, but everything I saw from them told me they were pretty efficient and knew what they were doing, relatively. A lot of them were recruited from the stores anyway, so it wasn't rare for someone to start working at chipotle rolling burritos and end up an assistant district manager or something. It's still a loving banker's pipe dream to get under 27%, though. It's just not how restaurants work.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 19:57
|
|
karthun posted:In 2015 staffing was 22.4% of sales. In 2016 it was 30.9%. Couldn't possibly be because of the string of outbreaks they had to deal with hitting their sales numbers hard at all. No siree. There are no other factors to consider here. And they were already understaffed, that's how they got to 22.4%. The churn in a chipotle is loving incredible, average employee lasts 6 months at best. I've seen people walk out during their first shift and never come back multiple times.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2017 20:02
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Oh lol. Now to the pedulum swing argument. Such a naive argument. Also lol at the do nothing because Trump will just screw everything up. This is why you and the rest of the losers get bullied. Oh also the fact they voted Obama was he offered and was admittedly lying about change. Its also why they voted Trump. It'd be real nice if Americans actually understood that the president, by constitutional definition, cannot make sweeping changes like they want and need, and if you wanna change things you have to do it in congress and in state level elections, but it's really hard to do that so let's just elect one after another and keep bitching about it instead. NewForumSoftware posted:I'd have to vote Democrat first to not vote Democrat again Arguing against lesser evil stuff is especially stupid now, in the the age of Trump, and if you don't think referring to them all as genocidal war criminals constantly doesn't affect the way battleground states vote, I've got a bridge to sell you.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 18:05
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Nice attempt to change the subject. The dems are losers and deserve to lose if they keep their current trajectory up. If you haven't noticed, I wasn't part of this conversation until I made that post, so it's not so much "changing the subject" as just a new perspective. Get in a pissing match with someone who cares, dude.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 18:25
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How would the leftist folks in here feel about Al Franken at this point? would he generate excitement and interest, or is he seen as more of the same? Depends on the leftist, but for me it's just more of the same. He's not bad, don't get me wrong, and I definitely would have preferred Clinton to Trump, but there's zero excitement going on for anyone for me except maybe a little for Harris, and that's just because she'd be a woman and a POC as the president at the same time and that'd be real cool to see. Framing everything around the presidency just won't work for me, and I honestly don't expect to see a truly progressive president for a very long time, if ever. Progressive policy needs progressive congresspeople, not presidents. Those are just a perk. The DNC's downticket races are what I care about, and it's kind of a shitshow down there because it seems like they're still fighting to see whether the old guard gets ousted or they keep doing the same thing they've been doing. I'll get excited if we get some younger bernies into the house or something, because it'll feel like progressives will have a stronger foothold for future elections, and more ability to do more lefty things sooner.
|
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2017 18:34
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm not insisting we Arzy, stop implying that I am. Jesus gently caress you're taking the least charitable interpretation of my posts. Hey there, Hi, I'm a leftist too. This poll is dumb and you're attaching way too much clout to what it's saying, and a basic knowledge of statistics should tell you why. Throwing a tantrum because the discussion didn't go the way you wanted it is childish because that's generally how discussions work because, get this, other people have input on what the conversation is about. It's not the evil centrists keeping you down when everyone doesn't immediately fall down to agree with you, especially when they give valid reasons for it. Just stop it. If you wanna have that separate slap fight about the evil dems, there's a thread for that, but trumping up (hur hur) a really narrow poll in order to have a conversation you want with the fig leaf of "but I have evidence this time!" isn't gonna fly here, and you should know better than to try.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 20:13
|
|
WampaLord posted:You're ascribing malice where there was none. I wasn't trying to "pull one over" with an obviously bad poll, I actually BELIEVED the professional polling firm, heaven loving forbid I do that. That wasn't my larger point. It was that your first response to someone saying "but that poll doesn't say what you think it says" shouldn't be to kneejerk start attacking people for being clinton loyalists. Before you start calling people centrist shills, take a second and check if they're right, because if they are then whoops. Being wrong isn't a big deal, everyone's wrong a lot of times. You should be striving to be correct, not right. The entire point of discussing this stuff is in order to fix our own preconceived notions and biases, and usually that involves some scuffing of the ego. Ask any white people who went posting in negrotown with even the best of intentions. If you wanna post in the trump thread about this stuff then go ahead. It's digging your heels in when you're wrong, and there are easily verifiable, factual reasons that you're wrong, that won't fly.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 15:18 |
|
Talmonis posted:General elections against fascist strongmen with delusions of grandeur are not the ideal moment to boycott your own candidate. That this fact eludes you is bewildering. The Democratic party is full of "A Certain Family's" centrist grifters, and they hold too much power. The Liberals in the party want the Slavery supporters and the racists stripped of power, while still beholden to the party's overall goals, so they don't just join the Republicans. We got screwed this year by the party heads. Liberals did. Not a bunch of outside agitators with no stake, tut-tutting our impurity. We tried to stop Trump, and had to support a lesser evil to do it. We failed because you didn't help, then turned around and blamed those of us who actually tried to get a different candidate in the first place using the only available method of doing so. This isn't very coherent, but the thing I can glean from it is that you don't think Leftists are democrats, and that's a false premise. I'm a leftist and also a democrat. There are lots of honest to god socialists who are democrats because it's the only viable party to be. We aren't "a bunch of outside agitators with no stake." Your assumptions make your reasoning faulty from the get-go, and that's why you keep getting in these fights about it. Also if someone is a racist grifter then joining the republicans is actually what they should do. It's literally the party for racist grifters.
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2017 18:35
|
|