|
Baron Porkface posted:Wow I really underestimated that Trump guy. Wow, you really got him there.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Is it or is it not evil to provide Obamacare benefits to the people who need them to live? There's no reason to presume someone critiquing ACA to also be against medicare expansion, and you know that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:You aren’t just critiquing ACA you are calling it’s supporters evil. Not unless you base your entire life around defending every part of ACA. Instant Sunrise posted:Also, Nader voters would have broken equally for either Bush or Gore. Also-also, more dems voted for Bush than for Nader. At the very worst you can consider third party support as a canary-in-the-coal-mine WRT how the main party is doing. Bill Clinton snubbing Nader on climate control gained legs because it fed directly into anti-nepotism concerns and left sentiment. Gore tried to distance himself from Bill after the impeachment, but that just gave him the worst of both worlds.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 00:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You literally just said democrats need to turn into something people vote for. People voted for them, more people voted for them than republicans, millions of more people voted hillary clinton than trump. More people have voted for democrats than republicans in all but like one election in the last 25 years. Getting raw numbers of people to vote for them is the exact thing democrats are actually good at. More people voted for them because they focused on population centers rather than winning states. I imagine it would have been a closer PV if Trump had done the same, as both candidates had extremely bad approval ratings. When you play baseball, you dont throw the bat into the crowd and then brag about how you threw the bat farther than everyone else in the game after your team loses. You threw the bat farther because nobody else threw their bat, because that's a stupid thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:The DCCC is a big part of the problem and a reason why money is not spent as intelligently as it could be, but that should not distract from the fact that you still need large amounts of money that drives candidates to needing some level of corporate support or donations from wealthy people. The DCCC sucks, but they are exploiting a reality as opposed to creating a problem out of whole cloth. 'Did not work with the DNC' is an understatement of what happened. DWS changed how the DNC employed electoral staff; the inept consultants, managers, proxies etc.? Those guys usually get fired after the election. Instead they were kept in perpetuity, and unless I've missed significant restructuring recently is still happening. That means twelve years of exirbitant pay meant to only last a couple of months during election season, for three elections worth of staff. For doing nothing. It's been theorized that a big reason for the Obama-led phonebanking for Perez was intended to keep the grift rolling. Whether or not Clinton was involved in this depends on how close you believe DWS and the employed consultants and the Clinton family are. If you believe they're close then in essence the DNC was bled dry and then its carcass purchased by the same group. If they aren't close then Clinton didn't start this grift, but most certainly saw an opportunity in bailing out the DNC and did not make a peep about the continued grift for her particular consultants, until Brazile revealed all of this (and I'm not sure she said anything about it, afterwards). So yeah. The DNC is in shambles and unable to 50-state compete because the Rational Practical Actually-Secret-Leftist Centrists put it in such a condition, and not because of leftists not voting hard enough. I'm sure you can understand why leftists might be more than peeved at this.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And then Donna Brazile, who shared the questions with her in the first place, goes and writes a cash-in book that just helps people double-down on that rigging narrative. Books dont actually sell that much, even best sellers. It takes an unnaturally popular fluke like Twilight and 50 Shades, and even that usually pales in comparison to the film rights. Certainly not a niche political book tell-all released after the election. To put in perspective how many niches within niches we're dealing with, that's a book (72% of americans read books, no data on purchasing books) written by a democrat and pertaining to democrat politics (48% of -registered- citizens identify as democrat) about Hillary Clinton (?% of people who still care about Clinton after the election) which is negative (36% of Clinton's voters were 'very enthusiastic' to vote for her). The whole "a well-paid DNC alumni cut off all ties with the Clinton favor network and likely any paid speaking or consultant roles to get rich off lying in her book!!!" Take was dumb as hell.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:If that's the standard we are working with, then you should substitute "cash-in" with "opportunistic" in my post. It was absolutely an attempt to cover her rear end publicly, I'm just dismissing any suggestion of her making poo poo up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
To be fair, Biden sees bizarre popularity due to the personality he's groomed and his connection to Obama. We dont know how well he'd fare getting his politics cross-examined in a presidential primary, and he's too smart to walk into that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The next step is you declaring we had universal health care until Hillary Clinton took it away by running on providing a public option it's been a while since we had a good corncobbin' quote:Lesser evilism is bad because just less evil enough to be technically "the lesser evil" is the goal of these people and aggressively stand in the way of anyone less evil than them getting a foothold. Pretty much. That's the point of the Ultimatum Game; if you act on the short term 'logical' choice, the dealer will work to maximize their share and minimize yours, whereas refusing fair deals that would benefit you in the short term leads to fairer deals in the long term and starves unfair dealers. 'Lesser evilism' as a tactic is faulty at its very conception because it clearly announces that you are willing too accept as little gain as possible, so long as it's something. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Feb 16, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, they should have learned that lesson in 2016 then sent a terminator back in time so they could apply that lesson to an event that happened pervious to the event you are using as proof they should have known. I'm glad our overbribed officials needed to learn "the people against your agenda wont work with you no matter how many episodes of West Wing plays in the background" despite that centrists are supposed to be the smart pragmatic bunch that dont need a flippin' high school special to figure things out. A coming of age story, 40+ years in the making. Alternatively, they are not secret leftists. And you are not defending secret leftism by attacking leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
Trump also attacked the DNC from the left after Bernie lost and the DNC emails were leaked. The lesson here isn't "we must do the opposite of everything the Bad Men say". If you object to what Vitalsigns is saying, argue against his argument, stop thesr halfassed attempts to equate actual criticism with conservatism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:The Democratic Party lost shitloads of seats in 1966 after pushing through the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. Which, ironically, has resulted in them losing obscene amounts of seats. Meanwhile all of the above programs continue to be used to defend Democrats and earn votes. It's almost like....you should plan for the long term
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
I still want to know why there were democrats helping Theresa May in the UK over Corbyn, if they're supposed to be secret pragmatic leftists.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Because not all Democrats Which ones helped Corbyn, and how representative would you say Obama is of democrats
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Alt take: unionized labor is good, preying on workers with predatory car loans to pay for a handful of approved cars is bad, job security is important
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 03:26
|
|
|
It would be interesting to see owl's solution to the ultimatum game that doesn't involve rejecting any offers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 09:21
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:4. Individuals have options other than accepting/rejecting the deal for influencing the person offering the deal (equivalent to activism, etc in the real world). This is arguable IMO. It seems like the very best you can expect from activism is to get politicians to make commitment-free statements that hold about as much clout as the duration of their election campaign. Supporting alternatives in primaries is a good start, but even there the degree of control over a parties' primary means that "skew the system in our favor" usually beats out "pivot to win the people that voted for this guy last time".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
There is an argument to be made that nobody knows what political capital is, except that it's voodoo witch powder that prevents centrists from doing anything
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
There's also the long ignored fact here that $12 wasn't something offered in a bubble against $15 activists. the party itself added $15 minwage as a platform plank, and the presidential candidate, who is worth an obscene amount of money and owns several several-million dollar houses, fuckin' tried to haggle that down to $12 immediately after the convention
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2018 01:20
|
|
|
The most prominent democrat figureheads have completely drained the DNC of funding with consultants and lost an election against the least popular candidate ever, but it's more important to melt down at people questioning Lesser Evil-ism. That is how we shall win.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This post comes to us under VP Pence. Do you think that sort of aim would result in a second Trump term? Because, to be completely blunt, the current direction of the party will absolutely guarantee a second Trump term.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
The issue with "just force them at the primary" is that there's a lot of ways to skew the primary, and people already have diminished faith in a D primary that somehow managed to be less democratic than an R primary. This could have been addressed by lowering/removing cutoff dates for registering as a democrat, mitigating or removing superdelegates, and withholding party funding to incumbents during primaries, but that hasn't been done.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
To make sure we're on the same level WRT the current status of the democratic party; it's hemorrhaged most of the top donors that they alienated everyone else to appeal to, they're massively bankrupt as a result of continuing to fund three elections worth of consultants yearly for no reason, democrats are buckling to republicans WRT stonewalling the budget in defense of dreamers (itself a buckling of pro-immigrant support rhetoric by focusing on 'legitimate' immigrants), democrats are repeatedly being found less popular than Donald J Trump, remaining megadonors are holding funding hostage over holding their buddies accountable to sexual assault, and they are pinning many of their hopes on stirring up enough anti-russian sentiment when the majority of voters struggle to name anything about russia that they take offence with or meaningfully affects their personal life. There has to be a point in the Ultimatum Game where you say "no, this deal is unacceptable, cut a better one next time, no money for either of us". As illogical as it seems in the short term, spite and a moral position of fairness are integral to maintaining an equal system.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I look forward to the "cut me a better deal" absolutely does work on the large scale. That's the entire point of the Ultimatum game. Strict obedience to a logical assessment of "better than nothing" results in heavy exploitation of the person not cutting the deals. It's funny that you bring up concentration camps, considering democrats have tolerated and/or encouraged them in other countries, but hey, out of sight, out of mind.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:"Better to virtue signal a bill that can't pass in Red Congress than to win a SCOTUS seat" The existence of the bill at all sets a useful precedent; X democrats voted for M4A -then-, why are they not voting for M4A -now-? It's not completely useless because it's a 100% free method of establishing party stances and catching the eye of the public. Republicans did this constantly when they were out of power, because it establishes a positive theme of genuity and reliability with their base that gets them voting. And when they gained power they found themselves bound to those stances or else face primarying in a party less capable of protecting their elite. There's always going to be something at stake in an election, just like how there will always be some share of the pot dealt in the ultimatum game. By not refusing progressively weaker deals you open yourself to exploitation via testing the limits of your willingness to accept. Even if it's a bluff, the willingness to leave with nothing ensures a better deal than establishing absolute loyalty.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think I replied with something similar to this before, but the really big and important differences here are that 1. the other player has goals other than winning and would possibly rather lose than fulfill your demands and 2. the other player doesn't necessarily know why you rejected the deal (and in the case of the Democratic Party, they're likely to interpret it as "because we weren't racist enough" or something). You're not wrong (and as we saw in the UK, there were more than a few Labour [UK democrats] leaders willing to admit that they would rather the Tories win than allow a left prime minister), but at the same time it's possible that there will be politician unwilling to go down with the ship in the name of Centrism. Shumer for example was more than happy to start tapping his feet to Bernie's drum until they managed to get the RUSSIANS topic rolling. I imagine it would be significantly harder to get donors for a "Intentionally Lose So Leftists Cant Get Power" party than a "Win And Get All The Lobbyists" party, and politicians happy to be eternal losers than check-cashing senators. as for figuring out the why, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem in the long term (worst case: they try to go further right, still dont win people, still need to try something else), and in the short term I'd argue that there's more public leftist democrats ready to lead the party than public conservative democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:The district’s Republican being a literal Illinois nazi is likely a factor in all this. I think he just wants to hear a consistent response such as he's heard with fiscal leftism. That is to say, he wants yo hear someone have the balls to say: "Yes, queer and female voters should vote against LGBQT protection and reproductive rights to keep the republicans out". It's rather telling that there are posters who will enthusiastically throw poor americans under a bus, but squirm when a topic dear to their clique becomes the focus.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2018 18:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Wow, sounds like the left should have united in the first round instead of doing the typical squabbling which allowed Macron and Le Pen be the two choices in the second round. I guess that would have required a bunch of people to have voted for a "lesser evil" instead of their preferred candidate though, boo hoo hoo. This is a pretty ridiculous and uninformed take on what happened in France. The left rallied behind an actual leftist, then the party that the leftist won leadership in quietly tanked his chances on all levels. They took their ball and went home.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why do you think Melenchon isn't a real leftist? I think he's an idiot. I also dont think the guy who wrote-in Lincoln Chafee should be critiquing swathes of leftists in any country on unity and practical voting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why do you think Melenchon is an idiot? Please articulate your critiques, as the man you anointed as the proper leftist choice that election now works with him and thinks Melenchon has some great ideas. 1. France has had this identical issue in the past, similar to Canada where multiple competing leftist parties split the vote because the main parties are too restrictive WRT candidacy. Which meant that it was far more important that a leftist capable of changing that, who won the primary in one of said parties, get the votes needed to win and reform the party. Instead Melenchon allowed himself to be exploited by centrist dickwads that weren't happy that their guy didnt win his own primary. 2. Just like there exists no Cult Of Bernie, nobody thinks Hamon was the annointed choice. 3. Just like "Bernie supports Thing, why dont you support Thing?" never working, nobody is going to suddenly 180 their stances to align perfectly with Hamon. For why: see #2 quote:Also sorry you're still butthurt about making a joke vote in Massachusetts of all places. I dont care why you decided to vote for Chafee, only that you did, and as such have no clout in arguing for lesser evilism and/or critiquing others on unity.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes I agree leftists tend to idiotically insist on splitterism when it matters most that they don't fall for it. That's their fault. However you're not saying anything that makes Melenchon bad. It's after all clear that the PS cause became hopeless when the PS collapsed, do you think Melenchon personally caused that collapse? He doesn't need to have caused the collapse, only contribute to the idiotic "those wacky leftists cant unify on anything!" narrative set by disgruntled PS elite and provide cover for their own sabotage. As such he is an idiot. quote:You said this: "The left rallied behind an actual leftist, then the party that the leftist won leadership in quietly tanked his chances on all levels." That implies you think Hamon was the proper leftist, and that Melenchon wasn't. Why phrase it that way if you don't mean it that way? Because the significant goal for the majority of the left was to reclaim PS. Melenchon at best was an opportunist who saw relevance as the PS sabotaged themselves. I dont care about delving into Melenchon because it's a transparent attempt on your behalf to frame the discussion as Melenchon vs. Hamon to drag the thread out and avoid needing to defend your view that the left lost because of infighting, and not because centrists in the party holding the left's focus sabotaged their own chances. quote:Why are you so angered by voting in favor of the metric system in a primary? It was a transparently disingenuous way for you to complain about Bernie without needing to defend Hillary. You werent using him to make a joke, rather to allow yourself room to muck up threads by rallying behind an incompetent unknown to project onto. Just as how you're using Melenchon to avoid uncomfortable discussions about Macron.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
Basically, every Blairite veteran in his party, the entirety of the opposition party (which at the time had been reforming its image into Compassionate Conservatism), every television pundit, and multiple high profile british figures such as J.K Rowling were publically railing against Corbyn. There existed a group within Labour priming themselves to take over leadership after the elections. He made such amazing gains 100% off the strength of the platform he presented to the people and the mobilization and rallying of young labour members said fantastic platform inspired. Which is to say, at no point did Corbyn get by on a pretty face and catchy speech.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Here's the part that is flying under the radar in how terrible this law is: But it's important to aggressively grill leftists, because they are the true racists waiting to backstab minorities. No, really, gently caress centrism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2018 11:43
|
|
|
Grimdude posted:People being gullible morons is a huge problem, yes. The problem here is that Trump didn't promise a unicorn and rainbow for every household. He promised very real and possible things (that he had no intention of acting on/didnt care about) that Democrats decided not to support because they are complacent in the system and hold a positive view of its current state. By fullthroatedly (with his fingers crossed) promising things that democrats held steadfast on not supporting he helped demoralize support among Democrats. The lesson here is not "people are gullible gently caress them", it's "support policies people are so desperate to see enacted that they will vote for/not vote because of a blatant conman to get even the vague promise of action on". Shocking as it may seem you might not know what's best for them, and they have zero reason to believe in the limits you set when even your own experts are fragmented on what is and is not possible. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and blame everyone else, but that accomplishes nothing and is true disengagement from political action, not drbating the merits of a lesser-evil mentality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Spanish Matlock posted:Pretty much? I mean, the thing is that lesser of two evils voting has the slimmest smallest tiniest sliver of benefit to the voter. It's not satisfying, and it feels bad. But it's literally the only option the system allows. Everything else is an illusion meant to contain the exact outrage you're feeling. Alternatively, there exists a scope beyond the short-term. I highly recommend everyone take their current view of lesser-evil mentalities and apply it to this exercise: http://ncase.me/trust/ It helps to show how in the long-term blind trust and outright greed are punished in equal measures, the former by the latter and the latter by an illogical sense of justice and spite.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2018 16:50
|
|