|
volts5000 posted:To me, I don't think the DNC will get the message regardless of what we do. If they can't see the writing on the wall after 2010, 2012, 2014, AND 2016, something tells me they ain't going to be seeing it in 2020. You may be right, but what is the point at all if you are?
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
D-Pad posted:My four friends and I are walking through the desert, about to die of thirst. To our great relief, we come up upon a man selling water by the gallon for $5. And then we all put our $5 in but now the water seller says "I actually think if you purchase this donkey urine you'll find it's a fine choice." "No, we all thought we were getting water." "Take it or leave it bitch. Piss is water now. Drink this or that dirty puddle over there." "I don't want to drink piss, I want to drink clean water like we all agreed was important." And then all of my friends call me an rear end in a top hat for not wanting to drink piss. "If you don't buy this piss it's basically like you're saying you want to drink that lovely puddle water." "But drinking piss isn't good for you..." "Oh, so you're all pro-ditch water now. Wow. Just be thankful you can even drink donkey piss." And so I drank piss because just following directions and ignoring why that's the only choice is most important. Also the water seller kept groping Liza. The Sean fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Apr 9, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm the guy with twice as much money as everyone else who is coincidentally standing in for supporters of the Jewish candidate. Ohhhhhh that's what he meant by naming the guy "Ernie." gently caress. That was deep. Like Soros' pockets deep.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
ThomasPancake posted:Why are communists in this thread acting like they would steal the water when they can't even steal a smoke out of their step-dad's pack? What is this even supposed to mean? Some loving boomer garbage? Is this satire?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Willo567 posted:Great argument. "Great argument," I retort. I slide my katana back into its sheath. As the hilt clicks, I say, "my candidate is bad and there is nothing positive I can say about him. But the other candidate is the same but somehow worse. Ha. You have no choice. I am the superior one." And the leftists were owned.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:Unless you're talking about some relatively militant protests (general strikes and shutting poo poo down en masse regardless of legality) you're exceedingly unlikely to achieve anything. You've already proven to these people that you will continue to empower them no matter what, so why would they give a drat about your carefully considered change.org petition? Exactly. "Well, we should vote Dem and also do community organizing to get a left candidate." *votes for center-right candidate. also does organizing.* "Come on guys. Keep organizing!" *bernie has massive following, record breaking individual donations, supports policies that most americans want* *votes for basically a republican* "Guys, the key is to keep organizing!" DNC: "lol these loving idiots never learn." edit: i don't think you're an idiot. i think that's how the DNC sees us.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:oh my, you have stumbled upon the most perfect of troll moves. I am definitely using this one. Yeah it is an amazingly good comeback against that bad faith thing they say.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:why is this thread called protest voting anyway? i've never heard of protest voting existing outside of the soviet union I'm guessing it's a reactionary term vs vote blue no matter who. So even the thread title implies "your votes are already owned by the DNC. To not give them a vote is protest" instead of, you know, the traditional definition of voting that is "vote for the candidate you support."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
I made a post a few posts up, but: Mods, can you change the title of this thread? I'm not sure how voting Bernie is "protest voting" it's more like "voting." Like, the definition of voting. Exaggerating for effect, but it's like "oh here are the toys and here are girls' toys." No need to make a distinction if it's the same poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
i just thought of a nice phrase for biden voters after the 100th biden voter i've talked to admitted to wanting to vote for a republican: "temporarily embarrassed republican" it strikes all of the boxes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Lol after that post i saw this article. Completely on point: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/04/23/entertainment/meghan-mccain-joe-biden/index.html Megan McCain is like "of course im voting biden" edit: spelled her name wrong, but gently caress that bitch The Sean fucked around with this message at 00:23 on Apr 24, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
Remember, not voting for biden is a vote for trump. So, not voting for trump is a vote for biden. Also remember: If youre black and you dont vote for biden then you aint black. Source: biden, decider of if youre black or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
How are u posted:Considering the state of the polling it seems that, as of now, a landslide of people are ready to crawl across broken glass to vote for Joe to defeat Trump. Considering that, I think it's just fine if the small minority who can't bring themselves to vote for Joe exercise their vote in a different way. "If you don't want to give one vote to Biden then instead you can try to help Biden get more than one vote. Best of both worlds. I am a smart person."
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 04:55
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Biden comes out in favor of the blackbagging gestapo I still recall that guy that just recommended upthread "if you don't want to vote for Biden at least get other people to vote for biden" telling me to "think about the safety of my family and friends" in reply to how I won't vote for Biden. Yeah, uh, Biden is not looking out for the safety of my family and friends if he's doing more of his fascist law and order stuff. Oh, and DNC just voted against M4A. Feelin' real safe now.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Anarchy in US political discourse is a synonym for terrorism-lite. In the context of the quote it's clear Biden is referring to anachists as people who actively destroy federal/public property. Well, that's a problem, IMO. It reeks of Obama calling BLM thugs. Anarchy is dogwhistled as terrorism but it's a political ideology. You don't even have to destroy property to be be an anarchist. Taken literally, he's saying even if you're at a protest not being violent if you are an anarchist you should be arrested, which is a violation of the constitution. Taken figuratively in the way you suggest he's calling protestors terrorists which is also alarming fascist poo poo. Speaking of context "Peaceful protestors should be protected and arsonists and anarchists should be prosecuted." He's specifically stating that you're either a peaceful protestor or you should be locked up. Also no mention of "hey police shouldn't murder people." Recall that he was in power when the National Guard was deployed, among other agencies, to gently caress up the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. So, "[Obama and I] protected federal property. We were able to do it without the DHS turning into a private militia." lol (edit: lol @ biden, not you submarine). Note: I understand the National Guard is not under DHS specifically, but the irony of his statement is palpable and if he's only saying he won't use the DHS to break up protests as a technicality then that's, uh, not really progress. Lastly, Biden says employing police is just a political stunt for "failing Donald Trump [so sad!]" instead of Biden denouncing it and taking the side of the protests. No actual denouncing what police, etc., are doing to actual peaceful protestors that he's pretending to care about. And what many police are doing is breaking the law so you'd think, at least if he was honest, he'd care about them breaking the law, too. The takeaway is that if you vote for Biden you're fine with him not changing anything, not promoting progress, and calling for more "law and order" (another dog whistle from someone very responsible for hundreds of thousands of POC being locked up. Oh, and again, no M4A. Still not feeling like my "friends and family are safe" if I vote for him. The worst submarine posted:thank you for edit <3 Yeah, definitely, friend. I reread it and didn't want you to think I was mocking you specifically--just Biden's rhetoric. The goal of my post is to elaborate on what I had said and not be aggressive towards you but instead Biden's past, present, and statements for the future. The Sean fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jul 29, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Oh no half the Democrats are bad guess we should throw the entire party out then instead of trying to keep pulling things leftward What is your strategy for pulling them leftward? What is your evidence that this works? This person... Pussy Cartel posted:If this and the recent platform votes where the DNC ruled against things like Medicare for All (which is strongly favoured by the party's own base) and marijuana legalization (which is hugely popular in general) haven't given you any indication that the Democratic Party is completely disinterested in ever acknowledging progressives or leftists and their interests, I don't know what to tell you. Especially on top of all the money and power they're throwing behind challengers to their few remotely progressive politicians. ...actually provided arguments and evidence. At large, people that respond like the dude with the ableist smilie never provide evidence just "it's how things are supposed to work!" and other fanfictions. The Sean fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jul 31, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2020 15:57
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:If that's true, then it's already over for the left in the Democrat party no matter who wins. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "if that's true.." Could you elaborate, please?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Joe is the accelerationist option because it burns away what remnants of leftism exist in the Democrats to create The Republicans 2.0, which leaves the lane wide open for the GOP to pursue Trumpism to its obvious conclusion. Flying-PCP posted:If that's true, then it's already over for the left in the Democrat party no matter who wins. The Sean posted:I'm not sure what you mean when you say "if that's true.." Could you elaborate, please? Flying-PCP posted:It means I don't agree but I'm not going to argue the point at this time. Why even post then? "The point" you're referring to is the point of the thread. The whole subject of the thread. This line of thinking is intellectually harmful and I suspect you're deluding yourself or you knowingly don't want to say what you really think because you don't want to be confronted and just want to maintain your views. For example: "It's not that I am against people from the middle east, there's just something I don't trust about them. No, I won't be specific because then you'll address me on that specific point and I'll have to combat cognitive dissonance. I'll just keep it real vague so I can maintain my views and you can't specifically dissect them." "There's just something I don't trust about Ilhan Omar. No, I refuse to elaborate." "There's just something I suspect about that black family that just moved into the neighborhood. No, I refuse to elaborate." To be very clear, Flying-PCP, I am not calling you racist. These were just the first examples that came to mind as I decided to compose examples of people who want to talk about a topic and also disengage when if they instead tried to engage they might have their views challenged. I could make similar statements I've heard from theists, too. Often these people know that their views are bad and/or wrong but only want to say them to a receptive audience. I hope that I am wrong about the above, I don't know much about you, but I am drawing off of how you have responded. If the above does not apply to you, then I invite you, again, to answer: "what do you mean when you say 'if it's true' in regards to 'Joe is the accelerationist option because it burns away what remnants of leftism exist in the Democrats to create The Republicans 2.0, which leaves the lane wide open for the GOP to pursue Trumpism to its obvious conclusion?'" Again, what you don't want to talk about is the whole topic of this thread. This is the topic of the thread so posting "I don't want to post about this" is really odd. So, I invite you to substantively respond. The Sean fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Aug 2, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2020 16:36
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:In a sense yeah, I decided I'm not well versed enough in the particulars to bring anything new to the discussion Okay, close to the best way you can respond, imo. Instead of saying "i'm not going to argue the point" you could have said "I'm not well versed enough" and I would have seen no reason to respond. Flying-PCP posted:asking people here to explain stuff to me is dumb. In an opposite fashion to the quote above, you should absolutely ask people to explain things. If there is anything that I state, for instance, that you don't agree with or understand and want me to explain feel free to ask me. I'll drop it after this, but in the spirit of "asking to explain things," what about P. Elite's post did you disagree with? Fister Roboto posted:It still blows my mind that the candidates who were in 2nd and 3rd place dropped out to endorse the guy who was still behind them even after he won SC. Yep, absolutely nothing weird about that. Right!? And if I'm remembering well enough, they dropped after the primaries began, therefore making any votes cast for them useless. Is that correct?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2020 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Once you accept the concept of politics as "the science of the possible," which is just neoliberalism trying to sound inspiring, you can dismiss all other politics as stupid or insane. Thank you for this. I enjoyed the read. I've recently started to refer to pro-Biden people as writing fanfiction because it's all make believe and they can never provide me with any substance, just fairy tales. "The Science of the Possible" makes a lot of sense in this context. edit: interesting to notice this now, but why is the "Protest Voting and Electoralism" thread labelled as [Religion]? That's insulting. The Sean fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Aug 5, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2020 20:12
|
|