|
CocoaNuts posted:Yeah, that feeling is sooooo good immediately afterward but then you realize medical for all isn't happening... The need for it isn't going away, and now they don't have trump to hide behind.
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
I think it is understandable if people are a little skeptical of the guy who worked for the last administration coming out in favour of bipartisanship when the last administration was demolished by it and the democrats in opposition have been in favour of it and also the party is saying "gently caress the left" a lot. Like, in context the idea that they suddenly hate bipartisanship now, that now it seems untenable in a way it did not beforehand, seems like the bigger reach. As, I think, is the idea it was ever predicated on rationality to begin with, rather than being something they believe in ideologically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Again, if you believe the polls that say Trump’s popularity fell due to COVID, then you can’t ignore the ones that Not true, you can suggest that the polls are incapable of showing absolute levels of support but that comparing poll for poll over a short timespan can probably show changes in support. Which is not an unusual thing, it is possible for many metrics to be unreliable at showing absolute quantities of a thing but still capable of showing changes in quantity even if miscalibrated.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
It is entirely possible for a polling methodology to consistently estimate support incorrectly by the same margin. i.e if it says you're ten points ahead, you're actually five points ahead, if it says you're five points ahead, you're even. Because the method consistently puts you out by five points due to a weighting error. But you can still suggest that a five point change occured at some point between those two polls.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
The question of how you hold him accountable other than by not voting for him arises. And of course the next election will likely be against someone just as repugnant as trump. And previous defeats have not caused the democrats to change course. So the question is pretty open ended, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:The question of how this logic leads to anything other than accelerationism arises. Well, yes, it does. That is an answer to the question. It is a very depressing answer to the question, their seeming inability to change in response to losing elections also suggests that it is not necessarily a valid answer to the question. I said it was an open ended question for a reason. How do you affect the course of a political organization that does not respond to petition and also does not respond to loss?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:38
|
|
|
For what it's worth I am sympathetic to the use of "we have to hold them accountable" as a sort of thought terminating cliche, because yes, the alternative is profoundly unpleasant to contemplate. But I also cannot actually construct a real defence of it? Like I entirely get that it is a thing you can believe, but I cannot actually construct what I think is a compelling argument as to why it is an accurate thing to believe. I do not have a better answer, but I also cannot say that that answer has anything to suggest it is correct.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
That is, I would hope, the best answer, but I also don't think it is enormously dissimilar from accelerationism given that if you are building a viable alternative form of political power then the question arises as to why you would waste it trying to lobby the democratic party instead of like, overthrowing the government or something. Or at the very least trying to build forms of resiliance and resistance that can survive hostile administrations from both parties and give people direct benefits. If you are looking to build something that can take power away from the democrats then it doesn't seem like a massive leap to suggest you're building something that can fundamentally take power away from the government entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Wasn't obama opposed to gay marriage until it went through on the courts?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:36
|
|
|
My memory is a bit fuzzy but like, if it was enacted by the courts then you could argue that yes, it is quite indicative of his administration's stance on gay marriage? Which is to say he didn't support it, it was done without his input? The administration being weak against the tendencies of the supreme court seems like a particularly bad omen for the biden administration.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2020 02:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Yes but that doesn't make a lot of difference to joe biden or the democratic party, so they still picked well 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2020 20:23
|
|