Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

Probably Magic posted:

I bring these up to say, as badly as it may initially feel, it's unlikely your vote will mean anything. But! That means your vote will never give the election to Trump nor would it be needed by Biden to maintain power. That will be decided by people with the dumbest ideas ever, who want free weed but also think we need to re-invade Japan to get our jobs back, people who can't be reasoned with and very much will swing the election over false information. People who think Obama is a Muslim and that was a good thing, that kind of thing. So vote for who you want! If you really don't feel great voting for Biden, he probably doesn't need your vote! He didn't need mine to win. He's expressly said, multiple times, he doesn't want the votes of people who disagree with his border policy or think he's a rapist or etc. You're under no obligation to hand your vote to a guy who doesn't even want it. I don't know if that's helpful, but hopefully it's some food for thought.

Just today got a moderate advocating for abandoning NATO countries not meting treaty funding guidelines to Russia and Donald the Doving. From a person who swings from anticapitlist to moderate. Politics Tiktoc has made some people proudly and confidently ignorant and misinformed. E: I never ran into a live moderate up in MD but NC just seems to have something in the water.

# ¿ Feb 14, 2024 04:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 22:21

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

hooman posted:

It's really interesting that you make this criticism (focusing on a single example) when you initially used Obama specifically as an example of change happening without election loss. In fact, if you look at my posts in this thread, this is literally the first post in which I have used any election specifics. So saying I am once again making the massive mistake is entirely mischaracterising my posts, please be more accurate.

As a little bit of recent history, Corbyn gained power in the Labour party precisely by energising and signing up new Labour members to support him, he was elected by large majorities of the Labour members (~60%). The existing MPs of the party then tanked the election to force him and the people they didn't like out. That isn't about a person this was about an establishment within a party recognising something that could cause change within it and reacting to remove it prior to any of that change being able to happen. The purge of the left wing within the membership was massive, it wasn't just Corbyn.

I'm aware of Blair's victories and his ability to remake the party in his image, and what that did was cement Thatcherite economics into the fundamentals of the British state because you had both Labour and the Tories running on who was going to Thatcher harder. Which speaking in a longer term sense has entirely hosed the country as a result. This is my point, Blair winning the 1997 election on third way-ism has been a long term very bad outcome.

Okay. Labor membership means the dues paying participants. Normally, most English voters aren't the type who are lockstep to a party so much they pay dues and go to local meetings. Labor, right before the left made their play for control, made membership dues 5 pounds a year. This, notably, made it extremely easy for small, highly engaged activist groups to take over local meetings because :10bux:

can't keep the trolls of the forum, much less anything more important. It doesn't represent voting power at all. Notably, outside of Islington, very few of the leftists won in that election, leaving him vulnerable to an internal leadership challenge. On I/P pretext (he visited the grave of a no bones about it terrorist, but massively out of proportion because England loves :godwin:

as a political cudgel) he was ousted from leadership and striped of party membership, the third way group moved membership requirements much higher. But fundamentally, the third way won elections and his group didn't.
This is against the backdrop of the post brexit election, an election being run on populism, timed to strengthen the conservative majority.

Just remember if you think anyone involved in Britpol doesn't suck massively you haven't been listening long enough. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/26/labour-left-breaks-with-jeremy-corbyn-over-sending-weapons-to-ukraine

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 14:25

Barrel Cactaur: Oct 6, 2021

The Sean posted:

For 1

This is from the EO. It's stating that it's already supposed to be protected so the EO doesn't really do anything new on it's own that I can see.

For 2
I'm all for awareness and it can be valuable but in this specific context that we are discussing it I feel it can easily be attributed to performative action. Letter From Birmingham Jail, etc.

For 3

For 3 iii and iv those are a little more concrete. I still have a bit of an issue with that it's not a specific plan but the others are less substantial in my opinion.

As well, I bring up again that my disagreement was with the statement "biden is making protecting LGBTQ+ persons a priority" because it doesn't really seem like a priority. Has he done nothing at all, I can't say that. Has he made this a priority, definitely not. Trans persons that I know personally and online do not feel that he is protecting them; anecdotal, sure, but that is my experience.

Further, I did not see anything in there that outright banned conversion therapy. I would be very happy to be proven wrong as that poo poo is evil.

In anticipating counter-arguments of "he's suggesting different parts of government doing something, and that's a strong use of his power," it's a less substantial use of his power compared to sending money and weapons to fund a genocide or bypassing federal laws to make sure the border wall gets built. For those latter cases he didn't just suggest that different agencies consider whether or not to get it done. He just did it. That's what a priority looks like.

Having an FTC notice makes it effectively impossible to advertise. Its effectively the death penalty for a service. A published notice (legally, an open ended cease and desist) that they consider "conversion therapy" to be a fraudulent service (on the advice from experts and testimony of victems that it doesn't actually work) starts the timer for the penalty on day one.

quote:

(B) If the Commission determines in a proceeding under subsection (b) that any act or practice is unfair or deceptive, and issues a final cease and desist order, other than a consent order, with respect to such act or practice, then the Commission may commence a civil action to obtain a civil penalty in a district court of the United States against any person, partnership, or corporation which engages in such act or practice�

(1) after such cease and desist order becomes final (whether or not such person, partnership, or corporation was subject to such cease and desist order), and

(2) with actual knowledge that such act or practice is unfair or deceptive and is unlawful under subsection (a)(1) of this section.

After the notice is publicly published, literally going up on the street and telling someone your starting a conversion therapy camp costs up to 10000 bucks a day. Also they will likely make the owner give refunds.

Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Mar 9, 2024

# ¿ Mar 9, 2024 01:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Electoral Politics and Political Strategies