Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #226  
Old 08-29-2018, 09:06 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

I think there are multiple things going on there.

First of all, it was a divided field and so it's unclear what would happen in one on one matchups. Keep in mind, Bernie lost by like a 2-1 margin in Florida in 2016, and Gillum (my phone wants to write Gollum) won with about a third.

Second, black voters are a large percentage of Florida primary voters. I imagine his coalition was fairly different from Bernie's as a result, since Bernie did very poorly with black, especially Southern black, voters.

But Gillum's economic message played a role too. Being the only non-millionaire mattered. My Florida friend said at one of the debates, Greene (who did quite poorly) basically argued that he should be nominated since he could self-fund, which sounds kinda like "elect me, I'm rich". Not a great message today given how it echoes Trump.

Also one of the larger polling misses... Although it was fairly accurate for all the other candidates...
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-30-2018), The Man (08-30-2018)
  #227  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:26 AM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVDCCCLIX
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Meanwhile, meet Gillum's opponent:

In Trump's America, Republicans Say the Quiet Parts Loud - Lawyers, Guns & Money

(For those not able/in the mood to click the link, the Republican nominee referred to Gillum - who, did we note, is African-American - with the phrase "monkey this up".)

Stay classy, Florida Man.
__________________
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.



“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

Fool’s Gold · last.fm · soundcloud · Marathon Chronicles
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (08-30-2018), Kamilah Hauptmann (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-30-2018), Stephen Maturin (08-30-2018)
  #228  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:28 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCLXII
Images: 299
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Democratic Party leadership, Chuck Schumer, today:
Why Are Democrats Poised to Let 7 Trump-Nominated Judges Slide to Confirmation?
Since he took office, Trump has appointed more federal appeals court judges than former Presidents Obama and Bush had at the same point in their administrations combined. As the Pew Research Center noted earlier this year, Trump had trailed his predecessors in appointing district court judges until today, when Senator Chuck Schumer helpfully struck a deal with the Republicans to confirm seven district court judges, plus four other federal appointees.
Oops! The center-right party of the people is doing everything they can- it's just complicated, and a difficult time politically: I mean there's a Senate building to get named after the guy who voted against Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and openly referred to all Vietnamese- including those allied to the US during the Vietnam war- as "gooks."

Party leaders Schumer and Pelosi this June, who are undeserving of criticism at this perilous time:
'Schumer and Pelosi Have to Go': Democratic Leaders Under Fire for Urging 'Civility' in Face of Trump's Vicious Agenda
Quote:
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) didn't issue a single word of public criticism of their fellow Democrats for voting to deregulate Wall Street and hand President Donald Trump immense spying powers, but on Monday the Democratic Party heads lectured their colleagues and grassroots activists on the need for "civility" in the face of Trump's vicious attacks on immigrant families, the poor, and the planet.
Democratic values, again on display this June:
Sticking With Bob Menendez Was Stupid, Pointless, and Damaging
Quote:
Congrats to the Democratic Party for ceding the moral authority to make corruption a campaign issue, all to protect one mediocre incumbent from a deep blue state. Senator Robert Menendez, who not along ago was a hung jury away from a federal corruption conviction, won his primary election Tuesday, after the New Jersey Democratic machine, with an assist from national Democratic Party leaders, cleared the field for him.
Wait until they get the Democratic Party back into power- VOTE FOR THEM! Insert here any bullshit you like about the number of seats, and the process, and political realities, and the perfect being the enemy of the good.

Hillary Clinton, who is NOT A NEOLIBERAL, FURTHERING CAPITALISM'S INTERESTS IN CLIENT STATES:
DONALD TRUMP PRAISES DICTATORS, BUT HILLARY CLINTON BEFRIENDS THEM
Quote:
Clinton has described former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and his wife as “friends of my family.” Mubarak ruled Egypt under a perpetual “state of emergency” rule that involved disappearing and torturing dissidents, police killings, and persecution of LGBT people. The U.S. gave Mubarak $1.3 billion in military aid per year, and when Arab Spring protests threatened his grip on power, Clinton warned the administration not to “push a longtime partner out the door,” according to her book Hard Choices.

After Arab Spring protests unseated Mubarak and led to democratic elections, the Egyptian military, led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, staged a coup. El-Sisi suspended the country’s 2012 Constitution, appointed officials from the former dictatorship, and moved to silence opposition.

Sisi traveled to the U.S. in 2014 and met with Clinton and her husband, posing for a photo. The Obama administration last year lifted a hold on the transfer of weapons and cash to el-Sisi’s government.

Meanwhile, repression in Egypt continues to escalate. By the government’s own admission, it has imprisoned more than 34,000 people – and sentenced huge numbers to die. Amnesty International released a report Tuesday documenting forced disappearances and torture by the el-Sisi regime, including one account of a 14-year-old who was kidnapped by government forces and raped repeatedly with a wooden stick to extract a confession.

El-Sisi continues to receive $1.3 billion in military aid each year from the Obama administration.

Egypt is far from the only military dictatorship that Clinton has supported. During her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton approved tens of billions of dollars of weapons transfers to Saudi Arabia – including fighter jets now being used to bomb Yemen. Clinton played a central role in legitimizing a 2009 military coup in Honduras, and once called Syrian dictator Bashir al-Assad a “reformer.” And in return for approving arms deals to gulf state monarchies, Clinton accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
If only she had not been robbed of the opportunity to lead! Then I am sure she would do the right thing, and understand- it is politically difficult to not openly defend and praise murderous regimes, let alone arm and fund them.

Barack Obama, doing the right thing, and definitely not because of pressure from the LGBTQ community, far to the left of him (except maybe Andrew Sullivan):
How Obama Became the Gay-Rights President
Quote:
In the course of this conversation, he happened to mention Stonewall. “Well, what’s Stonewall?” Obama asked.
On your side!
Quote:
“What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Obama told the moderator. “What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting.”

After the debate, the co-chair of LGBT for Obama, Lauren Verdich, called Obama on his cell phone.

“How can you do this?” she asked him.

“You have to understand that I’m a Christian,” he responded.

“This community is expecting you to stand beside them,” she answered.

But Obama made it clear to Verdich that he’d be sticking with his position
.
Why didn't Verdich understand that it was inappropriate to criticize this rising star? Because the Democratic Leadership and DNC are looking out for them, and the other party is so much worse...
Quote:
He invited Rick Warren, the evangelical megachurch pastor from Southern California, to give the invocation at his inauguration. Warren had been an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that had brought marriage for gay couples to an immediate halt just two months earlier, crushing the spirit of the gay community in California and nationwide. Warren’s prominent position at the inauguration felt like a slap in the face.

I'm glad the LGBTQ community made sure everyone knew that this was not the time for division in the ranks, and that the Democratic Party leadership, squarely in power at the time, was looking out for their interests. They were here, and queer, and keeping a lid on it, according to eremir, who knows, because: he was gay the whole time.
Quote:
Then, in June 11, 2009, the administration weighed in for the first time on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that barred the federal government from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples performed in a state like Massachusetts. The Justice Department issued a memo to dismiss a lawsuit challenging DOMA. The lengthy document made an elaborate case that DOMA was fully constitutional and “entirely rational,” a “cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.” It argued that DOMA doesn’t “distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations” but instead “limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.” It seemed like an argument the religious right used to use: that “homosexuals” weren’t being barred from marrying. They could marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. I was astonished and outraged at the words of the administration that had promised to be a “fierce ally” to LGBT people. The pushback from gay leaders, bloggers, and organizations was fast and furious.
WHAT? HOW DARE THEY!

eremir, you wait as long as you like for the Democratic Party Leadership to deliver unto the voters. Will the next mainstream center-right Democratic candidate for President make the normal play of filling their cabinet with libertarian economists and Goldman-Sachs executives if they win? Will they show how they are serious by killing brown people overseas, with the added bonus of drawing attention away from their domestic issues? Will they gut another level of the Social Safety net, give the military more money, sell more arms to Saudi Arabia, continue to fund Apartheid Israel, because they would not wish to be criticized by the right?

Buh-Buh-Buh whattabout the RIGHT???!!!!Whattabout Trump! Whattabout anything, literally anything, that glosses over the failures of the party?

Like many Clinton apologists, you lost your fucking mind after the election.

I'm putting you on ignore, because your point of view is rampant, and stupid, and I have lost interest in endless debates; we'll talk past each other, and I no longer care what center-right status-quo fools believe. As we've alluded to in the past, the DNC and you hardly care what I think, especially living in a state with only 4 million population that is entirely unlikely to ever influence the outcome of a presidential election, which is of course an extra cynical part of the DNC survey/money beg.

I'm also not beholden to tell you how to solve the issue of blocking Kavanaugh- your exasperation that I dare criticize without offering to solve the epic problems of the Democratic Party at the national level is noted, but not my fucking job- but self-immolation of every center-right democrat millionaire senator on the floor of the senate would be a nice start; even better if they hugged it out with the Republicans simultaneously, about how much they respect John McCain.

I will enjoy watching the Democratic Leadership shit their pants every time an M4A and Abolish ICE candidate wins. WHY WON'T THEY KISS THE RING?
__________________

Last edited by chunksmediocrites; 08-30-2018 at 01:05 AM. Reason: called Clinton a neocon by accident
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (08-30-2018), Crumb (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-30-2018)
  #229  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:57 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Just a quick note that chunks has no interest in defending his ignorance on healthcare. You clearly didn't know shit about the Heritage plan, but you knew it proved how bad the Democrats were.

Also the Democrats sure shit their pants over Kirsten Gillibrand supporting Medicare For All, I remember that definitely happening...
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-30-2018), The Man (08-30-2018)
  #230  
Old 08-30-2018, 05:13 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

This has been a great discussion, guys. Both of you make some excellent points. I can't make up my mind which of you is more nearly "right". I liked Kael's description of where we are, what we do, why we need to see how and why we fail.

The Venn diagram of voter interests of the opposition has a greater area of union than ours, and as Kael points out, that's by design. I don't know if it's possible to replicate that for ourselves. I'm certainly not the first to observe that out voter interests are as diverse as our voters.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 08-30-2018, 05:17 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Democratic Party leadership, Chuck Schumer, today:
Why Are Democrats Poised to Let 7 Trump-Nominated Judges Slide to Confirmation?
Since he took office, Trump has appointed more federal appeals court judges than former Presidents Obama and Bush had at the same point in their administrations combined. As the Pew Research Center noted earlier this year, Trump had trailed his predecessors in appointing district court judges until today, when Senator Chuck Schumer helpfully struck a deal with the Republicans to confirm seven district court judges, plus four other federal appointees.
Oops! The center-right party of the people is doing everything they can- it's just complicated, and a difficult time politically: I mean there's a Senate building to get named after [McCain]
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the deal wasn't over renaming a building.

It seems the deal was to get some Obama-era nominations confirmed, I'm unclear on what the exact aspects of the deal are or if there's anything more to it. At best, Schumer did a shit job of explaining what the deal was, assuming he got something worthwhile. It's debatable whether that was worth it. (Hated neoliberal) Harry Reid's former chief of staff thinks it wasn't.

But as I pointed out before... they only have 49 votes. They can't stop those judges forever, they can only slow them down. So the tradeoff is not "no Trump judges" vs. "seven Trump judges", it's about time frames. You seem to think they can stop whatever they want, when they can't. For the simple reason that 51 > 49. So the concession made should be viewed as more about when those guys get confirmed, not whether they do.

At any rate, the Democrats will definitely learn how to stop judges with fewer votes when they have 45 seats in the Senate, so we should definitely not vote for any Democrats running for Senate.
Quote:
Party leaders Schumer and Pelosi this June, who are undeserving of criticism at this perilous time:
'Schumer and Pelosi Have to Go': Democratic Leaders Under Fire for Urging 'Civility' in Face of Trump's Vicious Agenda
Hmm, nope, I didn't say that.

I disagree with their stance here.

I also disagreed with Bernie Sanders here: Bernie Sanders: Sarah Sanders has the right to 'go into a restaurant and have dinner'

I guess even Sanders is center-right now.
Quote:
Democratic values, again on display this June:
Sticking With Bob Menendez Was Stupid, Pointless, and Damaging
[...]
Wait until they get the Democratic Party back into power- VOTE FOR THEM!
I agree, Menendez should've retired. Menendez was endorsed by the governor and the other Democrats in the NJ delegation, who then won the large majority of votes in the primary. Phil Murphy should not have endorsed. If he could've been convinced to drop out, they should have done it.
Quote:
Insert here any bullshit you like about the number of seats,
Wherein the statements that 51>49 and that the Constitution only requires a majority equal "bullshit".

I'm sorry that you're too dumb to understand that yes, the senate only Constitutionally requires a majority and that even if you replaced every Democrat with a Bernie Sanders who yelled and thundered about how awful the GOP was... they would still pass things with 51 votes.
Quote:
Barack Obama, doing the right thing, and definitely not because of pressure from the LGBTQ community, far to the left of him
I never said that gay rights activists didn't exert any pressure.

What I said is that they didn't achieve their goal through third-party wank voting. They used a bunch of other, more effective tactics.
Quote:
Because the Democratic Leadership and DNC are looking out for them, and the other party is so much worse...
Quote:
He invited Rick Warren, the evangelical megachurch pastor from Southern California, to give the invocation at his inauguration. Warren had been an outspoken supporter of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that had brought marriage for gay couples to an immediate halt just two months earlier, crushing the spirit of the gay community in California and nationwide. Warren’s prominent position at the inauguration felt like a slap in the face.
I remember and disapproved.

But yes, the other party was so much fucking worse. Maybe it didn't mean as much to you as a straight man, but the Bush years with the GOP constantly campaigning on homophobia was sure as fuck worse than Obama throwing a symbolic bone to the Christ-humpers. It sure as shit didn't stop me from voting for Obama over Romney.
Quote:
according to eremir, who knows, because: he was gay the whole time.
Yeah, tell me all about how the Bush years were basically as good as the Obama years, "fucksmediocrities". You were far more sensitive to the homophobia than me, I'm sure.
Quote:
Quote:
Then, in June 11, 2009, the administration weighed in for the first time on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [...]
WHAT? HOW DARE THEY!
And then nothing ever happened with that again. I remember this was the only thing that happened. Obama's justices definitely weren't a part of ruling those laws unconstitutional and his solicitor general definitely didn't argue in favor of that outcome.

If only McCain or Romney had been in there instead, it would've been so much better.
Quote:
Will they gut another level of the Social Safety net
I guess Obama expanding the social safety net never happened. It seems to me that millions more have Medicaid than before but it must be an illusion.
Quote:
Like many Clinton apologists, you lost your fucking mind after the election.
Whereas you're coming off very stable here.

And you know, are still sticking with idiocies like "Obamacare is the Heritage plan!!!" I lost my mind because I know what the Heritage plan actually was and how to decide which number is bigger. Ok.
Quote:
I no longer care what center-right status-quo fools believe.
lol you're a fucking idiot.

You don't know shit, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is a right-winger because you are a special fucking snowflake, one of the only men of principle. You're an ignorant pompous twit.

But hey, heighten those contradictions, not like those contradictions will fall on you as much as those marginalized communities you're supposedly standing up for.
Quote:
I'm also not beholden to tell you how to solve the issue of blocking Kavanaugh- your exasperation that I dare criticize without offering to solve the epic problems of the Democratic Party at the national level is noted, but not my fucking job-
This is a cop out to avoid explaining how the fuck you make 49 be greater than 51.

Just saying "that's not my job" allows you to continue blaming everything on the party you clearly hate far more than the actual fucking Nazis who want to push forced birth on women and deport every Mexican.

You don't even need to fucking know all the details of Senate procedure to know that 51 IS FUCKING GREATER THAN 49. All those rules you think that the Democrats can exploit? They can be undone with 51 votes. Every Republican in the Senate is a piece of shit who will vote for all of these shithead nominees. There is no procedural way to make 49>51.

The only way is for Democrats to try to slow down his confirmation as much as possible, for the public to put pressure on the few Republicans who might flip, through public protest and phone calls and all that, and Democrats and journalists trying to uncover damaging information about Kavanaugh, and even then there's no guarantee it'll work. If Susan Collins would rather confirm that piece of shit than get reelected, there's nothing much you can really do about it. There is nothing you can do if they're willing to lose elections to get what they want. (But even then, they know that Kavanaugh will rule voter suppression efforts constitutional, so they could have more wiggle room than it seems.)

Maybe the Democrats could be doing a better job, I dunno. But if you think there's just "one neat trick" they could do to get everything they want with fewer votes, it's because you're a fucking idiot, not because you have principles and care about things and no Democratic politician does.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2018)
  #232  
Old 08-30-2018, 05:27 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

The Menendez thing is fucking egregious. I really feel like voting his opponent out of spite, but of course, that's not a grown up option, is it?

Also, chunks is no idiot.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 08-30-2018, 05:45 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

How many interviews with Trump voters have we heard someone say something along the lines of "I don't like X about Trump, but he's getting Y done..."? How many evangelicals have we heard say that? How many Tax Cut Republicans?

Meanwhile, how many voters say anything like that about any Democrat politician? How many Leftists of any sort?

Setting aside the enormous propaganda gap Republicans are currently enjoying, which obviously makes it far more difficult than it otherwise would be - that's still a pretty massive problem right there.

Get those grassroots progressives through the primaries, tell the DNC to go fuck itself, demand more of your candidates and representatives, I'm all for it. No one said you have to like Hillary, or the legacy of the Clinton Presidency, or the fact that Obama is pretty centrist and definitely Christian. But stop pretending the Democrat in the last election, or the Democrat in the next one, is just as bad as the Republican because they've both taken corporate donations and both support Israel. It was a stupid argument in 2016, and it's an insane argument now.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (08-30-2018), lisarea (08-30-2018), mickthinks (08-30-2018), Pan Narrans (08-31-2018), slimshady2357 (08-30-2018), Sock Puppet (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-30-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-30-2018), The Man (08-30-2018)
  #234  
Old 08-30-2018, 05:47 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

If I'm center-right, chunks is a fucking idiot :shrug:

If they wanted to expel Menendez, I wouldn't mind much at this point. Phil Murphy is a Democrat and would appoint his replacement. It was more of an issue when Christie was still in office and would've appointed a Republican - it would've meant the repeal of Obamacare and gutting of Medicaid. And yeah, it wasn't worth it to take a stronger stand against corruption if it meant millions more people losing their health insurance.

Menendez is still better than any Republican who will vote to gut Medicaid, give huge tax cuts to billionaires and confirm far-right nutjobs, among other horrible things.

I certainly would not have voted for him in the primary if I lived in NJ, and would've encouraged anyone I know to vote for his primary opponent. I just don't happen to know anyone there...

Same thing goes for Cuomo vs. Nixon. Nixon hasn't necessarily been impressing me with her campaign, but Cuomo is awful. However, the only person I know (who is a citizen) in NY is already voting for her (I was surprised since he actually is a moderate Democrat).

Of course, the issue of donating money to the DNC per se is actually quite trivial. I've never donated any money to them although I did donate money to Clinton and 2016 Democratic Senate candidates. This year I am, however, volunteering for the local Democratic Party legislative candidates because the NCGOP legislative supermajority is horrific. But chunks didn't come to post that in my thread because it was about donating money to the DNC per se but because he wanted us to know how pure he is and how much he hates the Democrats.

Last edited by erimir; 08-30-2018 at 06:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2018)
  #235  
Old 08-30-2018, 06:36 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMLXVI
Images: 19
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71 View Post
Also, chunks is no idiot.
Yes, pretty much all the time, he is. But I guess you agree with him pretty much all the time, huh?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 08-30-2018, 06:56 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Or conversely, don't reward bad behavior by agreeing to be a captive base.
This theory seems to rely on the Democrats being the only party with agency. Like you're just punishing and denying toys to the Democratic pols who displeased you, and they'll try harder next time. But the Republicans have agency and will be doing stuff the whole time.

Most importantly, every time you allow the Republicans to gain power, they will use that power to entrench themselves.

For example:


Even if I grant that throwing a left-wing tantrum by sitting out the election will get Democrats to move left... it only works if the next election takes place under the same rules. Does it help much if you have convinced the Democrats that they would need to move left to improve their electoral chances under the old electorate and districts, if the Republicans use voter suppression to create a more right-wing electorate and gerrymandering to create a more right-wing median district?
You know, I would like in particular a response to this part.

This seems to me to be a pretty huge fucking flaw in the third-party wank voting "deny them our votes and they'll move left, it's the only thing that could work" plan. As long as the Republicans don't take advantage of your stupidity to fuck you over, it's a plan guaranteed* to work. The problem is that they definitely will exploit the opportunity as much as possible. Whoops.

This is why I think things like a new expanded VRA, anti-gerrymandering actions, DC and PR statehood, etc. should be the Democrats' highest priority the next time they have an opportunity. Other things like automatic voter registration, election day being a holiday, expanding vote-by-mail, etc. should also be pushed. Democrats should also embrace lowering the voting age to 16. In fact, they should probably propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a positive right to vote (IMO it should also repeal the section of the 14th amendment that allows disenfranchisement for convicted criminals)..

And that extends to which Democrats should be primaried. Cuomo's machinations are part of why NY state has such shitty voting laws and a legislative maps drawn to benefit Republicans in a blue state. There have been some bad Democrats primaried over these issues, like a NM Democrat who blocked automatic voter registration lost her primary.

*Not really. But even if we pretend it would...
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2018)
  #237  
Old 08-30-2018, 07:31 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMMCCCVIII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

With kiddie concentration camps, dead Puerto Ricans, the appointment of right wing nut job judges for life in their 30s, Cruella DeVos, Trump using the office to benefit his personal businesses, on top of all the international consequences, I really don't know what to say to anyone who's not prioritizing voting for any candidate who has a chance of winning the seat who's intent on putting the brakes on all that jazz.
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-30-2018)
  #238  
Old 08-30-2018, 08:50 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMMCCCVIII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Replies didn't go as hoped:


__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
BrotherMan (08-30-2018), Ensign Steve (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-31-2018), The Lone Ranger (08-30-2018), The Man (08-30-2018)
  #239  
Old 08-30-2018, 09:19 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

To be fair, I heard a clip of his band's music and... I did not like it, at all.

However, in Ted Cruz's youth, he was the Zodiac Killer, which I guess has to be considered worse.
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 08-30-2018, 09:29 AM
The Man's Avatar
The Man The Man is offline
Safety glasses off, motherfuckers
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sarasota, FL
Gender: Bender
Posts: MVDCCCLIX
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

He played with Cedric Bixler Zavala of the Mars Volta and At the Drive-In. Their music might’ve lacked polish at the time, but at this point I think it’s pretty clear that few other politicians in the whole country can lay claim to that level of cool. Especially in Texas - I mean, TMV and ATDI have got to be two of El Paso’s most famous musical exports. Cruz’ campaign is basically insulting Bixler Zavala by proxy. I can’t imagine that playing well.

…I should note that before Cruz’ campaign ran that line of attack, I’d had no idea O’Rourke had ever been in a band with Bixler Zavala. Their cunning plan of bringing attention to that fact might not have quite the impact they were hoping for.
__________________
Ceterum censeo factionem Republicanam esse delendam.



“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith

Fool’s Gold · last.fm · soundcloud · Marathon Chronicles

Last edited by The Man; 08-30-2018 at 10:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ensign Steve (08-30-2018), lisarea (08-30-2018), SR71 (08-31-2018)
  #241  
Old 08-31-2018, 03:52 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by SR71 View Post
Also, chunks is no idiot.
Yes, pretty much all the time, he is. But I guess you agree with him pretty much all the time, huh?
I get his zeal. My state went for Corzine, poster boy for Wall St dems, to Christie, an honest to Pete hardcore Republican, sort of Trump's prototype, to Murphy. Murphys platform was a mirror image of Trump's. He promised everything any segment of the party wanted.

Check it out now.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
mickthinks (08-31-2018)
  #242  
Old 08-31-2018, 04:33 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

My impression was that Murphy was doing a pretty good job, but that the NJ legislature wasn't being cooperative on all issues (despite being Dem controlled).

Endorsing Menendez for the primary was bad though.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (08-31-2018), The Man (08-31-2018)
  #243  
Old 08-31-2018, 04:57 AM
SR71's Avatar
SR71 SR71 is offline
Stoic Derelict
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The Dustbin of History
Gender: Male
Posts: VDCCXXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

I've never been impressed with Menendez and now it's clear he's flat ass corrupt. Corruption in NJ politics is an old and often repeated story. It's not just a cliche, the list of pols that really went to jail for really real is long.

I'm glad we elected a flaming liberal, or at least someone who presents as one, for a change, and yes, he needs his own team to be on his side. It's always seemed to me that the Dems we elect are either corrupt or closet Wall Streeters, or both.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-31-2018, 06:01 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMMCCCVIII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

So apparently debate moderators are asking candidates if they're willing to forego salary.




Following some of the strands and through to the source interesting and informative.
__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (08-31-2018), SR71 (08-31-2018), The Man (08-31-2018)
  #245  
Old 08-31-2018, 10:32 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMMCCCVIII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics


__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (09-01-2018)
  #246  
Old 08-31-2018, 08:27 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCLXII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites View Post
Like many Clinton apologists, you lost your fucking mind after the election.

Like this?


California DNC Member Suggests Superdelegate Reform Is Part Of Russian Plot | HuffPost


:lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (09-01-2018)
  #247  
Old 09-01-2018, 01:21 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMCCXXIII
Images: 11
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

You're the one who thinks that the DNC "rigged" the nomination on the basis of a couple of debates being on Saturdays or some stupid shit. But you're attributing idiotic conspiracy theories to me. Ok.

But as it turns out, I don't think these rule changes actually benefit Bernie Sanders.

Most importantly, it is accompanied by a reduction in the use of caucuses and changes to make it possible to vote in caucuses without attending. Caucuses were where Bernie did much better, because more ideologically committed voters attend them on average. Caucuses were far more consequential in providing a boost to Sanders than closed primaries were in helping Clinton (the effect of open/closed primaries is not nearly as large and in some states benefited Sanders). Of course, caucuses also are difficult for working people or disabled people to attend, so if your primary concern is making the nomination process democratic/maximize turnout, then you should want to get rid of them.

But either way, superdelegates were never going to vote for the pledged delegate loser in a two-way race anyway. Superdelegates favored Clinton over Obama in 2008, but when it was clear he would win the pledged delegate race, enough of them switched that his victory was assured.

It would have been political suicide for the superdelegates to overturn the outcome in 2008 or 2016. The notion that ordinary Clinton voters would've been totally cool with the first woman having the nomination snatched away and they would've all lined up behind Bernie anyway is... overly optimistic. You can imagine Trump hammering on about the nomination being stolen from Clinton over the course of the general election, for example.

On the other hand, in a multi-candidate field, if one candidate gets 40% of the pledged delegates, superdelegates would have a strong incentive to ratify that candidate's victory and ensure the nomination does not go to a second ballot.

Under the new rules, they cannot vote on the first ballot, but they can on subsequent ballots. However pledged delegates are released on later ballots as well. So we can imagine this scenario, for example:

Sanders has 44% of the pledged delegates
Joe Biden has 32%
Kamala Harris has 19%
Cory Booker has 5%

It will go to the second ballot, since no candidate has >50%. Biden, Harris and Booker negotiate a deal... Harris and Booker will tell their delegates to vote for Biden to be the presidential nominee, while Biden will choose Harris to be his vice president.

But if superdelegates got to vote on the first ballot, they might have decided to just go with Sanders since he was in the lead, and many voters will feel that thus he "won" and should be the nominee.

Now, of course, this scenario could also benefit Sanders if, say, the distribution ended with him in the position to negotiate with another candidate while not being the plurality winner. But these rules make such negotiations much more likely, while superdelegates would probably prefer to avoid such situations if one candidate is reasonably close to 50% to avoid people feeling that their candidate had the nomination stolen by backroom dealing.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
mickthinks (09-01-2018), The Man (09-01-2018)
  #248  
Old 09-01-2018, 03:52 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCLXII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
But you're attributing idiotic conspiracy theories to me. Ok.

To you?



Has your strawman building routine gotten so out of hand that it's grown into some real mental dysfunction by now?
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 09-01-2018, 11:00 AM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
I'm a regular Victor Victoria
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: VMMCCCVIII
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics



__________________
Sometimes you herp a derp, sometimes the derp herps you.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
SR71 (09-02-2018), The Man (09-01-2018)
  #250  
Old 09-02-2018, 07:38 AM
chunksmediocrites's Avatar
chunksmediocrites chunksmediocrites is offline
ne plus ultraviolet
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Portland Oregon USA
Gender: Male
Posts: VCLXII
Images: 299
Default Re: Vive la Resistance! aka non-Trump US politics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
It paints things as though Democrats just woke up one morning and were like "hey let's all be more conservative!" The whole country moved to the right since Eisenhower and Nixon, especially on economic issues, and it didn't do it overnight.
No one was arguing that it occurred rapidly; feel free to present the factors you think caused this. I would argue it was definitely when Clinton used his triangulation strategy, and the Democratic party leaders then attempted that same strategy for every election since. Center-Right Democrats used triangulation to attempt to take issues from the Right- and moved the (D) party to the Right. But in reality, their policies- furthering the interests of Capitalism here and abroad- are in the end nearly identical; most of the rest is window dressing for pulling in votes.
Clintonism, R.I.P. - The Atlantic
Quote:
As a candidate each sought to distance himself from his party's reigning image—Bush through "compassionate conservatism" and Clinton through a "third way" approach between liberalism and conservatism. Each succeeded well enough to win two terms. And each is now viewed within his party as something close to the ideal.

The difference is that Bush measurably strengthened the Republican Party along the way, whereas Clinton worried mainly about his own political fortunes, to the detriment of his party. Every election under Bush has resulted in Republican gains in Congress; in sharp contrast, Clinton assumed office with his party in control of the House, the Senate, and a majority of governorships, and left it with none of those advantages. Since Clinton, Democratic losses have deepened and broadened to include both subsequent presidential races, in which the Democratic nominees dutifully adopted Clinton's strategy of centrist triangulation.
...>snip<...
It is hard to overstate the reverence in which Clinton is held by professional Democratic operatives, many of whom served in his administration and today constitute the party's major powers.

This group has hewed faithfully to the tenets of Clintonism, staunch in its belief that Democratic candidates can neutralize troublesome issues simply by triangulating, as Clinton did, and prevail with a list of issues nearly identical to the one Clinton touted. But as Al Gore, John Kerry, and countless lesser Democrats have tried this approach and failed, one thing has become clearer and clearer: the success of Clintonism was due primarily to the period in which Clinton governed and to his remarkable political skills—not to the electoral strategy he bequeathed to his party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
The Left in the US seems to have the same problem over and over: we elect a few promising people at the national level then dust off our hands and walk away. Meanwhile activists for all sorts of conservative issues stay on message and on target, and work State and local too for every scrap they can get.
You keep saying Left, when I think in this instance you are referring to Center-Right Democrats.
When the Center-Right Democrats cynically target privileged, white, affluent voters and assume the working people of all colors and ethnicities are a captive base that will vote for the (D) party simply because the other party is abhorrent, you have a failed strategy and party. Absolutely the Republican efforts (in 2010 especially) to control the redistricting process and implement gerrymandering is a factor- they have been wildly successful. But Center-Right Democrats decided to focus on the interests of the affluent, and ignore the interests of the working class people of all colors- and it backfired on them.

What Killed the Democratic Party? | The Nation
Quote:
Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama attempted to challenge corporate and financial interests, and neither did nearly enough to address the lost jobs and wages that led to deteriorating affluence and fed popular cynicism and distrust. Obama, for example, gratuitously appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to the White House Jobs Council—an odd choice, given that Immelt’s company was a notorious pioneer in offshoring American jobs to foreign nations. Immelt subsequently admitted that he was motivated by GE’s bottom line: American wages were too high, he explained, so he intended to lower them. He succeeded.

In this context, blue-collar workers were not mistaken when they blamed the Democrats. During the campaign, Hillary Clinton was virtually silent on the party’s complicity. The Democratic nominee couldn’t very well quarrel with the party’s embrace of Republican dogma on free trade and financial deregulation, since it would have meant quarreling with her husband. On the central domestic issue of our time, she had nothing convincing to say.
...>snip<...
A revealing example cited in “Autopsy” of the Democratic Party’s self-congratulatory mentality (and its cluelessness) is the fund-raising mailer it sent to donors in the summer of 2017—eight months after its spectacular wipeout. The mailer was “designed to look like collection letters to its supporters,” the critique notes. “The DNC team scrawled ‘FINAL NOTICE’ across the envelopes and put ‘Finance Department’ as the return address. The message it conveyed, intentionally or not, was: you owe us.”
...>snip<...
The condescending approach of party wise guys may seem a trivial matter in the era of high-tech modern elections, but politics is still personal.
...>snip<...
...the Democratic Party neglected its most loyal voters. It not only forgot to ask for their votes; it ignored the general distress of working people (white, black, and brown). Furthermore, the party didn’t have much to offer those folks in the form of concrete proposals to improve their lives.
...>snip<...
In midsummer 2016, working-class enthusiasm for Trump was the hot political story, but Senator Chuck Schumer, the soon-to-be Democratic leader in the upper chamber, assured party colleagues that they needn’t worry. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia,” Schumer predicted. “And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

At the time, Schumer sounded as though he was just blowing smoke to motivate donors. But in hindsight, this may actually have been the party’s strategy: Bet on middle-class suburbanites offended by the vile Trump to vote Democratic or stay home, which would offset the loss of working-class voters attracted to him. If this was, in fact, the strategy, the party bet wrong on every point.

What’s more, this approach may have encouraged Democratic operatives to shortchange black and Latino voters—two faithful groups that had powerful reasons to vote against Trump. The turnout for both was depressed compared to previous presidential elections.

According to the authors of “Autopsy,” the Democrats withheld funding for grassroots canvassing and failed to challenge outrageous Republican schemes to suppress the minority vote. Albert Morales, then the Democratic National Committee’s director of engagement for Latino voters, originally proposed a $3 million budget to increase turnout in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, and Texas. He ended up with $300,000. “It was just pitiful,” Morales said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
How many interviews with Trump voters have we heard someone say something along the lines of "I don't like X about Trump, but he's getting Y done..."? How many evangelicals have we heard say that? How many Tax Cut Republicans?
Yes, they voted in lockstep, and continue to support policies via their votes, because global markets and Capital are getting what they want, and everything else is secondary in America. They may posture, but for example, "Maverick" John McCain voted with Trump 83% of the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Meanwhile, how many voters say anything like that about any Democrat politician? How many Leftists of any sort?
Leftists don't say that about the Center-Right Democrats, because that party doesn't represent Leftists. This is not hard math. But instead, the Center-Right Democrats are busy trying to close the groupthink gap. If only they could vote in lockstep, like the Republicans! They blame voters for not kissing the ring, instead of actually representing the interests of most working-class and impoverished voters of all ethnicities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
But stop pretending the Democrat in the last election, or the Democrat in the next one, is just as bad as the Republican because they've both taken corporate donations and both support Israel. It was a stupid argument in 2016, and it's an insane argument now.
Republicans just usually wear more of a veneer of respectability; Trump simply shows the reality of both parties, and both the Center-Right and Right parties are offended that the mask slipped. Clinton is a Neoliberal who is in bed with dictators, but she's the Center-Right's Neoliberal, who sometimes talks about health care and the environment and makes the right mouth noises- who voted for the Iraq War, the AUMF, and every other odious piece of legislation.

Noam Chomsky on Fascism, Showmanship and Democrats’ Hypocrisy in the Trump Era | Global Policy Journal
Quote:
The Democrats are now torn between a popular base that is largely social democratic and a New Democrat leadership that panders to the donor class. Under Obama, the party was reduced to shambles at the local and state level, a particularly serious matter because the 2020 elections will determine redistricting, offering opportunities for gerrymandering even beyond today’s scandalous situation.

The bankruptcy of the Democrat elite is well-illustrated by the obsession with alleged Russian meddling with our sacred elections. Whatever it might amount to — apparently very little — it cannot begin to compare with the “meddling” of campaign funding, which largely determines electoral outcomes, as extensive research has shown, particularly the careful work of Thomas Ferguson, which he and his colleagues have now extended to the 2016 elections. As Ferguson points out, when Republican elites realized that it was going to be Trump or Clinton, they responded with a huge wave of last-minute money that not only led to Clinton’s late October decline but also had the same effect on Democratic candidates for Senate, “virtually in lock step.” It is “outlandish,” Ferguson observes, that former FBI Director James Comey or the Russians “could be responsible for both collapses” in the final stage of the campaign: “For the first time in the entire history of the United States, the partisan outcome of Senate races coincided perfectly with the results of every state’s presidential balloting.” The outcome conforms very well to Ferguson’s well-supported “Investment theory of party competition.”

But facts and logic matter little. The Democrats are bent on revenge for their 2016 failure, having run such a rotten campaign that what looked like a “sure thing” collapsed. Evidently, Trump’s severe assault against the common good is a lesser matter, at least to the party elite.

It’s sometimes been noted that the US not only regularly meddles in foreign elections, including Russian ones, but also proceeds to subvert and sometimes overthrow governments it doesn’t like. Horrifying consequences abound, to the present, from Central America to the Middle East. Guatemala has been a horror story since a US-backed coup overthrew its elected reformist government in 1954. Gaza, declining in misery, may become unlivable by 2020, the UN predicts, not by acts of God. In 2006, Palestinians committed a grave crime: They ran the first free election in the Arab world, and made the “wrong” choice, handing power to Hamas. Israel reacted by escalating violence and a brutal siege. The US reverted to standard operating procedure and prepared a military coup, pre-empted by Hamas. In punishment for this new crime, US-Israeli torture of Gaza sharply increased, not only with strangulation but also regular murderous and destructive US-backed Israeli invasions, on pretexts that quickly collapse on examination. Elections that come out the wrong way plainly cannot be tolerated under our policy of “democracy promotion.”
I know it's all tl;dr, but you might ask others, including Palestinians, what they think of Clinton and Obama:
In Gaza, we aren't mourning Clinton's loss | US & Canada | Al Jazeera
Quote:
Bush pressed for a Palestinian National Council against all odds in 2006. But when Hamas, as predicted, won the elections, he approved a plan to overthrow Hamas by igniting a Palestinian civil war with the help of Israel.

In the meantime, Clinton was busy co-sponsoring a Congress resolution entitled, "The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006". The resolution, which was introduced after Hamas won the elections and taken over Gaza as a result of Bush's interference, denied Hamas any participation in the "peace process" unless it recognised Israel, disarmed and renounced violence.
Obama hands Israel the largest military aid deal in history | The Electronic Intifada
Quote:
The Obama administration has signed a $38 billion military aid pact with Israel in what the State Department boasts is the “single largest pledge of bilateral military assistance in US history.”

The record agreement will provide Israel with $3.8 billion annually over 10 years beginning in 2019, up from $3.1 billion under the current deal.

At a time when the US government supposedly can’t afford to provide poor and working Americans with basic services like universal health care – something Israelis enjoy – it is striking that there is always money available to enable Israel’s ongoing destruction of Palestine.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who has expressed opposition to universal health care and free college tuition, cheered the aid deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann View Post
With kiddie concentration camps, dead Puerto Ricans, the appointment of right wing nut job judges for life in their 30s, Cruella DeVos, Trump using the office to benefit his personal businesses, on top of all the international consequences, I really don't know what to say to anyone who's not prioritizing voting for any candidate who has a chance of winning the seat who's intent on putting the brakes on all that jazz.
By all means vote strategically. Just do so with the full knowledge that if you're voting for a Neoliberal, Center-Right Democrat, that the differences are mostly surface noise for the poor in America, for people of color, for the working class- and for the numerous client states where the US kills people in your name. The failure of the Center-Right Democrats to deliver is a feature, not a bug.

The Anthropocene won't survive another 50 years of Global Capitalism; waiting for Center-Right Democrats to save anyone from Trumps policies is a losing strategy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (09-02-2018), Crumb (09-02-2018), SR71 (09-03-2018)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 3.42734 seconds with 14 queries