Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Rep. Ilhan Omar suggests maybe the Democrats try winning this time and focus their energy on getting "disaffected" voters to actually show up and vote this time rather than wasting their efforts trying to convince Republicans to leave the cult   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Democratic Party, George W. Bush, Republican Party, Trump voters' Omar fires, John Kerry, President of the United States, Barack Obama, Joe Biden  
•       •       •

958 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2020 at 3:05 AM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



270 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-27 3:43:26 PM  

IRestoreFurniture: Lol.

I get it.  You're the "real" progressive.


I've had that twerp favorited for months. How's that saying go? "If one person calls you a horse..."?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 3:47:16 PM  

jaytkay: Z-clipped: But I can't help but think that maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for America in the long run if he were to win, because he may be the only cattle prod capable of moving these centrist farksticks off their little ignorant cloud

That strategy sure worked terrifically in 2000 and 2016. Let us return to the beautiful Eden that was created by those elections.


Uhh... the number of Democrats who identify as "Liberal" or "Very Liberal" has grown from 27% to 47% since 2000.  So... yeah... the "strategy" of conservative neoliberal Democrats failing to win elections (and failing to provide progressive policy when they ARE elected) is "working" exactly as I said.  And the more of you pricks who feel the pinch and are forced to abandon your little bubble of Clinton Era nostalgia, the more AOCs, Omars, Tlaibs and Pressleys we'll see in congressional seats.
 
2020-09-27 3:48:16 PM  
Pete gets a seat at the table because he is exemplary of the future leaders of the USA, in so many different ways. His appearance on that debate stage was necessary and proved to the world that the Dems can be both LGBTQ representatives *and* conservative enough to not rock the boat in other countries when they work together. Which is a bad sign for human rights and transnational law, but a good sign for the USA's ability to weather a decade of "illiberal democracy" while having LGBTQ bankers, ambassadors, and military personnel. These things matter.

Bernie gets a seat at the table because he worked his Independent ass off for it and, at the end of his career, finally had gone as far as an Independent ever has, and needed to choose a party to go any farther. Bernie is a legend and the Dems are correct to include his ability and connections. He really does prove that "Ind" is not the same as "Republican". And Bernie knows every real and imaginary path to power that Independents have.

I don't quite get the arguments where it is an either/or choice and having both at the table is somehow hypocritical. Do you guys also argue that Sauron should have won Middle earth, because Gimli and Legolas were in the Fellowship of the Ring?
 
2020-09-27 3:49:10 PM  

PlaidJaguar: Insurgent: biden doesn't owe any of you cretins anything. he put in the work. it's his turn to be president. the alternative is the literal end of the world. you owe your vote not only to biden, but the whole democratic party. no criticism will be tolerated. none. VOTE

Get bent, fascist.


psssst....
 
2020-09-27 3:50:00 PM  

I Like Bread: IRestoreFurniture: Lol.

I get it.  You're the "real" progressive.

I've had that twerp favorited for months. How's that saying go? "If one person calls you a horse..."?

[Fark user image image 348x126]


And I have you favorited as someone who thinks highly of Tulsi Gabbard, which says a lot about who you judge to be progressive.
 
2020-09-27 3:51:28 PM  

qorkfiend: What the fark do you think a primary is, exactly?


The Parties themselves have favorites in Primaries, too.

The Party proper certainly did NOT back AOC until she won her primary. It spent money opposing her, in one of the districts in this country which should be hard left.
 
2020-09-27 3:54:45 PM  
One of the greatest reasons for voter apathy is that many people are simply turned off by politics which is mostly symptomatic of people who don't like listening to people argue. The trivial psychology is that this goes back to their time as children and feelings of insecurity when adults were arguing about things they didn't understand, or perhaps even understood to be illogical emotional fighting more intent to hurt someone they should care for with things they didn't even really believe.

But it doesn't have to be explicit childhood trauma. Most people just plain get turned off by others arguing and find most arguments petty and artificial. Politics are a natural victim of people who feel uncomfortable around other people arguing. And so they turn it off and avoid anything political and things with artificial drama.

Oddly, Trump has tapped into those who thrive on the drama, the ones who rush to see a fight and want to see a beating. Yes, pro wrestling fans, reality TV fans, people who want to see some group victimized, sometimes just to feed off the drama.

This is the fodder of fascism. It is an appeal to an ugly aspect of humanity. It's a better fit to the GOP than to modern Democrats.

A trap that some Progressives fall into is to similarly be driven by anger. A subset of Bernie supporters were emotionally driven by anger. The folks who often speak of guillotines are dancing with these emotions. One the one hand, the progressive stance is generally to be against capitol punishment, but guillotines and variants of Eat the Rich sprout up as if they were acceptable Progressive ideas.

They aren't. That's just being the flip side of the ugly populism Trump feeds, tribalism, US versus THEM, pick a team and we fight.

The hallmark of this disease is how everything becomes hyperpolarized, all or not, with me or against me. And no, not for the trite counters like for or against police killing unarmed black people. Like for M4A or wanting granny to die. For UBI or you're a pro-corporate stooge.

That level of rhetoric drives people away from politics, that level of rhetoric suppresses the overall vote. People are turned off by the polarization. And that's a huge group of people. They are hard to reach because they have become distrustful of politicians because so so many of them adopt the rhetoric of vilification at every opportunity. They do so because, being human, they feed off the emotion of the crowd and vilification gets some ginned up in a big way. Think of a Trump rally. But it isn't clear it's a measure of ultimate voters.

Biden did bring out more voters than Hillary. Some of that was people who really fear a 2nd term for Trump.

How many are attracted to his avoidance of demonizing any and everyone who doesn't support him completely?
 
2020-09-27 3:56:44 PM  

austerity101: Count Bakula: Z-clipped: Count Bakula: Your goals may be noble, but that's a disingenuous, Boehner-esque method of negotiation. Unless you have the kind of leverage Boehner had - and you do not - it gets you laughed out of the room.

"You don't have the leverage to get us off this track," says man about to be run over by freight train. "You should be satisfied that we've moved a few inches toward the rail". 

Farking idiots.

Yes, representative democracy requires convincing people to support things, even ifyou know that those things are life-or-death-level important. It's either that, or you seize power undemocratically and implement those necessary solutions. Being correct does not magically give you that power.

So what are the Democrats doing to convince progressive to vote?


The things they're doing include platforming $15 minimum wage, public option, sick leave/parental leave, free college and student loan relief for some.

As you can see in my above exchange with misanthropicsob and someone who restores furniture, some progressives find these measures insufficient and consider any compromise on one or all of these issues unacceptable. I assume this is an overcorrection of the unfortunate Democratic tendency to preemptively compromise with Republicans.
 
2020-09-27 3:59:34 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Pete gets a seat at the table because he is exemplary of the future leaders of the USA, in so many different ways.


Pete is a convenient excuse for wealthy conservative Democrats to feel good about themselves for supporting a gay man, while continuing to ignore the plight of anyone poorer or browner than themselves.
 
2020-09-27 4:04:45 PM  

Z-clipped: Count Bakula: Yes, representative democracy requires convincing people to support things

"Why won't someone convince me to save myself and my country?"


Democrats: "We promise band-aids and aspirin for all!"
Non-voters: "I don't see how that helps me pay for my chemotherapy."
Dems: "Oh, I guess you don't want any aspirin, which is better than no aspirin. Good job voting against your own interests, you spoiled brat!"

Someday, when you've paid attention to politics as long as I have, you'll understand that without real solutions (and by that I mean what will actually solve a problem, not half-measures that only prolong suffering but "at least we can get them done"), identifying problems is cheap talk. Joe and Donnie may be strumming your pain with their fingers but ultimately they just want to take you to the green room for some unreciprocated oral.
 
2020-09-27 4:05:35 PM  

Heliodorus: voodoolady: Heliodorus: wademh: Same tired false choice narrative.
It's not about getting red hats to change teams. It's about the large swath of people who don't like Trump and don't really want to vote for him but have been told for years about how Democrats want to destroy America.

There are more of them than there are die-hard progressives who need to be coddled in order to vote against Trump. The die-hard progressives have either decided to vote for the lesser evil in Biden or have taken their bat and ball and gone home and simply won't return. They've made up their mind. The people to get now are the wishy-washy ones, the rather ditsy ones.

Stop biatching, it's a business deal. If you want to benefit from things they have, you have to give them what they want. Otherwise pound sand.

Ok, it's a business deal. We have one group who has indicated that they want to "do business," in this analogy, to vote. And another group who hasn't. There is a group that apparently doesn't vote (is this the progressive wing?) Why should the nominee cater to them when apparently they don't want to do business? I can offer you everything you could possibly want for an item, but if you don't want to sell, that would be wasting my time.

That's conservatives that democrats fark over progressives for. Ask not president Hillary Clinton. But keep biatching about how progressives won't make a business deal.


Here's this about Bernie: "And yet despite a virtual tie in Iowa, a narrow victory in New Hampshire and a big triumph in Nevada, the first three nominating contests reveal a fundamental challenge for Mr. Sanders's political revolution: He may be winning, but not because of his longstanding pledge to expand the Democratic base.
The results so far show that Mr. Sanders has prevailed by broadening his appeal among traditional Democratic voters, not by fundamentally transforming the electorate." (from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02​/24/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democra​tic-voters.html ) He didn't bring in non-voters.

So why should we try to appeal to a group of non-voters? How will convincing non-voters to support Biden help Biden win an election?

I didn't ...

As much as moderates wan't to pretend it is true, Bernie isn't an absolute leader of progressives. Like all candidates people don't give a shiat what he personally thinks or cares about outside of how much it pushes their agenda forward. It's like people think of him as a potential representative of their values

jook: Heliodorus: wademh: Same tired false choice narrative.
It's not about getting red hats to change I teams. It's about the large swath of people who don't like Trump and don't really want to vote for him but have been told for years about how Democrats want to destroy America.

There are more of them than there are die-hard progressives who need to be coddled in order to vote against Trump. The die-hard progressives have either decided to vote for the lesser evil in Biden or have taken their bat and ball and gone home and simply won't return. They've made up their mind. The people to get now are the wishy-washy ones, the rather ditsy ones.

Stop biatching, it's a business deal. If you want to benefit from things they have, you have to give them what they want. Otherwise pound sand.

A business deal for their ever-so-precious tender vote? Vote for Biden or there is ZERO chance of enacting ANY change they desire. That's the deal. I'm saying this as a progressive:  Puerile Pouting Progressives (say that three times fast!) can go fark themselves. I'm done coddling them.

GFY.

Moderates and conservatives have always demanded everything from progressives with bullshiat promises of 'in the future once we have everything we want then we can discuss maybe giving you something...potentially' , just like in this thread. So go fark yourself.


Today I learned that constantly demeaning, attacking their character and blaming them for the candidates loss is "coddling".
 
2020-09-27 4:07:46 PM  

IRestoreFurniture: Today I learned that constantly demeaning, attacking their character and blaming them for the candidates loss is "coddling".


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 4:08:21 PM  

wademh: For UBI or you're a pro-corporate stooge.


Now you're just making stuff up.

The thing is, with M4A, cop regulation, legalizing marijuana...poll after poll shows that the majority of America already wants these policies and the vast majority of Democratic voters do too.

The question becomes why don't the politicians supporting these policies win? And why don't the politicians who win support these policies?

The answer is media interference and party manipulation.
 
2020-09-27 4:11:36 PM  

Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.


Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."
 
2020-09-27 4:12:50 PM  

Z-clipped: PlaidJaguar: Insurgent: biden doesn't owe any of you cretins anything. he put in the work. it's his turn to be president. the alternative is the literal end of the world. you owe your vote not only to biden, but the whole democratic party. no criticism will be tolerated. none. VOTE

Get bent, fascist.

psssst....


There's no sarcasm font, and that's literally the position of democratic leadership, so Poe's Law is the result.
 
2020-09-27 4:14:40 PM  
Democratic leadership clearly understands the concept of giving people things in return for support, but they're only willing to do it with wealthy donors for money, not people for votes.
 
2020-09-27 4:14:41 PM  

Count Bakula: And I have you favorited as someone who thinks highly of Tulsi Gabbard, which says a lot about who you judge to be progressive.


Was I talking to you, snowflake?

It's probably a bridge too far to ask exactly what glowing endorsement I made of Tulsi, other than berating Fark's troglodytes who invade Tulsi topics with, "SHADDAP AND MAKE WITH THE BIKINI PICS." But I'm sure a woke feminist ally such as yourself would never have been one of those people.
 
2020-09-27 4:15:16 PM  

I Like Bread: Z-clipped: Count Bakula: Yes, representative democracy requires convincing people to support things

"Why won't someone convince me to save myself and my country?"

Democrats: "We promise band-aids and aspirin for all!"
Non-voters: "I don't see how that helps me pay for my chemotherapy."
Dems: "Oh, I guess you don't want any aspirin, which is better than no aspirin. Good job voting against your own interests, you spoiled brat!"

Someday, when you've paid attention to politics as long as I have, you'll understand that without real solutions (and by that I mean what will actually solve a problem, not half-measures that only prolong suffering but "at least we can get them done"), identifying problems is cheap talk. Joe and Donnie may be strumming your pain with their fingers but ultimately they just want to take you to the green room for some unreciprocated oral.


Completely agree with you.
 
2020-09-27 4:20:17 PM  

misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.

Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."


Proposing a reasonable (if somewhat conservative) bar for what  "some" means, and then allowing Republicans to poison it into complete inefficacy has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since 1980.
 
2020-09-27 4:22:07 PM  

I Like Bread: Count Bakula: And I have you favorited as someone who thinks highly of Tulsi Gabbard, which says a lot about who you judge to be progressive.

Was I talking to you, snowflake?

It's probably a bridge too far to ask exactly what glowing endorsement I made of Tulsi, other than berating Fark's troglodytes who invade Tulsi topics with, "SHADDAP AND MAKE WITH THE BIKINI PICS." But I'm sure a woke feminist ally such as yourself would never have been one of those people.


I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.


Now, for a bunch of people that shamed Bernie supporters by calling them misogynist for not supporting the woman, this struck me as totally hypocritical and belied the fact that they only used those smears as a convenient attack on Sanders supporters.  Nice.  Same way they make fun of Sarah Sanders eye, or call her a "fat biatch".  She again, is worthy of all the scorn heaped upon HER ACTIONS not her appearance or gender.

That's real, actual misogyny, you farking disingenuous asshats.
 
2020-09-27 4:22:36 PM  

Z-clipped: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.

Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."

Proposing a reasonable (if somewhat conservative) bar for what  "some" means, and then allowing Republicans to poison it into complete inefficacy has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since 1980.


But that bar isn't even reasonable for student loan relief. You have to take a vow of poverty and can't ever be late on a payment to qualify.
 
2020-09-27 4:26:26 PM  

Z-clipped: dylanthomas: wademh: Same tired false choice narrative.
It's not about getting red hats to change teams. It's about the large swath of people who don't like Trump and don't really want to vote for him but have been told for years about how Democrats want to destroy America.

There are more of them than there are die-hard progressives who need to be coddled in order to vote against Trump. The die-hard progressives have either decided to vote for the lesser evil in Biden or have taken their bat and ball and gone home and simply won't return. They've made up their mind. The people to get now are the wishy-washy ones, the rather ditsy ones.

It's so depressing that there are even that many factions in this country when to any clear minded observer it's more like

1) crazy inept huckster grifter know nothing fool
Vs
2) All in all, remember, like, 2015?  Shiat was pretty cool,right?

Except it really wasn't, unless you were white and financially comfortable.


I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.
 
2020-09-27 4:37:42 PM  

Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: Likwit: This has nothing to do with centrist and far-left and everything to do with corporate donors. Don't buy the propaganda.

A majority of Dems, Independents and Republicans support legalizing marijuana and federal funding for maternity leave. A majority of Dems and Independents support a higher minimum wage, free or reduced tuition for state schools, M4A, and green energy initiatives. Why don't they try to grab as many votes as possible and add these popular policies to their platform?

I'm sure it's been covered ITT, but everything on your list except M4A and marijuana legalization is currently in the Democratic platform.

Also not free or reduced tuition. You have to "qualify" to get that.

Let's not forget that little thing called fracking.  Which apparently the Dems are tires OK with.


Fire water for all!

Then don't open the negotiation with "you must do some of these things." Your position is "do all of these things, with no means-testing, and do none of the things I do not support," and you'll brook no compromise.

Your goals may be noble, but that's a disingenuous, Boehner-esque method of negotiation. Unless you have the kind of leverage Boehner had - and you do not - it gets you laughed out of the room. It's a credit to Bernie Sanders and AOC that, by not acting like you wish they would, they've gotten some of this stuff into the platform.

Lol.

I get it.  You're the "real" progressive.

Trenchant analysis. Did I question your progressive bona fides, or just your terrible strategic thinking?


My bina fides by the backhanded allusion that Bernie isn't "like me".

I didn't hurt my fee fees or anything but don't think I didn't see what you were attempting.
 
2020-09-27 5:01:39 PM  

IRestoreFurniture: Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: Likwit: This has nothing to do with centrist and far-left and everything to do with corporate donors. Don't buy the propaganda.

A majority of Dems, Independents and Republicans support legalizing marijuana and federal funding for maternity leave. A majority of Dems and Independents support a higher minimum wage, free or reduced tuition for state schools, M4A, and green energy initiatives. Why don't they try to grab as many votes as possible and add these popular policies to their platform?

I'm sure it's been covered ITT, but everything on your list except M4A and marijuana legalization is currently in the Democratic platform.

Also not free or reduced tuition. You have to "qualify" to get that.

Let's not forget that little thing called fracking.  Which apparently the Dems are tires OK with.


Fire water for all!

Then don't open the negotiation with "you must do some of these things." Your position is "do all of these things, with no means-testing, and do none of the things I do not support," and you'll brook no compromise.

Your goals may be noble, but that's a disingenuous, Boehner-esque method of negotiation. Unless you have the kind of leverage Boehner had - and you do not - it gets you laughed out of the room. It's a credit to Bernie Sanders and AOC that, by not acting like you wish they would, they've gotten some of this stuff into the platform.

Lol.

I get it.  You're the "real" progressive.

Trenchant analysis. Did I question your progressive bona fides, or just your terrible strategic thinking?

My bina fides by the backhanded allusion that Bernie isn't "like me".

I didn't hurt my fee fees or anything but don't think I didn't see what you were attempting.


Backhanded allusion? It's a direct statement: by working with the more powerful elements of the party rather than declaring "this is non-negotiable!" and having no seat at the table, Sanders, AOC, et al are strategizing much more successfully than you would like them to. The idea that I would claim someone isn't a true progressive because I disagree with their strategies is pure projection.
 
2020-09-27 5:02:06 PM  

IRestoreFurniture: I Like Bread: Count Bakula: And I have you favorited as someone who thinks highly of Tulsi Gabbard, which says a lot about who you judge to be progressive.

Was I talking to you, snowflake?

It's probably a bridge too far to ask exactly what glowing endorsement I made of Tulsi, other than berating Fark's troglodytes who invade Tulsi topics with, "SHADDAP AND MAKE WITH THE BIKINI PICS." But I'm sure a woke feminist ally such as yourself would never have been one of those people.

I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.


Now, for a bunch of people that shamed Bernie supporters by calling them misogynist for not supporting the woman, this struck me as totally hypocritical and belied the fact that they only used those smears as a convenient attack on Sanders supporters.  Nice.  Same way they make fun of Sarah Sanders eye, or call her a "fat biatch".  She again, is worthy of all the scorn heaped upon HER ACTIONS not her appearance or gender.

That's real, actual misogyny, you farking disingenuous asshats.


That is a spectacular observation; and it's true of as almost any woman who doesn't agree with the right things
 
2020-09-27 5:03:57 PM  

Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: Count Bakula: IRestoreFurniture: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: Likwit: This has nothing to do with centrist and far-left and everything to do with corporate donors. Don't buy the propaganda.

A majority of Dems, Independents and Republicans support legalizing marijuana and federal funding for maternity leave. A majority of Dems and Independents support a higher minimum wage, free or reduced tuition for state schools, M4A, and green energy initiatives. Why don't they try to grab as many votes as possible and add these popular policies to their platform?

I'm sure it's been covered ITT, but everything on your list except M4A and marijuana legalization is currently in the Democratic platform.

Also not free or reduced tuition. You have to "qualify" to get that.

Let's not forget that little thing called fracking.  Which apparently the Dems are tires OK with.


Fire water for all!

Then don't open the negotiation with "you must do some of these things." Your position is "do all of these things, with no means-testing, and do none of the things I do not support," and you'll brook no compromise.

Your goals may be noble, but that's a disingenuous, Boehner-esque method of negotiation. Unless you have the kind of leverage Boehner had - and you do not - it gets you laughed out of the room. It's a credit to Bernie Sanders and AOC that, by not acting like you wish they would, they've gotten some of this stuff into the platform.

Lol.

I get it.  You're the "real" progressive.

Trenchant analysis. Did I question your progressive bona fides, or just your terrible strategic thinking?

My bina fides by the backhanded allusion that Bernie isn't "like me".

I didn't hurt my fee fees or anything but don't think I didn't see what you were attempting.

Backhanded allusion? It's a direct statement: by working with the more powerful elements of the party rather than declaring "this is non-negotiable!" and having no seat at the table, Sanders, AOC, et al are strategizing much more successfully than you would like them to. The idea that I would claim someone isn't a true progressive because I disagree with their strategies is pure projection.


Sure pal.  I gotcha.
 
2020-09-27 5:07:30 PM  

Z-clipped: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.

Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."

Proposing a reasonable (if somewhat conservative) bar for what  "some" means, and then allowing Republicans to poison it into complete inefficacy has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since 1980.


Sure. But if you assume - and based on the liberal use of the phrase "conservative Democrats," you seem to - that centrist Democrats don't want to offer free college for anyone, offering it to some is a compromise with those who want it for all. That's what austerity101 wants - compromise with the left on policy - and there it is. We could always get less, if you prefer that.
 
2020-09-27 5:12:05 PM  

dylanthomas: I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.


I would pay money to watch you say that to Tamir Rice's mother's face.

IRestoreFurniture: I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.


Most of the non-sexist criticism I see is steamrolling her for the fundie indoctrination she's been trying to shake off, which I can relate to. That and AFAIK the one nice thing she's had to say about Trump is that he hasn't started any new wars yet.

But I just can't abide the hypocrisy of a party that constantly throws an entire population under the bus for the sake of reaching across the aisle to PEOPLE WHO WANT NEO-FEUDALISM, that incessantly finger-wags progressive principles as "idealism and purity tests," then out of the other side of their mouths condemns and assassinates the character of a woman who cast a single vote of "present" for an impeachment that was never going to pass the Senate.

Call me a Russian agent all you like but I'll never believe that a "present" vote is worse than the Dems' overwhelming support for Trump's military budget, or any different rhetorically than Biden's insistence that the GOP will return to their senses when Trump is gone.
 
2020-09-27 5:41:16 PM  
So, you see, children, Donald Trump was right when he said Ilhan Omar needed to sit down and shut up. But he was right for the wrong reasons. It's rude to mention someone is Muslim or an immigrant in this context. What you should try to do, really, is avoid mentioning her at all. Address her words as if they came out of the people on the internet who agree with her, and if at all possible erase her from the narrative. Then your motivation couldn't possibly be racist or misogynist. Bonus points if you treat progressives as predominantly white and male, and illegitimate on that basis!

We're so scared the imaginary center will abandon us that we're running away screaming from working class voters who would like some help. This has somehow become a radical statement, even though the behavior of people arguing from the center only confirms it. Helping people is off the table, we need to zoom out multiple decades and then offer to take the teeny-tiniest of steps towards maybe getting people some help sometime in the next generation, while yelling loudly all the time that we're helpless and weak and this is the best we can do. When this is supposed to be the "good" choice, is it any wonder most of our voting population prefers to switch off?

And, no this is not just another privileged white male on the internet who may not even exist. This is someone with an immigrant grandfather of a nationality and income bracket that would've laded him in a concentration camps these days, who is terrified that neither political party seems to be able to do anything about that, and disgusted every time they are asked to quiet down and accept it.

My grandfather actually did that American Dream thing and went from working in the fields to owning his own business, and I know how freaking hard that is because most of his kids and grandkids and now great-grandkids weren't able to follow. My own upward mobility is severely limited because my father got Agent Orange dumped on him fighting a stupid war in Vietnam, and I'm still paying his dues with my malfunctioning body that can't get decent healthcare. I'm not fooling around. I can see the disintegration of this country from my studio apartment, which I am in because the financial crisis ate all the savings we'd put into a house. And we consider ourselves incredibly lucky, with our high-deductible health insurance, ability to survive on a single income, and essential job.

I am privileged enough to vote for Biden knowing I'll probably still be okay (for a given value of "okay") if he can't do anything to help me. A lot of others aren't. Now we have to decide what we're going to do about that, with the specter of a total disconnect from democracy looming on the right.

That's not going to go away if Rep. Omar and I, and everyone like us, shuts up. It's not my job to be quiet and let you pretend. It's not hers either.
 
2020-09-27 5:42:33 PM  

I Like Bread: dylanthomas: I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.

I would pay money to watch you say that to Tamir Rice's mother's face.

IRestoreFurniture: I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.

Most of the non-sexist criticism I see is steamrolling her for the fundie indoctrination she's been trying to shake off, which I can relate to. That and AFAIK the one nice thing she's had to say about Trump is that he hasn't started any new wars yet.

But I just can't abide the hypocrisy of a party that constantly throws an entire population under the bus for the sake of reaching across the aisle to PEOPLE WHO WANT NEO-FEUDALISM, that incessantly finger-wags progressive principles as "idealism and purity tests," then out of the other side of their mouths condemns and assassinates the character of a woman who cast a single vote of "present" for an impeachment that was never going to pass the Senate.

Call me a Russian agent all you like but I'll never believe that a "present" vote is worse than the Dems' overwhelming support for Trump's military budget, or any different rhetorically than Biden's insistence that the GOP will return to their senses when Trump is gone.


No one wants to discuss it but the lack of wars is a big plus for him with some people.  And it feels now as if Democrats are more pro-intervention.  Right or wrong, people are still sick of that.
 
2020-09-27 5:51:07 PM  

DoBeDoBeLurk: So, you see, children, Donald Trump was right when he said Ilhan Omar needed to sit down and shut up. But he was right for the wrong reasons. It's rude to mention someone is Muslim or an immigrant in this context. What you should try to do, really, is avoid mentioning her at all. Address her words as if they came out of the people on the internet who agree with her, and if at all possible erase her from the narrative. Then your motivation couldn't possibly be racist or misogynist. Bonus points if you treat progressives as predominantly white and male, and illegitimate on that basis!

We're so scared the imaginary center will abandon us that we're running away screaming from working class voters who would like some help. This has somehow become a radical statement, even though the behavior of people arguing from the center only confirms it. Helping people is off the table, we need to zoom out multiple decades and then offer to take the teeny-tiniest of steps towards maybe getting people some help sometime in the next generation, while yelling loudly all the time that we're helpless and weak and this is the best we can do. When this is supposed to be the "good" choice, is it any wonder most of our voting population prefers to switch off?

And, no this is not just another privileged white male on the internet who may not even exist. This is someone with an immigrant grandfather of a nationality and income bracket that would've laded him in a concentration camps these days, who is terrified that neither political party seems to be able to do anything about that, and disgusted every time they are asked to quiet down and accept it.

My grandfather actually did that American Dream thing and went from working in the fields to owning his own business, and I know how freaking hard that is because most of his kids and grandkids and now great-grandkids weren't able to follow. My own upward mobility is severely limited because my father got Agent Orange dumped on him fighting a stupid war in Vietnam, and I'm still paying his dues with my malfunctioning body that can't get decent healthcare. I'm not fooling around. I can see the disintegration of this country from my studio apartment, which I am in because the financial crisis ate all the savings we'd put into a house. And we consider ourselves incredibly lucky, with our high-deductible health insurance, ability to survive on a single income, and essential job.

I am privileged enough to vote for Biden knowing I'll probably still be okay (for a given value of "okay") if he can't do anything to help me. A lot of others aren't. Now we have to decide what we're going to do about that, with the specter of a total disconnect from democracy looming on the right.

That's not going to go away if Rep. Omar and I, and everyone like us, shuts up. It's not my job to be quiet and let you pretend. It's not hers either.


Excellent comment.

They need to stop building their message around making sure they don't scare anyone, and start leading.  Yes, there's risk involved.  But even if Biden wins based on vestigial popularity, it doesn't mean the other thing is working.

One of our parties is going to stop being about business-as-usual with minor tweaks, start leading, and clean the other party's clock.  Doesn't even matter where they're trying to lead; when something isn't working and you're desperate, you'll try almost anything.  Would be nice if people were being led to some actual help
 
2020-09-27 6:07:33 PM  

dylanthomas: Z-clipped: dylanthomas: wademh: Same tired false choice narrative.
It's not about getting red hats to change teams. It's about the large swath of people who don't like Trump and don't really want to vote for him but have been told for years about how Democrats want to destroy America.

There are more of them than there are die-hard progressives who need to be coddled in order to vote against Trump. The die-hard progressives have either decided to vote for the lesser evil in Biden or have taken their bat and ball and gone home and simply won't return. They've made up their mind. The people to get now are the wishy-washy ones, the rather ditsy ones.

It's so depressing that there are even that many factions in this country when to any clear minded observer it's more like

1) crazy inept huckster grifter know nothing fool
Vs
2) All in all, remember, like, 2015?  Shiat was pretty cool,right?

Except it really wasn't, unless you were white and financially comfortable.

I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.


miro.medium.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 6:15:34 PM  

Naido: DoBeDoBeLurk: So, you see, children, Donald Trump was right when he said Ilhan Omar needed to sit down and shut up. But he was right for the wrong reasons. It's rude to mention someone is Muslim or an immigrant in this context. What you should try to do, really, is avoid mentioning her at all. Address her words as if they came out of the people on the internet who agree with her, and if at all possible erase her from the narrative. Then your motivation couldn't possibly be racist or misogynist. Bonus points if you treat progressives as predominantly white and male, and illegitimate on that basis!

We're so scared the imaginary center will abandon us that we're running away screaming from working class voters who would like some help. This has somehow become a radical statement, even though the behavior of people arguing from the center only confirms it. Helping people is off the table, we need to zoom out multiple decades and then offer to take the teeny-tiniest of steps towards maybe getting people some help sometime in the next generation, while yelling loudly all the time that we're helpless and weak and this is the best we can do. When this is supposed to be the "good" choice, is it any wonder most of our voting population prefers to switch off?

And, no this is not just another privileged white male on the internet who may not even exist. This is someone with an immigrant grandfather of a nationality and income bracket that would've laded him in a concentration camps these days, who is terrified that neither political party seems to be able to do anything about that, and disgusted every time they are asked to quiet down and accept it.

My grandfather actually did that American Dream thing and went from working in the fields to owning his own business, and I know how freaking hard that is because most of his kids and grandkids and now great-grandkids weren't able to follow. My own upward mobility is severely limited because my father got Agent Orange dumped on him fighting a stupid war in Vietnam, and I'm still paying his dues with my malfunctioning body that can't get decent healthcare. I'm not fooling around. I can see the disintegration of this country from my studio apartment, which I am in because the financial crisis ate all the savings we'd put into a house. And we consider ourselves incredibly lucky, with our high-deductible health insurance, ability to survive on a single income, and essential job.

I am privileged enough to vote for Biden knowing I'll probably still be okay (for a given value of "okay") if he can't do anything to help me. A lot of others aren't. Now we have to decide what we're going to do about that, with the specter of a total disconnect from democracy looming on the right.

That's not going to go away if Rep. Omar and I, and everyone like us, shuts up. It's not my job to be quiet and let you pretend. It's not hers either.

Excellent comment.

They need to stop building their message around making sure they don't scare anyone, and start leading.  Yes, there's risk involved.  But even if Biden wins based on vestigial popularity, it doesn't mean the other thing is working.

One of our parties is going to stop being about business-as-usual with minor tweaks, start leading, and clean the other party's clock.  Doesn't even matter where they're trying to lead; when something isn't working and you're desperate, you'll try almost anything.  Would be nice if people were being led to some actual help


I said it up thread and I'll say it again. This has to do with donors more than anything. Democrats are trying to please donors first and help people second. That's why their only selling point is "we're not Trump." That's more than enough for people who understand that Trump is doing everything with no takesies-backsies, but for most people it has no visible effect on their everyday lives (yet). Republicans can do anything because their main platform plank is "throw tax money at corporations and let them do whatever the fark they want." That's how they've forced Dems into the "just try not to lose" strategy.

But if you point out that we should stop voter shaming and trying to reach the disillusioned working class, you're a Russian or a pie in the sky socialist or something. fark every Fark "liberal." Hard.
 
2020-09-27 6:17:26 PM  

Count Bakula: Z-clipped: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.

Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."

Proposing a reasonable (if somewhat conservative) bar for what  "some" means, and then allowing Republicans to poison it into complete inefficacy has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since 1980.

Sure. But if you assume - and based on the liberal use of the phrase "conservative Democrats," you seem to - that centrist Democrats don't want to offer free college for anyone, offering it to some is a compromise with those who want it for all. That's what austerity101 wants - compromise with the left on policy - and there it is. We could always get less, if you prefer that.


This is the second time in the thread you've completely missed the point of one of my comments- I can only assume intentionally- and come back with nothing but a restatement of your own logically inconsistent position.

I'll say it again, this time in bold:  Purposefully allowing Republicans to sabotage your lip service, poison pill progressive policy offerings is NOT "compromising with progressives".  It's lying to them.

Quit trying to gaslight people with the notion that starting in the middle and moving right does anything for anyone left of you. Particularly when education and progressivism are so strongly correlated...  We're smarter than you, and we aren't buying your bullshiat.
 
2020-09-27 6:22:22 PM  

Naido: They need to stop building their message around making sure they don't scare anyone, and start leading.  Yes, there's risk involved.  But even if Biden wins based on vestigial popularity, it doesn't mean the other thing is working.

One of our parties is going to stop being about business-as-usual with minor tweaks, start leading, and clean the other party's clock.  Doesn't even matter where they're trying to lead; when something isn't working and you're desperate, you'll try almost anything.  Would be nice if people were being led to some actual help


If Biden manages to beat this, I KNOW I'm going to be asked to forget everything else that's going on right now and accept that he won on his watered-down policy - which is also the most progressive ever - and that he represents an endorsement of centrism from the whole country instead of total panic and a desire for anyone but Trump. And if he fails, it's going to be my fault for not loving him enough, as if I needed to clap my hands and scream, "I DO BELIEVE IN DEMOCRATS!" to power him up like Tinkerbell.

There is no pathway that would lead the centrist faction in power (and how they love to remind us that they are, while ducking the responsibility for their choices) to change direction. It's always going to be that everyone who votes for them approves of everything they do, and everyone who doesn't is beyond reach. This is an outlook that only works with a parliamentary system where there are multiple parties all over the spectrum that need to form coalitions to pass policy - not in a two-party system where one of the parties is trying to dismantle the government.

Really, I don't know of anything that works when you have a two-party system and one of the parties is trying to dismantle the government. We need ranked choice voting NOW, but working with what we have it's almost impossible to get it - unless the people in power stand up for it but really, why would they?
 
2020-09-27 6:24:09 PM  

misanthropicsob: Z-clipped: misanthropicsob: Count Bakula: free college and student loan relief for some.

Yes. The some part makes this insufficient considering the extreme limitations put on the "some."

Proposing a reasonable (if somewhat conservative) bar for what  "some" means, and then allowing Republicans to poison it into complete inefficacy has been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party since 1980.

But that bar isn't even reasonable for student loan relief. You have to take a vow of poverty and can't ever be late on a payment to qualify.


Great. One more huge pile of trepidation I feel about voting for the Democrat du jour, even when the opposition is a shiat-eating racist orange man-baby.
 
2020-09-27 6:26:28 PM  

Naido: Excellent comment.


An excellent comment?... from DoBeDoBeLurk?... pshh... what else is new?   : )
 
2020-09-27 6:46:14 PM  

Z-clipped: jaytkay: Z-clipped: But I can't help but think that maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for America in the long run if he were to win, because he may be the only cattle prod capable of moving these centrist farksticks off their little ignorant cloud

That strategy sure worked terrifically in 2000 and 2016. Let us return to the beautiful Eden that was created by those elections.

Uhh... the number of Democrats who identify as "Liberal" or "Very Liberal" has grown from 27% to 47% since 2000.  So... yeah... the "strategy" of conservative neoliberal Democrats failing to win elections (and failing to provide progressive policy when they ARE elected) is "working" exactly as I said.  And the more of you pricks who feel the pinch and are forced to abandon your little bubble of Clinton Era nostalgia, the more AOCs, Omars, Tlaibs and Pressleys we'll see in congressional seats.


And the Supreme Court will be tilted conservative about 8:1 and the states will be even more gerrymandered to maintain the Republican hold on the US and state houses.
We'll be living Idiocracy or Handmaids Tale and you'll be crying "We are so winning!!!!"
 
2020-09-27 7:22:38 PM  

jaytkay: Z-clipped: jaytkay: Z-clipped: But I can't help but think that maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing for America in the long run if he were to win, because he may be the only cattle prod capable of moving these centrist farksticks off their little ignorant cloud

That strategy sure worked terrifically in 2000 and 2016. Let us return to the beautiful Eden that was created by those elections.

Uhh... the number of Democrats who identify as "Liberal" or "Very Liberal" has grown from 27% to 47% since 2000.  So... yeah... the "strategy" of conservative neoliberal Democrats failing to win elections (and failing to provide progressive policy when they ARE elected) is "working" exactly as I said.  And the more of you pricks who feel the pinch and are forced to abandon your little bubble of Clinton Era nostalgia, the more AOCs, Omars, Tlaibs and Pressleys we'll see in congressional seats.

And the Supreme Court will be tilted conservative about 8:1 and the states will be even more gerrymandered to maintain the Republican hold on the US and state houses.
We'll be living Idiocracy or Handmaids Tale and you'll be crying "We are so winning!!!!"


You missed the scare quotes, I see.  It's not progressives farking things up that led to Trump.  It's your wing of the party's 40-year-long demand for compromise with conservatives, instead of having a spine. 

You're making a fool of yourself in this thread.
 
2020-09-27 8:11:35 PM  
Likwit:

But if you point out that we should stop voter shaming and trying to reach the disillusioned working class, you're a Russian or a pie in the sky socialist or something. fark every Fark "liberal." Hard.

Couldn't agree more, not just with this part but especially this part.  I usually won't even come here, like most people who would call into question even a few words of the hashtag-Resistance party line.  It's not worth taking the verbal abuse.

If I disagree with a progressive there may be a passionate conversation, but it's almost always about ideas, strategy, etc.  The predominant thing with these folks is verbal abuse,  calling you some version of immoral (racist, misogynist, Russian traitor, etc) over even minor, inconsequential departures from whatever everyone is currently agreeing with.  The same people having the nerve to treat everyone the like a "toxic" Bernie Bro", and expecting candidates to apologize for their supporters who are abusive assholes on the internet, is astounding in its lack of self awareness.
 
2020-09-27 8:26:17 PM  

austerity101: DoctorFarkGood: The problem with getting non-voters to vote is that they don't vote.

Have you considered talking to them to find out what it would take to get them to vote?


I was pointing out the Irony of campaigning for the doesn't vote vote. 'Candidate who campaigned on winning the non-voter vote gets no votes in election.' Sounds like an Onion article.

There's no magic, properly progressive platform that's going to suddenly motivate millions of people to vote. Be nice if there was one. But there isn't.

You can try to lead the horse to water all you want, but like the old saying goes, you can't make 'em drink. Same with non-voters. If they don't think, with shiat being as shiatty as it is right now, that they should vote... they're probably not going to vote.

If you want to keep trying to convince them, more power to you. But don't expect a miracle.
 
2020-09-27 8:30:13 PM  

Naido: I Like Bread: dylanthomas: I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.

I would pay money to watch you say that to Tamir Rice's mother's face.

IRestoreFurniture: I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.

Most of the non-sexist criticism I see is steamrolling her for the fundie indoctrination she's been trying to shake off, which I can relate to. That and AFAIK the one nice thing she's had to say about Trump is that he hasn't started any new wars yet.

But I just can't abide the hypocrisy of a party that constantly throws an entire population under the bus for the sake of reaching across the aisle to PEOPLE WHO WANT NEO-FEUDALISM, that incessantly finger-wags progressive principles as "idealism and purity tests," then out of the other side of their mouths condemns and assassinates the character of a woman who cast a single vote of "present" for an impeachment that was never going to pass the Senate.

Call me a Russian agent all you like but I'll never believe that a "present" vote is worse than the Dems' overwhelming support for Trump's military budget, or any different rhetorically than Biden's insistence that the GOP will return to their senses when Trump is gone.

No one wants to discuss it but the lack of wars is a big plus for him with some people.  And it feels now as if Democrats are more pro-intervention.  Right or wrong, people are still sick of that.


I mean, the Democrats had Colin "Cheerleader for the Iraq War" Powell at the convention talking about how much he respected Joe Biden's willingness to go after America's enemies.

That was a huge WTF moment for me and should have caused most people to question the party's judgement and choice of nominee.
 
2020-09-27 8:46:12 PM  

misanthropicsob: Naido: I Like Bread: dylanthomas: I don't care who you are, you were better off then as opposed to now.

I would pay money to watch you say that to Tamir Rice's mother's face.

IRestoreFurniture: I don't care for Tulsi as a politician.  The "present" vote was enough to make me never take her seriously again.

That said, in a thread here (that iirc, wasn't even about Tulsi) multiple fark Democrats were stating that people only voted for her because she was "hot" or that "she isn't going to sleep with you" to people they deemed supportive of her.

Most of the non-sexist criticism I see is steamrolling her for the fundie indoctrination she's been trying to shake off, which I can relate to. That and AFAIK the one nice thing she's had to say about Trump is that he hasn't started any new wars yet.

But I just can't abide the hypocrisy of a party that constantly throws an entire population under the bus for the sake of reaching across the aisle to PEOPLE WHO WANT NEO-FEUDALISM, that incessantly finger-wags progressive principles as "idealism and purity tests," then out of the other side of their mouths condemns and assassinates the character of a woman who cast a single vote of "present" for an impeachment that was never going to pass the Senate.

Call me a Russian agent all you like but I'll never believe that a "present" vote is worse than the Dems' overwhelming support for Trump's military budget, or any different rhetorically than Biden's insistence that the GOP will return to their senses when Trump is gone.

No one wants to discuss it but the lack of wars is a big plus for him with some people.  And it feels now as if Democrats are more pro-intervention.  Right or wrong, people are still sick of that.

I mean, the Democrats had Colin "Cheerleader for the Iraq War" Powell at the convention talking about how much he respected Joe Biden's willingness to go after America's enemies.

That was a huge WTF moment for me and should have caused most people to question the party's judgement and choice of nominee.


It is not permissible to mention this as potentially mistake.  Your Fark comment referencing this matter is going to cost Biden the election.  You want to elect Trump!! Why are you trying to elect Trump????

/many people commenting on that couldn't possibly lead to the Democrats thinking they should knock it off, leading to people possibly seeing them as less pro-war ("I mean, sure, Powell is the person who sold the Iraq bullshiat to the UN, but he did it soooo reluctantly.  And he's still considered one of the grownups/cool kids, so that helps us!") and not beholden to people who gave us THE FARKING IRAQ WAR.  Jesus wept
 
2020-09-27 8:54:17 PM  

DoctorFarkGood: If they don't think, with shiat being as shiatty as it is right now, that they should vote...


You have to make them think voting will change things.
Like Barack Obama did, whether or not you believe he followed through, he won on that message.
If things will be just as shiatty, but someone else will be in charge, who farking cares?

The party just doesn't want to go that route because the change people want will displease the party donors.
 
2020-09-27 8:55:59 PM  

DoctorFarkGood: austerity101: DoctorFarkGood: The problem with getting non-voters to vote is that they don't vote.

Have you considered talking to them to find out what it would take to get them to vote?

I was pointing out the Irony of campaigning for the doesn't vote vote. 'Candidate who campaigned on winning the non-voter vote gets no votes in election.' Sounds like an Onion article.

There's no magic, properly progressive platform that's going to suddenly motivate millions of people to vote. Be nice if there was one. But there isn't.

You can try to lead the horse to water all you want, but like the old saying goes, you can't make 'em drink. Same with non-voters. If they don't think, with shiat being as shiatty as it is right now, that they should vote... they're probably not going to vote.

If you want to keep trying to convince them, more power to you. But don't expect a miracle.


This is such an insanely disingenuous argument.

Non-voters are not all permanent non-voters. There were more non-voters in 2012 than 2008, and more in 2016 than 2012. More so than can be explained by an overall increase. The Green Party got more votes than ever in 2016, and so did the libertarians. What does that tell you?

Hint: It's not to reach to the right.
 
2020-09-27 9:09:53 PM  
Bennie Crabtree:

Pete gets a seat at the table because he is exemplary of the future leaders of the USA

If someone who admires the capitulation politics of the last 40 years is considered the future of the Democratic Party you are going to be proper farked for the foreseeable future.
 
2020-09-27 9:14:43 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: Pete gets a seat at the table because he is exemplary of the future leaders of the USA, in so many different ways. His appearance on that debate stage was necessary and proved to the world that the Dems can be both LGBTQ representatives *and* conservative enough to not rock the boat in other countries when they work together.


DNC: "Pay no attention to the homophobic smears against Alex Morse."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/202​0​/09/02/coordinated-homophobic-attack-a​lex-morse-denounced-progressive-challe​nger-falls
 
2020-09-27 9:20:38 PM  

Sophont: If things will be just as shiatty, but someone else will be in charge, who farking cares?


If you can't tell the difference between getting justices like RBG instead of Blackout Brett and Handmaid Amy...I don't know what to say. It's like talking to livestock.
 
2020-09-27 9:33:17 PM  
wademh:

So someone else was preaching the same ignorant "Lets all pretend we're friends and ignore all of the very horrible and dangerous things you're doing because discussing them might hurt your feelings" bullshiat you've been posting in this thread, while completely ignoring that your approach is what made Trump possible and given the Republicans a 6-3 majority control of the Supreme Court.

So I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked him: What is it about the state of America today, and the very real consequences it will now face because of your naive belief that merely accepting conservatives as they are will magically turn them into good people, that has you convinced it's the people saying "We really shouldn't legitimize and befriend terrible people" who are wrong?
 
2020-09-27 9:34:00 PM  

Sophont: DoctorFarkGood: If they don't think, with shiat being as shiatty as it is right now, that they should vote...

You have to make them think voting will change things.
Like Barack Obama did, whether or not you believe he followed through, he won on that message.
If things will be just as shiatty, but someone else will be in charge, who farking cares?

The party just doesn't want to go that route because the change people want will displease the party donors.


Remember picture where one candidate is reasonable, and the other is peeing on the undecided voter?

If you're telling me that people aren't voting because they've looked at a wannabe dictator and 200,000 dead Americans and decided BOTHSAME BOTHSIDESAREBAD... then they don't need voter outreach, they need a goddamn therapist.

Likwit: There's nothing disingenuous about it. Nonvoters don't vote regularly and there's no way to be sure they're going to vote this time.

And the Green Party getting more votes? That tell me that Stupid Voters are also a demographic.

Where is your evidence that leftward appeals will motivate people to actually show up? Sanders tried that twice, and people didn't show up.

You can't bet the house on unreliable people.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.