What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
If someone considers that evil their priorities may be a little out of wack. The example was explictly neutral in chosing.
Likewise, Speed Racer's ideals would require a great deal of evil despite being phrased as good. Because "give the land back" and do what, precisely, with the millions of people who live on it? Going to go for a little ethnic clensing here?
Speaking of, Trump will end DACA. Biden won't. Is "Everyone with DACA gets deported or shoved in a camp" the option anyone wants to help happen? Because that's on the table and it's almost certainly just the apatizer.
Ah yes, the ethnicity of *checks notes* shit loads of farm land.
What the shit.
I don't know if Phoenix is intending to or not (I hope not) but they're using the Fox News sort of argument where "the opposite of white supremacy must mean white oppression!" (given that land ownership in the country favors white people by law and system).
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
Two people will die of heart attacks in the next 10 minutes.
One of them is 5 minutes away from you. The other is 90 minutes away from you.
You're claiming that it's evil to only save the person who is 5 minutes away.
My job is to voice my discontent with the state of my country; their job is to figure out what to do about it. And if that's too much for them, then they need to get the fuck out of the way and let someone else take a crack at it.
So republicans then?
Because that's how you elect republicans.
If the democrats decide to bow out of the election, they don't get to decide who gets to step in instead. The republicans will make that decision for them.
I also kind of reject the premise that they're doing all that they can. I don't believe that they are. I've spent my entire life watching Republicans pull off magic trick after magic trick to turn wildly unpopular ideas into reality, and while I acknowledge that there's differences in the goals between the parties that makes things a bit easier for them, I don't accept the premise that "good things aren't possible now, but maybe they will be later." I think that if you stick to that framing then "later" is never going to actually arrive.
The Republicans manage to pull of these magic tricks by capitalizing on racism and xenophobia.
Do you think that's what democrats should be doing?
Are you aware of the entire point of the Southern Strategy? The entire reason why democrats are in this position today is because LBJ thought that the Civil Rights Act was more important than maintaining the racist vote, and it turns out that a lot of the country was racist. Likewise, the GOP realize they could make white people hate the war on poverty by portraying welfare as a black thing.
If the racist vote is so vital then there should be no issue with people not wanting to consent to be governed by a party who courts it and talks about austerity while people struggle to meet rent.
"You gotta vote for the shit head wanting austerity and going against the polling on medicare's popularity in his own party otherwise something bad and undemocratic might happen" is about as compelling as a book that's spent a week soaking in a cistern.
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
Two people will die of heart attacks in the next 10 minutes.
One of them is 5 minutes away from you. The other is 90 minutes away from you.
You're claiming that it's evil to only save the person who is 5 minutes away.
No, that's a different situation. I'm not deciding who lives and who dies, time is. I'm only deciding whether or not to render aid where I can.
Your 10 people in a fire scenario is incomplete because it doesn't provide for anything other than who comes up with the idea, without taking into account who implements the idea and how. Those are details that matter when you're comparing it to running a country.
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
If someone considers that evil their priorities may be a little out of wack. The example was explictly neutral in chosing.
Likewise, Speed Racer's ideals would require a great deal of evil despite being phrased as good. Because "give the land back" and do what, precisely, with the millions of people who live on it? Going to go for a little ethnic clensing here?
Speaking of, Trump will end DACA. Biden won't. Is "Everyone with DACA gets deported or shoved in a camp" the option anyone wants to help happen? Because that's on the table and it's almost certainly just the apatizer.
Ah yes, the ethnicity of *checks notes* shit loads of farm land.
What the shit.
And you know major metro areas like Seattle, a big chunk of the eastern seaboard, all of Hawai'i..
I'd say probably majority of US land? Parts of Florida were probably do shitty even the locals noped out..
(Edit also to make it clear the US's policies here were / sometimes still ate among the shittrer ones. But it's really really not as easy as "give the land back")
Phoenix-D on
+2
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
Two people will die of heart attacks in the next 10 minutes.
One of them is 5 minutes away from you. The other is 90 minutes away from you.
You're claiming that it's evil to only save the person who is 5 minutes away.
The discussion leftists are trying to introduce to changing the party is "what can we do to save the people 90 minutes away as well?"
And then we get told we're dumb babies who "don't understand how the country works" or some such.
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
If someone considers that evil their priorities may be a little out of wack. The example was explictly neutral in chosing.
Likewise, Speed Racer's ideals would require a great deal of evil despite being phrased as good. Because "give the land back" and do what, precisely, with the millions of people who live on it? Going to go for a little ethnic clensing here?
Speaking of, Trump will end DACA. Biden won't. Is "Everyone with DACA gets deported or shoved in a camp" the option anyone wants to help happen? Because that's on the table and it's almost certainly just the apatizer.
Ah yes, the ethnicity of *checks notes* shit loads of farm land.
What the shit.
And you know major metro areas like Seattle, a big chunk of the eastern seaboard, all of Hawai'i..
I'd say probably majority of US land? Parts of Florida were probably do shitty even the locals noped out..
Sweet, most of the people profiting off of land lord rent seeking garbage in metro areas can be replaced with folks whose land was stolen and literally none of the average people would notice a difference in their life.
Like do you think that people are genuinely going "yes just turn all white devils out on the street for being born into a 7/11 evening shift"? Is that the level of bad faith you are working on to desperately paint moral opposition to biden as fucking ethinic cleansing endorsments?
I mean you guys are doing what Republicans do to Centrist Democrats all the time; take the presented idea and run to a wild-ass conclusion to make it bad.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military at all. It means the structure of our current military is bad for a lot of reasons, and how we use that military as well. Change how you train the troops, what you train them for, change their deployment times, change where they deploy, change their funding, etc etc etc etc etc
It's a massive discussion to have, and you can either have it (not here), or you can keep presenting leftists as wanting some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
On the other hand "dismantling" and "restructuring" are different words with different meanings.
And if restructure is what leftists actually mean when they say dismantle then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them being unable to communicate their ideas because they think "dismantle" makes for better rhetoric.
Because if their rhetoric results in people thinking they have ideas that range from unrealistic to pants on head fucking dumb then the problem is they don't understand how rhetoric is supposed to actually work. It's supposed to persuade people to agree, not make them do a Picard facepalm.
+15
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Respectfully,
can we please not do this dance again?
I have to say, my favorite part of the convention has got to be the drive in speech venue with the flashing lights and the fireworks instead of balloons.
Fireworks are, ostensibly, better for the environment than balloons, in the long run. I think.
Also, you know that Trump is going to be so upset that he's only going to get balloons.
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
I mean you guys are doing what Republicans do to Centrist Democrats all the time; take the presented idea and run to a wild-ass conclusion to make it bad.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military at all. It means the structure of our current military is bad for a lot of reasons, and how we use that military as well. Change how you train the troops, what you train them for, change their deployment times, change where they deploy, change their funding, etc etc etc etc etc
It's a massive discussion to have, and you can either have it (not here), or you can keep presenting leftists as wanting some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
On the other hand "dismantling" and "restructuring" are different words with different meanings.
And if restructure is what leftists actually mean when they say dismantle then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them being unable to communicate their ideas because they think "dismantle" makes for better rhetoric.
Because if their rhetoric results in people thinking they have ideas that range from unrealistic to pants on head fucking dumb then the problem is they don't understand how rhetoric is supposed to actually work. It's supposed to persuade people to agree, not make them do a Picard facepalm.
Literally every democrat position has to be couched in a second hand explanation of why no one can have nice things and how the slogan doesn't actually match the content because RealPolitik.
I mean you guys are doing what Republicans do to Centrist Democrats all the time; take the presented idea and run to a wild-ass conclusion to make it bad.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military at all. It means the structure of our current military is bad for a lot of reasons, and how we use that military as well. Change how you train the troops, what you train them for, change their deployment times, change where they deploy, change their funding, etc etc etc etc etc
It's a massive discussion to have, and you can either have it (not here), or you can keep presenting leftists as wanting some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
On the other hand "dismantling" and "restructuring" are different words with different meanings.
And if restructure is what leftists actually mean when they say dismantle then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them being unable to communicate their ideas because they think "dismantle" makes for better rhetoric.
Because if their rhetoric results in people thinking they have ideas that range from unrealistic to pants on head fucking dumb then the problem is they don't understand how rhetoric is supposed to actually work. It's supposed to persuade people to agree, not make them do a Picard facepalm.
"Restructure" is avoided as a term because it has been used in the past by current politicians, especially status quo types, and their invocation of it doesn't actually deliver a lot of the time. So due to the popular perception of that, the rhetoric gets amped up to dismantling.
There are a few leftists, some I know, who unironically mean "no dismantle as it don't have it ever," but I do what I can to get them to come around on that sorta stuff. Thing is I get where they're coming from and used to be that way too, so my success chance is a bit higher than someone berating them.
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
What's... frustrating, is that sometimes a lot y'all seem to understand that that a vote for Joe Biden is a vote for the lesser evil. But, it very frequently seems to get forgotten about in here that the lesser evil is still evil.
Can you explain how Joe Biden would make things worse than they are right now? An example where Biden is a step backwards?
Because if not, then that's not really a lesser evil.
If a building with 10 people inside is on fire and one guy is proposing dousing the fire in gasoline and the other guy is declaring that we only have enough time to rescue the 5 people who live closest to the exit, I don't consider the second person evil just because he wasn't able to save the other 5.
Can elaborate more on this? Because your logic doesn't follow for me.
Because if the other guy chooses which 5 to save and which to let die, to the families who lost someone, it absolutely is still evil.
Two people will die of heart attacks in the next 10 minutes.
One of them is 5 minutes away from you. The other is 90 minutes away from you.
You're claiming that it's evil to only save the person who is 5 minutes away.
The discussion leftists are trying to introduce to changing the party is "what can we do to save the people 90 minutes away as well?"
And then we get told we're dumb babies who "don't understand how the country works" or some such.
And the answer is "Right now, shit all and if you try they both die. So let's get a helicopter going soon, but the moment- it's the closer one."
The obvious rejoineder of course being "the moment never comes". But ignoring the now doesn't bring it any closer and causes harm. Try for better next time. Bernie got thumped, but still did better than anyone else. So stop the bleeding and figure out how to get more allies at all levels* while pushing the existing folks for everything you can.
*This part isn't over yet for this year! Primaries are still going for other seats! Asshole politicans in some cities are getting recalled (hi Durkan)
Thing is I get where they're coming from and used to be that way too, so my success chance is a bit higher than someone berating them.
Wish I could Lime For Truth. I feel like having empathy and having shared experience, and letting folks share stories and concerns, is actually kind of a big deal.
The discussion leftists are trying to introduce to changing the party is "what can we do to save the people 90 minutes away as well?"
"What can we do" requires two things: The policy proposal as well as the political will of the voters.
The problem is that you keep focusing on the first part, without addressing the second.
For instance, we could solve all sexual harassment tomorrow if all sexual harassers agreed to stop doing that. That's a pretty straight forward plan. But good luck getting them on board with that.
+13
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
Welp.
+17
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
I mean you guys are doing what Republicans do to Centrist Democrats all the time; take the presented idea and run to a wild-ass conclusion to make it bad.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military at all. It means the structure of our current military is bad for a lot of reasons, and how we use that military as well. Change how you train the troops, what you train them for, change their deployment times, change where they deploy, change their funding, etc etc etc etc etc
It's a massive discussion to have, and you can either have it (not here), or you can keep presenting leftists as wanting some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military? What? The dictionary definition of "dismantle" says the opposite. This doesn't leave room for interpretation.
Maybe Speed Racer didn't exactly mean what they said, but what they said was "dismantling the military" and "dismantle the United States"=good. That's plain language.
ideas like turning over entire cities and states to the tiny remnants of dispossessed tribes that happened to lose the last of a long series of vicious wars is one of the reasons nobody takes the far left seriously
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
+12
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
Welp.
It's a comment about how participating in the election requires compensating on our morals and creeds. There's a promise that we'll get something in return, but historically speaking campaign messaging is largely a load of shit. We're smart enough to read about it in history books, and have seen it ourselves in our lifetime. Telling us it will be different this time is what we heard last time and the time before.
Meanwhile, status quo voters and politicians compensate none of their morals or creeds. They're concerned with keeping things intact as they are, and any changes they finally agree to make have to be done in such painstaking minor detail that the issue still isn't fully addressed.
Thing is I get where they're coming from and used to be that way too, so my success chance is a bit higher than someone berating them.
Wish I could Lime For Truth. I feel like having empathy and having shared experience, and letting folks share stories and concerns, is actually kind of a big deal.
The post that started this tangent was somewhat less than productive, yes.
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
Yes, given the choice between being tortured and being tortured but they put #BLM the correct answer is to not vote for either ghoulish loser.
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
ideas like turning over entire cities and states to the tiny remnants of dispossessed tribes that happened to lose the last of a long series of vicious wars is one of the reasons nobody takes the far left seriously
There was no formal declaration of war from one state to another. There was no war. It was a massive genocidal atrocity that continues to this day and you painting them as "losers" is itself bigoted.
Plus like, what’s the logical end point of that sort of concept of history? That the correct and right thing is to just gun down land lords in the street till they’re the next set of ‘losers’?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military? What? The dictionary definition of "dismantle" says the opposite. This doesn't leave room for interpretation.
Addressed in a previous post. But to add to it, remember, you guys argued to me two days ago that "facts don't matter" so popular perception (correct or not) of what words mean in elections matter. "Restructure" has lost value as a word (thanks Republicans and Democrats alike), so "dismantle" gets used instead.
Henroid on
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
Welp.
It's a comment about how participating in the election requires compensating on our morals and creeds. There's a promise that we'll get something in return, but historically speaking campaign messaging is largely a load of shit. We're smart enough to read about it in history books, and have seen it ourselves in our lifetime. Telling us it will be different this time is what we heard last time and the time before.
Meanwhile, status quo voters and politicians compensate none of their morals or creeds. They're concerned with keeping things intact as they are, and any changes they finally agree to make have to be done in such painstaking minor detail that the issue still isn't fully addressed.
The choice is a group whose policies you disagree with but can influence closer to what you want or outright fascism.
I've read and experienced history as well, and the fascists are never as impressed with the ideological and moral purity of the left as they seem to think they should be.
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
Yes, given the choice between being tortured and being tortured but they put #BLM the correct answer is to not vote for either ghoulish loser.
If you aren't voting, why are you in the election thread?
On topic: I'm curious to see what Biden does in office and whether he will be a ghoulish loan shark and fail to bail out the American people or will work to get aid to those that need it most during the crisis. Either way, it's better than the current status quo of unmitigated malignant grifting so it's a win win.
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
Yes, given the choice between being tortured and being tortured but they put #BLM the correct answer is to not vote for either ghoulish loser.
The difference between a Dem administration and a GOP one is running around ~90k lives right now but hey, I'm sure all those people had no value right?
If the racist vote is so vital then there should be no issue with people not wanting to consent to be governed by a party who courts it and talks about austerity while people struggle to meet rent.
"You gotta vote for the shit head wanting austerity and going against the polling on medicare's popularity in his own party otherwise something bad and undemocratic might happen" is about as compelling as a book that's spent a week soaking in a cistern.
The problem with the "well this is how the country" votes argument is that it conveniently ignores:
- the voter turnout rate
- the structure of voting to begin with, namely that there isn't "none of the above" options for people unhappy with both / any choices in candidates
- the two party system existing at all
- neither party accepting people into membership at the civil service level unless they strictly adhere to specific views and never challenge the system itself
- a lack of helping younger generations prep and directly get involved in their government, not just by voting, but choosing to run for offices
The "none of the above" option does exist. It's called leaving that option blank. Which is something that can easily be tracked.
The two-party system is the result of basic mathematical models in a winner-take-all election. And a parliamentary system would require an entirely new constitution.
Young people who want to show up to actual democratic party meetings are generally welcomes with open arms. And there's a huge demand for potential candidates who can run for office if you can prove yourself capable. But like with all jobs, that usually requires some sort of resume and vetting process. Otherwise, you might end up with the 19 year old sexual predator that was mentioned earlier.
+6
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
The discussion leftists are trying to introduce to changing the party is "what can we do to save the people 90 minutes away as well?"
"What can we do" requires two things: The policy proposal as well as the political will of the voters.
The problem is that you keep focusing on the first part, without addressing the second.
For instance, we could solve all sexual harassment tomorrow if all sexual harassers agreed to stop doing that. That's a pretty straight forward plan. But good luck getting them on board with that.
"Political will" (what a term) sure is a thing.
This is why one of my favorite questions to ask centrists is "what do you believe is right to do? NOT what you think is likely to make happen, tell me your heart's desire." Because the answer is very different from what they tend to vote on.
If people weren't jaded about the government, they would apparently vote for more positive policy and the politicians that craft / make those policies happen.
I mean you guys are doing what Republicans do to Centrist Democrats all the time; take the presented idea and run to a wild-ass conclusion to make it bad.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military at all. It means the structure of our current military is bad for a lot of reasons, and how we use that military as well. Change how you train the troops, what you train them for, change their deployment times, change where they deploy, change their funding, etc etc etc etc etc
It's a massive discussion to have, and you can either have it (not here), or you can keep presenting leftists as wanting some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
On the other hand "dismantling" and "restructuring" are different words with different meanings.
And if restructure is what leftists actually mean when they say dismantle then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them being unable to communicate their ideas because they think "dismantle" makes for better rhetoric.
Because if their rhetoric results in people thinking they have ideas that range from unrealistic to pants on head fucking dumb then the problem is they don't understand how rhetoric is supposed to actually work. It's supposed to persuade people to agree, not make them do a Picard facepalm.
"Restructure" is avoided as a term because it has been used in the past by current politicians, especially status quo types, and their invocation of it doesn't actually deliver a lot of the time. So due to the popular perception of that, the rhetoric gets amped up to dismantling.
There are a few leftists, some I know, who unironically mean "no dismantle as it don't have it ever," but I do what I can to get them to come around on that sorta stuff. Thing is I get where they're coming from and used to be that way too, so my success chance is a bit higher than someone berating them.
But that means that the rhetoric is playing to people who are even further left and you have to bring them slightly back towards the center.
Except for a political movement to actually accomplish their goals the rhetoric needs to appeal to enough people for the change to come about. If it's so misunderstood that the people who agree don't understand it how is it helping?
And frankly I think our military budget is insane. We absolutely need to make change because transitioning a serious amount of those funds to other projects would be so much more useful and that's without even getting into the way it's currently run which isn't great!
But I'll never get behind "dismantle" as a slogan for that because it's literally calling for an absurd idea that utterly fails to communicate the actual idea. If a slogan requires an asterisk that leads to a paragraph explaining that well, no, that's not really what we mean but here's what we actually want then it's a pretty terrible slogan..
Even if dismantling the US was a realistic position to run on, it's not something that could happen in 4 years outside of the President becoming a full-fledged dictator who unilaterally takes over the entire country and forces it to happen. If someone with that position somehow managed to get elected, there sure won't be a Congress with 60+ Senators and 218+ Representatives who'll want it as well to pass the bills to make it a reality nor a friendly Supreme Court who won't knock that shit down the second it's challenged. This sort of thinking frustrates me because it's pure farcical fantasy that ignores every aspect of reality to shit on a party for not being able to live up to an impossible imaginary goal.
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
Yes, given the choice between being tortured and being tortured but they put #BLM the correct answer is to not vote for either ghoulish loser.
The difference between a Dem administration and a GOP one is running around ~90k lives right now but hey, I'm sure all those people had no value right?
If those lives matter then let’s hope the right wing party of the USA wins: the democrats.
ideas like turning over entire cities and states to the tiny remnants of dispossessed tribes that happened to lose the last of a long series of vicious wars is one of the reasons nobody takes the far left seriously
There was no formal declaration of war from one state to another. There was no war. It was a massive genocidal atrocity that continues to this day and you painting them as "losers" is itself bigoted.
A war against a non-state actor is still a war, you goose.
I am characterizing the Indian Wars as Wars because they fought bravely and well against the destruction of their people. And I characterize them as the losers of those wars because they did in fact lose the wars.
Calling people bigoted for saying the phrase "they lost a war" is another reason nobody takes the far left seriously btw.
The discussion leftists are trying to introduce to changing the party is "what can we do to save the people 90 minutes away as well?"
"What can we do" requires two things: The policy proposal as well as the political will of the voters.
The problem is that you keep focusing on the first part, without addressing the second.
For instance, we could solve all sexual harassment tomorrow if all sexual harassers agreed to stop doing that. That's a pretty straight forward plan. But good luck getting them on board with that.
"Political will" (what a term) sure is a thing.
This is why one of my favorite questions to ask centrists is "what do you believe is right to do? NOT what you think is likely to make happen, tell me your heart's desire." Because the answer is very different from what they tend to vote on.
If people weren't jaded about the government, they would apparently vote for more positive policy and the politicians that craft / make those policies happen.
There's very few centrists in this conversation remember.
Posts
Two people will die of heart attacks in the next 10 minutes.
One of them is 5 minutes away from you. The other is 90 minutes away from you.
You're claiming that it's evil to only save the person who is 5 minutes away.
If the racist vote is so vital then there should be no issue with people not wanting to consent to be governed by a party who courts it and talks about austerity while people struggle to meet rent.
"You gotta vote for the shit head wanting austerity and going against the polling on medicare's popularity in his own party otherwise something bad and undemocratic might happen" is about as compelling as a book that's spent a week soaking in a cistern.
No, that's a different situation. I'm not deciding who lives and who dies, time is. I'm only deciding whether or not to render aid where I can.
Your 10 people in a fire scenario is incomplete because it doesn't provide for anything other than who comes up with the idea, without taking into account who implements the idea and how. Those are details that matter when you're comparing it to running a country.
e: I didn't see your bolded part there. Sorry.
And you know major metro areas like Seattle, a big chunk of the eastern seaboard, all of Hawai'i..
I'd say probably majority of US land? Parts of Florida were probably do shitty even the locals noped out..
(Edit also to make it clear the US's policies here were / sometimes still ate among the shittrer ones. But it's really really not as easy as "give the land back")
And then we get told we're dumb babies who "don't understand how the country works" or some such.
Sweet, most of the people profiting off of land lord rent seeking garbage in metro areas can be replaced with folks whose land was stolen and literally none of the average people would notice a difference in their life.
Like do you think that people are genuinely going "yes just turn all white devils out on the street for being born into a 7/11 evening shift"? Is that the level of bad faith you are working on to desperately paint moral opposition to biden as fucking ethinic cleansing endorsments?
On the other hand "dismantling" and "restructuring" are different words with different meanings.
And if restructure is what leftists actually mean when they say dismantle then I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for them being unable to communicate their ideas because they think "dismantle" makes for better rhetoric.
Because if their rhetoric results in people thinking they have ideas that range from unrealistic to pants on head fucking dumb then the problem is they don't understand how rhetoric is supposed to actually work. It's supposed to persuade people to agree, not make them do a Picard facepalm.
can we please not do this dance again?
I have to say, my favorite part of the convention has got to be the drive in speech venue with the flashing lights and the fireworks instead of balloons.
Fireworks are, ostensibly, better for the environment than balloons, in the long run. I think.
Also, you know that Trump is going to be so upset that he's only going to get balloons.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Change at a federal level takes time. Refusing to acknowledge that and not supporting the people who are closest to you in ideology makes it take more time.
The two party system is a mathematical inevitability thanks to first past the post voting. Without changing voting systems we're stuck with it, so you have to deal and play ball. You can't change the rules if you don't win first, and you win by participating.
Literally every democrat position has to be couched in a second hand explanation of why no one can have nice things and how the slogan doesn't actually match the content because RealPolitik.
There are a few leftists, some I know, who unironically mean "no dismantle as it don't have it ever," but I do what I can to get them to come around on that sorta stuff. Thing is I get where they're coming from and used to be that way too, so my success chance is a bit higher than someone berating them.
Actually you lose by participating if you have any standards.
And the answer is "Right now, shit all and if you try they both die. So let's get a helicopter going soon, but the moment- it's the closer one."
The obvious rejoineder of course being "the moment never comes". But ignoring the now doesn't bring it any closer and causes harm. Try for better next time. Bernie got thumped, but still did better than anyone else. So stop the bleeding and figure out how to get more allies at all levels* while pushing the existing folks for everything you can.
*This part isn't over yet for this year! Primaries are still going for other seats! Asshole politicans in some cities are getting recalled (hi Durkan)
Wish I could Lime For Truth. I feel like having empathy and having shared experience, and letting folks share stories and concerns, is actually kind of a big deal.
"What can we do" requires two things: The policy proposal as well as the political will of the voters.
The problem is that you keep focusing on the first part, without addressing the second.
For instance, we could solve all sexual harassment tomorrow if all sexual harassers agreed to stop doing that. That's a pretty straight forward plan. But good luck getting them on board with that.
Welp.
Dismantling the military doesn't mean having no military? What? The dictionary definition of "dismantle" says the opposite. This doesn't leave room for interpretation. Maybe Speed Racer didn't exactly mean what they said, but what they said was "dismantling the military" and "dismantle the United States"=good. That's plain language.
An interesting definition of "win". It might make you feel better but it's going to make everything you want to happen even less likely. is that a win?
Meanwhile, status quo voters and politicians compensate none of their morals or creeds. They're concerned with keeping things intact as they are, and any changes they finally agree to make have to be done in such painstaking minor detail that the issue still isn't fully addressed.
The post that started this tangent was somewhat less than productive, yes.
Yes, given the choice between being tortured and being tortured but they put #BLM the correct answer is to not vote for either ghoulish loser.
The choice is a group whose policies you disagree with but can influence closer to what you want or outright fascism.
I've read and experienced history as well, and the fascists are never as impressed with the ideological and moral purity of the left as they seem to think they should be.
On topic: I'm curious to see what Biden does in office and whether he will be a ghoulish loan shark and fail to bail out the American people or will work to get aid to those that need it most during the crisis. Either way, it's better than the current status quo of unmitigated malignant grifting so it's a win win.
The difference between a Dem administration and a GOP one is running around ~90k lives right now but hey, I'm sure all those people had no value right?
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
The "none of the above" option does exist. It's called leaving that option blank. Which is something that can easily be tracked.
The two-party system is the result of basic mathematical models in a winner-take-all election. And a parliamentary system would require an entirely new constitution.
Young people who want to show up to actual democratic party meetings are generally welcomes with open arms. And there's a huge demand for potential candidates who can run for office if you can prove yourself capable. But like with all jobs, that usually requires some sort of resume and vetting process. Otherwise, you might end up with the 19 year old sexual predator that was mentioned earlier.
This is why one of my favorite questions to ask centrists is "what do you believe is right to do? NOT what you think is likely to make happen, tell me your heart's desire." Because the answer is very different from what they tend to vote on.
If people weren't jaded about the government, they would apparently vote for more positive policy and the politicians that craft / make those policies happen.
But that means that the rhetoric is playing to people who are even further left and you have to bring them slightly back towards the center.
Except for a political movement to actually accomplish their goals the rhetoric needs to appeal to enough people for the change to come about. If it's so misunderstood that the people who agree don't understand it how is it helping?
And frankly I think our military budget is insane. We absolutely need to make change because transitioning a serious amount of those funds to other projects would be so much more useful and that's without even getting into the way it's currently run which isn't great!
But I'll never get behind "dismantle" as a slogan for that because it's literally calling for an absurd idea that utterly fails to communicate the actual idea. If a slogan requires an asterisk that leads to a paragraph explaining that well, no, that's not really what we mean but here's what we actually want then it's a pretty terrible slogan..
If those lives matter then let’s hope the right wing party of the USA wins: the democrats.
A war against a non-state actor is still a war, you goose.
I am characterizing the Indian Wars as Wars because they fought bravely and well against the destruction of their people. And I characterize them as the losers of those wars because they did in fact lose the wars.
Calling people bigoted for saying the phrase "they lost a war" is another reason nobody takes the far left seriously btw.
There's very few centrists in this conversation remember.