Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Fury Resurrected

US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

Bernie Sanders was the only non-centrist in the Democratic primary?

No, Tulsi Gabbard had no chance of winning, neither did Elizabeth Warren after that first Super Tuesday. By the same logic that a vote for the Green or Libertarian parties (or a non-vote) is a vote for Trump in the general, a vote for one of the progressive candidates that was never going to be the nominee, especially after the point in the election where they literally had no path to victory, was a vote for the super PAC monolith that settled on Biden.

Edited by SaltyGnosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, aceluby said:

I've seen this "5%" argument quite a bit, and yet when a 3rd party has crossed this mythical threshold it has done absolutely nothing.  Voting 3rd party for the goal of maybe getting 5% of the vote when you agree with most of one of the major party candidates is frankly, stupid.

I think the point is to take little steps to make third parties more viable. Incrementalism, right?

If the Obama/Clinton mold of Democrat had ever really done anything of substance to move progressive values forward at all I might be more chagrined at pointing out the 5% threshold is mostly hypothetical. Shit, so is the public option on the ACA, and they've been promising that for over 12 years :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

I'd rather not have say, Ilhan Omar running against Ivanka Trump and whomever the Green Party candidate is in 2032. 

Honestly, Ivanka Trump would be a huge step to the Left for Republicans. She's basically a scumbag Democrat with a right-wing name. But as much as I'd love to vote for Omar, I don't think she can actually run for POTUS.

Sorry for multiple posts.

Edited by SaltyGnosis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

I think the point is to take little steps to make third parties more viable. Incrementalism, right?

If the Obama/Clinton mold of Democrat had ever really done anything of substance to move progressive values forward at all I might be more chagrined at pointing out the 5% threshold is mostly hypothetical. Shit, so is the public option on the ACA, and they've been promising that for over 12 years :dunno:

The little steps would be to get greens / socialists into local and state positions, build an actual base from the bottom up rather than the top down.  And change the way votes are allocated: going against two juggernauts in a first past the post is a great way to prevent progressive initiatives.  Sanders has done more to move the Dems left than [Nader] or Jesse Ventura ever did.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

Honestly, Ivanka Trump would be a huge step to the Left for Republicans. She's basically a scumbag Democrat with a right-wing name. But as much as I'd love to vote for Omar, I don't think she can actually run for POTUS.

Sorry for multiple posts.

Oh, right good point - but the point was that running two leftish candidates against one conservative one is a recipe for, as the Kurt Cobain dude would says, Bad Things.

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

No, Tulsi Gabbard had no chance of winning, neither did Elizabeth Warren after that first Super Tuesday. By the same logic that a vote for the Green or Libertarian parties (or a non-vote) is a vote for Trump in the general, a vote for one of the progressive candidates that was never going to be the nominee, especially after the point in the election where they literally had no path to victory, was a vote for the super PAC monolith that settled on Biden.

Warren dropped out two days after Super Tuesday.  I guess you could argue that any vote for her after she dropped out is a vote for centrism, but we're talking about a pretty negligible amount of support, aside from states that already had a lot of votes cast before March 5 (like Washington and Arizona). 

Sanders supporters pretty clearly wanted her to drop out before ST, but she felt she still had a narrow path to the nomination, and didn't want to.  Which is very much her right.

Edited by Maithanet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

If you think about it, the GOP has pretty much resigned itself to acquiring power through artful application of minority support. Their last two presidents were elected without winning the popular vote, and nobody expects that to change in 2020. Whenever they control legislatures, state or federal, it's often due to a gerrymander. They got a Supreme Court seat because of a Senate that is essentially minoritarian, and when they are out of power they use the filibuster to ensure they get back in. It's like Republicans don't even try to win over the majority of Americans; a strategic minority is just fine, by them.

That’s because they know they can’t, not consistently at least. Hence why they have fully embraced a tyranny of the minority strategy, with rules, fairness and ethics be damned.

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Fivethirtyeight article about Trump vs Biden TV spending.  Puts together the pieces I've seen elsewhere nicely.  Namely that under Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign was virtually out of money at the end of July, and thus had to dramatically scale down tv advertising in August and early September.  For May 5-July 28, the Trump campaign outspent Biden by huge margins in virtually every swing state.  In the three states with the most advertising (FL+PA+WI), there were almost 75k ads in that period, more than double Biden's number.  Since then it's been the reverse, 95k for Biden and 53k for Trump. 

At the very least, it is hard to look at those numbers and conclude that the Trump campaign is well run.  But then, we already knew that, right?

I know the Ad numbers look good, but are we overlooking the respective ground games? It’s been a bit, but last I heard Trump’s ground game was well established while Biden’s was nonexistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

I know the Ad numbers look good, but are we overlooking the respective ground games? It’s been a bit, but last I heard Trump’s ground game was well established while Biden’s was nonexistent.  

Biden is not doing door to door knocking because of COVID.  I support that, since I think engaging in activity like that is irresponsible.  But this is somewhat of an experiment on whether door knocking really works. 

I have been phonebanking for Biden and my impression is it's a pretty massive operation.  We're all hoping that helps fill in the gap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

No, Tulsi Gabbard had no chance of winning, neither did Elizabeth Warren after that first Super Tuesday.

If you're qualifying it by only counting candidates left after Super Tuesday, then the only choices literally are Biden, Sanders, and Gabbard.  That's an entirely disingenuous statement concerning the primary field that campaigned for over a year before Super Tuesday.  Klobuchar is a centrist, sure, and I suppose Buttigieg as well, but there were a lot of other candidates out there that simply didn't gain traction.  You're deliberately narrowing the field to make a fallacious point.

14 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Why not both?

Because if you're embezzling funds you're not being entirely negligent!

13 minutes ago, SaltyGnosis said:

I think the point is to take little steps to make third parties more viable. Incrementalism, right?

There's no incrementalism that's ever going to work in a first past the post electoral system.  Third parties either are subsumed by one of the two main parties, or replace one of the two main parties.

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It’s been a bit, but last I heard Trump’s ground game was well established while Biden’s was nonexistent.  

Biden is not canvassing, that's it.  I think it's the right move, and may well demonstrate how pointless it is knocking on doors for highly salient elections where most everyone has their mind made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, sologdin said:

"5%" argument quite a bit,

it was a thing in 2000; get gore elected and get nader FEC matching funds by voting along the lines of SG's advice, supra. not sure if it has done nothing--movements take time to develop.

has the punitive segment of third party voters otherwise been vindicated (as opposed to the parity segment and the purity segment)?  i.e., have they effectively punished the dems by withholding support from HRC, which caused her defeat and consequently induced a shift leftward by the defeated party? it is not obvious to me.  i do not think, say, that nader voters caused gore's defeat in any substantial manner, and i do not regard the candidates thereafter to have shifted meaningfully leftward in response in the next couple elections. has it happened however in 2016 and thereafter? not sure.

It actually happened  in 1992 and 1996.  We have data points as to what has actually happened and don't need to theorize about what could have been.  It apparently worked so well that those advocating for it now either don't even know or remember it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DMC said:

Because if you're embezzling funds you're not being entirely negligent!

Agree to disagree I guess :D.  I can easily see Brad Parscale and the Trump campaign both embezzeling funds (this isn't even up for debate - they were) AND being entirely negligent in their approach to allocating the remaining non-embezzled resources. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It actually happened  in 1992 and 1996.  We have data points as to what has actually happened and don't need to theorize about what could have been.  It apparently worked so well that those advocating for it now either don't even know or remember it happening.

Most of those advocating for it have a political memory starting in 2016. Blind faith of Saint Bernard is a shibboleth of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I can easily see Brad Parscale and the Trump campaign both embezzeling funds (this isn't even up for debate - they were) AND being entirely negligent in their approach to allocating the remaining non-embezzled resources. 

Well if you're gonna put it like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

It actually happened  in 1992 and 1996.  We have data points as to what has actually happened and don't need to theorize about what could have been.  It apparently worked so well that those advocating for it now either don't even know or remember it happening.

Not sure this is a great example, I think it was DMC(?) had some evidence that Perot pulled voters pretty evenly from both parties?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Not sure this is a great example, I think it was DMC(?) had some evidence that Perot pulled voters pretty evenly from both parties?

Why does where he pulled votes from matter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just here for a general remark/rant.

Anybody, who calls themselves politically left in the US, and has problem with voting for Biden as means to an end, namely voting an openly racist and fascist regime out of goverment, really does not deserve to call themselves left in any meaningful way.

You are not voting for Biden, ebcause his platform is not progressive. That basically means, you are not voting  against fasciscm, unless you get an incentive to vote for the non-fascist. Well then, you can fuck right off, and some more.

As for the dude bringing up Joe fucking Rogan and Tara Reade, that guy obviously has an agenda (namely wanting to get the orange one re-elected). The Reade allegations were looked into and dismissed. The racist in chief has now put the DOJ to work on his defense of yet another rape/sexual assault allegations. If you think there's a debate to be had, that both are the same, you can join the the wanna be lefties, who wouldn't vote against fascism, unless they get medicaid for all and also fuck off and some more.

Did I miss anything/anyone I really need to tell to fuck off?

*edit: Ofc Joe Rogan, not Seth. Thanks @DMC for the correction. Next time proof read before I post.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Fivethirtyeight article about Trump vs Biden TV spending.  Puts together the pieces I've seen elsewhere nicely.  Namely that under Brad Parscale, the Trump campaign was virtually out of money at the end of July, and thus had to dramatically scale down tv advertising in August and early September.  For May 5-July 28, the Trump campaign outspent Biden by huge margins in virtually every swing state.  In the three states with the most advertising (FL+PA+WI), there were almost 75k ads in that period, more than double Biden's number.  Since then it's been the reverse, 95k for Biden and 53k for Trump. 

At the very least, it is hard to look at those numbers and conclude that the Trump campaign is well run.  But then, we already knew that, right?

For the record, these Trump ads running in Wisconsin?  Beyond brutal. Every worst impulse of Michael Bay, JJ Abrams, and a couple other schlocky directors all crammed into miserable little 30 or 60 movie trailer like spectacle.  And I realize what they're meant to do, and I realize who they're for, but someone like me who sees through the projected hysteria and outright lies in them...they're painful to have to watch...they're all shock and awe gotcha videos of no substance.

At least the Biden ads are thoughtful and have some policy ideas in them, while at the same time pointing out the administration failures...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Just here for a general remark/rant.

Anybody, who calls themselves politically left in the US, and has problem with voting for Biden as means to an end, namely voting an openly racist and fascist regime out of goverment, really does not deserve to call themselves left in any meaningful way.

You are not voting for Biden, ebcause his platform is not progressive. That basically means, you are not voting  against fasciscm, unless you get an incentive to vote for the non-fascist. Well then, you can fuck right off, and some more.

As for the dude bringing up Seth fucking Rogan and Tara Reade, that guy obviously has an agenda (namely wanting to get the orange one re-elected). The Reade allegations were looked into and dismissed. The racist in chief has now put the DOJ to work on his defense of yet another rape/sexual assault allegations. If you think there's a debate to be had, that both are the same, you can join the the wanna be lefties, who wouldn't vote against fascism, unless they get medicaid for all and also fuck off and some more.

Did I miss anything/anyone I really need to tell to fuck off?

Who knows. You were super vague and passive aggressive. And I haven't seen anyone say they aren't voting for Biden, though I only half pay attention to some of you anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

For the record, these Trump ads running in Wisconsin?  Beyond brutal. Every worst impulse of Michael Bay, JJ Abrams, and a couple other schlocky directors all crammed into miserable little 30 or 60 movie trailer like spectacle.  And I realize what they're meant to do, and I realize who they're for, but someone like me who sees through the projected hysteria and outright lies in them...they're painful to have to watch...they're all shock and awe gotcha videos of no substance.

At least the Biden ads are thoughtful and have some policy ideas in them, while at the same time pointing out the administration failures...

I always wonder how effective these ads are.  But then I'm not their target audience, plus I don't even watch TV with ads anymore.   How much of the population are these types of ads even reaching at this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

though I only half pay attention to some of you anymore.

If you're too cool for school then stop raising your hand in the classroom.

15 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

As for the dude bringing up Seth fucking Rogan and Tara Reade

I've always thought Seth Rogen's stoner schtick was cliched and overrated - and his laugh unbearable, but let's not conflate him with Joe Rogan.  That's just mean to the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...