Accelerationism doesn't work.
The South Carolina Primary & Nevada Caucuses |Feb 20, 23, 27| Continuing The Calm
- Thread starter NeoXChaos
- Start date
- Status
Accelerationism doesn't work.
As a Black guy who has like a third/half of their family being practitioners of the faith of Islam, I appreciate your mentality and commitment to the cause.
No actually, I really don't. I thought you were a cool guy Chindogg :/
googleplex
Member
Then you never really cared about the issues effecting the country.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
SC TOO CLOSE TO CALL as polls close (MSNBC)
Colonel Mustard
Banned
You've put this to words nicely and it reflects how I feel as well. Though I'll probably just end up throwing my vote away in the general as a write in.
Edit: Unless the republican nominee is Trump. Then I'll bite my tongue and vote for Hillary.
Black Republican
Member
Jeb 2nd tier already
RPGCrazied
Member
This is also important to keep in mind. Stagnant progress during the Obama era is not because of centrist Democrats, it's because of obstructionist Republicans bolstered by gerrymandering and low Dem voter turnouts in midterm elections.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
If people got rid of the notion that only presidential year elections matters is the reason we have to vote for the lesser evil. State elections mattered immensely.
Democrats not turning out during the midterms directly led to this batshit crazy Republican field that actually has a chance of winning.
Obama would've been a really progressive president if he'd had a friendlier congress.
baxter2231
Member
Luck for him there is no 3rd tier
So screw over minorities and LGBT members just because? That doesn't help anything and just makes things even worse.
Not even that.
Orbis Tabula
Member
Where are you guys watching the results?
RPGCrazied
Member
Not to long ago he was up by 16 points, so this is good news!
Jeb is a mess.
He probably thought that the Democratic party was the only way to get notoriety in our horrible two party system with a large voter base, and thought the Dems were best suited to that. He agreed with them more generally after all, even it was the lefter side, and he didn't think the Dems at the top would be as shitty as they have been at Democracy.
Of course now, if i was him i'd probably run full scale as an independent if he loses the nom and continue to run to take away Hillary's fire throughout the country. If this party is going to run this way, he has to let everyone know that depending on the two party system (be it dem or GOP) to fight for what's right isn't going to happen.
And its just as well, i don't think Hillary would win if it was a two person race anyway, just cause she can't keep her story straight for 2 seconds
So I should just implicitly trust someone with several ties to corporate America to appoint justices that are actually going to be friendly to consumer and workers' rights?
Yeah sorry I can't do it. I won't vote for a Republican but I'm not supporting the corporate owned status quo.
Dr. Benton Quest
Banned
I want the Bern man to win too bud, but I'll vote for whoever is going to put liberal judges on federal courts. That's where all the real change happens.
If you care about liberal issues, please vote for the liberal candidate.
Even further:
- everything "burns down," as these special temper tantrum folks say
- while everything burns down, the GOP president stacks the judiciary
- in a backlash, the general electorate manages to elects a Bernie 2.0 candidate
- every achievement of Bernie 2.0 is immediately challenged and strangled by the GOP-appointed judiciary
Really bright, guys. Really.
Jeb is a waste
Because Bernie people are "excited" for him. Excitement plays better for caucuses supposedly because it requires more work than just pulling a lever or pressing a button. Also Obama did really well in the caucus states during the 2008 primaries and the excitement was with him as well.
GoldenEye 007
Member
The polls just closed. I don't think they would have nearly enough data to actually know anything.
Grover Cleveland
Member
Yoda
Member
Primary = larger voter base -> thus voters who aren't politicos -> biased towards candidates with more name recognition -> No one has more name recognition than Hillary Clinton in politics.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Reagan rocketed to 60+% after the 1988 election, literally while he was a lame duck president.
At this point in the year he was at 50%.
So basically you want the Supreme Court to lean right for decades, and minorities to be screwed over for the next 4 years?
RPGCrazied
Member
Carson, Bush, Kaicsh with 7% so far.
Lol, just end it
Lol, just end it
The Lamonster
Member
This is the dark side to the Bernie message. You've got kids who won't accept anybody who isn't Benrie himself who think "establishment" is a bad word. It's basically disillusioning young voters when democrats should be doing exactly the opposite.
Yea but then they say too early to call not too close
Nbc has been hinting at this for a few hours
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I understand the feeling of being an optimistic voter hoping to change the world in one fell swoop (I was there once), but that's just not how it happens 99% of the time. This is especially true in America, where the system is set up to block change that may come about from "flavor of the moment" national issues.
It's why people are saying Bernie, if elected, wouldn't be able to pass any of the far left things he's promising. The Republican Congress would stop him. And even if he somehow got a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, he'd still never pass most of his pet issues. The ACA, which Sanders supporters now rally against as "watered down healthcare," literally passed by the slimmest of slim margins in a Congress held by Democrats. Sanders' proposals would fall on deaf ears unless literally every seat in Congress was deep, deep blue.
As much as Sanders supporters want to demonize 90s politicians (meaning Bill Clinton), what occurred there--while imperfect-- laid the groundwork for much of the progress we see today and will continue to see. DADT in the military normalized the idea of gay people serving, which led to homosexuality being viewed as completely normal by a majority of Americans. It wasn't like that in the 90s. Bill Clinton never would've gotten elected if he'd come out in support of homosexuality back then. It took time. It took work. And it took comprise.
I know that's a dirty word to many millennials, but compromise is what makes up the vast majority of politics. We all want change. We all want it right now. But in time, you learn that change takes work. Not because people don't know how to push things through, but because they literally can't. Our system of government doesn't allow it.
If you want the country to continue moving forward, bite the bullet. Otherwise, we lose all of the progress we've made recently. You say you want the Republicans to burn it down, but with so much on the line (including the Supreme Court, where decisions made in the next four years as to who sits on the bench will last for decades), it's not worth it.
If you're a liberal and you care about your fellow citizens (particularly the marginalized), vote Democrat.
Here's the reality of it: if Hillary gets the nomination and liberals sit out the general because of it, they help the Republicans, who then get to put 2-3 SCOTUS justices on the bench that will guarantee further corporate control over campaign financing and policymaking, as well as the erosion of voting and working rights, for the next several decades. Your cause will be lost for a whole generation or two because you didn't get everything you wanted in a presidential candidate that one time.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I hope you'll be happy in 20 years when, after working for over a hundred years to get national healthcare passed through all three branches of government, it gets struck down due to the deciding vote of the two Supreme Court justices that the Republican president elected this year put in.
I can't stress enough how absolutely selfish this line of thinking is. It's also counter productive and will do nothing but hurt the causes you believe in.
titiklabingapat
Member
Republican response to Hillary's win:
This should speak volumes on which candidate the Republicans would rather run against in November.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Exactly.
It proves the old Republican line that "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."
RPGCrazied
Member
How long does it take for them to get the final numbers? Couple hours?
This is the mentality that could get trump elected and set us back 30 years.
Think beyond being upset about details of the non. I would have hoped things like this whole Supreme Court justice nomination thing would squash your type of thinking. Who gives a fuck about whether or not Clinton is the perfect candidate. Think instead on who you'd like to appoint the next justice (or similar important decisions)... Clinton with a democratic administration? Or trump, with Palin and Fox News approval
"Burning to the ground" is not something corrected in a year. It can set shit in motion that can't be changed for 10-20 years
Wafflecakes
Member
Lol. Stop it with this silly season BS.
Yoda
Member
No they shouldn't, questioning a system which is progressively becoming more hostile towards them (college tuition, lack of career starting jobs, price of housing, etc...) is rational behavior. "Getting in line" is not. If she isn't pressed on said issues she has no incentive to not cater to special interests as they currently fund the majority of her campaign.
You can't have it both ways. "Lose all the progress we've made" because a Democrat fails to win the executive branch for a single election cycle? Yet you claim the system is designed to be slow and hard to change, thus it should be hard to change in both directions by your logic. The one thing Republicans have done better than Democrats is that they stand by their core principles more often and as a result they've dragged what was the center of our country's political dialogue to the right, and thus the rest of the left with it. Compare the amount of times Republicans tell themselves "you need to just accept it and move on" (the debt ceiling for example). Short term they lose and lose badly, long-term they win. Why? Because the argument then becomes about how much of the government do we need to cut, how much lower can entitlements go? During the debt ceiling crisis anyone who argued for expanded government was instantly labelled as ludicrous by even the "liberal" media. Whats the victory in winning the argument if the opposition decides what 90% of the debates will be about?
One point on health-care. Obama took the "pragmatic" approach to the ACA and got dragged over the coals, had no room to reverse as he'd already shown his hand, and we traded helping the uninsured (a very noble worthwhile cause) with entrenching insurance companies, which have and will continue to inflate the price of health-care to where it's barely affordable for the overwhelming majority of the country. Compromises aren't intrinsically bad, but they do have repercussions.
Roland_Gunner
Member
The article you cited gives some reasons why Sanders may pull through in the general against someone like Trump or Cruz. Its possible! But even that article concedes that we've never elected a radical as President in US history. So how can you say its "ridiculous" to think that some that never happened before HAS to happen here? The most likely path to victory for the Dems is to elect another moderate liberal who can keep moving the country on the path we're on with Obama.
What I like about that is that it brings some Bernie supporters to the far-left.
You'll note: they have NO answer to this point.
Tells you how allegedly serious they are about Bernie's long-term vision. They're happy to sentence it to death.
- Status