Support NeoGAF

[disastermouse]

Trying hard and accomplishing nothing results in absolutely nothing. Bernie wants to lead the country he's created in his mind. It's just not the United States of America. Hillary knows what she can accomplish. That's the stuff she's offering. Not a unicorn in every garage and a golden goose in every pot.

And, please, do not speak for the "left." I am the left. Just because I'm neither an ideologue nor willfully ignoring the political reality in this country doesn't make me less left wing than any one else.

We, literally, cannot allow ourselves to fall into the Tea Party "Not conservative enough" shit. It's absolutely ridiculous.

You're in the tank for Hillary Clinton, a center-left establishment Democrat. You. Are. Not. Left.

Or you're just confused about what the term means.

And yes, I believe that if Bernie is president and he can't pass some of his platform, it won't be for lack of desire. I absolutely do not and cannot assuage my doubt that if Hillary doesn't get something done that it's because she doesn't really want to get it done.

If the ACA isn't a stepping stone for single-payer, then it's an abject failure. If it does one worse and stands in the way of single-payer, better if it had never come to exist in the first place.

That's not Bernie's position, it's mine. That's what 'left' is, not some Overton-Window-deformed monstrosity that says 'as long as it's more liberal than the Republicans, it's left'.

 

[B-Dubs]

You're a Marxist though and decided out of the mainstream left of the country. So while you might be more left than the rest of the thread, you're way off the political reservation.

 

[User 463088]

You're in the tank for Hillary Clinton, a center-left establishment Democrat. You. Are. Not. Left.

Or you're just confused about what the term means.

And yes, I believe that if Bernie is president and he can't pass some of his platform, it won't be for lack of desire. I absolutely do not and cannot assuage my doubt that if Hillary doesn't get something done that it's because she doesn't really want to get it done.

If the ACA isn't a stepping stone for single-payer, then it's an abject failure. If it does one worse and stands in the way of single-payer, better if it had never come to exist in the first place.

That's not Bernie's position, it's mine. That's what 'left' is, not some Overton-Window-deformed monstrosity that says 'as long as it's more liberal than the Republicans, it's left'.

You know, you're absolutely right. I have absolutely no idea what my own political leanings are. If you could explain to me exactly what I should believe to consider myself sufficiently "left" for your definition, that would be just wonderful.

Bernsplain liberalism to me, please. Thank you.

Spoiler

That was sarcasm, FYI.

 

[disastermouse]

agreed. I've notice that too much in the Bernie/Hillary wars threads.

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

 

[User 463088]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

Are you going to hold your breath until we agree to vote for Bernie like some others have in other threads? That's called throwing a hissy fit. Good thing you didn't grow up in my house. I tried that shit when I was 3.

 

[Retromelon]

Basic logic, brah.

no shade, but this statement emphatically puts me in mind of this edgy teenage kid i know that thinks he's so special and says smarmy things like this all the time.

A new catchphrase is born

 

[Kangi]

Guess I'm not "left" anymore. Voting for someone further left than Obama makes me a moderate or something.

Or is "left" being taken alongside "establishment" in the land of words that have been sucked dry of all meaning?

 

[User 463088]

Guess I'm not "left" anymore. Voting for someone further left than Obama makes me a moderate or something.

We're both neo-cons now.

Bernie Sanders is the middle of the political spectrum. Anything to his right is now Hitler.

 

[East Lake]

Trying hard and accomplishing nothing results in absolutely nothing. Bernie wants to lead the country he's created in his mind. It's just not the United States of America. Hillary knows what she can accomplish. That's the stuff she's offering. Not a unicorn in every garage and a golden goose in every pot.

And, please, do not speak for the "left." I am the left. Just because I'm neither an ideologue nor willfully ignoring the political reality in this country doesn't make me less left wing than any one else.

We, literally, cannot allow ourselves to fall into the Tea Party "Not conservative enough" shit. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Defining yourself as "the left" seems to be plenty to put yourself in the ideologue category. Try looking in the mirror.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I know you guys don't think much of SA

It's not just PoliGAF, most people in this country don't think anything of SA because they don't even know it exists.

 

[Plumbob]

No one running for President is your friend. It's all about outcomes. Whether you're willing to play a high risk, high reward game depends on how strong your current standing is. I think it's a mistake to equate a candidates promise with a certain outcome.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Marxists on Twitter get weird sometime. Marxists journalists on Twitter constantly shit on anyone notable figure that says any positive thing about capitalism. There was a guy who kept shitting on Brianna Wu "ironically" for thinking that not all businesses are bad (after Wu has gone through 18 months of harassment) until he got permanently banned from Twitter and then all of his other journalist friends got super pissed off with fucking Glenn Greenwald going to bat for him. Wu is an anti-racism, super pro LGBT rights feminist who thinks that capitalism isn't horrible and these guys just went and pilled on her with abuse and then got mad when there were consequences...

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

............. No.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

You can't be serious with this. In the real world, demographis ensure the youth and black vote total % will be similar to 2012. And Hillary will win both handily. And she'll beat the republican nominee unless something extraordinary happens.

You gentlemen sound bitter and you haven't even lost yet.

 

[B-Dubs]

It's not just PoliGAF, most people in this country don't think anything of SA because they don't even know it exists.

Sexaholics Anonymous?

I'm usually pretty well versed in this shit and I have no idea what that even is.

Marxists on Twitter get weird sometime. Marxists journalists on Twitter constantly shit on anyone notable figure that says any positive thing about capitalism. There was a guy who kept shitting on Brianna Wu "ironically" for thinking that not all businesses are bad (after Wu has gone through 18 months of harassment) until he got permanently banned from Twitter and then all of his other journalist friends got super pissed off with fucking Glenn Greenwald going to bat for him. Wu is an anti-racism, super pro LGBT rights feminist who thinks that capitalism isn't horrible and these guys just went and pilled on her with abuse and then got mad when there were consequences...

Anecdotal, I know, but in my experience Marxists only really care about the class struggle and see all other fights as a part of it. Even when the issue in question has nothing to do with it.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

then maybe its time for the kids to grow up and understand that the world does not revolve around them. They cant get everything they want. They should have learned that at 5.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

Those groups should vote for who would be most likely to make better appointments than Obama did for key positions like AG, Treasury Secretary, and to the Fed. Appointments like that are a huge deal given the state of the poor and minorities these days.

 

[User 463088]

Defining yourself as "the left" seems to be plenty to put yourself in the ideologue category. Try looking in the mirror.

Oh come on now. I am part of the left of American politics. I am not the sole definition of liberalism in this country, nor would I ever presume to speak for those who consider themselves to be liberals. That is my point.

What I refuse to accept is to be told that I am not actually "left" because of some arbitrarily assigned category that is based solely around whatever position Bernie Sanders happens to have.

And, this entire debate is completely ridiculous. Why in the hell are we arguing about ideological purity anyway? Have we not seen what this has done to the GOP? This is the debate we want to have? Really?

 

[disastermouse]

You know, you're absolutely right. I have absolutely no idea what my own political leanings are. If you could explain to me exactly what I should believe to consider myself sufficiently "left" for your definition, that would be just wonderful.

Bernsplain liberalism to me, please. Thank you.

Spoiler

That was sarcasm, FYI.

Why don't you gay-splain to me again why Hillary is so star-spangled awesome and that I'm throwing my vote away if I don't vote for the Democrat no-matter-what and 'oh-my-gawd-Republicanz-and-you're-selfish-if-you-don't-vote-for-my-candidate'?

And I'm sorry but 'vote for the Democrat no matter what' is not sufficient to call yourself liberal, regardless of whether you're part of a historically oppressed minority or not - especially when the whole political conversation has shifted quite steadily to the right over the last 30-40 years. Bill Clinton's 'end of welfare as we know it' was NOT a liberal position. NAFTA was not a liberal position (unless you count neoliberal economics, which is a totally different thing), TPP is not a liberal position. Unlawful invasion of privacy and 'security at any cost' is not a liberal position. Increased deportation of the undocumented is not a liberal position. All of this under Democrat presidents. All of this under a tribal philosophy of 'Hey, at least our team won, right?'

So no. You don't get to back a center-barely-left candidate and say you're a liberal just because she likes 'the gays'. I mean, not enough to not have to 'evolve' her position on gay marriage shockingly recently (and yeah, I understand that gay marriage isn't the only issue of fairness that our gay brothers and sisters have to deal with, but it is a significant bellwether of support).

When crazy circumstances push the Overton Window even further to the right and Hillary 'goes with the flow' like she always does, and you STILL back her because, 'Hey, our team, right?' - well, pardon me if the rest of the left doesn't just go along because 'at least she's not a Republican, amirite?'

 

[Ogrekiller]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

Because people can work out the difference between an unlikely longshot that could nevertheless pull off the upset, and a literal impossibility that would guarantee a Republican win. This is a really boring conversation now because the point is obvious and your ability not to understand it baffling.

.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Sexaholics Anonymous?

I'm usually pretty well versed in this shit and I have no idea what that even is.

Socialist Alternative

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

Then you deserve President Trump.

 

[B-Dubs]

Socialist Alternative

Didn't even know that existed. Somehow I don't think them calling for a boycott of the election will matter at all.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

as though a million "ironic" accounts cried out "how dare you intimate that bernie sanders supporters are personally unpleasant on twitter"

https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/691067217518030848

Really though, there's some guys that are just super fucked up on the far left. Jeb Lund of the Guardian and Rolling Stone constantly attacks another journalist behind his back because the Canadian journalist likes to overanalyze things on Twitter sometimes. Not sure what I think about the fact that the journalists that support Bernie most on Twitter are the types like Lund and Greenwald.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Obama went out and campaigned for Democrats in 2006. He courted these folks. Bernie did not campaign for like minded socialist like himself in 2014.

 

[AntoneM]

Not voting out of spite is about the most millennial thing I can think of.

 

[disastermouse]

.

He didn't say what you think he said. He's right. A LOT of people will just pull the 'D' lever for Hillary.

Just not enough of them.

A lot of the Bernie folks will go along to get along and vote tribally. But don't think you'll get Obama levels of enthusiasm or turnout - and you NEED Obama levels of enthusiasm and turnout.

And I will laugh when the Republicans steal Ohio (again) because it'll be close enough to be feasible and Trump shows her up as a faux liberal and you lose the left.

And of course you'll lose. You're Democrats! I mean, you ALMOST made this mistake in 2008, but the kids and liberals showed up and who in the party wouldn't get behind 'first black president'? It plays right into liberal guilt! There's not so much of that pushing 'first madam president' for whatever reason.

 

[User 463088]

Why don't you gay-splain to me again why Hillary is so star-spangled awesome and that I'm throwing my vote away if I don't vote for the Democrat no-matter-what and 'oh-my-gawd-Republicanz-and-you're-selfish-if-you-don't-vote-for-my-candidate'?

And I'm sorry but 'vote for the Democrat no matter what' is not sufficient to call yourself liberal, regardless of whether you're part of a historically oppressed minority or not - especially when the whole political conversation has shifted quite steadily to the right over the last 30-40 years. Bill Clinton's 'end of welfare as we know it' was NOT a liberal position. NAFTA was not a liberal position (unless you count neoliberal economics, which is a totally different thing), TPP is not a liberal position. Unlawful invasion of privacy and 'security at any cost' is not a liberal position. Increased deportation of the undocumented is not a liberal position. All of this under Democrat presidents. All of this under a tribal philosophy of 'Hey, at least our team won, right?'

So no. You don't get to back a center-barely-left candidate and say you're a liberal just because she likes 'the gays'. I mean, not enough to not have to 'evolve' her position on gay marriage shockingly recently (and yeah, I understand that gay marriage isn't the only issue of fairness that our gay brothers and sisters have to deal with, but it is a significant bellwether of support).

When crazy circumstances push the Overton Window even further to the right and Hillary 'goes with the flow' like she always does, and you STILL back her because, 'Hey, our team, right?' - well, pardon me if the rest of the left doesn't just go along because 'at least she's not a Republican, amirite?'

Number one, I am not my sexuality. Thank you. For someone who claims to be so left, such a statement is, quite simply, offensive to me. But, you're welcome to be as offensive as you please. I'm used to having to defend my sexuality, but it's always nice when someone who is trumping how liberal they are uses it to attack my positions.

I don't think I've ever called someone selfish for refusing to vote for who I think is the best choice. By all means, vote for whoever the hell you want. However, if your goal is to see Bernie's policies passed, and your candidate loses, the logical step is to find the next closest alternative that has a realistic chance of winning. I think someone who supports Bernie in the primary and not Hillary in the General is wrong, and I'll gladly explain why.

But, you're right about something. I'm not one of those people who can afford to tie myself to ideological purity. A Republican gets in, and your life may not change that much. That's great. I'm legitimately happy for you. But for me, not just because I'm gay but because of a myriad of other reasons, my life could go to hell in a hand basket. I don't get that luxary. I'm glad you do, really. No t, no shade, no pink lemonade.

I have never once claimed to personally support a single one of the things you posted. In fact, some of them have hurt me personally. Again, though, you're taking your definition of left and saying anyone who doesn't meet that arbitrarily defined version is not left. That is false. I do not vote for Democrats to prove that I am a liberal. I vote for Democrats BECAUSE I am a liberal. And, no, the Party is not always right. It's still the best chance we have to make actual change and progress.

The point of being a progressive is progress, isn't it? Or is it ideological purity?

 

[Ogrekiller]

He didn't say what you think he said. He's right. A LOT of people will just pull the 'D' lever for Hillary.

Just not enough of them.

A lot of the Bernie folks will go along to get along and vote tribally. But don't think you'll get Obama levels of enthusiasm or turnout - and you NEED Obama levels of enthusiasm and turnout.

And I will laugh when the Republicans steal Ohio (again) because it'll be close enough to be feasible and Trump shows her up as a faux liberal and you lose the left.

And of course you'll lose. You're Democrats! I mean, you ALMOST made this mistake in 2008, but the kids and liberals showed up and who in the party wouldn't get behind 'first black president'? It plays right into liberal guilt! There's not so much of that pushing 'first madam president' for whatever reason.

I don't have to. I already proved my point.

 

[disastermouse]

Not voting out of spite is about the most millennial thing I can think of.

And they sure are going to love being told that! Along with being told that they're not buying houses and starting families fast enough and that they're so entitled and that they are the worst generation ever.

Keep playing that card. It's not like low turnout has ever completely fucked the Democratic Party (except for all of those midterms).

(I'm 41, by the way.)

 

[eBay Huckster]

Not voting out of spite is about the most Marxist thing I can think of.

ftfy

Socialist Alternative

either that or Something Awful

 

[PantherLotus]

Holy shit this is a madhouse.

 

[dramatis]

Today I learned that Hillary won a Grammy back in the day

Also found this hilarious pic from 1992 where Bill was sweating his organs out and Hillary just looked completely chill

 

[NYCmetsfan]

So I was walking back from getting more yuengling™ and randomly saw chuck schumer being interviewed

I made a gif

Copyright poligaf

 

[NeoXChaos]

And they sure are going to love being told that! Along with being told that they're not buying houses and starting families fast enough and that they're so entitled and that they are the worst generation ever.

Keep playing that card. It's not like low turnout has ever completely fucked the Democratic Party (except for all of those midterms).

(I'm 41, by the way.)

Marxist? you said democrat earlier:

You should be concerned - I've been a party voter my entire life. I've never taken this position before and I'm 40 years old. I've never been a Libertarian or supported Libertarians like Rand/Ron and I have vociferous arguments with stupid millenials who fail to realize that Libertarianism makes no sense on even a very surface level.

I've been the guy making the arguments you're making here and I don't think I can vote for Hillary. If she's lost me - a diehard democrat, you should be worried.

Seems you are sure of a non-vote from earlier:

As much as I don't want to vote for Hillary, I suspect I'll have a crisis of conscience at the last moment.

I also realize that because I live in Madison, my refusal to vote for her won't make any difference. Whomever the democrat in the general ends up being will win here.

I only recently moved (back) to Wisconsin and the last time I lived here was 1998. Is WI winner take all?

 

[Y2Kev]

Hey so can you guys tone it down with the identity gafitics. It's getting nasty.

 

[East Lake]

Oh come on now. I am part of the left of American politics. I am not the sole definition of liberalism in this country, nor would I ever presume to speak for those who consider themselves to be liberals. That is my point.

What I refuse to accept is to be told that I am not actually "left" because of some arbitrarily assigned category that is based solely around whatever position Bernie Sanders happens to have.

And, this entire debate is completely ridiculous. Why in the hell are we arguing about ideological purity anyway? Have we not seen what this has done to the GOP? This is the debate we want to have? Really?

You also seem to have disdain for any candidate who's running that might not win. Maybe you just don't like ordinary people being involved in politics?

The difference between the left and the right is that the wealthy have actively encouraged the tea party, and now they've lost control of the party, while the wealthy left haven't encouraged more liberal candidates, and it came back to bite them as they haven't had their interests in mind when governing, knowing they were out there and increasingly desperate.

 

[Armaros]

You also seem to have disdain for any candidate who's running that might not win. Maybe you just don't like ordinary people being involved in politics?

The difference between the left and the right is that the wealthy have actively encouraged the tea party, and now they've lost control of the party, while the wealthy left haven't encouraged more liberal candidates, and it came back to bite them as they haven't had their interests in mind when governing, knowing they were out there and increasingly desperate.

Maybe when people use the term 'gay-splaining' in trying to accuse someone of not being liberal enough, i am pretty sure that is offensive and makes you not like a group of people.

Painting a brush on a large group of people for the actions of a few or not.


And a crusade of ideological purity and demonizing anyone that doesn't fit any given criteria is going to cause rifts, no matter how 'pure' someones intentions are. I wish Bernie Supporters would understand that. To try to do anything else is making excuses so you can be shitty to people you don't agree with and still be on a high horse.

 

[User 463088]

You also seem to have disdain for any candidate who's running that might not win. Maybe you just don't like ordinary people being involved in politics?

The difference between the left and the right is that the wealthy have actively encouraged the tea party, and now they've lost control of the party, while the wealthy left haven't encouraged more liberal candidates, and it came back to bite them as they haven't had their interests in mind when governing, knowing they were out there and increasingly desperate.

So, I'm now literally an oligarch.

I've supported many a candidate who I know is going to lose. Quite a few, actually. A few months ago, I was talking about our local mayoral race I was involved in. Dude was always going to lose. I knew it. He knew it. Everyone who volunteered knew it. I still was engaged, though. And, ya, we didn't win.

Edit: And, this may be a failing on my part. I'm a realist when it comes to politics and nearly everything else.

I have no issue whatsoever with anyone who wants to get involved in politics. I think more people should. However, I also feel that it's important to be realistic about a candidate's chances. Pointing out flaws or issues is not being disdainful. It's just showing where that person is weak compared to the rest of the field.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I might be less inclined to vote straight ticket D if there were a viable progressive third party option, or at least a version of the Republicans that wasn't fucking insane (Bloomberg would actually be okay with me). There is not.

 

[disastermouse]

Number one, I am not my sexuality. Thank you. For someone who claims to be so left, such a statement is, quite simply, offensive to me. But, you're welcome to be as offensive as you please. I'm used to having to defend my sexuality, but it's always nice when someone who is trumping how liberal they are uses it to attack my positions.

I don't think I've ever called someone selfish for refusing to vote for who I think is the best choice. By all means, vote for whoever the hell you want. However, if your goal is to see Bernie's policies passed, and your candidate loses, the logical step is to find the next closest alternative that has a realistic chance of winning. I think someone who supports Bernie in the primary and not Hillary in the General is wrong, and I'll gladly explain why.

But, you're right about something. I'm not one of those people who can afford to tie myself to ideological purity. A Republican gets in, and your life may not change that much. That's great. I'm legitimately happy for you. But for me, not just because I'm gay but because of a myriad of other reasons, my life could go to hell in a hand basket. I don't get that luxary. I'm glad you do, really. No t, no shade, no pink lemonade.

I have never once claimed to personally support a single one of the things you posted. In fact, some of them have hurt me personally. Again, though, you're taking your definition of left and saying anyone who doesn't meet that arbitrarily defined version is not left. That is false. I do not vote for Democrats to prove that I am a liberal. I vote for Democrats BECAUSE I am a liberal. And, no, the Party is not always right. It's still the best chance we have to make actual change and progress.

The point of being a progressive is progress, isn't it? Or is it ideological purity?

So is being easily offended more or less 'so millennial' than not voting out of spite? (Yeah, I know that wasn't you.)

You may not support those positions - hell, I am counting on the fact that you don't support those positions! I disagree with you on tactics. Under no circumstances do I think that, had either of us our druthers, that we wouldn't want very similar things for our country! I want homosexuality so normalized that even the back-woodsiest of bible-thumping rednecks doesn't bat an eyelash at gay couples openly making out at the local 7-11. I want black and brown folks to feel as though they can be reasonably certain that they can't be killed wantonly by a police force that carries equipment suitable for navy seals. I want women to finally, finally be paid equally to men for the same work. I desperately want a sane immigration policy, not one that punishes people for coming to a better life but doesn't punish the companies that hire them without insurance, workplace protections, and for vastly lower wages than documented workers.

I've been dealing with this shit since Reagan and voting since Clinton. Not a single one of these sonsabitches has done a single thing to prevent the boa-constrictor-like suffocation of a steady rightward erosion of all of these issues. And every gawdamned time I've consoled myself with 'Hey, we got the best we could get'. We got Clinton! We got Obama! And we're re-litigating access to birth control for fuck's sake! In 2016!

Treading water and saying it's the best we can do is simply not good enough anymore. I've already lived through voting for the best possible choice out of a beggar's hand. I'm not going to keep doing it because it doesn't fucking work! I know this game and it's a shitty game and we never ever win because we don't play to win, we play to not lose!

I've seen what pragmatism gets us. I've seen it for 35 years. You can poo-poo the Republicans for holding to ideology because they're finally reaping a small punishment for over-reaching, but they've kept us locked in place or receding for the last 35 years. They didn't do that by voting for 'conservative enough. They have been playing to win and we've been playing not to lose.

And we're getting killed.

 

[Iolo]

Cool. Prepare to lose in the general when the kids and enough of the rest of the left simply fail to show up at the polls.

I know you guys don't think much of SA, but they're going to be specifically calling on the left to refuse to vote for Hillary. They are already doing it. They'll be reaching out to BLM to implore them to do the same thing. They'll be asking their connections in YGB to abstain as well.

Hillary Clinton will lose the general.

Question, what is SA and YGB? Some kind of Internet thing? A Tobias Fünke dozens of us thing, maybe?

Also the last couple days in here have been kind of crazy, primary season is truly upon us once again

 

[Coriolanus]

I feel like making a terrible analogy, and no, i haven't started drinking. yet.

Grassroots are called grassroots for a reason. Much like grass, every once in a while you have to trim it, otherwise it gets too fucking thick and wild and then you'll have to take far more drastic measures. key word: trim. Not raze. Not scorch. Not "yknow what, dirt is fine. I like dirt. I trust dirt. Dirt never shot my dog". Trim. Republicans let their garden run wild and now they got ebola-spreading aedes aegypti flying around in that god damned thing (yes, i know they grow on still bodies of water and not on grass, shut up). Democrats, however, chose to try growing theirs, then when maintenance time came they went "fuck this, life's too short for this bs and i dont wanna spend money hiring illegal immigrants".

Right, i gotta tie this to extremist rethoric somehow, so... imagine it is water. Yeah. That works. So anyway, put too much thing in the other thing and the thing dies or goes crazy.

And of course you'll lose. You're Democrats! I mean, you ALMOST made this mistake in 2008, but the kids and liberals showed up and who in the party wouldn't get behind 'first black president'? It plays right into liberal guilt! There's not so much of that pushing 'first madam president' for whatever reason.

Oh hey.
Someone as crazy as the guy that wanted Sanders to run Independent.

Cmon mate, you can't possibly actually believe that the reason Obama took the genelec was in no small part due to white guilt

 

[Basileus777]

I've seen what pragmatism gets us. I've seen it for 35 years. You can poo-poo the Republicans for holding to ideology because they're finally reaping a small punishment for over-reaching, but they've kept us locked in place or receding for the last 35 years. They didn't do that by voting for 'conservative enough. They have been playing to win and we've been playing not to lose.

And we're getting killed.

The Republicans haven't done any of that by staying home or voting 3rd party. They've worked the shitty electoral system this country has from within a major party.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

Word is that crying @glennbeck left the GOP and doesn't have the right to vote in the Republican primary. Dumb as a rock.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I want homosexuality so normalized that even the back-woodsiest of bible-thumping rednecks doesn't bat an eyelash at gay couples openly making out at the local 7-11. I want black and brown folks to feel as though they can be reasonably certain that they can't be killed wantonly by a police force that carries equipment suitable for navy seals. I want women to finally, finally be paid equally to men for the same work. I desperately want a sane immigration policy, not one that punishes people for coming to a better life but doesn't punish the companies that hire them without insurance, workplace protections, and for vastly lower wages than documented workers.

I've been dealing with this shit since Reagan and voting since Clinton. Not a single one of these sonsabitches has done a single thing to prevent the boa-constrictor-like suffocation of a steady rightward erosion of all of these issues. And every gawdamned time I've consoled myself with 'Hey, we got the best we could get'. We got Clinton! We got Obama! And we're re-litigating access to birth control for fuck's sake! In 2016!

Treading water and saying it's the best we can do is simply not good enough anymore. I've already lived through voting for the best possible choice out of a beggar's hand. I'm not going to keep doing it because it doesn't fucking work! I know this game and it's a shitty game and we never ever win because we don't play to win, we play to not lose!

I've seen what pragmatism gets us. I've seen it for 35 years. You can poo-poo the Republicans for holding to ideology because they're finally reaping a small punishment for over-reaching, but they've kept us locked in place or receding for the last 35 years. They didn't do that by voting for 'conservative enough. They have been playing to win and we've been playing not to lose.

And we're getting killed.

This is a very misguided view of the last 50 years IMO. Its a literal mirror of how the tea party views the same time period.

We have a political system, there are constraints. Ignoring them or pretending a revolution is around the corner is hoping for something that isn't going to come.

The only two wholesale revolutions that actual changed the fundamental order of things were probably the french and russian. Both killed a lot of people and failed. Every other has basically been musical chairs. Real change as often come about through dogged effort pressure and working the system. It doesn't come from wishing and hoping hard enough or voting in one person.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Mr. Cruz became devoted to Mr. Luttig, whom Mr. Cruz has described as “like a father to me.” During his clerkship, he presented his boss with a caricature of him and other clerks pulling a stagecoach driven by the judge. According to someone who saw the illustration, there was a graveyard behind them with headstones representing the number of people executed in their jurisdiction that year.

*Chuckles uncomfortably while the fear of the fact that he'll be the nominee in 2020 increases since who knows what could happen in the next four years*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/u...d-cruz-made-death-penalty-his-cause.html?_r=0

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Poligaf is in rare form today.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Oh hey.
Someone as crazy as the guy that wanted Sanders to run Independent.

Cmon mate, you can't possibly actually believe that the reason Obama took the genelec was in no small part due to white guilt

Hahaha.

I never wanted Sanders to run as an Independent. But from a purely logical standpoint it would be the most obvious route for him to take.

He should have done it in 08, when the Democrats had control of the house and senate.

He should do it in 24, when all the Boomers die off so neither Hillary nor the Republicans can count on the old vote to bail her out.

But to run NOW, well that was what it is.

 

[sc0la]

Hey guys any new campaign trail memes or trump sayi...

*looks around, slowly backs out of thread*

 

[Kangi]

So is being easily offended more or less 'so millennial' than not voting out of spite? (Yeah, I know that wasn't you.)

Reducing someone to the fact that they're gay with a childish crack like "gay-splain" and then calling them too easily offended when they get upset.

With "allies" like these...