• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Democratic Presidential Primaries & Caucuses |March OT| Last Tuesday was 1000 years ago, old news no one cares about (Discussion Guidelines in OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Equippedwithtowel

Equippedwithtowel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
Mercury Fred said:
Your use of the word nuance is key. There's a way to discuss Pete without comparing him to a serial killer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
there is but unfortunately you can't gatekeep discourse like that

it's always proved self defeating, it's attacking the symptoms and not the cause

it's actually kind of gross to say that a queer person (who might not be a well off cis white man like pete) say like an economically precarious trans person is upholding homophobia by expressing the sentiment that the first person to claim some form of representation for lgbt individuals running for the most powerful office in the world displays a disturbing amorality through his record and words

if that's not what you meant then that's okay but i can connect you with some trans activists who can confirm that is their belief if it helps.
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
lmcfigs said:
I think there are probably some good arguments for voting for Biden over Bernie - mostly due to his actual performance results in the primary. "People were mean to me online, so I can't support good policies", is pathetic and insulting no matter how many times you restate it. That's a lot of people's lives you're throwing under the bus because of being petty.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sometimes you just have to accept that the world sucks and operate within its framework. It doesn't matter if it is stupid that people make decisions based on the behavior of people online. They do it anyway and all you can do is work with that understanding and adjust your approach. Obama's election was at risk because he didn't want to wear a stupid flag lapel pin. Did he dig in and whine about how ridiculous that is until he lost? No, he wore it for 8 years because tough shit, life isn't fair
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
V_Arnold said:
Get the hell out with these garbage accusations, honestly.
Imagine if the roles were reversed.

Bernie fails to win a single state.
He hovers at 6-7%.
Warren is at 30%. She needs his support.
And Bernie goes on Rachel Maddow, and says: "I dunno, I keep getting big nose emojis and anti-semitic messages on twitter. I NEED SPACE.".
Then he goes to the SNL.


This is unimaginable bullshit. Bernie would back Warren in a reverse situation in a heartbeat, and you know it as well. This has nothing to do with their sex. Nothing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unless he felt like he could better forward the progressive agenda by not doing that. Your stance is that your stance is the only possible right answer and screw what she might think.

If she believes progressive policy ideas have a better chance this way, what would you say? You can't claim she's working against progressive ideals in the case, only that you disagree with her method. But instead you go for this route and leave her no chance in your mind that she understands what she's doing. Weird.
 

Wordballoons

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
1,061
Kirblar said:
Funny how when anyone doesn't endorse Bernie it's because of the "pharma lobby" or a lack of "class solidarity." Everyone who doesn't endorse is immediately doing it because they're a sellout.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
clyburn actually collected more pharmaceutical money than anyone else in the house and senate according to that article I linked to from a South Carolina newspaper a few pages back. I'm not naive enough to think it's the only reason, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was some of the reason. I think it's fair to assume he wouldnt endorse Bernie because of it - but I do think there was a possibility he wouldn't endorse Biden and just sit out (like Harry Reid).
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
V_Arnold said:
Pete is a racist scumbag though who actually worked for McKinsey. Lets get real. Its as if no one would be able to criticize Milo. Everyone should criticise him, no matter his sexual identity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Right, so this is a straw man: I have stated over and over to be critical of Pete. Of course his sexuality doesn't give him a pass on being criticized. No one is saying that.

And comparing Pete to Milo, really? I mean I'm not even going to dignify that with more than an lol.

This shouldn't be that difficult-- be critical of Pete all day, every day if you want. But it's possible to do it in a way that doesn't perpetuate ugly, homophobic tropes.

Equippedwithtowel said:
there is but unfortunately you can't gatekeep discourse like that

it's always proved self defeating, it's attacking the symptoms and not the cause

it's actually kind of gross to say that a queer person (who might not be a well off cis white man like pete) say like an economically precarious trans person is upholding homophobia by expressing the sentiment that the first person to claim some form of representation for lgbt individuals running for the most powerful office in the world displays a disturbing amorality through his record and words

if that's not what you meant then that's okay but i can connect you with some trans activists who can confirm that is their belief if it helps.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pointing out homophobic tropes =/= "gatekeeping discourse"

I mean by that logic, you could defend criticism of racist stereotypes as "gatekeeping discourse." It would be ludicrous to do it around those just as it is to do it around these.

I am in no way saying not to be critical of Pete. What I am saying is that perpetuating homophobic tropes is fucked up and they'd be fucked up even if a struggling trans activist pushed them.
 
lmcfigs

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
Kirblar said:
And why would people believe him after he said the same thing last time and then tried to outright repeal the ACA with no replacement?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
that's true. he has lost a lot of credibility. (also it was all hypothetical - Trump has been teasing a healthcare plan for almost 4 years now... but I doubt he'd actually change much at all)
 
The Adder

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,130
V_Arnold said:
Bernie would back Warren in a reverse situation in a heartbeat, and you know it as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, Sanders has bad political instincts. We know that very well. This isn't a game of "but I would do it for you." This is public policy and Warren wants to actually do something instead of just screaming to the high heavens that she wants something done. This difference between the two is demonstrated in how Sanders has spent 30 years in Congress and never passed a bill, whereas Warren got the CFPB set up before setting foot in Congress.
 
Serpens007

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,131
Chile
Erpy said:
And you don't think at least some of the people who turned out en masse for Biden believed this would go both ways and independents would either stay home or vote Trump if Sanders was the nominee? Swing states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania contain more moderates/conservatives than liberals so just turning out the liberal base at the cost of the more conservative/centrist vote may just help to rack up the popular vote in California while losing the states that determine the election.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It may be the case too, though probably liberals would rather have Biden than Sanders.
 
lmcfigs

lmcfigs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,091
TheGhost said:
Idk how people can look at stuff likethis and still think Bernie has a better shot in the primary.

Like if Joe loses people will still say it should have been Bernie but he would have got slaughtered too
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think these numbers are getting worse exactly because most people don't think Bernie has a shot. What's left is his base.
 
DrewFu

DrewFu

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt-account
Banned
Apr 19, 2018
10,360
User Warned: Violating the staff post in regards to metacommentary
Hylianhero777 said:
If Bernie Sanders doesn't win this world is done for. It is truly that hopeless from a climate perspective. It has absolutely broken my heart to see that the democratic establishment and media would rather push for Joe but I guess the world is just broken.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
😂 oh boy... This is such an Era post.
 
Equippedwithtowel

Equippedwithtowel

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
Mercury Fred said:
Pointing out homophobic tropes =/= "gatekeeping discourse"

I mean by that logic, you could defend racist stereotypes as "gatekeeping discourse." It would be ludicrous to do it around those just as it is to do it around these.

I am in no way saying not to be critical of Pete. What I am saying is that perpetuating homophobic tropes is fucked up and they'd be fucked up even if a struggling trans activist pushed them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
but what if this very decidedly non hypothetical non cis male voice geuinely believes that pete is exhibiting a disturbing amorality?

isn't not policing their speech more important then the goal of trying to erase all inferential misuse of tropes?

yours seems to be a very problematic approach to the issue but clearly you feel strongly about it so i guess i will leave things with those questions
 

blackw0lf48

Member
Jan 2, 2019
2,968
The Adder said:
Yes, Sanders has bad political instincts. We know that very well. This isn't a game of "but I would do it for you." This is public policy and Warren wants to actually do something instead of just screaming to the high heavens that she wants something done. This difference between the two is demonstrated in how Sanders has spent 30 years in Congress and never passed a bill, whereas Warren got the CFPB set up before setting foot in Congress.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To be fair Sanders has been excellent at getting amendments through.
 
PMS341

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
DrewFu said:
😂 oh boy...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Eh, no need to minimize someone feeling upset at this time. Despite how a lot of people feel about Bernie as a person/candidate, the issues and policies at the forefront of his campaign are genuinely important for anyone who considers themselves working class and would absolutely improve the standards of living in the US. The only candidate even close to his policies were Warren's, so I can understand why someone would be disappointed to vote for Biden in comparison.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Tamanon said:
Biden is basically Pennsylvania personified. Anybody expecting him to lose there is hilarious.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just hope it extends to his general election prospects, too. I think it will, but I'm on pins and needles here.

Wisconsin sucks and I think Democrats need to start internalizing North Carolina and Arizona as backup plans more.
 
JCizzle

JCizzle

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
7,304
PMS341 said:
Eh, no need to minimize someone feeling upset at this time. Despite how a lot of people feel about Bernie as a person/candidate, the issues and policies at the forefront of his campaign are genuinely important for anyone who considers themselves working class and would absolutely improve the standards of living in the US. The only candidate even close to his policies were Warren's, so I can understand why someone would be disappointed to vote for Biden in comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's just hard to have much of a conversation when it starts with 'if you don't vote for my candidate, then the world will end.'
 

Deleted member 8561

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
11,284
Hylianhero777 said:
If Bernie Sanders doesn't win this world is done for. It is truly that hopeless from a climate perspective. It has absolutely broken my heart to see that the democratic establishment and media would rather push for Joe but I guess the world is just broken.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Have you actually looked into Sanders plan? Its borderline nonsense. I can appreciate the "aim for the moon", but there is little to no considering for the implementation of 100% renewables by decades end, the exponential cost increase past 50% non-hydro renewables.

While I hope a more aggressive approach is negotiated into Biden's plan, saying it's "nothing" is ignoring the massive shift that it would be, as well as the most important factor that it doesn't throw nuclear energy into the trash like Warren and Sanders do.
 
V_Arnold

V_Arnold

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,166
Hungary
KHarvey16 said:
Unless he felt like he could better forward the progressive agenda by not doing that. Your stance is that your stance is the only possible right answer and screw what she might think.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No screwage necessary. I am not attacking her on twitter. I am getting accused of being sexist for stating ,in a reaction to a tweet (!) that I disagree with AOC thinking that her appearance in SNL is awesome. That is it. That is the reality. So lets step back a notch and realize that you have your own opinion and I have mine. And yet here I am on a defensive. What is this?

If she believes progressive policy ideas have a better chance this way, what would you say? You can't claim she's working against progressive ideals in the case, only that you disagree with her method. But instead you go for this route and leave her no chance in your mind that she understands what she's doing. Weird.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

What is weird is that you, before this discussion even began, already concluded that no matter what step she takes, she can not make a political mistake or a politically dishonest, but beneficial (to her) move. I disagree. Here, during this thread, Bernie has been constantly attacked about his decisions, and yet I do not see you vehemently attacking those people, questioning their motives about them dismissing Bernie, and deciding that he could not understand what he is doing.

Of course I do not see you doing that. I wonder why that is. So lets leave space for everyone to disagree with candidate's decisions without asserting antisemitism, sexism and such.
 
PMS341

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
JCizzle said:
It's just hard to have much of a conversation when it starts with 'if you don't vote for my candidate, then the world will end.'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's probably harder to continue that conversation when said user is just mocked and/or laughed at for, at minimum, wanting to improve the lives of their friends and family by voting for a candidate they actually care about.

Of course the world will not literally end. That doesn't mean that person isn't allowed to feel upset at the current trajectory.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
PMS341 said:
Eh, no need to minimize someone feeling upset at this time. Despite how a lot of people feel about Bernie as a person/candidate, the issues and policies at the forefront of his campaign are genuinely important for anyone who considers themselves working class and would absolutely improve the standards of living in the US. The only candidate even close to his policies were Warren's, so I can understand why someone would be disappointed to vote for Biden in comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is without the senate (and even with it in some cases) those policies don't get passed. There is likely no daylight between what Biden or Bernie could get passed into law. The biggest difference will be if Biden also allows us to win the senate. Bernie is very unlikely to have done this.
 
DrewFu

DrewFu

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt-account
Banned
Apr 19, 2018
10,360
KHarvey16 said:
The problem is without the senate (and even with it in some cases) those policies don't get passed. There is likely no daylight between what Biden or Bernie could get passed into law. The biggest difference will be if Biden also allows us to win the senate. Bernie is very unlikely to have done this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Very true.
 
Cat Party

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,426
Dream Machine said:
Something to meditate on: why did everyone take so long to support or endorse biden? Why did people prefer every other candidate before him?

Before starting in on a "shame on you" speech to get people to vote for biden or (lol) be excited for him, just reach back and remember yourself from a couple weeks ago. It may help you empathize with why people aren't psyched.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't care if anyone is excited by Biden. I sure as hell am not. I'm pretty concerned by him for a lot reasons. But he's going to win the primary, so it's time to get things done. Even if Biden would only support a portion of Bernie's policies, nothing that any of us want is achievable without winning in November. That's the focus for me.
 
KHarvey16

KHarvey16

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,193
V_Arnold said:
No screwage necessary. I am not attacking her on twitter. I am getting accused of being sexist for stating ,in a reaction to a tweet (!) that I disagree with AOC thinking that her appearance in SNL is awesome. That is it. That is the reality. So lets step back a notch and realize that you have your own opinion and I have mine. And yet here I am on a defensive. What is this?



What is weird is that you, before this discussion even began, already concluded that no matter what step she takes, she can not make a political mistake or a politically dishonest, but beneficial (to her) move. I disagree. Here, during this thread, Bernie has been constantly attacked about his decisions, and yet I do not see you vehemently attacking those people, questioning their motives about them dismissing Bernie, and deciding that he could not understand what he is doing.

Of course I do not see you doing that. I wonder why that is. So lets leave space for everyone to disagree with candidate's decisions without asserting antisemitism, sexism and such.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I didn't accuse you of being sexist. I said worst case was sexism and best case was simply being condescending.

Judging Bernie for currently losing the primary only requires assuming Bernie wants to win the primary. Judging Warren for how she's handling things after she's dropped out means assuming many things, and you're doing it happily and in the directions you need to in each case to assume the worst about her intentions and her abilities.
 
V_Arnold

V_Arnold

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
1,166
Hungary
Mercury Fred said:
Right, so this is a straw man: I have stated over and over to be critical of Pete. Of course his sexuality doesn't give him a pass on being criticized. No one is saying that.

This shouldn't be that difficult-- be critical of Pete all day, every day if you want. But it's possible to do it in a way that doesn't perpetuate ugly, homophobic tropes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is okay. I do not like the rat memes either, tbh. Mayo Pete as a nickname imho is okay.

And comparing Pete to Milo, really? I mean I'm not even going to dignify that with more than an lol.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I brought up Milo because its very inconvenient, exactly because he uses his sexuality as a shield. Yet people on this forum have no problem calling him all sorts of vile shit (understandably.) That is the only extent of my analogy, cause their characters are almost polar opposites, and so of course no moral comparison is being made by me.
 
Geg

Geg

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,552
Zombegoast said:
Bernie should run 3rd party.


Be honest, it's going to be a shouting game on whose worse.

Theodore Roosevelt didn't give up after loosing the GOP nomination. He ran on anti corruption that was later popularised by democrats.

We would learning nothing again for repeating 2016
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wild that there are people who support Bernie and want him to be president but also think he's dumb enough to run third party
 
LGHT_TRSN

LGHT_TRSN

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,139
Warren doesn't want to jump aboard a sinking ship. It's as simple as that. It doesn't benefit her. It doesn't benefit the party. It doesn't benefit Bernie.
 
PMS341

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
KHarvey16 said:
The problem is without the senate (and even with it in some cases) those policies don't get passed. There is likely no daylight between what Biden or Bernie could get passed into law. The biggest difference will be if Biden also allows us to win the senate. Bernie is very unlikely to have done this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given that Biden isn't pushing for even half of the policies that Sanders/Warren are for, it probably wouldn't matter who has the Senate at that point because the policies that may or may not pass aren't even on the table to begin with. At least Sanders or Warren would fight for them.

cBlTEqL.jpg
 

Deleted member 3896

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,815
Equippedwithtowel said:
but what if this very decidedly non hypothetical non cis male voice geuinely believes that pete is exhibiting a disturbing amorality?

isn't not policing their speech more important then the goal of trying to erase all inferential misuse of tropes?

yours seems to be a very problematic approach to the issue but clearly you feel strongly about it so i guess i will leave things with those questions
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If someone wants to make a nuanced argument around Pete, great, do it. But it shouldn't be too much to ask that it be done without comparing him to a serial killer.

Again, this is not about "policing speech." It's about raising awareness of homophobic tropes, their history and how people (often unknowingly) perpetuate them.

When you say "isn't not policing their speech more important then the goal of trying to erase all inferential misuse of tropes?" imagine applying that to a woman or a person of color and sexist or racist stereotypes. Like, Anne Coulter loves pushing weird "feminazi" shit and people rightly shut her down for it. That's not "policing discourse" imo, that's calling out the bullshit use of a bullshit sexist stereotype.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.