• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,072
Agreed. Progressives need to swallow the Biden pill and let him Trojan horse a ton of progressives into other offices and positions.
yep that should be the pivot. its a great great time to get a ton of progressives installed at state, house and senate levels with biden leading the ticket.
That should have been the play all along. Focus on local/state races where much more direct policy is implemented and rise in ranks from there.
i totally agree. the american electorate loves their local leaders way more the the feds. this is a perfect time for progressives to run on local and state issues and get more buy in to ultimately get a progressive president, I honestly would be happy with a huge progressive caucus in the senate and house they pretty much could do more for this country than even the president, and the plus is that they enshrine all that shit into law.
 

platocplx

2020 Member Elect
Member
Oct 30, 2017
36,072
I don't want to be too negative on the "protest vote" crowd. I can envision a scenario where I, too, would withhold a vote for president.

But this just isn't the time. There is a tangible difference between what a Trump presidency means for the most vulnerable and what a Biden presidency means.

I am not, in any way, excited about Biden. I have my own list of what I want to see in year one from the next Dem president, and I frankly don't think Biden will do any of it. IMO, the best chance with Biden is that he runs essentially a caretaker presidency, where the federal government gets a chance to recover and re-equip from four years of chaos and cruelty. Then, we get a chance at a more bold administration. That's worth voting for.
maybe you should shift to what you want to see year one from the entire dem party if they win back the senate and more gains in the house.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
I don't want to be too negative on the "protest vote" crowd. I can envision a scenario where I, too, would withhold a vote for president.

But this just isn't the time. There is a tangible difference between what a Trump presidency means for the most vulnerable and what a Biden presidency means.

I am not, in any way, excited about Biden. I have my own list of what I want to see in year one from the next Dem president, and I frankly don't think Biden will do any of it. IMO, the best chance with Biden is that he runs essentially a caretaker presidency, where the federal government gets a chance to recover and re-equip from four years of chaos and cruelty. Then, we get a chance at a more bold administration. That's worth voting for.
I think even President Biden would rack up quite a few achievements as long as Democrats win a unity government in November. There's been about ten years' worth of pent-up legislation thanks to GOP's unprecedented obstructionism in that time (even when Republicans took Congress in '94 and the presidency in '00, they were generally still interested in moving the ball forward on federal policy, even if the end result usually wasn't great), during which the party has moved significantly left to the point where what once seemed like radical ideas championed only by the likes of Bernie (such as free college, the public option or $15 minimum wage) are now seen as the bare minimum that even the conservative knuckle-draggers in the party like Manchin support.

I'm hoping Virginia's blue wave is sort of a model for what we'll see from Biden with a Dem Congress, where even just winning a slight majority last November allowed them to pass extremely popular, common sense bills left and right that had previously been held up by Republicans (and even past Dem governments which were powered by conservative Dixiecrats). It's not like every Rep/Senator is Lee Carter, and they did hit a wall on some issues, but they still got significant progress on gun control, LGBTQ+ equality, women's rights (including reproductive rights), voting rights, environmentalism, increasing the minimum wage, weed decriminalization, just to hit on some of the biggies.

You're already seeing the same thing happen with Congress, Pelosi's passed a ton of big ticket items with ease and near-unanimous party-line votes when ten years ago she'd struggle to hit 218 on the same thing. One of my favorite factoids to frame how much things have changed: the current House of Representatives is the first time since the NRA started grading candidates where a majority (as in 218 members or more) has an F-rating from the NRA. Every other Congress, including ones controlled by the Democrats? Majority had an A.
 

Drek

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,231
I don't want to be too negative on the "protest vote" crowd. I can envision a scenario where I, too, would withhold a vote for president.

But this just isn't the time. There is a tangible difference between what a Trump presidency means for the most vulnerable and what a Biden presidency means.

I am not, in any way, excited about Biden. I have my own list of what I want to see in year one from the next Dem president, and I frankly don't think Biden will do any of it. IMO, the best chance with Biden is that he runs essentially a caretaker presidency, where the federal government gets a chance to recover and re-equip from four years of chaos and cruelty. Then, we get a chance at a more bold administration. That's worth voting for.
So what's that list?

Because Joe Biden has already moved quite a bit to the left of Clinton, Obama, and even Joe Biden of 10 years ago. It isn't him being fake, he's responding to the demands of his constituency (the entire Dem party primarily, the nation as a whole secondarily).

Beyond that you're probably entirely correct that Biden will be essentially a caretaker.

Listen to his answer on if he'd Veto M4A. It was all about a hypothetical where he'd want to verify its fiscal viability. That was clearly him not giving room for Sanders as he's ran against Sanders under the auspices that Sanders proposals are fiscally untenable. Yet He's adopted parts of Warren's and Sanders' platforms in just the last few weeks and credited them with it. In the case of Warren it was her bankruptcy platform, an area where the two of them had a public argument that largely put Warren on the map politically.

Joe Biden, if elected, will be the least legislatively powerful POTUS in 30 years at a time when Dems will, hopefully, retake all three branches of gov't. and will have a mandate to start passing legislation.

Biden has always been a foreign policy wonk and is likely to spend his first half year or so focused on rebuilding bridges with existing European allies as a way out of global economic recession following COVID-19.

His cabinet will be tasked with basically re-building from the devastation of the Trump admin. on major departments within the government.

Domestic legislation would be in the hands of the senate and congress. They'll drive the bus and so long as it passes with the establishment leadership there Biden will gladly sign into law progressive new policy.

Thats also the win here for progressives. The progressive branch of the party has more power and representation in both congress and the senate than ever before. It will have meaningful say in the policy of the next administration. Not winning the primary in exchange for Dems winning the senate is the best outcome for progressive values available at this time.

And assuming Biden would just serve one term it would end in a pretty ideal time for a progressive candidate to take the nomination in 2024. We see time and again that Dem voters are basically shocked into voting after the ineptitude of Republican rule, then after a long time of Dem leadership get complacent and protest vote the status quo. Dem voters want a more progressive party, they're just not willing to risk a loss to Donald Trump to get it. There will be more sentiment among the Dem party for a progressive change candidate in 2024 than there is now. That candidate would have a lot better chance of winning in November '24 if a Dem POTUS, congress, and senate are the ones overseeing the 2020 census results and have some legislative power over redistricting efforts.
 

HououinKyouma

The Wise Ones
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,366
Just signed up for my first mail-in ballot registration (I'm in PA). Not taking any chances going to the polls.
 

Cat Party

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,412
So what's that list?

Because Joe Biden has already moved quite a bit to the left of Clinton, Obama, and even Joe Biden of 10 years ago. It isn't him being fake, he's responding to the demands of his constituency (the entire Dem party primarily, the nation as a whole secondarily).

Beyond that you're probably entirely correct that Biden will be essentially a caretaker.

Listen to his answer on if he'd Veto M4A. It was all about a hypothetical where he'd want to verify its fiscal viability. That was clearly him not giving room for Sanders as he's ran against Sanders under the auspices that Sanders proposals are fiscally untenable. Yet He's adopted parts of Warren's and Sanders' platforms in just the last few weeks and credited them with it. In the case of Warren it was her bankruptcy platform, an area where the two of them had a public argument that largely put Warren on the map politically.

Joe Biden, if elected, will be the least legislatively powerful POTUS in 30 years at a time when Dems will, hopefully, retake all three branches of gov't. and will have a mandate to start passing legislation.

Biden has always been a foreign policy wonk and is likely to spend his first half year or so focused on rebuilding bridges with existing European allies as a way out of global economic recession following COVID-19.

His cabinet will be tasked with basically re-building from the devastation of the Trump admin. on major departments within the government.

Domestic legislation would be in the hands of the senate and congress. They'll drive the bus and so long as it passes with the establishment leadership there Biden will gladly sign into law progressive new policy.

Thats also the win here for progressives. The progressive branch of the party has more power and representation in both congress and the senate than ever before. It will have meaningful say in the policy of the next administration. Not winning the primary in exchange for Dems winning the senate is the best outcome for progressive values available at this time.

And assuming Biden would just serve one term it would end in a pretty ideal time for a progressive candidate to take the nomination in 2024. We see time and again that Dem voters are basically shocked into voting after the ineptitude of Republican rule, then after a long time of Dem leadership get complacent and protest vote the status quo. Dem voters want a more progressive party, they're just not willing to risk a loss to Donald Trump to get it. There will be more sentiment among the Dem party for a progressive change candidate in 2024 than there is now. That candidate would have a lot better chance of winning in November '24 if a Dem POTUS, congress, and senate are the ones overseeing the 2020 census results and have some legislative power over redistricting efforts.
The problem is that I want blood. I want Trump and his allies to be investigated, and have charges brought against them to--at the very least--recoup the money they've swindled from the Treasury. I want every ICE agent fired. I want the terror brought upon immigrant communities to end and to have steps taken to make things right (to the extent that's even possible). These things don't require legislation; they require a bold executive. Sanders would have at least tried. I don't believe Biden will do enough.

We just can't let these motherfuckers get away with this once we get the keys back.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
18,220
The problem is that I want blood. I want Trump and his allies to be investigated, and have charges brought against them to--at the very least--recoup the money they've swindled from the Treasury. I want every ICE agent fired. I want the terror brought upon immigrant communities to end and to have steps taken to make things right (to the extent that's even possible). These things don't require legislation; they require a bold executive. Sanders would have at least tried. I don't believe Biden will do enough.

We just can't let these motherfuckers get away with this once we get the keys back.
I don't think Biden's necessarily going to avoid putting Trump in jail. Like this is the type of signal he's sending:
During an interview with Radio Iowa later Sunday afternoon, Biden said if he is elected, he will not follow President Ford's example in pardoning Nixon so Nixon was not prosecuted for his role in Watergate.

"It wouldn't unite the country," Biden said. "You'd say: 'Wait a minute. I get a parking ticket and I've got to pay it. This happens to me and I've got to go to jail. This guy does all these things that put us jeopardy and he gets off? I think this is of a different nature. And I think President Ford, God love him, he's a good guy, I knew him pretty well. I think if he had to do it over again, he wouldn't have done it … because he didn't get re-elected."
www.msnbc.com

Biden: No pardon for Trump if he's indicted after 2020

If Trump loses next year, he could face legal jeopardy. Would his successor pull a Ford and pardon him? 2020 Dems are starting to weigh in on the question.

In fact, I put more weight on Biden putting up a Trump-investigating AG than I do a lot of other things he promises.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
38,981
Sorry if you get a notification Arkeband, I had your post quoted from earlier and it saved it and added it to this post

I don't see the point of this criticism. Is the longterm goal to get them to stop? Like I criticize Dems for civility politics because I feel it has a tendency to paper over material issues with niceties and decorum. The ultimate goal is to draw focus away from what I consider to be the distractions of performative civility, but I wouldn't expect Biden and his wing of the party to stop deploying this strategy. The strategy clearly produces (electoral) results coinciding with their goals (electoral performance). Criticizing the Cumtown guys for being nasty online is trying to make a case that they shouldn't exist or do what they do, the correct target for this is to go after their audience. Telling your liberal friends how bad cumtown is and how you shouldn't pay them any attention is preaching to the choir. Indeed, if their schtick is making typical liberals mad at their antics then surely getting mad at their antics is actually leaning into their branding?

Which is to say I think trying to criticize someone with "stop doing the things that fulfill your career/life/strategic goals" is a total waste of time.

That's seems like weird justification to let shitty behavior go by, "because it's part of their life goal" ...? I criticize Trump partially because he's a career grifter who's trying to become personally wealthy off of the presidency. Should I stop criticizing him because "he's trying to do the things that fulfill his career/life/strategic goals" ?

I don't know if criticizing Trump for being a grifter would get him to stop, or criticizing "cumtown" would get "cumtown" to not tweet lousy shit, in both circumstances it probably won't. I don't follow cumtown, but I was responding to someone saying nasty shit about John Lewis for seemingly no reason isn't something that I'm going to be like, "oh, yeah, that's okay to say that because it's their brand." Nah, that's not okay, whether it's their brand or not. This just seems like really circular logic where nobody can do wrong because doing wrong is their objective, so why bother criticizing them...? Which then in turn, enables someone to act wrongly? Seems like bizarre logic.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
That's seems like weird justification to let shitty behavior go by, "because it's part of their life goal" ...? I criticize Trump partially because he's a career grifter who's trying to become personally wealthy off of the presidency. Should I stop criticizing him because "he's trying to do the things that fulfill his career/life/strategic goals" ?
Getting really mad over Trump's antics is, imo, exhausting and pointless so I don't bother with it. I think you should continue to do whatever you feel is the right thing to do, but if I had to justify continued criticism of the Trump admin, according to the reasoning I'm employing here, it'd be from the perspective of the broader culture war between what is and isn't acceptable behavior in politics and also keeping people irritated enough to vote. If there is another good outcome from this, its that it'd give someone on the sidelines cause to reflect on the state of politics. Telling someone to their face "stop doing the thing you're doing that makes you successful at what you're doing" seems totally worthless because its the efficacy of what they do that encourages them to keep doing what they do and telling them to not do it doesn't seem to be a convincing tactic.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
User Banned (July 22nd): Metacomenntary and hostility, second violation of staff post
Getting support from russian operative Tulsi is good now and chapo are republicans. I'm updating my spreadsheets.
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845
The dangerous terrorist known as Mr. Chapo needs to be brought to justice. Joe Biden is the man to do it.
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
The dangerous terrorist known as Mr. Chapo needs to be brought to justice. Joe Biden is the man to do it.
He's in for the fight of his life when felix starts mirroring his speech pattern back at him and he starts malfunctioning. Hang in there, Diamond!

Anyone thinking it's funny Chapo's hosts are actively telling their audiences to *not* vote for Biden in November is absurd to me.

Trump will replace RBG with an alt-right anti-choice monster. Biden, like every moderate Dem president in the past, would replace RBG with a pro-choice liberal minded judge. This is not funny.

Do people who like Chapo not care about kids in cages? Do they not care about women's rights being stripped from them? Do they not care about Trumps constant attempts to dismantle Obamacare? Do they not care about the blatantly racist policies?

I don't see how you can take any of this lightly and not care about Chapo's hosts advocating protest non-votes to punish Democrats and help Trump.

Anyone who sees Trump for who he is and how dangerous he is needs to call out anyone on the left who is actively advocating to help Trump get re-elected to punish Democrats. Because women and minorities desperately need Biden to beat Trump, Trump beating Biden will result in abortion being outlawed before the end of the decade.

Does anyone not believe the fate of a women's right to choose depends on Biden beating Trump? This is obvious to everyone, no? As RBG is very old and in poor health. Women having the right to choose in this country depends on Biden beating Trump.
 
Last edited:

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
Anyone thinking it's funny Chapo's hosts are actively telling their audiences to *not* vote for Biden in November is absurd to me.

Trump will replace RBG with an alt-right anti-choice monster. Biden, like every moderate Dem president in the past, would replace RBG with a pro-choice liberal minded judge.

This is not funny.

Do people who like Chapo not care about kids in cages? Do you not care about women's rights being stripped from them? Do you not care about Trumps constant attempts to dismantle Obamacare? Do you not care about the blatantly racist policies?

I don't see how you can take any of this lightly and not care about Chapo's hosts advocating protest non-votes to punish Democrats and help Trump.
Bernie's constituency wasn't enough to matter, right? Young people don't vote. That's what I keep hearing. And the chapo audience is even less than those numbers. Like a fraction of them. On top of everything, they're speaking as new yorkers, so them withholding their vote is a very mild protest in a very blue state.

The funny thing is that they cared about all of these issues even when it was democrats in charge.

If a leftist comedy podcast with the audience of a mid tier video game podcast can take down your entire political party, there may be a bigger issue that needs addressing than some vaping twitter warriors in brooklyn raising their snarky tweet battle flags. The party chose Biden, so go out and rustle up some support for him from the well off centrist suburbanites the party keeps courting.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,234
As an aside, I just Googled Chapo's Trap House for the first time and I'm legitimately surprised that they appear to be 4 straight white men. Do they at least guest-host women and PoC on a regular basis?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
Bernie's constituency wasn't enough to matter, right? Young people don't vote. That's what I keep hearing. And the chapo audience is even less than those numbers. Like a fraction of them. On top of everything, they're speaking as new yorkers, so them withholding their vote is a very mild protest in a very blue state.

The funny thing is that they cared about all of these issues even when it was democrats in charge.

If a leftist comedy podcast with the audience of a mid tier video game podcast can take down your entire political party, there may be a bigger issue that needs addressing than some vaping twitter warriors in brooklyn raising their snarky tweet battle flags. The party chose Biden, so go out and rustle up some support for him from the well off centrist suburbanites the party keeps courting.
yeah what is their regular audience like 150-200k tops? They're just good enough at twitter rhetoric to seem like they have more reach then someone like kyle kulinski who has 824k subscribers and who has been on rogan
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
If a leftist comedy podcast with the audience of a mid tier video game podcast can take down your entire political party, it may be a bigger issue that needs addressing than some vaping twitter warriors in brooklyn raising their snarky tweet battle flags. The party chose Biden, so go out and rustle up some support for him from the well off centrist suburbanites the party keeps courting.

It is not that they alone are big enough to stop Biden from beating Trump. It is not about how many viewers they have. It is about standing up for the cause of progressivism and not just giving up and trying to burn it all down when a preferred candidate loses.

They are actively and knowingly advocating their audience to engage in a tactic to help Trump get re-elected to punish Democrats.

We know what type of judge Trump would replace RBG with. We know what type of judge Biden would replace RBG with.

Knowing this fact should make it impossible for anyone who cares about a woman's right to choose to advocate helping Trump get re-elected as punishment for Bernie losing the primaries.

If someone cares about progressivism then calling out those on the left pushing to re-elect Trump as some sort of punishment against Democrats for not picking Bernie should be obvious, yes?

It doesn't matter if its an audience of 1 million, 100k, or 1. Knowing what is on the line with the court with RBG's age and health means anyone who cares about progressivism I would hope would stand up and call out attempts from those on the left to help re-elect Trump.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
It is not that they alone are big enough to stop Biden from beating Trump. It is not about how many viewers they have. It is about standing up for the cause of progressivism and not just giving up and trying to burn it all down when a preferred candidate loses.

They are actively and knowingly advocating their audience to engage in a tactic to help Trump get re-elected to punish Democrats.

We know what type of judge Trump would replace RBG with. We know what type of judge Biden would replace RBG with.

Knowing this fact should make it impossible for anyone who cares about a woman's right to choose to advocate helping Trump get re-elected as punishment for Bernie losing the primaries.

If someone cares about progressivism then calling out those on the left pushing to re-elect Trump as some sort of punishment against Democrats for not picking Bernie should be obvious, yes?

It doesn't matter if its an audience of 1 million, 100k, or 1. Knowing what is on the line with the court with RBG's age and health means anyone who cares about progressivism I would hope would stand up and call out attempts from those on the left to help re-elect Trump.
they're not progressives they're socialists

you might think it's a distinction without a difference but a lot of people disagree
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
Can someone honestly tell me how does advocating for Trump's re-election as punishment for Dem voters picking a moderate help push the cause of socialism?

That just another 4 years of endless Trump alt-right federal judge appointments. The type of judges who'd eagerly strike down anything resembling socialism.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
RBG won't make it another 4 years. Are you telling me socialists don't care about a woman's right to choose? As that is very much on the line due to RBG's age and health.
They do, but they were also pissed at her when she wouldn't step down during obama because she thought he wasn't progressive enough to pick her replacement while party champions were comparing her to Biggie Smalls. So they kind of mentally prepared for this the second trump was elected 4 years ago.
Someone get this person a drink!
im ashamed
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
RBG won't make it another 4 years. Are you telling me socialists don't care about a woman's right to choose? As that is very much on the line due to RBG's age and health.
no but yelling at people who aren't voting for biden after the way bernie has been sent off is deeply unproductive because to those people the harm reduction is not worth the compromise of supporting someone who will preside over some last minute deck chair rearrangement on the titantic that is liberal capitalism.

if dems wanted chapo's support then they should have backed bernie when they had the chance
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,336
Can someone honestly tell me how does advocating for Trump's re-election as punishment for Dem voters picking a moderate help push the cause of socialism?

That just another 4 years of endless Trump alt-right federal judge appointments. The type of judges who'd eagerly strike down anything resembling socialism.
"We absolutely REFUSE to come to the table. If you want to win, you'll have to do it without us."
*Wins election*
"How come you're not giving us a voice? The system is RIGGED!"

I don't know why people feel entitled to have a say in the conversation if they're refusing to vote. All you're telling moderates is that they don't need you to win and to shift even more towards the center since you're not going to vote anyway.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Can someone honestly tell me how does advocating for Trump's re-election as punishment for Dem voters picking a moderate help push the cause of socialism?

That just another 4 years of endless Trump alt-right federal judge appointments. The type of judges who'd eagerly strike down anything resembling socialism.
This is bordering a branch of socialist thought called "accelerationism". You vastly overrate their respect or consideration of what the courts can or cannot do to them. When your response to the law includes the idea "go fuck yourself, fascist pig, ACAB", the weight of Supreme Court appointees is vastly diminished.

Which is to say Supreme Court picks matter a lot to people who are invested in the authority of the Court but matter less to anarchic shitposters who are fine with the idea of tearing down existing power structures. Note I am not personally an advocate of accelerationism but I do understand their perspective somewhat.
 

Ortix

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,438
They're terrible people, actively enabling the continued oppression of vulnerable communities. How much of an influence they have is irrelevant to that statement.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
"We absolutely REFUSE to come to the table. If you want to win, you'll have to do it without us."
*Wins election*
"How come you're not giving us a voice? The system is RIGGED!"

I don't know why people feel entitled to have a say in the conversation if they're refusing to vote. All you're telling moderates is that they don't need you to win and to shift even more towards the center since you're not going to vote anyway.
the biden camp will never listen to edgy internet lefties even if they endorsed tomorrow

why on earth would they?
 

Empyrean Cocytus

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,695
Upstate NY
yep that should be the pivot. its a great great time to get a ton of progressives installed at state, house and senate levels with biden leading the ticket.

i totally agree. the american electorate loves their local leaders way more the the feds. this is a perfect time for progressives to run on local and state issues and get more buy in to ultimately get a progressive president, I honestly would be happy with a huge progressive caucus in the senate and house they pretty much could do more for this country than even the president, and the plus is that they enshrine all that shit into law.

Exactly. Plus Biden is a career politician. He knows which way the wind is blowing. He'd likely put a shit-ton of progressives into his cabinet.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,336
"We absolutely REFUSE to come to the table. If you want to win, you'll have to do it without us."
*Wins election*
"How come you're not giving us a voice? The system is RIGGED!"

I don't know why people feel entitled to have a say in the conversation if they're refusing to vote. All you're telling moderates is that they don't need you to win and to shift even more towards the center since you're not going to vote anyway.
Actually, in addition to this thought process- even if Democrats lose, where are they going to go? Towards the demographic that votes 100% of the time or the demographic that votes nearly 0%? If you never vote, your threats to not vote mean nothing.
 

Dream Machine

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,085
"We absolutely REFUSE to come to the table. If you want to win, you'll have to do it without us."
*Wins election*
"How come you're not giving us a voice? The system is RIGGED!"

I don't know why people feel entitled to have a say in the conversation if they're refusing to vote. All you're telling moderates is that they don't need you to win and to shift even more towards the center since you're not going to vote anyway.
There's an old leftist proverb: Fuck around and find out.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,899
Ontario
Or maybe Chapo and their fans should have listened to the wishes of older African Americans, the true base of the left in America and not immediately leap to punishing the party and helping Trump because they didn't get their way.
they aren't constituents, in an american system where the only two viable parties are both at the end of the day corporatists then committed socialists will not be there to stay. They did listen to the voices of older African Americans and they decided that they didn't want a part of those wishes. It was never in the cards

if liz warren doesn't owe us anything then sexy gamer man Virgil Texas most certainly does not.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,336
There's an old leftist proverb: Fuck around and find out.
And find out what? Who votes and who doesn't vote? If it's that hard to vote out Donald fucking Trump, then they probably weren't going to vote anyway. Let's be serious. The GOP lies to its voters and they vote because they believe their lives depend on it. If you want to sit out an election because a candidate doesn't match your viewpoints 100%, go ahead. You want Biden to earn your vote? He's moving leftward, like Clinton did after the 2016 primary. Did I see a whole bunch of "oh man, she's willing to work with us! We're going to be able to actually do something!" Nah, it was just "wow, I can't believe she's pandering." "She's not even a real progressive." "Lol, she's just lying to try to get our vote and she'll never actually pass anything progressive." If you want to be cynical, be cynical. But don't pretend like there's anything Biden can do to actually earn your vote. It's honestly a waste of time. It's exactly that one comic where the Republican is saying to Obama "alright, if you move a little, I'll move a little" only for the Republican to move even further away.
 

samoyed

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
15,191
Bernie vs Biden was a referendum on which voters you wanted in November, the edgy socialists or the moderate suburbanites and the party has collectively decided to go with the moderate suburbanites, which is fine and good, but then being surprised you didn't also get the edgy socialists is a weird complaint. You were never in a position to get both groups and its odd to ever think you were or base your strategy on that. I think electorally the moderate suburbanites were probably the strategically superior choice, but a choice was made. You resoundly rejected the socialist cake, going so far as to say the cake didn't exist (a claim borne out by primary performance) so why be upset you don't get to eat from it?
 

Deleted member 5666

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,753
Bernie vs Biden was a referendum on which voters you wanted in November, the edgy socialists or the moderate suburbanites and the party has collectively decided to go with the moderate suburbanites, which is fine and good, but then being surprised you didn't also get the edgy socialists is a weird complaint. You were never in a position to get both groups and its odd to ever think you were or base your strategy on that.
The issue is....why are so many edgy socialists advocating to help Trump win re-election to punish Democrats for picking Biden?

Socialists gain nothing from Trump winning.
 

GYODX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,234
Bernie vs Biden was a referendum on which voters you wanted in November, the edgy socialists or the moderate suburbanites and the party has collectively decided to go with the moderate suburbanites, which is fine and good, but then being surprised you didn't also get the edgy socialists is a weird complaint. You were never in a position to get both groups and its odd to ever think you were or base your strategy on that. I think electorally the moderate suburbanites were probably the strategically superior choice, but a choice was made. You resoundly rejected the socialist cake, going so far as to say the cake didn't exist (a claim borne out by primary performance) so why be upset you don't get to eat from it?
It's the voters who soundly reject or embrace a candidate, not the other way around.

We were never going to give the nomination to the candidate with the least votes. Doing so would be slap in the face of millions of Black voters who turned out and made their voices heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.