You're not going to get people to vote consistently until you either offer them rewards and incentives for doing so (which, well, lol), or change the environment so that it's convenient enough for people to do so consistently.
He keeps posting the same BS then ignoring or playing dumb about any responses to it. Seems like trolling at this point.
This is a fair point. It's an enthusiasm killer.
I will reiterate to not talk about violence against right-wing institutions here. Please and thank you.
No I think that it takes more than 5 years to undo the damage from dismantling our local organizations in rural areas and red states.So here's where we come back to my money-making argument, and it's good that you picked an article from the year 2017, because look at the Democrats' funds compared to Republicans:
It takes funds to do a lot of this shit, which is why, again, it never has and never will make sense to me why we shame Democrats for asking for money. Comparatively, Democrats are fucking broke.
What's also useful about you choosing an article from 2017 to make your argument, is that I can point out that even now, in 2022, Democrats still face the issue of uncontested seats even after diagnosing the problem themselves. Now, of course, you can counter that you think Democrats are just that noncommittal. The only rebuttal to that I would have is I just am not that cynical. Democrats can want until the cows come home. We can ask. We can beg. We still need people to want to run. And to that I would ask, if you're a young upstart watching how young Progressives demonize the party, why the fuck would you run?
graphics.reuters.com
The democratic party unfortunately has to be the eventual solution, because they're the only of the two parties that support abortion. The problem is they aren't good at winning elections.
For whatever my opinion is worth I hear you and I support you voicing all of those frustrations openly. We all got pipe dreams about how we wish things worked.
The CRA of 1964 passed the Senate with 30% of Democratic Senators voting against it.
No I think that it takes more than 5 years to undo the damage from dismantling our local organizations in rural areas and red states.
They raised and spent more money in 2020 than Republicans, a lot more, but they spent it poorly
Financial sinkholes
Democrats spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Senate races they ended up losing. Whether they can regain control of the Senate now hangs on runoff elections in Georgia.
We lost 9 Senate elections where we outspent Republicans by millions. Millions that could have gone to local Democratic party organizations to try and fill more of those seats, to try building local Democratic organizations. We raised $300m more than Republicans for just Senate races. We're funneling tons and tons of money to the national organizations. That's why I blame those national organizations for state and local resource shortages, they receive and have control of how the vast majority of campaign resources are spent. People aren't going to choose to run in places if there's not a local Democratic organization that can hold their hand through the process. People don't know how to run elections without support, we can't expect people in areas with tons of unopposed seats to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps when they're going up against well-organized, well-funded, healthy Republican organizations capable of providing the support to their candidates we can't.
Something republicans are so annoyingly good at is narrative to rile up their base. When democrats are in power and nothing gets done, many democrats blame democrats on having had the chance and not doing anything, so they feel more reluctant to bother next time. "Why bother," they might say. When republicans are in power and nothing gets done, Republicans are great at blaming democrats, and the conservative base eats it up. They never blame republicans for things not getting done.
He keeps posting this BS and then ignoring all replies. He's trolling.
Obama had 60 votes for just 4 months, and that 60 included a decent number of blue dog democrats who wouldn't have voted for codifying Roe.
Isn't direct action the only option at this point? Political action has failed us miserably, and there is no way to actually impeach any Supreme Court justice. It just feels like being more outwardly violent towards these parties is the only way of protecting members of the LGBTQ+ and other disenfranchised individuals from having their rights stripped.
If you're arguing that democrats are not remotely perfect on this subject, you won't get a disagreement from me. But an obvious factor that I'm not sure if you're fully considering is that there's an element of "you don't know what you got till it's gone." There was less incentive to codify abortion into law when it was effectively the law for 40+ years. Now that it's gone obviously it's a more imperative issue and I expect you will see the more aggressive measures to protect it now that it's gone for so many. Not to say I'm going to put all of my hope it's the super imperfect democrats, but it's the only way we might actually get something done.
What I can tell you is that this site is monitored and that we are not about to be liable for being shut down for failing to clean up violent rhetoric. I will also reiterate that this is not a moral argument I'm making.
It's a liability issue. The site can't host calls to violence.
And just what are we supposed to do when more of our rights get taken away by this corrupt Supreme Court? Tell me. We can't vote them out. I'm frustrated by it.
Just exposing the truth.
And yet, you're agreeing with three posters (matrix-cat, Doc Holliday & danm999) in which they've been saying the same stuff I've been saying.
Yes, for any actual federal agent / moderator here, these are not direct calls to action, these are just how I feel at the moment. I have absolutely no plans in regards to any violent actions against any current Supreme Court justice, this is me saying this for legal purposes.
As I have explained repeatedly, voting is a means of harm reduction to reduce catastrophic outcomes while we work to change things outside of the electoral system. It protects vulnerable people in measurable ways that have been repeatedly identified to you. Yet you continue to advocate for things that will lead to worse outcomes for those people. Why?
Repeatedly spouting BS about how Jimmy Carter could have codified Roe and then ignoring all responses doesn't really seem like "exposing the truth." It seems more like stirring the pot.
Saying "not following through on promises dampens enthusiasm" is, in fact, not the same as saying "both parties are the same, there is no difference, and voting does nothing."
I mean the direct cause of this result was the candidate that won in 2016. Which wasn't a democrat stringing on voters.
This whole post is pretty empty of any serious merrrit, but this opening is one of the most nonsensical thing I have read in a while.
