General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 752

Imagine a world where we hate him so much we just excuse everyone else's shitty actions by saying "I would vote them over him"? There's so much time before that notion should be used and it's a stupid reason to excuse someone doing bad things.

 

It is definitely about x vs y already. Trump and leftists were going back 25 years to attack Clinton, so yes, whatever is getting said and printed now will be viral on twitter in 2019z

 

Harris actually has progressive visions. Just not on every single issue. And no, there will
probably not be a better candidate for progressives than Harris in 2020 lol, unless Sanders runs again.
Right now I think the odds are better that we have Sanders in the race and not Harris, but only slightly so. Not sure if Bernie will have another race in him by the time we get there, unfortunately.

 

I'm just saying, it's a bad reason when we're 3 years away. Maybe instead, try to get them to change heir stances on those shitty things in the meantime instead of just stating that lazy comp before you even have an idea of who's running yet?

It's not about x vs y when you have no idea who x is yet, you're not gonna say that about literally every primary candidate.

 

All the more reason to be like, damn, kamala, maybe you should quit it with the prison labor use. Probably wouldn't have helped Clinton either had that weird ass anecdote about having prison servants in AR had gotten out.

Well, we will see. Until then, I will unapologetically hold politicians' feet to the fire, because the fact that they may one day run against someone with more racist and inhuamne policies doesn't mean we shouldn't be like, stop using that racist and inhumane policy. They have to earn votes, which is good.

 

Salon headline
" If you don't want the Babadook as president you're homophobic"

 

I guess my point is, as Scott said, it isn't even an argument. It's a deflection. It allows you to dismiss the legitimate criticisms that people in vulnerable communities put forth, because it harms a democrat. You will argue that the republicans are worse on these issues, which, okay, but if you're still institutionalizing a lower level of oppression, you're still the bad guy and don't expect those communities to trust you.

 

Of course it's a bad reason, but it's reality.

Trying to get them to change their stances beforehand didn't exactly work out in 2016. Even when stances were changed, the attacks and criticisms still continued and it's pretty clear all it did was keep a bunch of people home on election day(or had them voting for fucking awful 3rd party candidates). It was well publicized that Trump's strategy was to just drag Clinton into the mud with him so turnout was low in certain areas, and people on social media were only all too eager to help in that regard, whether they realized it or not. It didn't matter that her stances now were different than they were in the 90s, it didn't matter that Bernie was able to get her to change or at least modify her and her team's stance on a couple of issues---all that mattered was what was already out there on the past stances. Yes, Clinton was extremely unlikable and had more baggage than your average politician, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that won't be a problem for most politicians going forward. The only ones it won't be a problem for are people like Obama who have such a likable demeanor and personalty that people are able to gloss over the demerits...and there aren't a lot of Obamas out there.

It's def about x vs y already, especially when you're taking about people who have a legit shot at being x, and at the same time be one of the furthest left individuals with a legit shot at that spot.

 

And that will turn out well in elections and, by proxy, the fight to help said vulnerable communities.

 

So, leftists should have no critiques of the Democratic Party because it might help conservatives? That sounds really stupid. How, then, does one push them to the left or hold them accountable? Or are we to fold our interests into theirs? I guess we can just trust them, but given their track record, it doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

me: peas are my least favorite vegetable

you: what, you'd rather eat human feces??

we understand what you're saying, David, and all of us here would gladly eat the peas given a choice between those two specific options. but damn, there's a whole world out there filled with other food.

 

Me: So and so who is an important public figure is problematic and certain issues should be addressed.

Rando: Still better than Trump.

Me: *Proceeds to powerbomb said rando off the top turnbuckle through a table.*

Jim Ross: AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, HE IS BROKEN IN HALF!


Alright, back to work for me.

 

Well, no, because what's being said now will be brought up as an attack in 2019/2020 regardless of whether or not the candidate changes his/her stance on it. We literally just watched this play out.
So maybe instead of treating the person like they want to institute slavery and eat black children, perhaps we talk about it in terms that don't turn her into the worst person ever to live and instead of attacking the person, harp more on the policy solutions that would work better? Clinton did the same shit to Bernie on guns at times and it was fucking stupid. Though at least she spent more time talking about the policies she'd support instead. But Hillary Twitter didn't pick up on those cues and instead bashed Bernie like he was okay with another Sandy Hook happening.

 

Leftists should spend more time pushing the policies they support and then get theirnpeople on board when said politician they're harping on accepts said policy position, instead of treating the person like a parriah who can never be redeemed and must be attacked as just as bad as conservatives at a time when conservatives are literally trying to drag the country backwards.

 

If you're throwing those people under the bus, say, by criminalizing them, thereby subjecting them to the brutality of the justice system, they will not be there for you. And no amount of "Trump is worse" will turn them out, because you did what you did and they understand that your tolerance of them is consistent only insofar as political efficacy allows it.

 

I'm pretty sure there are people here who would turn their noses up at the peas, even after it's pointed out that the peas have been infused with some of their favorite flavors.
Beyond that, tens of thousands will talk on social media about how shitty the peas are, pretend the infused flavors don't exist, and mention how peas made them throw up 10 years ago---and then throw their hands up and say "who, us? We couldn't possibly have effected their choice" when it's pointed out that a whole lotta people decided to not eat the peas too.

 

What's worse?

Trying to drag us back or successfully holding us down?

 

Yeah, because you won't fucking let them eat the peas.

 

Now THAT is the false dichotomy of this conversation. Thank you for that.

 

FBI Director nominee removed reference to case involving Russian government from law firm bio - CNNPolitics.com

 

And that makes no sense. I'd be begging them to eat the peas so they have the energy to fight for green beans. Starving gets us no where.

 

Weeeeee

 

PS-after weeks of "Bernie woulda won", I will admittedly say I get a laugh out of how worked up leftists here get at the "would vote for". Neoliberal shill!

 

this analogy fucking sucks

 

Why even do this? I didn't read the whole article but why would it be ad that he represented someone against the Russian government?