General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 760

Saying "many people in this thread have laid out their reasons why they don't respond to every post you make, and Dom was the latest to do so" (that I remember) is not using Dom to attack you. It's responding to your post with examples of the multitude of reasons, that have been given many times, about why some people choose to not respond. Which you asked about.

 

I think Jason should implement, "lunch breaks," for this thread. It automatically shuts down for x amount of time per day to give y'all a break.

 

You can keep saying it, but it doesn't make it true. You asked a question, I gave you the reasons and included an example of said reasons. That's not "using someone to attack you." It's literally answering your question.

And I read the post. Not every post you make demands a response, and when people don't respond to it, it could very well be they read it and were like "ok" and moved on. The reason is sometimes just that people have nothing else to say, or when I read a post that I know nothing good comes from continuing to engage, I (sometimes) just choose not to.

And when someone responds to a question or discussion and the responses include any variety of things I've mentioned before -- I choose not to keep going or not engage. People don't respond to my posts daily. People don't respond to everyone in this thread all the time. But it never gets brought up as anything other than normal. It's a forum. Not every post by everyone gets replied to.

 

Well, I had lunch, and it was not Panera.

 

What you keep saying is you didn't get a response, so how is that not what you mean?

First, I never said every single time. I said sometimes. And sometimes that is exactly why people don't respond, and, I gave examples of others -- not just me -- saying that. And this conversation is literally a case of you saying multiple times that it is about you not getting a response. That's why I replied to begin with.

And, I read your post. And then for the next few days there's jabs about people not responding to your posts, and at times you use my name specifically ... and then finally, after reading it over and over again, I respond and say why that often happens ... and here we are.

And, again, this is why I pointed to a specific post that gave some reasoning for that. I know I've read multiple. Many people here have personal policies that are close to their hearts, and that they care the most about or know the most about ... and they talk about it, sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, sometimes we go in circles.

 

If he's said something better than I will, I absolutely will bring him up and quote him or refer to that post instead of just re-writing the same thing he's said again. It has nothing to do with a "conflict," I don't even know what that word has to do with anything being discussed. I will always source people I think give better answers than me. That seems perfectly reasonable.

 

Election results link for tonight.

Atlanta Election Coverage

 

Folks, if we've learned anything today, it isn't to trust the guy who wants to kill millions of people.

 

The aliens overlords didn't teach him how to hug.

 

Fuck the police.

 

If Liberals Voted...

If liberals voted at the same rate as conservatives, Hillary Clinton would be president. Even with Donald Trump’s working-class appeal, Clinton could have swept Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

... nodding ...

Their candidate, Jon Ossoff, has a real chance to win partly because he isn’t suffering from the gap in voter passion and commitment that usually bedevils Democrats, especially in off-year races. It would be a big deal if Democrats could more often close their passion-and-commitment gap. Even modestly higher turnout could help them at every level of politics and hasten the policy changes that liberals dream about.

.. nodding ..

This month’s British election is also intriguing. The Labour Party did better than expected, helped by a surge of younger voters angry about Brexit. But Britain also offers a caution to anyone who thinks higher turnout depends on far-left candidates, like Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. Corbyn didn’t win, and he didn’t come very close.

God damn it. So close.

My instinct is that the answer for Democrats involves a passionate message of fairness — of providing jobs, lifting wages, protecting rights and fighting Trump’s plutocracy. It can be bolder than Democrats have been in decades. But it should not resemble a complete progressive wish list, which could turn off swing voters without even raising turnout.

People who don’t vote regularly aren’t progressive activists in disguise. They tend not to follow politics closely. Although most lean left, they are not doctrinaire, and they’re not looking for white papers. They are looking to be inspired

Maybe. I do think it's a mistake to assume that increasing turnout alone means they'd vote progressive, and do think that many are looking to be inspired. But, I think it's worth looking at what does inspire the "youth" vote, and that is ... specifically ... very progressive policies. Energizing that base, I'd argue, is probably worth alienating the moderate swing voter. And if it's not, well, then we'd know.

 

They're giving free rides gor people to get to the polls today. That's cool af.

 

I mean, Obama was only moderately progressive on certain issues and he still inspired a lot of the youth vote.

There is one guy who's rumored to be running in 2020 who's halfway decent at being inspiring.....................................

 

State sanctioned murder happens daily and yet people are so fucking scared of shoe bombers we gotta walk through security theatre to fly.

 

If you all want some insight as to what white society thinks of black suffering:

 

I can only hear "Booker" in my head the way Captain Kirk yells Kahn.

It's your fault. I hate you for it.

 

1. Fuck off.
2. Nice signature font choice you dipshits.

 

Jesus.

 

lol....I imagine Colbert the way he does that yelling of a name with a clenched fist thing every once in a while. BOOKER!!

 

Guy who is gunning for Paul Ryan. My eyes are watery.