General Politics Discussion [ARCHIVED] • Page 334

Wasserman-Schultz is currently beating Tim Canova quite badly in the polls with a lead ranging from 10% to 23%. What's surprising to me is that (in addition to winning voters who support Clinton), she's beating Canova overwhelmingly with male voters.

I seriously despise American voters. There is no way that other countries' voters are this intellectually lazy. If Adolf Hitler was a congressional incumbent, he'd retain his seat.

 

Have you looked at other country elections? Haha. Sure they are. #brexit

 

Trump, Clinton ‘Have Not Earned Our Vote,' says Jill Stein

"What we have seen over the years is that this politics of fear actually delivered everything that we were afraid of”
"All the reasons people were told to vote for the lesser evil, because you didn't want the offshoring of our jobs, you didn't want the massive bailouts for Wall Street. You didn't want the endless expanding wars, the attack on immigrants. That's actually what we've gotten"

 

So she gonna walk back what I would call fear mongering on wi-fi, GMOS, and nuclear power? Cause I don't want that either.

 

Brexit was a defensible choice. It's not the one I would have made, but there are valid arguments for it. Furthermore, my experience with foreign citizens has overwhelmingly steered me towards the conclusion that, at least with regards to Australia, France, Sweden, Germany, and NZ, they are MUCH more politically informed about their own public offices and, sadly, about ours as well.

Can you think of a valid argument for why Wasserman-Schultz should be retained?

 

Because we live in a country where people get to vote. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Oh yes the issues plaguing the oppressed. The wifi thing is bazaar, but relatively harmless. The GMO worries I think have been pretty quelled, I think they will prove (to the Green's, I already know they're ok) to be fine and labelled but if GMOs are your thing yeah maybe don't vote for Stein, she's bad on that.
But nuclear power deserves to be feared. The stack air emissions are clean but the expansion creates giant problems: First, its hugely expensive and couldn't expand quickly enough to combat climate change. Second, and most concerning, we haven't the slightest (good) idea on what to do with the very, very toxic waste.
And also to be legitimately feared, they may be low risk operative, but sabotage or an extreme (albeit low chance) malfunction could render gigantic disasters.

So hey maybe she gets pressed and she walks back on the wifi and GMOs. I hope she holds strong on the nuclear energy though. Most of all, I hope she sticks to the issues that endanger and oppress people on this planet and people at least take a legitimate look at what her party's policies would bring compared to the main parties.

 

The Trumpster fire burns bright.

 

How the Democrats Are Failing Obamacare

How the Democrats are failing ObamaCare...aka they're not pushing a public option.

 

Questions with those here who identify more left than current American liberals:

How come the focus of your ire tends to be on the Democrats and liberals who identify as such? This is purely anecdotal but I rarely find, on any platform, leftists attacking Republicans and conservatives, who constitute 45% of the voting electorate and, from my view, are a much more dangerous threat to leftist movements. The only reasonable thing I can think of is that liberalism poses a much greater threat to your numbers than does conservatism. That is to say, while I agree more with the leftist causes, I settle on voting Democrat. If I was conservative, well, it's impossible to get my vote so why focus on disestablishing the Republican party.

Just a thought.

 

Conservatives are openly hostile to our thoughts, messages, ideas, etc, and we are openly hostile to them. Liberals will hear our ideas and agree with them, and then in the next breath tell me Hillary Clinton also agrees with them, and then in another 2 years tell me how democrats *totally didn't* infiltrate, subvert, deradicalize and smear our movements while arresting their leaders and watering down the message. Then they'll pass half (at best) measures and expect thanks and praise. It's dishonest co-option that prevents movements from building momentum. At least conservatives aren't fooling anybody.

I miss AP. Dom had a good thread about this

 

Ramen is displacing tobacco as most popular US prison currency, study finds

 

I don't know about you guys, but I'm ready for this circus of an election to be over.

 

You're Fired!-side chats?

 

Did I Kill Gawker?

by former gawker EIC max read, who resigned in the immediate aftermath of the 2015 conde nast debacle

 

Democrats, when in power, actively undermine leftist causes. For example, there has been a great deal of red-baiting from Clinton folks as of late. I posted an article a page or two ago, in which a senator who supports the movement for black lives and especially the Palestinian plank. Clinton loyalists are trying to undermine him precisely because of his recognition of Palestinian oppression. This is an example of how liberals treat true "progressives" and an example of the lack of interest in genuine change; rather, they'd prefer to utilize the pain and suffering of marginalized communities, whilst having been responsible for that very same suffering, in order to implement actually reactionary policy. Let us not forget the Reagan era was not kind to a lot of communities and Bill Clinton merely continued those policies.

 

What cartoon is that?

 

Bojack Horseman

 

I need to watch that more.

 

It's really, really good.

 

Yep, esp those bolded parts. And I literally sighed as I was reading this, too.