|
Cerebral Bore posted:Like, leaving political opinions aside, the real bad thing about lesser evilism is that it makes it nearly impossible to reform a failing party like the Dems because you get a core of true believers to whom even demanding some sort of accountability from the party leadership is going too far. It's obvious why they keep losing all the time, because failure is never punished. Yeah. The amount of losing from 2010 onward culminating with President Donald Trump the cretinous reality TV star beating the avatar of the modern Democratic party should have resulted in the non-elected leadership being gutted and primaries being the focus to get actually competent leaders in Congress. However they circled the wagons and pushed the idea that only these guys could resist Trump which has been tepid at absolute best and they have lost the messaging war against him consistently. The idea that any criticism is going to damage the brand is rooted in the idea you have to vote for them regardless because they are less bad. It's a really poisonous idea that even implies your side isn't good and worth voting for. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Feb 15, 2018 |
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Is it or is it not evil to provide Obamacare benefits to the people who need them to live?  Congratulations 08 Dems! We won! Now you can save tens of millions of lives and there's nothing Republicans can do to stop you! Nah, we're gonna let a third of you die anyway that'd be rad. Maybe half, but at least a third. Buh--wha--but why? Uh cuz we like money? And rich people who profit from your deaths will give us lots of it to let them keep killing? That's monstrous, what an evil thing to do! How DARE you?! We're saving millions and millions of lives, that's evil now? You should be on your knees thanking us for not being greedy enough to kill you all like Republicans would, don't we deserve to wet our beaks a littleetc etc etc * and on and on forever as Americans keep dying needlessly*
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
The GOP and conservative indoctrination organizations like the Federalist Society have done an amazing job screwing up the political landscape. Money always mattered in politics, but ever since Citizens United, the money level required to campaign effectively has grown to ridiculous heights. This is why the megadonors can push the Democratic leadership around, as much as we hate that. Even on a state and local level, most people who aren't hilariously rich are not going to be able to take time out to run without monetary support. Radio and television spots, internet presence, phone banking, volunteer recruitment and office space all have costs. And imagine if you're in a race that comes to national attention or you're in a "swing" state. You're not just fighting the GOP, but you're dealing with an enemy funded by Koch money on top of that. This is also a big part of why lobbyist organizations are so valuable is because they can mobilize voters effectively and you don't have to pay as much out of your own campaign to do it. It's why politicians have to kiss up to PACs too. I agree that some money spent wisely can beat tons of money spent badly, but you still need amounts that you often don't get if you are limited to $10 and $20 donations from individuals. You can talk about reforming the Democratic Party all you want, but it is factors like this that progressives will need to address effectively in order to make that happen in a sustainable way. If you can somehow counteract how much big money matters, you can reduce the whole "lesser evil" dynamic in the first place because the party will not need as much "Big Business" money in order to fight. You will also be opening up the number of candidates you can get who have not come from rich backgrounds (with all the baggage and indoctrination that can entail).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
Doesn't the DCCC deliberately increase the amount of money candidates need by requiring candidates to spend a ton of it on TV ads created by their worthless consultant buddies instead of getting out the vote. Hey wait didn't the Democratic Party grift itself into bankruptcy going into one of the most historically important elections in American history up against a fascist cheeto because they just kept funneling money to consultants at Presidential-election-year levels for four straight years? Once again vastly increasing the amount of money Democratic politicians were expected to raise from big donors with absolutely zero electoral effect to show for it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah right, they mostly turn out for smugly telling you they didn't vote and for rushing into every conversation they can find to parrot every republican fox news talking point they can manage to sand down enough to pretend they are saying it because they are actually so woke and leftist I'd still like to see evidence of them parroting Fox News talking points, besides Jimmy Dore, who is not really left wing - he's just a loving moron.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
And in the exact same time the candidate that actually aligns with your values better failed to win elections or get votes or maybe even failed to exist on this corporeal plane. And generally put a worse showing on fixing any issue than even the worst democrat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:And in the exact same time the candidate that actually aligns with your values better failed to win elections or get votes or maybe even failed to exist on this corporeal plane. And generally put a worse showing on fixing any issue than even the worst democrat. The question was whether killing millions of people for money is evil if you also save half of them (it is). The question wasn't "did someone who wouldn't do that win" obviously they didn't win or they would have won. Saying "well they won" seems like it could be used to defend anything a politician does. It could be used to defend Trump!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Cool, weird that that wasn't the issue that got brought up and instead the original go to attack was some incorrect lie about them not having a platform people want to vote form even though they have gotten the most votes in nearly every election in decades. Almost like people bringing it up are disingenuous or something! They didn't have a platform that got enough people, in the states that mattered. How are you so ignorant of how presidents get elected? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'd still like to see evidence of them parroting Fox News talking points, besides Jimmy Dore, who is not really left wing - he's just a loving moron. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/878946025662296064 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/782264189574377472 https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/727791165341356032 etc
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:17
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is owned by Wall Street tho, the reason that critique was so devastating is because it's 100% true. It allowed Trump to deflect from literally being a New York .01%er who is friends with the worst people on Wall Street. But now I guess we're getting into "a Republican said the sky is blue so I must believe the opposite" territory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
So not a drat thing, in other words. Thanks, OOCC!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile are now Fox News mouthpieces. How do I know that? They said Clinton soft-rigged the primary so obviously they work for Emmanuel Goldstein now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But now I guess we're getting into "a Republican said the sky is blue so I must believe the opposite" territory. Nah, as I said "the republicans say a lot of true stuff and I agree with them a lot" is always a huge element of whiney faux leftist internet culture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nah, as I said "the republicans say a lot of true stuff and I agree with them a lot" is always a huge element of whiney faux leftist internet culture. If Republicans are successfully flanking Democrats from the left by pointing out Democrat corruption, bad Democratic policy (based on right-wing ideas), Democrats selling out, etc then maybe what the Democrats are doing is bad strategy and not actually pragmatic in the winning-elections sense? Republicans lie all the time and even when they tell the truth they're usually doing so in bad faith, that's not an excuse for giving them ammunition though!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nah, as I said "the republicans say a lot of true stuff and I agree with them a lot" is always a huge element of whiney faux leftist internet culture. Now you're just blatantly making poo poo up. This is getting sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Doesn't the DCCC deliberately increase the amount of money candidates need by requiring candidates to spend a ton of it on TV ads created by their worthless consultant buddies instead of getting out the vote. The DCCC is a big part of the problem and a reason why money is not spent as intelligently as it could be, but that should not distract from the fact that you still need large amounts of money that drives candidates to needing some level of corporate support or donations from wealthy people. The DCCC sucks, but they are exploiting a reality as opposed to creating a problem out of whole cloth. quote:Hey wait didn't the Democratic Party grift itself into bankruptcy going into one of the most historically important elections in American history up against a fascist cheeto because they just kept funneling money to consultants at Presidential-election-year levels for four straight years? Once again vastly increasing the amount of money Democratic politicians were expected to raise from big donors with absolutely zero electoral effect to show for it? From what I remember, Obama never valued the party-building process and did not work with the DNC for the kind of financial moves needed to keep the DNC solvent and independent. Debbie Wasserman Schulz reached an agreement with the Clinton campaign that should not have happened and made the party too closely tied to Clinton's fortunes and choices. I'm going off of this article. If you've got links to share, I'd love to see them: https://theintercept.com/2017/11/03/dnc-donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-barack-obama/
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If Republicans are successfully flanking Democrats from the left by pointing out Democrat corruption, bad Democratic policy (based on right-wing ideas), Democrats selling out, etc then maybe what the Democrats are doing is bad strategy and not actually pragmatic in the winning-elections sense? I think it was you who said that the big issue with Hillary's credibility is that while the majority of the bullshit flung at her was false, she was just shady enough and broke the rules in minor ways so that it was easier to paint her as bad by using those to imply larger corruption. Like when she's getting stupid questions early in the primary debates that ultimately didn't help her at all and was pretty pointless but it allowed the idea that the primary was rigged to gain traction. Republican messaging works best when there's a tiny grain of truth to it that they can then use in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
"Am I so out of touch? No its the leftists who are wrong." Hillary broke a lot of loving brains. Or exposed the already broken, either can be true, no mutual exclusivity. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Radish posted:I think it was you who said that the big issue with Hillary's credibility is that while the majority of the bullshit flung at her was false, she was just shady enough and broke the rules in minor ways so that it was easier to paint her as bad by using those to imply larger corruption. Like when she's getting stupid questions early in the primary debates that ultimately didn't help her at all and was pretty pointless but it allowed the idea that the primary was rigged to gain traction. And that's when it's not turning out that the lies aren't half as bad as the truth, like admitting in her own book to have been a slave overseer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like when she's getting stupid questions early in the primary debates that ultimately didn't help her at all and was pretty pointless but it allowed the idea that the primary was rigged to gain traction. And then Donna Brazile, who shared the questions with her in the first place, goes and writes a cash-in book that just helps people double-down on that rigging narrative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Nah, as I said "the republicans say a lot of true stuff and I agree with them a lot" is always a huge element of whiney faux leftist internet culture. A: Democrats are bad for reasons B: You're just parroting Republican talking points A: I mean maybe, but only because they are correct about these specific reasons B: See! I knew all along you would argue the things you are saying are, in fact, true. You arguing the things you say are true just proves me more right. How is that an objection? twodot fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Feb 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And then Donna Brazile, who shared the questions with her in the first place, goes and writes a cash-in book that just helps people double-down on that rigging narrative. The Democratic leadership is a hilarious mess and the idea that these people are politically savvy is a joke. As was said previously ideology totally aside they should all be replaced because they are clearly incompetent. The most neo-liberal centrist that ever said "we need bipartisan cooperation to solve this issue with both sides" should be yelling for new blood just on the idea that they lost to Donald Trump with a billion dollars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Radish posted:Like when she's getting stupid questions early in the primary debates that ultimately didn't help her at all and was pretty pointless but it allowed the idea that the primary was rigged to gain traction. Republican messaging works best when there's a tiny grain of truth to it that they can then use in bad faith. To bring this back around to the topic of the thread, turns out "yea our candidate is a cheater but you just have to take it because Republicans are bad" is a much much worse vote-getting argument than "our candidate is an honest moral person worth electing on their own merits". Which really gets to the heart of the problem with Lesser Evilism. Even from a completely hideous amoral framework where the only criteria for good politics is how much evil you can get away with doing and still win, Lesser Evilism doesn't work, it might be able to win by default when the Greater Evil fucks up enough, but after a few years sooner or later people get tired of voting for bad things just to stop worse things and they forget how much worse it could be, and the Greater Evil gets in anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Huh? Are we supposed to think this is a real argument? The exchange goes: It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:To bring this back around to the topic of the thread, turns out "yea our candidate is a cheater but you just have to take it because Republicans are bad" is a much much worse vote-getting argument than "our candidate is an honest moral person worth electing on their own merits". Yeah and we keeping seeing this failure except when the Republicans get REAL bad over and over but people think yelling into the void at Ralph Nader voters from 18 years ago is somehow going to result in anything. The next Presidential election is going to have people voting that were born AFTER Bush vs Gore but the threat of people not voting for the lesser evil hard enough is still seen as the primary reason Democrats lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist. So is Nina Turner a Republican?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist. Newsflash: if a Democrat does something bad, Republicans will rush to slam them even if it is something Republicans themselves are secretly doing or something Republicans themselves actually openly believe in. The fact that Republicans will make bad faith arguments does not magically mean that other people making those arguments must be incorrect just because a Republican agrees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The fact that Republicans will make bad faith arguments does not magically mean that other people making those arguments must be incorrect just because a Republican agrees. If you find yourself agreeing with republicans now and then then sure, that is no big deal, if you find yourself agreeing with republicans often enough you might just be a republican as their party best represents your values.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Republicans even attacked ACA from the left despite the fact that the mandate was their idea and that their plan for Medicare is to turn it into the ACA model. This doesn't mean that anyone else attacking ACA from the left is a secret Republican or mean that their criticisms are wrong because a Republican made them, because get this Republicans are lying about their intentions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
'If you're not with us, you're against us'. Have you listened to yourself? Leftists literally can't criticise Democrats for any reason lest they be cast out as traitors? Also, what does that say for Democrats who are constantly trying to 'reach across the aisle' for 'bipartisan solutions'?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you find yourself agreeing with republicans now and then then sure, that is no big deal, if you find yourself agreeing with republicans often enough you might just be a republican as their party best represents your values. This is a "but Hitler says he's a National Socialist" quality argument. E: Oh you want a Democratic Republic, hmm sounds like something Kim Jong Un would say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist. So what are you advocating for exactly. What is your vision or hope for the future. If not to follow the will of their own voters and shift more leftwards then what? Because if you seriously believe that leftists cost dems the election then I have no words to help you
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's the way the targets are never different and it's so clear the republican narrative takes the lead. If it was so called "true leftists" that were attacking one group of democrats and then republicans attacking another and the democrats the republicans hated were the ones the "leftists" loved or something that would be one thing, but it's the super obvious way that if a republican hates a democrat that by the end of the week the official newsletter has gone out that they are also target #1 centerist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:The DCCC is a big part of the problem and a reason why money is not spent as intelligently as it could be, but that should not distract from the fact that you still need large amounts of money that drives candidates to needing some level of corporate support or donations from wealthy people. The DCCC sucks, but they are exploiting a reality as opposed to creating a problem out of whole cloth. 'Did not work with the DNC' is an understatement of what happened. DWS changed how the DNC employed electoral staff; the inept consultants, managers, proxies etc.? Those guys usually get fired after the election. Instead they were kept in perpetuity, and unless I've missed significant restructuring recently is still happening. That means twelve years of exirbitant pay meant to only last a couple of months during election season, for three elections worth of staff. For doing nothing. It's been theorized that a big reason for the Obama-led phonebanking for Perez was intended to keep the grift rolling. Whether or not Clinton was involved in this depends on how close you believe DWS and the employed consultants and the Clinton family are. If you believe they're close then in essence the DNC was bled dry and then its carcass purchased by the same group. If they aren't close then Clinton didn't start this grift, but most certainly saw an opportunity in bailing out the DNC and did not make a peep about the continued grift for her particular consultants, until Brazile revealed all of this (and I'm not sure she said anything about it, afterwards). So yeah. The DNC is in shambles and unable to 50-state compete because the Rational Practical Actually-Secret-Leftist Centrists put it in such a condition, and not because of leftists not voting hard enough. I'm sure you can understand why leftists might be more than peeved at this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Because if you seriously believe that leftists cost dems the election then I have no words to help you I seriously believe that a group of people have declared themselves "leftist" while holding no significantly or particularly leftist ideas and doing nothing but amplifying a bunch of right wing narritives by believing everything they half heard from their conservative dad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:'Did not work with the DNC' is an understatement of what happened. DWS changed how the DNC employed electoral staff; the inept consultants, managers, proxies etc.? Those guys usually get fired after the election. Instead they were kept in perpetuity, and unless I've missed significant restructuring recently is still happening. That means twelve years of excessive pay meant to only last a couple of months during election season, for three elections worth of staff. It's been theorized that a big reason for the Obama-led phonebanking for Perez was intended to keep the grift rolling. I'd like to read a link to the theory, if you've got one handy. quote:Whether or not Clinton was involved in this depends on how close you believe DWS and the employed consultants and the Clinton family are. If you believe they're close then in essence the DNC was bled dry and then its carcass purchased by the same group. If they aren't close then Clinton didn't start this grift, but most certainly saw an opportunity in bailing out the DNC and did not make a peep about the continued grift for her particular consultants, until Brazile revealed all of this (and I'm not sure she said anything about it, afterwards). DWS was Clinton's campaign co-chair in 2008. I think they're pretty tight. quote:So yeah. The DNC is in shambles and unable to 50-state compete because the Rational Practical Actually-Secret-Leftist Centrists put it in such a condition, and not because of leftists not voting hard enough. I'm sure you can understand why leftists might be more than peeved at this. Of course. I imagine most people here think I'm a neoliberal shill and I still hate the fact that this happened and want a massive clearout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Lesser of Two Evils voting theory is a modified asymmetrical version of Iterated Prisoners Dilemma but if Prisoner B (the voting public) defects the worst possible thing happens so Prisoner A (the Dem political class) conclude they are assured of Cooperation no matter what they do, and we're all trapped in the game until the end of time. Cue Democratic politicians mashing on the Defect button over and over forever yelling "Why aren't you always Cooperating, don't you morons know Cooperation is your rational subgame perfect Nash equilibrium? Gah we both defected again this is all your fault!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I seriously believe that a group of people have declared themselves "leftist" while holding no significantly or particularly leftist ideas and doing nothing but amplifying a bunch of right wing narritives by believing everything they half heard from their conservative dad. You're so close to busting out Virtue Signalling and fishhook theory can be complete.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And then Donna Brazile, who shared the questions with her in the first place, goes and writes a cash-in book that just helps people double-down on that rigging narrative. Books dont actually sell that much, even best sellers. It takes an unnaturally popular fluke like Twilight and 50 Shades, and even that usually pales in comparison to the film rights. Certainly not a niche political book tell-all released after the election. To put in perspective how many niches within niches we're dealing with, that's a book (72% of americans read books, no data on purchasing books) written by a democrat and pertaining to democrat politics (48% of -registered- citizens identify as democrat) about Hillary Clinton (?% of people who still care about Clinton after the election) which is negative (36% of Clinton's voters were 'very enthusiastic' to vote for her). The whole "a well-paid DNC alumni cut off all ties with the Clinton favor network and likely any paid speaking or consultant roles to get rich off lying in her book!!!" Take was dumb as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
All leftists want is to show up in every thread and crow about how much better they are than everyone else, unlike me, the guy who's made like 40 posts in this thread about how awful leftists are without offering a single idea on how to improve things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2018 18:26
|
|
