~*Official Utterly Useless Old Woman, AOC, and UBI Thread*~

[Jason]

 

[SilentWorld]

3 hours ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I hope he’s smoking 5 packs a day 

His words may be empty, but I could listen to that man speak all day long. 

[SaysWho?]

PIERS MORGAN: The media hates him, Hollywood hates him but every hysterical piece of abuse they throw at him just makes Trump stronger and now the Democrats are heading for a midterms disaster

[marioandsonic]

In Leaked Audio, Brian Kemp Expresses Concern Over Georgians Exercising Their Right to Vote

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Barack Obama still doesn't get it.

You can try guilting people into voting for Jacky Whatever, to take time out of the day between shifts at their shitty low-wage jobs and looking after their kids to go to the polls, where they might be told they’ve been purged from the rolls or don’t have the right ID—and again, that it’s their fault—anyway. Or you can offer candidates who make them actually want to vote, and tell them the truth about what’s stopping them from voting: Not their own lack of character, but a systemic, corporate-funded, elite-led campaign of domination that will hurtle us into climate apocalypse, with healthy doses of top-down class warfare along the way, all aided by a campaign of voter suppression.

[skillzdadirecta]

22 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Barack Obama still doesn't get it.

You can try guilting people into voting for Jacky Whatever, to take time out of the day between shifts at their shitty low-wage jobs and looking after their kids to go to the polls, where they might be told they’ve been purged from the rolls or don’t have the right ID—and again, that it’s their fault—anyway. Or you can offer candidates who make them actually want to vote, and tell them the truth about what’s stopping them from voting: Not their own lack of character, but a systemic, corporate-funded, elite-led campaign of domination that will hurtle us into climate apocalypse, with healthy doses of top-down class warfare along the way, all aided by a campaign of voter suppression.

 

And this is why we're fucked and will continue to be fucked... people (well liberals) are still looking for goddamned Superman rather than show up and vote about the issues they claim they care about. As long as we continue to be a society that votes based on who tells us the things we want to hear and make us feel good rather than the fucking issues we'll continue to be fucked.

 

Our electorate basically looks at these elections the same way they look at American Idol.

[RedSoxFan9]

Obama doesn’t give a shit because he’s now a part of the global elite and is immune to the consequences of bad policy

[Ricofoley]

 

 

[skillzdadirecta]

58 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Obama doesn’t give a shit because he’s now a part of the global elite and is immune to the consequences of bad policy

He is immune to the consequences which is why he's telling the people who aren't to get off their asses and take some responsibility instead of waiting for some messiah to save them.

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[PaladinSolo]

18 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I'm never going to understand why people care at all about editorials. Other than the occasional one written by someone who is important and not paid to pump them out. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Because they have influence 

[PaladinSolo]

19 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

Because they have influence 

No they really don't, see George Will leaving the republican party, no one gives a fuck except people who apparently read them to get angry, or confuse them with reporters.

[RedSoxFan9]

https://news.yale.edu/2018/04/24/study-shows-newspaper-op-eds-change-minds

[RedSoxFan9]

anyways what did Obama get for deporting all of those people?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

13 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

anyways what did Obama get for deporting all of those people?

Best case is it was a good faith effort to get bad faith actors to negotiate on immigration in good faith. 

[RedSoxFan9]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Best case is it was a good faith effort to get bad faith actors to negotiate on immigration in good faith. 

 

I'm surprised it didn't work

 

 

[Comet]

14 hours ago, SFLUFAN said:

Barack Obama still doesn't get it.

You can try guilting people into voting for Jacky Whatever, to take time out of the day between shifts at their shitty low-wage jobs and looking after their kids to go to the polls, where they might be told they’ve been purged from the rolls or don’t have the right ID—and again, that it’s their fault—anyway. Or you can offer candidates who make them actually want to vote, and tell them the truth about what’s stopping them from voting: Not their own lack of character, but a systemic, corporate-funded, elite-led campaign of domination that will hurtle us into climate apocalypse, with healthy doses of top-down class warfare along the way, all aided by a campaign of voter suppression.

I'm conflicted by this article. I totally get the malaise people have for voting here. I am an optimist in general, but have developed a pretty pessimistic take on American politics for many of the reasons outlined here. But the thing is, voting is all we have outside of a violent revolt to have meaningful change. Beto is pretty much a Democrat outlier when it comes to campaigning for specific changes and not taking a dime of lobby funds for campaigning. If he is successful, which he likely won't be, then I'd feel better knowing that the Democrats, or hell even some sensible Republicans that still exist, will take an ardently anti-lobbying stance and campaign going forward. 

But, since I said I'm pessimistic, Beto will lose and the non-PAC money gamble/experiment will die with his candidacy.  

[Greatoneshere]

29 minutes ago, Comet said:

I'm conflicted by this article. I totally get the malaise people have for voting here. I am an optimist in general, but have developed a pretty pessimistic take on American politics for many of the reasons outlined here. But the thing is, voting is all we have outside of a violent revolt to have meaningful change. Beto is pretty much a Democrat outlier when it comes to campaigning for specific changes and not taking a dime of lobby funds for campaigning. If he is successful, which he likely won't be, then I'd feel better knowing that the Democrats, or hell even some sensible Republicans that still exist, will take an ardently anti-lobbying stance and campaign going forward. 

But, since I said I'm pessimistic, Beto will lose and the non-PAC money gamble/experiment will die with his candidacy.  

 

Beto isn't the only one not taking PAC money, and many other candidates who haven't taken PAC money have won. Beto isn't winning in Texas because he isn't running on strength, which is key for a state like Texas, even though he's clearly the better candidate otherwise. Beto is just too nice a guy. Now, Ojeda (Democrat running in West Virginia) is a version of what Beto should be doing in Texas. 

[Chris-]

That article is completely juvenile. If you want Democrats to completely swear off corporate and PAC money, deliver significant and philosophically-pure results, and continually win elections, you are entitled to your (naive and unrealistic) expectations - but the general election isn't the time to dig your heels in. Buck the fuck up, pull the lever for whatever (D) make you pinch your nose in disgust, and pick a time to wage your fight when it won't cost Democrats seats.

[mclumber1]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

Beto is just too nice a guy.

 

His stance on guns isn't helping him.  If he were a pro-gun Democrat, I absolutely think he would be winning in the polls right now, and probably beat Cruz on election day. 

[RedSoxFan9]

56 minutes ago, Chris- said:

That article is completely juvenile. If you want Democrats to completely swear off corporate and PAC money, deliver significant and philosophically-pure results, and continually win elections, you are entitled to your (naive and unrealistic) expectations - but the general election isn't the time to dig your heels in. Buck the fuck up, pull the lever for whatever (D) make you pinch your nose in disgust, and pick a time to wage your fight when it won't cost Democrats seats.

 

lol

[Chris-]

1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

lol

 

Very cogent response.

[RedSoxFan9]

we need those Practical Democrats™️ to win just like they did in 2016!  nows not the time to criticize shitty candidates because trump is in power.  we also can't do that in 2020 or 2022 because umm idk

[RedSoxFan9]

the "nows not the time" argument sounds familiar.  where have I heard that before

[skillzdadirecta]

So continue to take juvenile "principled stances"... meanwhile The Right will continue to support whatever candidate that has an "R" in front of them and roll back whatever small progress we've made in the later half of the 20th Century.  Damn I'll be glad when the progressive left grows the fuck up and gets out of its "rebellious college student with dorm room activism" phase.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Chris- said:

That article is completely juvenile. If you want Democrats to completely swear off corporate and PAC money, deliver significant and philosophically-pure results, and continually win elections, you are entitled to your (naive and unrealistic) expectations - but the general election isn't the time to dig your heels in. Buck the fuck up, pull the lever for whatever (D) make you pinch your nose in disgust, and pick a time to wage your fight when it won't cost Democrats seats.

 

The entire point of the article is that the current Democratic strategy is why they have such a hard time consistently beating Republicans. 

[RedSoxFan9]

Just now, Jason said:

 

The entire point of the article is that the current Democratic strategy is why they have such a hard time consistently beating Republicans. 

 

yep.  running good candidates who support good policy will lead to election success.  For example, most people support medicare for all (including 51% of Republicans) but the "serious adult" Democrats can't bring themselves to support it.

 

but by all means, please keeping calling progressives juvenile, naive, and unrealistic while your "serious adults" lose to chuds

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Chris- said:

That article is completely juvenile. If you want Democrats to completely swear off corporate and PAC money, deliver significant and philosophically-pure results, and continually win elections, you are entitled to your (naive and unrealistic) expectations - but the general election isn't the time to dig your heels in. Buck the fuck up, pull the lever for whatever (D) make you pinch your nose in disgust, and pick a time to wage your fight when it won't cost Democrats seats.

 

Agreed - even though our Democratic Party option should be better, any D is better than an R and if you choose not to vote because of this fact then you are failing the system.

 

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

His stance on guns isn't helping him.  If he were a pro-gun Democrat, I absolutely think he would be winning in the polls right now, and probably beat Cruz on election day. 

 

Yeah, I agree - I wish he would change his stance just to win the election like many politicians but he's actually a principled guy. Damned if you do and damned if you don't I guess. I think if he showed more "strength" it would at least help given his gun stance. 

 

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

The entire point of the article is that the current Democratic strategy is why they have such a hard time consistently beating Republicans. 

 

Agreed - the strategy needs to change - go more far left, go more left populist - and Democrats will win. But right now, in two weeks, you should vote D over R regardless. But to say a populist leftist strategy won't work or isn't working (can't tell if the article is outright saying that) is ridiculous. 

[Spork3245]

29 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

we need those Practical Democrats™️ to win just like they did in 2016!  nows not the time to criticize shitty candidates because trump is in power.  we also can't do that in 2020 or 2022 because umm idk

 

Yes, we should vote for candidates like Jill Stein instead. That won’t put republicans in power... wait.

[RedSoxFan9]

Just now, Spork3245 said:

 

Yes, we should vote for candidates like Jill Stein instead. That won’t put republicans in power... wait.

 

dailyshow.gif

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

dailyshow.gif

 

twitterfeed.png

[Chris-]

5 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

The entire point of the article is that the current Democratic strategy is why they have such a hard time consistently beating Republicans. 

 

1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

yep.  running good candidates who support good policy will lead to election success.  For example, most people support medicare for all (including 51% of Republicans) but the "serious adult" Democrats can't bring themselves to support it.

 

but by all means, please keeping calling progressives juvenile, naive, and unrealistic while your "serious adults" lose to chuds

 

There won't be 'good candidates' until Democrats win seats. The longer Republicans are in control, the more time they have to consolidate their control through gerrymandering and the erosion of voting rights, and the harder it becomes to beat them with a leftist-Democrat as opposed to a centrist-Democrat. You want the egg before the chicken. The party may need to shift leftward, but that's not happening until it has room to do so.

 

And I'm not calling progressives juvenile or naive, I'm calling the expectation of philosophical purity juvenile and naive. Pick whichever DSA sweetheart you want, and I guarantee you they will not bat 1.000 while they climb the political food chain (especially once they are in Congress). Compromise and political capital are unavoidable.

[skillzdadirecta]

14 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

yep.  running good candidates who support good policy will lead to election success.  For example, most people support medicare for all (including 51% of Republicans) but the "serious adult" Democrats can't bring themselves to support it.

 

but by all means, please keeping calling progressives juvenile, naive, and unrealistic while your "serious adults" lose to chuds

 

The alternative is sitting in the corner with my arms crossed and holding my breath until Bernie wins the nomination? Shit right now all one can hope is to get to a point where they can minimize the effects of global policy on themselves and their families because this generation of Americans? Let's just say that the 60's would have looked a lot different if our generation was leading the charge back then.

[Spork3245]

The right will, with little exception, vote for whatever “R” is put in front of them, it’s practically a cult and has been this way for about a decade now. The left seems to always have so many varying viewpoints that no candidate is ever good enough for the entire party - it’s like “oh, I agree with 90% of what you support, but I can’t possibly support you because I disagree with 10%!”. No, I’m not saying Dems need to vote like a cult or put party over their own morals/ethics, I’m saying that they need to be f’n adults and look at the long game as well as what allowing the other side to win brings.

Support Dems now, level the playing field, get the country back on a better track based on the platform of the party, THEN worry about inner-party bs.