• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
23,835
Fucking Tillis is backing down. Spineless asshole.
>




Erica Werner
@ericawerner


TILLIS FLIPS: "Today I come to the floor to say I do not intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval."

2:15 PM - Mar 14, 2019 · Lake Ridge, VA


Lauren Fox

@FoxReports


Tillis announces he is changing his vote and will vote "no" on resolution of disapproval. He put out an op-ed weeks ago announcing that he couldn't support Trump on this...He was one of the first to announce he was voting with Dems so this is a big switch minutes before the vote.

2:18 PM - Mar 14, 2019
 

Surfinn

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
28,590
USA
D1oXmcjXQAA2ucT.png
That is a reference I haven't seen in a long time. A long time..
 

Frankish

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,424
USA
But supporting someone for being the most "electable" is inherently based on what you think other people will like and not on what you are personally fond of. In this case it has to do with white nationalism because the idea that Beto is more "electable" than, say, Kamala Harris, seems entirely rooted in voting for a white guy on the basis of being a white guy (and therefore "electable") and not on any sort of substantial policy preference.

Nah you're interpretation of my thought process is wrong. I don't think Beto and Biden are more electable because they are white lol.

I think Beto is by far the most charismatic candidate. Simple as that. I think Booker has a decent amount of charisma so he is my #2. Nothing to do with race. As Obama proved, charisma can even make a slightly racist white person vote for a black dude.

It's sad, but every single election post Nixon has been won by the most charismatic candidate.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,632
But supporting someone for being the most "electable" is inherently based on what you think other people will like and not on what you are personally fond of. In this case it has to do with white nationalism because the idea that Beto is more "electable" than, say, Kamala Harris, seems entirely rooted in voting for a white guy on the basis of being a white guy (and therefore "electable") and not on any sort of substantial policy preference.
imo Harris is much more electable than most of the field.
 
Jan 15, 2019
4,393
Nah you're interpretation of my thought process is wrong. I don't think Beto and Biden are more electable because they are white lol.

I think Beto is by far the most charismatic candidate. Simple as that. I think Booker has a decent amount of charisma so he is my #2. Nothing to do with race. As Obama proved, charisma can even make a slightly racist white person vote for a black dude.

It's sad, but every single election post Nixon has been won by the most charismatic candidate.
I'm happy with who ever beats Trump, I just don't necessarily see Beto having a better shot at that than several other candidates so I guess it's hard for me to see his "electability" factor outside the white guy aspect of it. Anyway, didn't mean to single you out, I've seen this sentiment all over the place. I've even had someone tell me in person that they supported Biden because "It's not the time to be nominating some Socialist Jew or some Indian black woman" so hopefully you can understand my apprehension when I hear the electability argument.
 

Ignatz Mouse

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,741
You think if Beto needed a 70mil procedure to save his life they wouldn't have found that money?
Come on.


I think big donors vs. small donors is the wrong question, it should be private vs. public financing, and again, dems were all for the latter until they realized they can get a ton of money by hustling college kids to give them money they can't really spare.
I honestly think if you're all for public financing you need to stop donating to dems, because as long as they can keep up with GOP with small donations they ain't gonna do shit to move that stuff.
Remember how Obama backed off his promise once his data guys showed him how much money they can get online?

Or at the very fucking least, stop acting like a millionaire who takes money for people way poorer than him is a good thing we need to celebrate.

On point one-- a life saving operation isn't the same thing as a long-odds candidacy. Which at his best is all her was.

On point two-- agreed, although I don't know that that's the reason. I remember Obama backing off a promise to not take PAC support, but not any change about his position on public financing.

Third point-- candidates publicize it because voters like it. Voters like it because it presumably implies less infulence in politics. Which we should like!

And your point about stopping donating to democrats is a bad one, because it's basically like not voting against Trump. Woo hoo, we'll show those lousy politicians what we think by helping elect the worst candidates! Yay!

Last, people who donate donate. Nobody is forcing them. Nobody is taking away money from the needy.
 

MetalGearZed

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,931
>




Erica Werner
@ericawerner


TILLIS FLIPS: "Today I come to the floor to say I do not intend to vote for the resolution of disapproval."

2:15 PM - Mar 14, 2019 · Lake Ridge, VA


Lauren Fox
@FoxReports


Tillis announces he is changing his vote and will vote "no" on resolution of disapproval. He put out an op-ed weeks ago announcing that he couldn't support Trump on this...He was one of the first to announce he was voting with Dems so this is a big switch minutes before the vote.

2:18 PM - Mar 14, 2019

Republicans ain't shit Example #38632
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,569
I'm happy with who ever beats Trump, I just don't necessarily see Beto having a better shot at that than several other candidates so I guess it's hard for me to see his "electability" factor outside the white guy aspect of it. Anyway, didn't mean to single you out, I've seen this sentiment all over the place. I've even had someone tell me in person that they supported Biden because "It's not the time to be nominating some Socialist Jew or some Indian black woman" so hopefully you can understand my apprehension when I hear the electability argument.
I had this discussion with someone last night re electability. I think it's fair to consider it when looking at a candidate but it's such a hard thing to quantify without introducing personal bias. I tend to favor a candidate that I think is "electable" but for me that mostly comes down to charisma, ability to clearly convey their policy points etc. In that respect I think Harris is just as electable as Biden or Beto. Pete for that matter is as well but I don't see him gaining the sort of backing that would be needed to seriously challenge for the nomination.

The person I was discussing this with is a black male so naturally they were apprehensive. I think it's understandable they questioned what someone actually means when they speak to electability because it is often used as a WWC dog whistle
 

Sobriquet

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
9,926
Wilmington, NC

Linkura

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,943
Tillis worried he'd get primaried?

Edit: looks like I was right, should've finished reading the thread
 

Toth

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,020
So incredible senators have no trouble giving up theirs constitutional power for a moron.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.