The same kind that was never gonna vote for anyone else anyway.Imagine going from someone being your second choice to not voting for them in the general over a fucking handshake. Imagine being that kinda Gerbil.
The mask is off now.
The same kind that was never gonna vote for anyone else anyway.Imagine going from someone being your second choice to not voting for them in the general over a fucking handshake. Imagine being that kinda Gerbil.
You explicitly said that you wouldn't support anyone but Bernie Sanders in the general election. Fuck off with this "only Sanders can win" straw men horseshit.You ignoring Sanders base and crossover appeal and voting for anyone else in the primary is literally demonstrating the same "gall" and "privilege."
Biden running against Trump in the general will make you "complicit" in Trump's win because you voted for your beliefs rather than for electability.
Choice A: Donald TrumpOk, I'm going to answer as if this was an honest post, in case it is.
I was talking about trying to shame people into voting a certain way.
Warren Refuses to Shake Bernie's Hand At Denny's, Bernie Demands Trial by CombatThey need to make a Warren didn't shake Bernie's hand headline generator.
Maybe. I mean, again, there's no way to quantify if they put Trump over the edge or not, so, maybe? But how do I even quantify that destruction? Trump's obviously among the worst President's we've ever had but probably the only thing extra he's done over say a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio presidency is estrange us from our allies abroad, most of the other shit they'd also do just with nicer rhetoric. To the best of my knowledge Russia didn't help Bush Jr. and he has way more blood on his hands than Trump does.It being easy like that doesn't mitigate the destruction they caused by helping Trump. It's the same result.
And this man is supposed to have said that a woman could not be president. Now, there's no need to believe that statement.
Rofl"Clinton's record as a military hawk is well-known. She voted for the Iraq War as a senator. As secretary of state, she pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya and lobbied President Obama to take military action against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. She was lukewarm about the nuclear deal with Iran.
Hillary is a war hawk who would jump at the chance for a war with Iran. Debating this ain't even worth the time.
Maybe. I mean, again, there's no way to quantify if they put Trump over the edge or not, so, maybe? But how do I even quantify that destruction? Trump's obviously among the worst President's we've ever had but probably the only thing extra he's done over say a Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio presidency is estrange us from our allies abroad, most of the other shit they'd also do just with nicer rhetoric. To the best of my knowledge Russia didn't help Bush Jr. and he has way more blood on his hands than Trump does.
I don't know how this shit plays out though, I want to believe that this can be a real turning point for the country now that the mask has come off and the dog whistles have been dropped for bull horns. Guess we'll see.
Warren refuses to shake Bernie's hand at Fortnite dance competition, Ninja in talks with Microsoft to "finish the fight" this fall.Warren Refuses to Shake Bernie's Hand At Denny's, Bernie Demands Trial by Combat
You explicitly said that you wouldn't support anyone but Bernie Sanders in the general election. Fuck off with this "only Sanders can win" straw men horseshit.
I agree that anything other than a vote for the Democratic candidate is stupid, and if I could vote in that election I would vote for any candidate in the general against Trump. But that wasn't what my post was about.Choice A: Donald Trump
Choice B: Democratic Candidate You Didn't Want
A vote for choice B is objectively helping to remove Trump.
Not voting at all is objectivity helping Trump stay in office.
Yes, I'm guilting people for opting to act in their own selfish interests rather than the good of the entire god damn planet.
They won't be excited about Biden, but he's better than Trump. Those people can't afford a second Trump term. He could choose a VP that is popular among left voters.This election is life or death for a lot of people in this country. And those people are NOT going to show up for Joe "return to normalcy" Biden in the general. They just won't.
I'll vote for whoever in the general, but nobody but Bernie will get my time, money, nor activist energy, which will go toward other Leftist causes. Bernie is the only one I trust not to get sucked into some kind of conflict that will get my in-laws in Tehran murdered, and the only one I would actively fight for.
I'm not shaming. I'm calling out people on their hot bullshit.I agree that anything other than a vote for the Democratic candidate is stupid, and if I could vote in that election I would vote for any candidate in the general against Trump. But that wasn't what my post was about.
I disagree that trying to shame people is an effective strategy.
I disagree that trying to shame people is an effective strategy.
The same kind that was never gonna vote for anyone else anyway.
The mask is off now.
And this man is supposed to have said that a woman could not be president. Now, there's no need to believe that statement.
Your peers criticizing you is completely different than a candidate doing so.Yeah it's been tried for what, a few decades now, and voter turnout hovers between 60-40%. So even if it's something I can agree with objectively, it's lousy as an actual turnout strategy.
Why do you think every other Democrat running is going to start a war in Iran?
The stance that anyone who is able to vote against Trump should? Yes I think that would be a very good way to defeat him.This is a great stance if you want to feel morally superior. Do you think this stance is going to help win against Trump?
Your peers criticizing you is completely different than a candidate doing so.
I mean, the electoral college kinda is a big turnout dampener built in.Yeah it's been tried for what, a few decades now, and voter turnout hovers between 60-40%. So even if it's something I can agree with objectively, it's lousy as an actual turnout strategy.
It's not something I hear people talk about often in real life. Or when someone does say they're not voting, you don't hear that much clap back.Then why does between 40 and 60 per cent of the population not vote. Surely at least some of them have heard these arguments from voters about how by doing nothing they're allowing a greater moral hazard to happen.
I mean, the electoral college kinda is a big turnout dampener built in.
They could be (and often are) wrong for state-wide and local races, though.I think this is getting closer to the answer, a lot of people who don't vote view it as pointless, and if they're voting for President in a non-swing state, they aren't exactly wrong!
If this is what makes you stay home and not vote (if Warren is the nominee) for the most progressive Dem we've ever had?
This makes zero sense. Delegates can't switch their vote until the second ballot, at which point the superdelegates (if they're even needed) would completely wreck even their combined efforts because, yeah, they're going to go for Biden, especially if he has the highest total delegate count. The only chance either of them has is to rack up some early wins, soak up as many of the supporters of the one that inevitably soon drops out as they can, and try to close the margins enough in the South so that Biden's likely string of victories there don't net him too many delegates to mathematically overcome, as happened with Hillary.
I mean, the electoral college kinda is a big turnout dampener built in.
Electoral College is an absolute piece of shit and borderline rigs elections now, no argument there.I think this is getting closer to the answer, a lot of people who don't vote view it as pointless, and if they're voting for President in a non-swing state, they aren't exactly wrong!
I think this is getting closer to the answer, a lot of people who don't vote view it as pointless, and if they're voting for President in a non-swing state, they aren't exactly wrong!
Then why does between 40 and 60 per cent of the population not vote. Surely at least some of them have heard these arguments from voters about how by doing nothing they're allowing a greater moral hazard to happen.
Which is fine, no campaign is owed your free time and money.I'll vote for whoever in the general, but nobody but Bernie will get my time, money, nor activist energy, which will go toward other Leftist causes. Bernie is the only one I trust not to get sucked into some kind of conflict that will get my in-laws in Tehran murdered, and the only one I would actively fight for.
the evidence suggests it's mostly because voting is difficult and expensive to do, that's why even relatively minor changes like AVR lead to huge increases in turnout
If I point a gun at your wife and say I will shoot her if you don't give me $100, and you don't give me $100, and I shoot her, are you morally culpable for the death of your wife?
The answer is no, obviously. Despite my ultimatum, you don't actually have control over my actions, I do, and I bear the moral weight of my choices. I can choose to shoot or not shoot regardless of what you do.
This isn't just a moral precept, it is the practical logic of managing abusers and hostage takers. When people try to control you by making you responsible for their choices, you need to either ask for power over those choices in exchange for that responsibility, or accept that you don't have that power and thus don't have that responsibility.
Bruenig's argument sidesteps this question entirely by taking advantage of the fact that many people feel it is useful for their own purposes to assert that there exists a bloc of Bernie-or-Bust supporters whose future choices can actually be predicted, and, necessarily, who will be significant to the outcome of the entire contest. In that, extremely hypothetical, situation a practical logic applies.
But that is not this situation, because real people retain agency at all times and can always choose to vote however they want, regardless of their previous statements, and because this single vote may be assumed to be meaningless — in itself it will not practically affect the outcome of the contest and therefore it cannot be used to leverage other voters by threatening them with a particular outcome. All it will do is demonstrate the moral character of the voter.
The infighting is the usual predictable shit of the left getting caught up on minor shit. This is a super easy perception manipulation, again without context and proof people are drawing lines.
This is why infighting in the left is shit.
Recorded statement of Trump saying 'grab them by the pussy'. Little to no effect on his electorate, media goes in somewhat hard.
She says 'he said woman can't be president', he says 'he didn't say that'. No proof either way. Media goes in, some supporters grandstand. Also you 'l believe' people...This isn't a rape accusation against a powerful man. This is an accusation of a statement in private conversation by a powerful woman against a powerful man, without any corroborating witnesses and without any context. Belief is irrelevant when there is nothing to go on, and it is within the context of a political competition.
This would be funny if it wasn't pathetic.
Yes it seems like a huge pain in the ass to vote especially if you're in a state the GOP control and might consider competitive. In that case any arguments about civic duty might just be pointless because the actual act of voting is prohibitive.
the evidence suggests it's mostly because voting is difficult and expensive to do, that's why even relatively minor changes like AVR lead to huge increases in turnout
It's all tied in with institutionalized racism and our ever expanding police state. GOP controlled areas have been giving off increasingly troubling fascism overtones.Yes it seems like a huge pain in the ass to vote especially if you're in a state the GOP control and might consider competitive. In that case any arguments about civic duty might just be pointless because the actual act of voting is prohibitive.
of saying that a cheeky recontextualization of a logistical argument typically weaponized against the Left is actually a sincere moral argument. The point is to demonstrate that these people would behave differently if they actually believed their "Bernie fans won't vote for anybody else" bullshit. That they don't means they either don't actually want to get rid of Trump as their primary objective, or, more likely, they don't sincerely believe there is this huge army of Bernie or Busters that will stay home and are just being smug doofuses.
I received this argument secondhand, so if Bruenig was actually morally proselytizing, I freely disavow that.
But I succumb to the logic that voting for Bernie IS the logistically smart and correct thing to do if you think him not being on the ticket will make it lose. It's actually one of the reasons I support him, despite being incredibly nervous that he might get pantsed in a general!
it's more complicated then that, it's not only that simple exchange but the history around it and the recent conflicts between the two campaigns and the candidates. Everything snowballed into a train wreck.
All according to keikaku - Biden.
just so we're clear this wasn't unique to Bernie much as the stans want it to be.
Funny thing is that Bernie and Biden probably have a better relationship than Warren and Biden.