The same kind that was never gonna vote for anyone else anyway.
The mask is off now.
-
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.
Warren Refuses to Shake Bernie’s Hand After Debate, Bernie Throws Up Hands After They Speak
- Thread starter chadskin
- Start date
- Status
The mask is off now.
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.
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.
Warren Refuses to Shake Bernie's Hand At Denny's, Bernie Demands Trial by Combat
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.
Anyways, I'm hoping MrGerbils is a Russian plant right now.
It's not like he hasn't fucked up in the past with women.
It's ok that Bernie made a sexist comment once, I think what hurts him more is him not being humble and apologising to Warren and her campaign. He just kept on digging to save face.
He's an 80 year old man who's stuck in his ways.
That's all the destruction required to quantify it, you don't need to go any deeper.
Ok.
Certainly going in that direction, or a Trumper.
Warren refuses to shake Bernie's hand at Fortnite dance competition, Ninja in talks with Microsoft to "finish the fight" this fall.
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 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.
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.
Why do you think every other Democrat running is going to start a war in Iran?
I'm not shaming. I'm calling out people on their hot bullshit.
We already did this rodeo in 2016. Sorry. They don't get the benefit of a doubt, that ship sailed and then sank to the bottom of the ocean.
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.
Hey, back then he also supported the Crime Bill, so... maybe people can change?
Either way, public and private comments being different is not that uncommon, lol.
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.
Your peers criticizing you is completely different than a candidate doing so.
I don't think they're necessarily going to, I just don't trust any of them not to get talked into it by the foreign policy blob. The last Dem president got talked into overthrowing the Libyan regime by the last Dem nominee, and Warren voted for sanctions that are literally harming my family, right now, and we all know Biden would have if he were in the Senate.
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.
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.
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.
I did when I lived in Brooklyn but that was a microcosm, that doesn't exist in many other places in the United States.
This is pathetic. Also why bring it up now and without context?
Also, Warren is a fool. I mean without proof, it is just a he said, she said. It is very interesting how she seems to concentrate on going after Bernie rather say Biden.
Also, Warren is a fool. I mean without proof, it is just a he said, she said. It is very interesting how she seems to concentrate on going after Bernie rather say Biden.
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!
They could be (and often are) wrong for state-wide and local races, though.
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?
Yeah, nah I'ma call you out.
Also true but the spectacle of the Presidential race seems to be what gets souls to the polls.
I'm not talking about a brokered convention. If Biden is leading in delegates at the convention he will simply win, as you say. But early wins don't matter in the scenario you describe. Iowa and N.H. simply don't have enough delegates. Winning at this point requires surviving the entire primary season and coming into the convention with a delegate lead. I don't think either Bernie or Warren can do that without the other one explicitly working hard to make it happen. That's the reason for the long primary truce.
Electoral College is an absolute piece of shit and borderline rigs elections now, no argument there.
Non-swing states become swing states by voting. Sometimes elections can be close and voting works on a group level, not an individual one.
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
Which is fine, no campaign is owed your free time and money.
Voting for the lesser evil most definitely is part of the social contract and essential though.
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 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.
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.
This is an extremely convoluted way 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.
I talk about the results of Oregon implementing AVR a lot because I think it's so counterintuitive. Voter registration is not really that hard to do, so a naive analysis would assume that automatically registering all voters would not increase turnout that much, because people who want to vote would already have registered. But in fact when Oregon instituted automatic registration 60% of the people who were thus registered turned out to vote. A very large percentage of nonregistered people turned out to be perfectly willing to vote but simply practically unable to navigate even a very low barrier in the way of doing so. When people talk about praxis, this is what they should be thinking about -- the ways in which our capitalist systems pose challenges, requirements, and costs to make it hard for the average American to navigate even easy tasks that are required for participation in society, and then frame it as lack of civic duty.
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.
I would never judge people for not voting, for those whom their means for voting have been all but taken away.
I imagine Warren was annoyed because Bernie campaign's response to the story was to call her a liar, instead of actually addressing anything about the conversation. It'd be easy to leverage that as highlighting the unique struggles a female candidate would face.
Instead, they branded her team liars and snakes.
Instead, they branded her team liars and snakes.
I wrote it the short way first and you complained!
Yes, I know. But that's not how you deployed it here, that not being an apt description of the current situation (since we are talking about a single individual's moral choices rather than a coherent voting bloc), and so I pointed that out. Then you made me explain it at length! You're welcome!
I am not claiming that Bruenig is making a moral argument. I'm the one making the moral argument. That's usually how it goes, I find.
Yes. It is totally unrelated to the current discussion, but if you genuinely believe that no candidate but Bernie can win because Bernie supporters are too insane, of course you must vote for Bernie.
What history are you refering to? Up until this point, Warren has aligned a lot with Sanders on certain policies, even if in details there are more differences than is often apparent. Also, why talk about this now? It smells like desperation, which is understandable, but ain't going to gain her any votes. As far as I am aware Sanders has a good record of supporting women's rights, female candidates to congress, etc...
It isn't a trainwreck and this is the problem. It is a squabble, and an embarrasing one. The trainwreck is the media hype and some of the public reaction that surrounds this shit. It is like there is a lack of willingness to filter between important and trivial shit. I mean the fact that this was brought up by the chair and not a bunch of other policy related stuff is the issue.
just so we're clear this wasn't unique to Bernie much as the stans want it to be.
Did anyone else get "You agree with the Ayatollah of Iran"?
Funny thing is that Bernie and Biden probably have a better relationship than Warren and Biden.All according to keikaku - Biden.
- Status