Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:29 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I don't know if Romney is considered moderate, but he is a Republican. Let's compare Romneycare to Obamacare.

Obamacare pretty much is Romneycare!

I guess Biden would improve on Obamacare. I guess? His policy position doesn't stand out clearly in my mind like Sanders' does. Sanders' approach would be disruptive, yes, but when the dust settled, you gotta admit everyone would be covered.
IMHO

If there is any HINT that Sanders disruptive policies will have any sort of recessionary economic effect, he will lose. I donít think younger people fully understand just how important the value of their retirement funds and college funds is to middle and upper middle class Americans. Nobodyís going to vote for a recession, even a little one.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-14-2020 at 12:30 PM.
  #552  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
IMHO

If there is any HINT that Sanders disruptive policies will have any sort of recessionary economic effect, he will lose. I donít think younger people fully understand just how important the value of their retirement funds and college funds is to middle and upper middle class Americans. Nobodyís going to vote for a recession, even a little one.
That's only if these voters think Trump's policies will have less of a recessionary effect. Outside of the die-hard Trump voters, I haven't seen a lot of raging economic optimism in polling.
  #553  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:32 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You know a lot of moderates like me swing both ways (not this election because we also tend to be mature rational adults).
Give me a fucking break. Thinking that you're a mature, rational adult because the right thing is always halfway between the two competing camps is, itself, an immature viewpoint. It's lazy and it's easy.

Oh, there are two sides of the debate? Well they probably have both have equal merit, so if I stay right in the middle, that's what the mature and responsible adults would do. Oooh, you're smart.

Are you a mature and rational adult by staying right in the middle of the climate change "debate"? Oh, one side thinks it's a giant hoax and doesn't want to do anything, and the other side realizes it's real and wants to change to save the world. I'll be the mature adult and take the middle position and acknowledge it's real but let's not do anything!

Centrists are not enlightened. Habitual centrism is just a safe position that requires no thinking that makes you feel enlightened because of fallacious assumptions that the truth is always in the middle, and let its you feel superior to anyone else because you've avoided becoming partisan by picking a side.

Your implication that you're a more mature adult than I am because I picked a side and have strong views whereas you waffle between two right wing parties is bullshit. Are people who accept the science of climate change less mature adults than people who waffle on the centrist position?

You sound like you get dragged around by the overton window, staying in the middle of two parties as they both go rightward, doing exactly what those who try to move the overton window (republicans) want to happen. This does not show maturity or strength of character or thoughtfulness or anything of the sort.

Being a moderate, or a centrist, between a position that's right and one that's wrong, or two positions that are wrong, is no virtue.

Quote:
So why should the establishment Democrats pander to you rather than to me?
Because abandoning their leftist roots and chasing rightward after conservatives got us an environment where a President Trump could win. We would not have an environment where his win would even have been conceivable 20 or 30 years ago. It took a lot of the Republicans going looney tunes right wing and the democrats chasing them there to create this environment.

It got us to a point where we are literally the only rich country in the world that does not effectively have single payer health care, and the country that BY FAR pays the most of its money to cover the smallest amount of its citizens compared to any other rich countries. Leaves us in a place where one side acknowledges climate change but doesn't want to do anything serious about it and the other thinks it's a chinese/liberal/scientist hoax.

The democrats taking the leftist vote for granted and actively appealing to increasingly more right wing voters that might not be moving rightward as fast as the republicans are is actively making our country a worse place because it leads to increasingly right wing outcomes. Appealing to the likes of you has increased our wealth gap to levels unseen since right before the great depression, a broken health care system, inaction on climate change, and dozens of other examples I could list here.
  #554  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:35 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,875
@ SenorBeef ó I appreciate your point of view, but you're exaggerating the badness of Biden's plan. Millions more would get free medical care than under the present ACA, and millions more would benefit from the 8.5% cap on premiums. The public option would, at least in the long term, force private insurance companies to improve their policies to compete with the public option. With further gradual changes, the U.S. would approach a system like what we want.

I understand (and even admire) the urge to move to a single-payer system more directly. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Even if you could get a radical plan enacted by Congress (you can't), the plan would fail. It would be hugely disruptive. The Party of Lies and Hatred would be doing everything they could to sabotage such a system, but even without deliberate sabotage by America's enemies, the huge tax hikes, bureaucratic snafus, misallocations of medical resources, and sudden dismantling of private health insurance would cause huge bitterness even among Democrats, appear crazily chaotic, and lead to electoral defeat of the Democrats in the aftermath.

Other than that, Bernie's plan would be great.

Last edited by septimus; 02-14-2020 at 12:38 PM.
  #555  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:50 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
And the republicans are going to support Biden's plan, why? When they ACA was up for debate, the democrats accepted 206 amendments from them to improve it, and they all voted against it in unison anyway.

The democrats aren't pushing any health care reforms unless they take back the house and senate, and if they do that, why settle for the half-ass solution designed to prop up the insurance company? At that point, let's stop being the only rich country that takes the profits of the insurance industry as their first consideration to run a health care system.

Literally 31 out of 32 got this one right, and long ago. They think we're insane that this is even a debate.

Given that Republicans are going to stonewall Biden just as they stonewalled Obama (and the fact that Biden thinks otherwise, despite the fact that HE WAS RIGHT THERE for all of it alone makes him completely unsuitable to be president), then there's no need to appeal to Republicans with a half-ass plan.

And if we can't actually enact the changes either way (because either the house or senate is Republican) then we might as well move the overton window by shouting about the health care system that works for the rest of the world instead of meekly proposing reforms to our broken one.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-14-2020 at 12:52 PM.
  #556  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:02 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
The optimist in me hopes that we have more in common with Bernie supporters than recovering Republican voters. So I would like to hear more encouraging sentiment from our comrades on the left that they will vote blue, even if it's not their favorite shade of blue. Because let's face it, only a fraction of the liberal/progressive/D-classic voters will end with their favorite shade of blue. For the rest, the struggle will go on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post


I don't know if such a thing as a "reasonable" Bernie supporter exists. I feel like those people would better be called... well, I won't say it... I know how much it hurts your feelings.

...


Oh, there's a reason, Becky. Here it is: Fuck you. Nobody cares if you come to the party. Stay home. Petulant fucking cunt.
I already said that there is a 99% chance that I will vote for the democratic candidate. And yet you are actively encouraging me to stay home and not vote. And yet you hope that the reasonable nature of the Bernie voters will reassure your faith in humanity and all that.

In what way you have influence - speaking directly to Bernie supporters - the only action you've taken is to deliberately try to discourage me from voting for the non-Bernie democrat. Not even implicitly, explicitly. You told me to stay home on voting day knowing that there's a 99% chance I'll vote for the democrat.

So if you succeed, and I do exactly what you say, and the democratic nominee gets one less vote - are you going to feel proud and accomplished?

Would anyone else here like to support his "stay home" stance? Rebuke it?
  #557  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:03 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,875
Where did my comments have anything to do with getting Republican support? The GOP will always try to sabotage; we just want to emerge with something of value at the end.

"Huge bitterness even by Democrats ... crazy chaos ... electoral defeat." That's what you're rooting for?


(I didn't get the "31 out of 32" reference.)
  #558  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:08 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
And the republicans are going to support Biden's plan, why? When they ACA was up for debate, the democrats accepted 206 amendments from them to improve it, and they all voted against it in unison anyway.

The democrats aren't pushing any health care reforms unless they take back the house and senate, and if they do that, why settle for the half-ass solution designed to prop up the insurance company? At that point, let's stop being the only rich country that takes the profits of the insurance industry as their first consideration to run a health care system.

Literally 31 out of 32 got this one right, and long ago. They think we're insane that this is even a debate.

Given that Republicans are going to stonewall Biden just as they stonewalled Obama (and the fact that Biden thinks otherwise, despite the fact that HE WAS RIGHT THERE for all of it alone makes him completely unsuitable to be president), then there's no need to appeal to Republicans with a half-ass plan.

And if we can't actually enact the changes either way (because either the house or senate is Republican) then we might as well move the overton window by shouting about the health care system that works for the rest of the world instead of meekly proposing reforms to our broken one.
If the GOP is going to stonewall Biden, imagine what they are going to do to Bernie.

You keep talking about moving the Overton window as if failing to implement UHC, but shouting about it, is going to somehow do that. It won't. What moved the Overton window was Obama having achieved limited success with ACA. People who opposed it initially but received the benefits, had their minds changed and don't want to give it up now. That was a successful move of the Overton window. Failing to implement UHC, as any Dem is sure to do with a majority GOP senate, will not move the Overton window one inch. It will be seen as a victory for the GOP and solidify their base.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #559  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:11 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I already said that there is a 99% chance that I will vote for the democratic candidate. And yet you are actively encouraging me to stay home and not vote. And yet you hope that the reasonable nature of the Bernie voters will reassure your faith in humanity and all that.

In what way you have influence - speaking directly to Bernie supporters - the only action you've taken is to deliberately try to discourage me from voting for the non-Bernie democrat. Not even implicitly, explicitly. You told me to stay home on voting day knowing that there's a 99% chance I'll vote for the democrat.

So if you succeed, and I do exactly what you say, and the democratic nominee gets one less vote - are you going to feel proud and accomplished?

Would anyone else here like to support his "stay home" stance? Rebuke it?
I also said this earlier. You probably missed it.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #560  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:13 PM
Fugazi is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post

(I didn't get the "31 out of 32" reference.)
I think he's talking about other 1st world countries who have figured out how to give all of their citizens healthcare. Too bad America is too fucking stupid to enact such a radical idea.
  #561  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:18 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugazi View Post
I think he's talking about other 1st world countries who have figured out how to give all of their citizens healthcare. Too bad America is too fucking stupid to enact such a radical idea.
Hey now! Many Americans prefer the term, "exceptional".
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #562  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:19 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Where did my comments have anything to do with getting Republican support? The GOP will always try to sabotage; we just want to emerge with something of value at the end.

"Huge bitterness even by Democrats ... crazy chaos ... electoral defeat." That's what you're rooting for?
When you say Biden's plan is more practical, I assumed you meant that Republicans might actually be willing to work with it and enact some sort of reforms. But you acknowledge the Republicans won't, so I'm guessing you meant that a less ambitious plan will go over better with the electorate?

It just seems to me that if we get another democratic majority in the house and senate, which is what we'd need to enact either plan - at that point, why not actually fix the health care system instead of a half-ass minor improvement that props up the insurance companies for longer?

Quote:
(I didn't get the "31 out of 32" reference.)
I may be getting the number wrong. Maybe it was 30 out of 31, or 32 out of the 33 richest countries in the world all have some form of single payer health care. In some, it's not actually single payer, there are multiple payers, but they are so highly regulated in terms of what they provide and prices and such that they are effectively single payer. We're a very strange outlier.
  #563  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:33 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
If the GOP is going to stonewall Biden, imagine what they are going to do to Bernie.
Stonewall him, too?

They will go maximum obstruction for Biden. So.... they will go maximum obstruction for Bernie too. What would be the difference?

Quote:
You keep talking about moving the Overton window as if failing to implement UHC, but shouting about it, is going to somehow do that. It won't. What moved the Overton window was Obama having achieved limited success with ACA. People who opposed it initially but received the benefits, had their minds changed and don't want to give it up now. That was a successful move of the Overton window. Failing to implement UHC, as any Dem is sure to do with a majority GOP senate, will not move the Overton window one inch. It will be seen as a victory for the GOP and solidify their base.
You may be right in that implementing the ACA may have moved the Overton window to the left a bit, I'm not sure. My estimation is that it help fix the bleeding of our medical system just enough that it will take another 10 or 15 years to fall apart, and will only serve as a delay to real progress.

But I think you're misunderstanding the overton window. The overton window is about public discourse and what the bounds are on what we'd consider normal political discourse. If the two parties portray it is the ACA and reforms to it being on the left end of what's discussed, and the right wing end is free market dystopia, then the public will think the actual solution is somewhere in that range. If no one is talking about single payer, or whenever it's brought up, people scoff at is as being this radical idea that could never possibly work (despite it working everywhere else in the world), then single payer health care is not even within the overton window of public thought.

You very well can move the overton window by talking about things. It's about moving or opening the window on what's considered normal public discourse. Without Bernie (or Warren, reluctantly) talking about M4A, the overton window would still range from "modest improvements to the ACA" to "it should be legal to pay your doctor in sexual slavery from your children to treat your cancer"

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I also said this earlier. You probably missed it.
Do you think this makes you not a shitbag, or something? Yes, you asked what you could do to help encourage me to vote the way you want me to after you told me multiple times to just stay home.

I already told you, several times in this thread, what would be a productive way of handling this.

If I have to vote for Joe Biden, I'm already swallowing a bitter pill. I do not think Joe Biden will be a good president. I don't want Joe Biden to be president. I don't want to vote for Joe Biden. So it's hard enough for me to suck that up and pull that lever.

.............. So don't make it any fucking harder by telling me I'm a "Petulant fucking cunt." for not being enthusiastic to vote for Joe Biden. Don't tell me that you don't want me to vote for him, and that I should stay home. Don't make me feel even worse about voting for him because to do so I have to be on the same side, and listen to the likes of scumbags like you insult me and even tell me to stay home instead of vote.

This isn't complicated. Don't do your absolute best to alienate me from doing what you want me to do.

You know when I said there was a 99% chance I'd vote for the democratic candidate and you called me a petulant cunt and told me to stay home and not vote? For example, don't do that.

This is really not a difficult one. There's no secret, no required words. If someone is having already having a hard time doing something you want to do, but they're going to do it, don't do your best to be shitty to them and discourage them. Don't be human garbage.
  #564  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:55 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
Why are you basing any part of your decision making process on something some stranger on the internet said to you?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #565  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:59 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by slumtrimpet View Post
Maybe my reading comprehension needs work, but all I've seen in this thread is exactly that 'encouraging sentiment' from the Bernie supporters. All I've seen is that, yes, they will hold their nose and vote blue if they must. Even the OP has stated such.

But I'll tell you, the sneering and disparaging of 'Bernie Bros' is obnoxious. Even the doubting of their intentions is obnoxious. I supported Bernie in 2016 and held my nose to vote for Clinton.
Then guess what? You're not a Bernie Bro.

Quote:
She would have been the same old, same old but light years better than the orangewhatsis. I'm seriously starting to consider that perhaps the USA needs a kick in the ass, and 4 more years of the orangewhatsis might accomplish that- as in 'it has to get really really awful before the electorate wakes up'. But I'm lucky, I don't live there anymore. I do get to vote though. I guess that makes me a 'Bernie Bro'
Nah. It makes you Susan Sarandon.

Wait. We are still in the Pit, right?

Yeah. That's what it makes you.
  #566  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:01 PM
Jimmy Chitwood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Near Philadelphia
Posts: 6,608
As helpful as the enormous red letters you're using to redefine terms that are in extremely wide use are, it remains the case that your definition is an ideosyncratic one. Presumably that would be true if you said it even larger and redder, but there's only one way to find out!
  #567  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:09 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I'm not impressed by your synopsis. Would it be better than what we currently have? Probably, maybe, depends on the specifics. Is it a conservative health care plan? Yes.

Consider, for a moment, the roots of the ACA. When Democrats were talking about a single payer health care system back in the early 90s, the republicans proposed a market-based alternative that would keep the insurance companies intact and even prop them up. It came from the heritage think tank as a republican alternative to bringing us in line with the rest of the developed world.

The Republicans managed to throw away even that level of reform so that nothing was done, but that was originally a conservative proposal to block real health reform to bring us in line with the rest of the world with a half-assed reform that kept the insurance companies in the way, fucking us over.

By 2010, our failing health system in desperate need of some sort of reform, the democrats proposed their version of that heritage foundation plan, thinking that it might be palatable to republicans, given it was their own plan. But the overton window had shifted in the meantime. The republicans went so far right that their own plan was the MOST SOCIALIST COMMUNIST TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE EVER, and the democrats had chased them so far right that the most serious health care reform proposal they could come up with was a republican plan from the 90s.

This is a good example of how the democratic party has become more conservative chasing the republican party as they fly right as hard as they can.

Biden's plan is just a little closer to having an ACA with a public option, which is still a half-assed solution. Most of the benefits of having a single payer health system are diminished by having a dual government/private health care system like that.

We will still have the complex, adversarial billing that requires every doctors office to keep a staff of people whose only job is to jump through the right hoops and make sure insurance companies pay what they're supposed to pay. We still have elevated prices on medical costs across the board, because the government has limited negotiating power and is concerned about the profits of insurance and medical providers. We have an incentive for people who oppose the public side of health care to defund it and otherwise make it work poorly so that they can point to it and say "see, that part of the system doesn't work!" - which is some of what we got with an attempt to sabotage Obamacare by eliminating risk corridor guarantees, mandatory taxes, etc. Insurance companies still get to deny treatment to people who greatly need it and hope that those people die before they can sue the insurance company to collect what they're owed.

Biden's plan is rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic so that insurance companies can survive and profit a while longer before the whole system collapses. His plan would be considered a strange right wing plan in literally every other developed country in the world.

We have the rest of the world as a model. Creating a complex, hybrid system designed to make sure that insurance companies stay in business and keep making money is unacceptable. It minimizes the benefits of a public system and keeps a lot of the draw backs.
Okay, cool. How did the rest of the world go about dismantling their entrenched insurance-company-including healthcare infrastructures in order to get to the UHC systems they have today? A couple of examples should be enough to persuade me that Bernie could do it within the single term that he reportedly aspires to.

TIA
  #568  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:11 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Chitwood View Post
As helpful as the enormous red letters you're using to redefine terms that are in extremely wide use are, it remains the case that your definition is an ideosyncratic one. Presumably that would be true if you said it even larger and redder, but there's only one way to find out!
Your misspelling of "idiosyncratic" means that I get to declare that it's objectively factual.

So there.
  #569  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:18 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Why are you basing any part of your decision making process on something some stranger on the internet said to you?
Okay, so you have a decision before you between two options that you do not like. You have the option not to choose at all if you prefer. Picking either option feels unpleasant, because you don't actually want either option. But you have an obligation to pick the lesser of two evils, right? But what if your willingness to pick between the lesser of two evils is creating the dichotomy that are progressively making the greater of two evils even worse? What if you pick the lesser of two evils every time, which only continues to make the options available to you more evil on average because you never have a choice of picking a not evil option?

So, then, you see a not evil option before you, but it's taken away from you by the machinations of the forces wanting to propagate the system of two evils. Then, those people say "okay, well, we know you wanted to have the not evil choice, but we took that away from you, but go ahead and choose between the two evils that we have decided remain"

Your temptation would then be to say "fuck this, I'm not playing your bullshit game" - but everyone tells you no, one of the evils is SO evil that you have to vote against it. And they're right, in this case, Trump is so abnormally evil that you feel like you probably have to play their game, to your own disgust, in this case.

So you prepare to swallow your principles and do something that's deeply uncomfortable - voluntarily voting for an evil.

And then the people who want you to be with them on this one, nominally their allies - do they try to encourage you? Do they impress upon you how important it is that you vote with them, because one of the evils is so much greater? Do you try to support you and make you feel better about this decision you have to make which disgusts you?

Or do they say "fuck you, you stupid little petulant cunt for even having this hesitation. You're a full blown Trump supporting racist, obviously! Why don't you fucking stay home, we don't need you, you piece of shit"

And if you hear the latter dozens or hundreds of times, do you truly think that's not going to make it more difficult to make this decision that already feels like a compromise of your ethics?

So, do I have the maturity and independence to overcome the fact that the people who want me to vote on their side are doing their best to insult me and discourage me? Yes, I do. But they're trying their best to make my decision harder, to make the bitter pill even more bitter, doing their best to discourage me from actually making the choice they want me to make.

And why? Is this a good strategic choice for them? No, it's because they're incredibly stupid and toxic and just want to take this chance to insult people. They're so fucking stupid that they know how important it is to recruit your vote, and yet deliberately make it as hard as it can be for you, just because they'd rather get the transient pleasure of insulting you than the potential long term win of actually earning your vote. And then they call YOU a petulant child.

So while I have the integrity to get over that, too, there are others that won't. The toxic behavior towards people who are not democrats, who do not want to support someone like Joe Biden, in some cases actually does cause them to be unable to swallow that bitter pill when they also have to deal with the added bitterness of capitulating to the people who are being extremely toxic towards them.

Being toxic to disenfranchise leftists who feel apathetic when the only choice they could support gets taken away from them loses votes for your side, votes that you would've won with non-toxic treatment.

The stupidest irony of it all is that these are being toxic while claiming that it's so important to defeat Trump that you have to compromise your principles can't even manage to try to be decent to the people they're talking about. They have to be toxic shitheads about it. So if it's so important that I vote against Trump that I compromise my principles, certainly it should be important enough that you shouldn't ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE ME FROM VOTING JUST SO YOU CAN BE TOXIC, right?

So why be shitty to Bernie supporters? Why make the bitter pill you want them to take even more bitter? Why make it harder for them to vote the way you want them to vote? There is no advantage to this. You gain nothing. You are telling people it's so important that everyone votes against Trump, and yet you can't even put a fucking lid on your toxicity for the sake of getting someone to vote against Trump.

So, you get people like Quicksilver, who, as a person who is 99% likely to vote for the democratic candidate, told me to stay home and not vote. And he even feels like he's in the morally superior position somehow, even though he has done his absolute best to discourage a vote for the eventual democratic nominee from someone who is extremely likely to vote for them. And he says that I have the moral failing, even though I'm trying to talk myself into voting against Trump and he's talking me out of it. He's adding an extra barrier I have to overcome.

There's nothing to gain by alienating Bernie supporters and a lot to lose. So if you actually want to defeat Trump - which is the justification for all your toxicity - then you'd try to get people to want to vote against Trump, not to try to get them not to vote.

This is what this thread is about. There is nothing to be gained by being dismissive or alienating or toxic towards Bernie supporters. There is a lot to lose. Why do it? Because you are irredeemably toxic human garbage who cares more about the satisfaction of insulting people than you care about beating Trump.
  #570  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:19 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You may be right in that implementing the ACA may have moved the Overton window to the left a bit, I'm not sure. My estimation is that it help fix the bleeding of our medical system just enough that it will take another 10 or 15 years to fall apart, and will only serve as a delay to real progress.
It's important to stop the bleeding and stabilize the patient before proceeding with major reconstruction surgery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
But I think you're misunderstanding the overton window. The overton window is about public discourse and what the bounds are on what we'd consider normal political discourse. If the two parties portray it is the ACA and reforms to it being on the left end of what's discussed, and the right wing end is free market dystopia, then the public will think the actual solution is somewhere in that range. If no one is talking about single payer, or whenever it's brought up, people scoff at is as being this radical idea that could never possibly work (despite it working everywhere else in the world), then single payer health care is not even within the overton window of public thought.

You very well can move the overton window by talking about things. It's about moving or opening the window on what's considered normal public discourse. Without Bernie (or Warren, reluctantly) talking about M4A, the overton window would still range from "modest improvements to the ACA" to "it should be legal to pay your doctor in sexual slavery from your children to treat your cancer"
The Overton window is a mildly interesting philosophical discussion but it's so highly speculative that I tire of it very quickly. I've told you what I think moves opinions in a tangible way - tangible successes. America has been talking about UHC for a long time. But it took unilateral action by an administration to make real progress in that direction. Talking about it loudly and sternly isn't going to be enough.



Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Do you think this makes you not a shitbag, or something? Yes, you asked what you could do to help encourage me to vote the way you want me to after you told me multiple times to just stay home.

I already told you, several times in this thread, what would be a productive way of handling this.

If I have to vote for Joe Biden, I'm already swallowing a bitter pill. I do not think Joe Biden will be a good president. I don't want Joe Biden to be president. I don't want to vote for Joe Biden. So it's hard enough for me to suck that up and pull that lever.

.............. So don't make it any fucking harder by telling me I'm a "Petulant fucking cunt." for not being enthusiastic to vote for Joe Biden. Don't tell me that you don't want me to vote for him, and that I should stay home. Don't make me feel even worse about voting for him because to do so I have to be on the same side, and listen to the likes of scumbags like you insult me and even tell me to stay home instead of vote.

This isn't complicated. Don't do your absolute best to alienate me from doing what you want me to do.

You know when I said there was a 99% chance I'd vote for the democratic candidate and you called me a petulant cunt and told me to stay home and not vote? For example, don't do that.

This is really not a difficult one. There's no secret, no required words. If someone is having already having a hard time doing something you want to do, but they're going to do it, don't do your best to be shitty to them and discourage them. Don't be human garbage.
OMG you're a bore. Biden is very far from being my first choice too. But I'm not going to whine about it if that's my only choice and I'm not going to hold the Democratic party hostage unless get my first choice. And neither will you, I'm 99% sure. And neither should anyone who is resolved to get rid of Trump.

I'm done now. I just can't anymore with this bullshit.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #571  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:29 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so you have a decision before you between two options that you do not like. You have the option not to choose at all if you prefer. Picking either option feels unpleasant, because you don't actually want either option. But you have an obligation to pick the lesser of two evils, right? But what if your willingness to pick between the lesser of two evils is creating the dichotomy that are progressively making the greater of two evils even worse? What if you pick the lesser of two evils every time, which only continues to make the options available to you more evil on average because you never have a choice of picking a not evil option?
That all makes lovely sense, except you're GETTING one of those two evils, and your abstention means someone else makes that choice.

Then you spend the next several years bitching about how the evil you didn't choose is so fucking evil, and then complain when people get tired of your schtick.
  #572  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:34 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
I voted for Clinton, retard. So what's my schtick?

Do you think being toxic towards Bernie supporters who are trying to swallow the bitter pill of voting for a democrat they don't actually like or believe in or want to be president makes it more or less likely that they'll vote for them?

And since the obvious answer is less likely, then why do it? Do you want to play this election on hard mode? Do you want to gatekeep voting democrat so fewer people do it? What's the upside of doing your best to alienate potential democratic voters?

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-14-2020 at 02:35 PM.
  #573  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:42 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Okay, so you have a decision before you between two options that you do not like. You have the option not to choose at all if you prefer. Picking either option feels unpleasant, because you don't actually want either option. But you have an obligation to pick the lesser of two evils, right? But what if your willingness to pick between the lesser of two evils is creating the dichotomy that are progressively making the greater of two evils even worse? What if you pick the lesser of two evils every time, which only continues to make the options available to you more evil on average because you never have a choice of picking a not evil option?

So, then, you see a not evil option before you, but it's taken away from you by the machinations of the forces wanting to propagate the system of two evils. Then, those people say "okay, well, we know you wanted to have the not evil choice, but we took that away from you, but go ahead and choose between the two evils that we have decided remain"

Your temptation would then be to say "fuck this, I'm not playing your bullshit game" - but everyone tells you no, one of the evils is SO evil that you have to vote against it. And they're right, in this case, Trump is so abnormally evil that you feel like you probably have to play their game, to your own disgust, in this case.

So you prepare to swallow your principles and do something that's deeply uncomfortable - voluntarily voting for an evil.

And then the people who want you to be with them on this one, nominally their allies - do they try to encourage you? Do they impress upon you how important it is that you vote with them, because one of the evils is so much greater? Do you try to support you and make you feel better about this decision you have to make which disgusts you?

Or do they say "fuck you, you stupid little petulant cunt for even having this hesitation. You're a full blown Trump supporting racist, obviously! Why don't you fucking stay home, we don't need you, you piece of shit"

And if you hear the latter dozens or hundreds of times, do you truly think that's not going to make it more difficult to make this decision that already feels like a compromise of your ethics?

So, do I have the maturity and independence to overcome the fact that the people who want me to vote on their side are doing their best to insult me and discourage me? Yes, I do. But they're trying their best to make my decision harder, to make the bitter pill even more bitter, doing their best to discourage me from actually making the choice they want me to make.

And why? Is this a good strategic choice for them? No, it's because they're incredibly stupid and toxic and just want to take this chance to insult people. They're so fucking stupid that they know how important it is to recruit your vote, and yet deliberately make it as hard as it can be for you, just because they'd rather get the transient pleasure of insulting you than the potential long term win of actually earning your vote. And then they call YOU a petulant child.

So while I have the integrity to get over that, too, there are others that won't. The toxic behavior towards people who are not democrats, who do not want to support someone like Joe Biden, in some cases actually does cause them to be unable to swallow that bitter pill when they also have to deal with the added bitterness of capitulating to the people who are being extremely toxic towards them.

Being toxic to disenfranchise leftists who feel apathetic when the only choice they could support gets taken away from them loses votes for your side, votes that you would've won with non-toxic treatment.

The stupidest irony of it all is that these are being toxic while claiming that it's so important to defeat Trump that you have to compromise your principles can't even manage to try to be decent to the people they're talking about. They have to be toxic shitheads about it. So if it's so important that I vote against Trump that I compromise my principles, certainly it should be important enough that you shouldn't ACTIVELY DISCOURAGE ME FROM VOTING JUST SO YOU CAN BE TOXIC, right?

So why be shitty to Bernie supporters? Why make the bitter pill you want them to take even more bitter? Why make it harder for them to vote the way you want them to vote? There is no advantage to this. You gain nothing. You are telling people it's so important that everyone votes against Trump, and yet you can't even put a fucking lid on your toxicity for the sake of getting someone to vote against Trump.

So, you get people like Quicksilver, who, as a person who is 99% likely to vote for the democratic candidate, told me to stay home and not vote. And he even feels like he's in the morally superior position somehow, even though he has done his absolute best to discourage a vote for the eventual democratic nominee from someone who is extremely likely to vote for them. And he says that I have the moral failing, even though I'm trying to talk myself into voting against Trump and he's talking me out of it. He's adding an extra barrier I have to overcome.

There's nothing to gain by alienating Bernie supporters and a lot to lose. So if you actually want to defeat Trump - which is the justification for all your toxicity - then you'd try to get people to want to vote against Trump, not to try to get them not to vote.

This is what this thread is about. There is nothing to be gained by being dismissive or alienating or toxic towards Bernie supporters. There is a lot to lose. Why do it? Because you are irredeemably toxic human garbage who cares more about the satisfaction of insulting people than you care about beating Trump.
You should try tuning out the internet, social media, message boards etc. and just do what you feel is the best thing for the country with the choices you have in front of you. You talk about hearing these objectionable things dozens or hundreds of times, but you do know that what you listen to, what you let affect you, what you let affect your own decision making process, are all choices that *you* make right? People are awful on the internet. Everywhere. About all sort of things. That will never change. You don't have to pay it any attention though, you don't have to let it affect you. You control your own agency. If somebody else is an asshole, that should not make you hand over some part of control over your actions to them. I am planning on doing what I feel is right, and I don't care how many awful mean memes I see from any direction on the subject. That power is available to all of us, we just have to decide to use it.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #574  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:44 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
I don't disagree with any of that - but if I don't want Trump to be president - and I very much don't - and I see idiots on here that are making it more likely that Trump is going to be elected by purposefully being a dick and discouraging potential anti-Trump voters, shouldn't I call that out? That was the purpose of this thread.

No one has been able to identify any sort of upside to taunting and being toxic to Bernie supporters, and the downsides are obvious. Obviously some people are irredeemably toxic, but if this thread could potentially make someone think twice about joining in on that counterproductive toxicity, then it could potentially do some good.
  #575  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:52 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
I get what you're saying, but we already went through this in 2016. There are assholes that contribute to the overall toxicity of our electoral process, but there is also a very well funded and massive operation to promote this kind of toxicity and division. A lot of this awfulness is being created and stoked by that effort. What makes it work is that real actual people then absorb it, internalize it and share it. That makes it orders of magnitude worse. You and I have no control over this. What I realized I do control though, is whether I participate in it. I no longer share anything political, I won't comment or argue, and if I have friends where 99% of the things they share and talk about are politics, then I employ the snooze feature. The only way we defeat this machine is to step outside of it and refuse to let it affect us. Whether you are sharing the awful stuff, or getting upset by the awful stuff, you are participating in the effort to undermine our democratic process. It's hard, but tuning out the noise and stopping caring about it and letting it affect our own choices is the only way.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 02-14-2020 at 02:53 PM.
  #576  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I don't disagree with any of that - but if I don't want Trump to be president - and I very much don't - and I see idiots on here that are making it more likely that Trump is going to be elected by purposefully being a dick and discouraging potential anti-Trump voters, shouldn't I call that out? That was the purpose of this thread.

No one has been able to identify any sort of upside to taunting and being toxic to Bernie supporters, and the downsides are obvious. Obviously some people are irredeemably toxic, but if this thread could potentially make someone think twice about joining in on that counterproductive toxicity, then it could potentially do some good.
There are obvious upsides - it can act as catharsis to the insulter, and a form of retribution for the part they played in getting Trump elected ("Bernie Bro" "Bernie or Bust" people are those people who didn't vote for Clinton).

Those are at LEAST as good of upsides as the upsides gained by voting for Sanders after he's lost the primary, voting for Trump out of spite, or not voting at all.
  #577  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:58 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
So............... you're advocating for the strategy of attempting to alienate Bernie voters and make them stay home or vote for Trump because the thrill from insulting them is worth it?
  #578  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:02 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I don't disagree with any of that - but if I don't want Trump to be president - and I very much don't - and I see idiots on here that are making it more likely that Trump is going to be elected by purposefully being a dick and discouraging potential anti-Trump voters, shouldn't I call that out? That was the purpose of this thread.

No one has been able to identify any sort of upside to taunting and being toxic to Bernie supporters, and the downsides are obvious. Obviously some people are irredeemably toxic, but if this thread could potentially make someone think twice about joining in on that counterproductive toxicity, then it could potentially do some good.
You think reason works in environments like this? Facts and reason are many times largely irrelevant here.
  #579  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:07 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So............... you're advocating for the strategy of attempting to alienate Bernie voters and make them stay home or vote for Trump because the thrill from insulting them is worth it?
Again, the insults are ONLY directed at the Bernie supporters who have ALREADY decided that their only blue vote in November will be for Sanders, and for whom no amount of persuasion will change that decision.

Don't know why you'd be invested in sparing that crowd any of their well-deserved opprobrium.
  #580  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:11 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
You're wrong. You're simply trying to redefine the argument.

The people who shit on Bernie supporters are not asking them if they're going to vote democrat anyway, they're just shitting on Bernie supporters. People are not giving the "only the Bernie supporters who won't vote for Joe Biden" caveat that you claim is implicit. You're just trying to justify toxic behavior by saying that it's only targeted at those that deserve it, but that's something that you're just making up and assuming, and lots of people clearly do not share your definition.

Case in point: I was called a "Bernie Bro" in the comment that this thread was a response to, despite the fact that I voted for Clinton, and will almost certainly vote for the democratic candidate in this election. Plenty of people in this thread are still insulting me, even though, as I said, I am very much not in the "bernie or bust" crowd you claim those insults are aimed at exclusively.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 02-14-2020 at 03:13 PM.
  #581  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:18 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 32,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You're wrong. You're simply trying to redefine the argument.

The people who shit on Bernie supporters are not asking them if they're going to vote democrat anyway, they're just shitting on Bernie supporters. People are not giving the "only the Bernie supporters who won't vote for Joe Biden" caveat that you claim is implicit. You're just trying to justify toxic behavior by saying that it's only targeted at those that deserve it, but that's something that you're just making up and assuming, and lots of people clearly do not share your definition.

Case in point: I was called a "Bernie Bro" in the comment that this thread was a response to, despite the fact that I voted for Clinton, and will almost certainly vote for the democratic candidate in this election. Plenty of people in this thread are still insulting me, even though, as I said, I am very much not in the "bernie or bust" crowd you claim those insults are aimed at exclusively.
Point out the sneerers who DON'T reserve their opprobrium for that crowd, and I'm right there with you, man. 'Cos FUCK THOSE GUYS.

As for insults you perceive are directed at you personally, grow a thicker skin.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 02-14-2020 at 03:20 PM.
  #582  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:34 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,434
SenorBeef, we are only shitting on those Sanders supporters who have already taken steps to remove themselves from relevance by being Bernie or Bust voters. You have said you aren't one of them, so why are you defending that hill? Do you see some hidden good in them, some reason to believe that they will change their minds when push comes to shove?I

A better investment is in building a case for Biden people to come to Bernie when Biden collapses.

Last edited by dropzone; 02-14-2020 at 03:39 PM.
  #583  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:47 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Again, that's bullshit, you're just redefining your argument. People are definitely still insulting me after I explicitly stated voting for Clinton and having a 99%+ chance of voting for the democratic candidate this time around. Anyone who supports Bernie can be hit with "Bernie Bro", not just people who will vote for Bernie but no one else. You are just making shit up to make your side look better.
  #584  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:55 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I voted for Clinton, retard. So what's my schtick?

Do you think being toxic towards Bernie supporters who are trying to swallow the bitter pill of voting for a democrat they don't actually like or believe in or want to be president makes it more or less likely that they'll vote for them?

And since the obvious answer is less likely, then why do it? Do you want to play this election on hard mode? Do you want to gatekeep voting democrat so fewer people do it? What's the upside of doing your best to alienate potential democratic voters?
Point where the mean Squirrel hurt your feefees, preferably BEFORE your multiple rants and the death wishes of your fellow supporters.

Also, feel free to respond the the question I posed before, as to which is more likely: a fantastical theory of insanity or your own fellow supporter outright saying, "If Sanders isn't the nominee, I won't vote, no matter what".
  #585  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:58 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,238
I'm pretty sure the two sides now are pro-fascism and anti-fascism. The powers that be want us to be at each others throats on the anti-fascism side.

Everyone should be a duck and let that shit run off you like water. Defeating rising fascism in our country must be the priority for everyone. Everything else is distraction and diversion. We are getting inundated with "hey look over here!" every minute of every day specifically to keep our eyes off the prize.

We are on the same side. Anyone that want to stop what is happening in this country is on the same side.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #586  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:17 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So............... you're advocating for the strategy of attempting to alienate Bernie voters and make them stay home or vote for Trump because the thrill from insulting them is worth it?
Not in this discussion and pretty much not on this board but across the wider internet - there are lots of pro-Trump trolls trying to alienate Bernie supporters and split the party.

I’m not saying that the people that are interacting directly with you are trolls. But they are out there promoting and amplifying and affecting the content you and your friends see.

Do not underestimate how important this election is to the Republican Party and how determined they are to win.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-14-2020 at 04:19 PM.
  #587  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:49 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Yeah, I was under the impression that when people said "Bernie Bro" it refers to Bernie supporters of the "Bernie or Bust" variety - where if their guy doesn't win they wish to fuck the country with a rusty backhoe out of spite.
That's how I use the term "Bernie Bro". I think it fucking fits, and history (2016) bears it out.
  #588  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:52 PM
SteveG1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Van Nuys CA
Posts: 14,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
And the republicans are going to support Biden's plan, why? When they ACA was up for debate, the democrats accepted 206 amendments from them to improve it, and they all voted against it in unison anyway.

The democrats aren't pushing any health care reforms unless they take back the house and senate, and if they do that, why settle for the half-ass solution designed to prop up the insurance company? At that point, let's stop being the only rich country that takes the profits of the insurance industry as their first consideration to run a health care system.

Literally 31 out of 32 got this one right, and long ago. They think we're insane that this is even a debate.

Given that Republicans are going to stonewall Biden just as they stonewalled Obama (and the fact that Biden thinks otherwise, despite the fact that HE WAS RIGHT THERE for all of it alone makes him completely unsuitable to be president), then there's no need to appeal to Republicans with a half-ass plan.

And if we can't actually enact the changes either way (because either the house or senate is Republican) then we might as well move the overton window by shouting about the health care system that works for the rest of the world instead of meekly proposing reforms to our broken one.
Look at how McConnell and the Repukes are locking up bills NOW. Anyone (Biden) who thinks they will be able to work with them is a FUCKING IDIOT. He's just "Repuke Lite" anyway. The only reason I'd vote for him, is the same only reason I'd vote for Bloomberg --- to get rid of Traitor Trump.
  #589  
Old 02-14-2020, 04:58 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Again, that's bullshit, you're just redefining your argument. People are definitely still insulting me after I explicitly stated voting for Clinton and having a 99%+ chance of voting for the democratic candidate this time around. Anyone who supports Bernie can be hit with "Bernie Bro", not just people who will vote for Bernie but no one else. You are just making shit up to make your side look better.
I was speaking for myself, choad, and anybody else who agrees with me. Fuck me for trying to talk you down, so I'll say this: you are obsessing over a fight that isn't yours, and if you hadn't alienated me and God knows how many other people I might have some sympathy when your aneurysm blows out. Look how much you've written in this thread alone; you are defending the bad sort of Bernie Bro more enthusiastically than they have.
  #590  
Old 02-14-2020, 05:08 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
I was speaking for myself, choad, and anybody else who agrees with me.
No, you weren't:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
SenorBeef, we are only shitting on those Sanders supporters who have already taken steps to remove themselves from relevance by being Bernie or Bust voters.
We. The most logical way to interpret your "we" word is that you're talking about the people in this thread. And yet people in this thread are calling me a "Bernie Bro" and "Bernie Bot" and throwing all sorts of invective at me even though I am explicitly not a "bernie or bust" voter.


You're simply trying to win the argument by redefining it. While you may personally only be insulting "Bernie or Bust" voters, other people in this thread (and indeed the entire reason this thread was created) were not.

Quote:
Fuck me for trying to talk you down, so I'll say this: you are obsessing over a fight that isn't yours, and if you hadn't alienated me and God knows how many other people I might have some sympathy when your aneurysm blows out. Look how much you've written in this thread alone; you are defending the bad sort of Bernie Bro more enthusiastically than they have.
How so? What would you say that my main message in this thread is? That Bernie or Bust voters are right and that if Bernie isn't the nominee everyone should stay home for vote for Trump?
  #591  
Old 02-14-2020, 06:16 PM
storyteller0910 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New Jersey (it's not as bad as they tell you)
Posts: 4,434
@SenorBeef, I have a question for you, if I may.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
How so? What would you say that my main message in this thread is? That Bernie or Bust voters are right and that if Bernie isn't the nominee everyone should stay home for vote for Trump?
No. I would say that your main message in this thread is that people who prefer candidates other than Sen. Sanders should behave in such a way as to make Sanders' supporters more, rather than less, likely to stay engaged and vote if he is not the nominee. Is that an accurate summary of your point? If so, I have a follow-up question.

At the moment, I think there is a strong and growing chance that Sen. Sanders is going to be the actual Democratic nominee for President. If he is, do you think your own behavior, in this thread and others, follows your own suggestion? Do you think that the way you talk to and about mainstream Democrats makes them more, rather than less, likely to stay engaged and vote for Sen. Sanders if he is the nominee?
  #592  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:04 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,434
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
We. The most logical way to interpret your "we" word is that you're talking about the people in this thread. And yet people in this thread are calling me a "Bernie Bro" and "Bernie Bot" and throwing all sorts of invective at me even though I am explicitly not a "bernie or bust" voter.
Why is that the most logical? Or are you just full of shit, redefining a word that I clearly defined so you could be more offended?

Quote:
You're simply trying to win the argument by redefining it. While you may personally only be insulting "Bernie or Bust" voters, other people in this thread (and indeed the entire reason this thread was created) were not.
Actually, they were. You just didn't notice because you were mentally composing a page-long response to something you misread.

Quote:
How so? What would you say that my main message in this thread is? That Bernie or Bust voters are right and that if Bernie isn't the nominee everyone should stay home for vote for Trump?
No, but your ardent support for them argues against what you see as your reality. Fuck them if they can't be persuaded. Just keep them out of the public eye while the adults like you and I work out the right path.
  #593  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:07 PM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
@SenorBeef, I have a question for you, if I may.



No. I would say that your main message in this thread is that people who prefer candidates other than Sen. Sanders should behave in such a way as to make Sanders' supporters more, rather than less, likely to stay engaged and vote if he is not the nominee. Is that an accurate summary of your point? If so, I have a follow-up question.
Yes.

Quote:
At the moment, I think there is a strong and growing chance that Sen. Sanders is going to be the actual Democratic nominee for President. If he is, do you think your own behavior, in this thread and others, follows your own suggestion? Do you think that the way you talk to and about mainstream Democrats makes them more, rather than less, likely to stay engaged and vote for Sen. Sanders if he is the nominee?
This is a reasonable and relevant question, but before I answer it, I want to examine it.

The people who are saying "vote blue no matter who" are either partisan democrats or people who are willing to vote for anyone against Trump, with a lot of overlap. Whereas the people who support Bernie may or may not be partisan democrats, a lot of them aren't. A lot of them are generally unenthusiastic voters who would stay home on election day but are uniquely inspired by having an actual leftist candidate in our elections.

So, presumably, the people lecturing us to "vote blue no matter who" do not require us to similarly sell them on the idea of voting for Bernie, the premise of their position is built on requiring them to do that, whereas a lot of Bernie voters who do not believe the democrats represent them do not generally have an obligation to vote for the democrats regardless of who they run, especially if they feel as though the democratic party unfairly denied their guy a chance at the nomination.

So while your question makes it sound like each position is equal and can be reversed, I don't think that's the case.

That said, my attacks on this thread are generally against people who attack Bernie supporters, and how counterproductive their words are if their goal is as they say it is, to defeat Trump. But I did, especially in the OP, criticize establishment/partisan democrats as being corporate dick sucking democrats. That's fair, but I'd say that 90%+ of my posting in this thread are counter-attacking in nature. I'm responding to attacks made on Bernie supporters, and in general, trying to point out the insanity of harassing Bernie supporters to the point of alienating them. Some of the people in this thread seem gleeful at the idea that they might actually manage to discourage someone who would've otherwise voted for democrats from doing so.

Incidentally, this is kind of beyond the scope of this thread, but sort of relevant: I don't believe that Bernie will be the nominee even if the most people vote for him. I believe that if we get anywhere close, there will be some sort of rule change that disfavors him, some sort of suspicious numbers manipulation, some sort of crazy money manuever that bloomberg does, or simply that Bernie has a totally unexpected suicide by shooting himself twice in the back of the head. I would be willing to bet all the money I have, which admitted is not that much, that Bernie will not be running against Trump in November. And so I don't forsee a situation in which I have to convince others to vote for Bernie.

However, if I did, and I saw someone who was having trouble with the idea voting for Bernie, I would certainly not try to make it harder for them. I wouldn't gloat, I wouldn't say "hahahaha what happened to vote blue no matter who you little bitch!?", I would try to make them feel better about it, and not worse. Because, you know, I have two brain cells to rub together and I know that deliberately trying to alienate the people who I want to be on board with me is an incredibly stupid and counterproductive thing to do.

I'm not posting in this thread as a Sanders advocate, for the most part. I do not believe that Sanders can or will run for president on the democratic ticket. So I imagine a scenario going down later this year something like this: the elites in this country, one way or another, make sure that Bernie is not the candidate. People who support Bernie and in general are not happy that the democratic party is subservient to a few rich elites in this country are going to be pretty fucking pissed about it and extremely discouraged.

I very much want Trump to lose the next election, but there will be a lot of people who are conflicted about the whole mess. At that point, every asshole who is trying to alienate them is actively swinging them away from voting for the democratic candidate. There is no upside to doing this, no reason to do this, except your own pleasure at trying to insult and harm other human beings. Strategically it will be a huge blunder and make it more likely that Trump wins another term. My purpose in this thread is to point out how counterproductive this behavior is.
  #594  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:10 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
So............... you're advocating for the strategy of attempting to alienate Bernie voters and make them stay home or vote for Trump because the thrill from insulting them is worth it?
No; no strategy is worth it. Bernie voters (both Bros and those willing to see reason) should be frankly ignored entirely, because interacting with other humans is tiring and we're all fucked anyway. But if I had to say things to people (sigh);

If you want to vote for Bernie in the primary, good for you! I mean yes, there is merit to the argument that one should support the person most likely to win the popular vote, but what the hell, you're human, maybe other humans are like you and he can win the big one. But even so, I can respect a dude who wants to support the dude he wants to support when it doesn't directly imperil his own and his country's well-being.

Alternatively, if you're a Bro who is steadfastly dedicated to voting against any democratic candidate other than Bernie ever no matter what, then you're an idiot who doesn't understand elections and/or a petulant fuck who would burn his own house down if he doesn't get precisely what he wants. Fuck you very much! And have a nice day! Conversation over!

Because seriously, any Bernie supporter who's a "Bernie or Bust" Bro deserves all the scorn that can be heaped upon him. They're already lost causes, so there's no reason not to rip into them. Well, aside from the fact that that takes energy and effort and the only sensible approach right now is apathy, sloth, and despair.

But yeah - Bernie supporters who aren't actually Bros shouldn't be attacked. The difficulty is telling them apart from the outside, and frankly it's easier to vent spleen randomly and without direction. Fuck everyone, am I right?
  #595  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:43 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by storyteller0910 View Post
It the moment, I think there is a strong and growing chance that Sen. Sanders is going to be the actual Democratic nominee for President. If he is, do you think your own behavior, in this thread and others, follows your own suggestion? Do you think that the way you talk to and about mainstream Democrats makes them more, rather than less, likely to stay engaged and vote for Sen. Sanders if he is the nominee?
As far as I see, the only mainstream Democrats he has attacked in this thread are those who attack Bernie supporters, and those who have gone after him for saying "why don't we try being nice to Bernie supporters?"

Nonetheless, the answer to your question has already been stated--by me. The answer is "neither." It is unlikely that any mainstream Democrat would not vote for Sanders if he's the nominee. That's been their whole argument--you need to vote for the nominee to counter Trump. It's also consistent with how they've voted--mainstream Democrats are the most reliable D voters.

Bernie's supporters, on the other hand, are on less stable footing. They tend to be younger, newer to voting, disaffected, or other such things. They are much more likely to not vote, period. As such, it is in our best interest to be welcoming, to encourage them to see that, even if the other candidates aren't perfect, they still need to vote to stop Trump. He's an existential threat to our country.

We have the opportunity to bring on new people, and some people seem to want to have ideological purity tests and filter them out. If they reveal they aren't sure if they'll vote for anyone beside Bernie, our response should not be to assume they are lost causes, but to try and convince them to stick with us. And we can do that by making them feel more welcome.

This logic just does not work in reverse. We don't need to convince the mainstream Democrats to join us--they're already here. We just need to be concerned that the Bernie supporters might not want to join us if they're disheartened by him losing, and make being one of us as enticing as possible.
  #596  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:53 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 14,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
As far as I see, the only mainstream Democrats he has attacked in this thread are those who attack Bernie supporters, and those who have gone after him for saying "why don't we try being nice to Bernie supporters?"

Nonetheless, the answer to your question has already been stated--by me. The answer is "neither." It is unlikely that any mainstream Democrat would not vote for Sanders if he's the nominee. That's been their whole argument--you need to vote for the nominee to counter Trump. It's also consistent with how they've voted--mainstream Democrats are the most reliable D voters.

Bernie's supporters, on the other hand, are on less stable footing. They tend to be younger, newer to voting, disaffected, or other such things. They are much more likely to not vote, period. As such, it is in our best interest to be welcoming, to encourage them to see that, even if the other candidates aren't perfect, they still need to vote to stop Trump. He's an existential threat to our country.

We have the opportunity to bring on new people, and some people seem to want to have ideological purity tests and filter them out. If they reveal they aren't sure if they'll vote for anyone beside Bernie, our response should not be to assume they are lost causes, but to try and convince them to stick with us. And we can do that by making them feel more welcome.

This logic just does not work in reverse. We don't need to convince the mainstream Democrats to join us--they're already here. We just need to be concerned that the Bernie supporters might not want to join us if they're disheartened by him losing, and make being one of us as enticing as possible.
One of the things I've observed to be on the rise is a dissatisfaction in imperfection. It's driven by the massive exposure to the world we have now: when the only boy in town was Bubba Two-Teeth you married him and dealt with it; when you see an entire internet of Harry Hunk-types you take it as given that since there's always more fish in the sea, you can toss any small ones back.

I don't think it's the Democratic party's ideological tests that we need to worry about. I think it's the individual Sanders voter that's most likely to decide that a non-Sanders Dem candidate doesn't pass their ideological tests. And I think that remains true no matter how polite we are to them - even if they somehow managed to navigate the internet and avoid being insulted by somebody, everybody else is not Bernie.

We are not going to get all of them, no matter what. "No compromise!" is not just a republican mantra.

Last edited by begbert2; 02-14-2020 at 07:54 PM.
  #597  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:48 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,875
I shall quote a post from another thread that may be very relevant here. It explains (correctly IMO) that a Sanders Presidency is likely to backfire on the Left. (The post is pro-Bloomberg but works as pro-Klobuchar or even pro-Biden, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
The GOP is very much wounded right now. They've dug themselves into a hole that has left everyone but the true believers shaking their heads in disbelief.

Electing Bernie now would be like giving them a standing eight count. They would regroup, catch their breath, and come out more batshit energized than ever in 2022 and 2024. Nothing would get accomplished in Bernie's first two years, and the GOP would have a boogie man far scarier than they ever painted Barack Obama. And boom, the GOP is back in business.

There's less likelihood of that happening with someone like Bloomberg, imo. Plus, Dems have a better chance of keeping the House and even taking the Senate with Bloomberg as the nominee. Vulnerable purple and red state/district Dems are extremely nervous over a Sanders nomination. They, and we, should be. They're more likely to lose reelection if Bernie's the victor.

I want massive, devastating damage to the GOP. Bernie's victory would give the GOP new energy. Bloomberg's victory, on the other hand and imo, does much more punishing damage to the party of fascist lunatics.

Is Bloomberg flawed? Hell yeah. So is Bernie. So are a lot of previous presidents (even the ones regarded as "good" or "great.") But despite his flaws, even the ones that have been condemned as racist, Blooms seems the best equipped to do some serious damage to the Cult of Trump. The African-American voters and electeds lining up with him seem to agree.

Four more years of President Trump would be far worse than even Bloomberg's worst shit he did in the past. I also believe a Sanders presidency wouldn't do enough to move the GOP into the dumpster of history, while an seasoned, pragmatic, moderate and yes, well-funded leader like Bloomberg would.

Will I still vote for Bernie if he's the nominee? With absolute relish and joy in my heart. But it's far from my ideal.
Happy Lendervedder captures my own sentiments very well. I am not very enthusiastic about Bloomberg, but since he will use his huge campaign fund to rescue America politically if he's the nominee, he may be our best chance in this desperate time.

Last edited by septimus; 02-15-2020 at 12:49 AM.
  #598  
Old 02-15-2020, 12:54 AM
SenorBeef is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,431
I think there's a valid argument in there, but why advocate for bloomberg in all that? Bloomberg's nomination would look incredibly corrupt since they changed the rules for him to buy his way in. There's no way bloomberg is the safe "let's just get someone uncontroversial that people like in there to destory the GOP" candidate.

It actually kind of amazes me that the democratic party can't come up with a "generic likeable white guy" candidate for exactly that sort of plan. Buttigieg comes close, but being gay is a significant problem among, particularly, black and latino democratic voters.
  #599  
Old 02-15-2020, 01:20 AM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef
hey changed the rules for him to buy his way in
Really? The DNC let Bloomberg into a couple of debates and he's tainted forever because why? I mean, I'm not sold on him, nobody is. But if he's up on the stage too, fine I say. He'll probably burn out shortly, and if not so what?
  #600  
Old 02-15-2020, 02:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
... It actually kind of amazes me that the democratic party can't come up with a "generic likeable white guy" candidate for exactly that sort of plan. Buttigieg comes close, but being gay is a significant problem among, particularly, black and latino democratic voters.
If supporters of the octogenarians can say "Eighty is the new sixty" then let me say "White gal is the new white guy." Amy Klobuchar for President! I don't know how "likeable" she is, but it's got to be impressive that she's still on the stage with all the culling that's already occurred.

Make it Klobuchar-Bloomberg (or more realistically Bloomberg-Klobuchar) to take advantage of Mayor Moneybags' generosity.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017