Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:01 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, if a few votes change in PA, WI, and MI and Hillary wins, should be GOP's takeaway been that they just hadn't been far right enough? If not, then why do the Dems think that they lost because Hillary was too moderate and what the country wants is hard left socialism?
We don't need to go into might-have-beens. Romney lost in 2012, and the GOP's takeaway was apparently that Romney wasn't far right enough.
  #102  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:06 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
We don't need to go into might-have-beens. Romney lost in 2012, and the GOP's takeaway was apparently that Romney wasn't far right enough.
Yes, and it was a mistake. They nominated the worst possible candidate that they could have nominated. Trump virtually tied possibly the worst candidate the Dems could have nominated.

Now the Dems seem to want to repeat the mistake. They want to go hard left and nominate a socialist and possibly/likely lose to the worst GOP candidate imaginable.

That's the point.
  #103  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:08 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 874
The GOP would disagree. Trump is wildly popular in that circle and mentioned along side Lincoln and Reagan as best presidents ever.
  #104  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:10 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Is this a serious question?
...of course.

Quote:
They'll probably vote for the Democrat because that's the party that has included that in their platform.
Isn't it your position that the party should not include them in their platform?

I think you should stop taking the votes of marginalised people for granted. If they aren't included in the platform then why should they get their vote?

Quote:
Do y'all understand that a candidate can support something without actively campaigning on it? Without putting it front and center?
Do y'all not understand that you can't know if a candidate supports something unless they explicitly come out and supports something? Y'all understand that "front and center" is a subjective, not an objective measure, and that IMHO none of the candidates have put transgender issues "front and center" in this campaign? Y'all understand that transgender people have every right to expect representation from their politicians as much as the so called "middle America?"

Quote:
I may be nuts, but I thought winning an election was about attracting the broadest support without alienating too many of the voters you need.
I may be nuts: but I thought that everyone running in the primaries are running with policies that they believe are attracting broad support without alienating too many of the voters that they need.

Quote:
If eliminating private insurance doesn't appeal to a majority of voters you need to win, that perhaps isn't the best thing to run your campaign on, even if that's your deepest and most bestest desire.
Perhaps the problem is that you have this habit of regurgitating GOP talking points. They aren't running on a platform of "eliminating private insurance." They are running on a platform of Universal Healthcare. Perhaps stop running with the spin.

Quote:
If allowing prisoners to vote doesn't appeal to a majority of voters you need to win, well, perhaps keep it in your pocket.
If a politician genuinely believes that prisoners should be allowed to vote then it is incumbent on them to let the public know so that people can decide whether or not to vote for them. To "keep that in their pocket": especially if the intent would be to implement it after election, is simply not ethical.

Quote:
Good lord, I thought this was basic stuff.
Good lord, this stuff is basic. The Democrats are having a primary, and politicians are campaigning to get the nomination for the President of the United States. If you don't like Bernie or Warren then don't vote for them in the primary. If you think their policies are wrong then campaign against them.

How on earth do you expect this to work in any other way? You want the Democrats to become functionally indistinguishable from the GOP? You want to abandon transgender people, people with no healthcare, people trapped in the industrial prison complex all on the basis of maybe (and, more importantly, maybe not) getting a few more votes from a specific demographic?
  #105  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:12 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes, and it was a mistake. They nominated the worst possible candidate that they could have nominated. Trump virtually tied possibly the worst candidate the Dems could have nominated.
On the one hand, you might be right. On the other hand, they won, and in the process conclusively proved that the moderate candidate won't necessarily beat the immoderate one. If in repeating that mistake Dems win, I'm sure they'll lick their wounds in full realization of their error.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-08-2020 at 04:13 PM.
  #106  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:13 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,586
I think it is less about "left vs. right" and more about "do the voters want change or not?"

If they do, the "Change" candidate will almost always win. If not, the Change candidate will almost certainly lose.
  #107  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:15 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Again, if a few votes change in PA, WI, and MI and Hillary wins, should be GOP's takeaway been that they just hadn't been far right enough? If not, then why do the Dems think that they lost because Hillary was too moderate and what the country wants is hard left socialism?

That's the miscalculation that Carville is alleging that the Dems are making and he is absolutely correct.
Again, Carville was an advisor who lost what should have been a slam dunk election.

You can keep telling us how close Clinton was to winning. The real point is it should not have been close to begin with when Donald Trump is your opponent.

It's like a pro NFL team playing against some high school students and the pro team lost and you are telling us, "Well, it was close!"

It should never have been "close" in the first place.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-08-2020 at 04:18 PM.
  #108  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:20 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...of course.



Isn't it your position that the party should not include them in their platform?

I think you should stop taking the votes of marginalised people for granted. If they aren't included in the platform then why should they get their vote?



Do y'all not understand that you can't know if a candidate supports something unless they explicitly come out and supports something? Y'all understand that "front and center" is a subjective, not an objective measure, and that IMHO none of the candidates have put transgender issues "front and center" in this campaign? Y'all understand that transgender people have every right to expect representation from their politicians as much as the so called "middle America?"



I may be nuts: but I thought that everyone running in the primaries are running with policies that they believe are attracting broad support without alienating too many of the voters that they need.



Perhaps the problem is that you have this habit of regurgitating GOP talking points. They aren't running on a platform of "eliminating private insurance." They are running on a platform of Universal Healthcare. Perhaps stop running with the spin.



If a politician genuinely believes that prisoners should be allowed to vote then it is incumbent on them to let the public know so that people can decide whether or not to vote for them. To "keep that in their pocket": especially if the intent would be to implement it after election, is simply not ethical.



Good lord, this stuff is basic. The Democrats are having a primary, and politicians are campaigning to get the nomination for the President of the United States. If you don't like Bernie or Warren then don't vote for them in the primary. If you think their policies are wrong then campaign against them.

How on earth do you expect this to work in any other way? You want the Democrats to become functionally indistinguishable from the GOP? You want to abandon transgender people, people with no healthcare, people trapped in the industrial prison complex all on the basis of maybe (and, more importantly, maybe not) getting a few more votes from a specific demographic?
Who's advocating for the abandonment of anyone? I'm talking about winning elections, specifically presidential. If we don't win in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, then those marginalized populations are effectively abandoned. Fighting over transgender policy, prisoner suffrage, college debt relief may not be the path to winning those states, even if it's the right thing to do or even has a majority of support across the population.
  #109  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:31 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Who's advocating for the abandonment of anyone? I'm talking about winning elections, specifically presidential. If we don't win in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, then those marginalized populations are effectively abandoned. Fighting over transgender policy, prisoner suffrage, college debt relief may not be the path to winning those states, even if it's the right thing to do or even has a majority of support across the population.
The message that needs to be sent is someone else getting some aid does not hurt you (general "you") but helps you. That voting for republicans are not in your best interests at all. Trans people getting some consideration, college kids getting their tuition paid and so on does not harm you. It helps if even only indirectly.

If that does not sway you consider the alternative. It's a train wreck.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #110  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:44 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
We need to win without the ones who vote against their interests. If you looked inside their minds you might see that their intererests are actually being taken care of quite well, right now, and it looks to them as if we are just naively getting in the way.

Last edited by drad dog; 02-08-2020 at 04:45 PM.
  #111  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:46 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Who's advocating for the abandonment of anyone?
...you are.

Quote:
I'm talking about winning elections, specifically presidential.
I am too.

Quote:
If we don't win in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, then those marginalized populations are effectively abandoned.
If those marginalised people are abandoned by Dem politicians then they aren't effectively abandoned: they are absolutely abandoned by both parties. Marginalised people should have no expectation that Dems will stand up for them if the Dems explicitly (for the purposes of a vote) abandon them at this time in history.

Quote:
Fighting over transgender policy, prisoner suffrage, college debt relief may not be the path to winning those states, even if it's the right thing to do or even has a majority of support across the population.
I've just bolded the key word. May. It may not be the path to winning those states. But I think we need to stop pretending that anyone knows what the key to winning those states are because that will lead to focus-tested blandness. And that blandness may well have just as big an influence on the next election in those states as "fighting over transgender policy."

You want us to gamble that you are right. I don't think you are. I think that no matter who the candidate is: whether its someone I support like Warren or someone that I actively loath like Buttigieg, that the key to victory isn't going to be something as superficial as a few lines in a debate about transgender rights and a policy pledge on a platform. The real fight is against the so-called mainstream media who are regressing to a point that is worse than what we saw in 2016, rampant voter suppression, the GOP propaganda machine, interference from Russia, insecure voting machines, and the rise of white supremacy. I think all of these are going to have infinitely more influence on what happens in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida than openly standing with transgender people.
  #112  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:51 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you are.
No, I'm not.
  #113  
Old 02-08-2020, 04:57 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
No, I'm not.
You have told us your family will not vote dem because other people are getting things and they do not want to pay for it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #114  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The message that needs to be sent is someone else getting some aid does not hurt you (general "you") but helps you. That voting for republicans are not in your best interests at all. Trans people getting some consideration, college kids getting their tuition paid and so on does not harm you. It helps if even only indirectly.

If that does not sway you consider the alternative. It's a train wreck.
It's not that helping someone else doesn't hurt me. It is "Why are you helping other people and not me?"

Everyone has a mental bitch list. These are the things that piss me off about life in today's world. Again, it might not be correct. They may have a bitch about the local city government that the president has nothing to do with. But they want to hear that the candidate shares or at least understands their own personal bitch list.

When the candidate continually harps on forgiving student loan debt for the neighbor's kid who took a trip to Europe last summer, that pisses off the voter. Not because the neighbor kid gets help, but because the voter does not.

WRT transgender rights, the voter might even be fully in support of that. It's great that the candidate supports full transgender rights, but the voter is not transgender so fuck all that, what's in it for numero uno?

Last edited by UltraVires; 02-08-2020 at 05:05 PM.
  #115  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
No, I'm not.
...of course you are. You want presidential candidates to not "fight over transgender policy." You don't want presidential candidates to put transgender issues "front and centre." Transgender people want to know which of the candidates will fight for them: but how do transgender individuals know which politician to support if politicians don't campaign on support for protections of transgender individuals?

If candidates do not commit to fight over this administration's damaging transgender policies have they not just abandoned transgender people? And if you advocate not committing to fight this administration's damaging transgender policies are you not advocating abandoning transgender people for the sake of (maybe) getting a vote?

If the politicians aren't going to fight for them: who do you think should do that job instead?
  #116  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Campaigning on something is different than something being in your party platform.

Don't worry, HappyLendervedder. Your point is basic and obvious to any concerned with actual working politics rather than activism.
  #117  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:09 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,177
I think that large portions of the American electorate are simply more parochial than people realize, and making transgender issues or any issues that challenge the traditional notions of what men and women are, a part of campaign platform, puts Democrats at risk of further alienating not only the white working class but also the black and Hispanic working class, who are, in the main, parochial and patriarchal.
  #118  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:12 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
And to respond to an earlier poster, that is why issues polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Sure we could take a poll asking if the voter supports full transgender rights. Say it comes back 70% support, 30% do not.

You cannot then say, well, I have strong majority support on that issue so I should use it. The voter was simply answering a poll question, but really doesn't care about it that much. Really, not many people do. Unless you are transgender, on the far left, or on the far right, the issue is simply not a make or break one.

The candidate can take whatever position on the issue because you the voter are looking out for numero uno. Give them full rights or lock them up in mental hospitals, fine by me, but where are my issues being addressed?
  #119  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:14 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Campaigning on something is different than something being in your party platform.
...how much campaigning has there been on transgender issues by any of the candidates? As I said: there have been the occasional statement during the debates, a few statements on twitter, some things said during a rally. If its in the platform then why shouldn't it come up while campaigning? If asked a question during a debate, then what is the correct way for the candidate to respond?

Quote:
Don't worry, HappyLendervedder. Your point is basic and obvious to any concerned with actual working politics rather than activism.
Without activism the world would be a much darker world than we have now.
  #120  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:21 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...how much campaigning has there been on transgender issues by any of the candidates? As I said: there have been the occasional statement during the debates, a few statements on twitter, some things said during a rally. If its in the platform then why shouldn't it come up while campaigning? If asked a question during a debate, then what is the correct way for the candidate to respond?
You give a politician's answer:

"I recognize the different and heartfelts beliefs that people have in our diverse society and I respect them. In my view, all people should be treated with dignity and respect, including those in the LGBTQ community. However, the issue has been put out there by Republicans to take focus off of the criminal and corrupt President that they support, their failure to address the growing deficit crisis, their packing the Court with far right conservative Justices..........."
  #121  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:23 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's not that helping someone else doesn't hurt me. It is "Why are you helping other people and not me?"
It's because you live in a society.

If you don't want that then go full on Grizzly Adams and live in some remote area.

Most US citizens live in big cities with all sorts of different people. And (mostly) we learn to get along. Which is great.

As a society, helping others helps you.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #122  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:25 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
You give a politician's answer:

"I recognize the different and heartfelts beliefs that people have in our diverse society and I respect them. In my view, all people should be treated with dignity and respect, including those in the LGBTQ community. However, the issue has been put out there by Republicans to take focus off of the criminal and corrupt President that they support, their failure to address the growing deficit crisis, their packing the Court with far right conservative Justices..........."
...why would I vote for a politician that would give such a bullshit response? I want to know if a politician aligns with my values: and it is crystal clear that this politician is not aligned with mine. This administration is actively working to take away LGBTQ rights. Standing up for those rights is not "taking focus off of the criminal and corrupt President they support." Its entirely possible to do more than one thing at the same time.
  #123  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...how much campaigning has there been on transgender issues by any of the candidates?
I haven't seen much.



Quote:
Without activism the world would be a much darker world than we have now.
For the purposes of this discussion, who gives a shit? This thread is about a former campaign strategist talking about an election campaign.
  #124  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:32 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I haven't seen much.
...so my point stands then.

Quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, who gives a shit?
Because you said something, and I responded directly to words that you said. If you didn't want me to talk about activism then don't bring up the word activism.

Quote:
This thread is about a former campaign strategist talking about an election campaign.
And i've been entirely on topic.
  #125  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:43 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Lol, what point of yours "stands" ?
  #126  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:54 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol, what point of yours "stands" ?
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
Y'all understand that "front and center" is a subjective, not an objective measure, and that IMHO none of the candidates have put transgender issues "front and center" in this campaign?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
I think that no matter who the candidate is: whether its someone I support like Warren or someone that I actively loath like Buttigieg, that the key to victory isn't going to be something as superficial as a few lines in a debate about transgender rights and a policy pledge on a platform.
  #127  
Old 02-08-2020, 05:56 PM
drad dog is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It's because you live in a society.

If you don't want that then go full on Grizzly Adams and live in some remote area.

Most US citizens live in big cities with all sorts of different people. And (mostly) we learn to get along. Which is great.

As a society, helping others helps you.
Your avatar is perfect. Your sig is perfect. I like the message. Good luck with this.
  #128  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:01 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It's because you live in a society.

If you don't want that then go full on Grizzly Adams and live in some remote area.

Most US citizens live in big cities with all sorts of different people. And (mostly) we learn to get along. Which is great.

As a society, helping others helps you.
Sure, good luck with promoting that idea. People as a rule look out for themselves and fuck everyone else. It's about time I finally get something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...why would I vote for a politician that would give such a bullshit response? I want to know if a politician aligns with my values: and it is crystal clear that this politician is not aligned with mine. This administration is actively working to take away LGBTQ rights. Standing up for those rights is not "taking focus off of the criminal and corrupt President they support." Its entirely possible to do more than one thing at the same time.
So, you would not vote for Sanders if he said that? You would vote for Trump?
  #129  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:03 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Banquet Bear, let me guess: You're a diehard Warren supporter. I agree with Warren on probably 95% of things. But her messaging strategy, the one you're advocating for here, has been a disaster for her campaign. It's covering too much on things that aren't resonating with the voters she needs to win. It's not earning her any support, among the general population or even Dem voters. And her detailed views/plans on this overabundance of topics is allowing her opposition to create talking points against her.

But, yeah, let's continue advocating for candidates to actively campaign on issues that aren't going to the win the votes needed to win the Electoral College, just because it's the Right Thing To Do.
  #130  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:05 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So, you would not vote for Sanders if he said that?
...in the primaries? And if I lived in America? Nope.

Quote:
You would vote for Trump?
I would never vote for Trump.
  #131  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:13 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Sure, good luck with promoting that idea. People as a rule look out for themselves and fuck everyone else. It's about time I finally get something.
The Greatest Generation would like to have a talk with you.

You are espousing an Ayn Randian philosophy (objectivism). A bankrupt philosophy in my view.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #132  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
The Greatest Generation would like to have a talk with you.

You are espousing an Ayn Randian philosophy (objectivism). A bankrupt philosophy in my view.
I'm not espousing it. I'm saying that it is absolutely true. Almost everyone does it especially in the voting booth.

Just ask yourself this. Who do you care about more? Your family or my family?
  #133  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...
Uh, ok. I didn't notice Carville bring up transgender issues in the article. Happy brought it up as an example iirc, but he didn't mention a candidate who's doing that atm. So if for some reason you were arguing that no one has made that their big issue, your point stands.

But the thing is, most of the gains by the LGTBQ community have been brought through the courts, not political party campaign promises. In the USA, important judges are appointed by the political party in power, not the loudest activists.
  #134  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:18 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...in the primaries? And if I lived in America? Nope.



I would never vote for Trump.
I meant in the general when you only have two choices. Unless you personally are running you are going to have to put up with things about who you vote for that you disagree with. To you transgender rights is a very important issue. To most people it is not.

But the one that is closest to you knows that you are trapped. Whether it is Bernie, Pete, Biden, Klob, or Warren, they can pretty much ignore transgender issues and still get your vote. They know you aren't voting for Trump. So they can cast you aside and focus on the issues that will win the middle.
  #135  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:24 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Uh, ok. I didn't notice Carville bring up transgender issues in the article. Happy brought it up as an example iirc, but he didn't mention a candidate who's doing that atm. So if for some reason you were arguing that no one has made that their big issue, your point stands.

But the thing is, most of the gains by the LGTBQ community have been brought through the courts, not political party campaign promises. In the USA, important judges are appointed by the political party in power, not the loudest activists.
The specific issue is not important. Carville's overall point is do not run on issues that your base cares about but the public is neutral on. And by neutral, I don't mean cite a poll. I mean something that will get them fired up.

And his further point is that issues really do not drive most people. If you look at almost every successful presidential candidate, he won because he best conveyed to people that "he cares about me." That was true of Clinton, Bush, Obama, and yes Trump.

The fact that largely the same electorate voted for all four of those candidates should tell people that issues don't matter.
  #136  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:26 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Banquet Bear, let me guess: You're a diehard Warren supporter.
...I don't even live in America. I have my own battles to fight.

Quote:
I agree with Warren on probably 95% of things. But her messaging strategy, the one you're advocating for here, has been a disaster for her campaign.
I'm advocating that candidates should be authentic, should tell the truth, should fight for what they believe in. So her messaging strategy is entirely on point. "Disaster" is subjective and the campaign isn't over yet by a very wide margin.

Quote:
It's covering too much on things that aren't resonating with the voters she needs to win.
Those "voters she needs to win" are probably going to vote the way they did last time anyway. The key, IMHO, is to get those that stayed home out to vote this time, and her messaging may resonate with them.

Quote:
It's not earning her any support, among the general population or even Dem voters. And her detailed views/plans on this overabundance of topics is allowing her opposition to create talking points against her.
Of course its earning her support. Not as much support as her campaign would certainly like. But abandoning those plans would be a disaster for her campaign.

And as I stated earlier in the thread: this is not a normal election. Trump and co have looted, pillaged and effectively mangled the Federal Government. Its fucking chaos. You can't tame chaos if you go into this without a plan. Whomever takes over from Trump (assuming Trump looses the next election) will have to It would be real fucking stupid to not have a plan for that beforehand.

And Warren isn't responsible for what other people choose to do with her words. People have agency. You chose to use GOP talking points in this very thread and when you choose to do that you become part of the problem.

Quote:
But, yeah, let's continue advocating for candidates to actively campaign on issues that aren't going to the win the votes needed to win the Electoral College, just because it's the Right Thing To Do.
Are you guaranteeing that if we don't "do the right thing to do" you will get the votes needed to win the electoral collage? That if Warren were asked about transgender rights and Warren were to respond with UltraVires's "politician answer" then this will mean Trump is guaranteed to lose?
  #137  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
.
But, yeah, let's continue advocating for candidates to actively campaign on issues that aren't going to the win the votes needed to win the Electoral College, just because it's the Right Thing To Do.
He lives in New Zealand, so it's a little easier to "do the rght thing" when it doesn't involve actually doing anything and will have zero effect on your life. Though to be fair, I'm sure he's the same way with NZ politics.

I live in Canada, so I'm certainly more buffered from Trump than most Americans but still a buttload more connected than him but it's not my country. That's why I try not to get so emotionally involved even though I think it's important.
  #138  
Old 02-08-2020, 06:33 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But the thing is, most of the gains by the LGTBQ community have been brought through the courts, not political party campaign promises. In the USA, important judges are appointed by the political party in power, not the loudest activists.
...Trumps ban on transgender people in the military was done by tweet. The original ban was overturned in part due to activism. The courts are of course important. Which is why talking about these issues and keeping them from being swept under the carpet is (IMHO) important.
  #139  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:00 PM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not espousing it. I'm saying that it is absolutely true. Almost everyone does it especially in the voting booth.



Just ask yourself this. Who do you care about more? Your family or my family?
Projection is amazing
  #140  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:01 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I meant in the general when you only have two choices.
...then you should have said that.

Quote:
Unless you personally are running you are going to have to put up with things about who you vote for that you disagree with.
No shit sherlock. Of course I would vote for that politician if it were a binary choice between them and Trump. It doesn't matter who wins the nomination, people need to get out and vote for them because the alternative will be another giant step towards authoritarianism and a white supremacist regime.

But the primaries? A completely different story.

Quote:
To you transgender rights is a very important issue. To most people it is not.
Transgender issues aren't a matter of life or death for me. They are a matter of life or death for transgender people. So its important to me: but in a very abstract way. I don't lose sight of the fact that this is important to other people in ways I really can't imagine.


Quote:
But the one that is closest to you knows that you are trapped. Whether it is Bernie, Pete, Biden, Klob, or Warren, they can pretty much ignore transgender issues and still get your vote. They know you aren't voting for Trump. So they can cast you aside and focus on the issues that will win the middle.
That doesn't just apply to transgender issues. It applies to the entire spectrum. Its what this debate is about. People are advocating they cast niche issues aside to focus on issues that will win the middle. But if you are willing to throw transgender people under the bus then I have no doubt they would throw black people under the bus and any other marginalised people under the bus in the pursuit of "votes from the middle."

Marginalised people are used to being "cast aside." Nothing you say is a revelation. The only way to stop being cast aside is to speak up and be heard.
  #141  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:09 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not espousing it. I'm saying that it is absolutely true. Almost everyone does it especially in the voting booth.

Just ask yourself this. Who do you care about more? Your family or my family?
Everyone does not do it. The Greatest Generation is an prime example.

When we work together as a society we have achieved great things.

Now, we have people like you arguing that what is best for you is the highest goal, screw everyone else. You do not want to spend a single dollar helping anyone else unless you deign to do so.

That is Ayn Rand (objectivism) and that philosophy is horrible.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #142  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:13 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I don't even live in America. I have my own battles to fight.
In that case, so do I, and this ain't one of them anymore.
  #143  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:15 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
That doesn't just apply to transgender issues. It applies to the entire spectrum. Its what this debate is about. People are advocating they cast niche issues aside to focus on issues that will win the middle. But if you are willing to throw transgender people under the bus then I have no doubt they would throw black people under the bus and any other marginalised people under the bus in the pursuit of "votes from the middle."

Marginalised people are used to being "cast aside." Nothing you say is a revelation. The only way to stop being cast aside is to speak up and be heard.
Nobody is saying to throw transgender people under the bus. And you are right, the transgender issue is just an example which has been overused in this thread (by me included).

These niche issues (Medicare for all, student loan forgiveness) are not winning campaign issues. That's all Carville is saying. Nobody is saying that there are not important to some people. But if you don't win the election, then you can't do anything for anyone.

Would transgender people rather vote for a Dem candidate who downplays the issue but will support them once in office, or vote for Donald Trump? You know the answer, so I'm not sure why you keep arguing that these niche issues need to be front and center, blasted from the rooftops.

You think that these are not niche issues, but vitally important ones. However, you are not the undecided voter than each side is trying to persuade.
  #144  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:15 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...Trumps ban on transgender people in the military was done by tweet. The original ban was overturned in part due to activism. The courts are of course important. Which is why talking about these issues and keeping them from being swept under the carpet is (IMHO) important.
I am not in any way discounting the use of activism in general. I am discounting activism strategies as useful in a particular Presidential election. If this election hinged on Prohibition, I might feel differently.

Last edited by CarnalK; 02-08-2020 at 07:17 PM.
  #145  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:19 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Bernie voters have heard "Bernie Bro" for too long to give their votes to another candidate....and I'm seeing a lot of "NeverBernies" too.
What you're saying is, Bernie voters are so hypersensitive that they'll intentionally let the country go to shit by purposely helping Donald Trump get reelected, all because their little Instagram-addicted egos were bruised?

Here's the thing about voting: it's a civic activity, meaning that it's not just for the benefit of the individual who's voting; it's supposed to be an act of civic duty, to preserve good governance, the common welfare, a more perfect nation and all that. Bernie Sanders' supporters -- all progressive supporters who really should know better -- have a responsibility to stop sniveling over the defeat of their preferred candidate, to get over it, and to vote against Donald Trump.
  #146  
Old 02-08-2020, 07:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Everyone does not do it. The Greatest Generation is an prime example.

When we work together as a society we have achieved great things.

Now, we have people like you arguing that what is best for you is the highest goal, screw everyone else. You do not want to spend a single dollar helping anyone else unless you deign to do so.

That is Ayn Rand (objectivism) and that philosophy is horrible.
Did you miss the part where I said that I don't argue in favor of it? Again, I am just observing that it is true.

I'm not saying that no charity exists. I'm saying that when it comes down to my family versus the neighbor's family I choose my family. You do the same thing. If you don't understand that, then Carville is talking to you.

If you want to argue that point, then just send a check to me in the amount that you have spent on your kids so I can use that for my kids as you value all children equally.

I'm not sure what the Greatest Generation has to do with it.
  #147  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:08 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Nobody is saying to throw transgender people under the bus.
...except for the people who are content for transgender people to get thrown under the bus.

Quote:
These niche issues (Medicare for all, student loan forgiveness) are not winning campaign issues. That's all Carville is saying. Nobody is saying that there are not important to some people. But if you don't win the election, then you can't do anything for anyone.
A correction to the bolded: this is what Carville is arguing. Carville is arguing that these aren't winning campaign issues. We won't know that until the campaign fully plays out.

Quote:
Would transgender people rather vote for a Dem candidate who downplays the issue but will support them once in office, or vote for Donald Trump?
I won't speak for transgender people. But how would transgender people know that a Dem candidate who downplays the issue will support them once in office? Why would they believe that a candidate who responded with that evasive wishy-washy statement that you made earlier would all of a sudden change when they got into power?

Quote:
You know the answer, so I'm not sure why you keep arguing that these niche issues need to be front and center, blasted from the rooftops.
Except I haven't argued these niche issues need to be front and center, blasted from the rooftops. I'm perfectly happy that there are candidates who take the issue seriously: we know this because of their policy statements, because of what they've said when questioned during debates and interviews and because what they've occasionally said at a rally. The people putting this "front and center" at the moment are those that are complaining that the issue is "front and center."

Quote:
You think that these are not niche issues, but vitally important ones.
I literally called them niche issues. WTF are you talking about?

Quote:
However, you are not the undecided voter than each side is trying to persuade.
The Republican Party have mastered the art of lying in order to convince the middle that they should vote for them. I don't think the Dems copying the GOP is a winning strategy.
  #148  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:19 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I am not in any way discounting the use of activism in general. I am discounting activism strategies as useful in a particular Presidential election. If this election hinged on Prohibition, I might feel differently.
...my comment on activism was entirely in response to what it was you said to me. I'm not advocating for anything more from the current candidates for President than what they've said and done already (in regards to transgender people) . People are arguing they should be saying and doing less than what they've done: that they should self-censor and be evasive for the sake of "winning the middle." I think that its those people that are amplifying the issue and I think they are playing into the hands of the GOP when they do so. The GOP don't even have to get their hands dirty here.
  #149  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:19 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Did you miss the part where I said that I don't argue in favor of it? Again, I am just observing that it is true.

I'm not saying that no charity exists. I'm saying that when it comes down to my family versus the neighbor's family I choose my family. You do the same thing. If you don't understand that, then Carville is talking to you.

If you want to argue that point, then just send a check to me in the amount that you have spent on your kids so I can use that for my kids as you value all children equally.

I'm not sure what the Greatest Generation has to do with it.
I'm saying that your selfish desire to only support things that overtly help you and your family, and oppose anything else, is counterproductive.

I do not have any children but I support public schools. Why? Because one day some of those kids may be the doctor trying to save my life.

I get that educating the next generation helps me. Whether it is art or science or a whole slew of other things.

Again, we live in a society. Arguing that you only want to pay for the things that directly show a benefit to you is supremely short-sighted.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 02-08-2020 at 08:23 PM.
  #150  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:12 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Two guys arguing in the bar,,,,

"But that's a staw man argument!"
"No, it isn't. Besides, you just used a total non sequitur"
""Like Hell I did! Cite? Fuck you!"
"Can't say that in here, I'm telling!"
"Can too, this place is a pit!"

Then I woke up.....
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 11:16 PM.

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