F'dup Chapters in American History(The Trump Years) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

[DarthSkywalker]

Haha, okay man. Whatever. I'm just asking you to not trash a candidate that agrees with you on 75% of policy issues, because they could win the primary. You seem to be very insistent that Dems cater to Millennials, but refuse the idea that Millennials might need to bite the bullet and compromise... like basically every single voting block has done since the beginning of time. Maybe it'll go your way, but you are doing no one any favors by making moderates into unacceptable choices. Moderate candidates are what got us here so far. You want a more progressive option? I feel for you. But why you feel the need to attack candidates that are mostly on your side... I dunno. It's not helpful.

I'm not attacking Bernie or Buttigeg or anyone else. Point of fact, I've been very honest that my first instinct was Biden, but right now I'm really disappointed in how he's running his campaign. I'm keeping my options open. And you just can't seem to handle that. If the Democratic voters choose a moderate voice, then I hope you are prepared to suck it up, and vote the lesser of two evils. Does that suck? Yeah. It's also the way it's always been. If you want a third party (which I think would be a good thing) then you're gonna have to join league with folks to fight for that outside of election season... cause it's not happening now.

I'm not demanding that anyone be a monolith. I'm only saying that liberals like to purity test their candidates, and it's not helpful. It's the kind of thing that made a lot of millennials protest vote against Hillary, which was one of the most dumb and selfish things they could have done. Hillary would have been a good President. Biden will be a good President. Warren, Booker, Harris... all good candidates. You can prefer a candidate while not tearing down the others.

I'm not saying that you can't object to Biden's policy choices. But I'll say again.. it seems very likely that you'd have policy disputes with nearly any long term senator. This is why it's often more difficult for senators to become president than governors. So, I guess I'd ask you to keep it in perspective. To not burn bridges. But you seem to be on some kind of mission, so....

Yeah, I am on the mission. Which is why I telling you how you should view the candidates, what you say about them. Wait, no that is you. My critique of Biden and my critique of the Democratic party have nothing to do with you. You keep on complaining about how others view them however. As if they are being unreasonable to point out when they are trash. I don't need to lie about them or ask others to be quiet about the truth, just to somehow win an election that is 18 months away. Walking on eggshells with Clinton 2.0 got us where exactly?

How do you know what I agree with Biden on? How do you know your supposed 25% isn't the important stuff for me? When did Biden decide to support policies I may agree with? Before or after it became convenient? What are liberals suppose to compromise on? Healthcare? Education? Climate Change? Civil Rights?

Moderate candidates got us to Trump, a **** healthcare system, the rise of white supremacy, the murder of innocent civilians by our armed forces and a full on conservative supreme court. Your mission here is to somehow drill into people's head that we need to keep going down the same path that lead us here. As if history has not shown us the results of that.

You are never going to win over the vote by telling people what they want doesn't matter. That it is somehow unreasonable. That actually creating a better future, hell a better present isn't achievable. You complain that the youth needs to compromise and I ask for what, when it isn't going to help them? You enforce apathy with this crap.

I am not here for an election between the center right and far right.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I love their facial expressions. Says it all.

I can't believe there coach made them do that ****. It's so gross. At least the players didn't try to hide their feelings. A group of bosses.

 

[MaceB]

Yeah, I am on the mission. Which is why I telling you how you should view the candidates, what you say about them. Wait, no that is you. My critique of Biden and my critique of the Democratic party have nothing to do with you. You keep on complaining about how others view them however. As if they are being unreasonable to point out when they are trash. I don't need to lie about them or ask others to be quiet about the truth, just to somehow win an election that is 18 months away. Walking on eggshells with Clinton 2.0 got us where exactly?

How do you know what I agree with Biden on? How do you know your supposed 25% isn't the important stuff for me? When did Biden decide to support policies I may agree with? Before or after it became convenient? What are liberals suppose to compromise on? Healthcare? Education? Climate Change? Civil Rights?

Moderate candidates got us to Trump, a **** healthcare system, the rise of white supremacy, the murder of innocent civilians by our armed forces and a full on conservative supreme court. Your mission here is to somehow drill into people's head that we need to keep going down the same path that lead us here. As if history has not shown us the results of that.

You are never going to win over the vote by telling people what they want doesn't matter. That it is somehow unreasonable. That actually creating a better future, hell a better present isn't achievable. You complain that the youth needs to compromise and I ask for what, when it isn't going to help them? You enforce apathy with this crap.

I am not here for an election between the center right and far right.

It's not unreasonable for you to point out that you disagree with them. I feel ya. But to say they are trash? I think that's hyperbolic and unhelpful, personally. Again, I think there are a lot of reasons why Trump won the election. You want to argue that it's because the DNC forced a moderate candidate on us. And while that didn't help... it wasn't the only reason. Progressive protest votes were another reason. There are others too.

The things that you disagree with Biden on may very well be important to you. But does that warrant calling him a sexist, racist piece of garbage? I don't think so. I think that's poisoning the well unnecessarily.

Yeah... I mean, I think liberals need to be willing to compromise on all the issues that you mention. That's what our system of government was built on. We need to compromise, or nothing gets done. We can't just push it through. You get more bees with honey. What exactly are you suggesting? That liberals charge the capital and force climate change reductions?

See... Republicans got us Trump, a broken healthcare system, white supremacy, the murder of innocent civilians, and a conservative Supreme court... not moderates. Again, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a staunch enemy and an imperfect friend. If you're going to blame someone for those things, blame the people actually advocating for them... not the folks who were just trying to reach agreement so they could make a positive change.

I'm not saying that what liberals want doesn't matter. I'm saying that they can't get 100% of what they want. To ask for 100% of what you want is unreasonable.

I can appreciate your beliefs, and if I could wish them into being with a magic wand, I would. But I can't, and neither can anyone else. I hope that you get the progressive candidate that you are hoping for, but until you do, it'd be most prudent to bite your tongue about those you dislike and strongly support those you like. Because destroying a viable candidate before they reach the general does have risks to it. You may not care about the risks, but I do. I want to win. I want to get the orange one out of office. And if that means suffering through a moderate candidate like we've had throughout every administration of the last 100 years... I guess I'll have to take that. 2016 was the time to run the truly progressive candidate - to take risks. Now is not that time. With RBG's seat on the line, I'll choose whoever I can, as long as they swing in my direction and they can beat Trump. I'm not going to reject someone because they are pro-life or because they are pro-gun... but anti Super Pacs. I can't get it all, and I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's not unreasonable for you to point out that you disagree with them. I feel ya. But to say they are trash? I think that's hyperbolic and unhelpful, personally. Again, I think there are a lot of reasons why Trump won the election. You want to argue that it's because the DNC forced a moderate candidate on us. And while that didn't help... it wasn't the only reason. Progressive protest votes were another reason. There are others too.

The things that you disagree with Biden on may very well be important to you. But does that warrant calling him a sexist, racist piece of garbage? I don't think so. I think that's poisoning the well unnecessarily.

Yeah... I mean, I think liberals need to be willing to compromise on all the issues that you mention. That's what our system of government was built on. We need to compromise, or nothing gets done. We can't just push it through. You get more bees with honey. What exactly are you suggesting? That liberals charge the capital and force climate change reductions?

See... Republicans got us Trump, a broken healthcare system, white supremacy, the murder of innocent civilians, and a conservative Supreme court... not moderates. Again, you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a staunch enemy and an imperfect friend. If you're going to blame someone for those things, blame the people actually advocating for them... not the folks who were just trying to reach agreement so they could make a positive change.

I'm not saying that what liberals want doesn't matter. I'm saying that they can't get 100% of what they want. To ask for 100% of what you want is unreasonable.

I can appreciate your beliefs, and if I could wish them into being with a magic wand, I would. But I can't, and neither can anyone else. I hope that you get the progressive candidate that you are hoping for, but until you do, it'd be most prudent to bite your tongue about those you dislike and strongly support those you like. Because destroying a viable candidate before they reach the general does have risks to it. You may not care about the risks, but I do. I want to win. I want to get the orange one out of office. And if that means suffering through a moderate candidate like we've had throughout every administration of the last 100 years... I guess I'll have to take that. 2016 was the time to run the truly progressive candidate - to take risks. Now is not that time. With RBG's seat on the line, I'll choose whoever I can, as long as they swing in my direction and they can beat Trump. I'm not going to reject someone because they are pro-life or because they are pro-gun... but anti Super Pacs. I can't get it all, and I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

When you see polls that show that a lot of progressive policies are very popular, why does the Democratic party run from them?

Why should progressives, liberals compromise? Because the broken system is broken? That doesn't make sense. Those that feed that system aren't my friends, imperfect or otherwise, no matter what party the say they belong to. I am done with the Democrats who call Republicans in Congress friends, while they watch them help harm the people time and time again. That just shows them for what they really are.

No one is asking for things to be wished into existence. What won't get actual quality policies done is just doing the same old same old, which you literally are advocating for.

I ask again. What do those on the left get out of just doing what the Democratic party tells them? How will it help them? Especially as we watch their talking heads on television try and act as if those on the left don't know what is good for them? As the Democratic leaders do the same?

 

[MaceB]

You should compromise because it's the most likely avenue in order to get the Republican out of office. If you push for a liberal candidate at the expense of all others, you very well could lose... but have the satisfaction of being right. And as awesome as that would be for you, it does nothing to help RBG. We need to win. Period.

Compromise has been the foundation of our democracy since the very beginning. You think you are the first person to be angry that they have to compromise with bad actors? Its nothing new... and yet our system is built on slow, but steady incremental change... based on two sides coming together. I certainly wouldn't mind having a third option, but I'm not going to demand it when we're in a political season. It's a mountain that I don't need to die on. It doesn't help anything at that point.

I'm advocating that we do the best with what we have, rather than participating in a circular firing squad.

What do those on the left get? They get moderate voices in government that agree with them more than the conservative voices opposing them. How will it help liberal? They won't have to deal with the likes of Trump or W. who advocate certifiably crazy ideas almost 100% of the time, and instead get lackluster ideas 50% of time and somewhat positive ideas the other 50%.Perfect? no. Better? yes.

Again, i appreciate your energy and your advocacy. But making the perfect the enemy of the good? That's not helpful IMO.

 

[moviedoors]

Moderate candidates are what got us here so far.

With Trump as president, massive income inequality, and a global climate that's getting ready to collapse into an apocalypse? Sound like great reasons to dump the moderates.

 

[MaceB]

With Trump as president, massive income inequality, and a global climate that's getting ready to collapse into an apocalypse? Sound like great reasons to dump the moderates.

Like I said, I want to win. Give me a candidate who is ahead of the polls who supports progressive policies, and I'll take a serious look. But.. if on the other side... if a moderate leads in the polls and is the best chance of winning, I hope you'll take a look at that too.

And if you choose to condemn those moderate voices before polling can tell you what will happen one way or another, then I say you are putting all your chips in one basket. When RGB's legacy is on the line, I don't know why you'd want to risk it. Focus your positive energy in the primary. Focus your negative energy (if you must) in the general.

It's easy to see all the negatives. I wish we were further along then we are too. But to say that moderates are the cause of climate change or massive income inequality is... in my mind... confusing an imperfect friend for an enemy. Conservatives are the ones fighting to maintain the status quo when it comes climate change and income inequality, not moderates. Moderates are simply happy to get-along idiots... but those idiots in office are far far better than a a Republican. Every single day.

 

[moviedoors]

Its nothing new... and yet our system is built on slow, but steady incremental change

The Civil Rights Act, landing on the moon, the New Deal, trust busting. These were not snail paced endeavors, but bold, decisive moves.

Incremental change isn't going to save us from climate change. How about we give boldness a shot?

 

[Lighthouse]

Incremental change isn't going to cut it anymore. Republicans have gone full fledged fascist, climate change is going to ravage the planet very soon and anti-intellectualism is a full blown cult now.

 

[MaceB]

So... you're suggesting that we advocate for the most progressive candidate, even if it looks like they can't win the general? Do you understand the possible consequences of that proposition?. Is that really worth it to you? If incremental change isn't going to cut it anymore, then certainly a President who doesn't even believe in climate change would be far far worse.

I get the desire, but at some point, practicality does have to enter into the equation in order to win elections. If it were '16, I'd say yes! Let's go for it! We just proved ourselves with Obama.. now is the time to go even further. But with RBG retiring in 2 years? Nope.... we need the win. That's most important. I'll support whoever is most in agreement with my priorities and whoever has the best chance to win.

I'll support Bernie's ideas for as long as he's viable. But if super Tuesday comes, and Biden beats him, then Biden is my boy. If Bernie wins, then Bernie is my boy - I'll support him too. That's the only way to go.

 

[Sithborg]

sigh

I swear Trump has given people PTSD. Its the primaries. This is where we find out who can win and who can't. At the moment, we have a wide variety of choices. Biden, I don't think can mobilize people like Beto has shown he can. And he absolutely is going to have issues with the younger base. I understand the need to beat Trump. But you aren't going to do it with a message of "I can beat Trump", which frankly, is all I have seen from Biden when he hasn't been having to save himself from self inflicted wounds.

You think Biden can win, I will be honest, I don't think he can.

 

[MaceB]

sigh

I swear Trump has given people PTSD. Its the primaries. This is where we find out who can win and who can't. At the moment, we have a wide variety of choices. Biden, I don't think can mobilize people like Beto has shown he can. And he absolutely is going to have issues with the younger base. I understand the need to beat Trump. But you aren't going to do it with a message of "I can beat Trump", which frankly, is all I have seen from Biden when he hasn't been having to save himself from self inflicted wounds.

You think Biden can win, I will be honest, I don't think he can.

That's fair. I used to think Biden could win. I still think he has the best chance to win over the middle of America. But I'm not gonna lie... he seems to be playing out of the "avoid controversy at all costs" Hillary Clinton playbook right now, and it's really disappointing. That's why I'm not saying anything for certain... yet. But he is the frontrunner. And I'd be apprehensive about calling him names and making him out to be a bad person when he could very possibly be the Democratic candidate. And if that happens, then it wouldn't be terrible by a long shot. Biden has some questionable policies, but all things considered.. he's a Democrat the likes of Bill, and Hillary, and Obama, and Schumer, and Pelosi, and all the rest. That's not the end of the world. That's a significant step up from what we've got.

I think the person running the absolute best campaign at this moment is actually Elizabeth Warren. She's the only one focusing on policy right now. So, I'm definitely taking a look at her.

 

[Sithborg]

He actually isn't. His dilly dallying allowed Bernie to get the lead.

 

[Lighthouse]

Imagine how stupid you have to be for the most gutless and corrupt Republican senators to vote against your nomination.

GOP Senators Signal Trump’s Fed Pick Stephen Moore Could Be Toast: ‘A Very Problematic Nomination’

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, Herman Caine withdrew because there were 4 no's from the GOP.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You should compromise because it's the most likely avenue in order to get the Republican out of office. If you push for a liberal candidate at the expense of all others, you very well could lose... but have the satisfaction of being right. And as awesome as that would be for you, it does nothing to help RBG. We need to win. Period.

Compromise has been the foundation of our democracy since the very beginning. You think you are the first person to be angry that they have to compromise with bad actors? Its nothing new... and yet our system is built on slow, but steady incremental change... based on two sides coming together. I certainly wouldn't mind having a third option, but I'm not going to demand it when we're in a political season. It's a mountain that I don't need to die on. It doesn't help anything at that point.

I'm advocating that we do the best with what we have, rather than participating in a circular firing squad.

What do those on the left get? They get moderate voices in government that agree with them more than the conservative voices opposing them. How will it help liberal? They won't have to deal with the likes of Trump or W. who advocate certifiably crazy ideas almost 100% of the time, and instead get lackluster ideas 50% of time and somewhat positive ideas the other 50%.Perfect? no. Better? yes.

Again, i appreciate your energy and your advocacy. But making the perfect the enemy of the good? That's not helpful IMO.

So... nothing. It is amazing that your pitch to the disenfranchised is to vote to continue to be disenfranchised.

 

[Lighthouse]

I mean, Herman Caine withdrew because there were 4 no's from the GOP.

They are both very stupid people.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

They are both very stupid people.

Give them credit. They are smart enough to avoid this.

 

[Lighthouse]

Give them credit. They are smart enough to avoid this.

Moore hasn't dropped out yet, and I refuse to give these hacks credit for anything.

 

[MaceB]

So... nothing. It is amazing that your pitch to the disenfranchised is to vote to continue to be disenfranchised.

You think you'd getter better results if a Republican won? You asked what liberals get... They get a win. Will the candidate give them everything they want? No... but that's not a reasonable thing to ask. But they'll surely get better results than if a Republican wins.

I'll say it again. Conservatives had major disagreements with Trump, but they decided that policy wins were more important than purity tests. And as a result, they've gotten 2 seats on the Supreme Court. They were willing to make a deal with the devil, while liberals are waiting for the second coming.

With this statement... you're basically doing it again. You're essentially equating Republican policies with moderate policies... and actually blaming moderates for disenfranchising people. So... the platform that is actually advocating for those policies gets a pass while the group that wants to try to compromise gets all the blame? Cool.

 

[MaceB]

He actually isn't. His dilly dallying allowed Bernie to get the lead.

Sweet, man.

 

[Sithborg]

You think you'd getter better results if a Republican won? You asked what liberals get... They get a win. Will the candidate give them everything they want? No... but that's not a reasonable thing to ask. But they'll surely get better results than if a Republican wins.

I'll say it again. Conservatives had major disagreements with Trump, but they decided that policy wins were more important than purity tests. And as a result, they've gotten 2 seats on the Supreme Court. They were willing to make a deal with the devil, while liberals are waiting for the second coming.

With this statement... you're basically doing it again. You're essentially equating Republican policies with moderate policies... and actually blaming moderates for disenfranchising people. So... the platform that is actually advocating for those policies gets a pass while the group that wants to try to compromise gets all the blame? Cool.

You understand why that is, right? Because the conservative ideology is training people to obey, rather than think. There is a reason that they are seemingly authoritarian.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

“The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” [Special Counsel] Mueller wrote. “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

New York Times - Mueller Objected to Barr’s Description of Russia Investigation’s Findings on Trump

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You think you'd getter better results if a Republican won? You asked what liberals get... They get a win. Will the candidate give them everything they want? No... but that's not a reasonable thing to ask. But they'll surely get better results than if a Republican wins.

I'll say it again. Conservatives had major disagreements with Trump, but they decided that policy wins were more important than purity tests. And as a result, they've gotten 2 seats on the Supreme Court. They were willing to make a deal with the devil, while liberals are waiting for the second coming.

With this statement... you're basically doing it again. You're essentially equating Republican policies with moderate policies... and actually blaming moderates for disenfranchising people. So... the platform that is actually advocating for those policies gets a pass while the group that wants to try to compromise gets all the blame? Cool.

And who judges it a win for the left? You? Like I said, you want us to be a monolith. To vote without thought. Just do what they tell us... like the right.

Moderates have bee disenfranchising people for quite awhile now, because these are the people who go with the way the wind is blowing, but only far enough to act like they are appeasing their voters. Not to actually help them. Their real concern is the consolidation of power and their own benefits. Hence why like Republicans their real concern is the rich.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You understand why that is, right? Because the conservative ideology is training people to obey, rather than think. There is a reason that they are seemingly authoritarian.

And that is what MaceB is arguing for. For voters on the left to stop thinking. And it just isn't going to work.