Jpizzle

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

73,891 posts in this topic

I said earlier I don't think Democrats should pursue evangelicals, but most Americans are still Christian, and Christians very often convert several times in their life to other kinds of Christianity. Sometimes people stick with a version because they're comfortable with it; other times they realize that's why they needed to make a change.

Sanders gives a version of leftist Democratic politics primarily focused on improving people's lives. He's a rational response to an irrational era. He might even become genuinely endearing for the same reasons Trump was endearing. By that I mean that the media absolutely ******* hates him. Most people hate political media now. He ought to have widening appeal as a useful iconoclast more than someone strongly tied to the Democrats and the liberal media.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Serge said:

I said earlier I don't think Democrats should pursue evangelicals, but most Americans are still Christian, and Christians very often convert several times in their life to other kinds of Christianity. Sometimes people stick with a version because they're comfortable with it; other times they realize that's why they needed to make a change.

Sanders gives a version of leftist Democratic politics primarily focused on improving people's lives. He's a rational response to an irrational era. He might even become genuinely endearing for the same reasons Trump was endearing. By that I mean that the media absolutely ******* hates him. Most people hate political media now. He ought to have widening appeal as a useful iconoclast more than someone strongly tied to the Democrats and the liberal media.

Bernie won't make it bro (health issues) *to the nomination, but it was never about him alone, that's the thing that Berners don't realize. Christianity isn't about Jesus, it's about being Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the stumbling block is guns, I mean, ****, he's probably not actually gonna get anything passed. Plus, no more President Trump media cycles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

This hits the nail precisely on the head.  Evangelicals vote for Trump not because they approve of his lifestyle, or believe he is a sincere Christian.  Most do not believe that (some certainly do).  They vote for him because he shows them basic respect and promises to fight for their rights.

And in the end, it's a Faustian bargain, because the optics of it hurts them way more than his short presidency will ever help them.  But when you look across the aisle, there is literally no reason for them to vote for the other side.  The other side has already cut them loose.  Even Buttigieg, who at least makes overtures toward them, is still talking down his nose and scolding them.  There isn't one person running as a Democrat who shows an ounce of concern for them.

I want better Republicans.  But I also want better Democrats.

He didn't care about the social issues they supposedly hold dear during the primary. They flocked to him nonetheless.

It has nothing to do with respect. It has everything to do with him wanting what they actually care about when you remove the veil of social conservative issues and viewing him as a fighter for those things. The fact that he's an imperfect vessel doesn't matter in the slightest and it never really did prior to him.

achilles return likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

Bernie won't make it bro (health issues) *to the nomination, but it was never about him alone, that's the thing that Berners don't realize. Christianity isn't about Jesus, it's about being Christian.

It isn't about Sanders. It's about changing the system, hence pushing for left-wing candidates at the local and state levels for the past few years. He just happens to be the most prominent proponent of it. Nominating him would hasten that process significantly.

Likewise, it's also why I seriously doubt you'll see 90%+ of his supporters vote for whoever the Dem is this go around. You don't affect change by voting blue no matter who. That's how you get Dems who do stuff like voting for the Iraq war and scuttle the public option. If no change is offered then you haven't earned the votes.

achilles return likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

It isn't about Sanders. It's about changing the system, hence pushing for left-wing candidates at the local and state levels for the past few years. He just happens to be the most prominent proponent of it. Nominating him would hasten that process significantly.

Likewise, it's also why I seriously doubt you'll see 90%+ of his supporters vote for whoever the Dem is this go around. You don't affect change by voting blue no matter who. That's how you get Dems who do stuff like voting for the Iraq war and scuttle the public option. If no change is offered then you haven't earned the votes.

Okay, but voting for a Dem President to replace RBG is better than letting Trump win. Sorry but if you dispute that calculation, you're just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

Okay, but voting for a Dem President to replace RBG is better than letting Trump win. Sorry but if you dispute that calculation, you're just wrong.

I voted for Hillary for the SCOTUS picks. Unless the candidate is willing to pack the court then it doesn't really make a difference now since they already have a majority.

What does make a difference, however, are the new policies offered, the willingness to fight and identify enemies instead of triangulating, and the ability to mobilize your base to apply pressure on the powers that be that need to be influenced. Sanders offers that. Warren to a lesser extent (foreign policy to a significantly lesser extent). No one else really offers anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

I voted for Hillary for the SCOTUS picks. Unless the candidate is willing to pack the court then it doesn't really make a difference now since they already have a majority.

Debatable given that Scalise died way earlier than expected. People die.

What does make a difference, however, are the new policies offered, the willingness to fight and identify enemies instead of triangulating, and the ability to mobilize your base to apply pressure on the powers that be that need to be influenced. Sanders offers that. Warren to a lesser extent (foreign policy to a significantly lesser extent). No one else really offers anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Serge said:

Convincing internet people that you've never felt shame?

I mean if that's your nut, I guess you gotta get it.:shrug:

Everyone feels shame when they do something that is shameful. WFW is old and wise enough to limit the occurrences or the appearances of such a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

 

I'm not relying on judges croaking.

Also not voting for the lesser of two evils again. Offer something good and worth voting for. Otherwise, you can take your vote blue no matter who stuff and shove it. I don't owe the Dems anything.

Carter likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I'm not relying on judges croaking.

Also not voting for the lesser of two evils again. Offer something good and worth voting for. Otherwise, you can take your vote blue no matter who stuff and shove it. I don't owe the Dems anything.

I respect the not voting for the lesser of two evils thing.  Just pointing out (and what you obviously already know, so not for you specifically) that the president's ability to appoint federal judges at all levels is hugely impactful moving forward. SCOTUS is just part of the problem, not the end all be all.

Sn4tteRBoxXeR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ezekiel 25:17 said:

You must be 187 years old.

That would've made me 29 years old at the start of the civil war, so no. My great great grandfather was 26 at the start of the Civil War and fought for the Union. He survived the war and died in 1919.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, achilles return said:

electing biden or someone else that would fail to move the needle in any real material way could very well just make far-right populism stronger.

It's honestly mind boggling. The two parties in the United States are forced to be permanent coalitions which would, in theory, make the Dems the left coalition. Instead you consistently have a center-right party that only moves on social issues when they poll well enough and on economic problems when a part of the system is about to collapse, and even then it's usually business friendly instead of consumer friendly. Their leaders also don't even bother trying to keep their coalition together, instead demanding their erstwhile coalition partners to vote for whatever candidate they put forward while actively courting suburban Republicans who will never be won over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stan Grossman said:

I respect the not voting for the lesser of two evils thing.  Just pointing out (and what you obviously already know, so not for you specifically) that the president's ability to appoint federal judges at all levels is hugely impactful moving forward. SCOTUS is just part of the problem, not the end all be all.

Which is why the "anti-vote blue no matter who" logic is self-defeating and amounts to an ultimatum not consensus. I can't take people seriously that use that ultimatum because either they are being disingenuous and will ultimately vote blue (who would shoot themselves in the foot purposely?) or they are not worth engaging with because they are so ideologically driven, there are more "moderate/independent/disaffected" people that energy should be expended on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stan Grossman said:

I respect the not voting for the lesser of two evils thing.  Just pointing out (and what you obviously already know, so not for you specifically) that the president's ability to appoint federal judges at all levels is hugely impactful moving forward. SCOTUS is just part of the problem, not the end all be all.

I understand that. However, that wasn't the argument put forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

Which is why the "anti-vote blue no matter who" logic is self-defeating and amounts to an ultimatum not consensus. I can't take people seriously that use that ultimatum because either they are being disingenuous and will ultimately vote blue (who would shoot themselves in the foot purposely?) or they are not worth engaging with because they are so ideologically driven, there are more "moderate/independent/disaffected" people that energy should be expended on.

Your SCOTUS argument was an ultimatum, my dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

 

That's the irony that is life.

No. It's just a dumb argument. If you want people to vote for you then you need to offer them what they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

No. It's just a dumb argument.

Uh, we are all going to die. Yet every we day we try to keep living.

The argument clearly makes you react illogically.

Quote

I can't take people seriously that use that ultimatum because either

  • they are being disingenuous and will ultimately vote blue (who would shoot themselves in the foot purposely?) or
  • they are not worth engaging with because they are so ideologically driven, there are more "moderate/independent/disaffected" people that energy should be expended on.

That's a dumb argument? No, it's not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Everyone feels shame when they do something that is shameful. WFW is old and wise enough to limit the occurrences or the appearances of such a thing. 

What? You post here daily

Serge likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now