That's what you took from it. From my perspective, young people tend to generally be correct on every single major issue that comes to the forefront and they drag everyone else forward kicking and screaming. Democrats would never lose another election if they at least attempted to do what they did with Obama in 2008. Instead they're too busy masturbating to the endorsement of yet another never-Trumper Republican with politics every bit as Hitlerian as Trump has.
I'm not arguing that kids are wrong about anything. I'm arguing the same thing I've been arguing for months: we can't capitulate to people that aren't going to give us their votes anyway. It's a lose-lose situation. You risk the opportunity of losing moderates by trying to appeal to the radicals, and then the radicals aren't enough to make up for the lost moderates, or they just don't vote, because they don't actually care.
It's no wonder why Dems lost 2016, and why it took Trump fucking things up royally for Dems to win 2020. As xi0 said, if Dems cared more about appealing to their base and to young people, they'd likely never lose unless or until Republicans do something shady and underhanded.
Dems can't appeal to their base without ostracizing a lot of young people because they're a lot further left. You have to pick one to focus on, and then skim off the top of the other. You take the guaranteed votes, make sure they remain guaranteed, and THEN you bother taking stupid risks. Unfortunately we're in a bad enough situation that stupid risks are stupider than usual because so much is on the line, so like I keep saying: fuck them kids. Til the election is over, they don't exist.
Dems can't appeal to their base without ostracizing a lot of young people because they're a lot further left. You have to pick one to focus on, and then skim off the top of the other. You take the guaranteed votes, make sure they remain guaranteed, and THEN you bother taking stupid risks. Unfortunately we're in a bad enough situation that stupid risks are stupider than usual because so much is on the line, so like I keep saying: fuck them kids. Til the election is over, they don't exist.
Yes they can, they just don't want to risk losing money from corporates and Israel.
if they're guaranteed votes, then why do you have to make sure they remain guaranteed? Focusing solely on that, again, is what made Clinton lose 2016 - had she took "stupid risks," as you say, she could have won.
Again, any Dems with views like that are 100% at fault for losing, not the young people, not Muslims, not anyone else. If you can't give people a reason to vote for you, then that's on you.
I'm not arguing that kids are wrong about anything. I'm arguing the same thing I've been arguing for months: we can't capitulate to people that aren't going to give us their votes anyway. It's a lose-lose situation. You risk the opportunity of losing moderates by trying to appeal to the radicals, and then the radicals aren't enough to make up for the lost moderates, or they just don't vote, because they don't actually care.
You can't "capitulate" to the strongest and most potentially energized voting bloc in the country? Or is it more accurate that Democrats are unwilling or otherwise incapable of capturing the interest of anyone other than the most vacuous fence-sitters who are desperate to feel recognized?
This is circular logic - you can't count on their votes so why bother earnestly appealing to them? I mean sure, just as defeatist as expected.
Also, the notion that young = radical leftist is so silly. There's far more apathetic voting-age people who are completely disengaged with politics in general than whatever "tankies" you apparently seem to think dominate the non-voting crowd.
Or is it more accurate that Democrats are unwilling or otherwise incapable of capturing the interest of anyone other than the most vacuous fence-sitters who are desperate to feel recognized?
The first one. And fencesitters is a weird word to use to describe the people that have actually picked a side and are taking care of their responsibilities as American citizens. The fencesitters are the ones sitting on the sidelines, noses turned up in disgust at the people who won't buckle under their threats.
Is defeatist a synonym for pragmatist in your view? Or are you one of those "no, perfect should be the enemy of good, actually" types? Also: circular logic would be:
Me: They won't vote for us-> You: So appeal to them to earn their vote-> Me: No, because they won't vote for us
It's actually:
Me: They won't vote for us even when we appeal to them->You: Yeah, well you're not trying hard enough. Appeal more.->Me: I don't want to try so hard that I lose the voters we already have
Also, the notion that young = radical leftist is so silly. There's far more apathetic voting-age people who are completely disengaged with politics in general than whatever "tankies" you apparently seem to think dominate the non-voting crowd.
Well yeah, not all young voters are tankies, I was being hyperbolic. But young people are still further left than other demographics which could still clash with normal people. And those apathetic voting-age people you mentioned? Just like young people, they get little to no consideration when it comes to motivating people to vote because they're not a reliable demographic. If they don't care about the American project, why waste resources trying to make them care, when those resources can be used making the people that already care, focus that energy on my party? There's a reason I keep bringing up the fear of losing voters.
if they're guaranteed votes, then why do you have to make sure they remain guaranteed? Focusing solely on that, again, is what made Clinton lose 2016 - had she took "stupid risks," as you say, she could have won.
Because they didn't become guaranteed votes outta nowhere, and if the strategies/policies that made a person want to vote for a particular party change, then that voter's reason for voting for said party likely ends.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Walz loved by independents. People that actually vote. That's what we wanna see.
The first one. And fencesitters is a weird word to use to describe the people that have actually picked a side and are taking care of their responsibilities as American citizens. The fencesitters are the ones sitting on the sidelines, noses turned up in disgust at the people who won't buckle under their threats.
It's not a weird word at all IMO. People who are undecided between the candidates currently are either single-issue voters or maliciously ignorant. Or both.
Buckle under what threat? People on the sidelines have no purchase over the party much less any discourse. Why else do you think they see the situation as hopeless?
Is defeatist a synonym for pragmatist in your view? Or are you one of those "no, perfect should be the enemy of good, actually" types? Also: circular logic would be:
Me: They won't vote for us-> You: So appeal to them to earn their vote-> Me: No, because they won't vote for us
It's actually:
Me: They won't vote for us even when we appeal to them->You: Yeah, well you're not trying hard enough. Appeal more.->Me: I don't want to try so hard that I lose the voters we already have
No, defeatist is a person who starts off this scenario saying "they won't vote for us" without examining why that is and what could be done to change it. My point is they've done it before, it's doable.
Why do you think doing what I want them to do would lose voters?
Well yeah, not all young voters are tankies, I was being hyperbolic. But young people are still further left than other demographics which could still clash with normal people. And those apathetic voting-age people you mentioned? Just like young people, they get little to no consideration when it comes to motivating people to vote because they're not a reliable demographic. If they don't care about the American project, why waste resources trying to make them care, when those resources can be used making the people that already care, focus that energy on my party? There's a reason I keep bringing up the fear of losing voters
Because like I said, they're the strongest voting bloc this country has, and if something could be done to have them engaged the Democrats would never lose another election. Sure, we could view that as not being pragmatic enough, but if the DNC isn't feeling like being aspirational then that's their own fault.
I like him and he was my preferred pick, but he was embarrassing last night.
Who the fuck among the voting crowd is mobilized by a Democrat Vice Presidential candidate essentially arguing in favor of Trump's border policy? Who at the DNC did that calculus?
It's not a weird word at all IMO. People who are undecided between the candidates currently are either single-issue voters or maliciously ignorant. Or both.
Oh, at that point I wasn't saying they were appealing to people that aren't decided. I was talking about them maintaining their voter base (I keep bringing up avoiding ostracizing their voter base to appeal to young voters). If you mean independents, sure. But then... these independents are infinitely more valuable than these young voters because they already intend to vote. And they also aren't lefties either.
Buckle under what threat? People on the sidelines have no purchase over the party much less any discourse. Why else do you think they see the situation as hopeless?
"Appeal to our niche sensibilities or else we won't vote for you, no matter how bad the alternative is." That's the threat. Undecided voters are a completely different beast altogether. They plan on voting, they just want help deciding. They want to be wooed. That is a vote that's definitely going to be made, so it's worth courting. The demographic least likely to vote however, is not.
No, defeatist is a person who starts off this scenario saying "they won't vote for us" without examining why that is and what could be done to change it. My point is they've done it before, it's doable.
Why do you think doing what I want them to do would lose voters?
Oh. Well, you're wrong. The young voters now who aren't energized are further left than the young voters of yesteryear. The appeals that moved young voters in the past are not the ones that will move today's much further left-leaning voters.
Because like I said, they're the strongest voting bloc this country has, and if something could be done to have them engaged the Democrats would never lose another election. Sure, we could view that as not being pragmatic enough, but if the DNC isn't feeling like being aspirational then that's their own fault.
Strongest voting block? The block that doesn't vote is the strongest voting block? Surely you mean they are an untapped resource that COULD be a strong voting block right? Because all of my complaints are that they are here to virtue signal and not actually vote. Brianna Joy Gray and Cenk Uygur both admitted that they wouldn't vote for Biden regardless of whether he called for a ceasefire, and they're not even dumb kids. Well, Cenk isn't.
I like him and he was my preferred pick, but he was embarrassing last night.
Who the fuck among the voting crowd is mobilized by a Democrat Vice Presidential candidate essentially arguing in favor of Trump's border policy? Who at the DNC did that calculus?
Well, he had to make Kamala look good, and Vance had to make Trump look sane. Walz had two big slip-ups and a few Biden-esque brain buffers, but other than that he did pretty fine. Nothing as bad as complaining about fact-checks. How the hell do you complain that you don't want facts checked? That implies that you want to get away with lies. Vances also was too... good, to appeal to the MAGA voter. He wasn't attacking anyone or insulting anyone, which probably came off as weakness to his own voterbase.
Also, I feel like Walz is such a lovely guy he just didn't have it in him to be super aggressive on the border policy. That, and I think he mistakenly thought he could hammer home the idea that Democrats are ready to work with Republicans on the border, but Trump is the one who stood in the way. And the best way to make that point is to be super agreeable with the concerns of moderates and Republicans about it. Be super servile. It was the wrong play, I agree.
Because they didn't become guaranteed votes outta nowhere, and if the strategies/policies that made a person want to vote for a particular party change, then that voter's reason for voting for said party likely ends.
I mean, Dems' positions on most topics are the same if not similar to past years, so there's no reason for them to go after guaranteed voters.
Again, this is what happened in 2016, and as result, Dems lost. If they put in more effort in trying to get independents and people who were undecided, then again, we'd likely get Clinton as president.
"Appeal to our niche sensibilities or else we won't vote for you, no matter how bad the alternative is." That's the threat. Undecided voters are a completely different beast altogether. They plan on voting, they just want help deciding. They want to be wooed. That is a vote that's definitely going to be made, so it's worth courting. The demographic least likely to vote however, is not.
"Niche sensibilities" is a weird way to phrase, "do what's good for people and stop hurting/killing innocent people."
But that's what politicians are supposed to do, "woo" voters and convince them to vote for them. That's how this should work ideally. "Hey you align with most of my beliefs, I'll vote for you!" Not "if you don't vote for people that I tell you to vote for, I'll harass you and make threats!" Just because the people aren't Dems or are leftists doesn't mean they shouldn't be convinced not to vote.
It's the politicians' job to convince people to vote for them, even the demographic "least likely to vote." Just because we think Harris is better doesn't mean she's entitled to the votes of everyone who isn't a Trump supporter. To many on the left, what they see is some states taking away women's healthcare under Biden, Biden not fighting hard to cancel student loans (and even restarting it), minimum wage not going up, and so many more promises broken and Trump's bullshit continued. They have no reason to believe Harris will be better.
Strongest voting block? The block that doesn't vote is the strongest voting block? Surely you mean they are an untapped resource that COULD be a strong voting block right? Because all of my complaints are that they are here to virtue signal and not actually vote. Brianna Joy Gray and Cenk Uygur both admitted that they wouldn't vote for Biden regardless of whether he called for a ceasefire, and they're not even dumb kids. Well, Cenk isn't.
What is this based on? Your assumptions? Because they did vote last time, which is how we got Biden.
Cenk seems to be dumb, from his tweets.
It's quite amazing how Dem voters continue to be tone deaf and ignore everything that doesn't line with their beliefs. At least politicians doing it make sense, they make money either way.
This is just peak smug online liberalism in a nutshell. The notion that DNC policy is dictated by young twitter leftists is absurd on it's own, it's even more absurd to suggest that we live in a reality where anyone in "the center" is looking towards fucking Dick Cheney for his endorsement, a man who in a just world be rotting in a prison in The Hague for war crimes.
The messaging here is essentially "don't be mean towards our government for their egregious shortcomings, or they'll just keep fueling genocide and taking dinners with mass murdering vampires". Awesome man, very compelling.
Oh, at that point I wasn't saying they were appealing to people that aren't decided. I was talking about them maintaining their voter base (I keep bringing up avoiding ostracizing their voter base to appeal to young voters). If you mean independents, sure. But then... these independents are infinitely more valuable than these young voters because they already intend to vote. And they also aren't lefties either.
"Appeal to our niche sensibilities or else we won't vote for you, no matter how bad the alternative is." That's the threat. Undecided voters are a completely different beast altogether. They plan on voting, they just want help deciding. They want to be wooed. That is a vote that's definitely going to be made, so it's worth courting. The demographic least likely to vote however, is not.
I think the characterization as stop funding war crimes as "niche sensibilities" is part of the reason why the loud and inconvenient lefties can't be brought to the table.
Oh. Well, you're wrong. The young voters now who aren't energized are further left than the young voters of yesteryear. The appeals that moved young voters in the past are not the ones that will move today's much further left-leaning voters.
Well, he had to make Kamala look good, and Vance had to make Trump look sane. Walz had two big slip-ups and a few Biden-esque brain buffers, but other than that he did pretty fine. Nothing as bad as complaining about fact-checks. How the hell do you complain that you don't want facts checked? That implies that you want to get away with lies. Vances also was too... good, to appeal to the MAGA voter. He wasn't attacking anyone or insulting anyone, which probably came off as weakness to his own voterbase.
Also, I feel like Walz is such a lovely guy he just didn't have it in him to be super aggressive on the border policy. That, and I think he mistakenly thought he could hammer home the idea that Democrats are ready to work with Republicans on the border, but Trump is the one who stood in the way. And the best way to make that point is to be super agreeable with the concerns of moderates and Republicans about it. Be super servile. It was the wrong play, I agree.
The issue with Walz is that he's excellent on the topics he's well-versed in, anything else has him coming off like a buffoon. Like when he has to defend Biden's policies on immigration, etc.
But no, Vance is a slimy, inhuman prick. That's a given.
I'll couch all this shit by saying that not only do debates generally not matter, VP debates matter even less. Whatever. Just found him quite disappointing.
Independents usually means people that vote and identify on their paperwork that they are independents. They're registered as independents. If they're registered it's reasonable to think they're more likely to vote than someone that isn't registered.
I'm using the second meaning of niche, that is to say a specialized concern for a specific group of people. Specific in this case being leftists, who aren't the majority. Math is your enemy here, not moral failings of the Democratic party. You appeal to the majority. You appeal to the values of the majority. Very simple, very obvious, very practical, very... correct.
But that's what politicians are supposed to do, "woo" voters and convince them to vote for them. That's how this should work ideally. "Hey you align with most of my beliefs, I'll vote for you!" Not "if you don't vote for people that I tell you to vote for, I'll harass you and make threats!" Just because the people aren't Dems or are leftists doesn't mean they shouldn't be convinced not to vote.
It's the politicians' job to convince people to vote for them, even the demographic "least likely to vote." Just because we think Harris is better doesn't mean she's entitled to the votes of everyone who isn't a Trump supporter. To many on the left, what they see is some states taking away women's healthcare under Biden, Biden not fighting hard to cancel student loans (and even restarting it), minimum wage not going up, and so many more promises broken and Trump's bullshit continued. They have no reason to believe Harris will be better.
At the bolded, that's the shit that disgusts me to my soulless core. The fact that someone could know she is the better candidate for us, and not vote for her because she isn't the perfect candidate. Fuck these people. No good faith for them. No moral consideration. Get them out of my country.
This is just peak smug online liberalism in a nutshell. The notion that DNC policy is dictated by young twitter leftists is absurd on it's own, it's even more absurd to suggest that we live in a reality where anyone in "the center" is looking towards fucking Dick Cheney for his endorsement, a man who in a just world be rotting in a prison in The Hague for war crimes.
Hutch is good people. He's 1/4th of the Lib and Learn podcast consisting of DGG alum Pondering Politics, Econoboi, Pisco, and himself. The future is Omniliberal, xi0.
Get ready.
The messaging here is essentially "don't be mean towards our government for their egregious shortcomings, or they'll just keep fueling genocide and taking dinners with mass murdering vampires". Awesome man, very compelling.
Do you think that's what he's saying? In your heart of hea- actually, in your brain of brains? Be nice to us or we won't change? Or is he saying "If you won't vote for us, we'll take our business elsewhere?" Is he wrong when he says "Attack the Democrats and they won't pursue your vote?" Also, it's not like they initially were lobbying for Dick Cheney's endorsement. They're embracing it now that they've got it.
Also, I'm not about to let this thread forget Hasan is a terrorist sympathizer. I could make a case for him being a stochastic terrorist himself too if I had to.
Twitch , a streaming service, holds explicit guidlines relating to acceptable behavior for streamers both on and off the platform. Among these guidelines, includes a section explicitly forbidding the displayal of terrorist or extremist propaganda. Despite this, Twitch streaming partnerHasan Piker has routinely showcased support for a variety of internationally recognized terrorist organizations , all the while maintaining his status as one of the most preeminent political streamers on the platform.[2] This support has included the displayal of propaganda pieces released by these organizations, defense of their actions abroad, and interviews with known members.
Yeah. So any tweets making any moral claims coming from that piece of shit can miss me entirely.
I think the characterization as stop funding war crimes as "niche sensibilities" is part of the reason why the loud and inconvenient lefties can't be brought to the table.
Because you're not an independent if you're a leftie. Just like you're not an independent if you're a Democrat. Or Republican. If you're a leftie, you know what you're willing to vote for, and what you're not. And I don't want the motherfuckers voting if they're just gonna write in Bernie Sanders or Che Guevara on the ballot. It's the same thing as them not voting at all. Yes it's POSSIBLE they will do the moral thing and vote for the lesser of two evils and vote Democrat. It's POSSIBLE. But I don't want to ostracize sure voters for potential voters. And remember: I'm Blue No Matter Who. I'd vote for whatever fucking left-leaning person was the presidential candidate. I'd vote for Hasan Piker if I had to. But not everyone has the strength of character and moral pedigree that I do xi0. Not everyone has ascended.
Loud people on twitter, and loud people on twitchpol... and political debates. But also, pew research! There was one from 2019 talking about how GenZ and Millenials have like, the same political opinions, but that the younger generation was further left than the previous.
As Gen Z moves toward adulthood, their views mirror those of Millennials on a range of issues, from Trump’s presidency to the role of government to racial equality. Among Republicans, Gen Z stands out on some key issues.
www.pewresearch.org
As for why so many young people voted Democrat in 08, they were reached out to by Dems and not Reps. It's less that Dems won them over, it's more that Reps left them to Dems. Also, the fact that young people are already predisposed to being more left-leaning making them more open to Dem talking points.
This year, 66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama making the disparity between young voters and other age groups larger than in any presidential election since exit polling began in 1972.
www.pewresearch.org
Young voters are more diverse racially and ethnically than older voters and more secular in their religious orientation. These characteristics, as well as the climate in which they have come of age politically, incline them not only toward Democratic Party affiliation but also toward greater support of activist government, greater opposition to the war in Iraq, less social conservatism, and a greater willingness to describe themselves as liberal politically.
Yeah, if you're young, you grew up in a less homogenous and more diverse area than your parents and likely were around less racist ideas. Meaning they'd be more likely vote to fight against racist policies. Likewise, you're less likely to be religious so you're not bound to voting for the religious candidacy. America's also becoming less white. Young voters will become more and more brown and gay, and thus more and more left-leaning.
Young people were not, however, crucial to Barack Obama’s victory, according to the exit polls. Obama would have lost Indiana and North Carolina, but carried other key states such as Ohio and Florida, as well as the national vote. But young people provided not only their votes but also many enthusiastic campaign volunteers. Some may have helped persuade parents and older relatives to consider Obama’s candidacy. And far more young people than older voters reported attending a campaign event while nearly one-in-ten donated money to a presidential candidate.
Basically, young voters were reached out to by Obama's campaign more than they were for McCains, (by a lot). But these weren't kids that were complaining about Dems not being far left enough.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
290 unique canvassers hit 24,700 houses. 2500 voters reached (dunno whether this means they spoke to people already registered or convinced them to vote). Not nothing. Plus this is only the 3rd (I think?) DGG canvassing event.
It's exactly what it says on the tin. She even goes over her reasons for not wanting to be aligned with the left inside of the article. I guess I'm wondering what you're asking? Are you asking why she chose now to make the announcement? If so, I dunno.
It's exactly what it says on the tin. She even goes over her reasons for not wanting to be aligned with the left inside of the article. I guess I'm wondering what you're asking? Are you asking why she chose now to make the announcement? If so, I dunno.
My question is what exactly is wrong with what she said. I read the article but from was I can tell she is simply disillusioned with the folk who harassed her. Which sounds... reasonable?
My question is what exactly is wrong with what she said. I read the article but from was I can tell she is simply disillusioned with the folk who harassed her. Which sounds... reasonable?
It's super not. Values aren't values if you can just abandon them to spite the people on "your side" who have attacked you cuz dey hort yor widdle feewings. Imagine if I became an Independent because M3J made me hate the left by defending Hamas? My views on:
Abortion
LGBTQ+ issues
Healthcare
Social issues
Religion
Education
All align with the left. So why would I call myself an Independent? This is what Ana has done, because all of her values are identical to mine. She's bitching over nitpicky shit like "Well they wanna call me a birthing person instead of a woman, so now I'm gonna seriously consider voting for the party that doesn't even want me to have the ability to vote."
I mean, my point is the only thing that could ever justify leaving a political party that you identify with, is if the party doesn't fight for the things you thought they did. If Democrats ban abortion, reverse gay marriage rights, start placing confederate statues all around the states, and start putting bibles everywhere, THEN I'd be justified in leaving the party.
But if they wanna cancel me on twitter for calling people retarded because it's an ableist slur? Or they wanna call me pro-genocide for being a stalwart defender of Joe Biden throughout all the I/P protets? Let 'em. They can't scare me out of the party. I'm stronger than all of these people. Ana apparently isn't.
It's super not. Values aren't values if you can just abandon them to spite the people on "your side" who have attacked you cuz dey hort yor widdle feewings. Imagine if I became an Independent because M3J made me hate the left by defending Hamas? My views on:
Abortion
LGBTQ+ issues
Healthcare
Social issues
Religion
Education
All align with the left. So why would I call myself an Independent? This is what Ana has done, because all of her values are identical to mine. She's bitching over nitpicky shit like "Well they wanna call me a birthing person instead of a woman, so now I'm gonna seriously consider voting for the party that doesn't even want me to have the ability to vote."
But... the article does not say she abandoned or changed her values, just her affiliation. From that I don't even get the sense she is even changing how she'd vote. I am not sure of what exactly she went through harassment wise but from what I can tell some folk on the left I'd describe as... how do I frame this... unreasonable virtue signaling toxic pits of selth loathing that would indiscriminately lash out at friends or family over politics of all things. She doesn't care for them, they definitely do not care for her so... steering clear of an endless pit of toxicity seems reasonable/healthy (whether her views tank or not is a different issue).
I am not sure of what is wrong with not wanting to be called a birthing person. I can't really say I know of one woman that would be fine with being called that instead of a woman. I suppose it could be because most translations to spanish (if not all) make that sound far more farm animal like.
But... the article does not say she abandoned or changed her values, just her affiliation. From that I don't even get the sense she is even changing how she'd vote. I am not sure of what exactly she went through harassment wise but from what I can tell some folk on the left I'd describe as... how do I frame this... unreasonable virtue signaling toxic pits of selth loathing that would indiscriminately lash out at friends or family over politics of all things. She doesn't care for them, they definitely do not care for her so... steering clear of an endless pit of toxicity seems reasonable/healthy (whether her views tank or not is a different issue).
But in America, centrist and Independent typically means "I'm a Republican but I'm too much of a pussy to admit it out loud because of the social backlash." Likewise, ask yourself this: if you're not changing what party you're going to vote for, and you're not changing your political values, what the hell are you accomplishing by calling yourself anything other than a member of the party that actually fights for those things? Pissing off the people that pissed you off?
Also, I don't think leaving the party protects you from the assault of crazy leftists. She isn't distancing herself from the crazy leftists that are attacking her: she's antagonizing them. She's giving them more reasons to attack her. The only difference is now they can't call her a fake leftist. Now they just call her... well, a grifting birthing person.
I am not sure of what is wrong with not wanting to be called a birthing person. I can't really say I know of one woman that would be fine with being called that instead of a woman. I suppose it could be because most translations to spanish (if not all) make that sound far more farm animal like.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I don't believe she's dumb enough to not realize the reason they called her a birthing person at the doctor's appointment she was at (I forget specifics, but I know it had to do with medical stuff) was to clarify that she was a woman who was born with a uterus to avoid making incorrect assumptions about what medical implications should be expected. If she was identified as a woman, and showed up with a penis and testes, that could complicate whatever they were doing. The idea that being inclusive is an insult to her is the problem. And if she IS too dumb to understand it why couldn't she... uh... I dunno...
But in America, centrist and Independent typically means "I'm a Republican but I'm too much of a pussy to admit it out loud because of the social backlash." Likewise, ask yourself this: if you're not changing what party you're going to vote for, and you're not changing your political values, what the hell are you accomplishing by calling yourself anything other than a member of the party that actually fights for those things? Pissing off the people that pissed you off?
Also, I don't think leaving the party protects you from the assault of crazy leftists. She isn't distancing herself from the crazy leftists that are attacking her: she's antagonizing them. She's giving them more reasons to attack her. The only difference is now they can't call her a fake leftist. Now they just call her... well, a grifting birthing person.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I don't believe she's dumb enough to not realize the reason they called her a birthing person at the doctor's appointment she was at (I forget specifics, but I know it had to do with medical stuff) was to clarify that she was a woman who was born with a uterus to avoid making incorrect assumptions about what medical implications should be expected. If she was identified as a woman, and showed up with a penis and testes, that could complicate whatever they were doing. The idea that being inclusive is an insult to her is the problem. And if she IS too dumb to understand it why couldn't she... uh... I dunno...
That's a bit different from my read of centrist or independent which was more along the lines of "fuck democrats and republicans". I suppose centrist does sound more specifically conservative while independent sounds a bit more left leaning (as I understood this).
Wait, what? I thought she was called a birthing person on twitter on something, not on something that's actually important. How does it make sense for the totality of women's population to have to clarify their sex for medical for the benefit of trans folk? It should be incumbent on trans folk to clarify their sex to doctors so that they can get proper healthcare.
That's a bit different from my read of centrist or independent which was more along the lines of "fuck democrats and republicans". I suppose centrist does sound more specifically conservative while independent sounds a bit more left leaning (as I understood this).
Look up any famous figure (political or not) in media that identifies as a centrist or an independent, and then look at their rhetoric. Tim Pool? Jimmy Dore? Joe Rogan? Jordan Peterson? Konstantin Kissin?
Is there a single one you can think of that isn't simply a Republican in all but name?
Wait, what? I thought she was called a birthing person on twitter on something, not on something that's actually important. How does it make sense for the totality of women's population to have to clarify their sex for medical for the benefit of trans folk? It should be incumbent on trans folk to clarify their sex to doctors so that they can get proper healthcare.
Well the thing is that she was never called a birthing person until she made the tweet: she started it, which was a big part of the problem. It's like a white person going to a Black Lives Matter protest wearing a t-shirt that says "It's Okay To Be White". The fact that no one was making it about you, but decided to attack you after you decided to make it about you leaves no room for sympathy.
Also, it's my mistake: it didn't happen to her, she was covering a story about someone else, and she basically tweeted her personal feelings about it.
Also at the bolded, this is just wrong. Women aren't clarifying their sex for the benefit of trans women, they're clarifying it for their own benefit to make sure they get the correct help. No one said anything about trans women not identifying that they are trans.
EDIT: It's like, the idea that I'd ever get pissed off about someone calling me a black man instead of just a man... to the degree that I'd call THEM a racist for identifying phenotypical differences between me and other men? How much of a snowflake would I have to be to do such a thing?
Look up any famous figure (political or not) in media that identifies as a centrist or an independent, and then look at their rhetoric. Tim Pool? Jimmy Dore? Joe Rogan? Jordan Peterson? Konstantin Kissin?
Is there a single one you can think of that isn't simply a Republican in all but name?
Well the thing is that she was never called a birthing person until she made the tweet: she started it, which was a big part of the problem. It's like a white person going to a Black Lives Matter protest wearing a t-shirt that says "It's Okay To Be White". The fact that no one was making it about you, but decided to attack you after you decided to make it about you leaves no room for sympathy.
Also, it's my mistake: it didn't happen to her, she was covering a story about someone else, and she basically tweeted her personal feelings about it.
Also at the bolded, this is just wrong. Women aren't clarifying their sex for the benefit of trans women, they're clarifying it for their own benefit to make sure they get the correct help. No one said anything about trans women not identifying that they are trans.
Ok.. it didn't happen to her but it happened in a setting where it's important. I mean, any woman goes to the hospital, gets treated as a woman and nothing happens. It's exclusively where getting the biological sex of a trans person wrong where there's a problem. Arguing that this is for the benefit of women is at best rhetorical mumbo jumbo and at worst untrue.
Independents usually means people that vote and identify on their paperwork that they are independents. They're registered as independents. If they're registered it's reasonable to think they're more likely to vote than someone that isn't registered.
I'm using the second meaning of niche, that is to say a specialized concern for a specific group of people. Specific in this case being leftists, who aren't the majority. Math is your enemy here, not moral failings of the Democratic party. You appeal to the majority. You appeal to the values of the majority. Very simple, very obvious, very practical, very... correct.
Very wrong, very stupid. Why focus on people whose votes are guaranteed as long as you make it clear that their values align with yours? That's how you lose. Goal should be to get as many voters as possible, and a lot of left who are independents are more than willing to vote for Dems, they just have to be convinced to do so like anyone who isn't in a cult.
At the bolded, that's the shit that disgusts me to my soulless core. The fact that someone could know she is the better candidate for us, and not vote for her because she isn't the perfect candidate. Fuck these people. No good faith for them. No moral consideration. Get them out of my country.
She'd stand a better chance if she wasn't supporting a genocidal country and if the party wasn't trying to outlaw anything that doesn't help Israel, even suppressing freedom of speech. If these someones knew that Harris was the better candidate, then they'd vote for her. THey see her as bad a candidate or worse than Trump, which is the problem.
It is on her to convince them otherwise. You know what can? Fighting harder to abolish student loans and trying to make sure that women get back rights to their bodies and don't lose it in any of the states. You know what hurt her? Bragging about getting the Cheneys' support, when Dick Cheney is not seen favorably.
It's super not. Values aren't values if you can just abandon them to spite the people on "your side" who have attacked you cuz dey hort yor widdle feewings. Imagine if I became an Independent because M3J made me hate the left by defending Hamas? My views on:
You yourself said that seeing how the left defended the group who were protecting Palestinians pushed you away from the left. Plus, the left and Dems are not the same, as we've seen in the past year or so, so it'd be weird of you to become independent if you're still in the Dem cult.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Harris saying she'll have a republican in her cabinet.... That's a horrible idea, especially when so many of them are unhinged
