Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 294: Kim Jong ill

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fuck it, I know hes already dead, but Ill never get another chance to use this
---

red13n posted...

You are assuming a lot of things here. Namely that the people in the middle of the road, made up of older, more likely voters, wont turn and vote the other way. This would likely be a false assumption.

"Shame on you for not voting for this guy, if we nominated your guy these other people will vote for the other guy."

Very healthy and good system you're endorsing, here.

---

The decision between proper capitalization implying Roman numerals.

Red isn't endorsing it he just lives in reality

---

Nice.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

The decision between proper capitalization implying Roman numerals.

I decided clarity was more important than overall correctness
---

We could always implement mandatory voting and see what happens!

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Red isn't endorsing it he just lives in reality

I look forward to being old and bullying all the young people.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

We could always implement mandatory voting and see what happens!

No way! The Republican Party will fight to the last to protect the sacred right of the People to not vote.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Red isn't endorsing it he just lives in reality

Oh my bad, I forgot nothing can or should change.

I shouldn't have to tell a "politics expert" this, but the reason Republicans win so often when they're a massive minority is because they don't do this.

Democrats spend so much time trying to maintain the status quo. If you never go on offense, you can literally never win.

---

If that's reality then it's not a system worth engaging with or a country worth supporting.

UshiromiyaEva posted...

If that's reality then it's not a system worth engaging with or a country worth supporting.

I'd argue it's a system worth participating in to the extent of changing it, but whether you do or not, by their own admission you are absolutely not responsible for the results it provides.

---

They win because they cheat and the system is literally rigged for them by being disproportional.

---

18-40 year olds suck at voting. We need to get more people to vote then we get our way. Simple.

Until then, yeah lesser of two evils is better than greater of two evils. Simple math

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's hard to respond to this because I can't tell if you're trying to crack a clever joke or actually believe this.

Literally nobody else has walked the walk like they've talked the talk like Bernie, PUH-LEASE stop with this shit. "You think I want Biden!? If only you guys magically crafted another popular politician with progressive views and record then MAYBE you would have beaten this candidate I think is terrible"

Do you even understand what you're saying? It's entirely Bernie's fault those other candidate's dropped out, they clearly have no agency, and Joe Biden, who is bad, won on accident?

Stop trolling, I can't even properly debate this.

I seem to recall that, just like Biden, there was another election...2008, was it?...where you had a major candidate with huge name recognition and massive popularity (before running for the presidency, of course). Despite the OVERWHELMING advantage this candidate had, a first term senator who'd only served 3 or 4 years of that first time managed to amass a following that bested her in the primary. Bernie tried to pull off the same feat in 2016 and fell short.

In 2020, rather than throw his support behind a spiritual successor (could be Elizabeth Warren, or it could be someone else...I can't even remember which candidates were supposedly from the progressive wing because EVERYONE got dragged through the mud for not being progressive enough), the lesson that was learned was "Bernie would've won in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the deck against him, so we're just gonna run the same guy again, on the SAME campaign, and we'll have a different outcome because Trump is so bad that our super popular candidate can run on destroying the existing system and the voters will accept this, even though that thinking was what got Trump elected in the first place."

Imagine, if you will, that Bernie doesn't run in 2020. He backs another candidate instead. Maybe we find a progressive with charm and charisma who can actually build a coalition and could outdo a clearly weakened Joe Biden. We'll never know, because Bernie ran and was the progressive front runner. The problem with your mindset, Tony, is that you're extremely idealistic and optimistic when it comes to YOUR GUY. A few topics back, I criticized Bernie's campaign and you gave a bullet list of flaws you were willing to admit. Said list was "He's too nice. He's too nice. He's too nice. He's too nice. He doesn't deviate enough from his stump speech. He's too nice." You're incapable of seeing Bernie's flaws.

You say "He walks the walk and talks the talk", and yes, he does. You like that about him. But the problem is that the walking and talking Bernie does...alienates a LOT of people who vote Democratic. I've had MANY conversations with older, Democratic voters, who felt like Bernie NOT ONLY didn't care about them, but either via his words or the words of his supporters (as, well, you've demonstrated personally), actively DESPISED them and wished hardship upon them. When your whole deal is "the system is broken and should be completely destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up", and you're completely unwilling to deviate from that viewpoint, or compromise, it alienates voters, rather than trying to bring them around to your way of thinking.

I don't even know what to say anymore. I just keep getting extremely frustrated at this constant refrain that progressives did nothing wrong and you only lost because the voters are old and evil/stupid, yet by the same token, if the moderates lose the election, it's ENTIRELY their fault for running a losing candidate and learning nothing from their previous losses. Progressive ideals will NEVER have a chance at winning, so long as progressives keep pushing the same, failing strategy and blaming their losses on other people. That's what you accuse the DNC of doing, isn't it?

---

Make voting a duty and not a right IMHO.

You're fined if you don't vote.

You can vote for literally anyone you want, but you gotta do it.

Of course this means that people must be able to vote from home.

I mean, elections in my lifetime are 1 bush, 2 clinton, 2 bush, 2 obama, 1 trump.

Thats an even split on electoral wins but from what I know off the top of my head Republicans also lost two of those in popular vote.

And one of those two wins they actually just lost.

---

Sure you put a lot of effort into that Inviso, but the Bernie shouldn't have run take basically makes it all moot.

I'd accept a "Bernie shouldn't run" take only if it accompanies a "Biden shouldn't run" take

---

Inviso posted...

I seem to recall that, just like Biden, there was another election...2008, was it?...where you had a major candidate with huge name recognition and massive popularity (before running for the presidency, of course). Despite the OVERWHELMING advantage this candidate had, a first term senator who'd only served 3 or 4 years of that first time managed to amass a following that bested her in the primary. Bernie tried to pull off the same feat in 2016 and fell short.

You are really gonna use Obama, an unprecedented candidate, our first black President, and say Bernie should have been like Obama?

Bad start.

Inviso posted...

In 2020, rather than throw his support behind a spiritual successor (could be Elizabeth Warren, or it could be someone else...I can't even remember which candidates were supposedly from the progressive wing because EVERYONE got dragged through the mud for not being progressive enough)

For 1, Bernie literally only ran in 2016 because Warren wouldn't, period. He ran again in 2020 because his supporters called on him to do so, and he still had the infrastructure.

Once again, you are literally attacking me for blaming part of Bernie's loss on others, while literally blaming others' losses on Bernie.

Inviso posted...

Imagine, if you will, that Bernie doesn't run in 2020. He backs another candidate instead. Maybe we find a progressive with charm and charisma who can actually build a coalition and could outdo a clearly weakened Joe Biden. We'll never know, because Bernie ran and was the progressive front runner. The problem with your mindset, Tony, is that you're extremely idealistic and optimistic when it comes to YOUR GUY. A few topics back, I criticized Bernie's campaign and you gave a bullet list of flaws you were willing to admit. Said list was "He's too nice. He's too nice. He's too nice. He's too nice. He doesn't deviate enough from his stump speech. He's too nice." You're incapable of seeing Bernie's flaws.

First of all, my only criticism was not that he's too nice, give me a break.

Secondly, in an election where Joe Biden literally won states he didn't campaign in, it is clear that many of the most damnest aspects of Joe have not penetrated the general public.

Third, I recall specifically saying I don't think "being mean" would necessarily have helped Bernie.

Inviso posted...

You say "He walks the walk and talks the talk", and yes, he does. You like that about him. But the problem is that the walking and talking Bernie does...alienates a LOT of people who vote Democratic. I've had MANY conversations with older, Democratic voters, who felt like Bernie NOT ONLY didn't care about them, but either via his words or the words of his supporters (as, well, you've demonstrated personally), actively DESPISED them and wished hardship upon them. When your whole deal is "the system is broken and should be completely destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up", and you're completely unwilling to deviate from that viewpoint, or compromise, it alienates voters, rather than trying to bring them around to your way of thinking.

This works 100% both ways, and I'm goddamn sick and tired of acting like it doesn't.

Inviso posted...

I don't even know what to say anymore. I just keep getting extremely frustrated at this constant refrain that progressives did nothing wrong and you only lost because the voters are old and evil/stupid, yet by the same token, if the moderates lose the election, it's ENTIRELY their fault for running a losing candidate and learning nothing from their previous losses. Progressive ideals will NEVER have a chance at winning, so long as progressives keep pushing the same, failing strategy and blaming their losses on other people. That's what you accuse the DNC of doing, isn't it?

I have literally never ever said progressives don't or can't do wrong, I don't know why you keep repeating this.

Or your above implication that there were other unknown progressives who "Bernie supporters dragged through the mud" until they weren't viable? Who? Why are you guys allowed to drag Bernie, but we're not allowed to criticize people? This complaint can't be serious, please be serious.

Also you set me up for proving my exact point. You know why progressives lose? Look at Elizabeth Warren, my guy. She is arguably the 2nd biggest progressive outside of Bernie, and when it came down to her supporting a fellow progressive or supporting a moderate, she chose neither.

That's just a fact. You can't blame the progressive movement for failing and absolve Elizabeth Warren for not acting. Pick one.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I'd accept a "Bernie shouldn't run" take only if it accompanies a "Biden shouldn't run" take

Both too old for my liking, giving me someone younger that I can have more faith in holding office for 8 years.

---

yang gang 2024


---

You're right, Tony. If only Elizabeth Warren had endorsed her fellow progressive, her supporters, who had largely already moved went to Bernie because of that same "electability" argument "you guys" always use against Biden, would have been able to overcome the numerical minority they had as a result of moderates outnumbering progressives in a largely conservative country.

Here's a thought experiment: if Bernie Sanders doesn't run and ISN'T the voice of progressivism in the primary, does moderate Voltron feel the same compulsion to drop out and rally around THEIR strongest contender just to beat him? Now, YOU view this as a positive because you WANT a candidate that bucks the system and takes a stab at the establishment...but far MORE voters...DON'T. But perhaps a progressive candidate willing to show SOME civility towards the establishment, whilst simultaneously maintaining their progressive ideals, wouldn't have inspired such desperation, and perhaps the continued splitting of votes prevents Joe Biden from becoming the overwhelming favorite that he was.

But you wouldn't like that. You like Bernie specifically because he walks the walk and talks the talk and doesn't compromise and won't change who he is, even though we now have two elections' worth of data showing that just because he makes your heart flutter with inspiration, doesn't mean the rest of the country feels the same way.

I just...there is literally no getting through to you. This is why Bernie lost. And this is why we're stuck with Biden.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

We could always implement mandatory voting and see what happens!

Probably a landslide in favor of whoever doesn't support mandatory voting.

---

Inviso posted...

You're right, Tony. If only Elizabeth Warren had endorsed her fellow progressive, her supporters, who had largely already moved went to Bernie because of that same "electability" argument "you guys" always use against Biden, would have been able to overcome the numerical minority they had as a result of moderates outnumbering progressives in a largely conservative country.

It's weird, I'm arguing your points, and you are arguing against me like I'm every worst Bernie Bro trope wrapped up into one. I have literally never ever ever said Warren endorsing Bernie properly would have guaranteed him the win.

But her not definitely didn't help! You just asked me why Progressives don't win, and I pointed out a textbook example of progressives not sticking together.

Literally what more of an answer could you get than that?

Inviso posted...

Here's a thought experiment: if Bernie Sanders doesn't run and ISN'T the voice of progressivism in the primary, does moderate Voltron feel the same compulsion to drop out and rally around THEIR strongest contender just to beat him?

Are you asking me if the Dems would have rallied around Biden to beat whoever was winning otherwise if Bernie wasn't in the race?

No, I think the Democrats would have rallied around whoever won the majority of Iowa/New Hampshire/Nevada, the same way they've done in literally every election (including 2008) before this one. What's your counter-argument? Why didn't Dems support Bernie after he won the states they spent 9 months telling us would decide the nominee?

Inviso posted...

But you wouldn't like that. You like Bernie specifically because he walks the walk and talks the talk and doesn't compromise and won't change who he is, even though we now have two elections' worth of data showing that just because he makes your heart flutter with inspiration, doesn't mean the rest of the country feels the same way.

I just...there is literally no getting through to you. This is why Bernie lost. And this is why we're stuck with Biden.
Touch fuzzy. Get fuzzier.

You are arguing THROUGH me at this point, engage with me and not some trope, dammit.

Bernie is literally irrelevant.

I have ideals. I would gladly support any candidate who stands for those ideals.

The reason I'm a Bernie supporter is because he is one of the only candidate that I know actually stands for those ideals, and isn't just a craven politician changing his views to fit the crowd or the climate.

I believe him because he has the record to prove it. That's the difference.

I don't know why, but you seem to view that as a negative. That's our impasse.


---

Inviso posted...

Now, YOU view this as a positive because you WANT a candidate that bucks the system and takes a stab at the establishment...but far MORE voters...DON'T. But perhaps a progressive candidate willing to show SOME civility towards the establishment, whilst simultaneously maintaining their progressive ideals, wouldn't have inspired such desperation, and perhaps the continued splitting of votes prevents Joe Biden from becoming the overwhelming favorite that he was.

Also for the record, Donald Trump is our President, and he go to be that by directly refuting everything in this paragraph.

---

1. "Progressives don't win because they don't stick together." is a cop out answer. If you are progressive, and you are outnumbered by moderates, then all the "sticking together" in the world is not going to net you a win.
2. Democrats didn't rally around Bernie because Democrats do not LIKE Bernie. Specifically. Not the progressive movement. Not most other progressive candidates. Bernie SPECIFICALLY. You criticize Dems for running an untenable candidate in Hillary Clinton (and potentially another in Joe Biden), but Bernie is just as untenable to the other side of the party as those two are to yours. And in terms of the broader election, there is nothing that indicates that Bernie would suddenly and miraculously becoming more appealing to an extremely conservative country.
3. I view your idealism as a negative because at a certain point, your attitude comes across as selfish, because your argument turns into "If I don't get EVERYTHING I want, then I would rather get NOTHING and have things I like TAKEN AWAY, than only get SOME of the things I want". It comes across as progressive virtue signaling.

---

I hadn't seen the actual quote Trump made about injecting disinfectants so I just looked it up. Unsurprisingly, it is ridiculously obvious that what is being reported is not what he meant.

How do liberals still not realize that falsely attributing quotes to him and ignoring context makes them look petty and insane to the rest of the country? The guy makes plenty of dumb statements all the time, and liberals consistently latch on to the most innocent stuff and twist it.

---

https://twitter.com/GianmarcoSoresi/status/1254195154472382464?s=20

---

SavageInTheBox posted...

I hadn't seen the actual quote Trump made about injecting disinfectants so I just looked it up. Unsurprisingly, it is ridiculously obvious that what is being reported is not what he meant.

How do liberals still not realize that falsely attributing quotes to him and ignoring context makes them look petty and insane to the rest of the country? The guy makes plenty of dumb statements all the time, and liberals consistently latch on to the most innocent stuff and twist it.

Sad part is that with the erroneous misleading reporting, they are likely the ones that are leading to things like people trying it (new York reported an uptick in Lysol human consumption) or at the very least leading to people reporting false claims to the poison control.

---

Inviso posted...

"Progressives don't win because they don't stick together." is a cop out answer. If you are progressive, and you are outnumbered by moderates, then all the "sticking together" in the world is not going to net you a win.

What kind of answer did you want? What kind of statement is this?

At one point, "MAGA" was outnumbered by the Neocons, and they fucking won.

You are literally arguing that Progressives MUST compromise and Moderates never should, while also asserting that these bases are rigid numbers rather than fungible.

Inviso posted...

Democrats didn't rally around Bernie because Democrats do not LIKE Bernie. Specifically. Not the progressive movement. Not most other progressive candidates. Bernie SPECIFICALLY. You criticize Dems for running an untenable candidate in Hillary Clinton (and potentially another in Joe Biden), but Bernie is just as untenable to the other side of the party as those two are to yours. And in terms of the broader election, there is nothing that indicates that Bernie would suddenly and miraculously becoming more appealing to an extremely conservative country.

I mean this is just patently false, dude. Why are you saying things that can be disproven in 2 seconds on Google? In the last couple years, Bernie was the most liked politican, period, and the most liked candidate frequently. He currently still beats Joe in popularity.

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-sanders-gallup-favorability-democrats-2020-1450344

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/regular-democrats-arent-least-bit-worried-about-bernie/606688/

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cpac-rates-sanders-as-the-biggest-threat-to-trump-in-2020-steyer-warren-as-easiest-to-beat

Based on this comment, I imagine you mostly interact with hardcore Hillary stans who still feel slighted by him, because they're the group with the lowest approval of him, funny enough, even lower than the anti-commie right (who recognize his genuine appeal, even if they disagree).

Inviso posted...

I view your idealism as a negative because at a certain point, your attitude comes across as selfish, because your argument turns into "If I don't get EVERYTHING I want, then I would rather get NOTHING and have things I like TAKEN AWAY, than only get SOME of the things I want". It comes across as progressive virtue signaling.

At a certain point it's just disrespectful the way you're talking to me like I'm some random Bernie Bro a winemom told you was mean to them on Twitter or some shit.

I literally said at the end of the last topic, and I've said it a dozen times, I do not WANT somethings "TAKEN AWAY" if I don't get everything I want.

My fear is that even if Joe Biden wins, it just calms the anti-Trumpians into complacency and leads us to a 2024 BLOWOUT where the Republican replacement is actually competent but just as legislatively awful, like a Nikki Haley or Tom Cotton.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted... You are literally arguing that Progressives MUST compromise and Moderates never should, while also asserting that these bases are rigid numbers rather than fungible.

If moderates never compromised Biden wouldn't hold a bunch of positions he has today.

Also Trump won by galvanizing a bunch of old white racists. There isn't a roadmap Democrats have to follow like that because the party and the voters they need are much more diverse.

---

Republicans can go "hey religion, abortion, guns" and their base all falls in line, then they just have to worry about a small percentage of swing voters.

Democrats can pick their issues but no matter what they do they are picking from poison because they are going to turn off some part of their base potential voting block. While still needing to fight for those swing voters Republicans are fighting for.

---

red13n posted...

If moderates never compromised Biden wouldn't hold a bunch of positions he has today.

I mean maybe this time is for real, but Obama also ran on a bunch of positions that he never followed through on, so Im incredibly skeptical.

red13n posted...

Also Trump won by galvanizing a bunch of old white racists. There isn't a roadmap Democrats have to follow like that because the party and the voters they need are much more diverse.

Dems could have galvanized the Bernie base, which for all the talk of them not showing up, still increased by numbers from 2016.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Dems could have galvanized the Bernie base, which for all the talk of them not showing up, still increased by numbers from 2016.

Again, all signs point to Bernie's base actually being galvanized. Young people showed up in record numbers.

Old people turned out and reminded us young people are still not a large portion of likely voters.

---

red13n posted...

Again, all signs point to Bernie's base actually being galvanized. Young people showed up in record numbers.

Old people turned out and reminded us young people are still not a large portion of likely voters.

This is true, I suppose I meant Dems could have USED that base.

Instead theyre literally going with shut up and color, which...uh, well Ill just say what were all thinking this virus has been great for the Democrats


---

no one is going shut up and color. Again, Biden went and made a whole bunch of strides to immediately try to reach out to them. They want those voters.

But you guys expect them to sit and grovel and your feet when if they do that the old people are going to go "what the fuck are you listening to these young people for" and either not vote or vote R.

Again, its a gain of a percent of young vote for a loss of the same percent of old vote.

You know which of those votes is considerably larger?

---

History is unfortunately just not on the side of young people. Its full of them out there protesting and trying to seem politically active and trying to grab attention but whenever they get the chance to show up and vote anonymously there is no attention to be had and they stay home.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Sad part is that with the erroneous misleading reporting, they are likely the ones that are leading to things like people trying it (new York reported an uptick in Lysol human consumption) or at the very least leading to people reporting false claims to the poison control.

personally i wanna know how much of this uptick is an actual uptick from trump's conference as opposed to an uptick in general. as we know the latter is a thing. example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-poison-hotlines-rise-in-accidents-disinfectants.html

From January through March, poison centers received 45,550 exposure calls related to cleaners (28,158) and disinfectants (17,392), the report said, representing overall increases of 20.4 percent compared with the same period in 2019 and 16.4 percent more than 2018.

so really, trump's probably not to blame on anything there. that's just how things are right now because people suck at cleaning that much. bear in mind that we haven't heard of hospitalizations from this either, just people going "there's an uptick of questions" which... i mean, yeah, that's been a trend right now all along.

---

Wanglicious posted...

personally i wanna know how much of this uptick is an actual uptick from trump's conference as opposed to an uptick in general. as we know the latter is a thing. example:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/health/coronavirus-poison-hotlines-rise-in-accidents-disinfectants.html

so really, trump's probably not to blame on anything there. that's just how things are right now because people suck at cleaning that much. bear in mind that we haven't heard of hospitalizations from this either, just people going "there's an uptick of questions" which... i mean, yeah, that's been a trend right now all along.

You can't really trust media headlines so who knows.

It is like when there is a headline that so and so is up 400% from last year! And it was like a change from 1 to 4. Real miniscule.

Anything to get a click is basically media operations nowadays.

CNN has a headline right now that says Trump runs from media after suggesting injecting disinfectants into body.

Like, lol.

---

red13n posted...

History is unfortunately just not on the side of young people. Its full of them out there protesting and trying to seem politically active and trying to grab attention but whenever they get the chance to show up and vote anonymously there is no attention to be had and they stay home.

I feel like you are being overly negative towards protesters when a lot of these movements have been succesful. Just not, you know, when it comes to the specific goal of winning elections that you're focused on here.

---

red13n posted...

History is unfortunately just not on the side of young people. Its full of them out there protesting and trying to seem politically active and trying to grab attention but whenever they get the chance to show up and vote anonymously there is no attention to be had and they stay home.

Which protestors do you mean? I'd argue many of the bigger protests have actually been successful.

Occupy Wall Street could probably be marked as a turning point in the rise of progressive politics that eventually culminated in Sanders's rise. Though I do think it probably could have more successful, faster if it was better organized but that's a what-if so you can't know.

Black Lives Matter I would argue was very successful in raising systemic racism, specifically in the sphere of criminal justice, in the public consciousness and leading to a clear reversal in how it is viewed, handled, and talked about in even mainstream thinking.

I think your beef is with the more online segment of the younger left.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I feel like you are being overly negative towards protesters when a lot of these movements have been succesful. Just not, you know, when it comes to the specific goal of winning elections that you're focused on here.

I was talking specifically about the goal of winning elections.

---

These movements are good, they set peoples expectations about what they will vote for when they are older and actually bother to show up and vote.

I am in no way saying they are bad. Just that they dont translate in mass to the ballot box among young people.

---

Honestly I still think that article about how we still don't vote along income lines illustrates why Progressives still struggle in America. A poor rural white man and a poor urban black man have a lot more in common than they think but still vote radically different ways.

---

red13n posted...

Also Trump won by galvanizing a bunch of old white racists. There isn't a roadmap Democrats have to follow like that because the party and the voters they need are much more diverse.

Imagine thinking Democrats don't pander to black people for their votes (and then immediately abandon them.)

---

SavageInTheBox posted...

Imagine thinking Democrats don't pander to black people for their votes (and then immediately abandon them.)

TimJab here completely not reading and missing the point of course, no surprise.

This does in fact illustrate my point. Democrats can pander to black voters all they want, that is still only about 25% of their "base".

White Republicans? That number is nearing 90% of their base.

So thanks TimJab, your need to try to stick your face in where it wasn't really needed helped illustrate my point.

---

You should have clapped

https://twitter.com/ne0liberal/status/1254259281735684099

---

Kim Jeb! Un

---

Per Muffin, exactly what we were asking for

https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/1254050613996007425?s=21

---