Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

The only thing I was really concerned about was the Presidential vote, though my ballot had all my local positions to vote on and then some. I know they're probably important, but just keeping up with national politics is time consuming and emotionally exhausting; how am I supposed to stay up-to-date on the politics of all these lesser losers?

Why not just leave that part blank then, instead of recording a low-effort vote that counts exactly the same as the votes of people who know a great deal?

[wierd]

In my area, all the lesser positions had no opposition.  It was [NAME] ()  and [WRITE IN]____________.

Then there were the "Should [Name] be retained as a justice?" for 5 people.


The more meaningful things were for the house and senate seats, and for the presidency, which had actual choices. 

Locally, I voted for Bollier (even though she looks like an Auton from Dr Who, with shiny plastic skin), because her adverts were always informational, soft spoken, and had real attempt to be meaningful-- where Marshall's ads were without exception straight attack ads.  That tells me that Mr Marshall does not have any actual policy he endorses, nor any plans to affect useful changes to my state, which has been assfucked like the protagonist in a Chuck Tingle novel by Republicans for decades.

That Bollier's topic points were sane and sensible was icing on the cake.  It's probably a lost cause, because the people here all are insane and keep voting for their abusers because of socio-engineering, but maybe it made a difference. Who knows.

[Doomblade187]

The only thing I was really concerned about was the Presidential vote, though my ballot had all my local positions to vote on and then some. I know they're probably important, but just keeping up with national politics is time consuming and emotionally exhausting; how am I supposed to stay up-to-date on the politics of all these lesser losers?

Why not just leave that part blank then, instead of recording a low-effort vote that counts exactly the same as the votes of people who know a great deal?

I mean, willingly being in the GOP is willingly being in the party of Trump, so it's a pretty big malus imo.

[Maximum Spin]

I mean, willingly being in the GOP is willingly being in the party of Trump, so it's a pretty big malus imo.

That's exactly the kind of low-information voting that's the problem here.

Course, I just voted for Trump so you probably don't want to hear it from me.

[RedKing]

Like, there is no wise choice.

Uh, yes, yes there is. One candidate has gotten a quarter million americans killed in just the last year. The other one hasn't!

Go with the one that hasn't lead more of the country's citizens to the grave in the last 10 months than the entire vietnam war. Shit ain't complicated.

They both want to, but only one has had the ability. Remember when Biden told people to go stand in line for 8 hours in freezing weather to vote for him in person in the primary, even though mail in voting was allowed? And how many people caught COVID from that?

Point me to those multiple times where Biden left thousands of his supporters stranded in the middle of nowhere, because his campaign couldn't be arsed to plan *basic logistics* around buses.
Yeah, that's what I thought. Sit down.

Because the only thing that matters is the standard set by the worst option.

Was just reading a thread elsewhere about how much easier it will be to fight for progressive policies and hold Democrats accountable when they have majority control of government.  The one person to talk about how this worked out in 2008-2010 gets dogpiled by people defending Obama.

Lots of high profile figures talking about how much they're looking forward to being able to ignore politics again.  Barely even avoiding using those exact words.

We are so very dead on track for a worse fascist than Trump in 2024.  This dude was the easy mode fascist.  A warning about where the direction we're going is taking us.  And I feel like hardly anybody learned anything.

Not shaming anyone for voting for Biden.  But the sit-down-and-shut-up attitude towards anyone who expresses concern about the general direction of politics they're reading from this election is disturbing to me.

Shedding a single, perfect tear for the conservative concern-trolling on Election Day, wounded by my deadly, deadly words.

And hell yes, I hope to be telling a LOT of people to shut up and sit the fuck down over the next few months. They had their four years, now it's time for them to get the fuck out of the way so the adults can clean up the mess they made.

[wierd]

You know of course, that that ^ kind of attitude results in radicalization, and ultimately violence, right?

[bloop_bleep]

You know of course, that that ^ kind of attitude results in radicalization, and ultimately violence, right?

Along the lines of what I was saying before.

relevant pbf

[Doomblade187]

I mean, willingly being in the GOP is willingly being in the party of Trump, so it's a pretty big malus imo.

That's exactly the kind of low-information voting that's the problem here.

Course, I just voted for Trump so you probably don't want to hear it from me.

Oh, I researched up all my choice candidates in advance. Problem is, my current senators keep licking Trump's boots~

[wierd]

and more.

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/11/terrorism

[Doomblade187]

@Redking - what Salmon is saying isn't that Trump shouldn't lose, it's that we need to actually put in work instead of reverting to the status quo, otherwise Trump happens again, but competent this time.

[wierd]

Bingo.  It means actually embracing a positive candidate that is not status quo money whore, but also not dangerous nationalist demagogue. 


Also, seriously-- read the list of criteria on the APA article, then compare it to the diagnostic critera for a MAGA hat wearing psycho.

They are "this" close to going full terrorist org.  Do you REALLY want to push them over that ledge, and have the equivalent of ireland's IRA here?  The "Adults" in the room, need to not act like entitle "Mheeeh! WE WON! Suck it losers!" school children, and need to approach the situation with the tact and sobriety it demands.

[Doomblade187]

Bingo.  It means actually embracing a positive candidate that is not status quo money whore, but also not dangerous nationalist demagogue. 


Also, seriously-- read the list of criteria on the APA article, then compare it to the diagnostic critera for a MAGA hat wearing psycho.

They are "this" close to going full terrorist org.  Do you REALLY want to push them over that ledge, and have the equivalent of ireland's IRA here?

Weird, no one person creates a terrorist movement. If the Trumpies go terrorist, then it will be their own fault because of their media echo chamber and outrage picking hot takes. Trump is really much more the problem here as long as he has a platform with his "It's all rigged" rhetoric.

[wierd]

Oh yes, no question.  This is among the many things I put in the basket of "Dangerous nationalist demagogue".

That does not make the Trumpist Fanbois any less proto-terrorist-org.

[RedKing]

By analogy, you're saying that when the semi-feral dog shits all over the carpet, instead of rubbing his nose in it I should be gentle with him because otherwise he might bite me?
Because the logical conclusion of that analogy is to put the dog down if he's that much of a danger. And I don't think that analogy translates back to the original situation without a lot of unpleasantness.

No one is saying "Oh yay, Biden won, time to go back to focusing on the Kardashians and not giving a fuck about politics". If anything, I plan on being just as ardent a watchdog on Biden because I don't fully trust that he won't just revert to status quo. I demand that a Biden administration actively attempt to make things better, not just "not actively making things worse on a daily basis".

But if the Trump crowd begins actively sabotaging attempts at progress, I have no problem with figuratively bitchslapping them back to the day they lost over and over until they get the message. One of the reasons I am not now, nor never will be, a Democrat is because the Democrats have a long-standing tradition of spending mighty amounts of effort to push the Republicans out of power, only to fuck it all up by insisting on bipartisanship and compromise. You don't compromise with the GOP -- at least, not the current diseased form that it's in. Purge the Trumpers from the ranks and maybe there's a place at the table for them to begin earning back a modicum of respect. Until then, they can go sit in exile and think hard about what they did.

[McTraveller]

(Campaign finance):

Yes, I intentionally set up the conditions so it would be possible for various parties to intentionally spend "on behalf of" candidates to disqualify them.  Eventually you'd end up with people out of money to do that and/or candidates for which people didn't want to do that.

Sounds like we do need to amend the rules to include that "ambiguous" one about listing both candidates' policies or whatever. That should just count against all listed candidates' allotment.  So if the spoilers are efficient, they can disqualify many candidates all at once