Raze

The Supreme Court may overturn Roe v Wade according to leak

166 posts in this topic

 

 

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gidiot said:

Biden beat Bernie by a lot of votes but within each states the vote was close, it literally could have made the difference if every candidate didn’t endorse Biden or warren dropped out before Super Tuesday, yes Bernie lost but for almost all of the race it Bernie was ahead  and Literally it only flipped after South Carolina and the whole establishment candidates endorsing him. I think the picture you’re painting was incorrect, Bernie still has a lot of appeal and is the most popular politician in the country, he just couldn’t beat the political establishment machine, that’s not bad political analysis.

Bernie is not capable of winning with Southern voters and Purple voters. A lot of the Dem base is relatively moderate, centrist, and even conservative. Most Dem voters are not progressives.

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

Noam Chomsky says that Bernie is the most popular politician in the US simply because he has the most popular policies.

This is a classic mistake progressives make: using policy polls to judge the electablity of their candidates.

Most voters are idiots and do not vote on policy. So your policy polling is pointless.

Winning elections is not about policy because voters are too uneducated and indifferent to care about policy.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leo Gura alright I concede, after looking at the states won it wasn’t close, but don’t act like Bernie didn’t have momentum, real momentum, it wasn’t a lost cause doomed from the start as you are trying to paint.
 

There was real enthusiasm behind a candidate like sanders, I don’t think politics is so simple as people are dumb so they vote x, yea maybe that’s most of it, but a lot of people can be persuaded. 

and if you’re right and I’m wrong, then what good is voting for any type of progressive change? I doubt I should be wasting my time advocating or following progressive policies or change if it’s just going to be out voted by the idiots.

 Wouldn’t it be wiser to just accept people aren’t ready for it, after all you say that a vote for the Green Party is throwing away your vote. Just curious

Edited by Gidiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a classic mistake progressives make: using policy polls to judge the electablity of their candidates.

Most voters are idiots and do not vote on policy. So your policy polling is pointless.

Winning elections is not about policy because voters are too uneducated and indifferent to care about policy.

I agree, especially after hearing your take on Why Bernie Sanders Lost. 

But I am surprised that Chomsky would make such a statement himself. I thought he was wiser, more shrewd, and at a higher level of conscious than most progressives are. Is it possible that he is not quite at solid stage Yellow himself or perhaps I am taking what he said out of context?

Btw, what use are policy polls if they can't even convince enough members Congress or other politicians to pass new good laws? Or are they only useful for simply collecting data for political scientists and social science researchers?

 

 

Edited by Hardkill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is use to policy polls, but they are more long-term. You can't use them to predict elections.

Look, I voted for Bernie. But I am also a realist.

And even if Bernie won, he would not be able to do what you want him to do.

Politics is a game for realists not utopians. Always was.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just kinda makes voting sound mundane and boring, you’re Just like a goal keeper stopping the net from candidates like trump bush desantis etc, would be nice to vote for someone instead of against but maybe that’s just wishful thinking in todays america.

 

thanks for your input @Leo Guraincremental change just puts a bad taste in my mouth cause I know we could be doing so much more, but I can live with taking 1 step forward and no steps back if I have to.

Edited by Gidiot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Biden beat Bernie easily.

Maybe Bernie is not as popular as you want him to be.

1. Biden didn't beat Bernie easily this reveals you didn't even pay attention. Again Bernie was destroying Biden until every other Presidential Candidate conceded and endorsed Biden. Even Elizabeth Warren endorsed Biden and majority of her platform actually coincides with Bernie. Doesn't this seem odd to you?

2. A hacker already hacked the Democratic Committee's emails and it was revealed that when Bernie ran against Hilary they didn't want him to win and actually communicated on how to stop him from winning.

https://nypost.com/2016/07/22/leaked-emails-show-how-democrats-screwed-sanders/

It was corrupt politics from the inside of the Democratic Party and the media that led to Bernie losing. I mean again why would Elizabeth Warren endorse a candidate whose platform is opposite to what she was fighting for on her Presidential run? Politics. It is not a surprise that EVERY Presidential Candidate bowed out early on and went to Biden. They pressured everyone into believing that Biden was the best to beat Trump. So they pushed Establishment, status quo politics as a way to beat Trump. Not realizing that Trump is not the problem, he is a SYMPTOM, a byproduct of his environment. Trump can only win in a specific political environment. Figure out what is that environment and you can beat him. 

Again the Democratic Party is the cause behind their biggest losses and only have themselves to blame. 

 


The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

1. Biden didn't beat Bernie easily this reveals you didn't even pay attention. Again Bernie was destroying Biden until every other Presidential Candidate conceded and endorsed Biden. Even Elizabeth Warren endorsed Biden and majority of her platform actually coincides with Bernie. Doesn't this seem odd to you?

It's not so odd. They endorse who they think has the best chance of winning.

Bernie badly lost the south eastern states and so he became unelectable.

Bernie only destroyed Biden in the Nevada primary. But that's not enough.

I think you put too much blame on endorsements. Endorsements play some part but in the grand scheme of things they aren't so important.

3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

2. A hacker already hacked the Democratic Committee's emails and it was revealed that when Bernie ran against Hilary they didn't want him to win and actually communicated on how to stop him from winning.

Yes, that happened in 2016.

3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

https://nypost.com/2016/07/22/leaked-emails-show-how-democrats-screwed-sanders/

It was corrupt politics from the inside of the Democratic Party and the media that led to Bernie losing. I mean again why would Elizabeth Warren endorse a candidate whose platform is opposite to what she was fighting for on her Presidential run? Politics.

Well, yeah. Politics is the name of the game. You gotta win at politics here.

3 hours ago, Razard86 said:

It is not a surprise that EVERY Presidential Candidate bowed out early on and went to Biden. They pressured everyone into believing that Biden was the best to beat Trump. So they pushed Establishment, status quo politics as a way to beat Trump. Not realizing that Trump is not the problem, he is a SYMPTOM, a byproduct of his environment. Trump can only win in a specific political environment. Figure out what is that environment and you can beat him. 

It's not so clear Bernie would have beat Trump. You can't just take that for granted. And Hillary did beat Trump in popular vote.

A big part of the problem is the electoral college system. It means Dems have to out-perform.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

It's not so clear Bernie would have beat Trump. You can't just take that for granted. And Hillary did beat Trump in popular vote.

A big part of the problem is the electoral college system. It means Dems have to out-perform.

Bernie was polling significantly above Trump. In 2016 Trump was the second most unpopular politician, first was Hillary Clinton. The actual deciding states were extremely close, a even just slightly more popular dem candidate could have won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

A big part of the problem is the electoral college system. It means Dems have to out-perform.

Electoral college ensures that states with smaller populations get a voice in the elections. Otherwise the president would always be decided by the larger population states. If that was the case, they would leave the US because they want autonomy.


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christio-fascists have been coordinating with conservatism to achieve its ends of dismantling what remains of American democracy, and would be happy to reorganize the country into a theocratic ethno-state if given the opportunity.

Calling the fascistic elements of the far-right the American Taliban isn't an unfair characterization considering that the main difference is that there is a much higher degree of constraints in the US than in an underdeveloped country such as Afghanistan.

And despite the fact that thier respective vision for society is nearly as appalling as their Islamic counterparts, the American Taliban is arguably far more dangerous because the US isn't an impoverished country but the most powerful nation on the planet. Being able to completely stonewall progress on climate change alone makes them more dangerous than any other group on the planet.

Edited by DocWatts

"The mind is inherently embodied.
Thought is mostly unconscious.
Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical." - George Lakoff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America is broken and officially moving backwards. Very rare do you see that in a developed nation but here we are. 9 justices who don't get voted in, 1/3rd of which were appointed by a twice impeached president who also lost the popular vote twice, have all the power to reverse our course. Democracy is so dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not so odd. They endorse who they think has the best chance of winning.

Bernie badly lost the south eastern states and so he became unelectable.

Bernie only destroyed Biden in the Nevada primary. But that's not enough.

I think you put too much blame on endorsements. Endorsements play some part but in the grand scheme of things they aren't so important.

Yes, that happened in 2016.

Well, yeah. Politics is the name of the game. You gotta win at politics here.

It's not so clear Bernie would have beat Trump. You can't just take that for granted. And Hillary did beat Trump in popular vote.

A big part of the problem is the electoral college system. It means Dems have to out-perform.

@Leo Gura

I agree that Bernie isn't electable, but not so much for the reasons you say.

In a way Bernie is too much of a rationalist. Relying too much on policy, and I think you'd agree on that.

But we're way too fixated on the center "left-right" and "far left/right" duality. If you apply spiral dynamics or "stage of development" too strictly, you also run into this problem.

Strictly applying spiral dynamics, for example, it wouldn't make sense at all to see many successful leftist movements in Central/South America, being that they're underdeveloped countries with a lot of corruption.

It's more helpful to think of it this way instead: America has a unique fascination with capitalism because American ideology is built on the assumption of prosperity. Other countries don't have that bias.

And South American countries have been constantly on the receiving end of colonialism, so their natural reaction is to turn left. 

It's impossible to make predictions based on the assumption that these parallel stages behave in exactly the same way because obviously there will always be variation/slightly different combinations. Each country has a unique set of problems. 

So America desperately needs a new dimension in its politics, like opening a new front in a battle.  One that considers its own unique position.

We don't need more empty robots like Biden/Harris/Buttigieg. Establishment politics only work when there is substantial trust in the establishment. At the moment it is non-existent, from the left or the right. 

And we don't need someone like Sanders/Warren/AOC to keep telling people in their humanist/progressive bubbles what they already know. 

So we can treat this as a developmental stage problem, but what's more important is that we treat it as a mass marketing problem. Good marketing appeals to the "Id", the same way Trump appealed to the conservative Id. 

Sanders/Warren gives me college professor/schoolteacher vibes. That is never getting elected president.

But if you say that people don't vote in terms of policy, that would apply to moderates as well as progressives. If a progressive with progressive policies can also convince the average voter at a base level, that changes the game... that redraws the boundaries. 

And if someone can internalize some of that progressive idealism, and at the same time, be way more devilish, manipulative, showy, and yes, even a little authoritarian, that would allow for Democrats to effectively rebrand themselves in a post-Clinton/neoliberal era. 

I'm willing to bet that that person is electable regardless of what "radical leftist" policies they are for/against. 

 

Edited by Chuco
minor grammar change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Late to the post...

It's poor women/families who are gonna be the most affected. Yet another blow to the less privileged group.

Edited by puporing

You are the Light, we are One. Truth is Love. Truth is Beauty. Every frame is a painting. ❣ Nothing but Love.

         ┊ ┊⋆ ┊ . Shining Ray ♪ Love is Here ♫┆彡

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, How to be wise said:

Electoral college ensures that states with smaller populations get a voice in the elections. Otherwise the president would always be decided by the larger population states. If that was the case, they would leave the US because they want autonomy.

So your solution is minority rule??

This logic is not only silly but disasterous.

It's not merely that Blue states get a raw deal currently, even Red states with Blue city centers. Every major city in most Red states votes Blue. Their votes are not properly weighed.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

So your solution is minority rule??

It’s a trade off to keep the states united. If the smaller population states had little power over who the president would be, resentment would grow, and sooner or later they will demand independence. If you want the states to be together, each would have to feel that they have power over who their leader would be. This means that popular vote won’t work. 


"Wanting keeps me from the awareness I already have it. I already am it.” — Byron Katie

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not so odd. They endorse who they think has the best chance of winning.

Bernie badly lost the south eastern states and so he became unelectable.

Bernie only destroyed Biden in the Nevada primary. But that's not enough.

I think you put too much blame on endorsements. Endorsements play some part but in the grand scheme of things they aren't so important.

 

1. I didn't put too much blame on endorsements. Literally before the endorsements Bernie was destroying Biden. There were key states they needed and each candidate had specific groups that both Biden and Bernie weren't strong in. When the endorsements came in, and they came in a wave Biden instantly jumped. If Biden was so popular why did he barely beat the worst President probably in History who did the worst job a leader could do in a Global crisis? Trump literally had parts of the Republican voters against him. Had the Lincoln Project running attack ads and he still barely won. 

 

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, that happened in 2016.

 

History repeats itself. You already know this Leo, its why we all know Trump has a good chance to win again. He literally only lost because of the horrible job he did with the Pandemic otherwise he would have won. 

On Average the United Stats Political system has jumped back and forth between Republican and Democrats for the President and that President usually gets two terms. The only time they usually lose if some crisis happens that erodes the faith of the voters. Otherwise they win reelection as an Incumbent off name recognition alone. 

If you look at how the Liberal media covered Biden, Sanders, and Trump there were clear discrepancies. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss7tjLZKdMQ

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, yeah. Politics is the name of the game. You gotta win at politics here.

It's not so clear Bernie would have beat Trump. You can't just take that for granted. And Hillary did beat Trump in popular vote.

A big part of the problem is the electoral college system. It means Dems have to out-perform.

Overwhelming Poll Data consistently showed that Bernie held the highest advantage than any other Candidate over Trump. He held a higher advantage than Hilary, and then a higher advantage than Biden. His advantage was also outside of the margin of error as well. 

So if you want to win, polling data can help you make an informed decision.....unless of course the Democrats are too much part of the Establishment and don't want an Independent running as a Democrat to overhaul the control the corporate donors have over this country.

It is what it is, no sweat off my back but yeah the Democrats need to eat this one they caused their own demise. 


The same strength, the same level of desire it takes to change your life, is the same strength, the same level of desire it takes to end your life. Notice you are headed towards one or the other. - Razard86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Yarco said:

no better than Jan 6ers

this is dishonest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, How to be wise said:

It’s a trade off to keep the states united. If the smaller population states had little power over who the president would be, resentment would grow, and sooner or later they will demand independence.

Other countries have democracy where the majority gets its way, and have no such problem.

Quote

If you want the states to be together, each would have to feel that they have power over who their leader would be. This means that popular vote won’t work. 

The opposite is actually the case. Under minority rule democracy is corrupted and people grow more resentful to the point of destabilizing the country.

It is not just or proper that the minor should elect a leader and the majority has to just put up with it.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

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