D
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Guest
He has prostate cancer
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Correct, which is why we should be doing stuff, not just talking on USCHO. Having said which, this weekend I'm out cuz I'm going to hockey.
Correct, which is why we should be doing stuff, not just talking on USCHO. Having said which, this weekend I'm out cuz I'm going to hockey.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Uh Kepler...we have The Sexual Predator in Chief and an all GOP Government because the Liberals are all talk and no action. The more the Left ignores that, the longer this crap will go on.
The facts dont back up what you are asserting. The Womens March is an awesome moment, but in and of itself does nothing. It isnt like the GOP policies werent discussed, it isnt like women didnt KNOW exactly what these clowns were going to do...yet millions couldnt be bothered to vote and a pretty staggering percentage of those that did voted to be groped. Nothing has changed...
Look maybe this will lead to a groundswell, a grassroots movement that will change the Democratic Party and put them back in power but you are assuming way too many facts not in evidence my friend. We watched Dubya shart down his leg and get re-elected. We saw The Progressives stay home to the point that Trump won with Romney numbers...Democrats dont play the game because they think they are above it. Guess what, you arent. Progressive Principles are great, I subscribe to almost all of them, but just because you are right doesnt mean you are going to win. America has proven this time and time again all the way back to the beginning.
So you can ignore everything and hope the world sees things the way you do...me I will look at the election map and see that it is way more Red than Blue these days. The coasts arent big enough to offset the middle and the south...
Uh Kepler...we have The Sexual Predator in Chief and an all GOP Government because the Liberals are all talk and no action. The more the Left ignores that, the longer this crap will go on.
The facts dont back up what you are asserting. The Womens March is an awesome moment, but in and of itself does nothing. It isnt like the GOP policies werent discussed, it isnt like women didnt KNOW exactly what these clowns were going to do...yet millions couldnt be bothered to vote and a pretty staggering percentage of those that did voted to be groped. Nothing has changed...
Look maybe this will lead to a groundswell, a grassroots movement that will change the Democratic Party and put them back in power but you are assuming way too many facts not in evidence my friend. We watched Dubya shart down his leg and get re-elected. We saw The Progressives stay home to the point that Trump won with Romney numbers...Democrats dont play the game because they think they are above it. Guess what, you arent. Progressive Principles are great, I subscribe to almost all of them, but just because you are right doesnt mean you are going to win. America has proven this time and time again all the way back to the beginning.
So you can ignore everything and hope the world sees things the way you do...me I will look at the election map and see that it is way more Red than Blue these days. The coasts arent big enough to offset the middle and the south...
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
The Democrats were far from inactive when it came to voting in Obama twice. The problem was Hillary inspired no one and her campaign was horribly mismanaged. To ascribe the current situation to Democrats being inherently lazy and/or being unable to snap out of it is extremely myopic.
The Democrats were far from inactive when it came to voting in Obama twice. The problem was Hillary inspired no one and her campaign was horribly mismanaged. To ascribe the current situation to Democrats being inherently lazy and/or being unable to snap out of it is extremely myopic.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Is it because they stayed home for both Dubya elections as well. Obama is the outlier not the norm.
Is it because they stayed home for both Dubya elections as well. Obama is the outlier not the norm.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
We've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections. If we're not voting, the Republicans are even not-er voting.
We've won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 elections. If we're not voting, the Republicans are even not-er voting.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Ok, then they're just stupid. After 2000 they should have known better.
Ok, then they're just stupid. After 2000 they should have known better.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Show me where I have suggested that.
My point is the left is quite aware there is a problem, and that we need to permanently increase political participation by the left and the far left -- not just on Election Day but before to build momentum and after to keep our officials honest. We know that if we do nothing the initialized state of government is bribery by the 1% to further their policy preferences, and that without constant vigilance by the left the rich get 99.9% of what they want, the middle class 19%, and the poor 0.9%.
We need to be as strong a voice in public affairs as the right is. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's an apple pie cliche. The question is always tactical -- how? Personally I think marches are good for optics but that as a general tactic they no longer work -- the Ruling Class is no longer intimidated by mass protest because they know they can keep doing what they've been doing and despite mass opposition nobody stops them. The weapon deployed against us is defeatism. The 1% uses "there's nothing anybody can do" in order to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. In point of fact in a democracy a large majority sustained over a long period can basically do anything.
The plutocracy is not stable because the longer it rules the more it creates the opposition that will destroy it. Nobody is suggesting we wait for Judgment Day, but it is heartening to know that eventually we'll overthrow them. Temporarily, of course, because the root cause of greed and selfishness are part of human nature. But in the past we've done it for long enough to create periods of mass prosperity before the iron boot cycle begins again. The tool we use is the political left, unless somebody can come up with a better idea.
Show me where I have suggested that.
My point is the left is quite aware there is a problem, and that we need to permanently increase political participation by the left and the far left -- not just on Election Day but before to build momentum and after to keep our officials honest. We know that if we do nothing the initialized state of government is bribery by the 1% to further their policy preferences, and that without constant vigilance by the left the rich get 99.9% of what they want, the middle class 19%, and the poor 0.9%.
We need to be as strong a voice in public affairs as the right is. That's not a revolutionary statement, it's an apple pie cliche. The question is always tactical -- how? Personally I think marches are good for optics but that as a general tactic they no longer work -- the Ruling Class is no longer intimidated by mass protest because they know they can keep doing what they've been doing and despite mass opposition nobody stops them. The weapon deployed against us is defeatism. The 1% uses "there's nothing anybody can do" in order to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. In point of fact in a democracy a large majority sustained over a long period can basically do anything.
The plutocracy is not stable because the longer it rules the more it creates the opposition that will destroy it. Nobody is suggesting we wait for Judgment Day, but it is heartening to know that eventually we'll overthrow them. Temporarily, of course, because the root cause of greed and selfishness are part of human nature. But in the past we've done it for long enough to create periods of mass prosperity before the iron boot cycle begins again. The tool we use is the political left, unless somebody can come up with a better idea.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
It doesn't matter that they're showing up to the polls in NY and CA. They're not showing up in the Flyover States and swing states, in general.
It doesn't matter that they're showing up to the polls in NY and CA. They're not showing up in the Flyover States and swing states, in general.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
But this is a totally different argument. Are we even majorities in the flyover states? Did we vote at a lower rate than the GOP in the states that flipped, or were we actually turning out exceptionally highly for Obama there and this was a return to baseline?
Somebody with a Bucky Fuller big picture could design the long-term strategy of colonizing purple states with liberals. Start new companies in blue states on the border with purple states, reside in the purple state but work and play in the blue state. Come election time, vote in the purple state and turn it blue.
The other solution is have larger families. If every blue couple in a purple state had one more child we'd be rid of the Cancer Right in one generation. There would still be a right, as there always will be, but we could move Overton one s.d. to the left, so the Sane Right would be arguing for public option and the left would be arguing for single payer.
We are: smarter, more educated, richer, cuter, healthier, and MORE NUMEROUS. If we can drive the deep red into a few fortress states, we can then just ignore them. Significantly cut back government and end interstate payments, and let them live in their razor-wire-ringed RWNJ dystopias. Our kids can go thrill-seeking there on Saturday nights. Send brave scouts to administer the Bene Gesserit test and rescue the few human children born to each generation.
But this is a totally different argument. Are we even majorities in the flyover states? Did we vote at a lower rate than the GOP in the states that flipped, or were we actually turning out exceptionally highly for Obama there and this was a return to baseline?
Somebody with a Bucky Fuller big picture could design the long-term strategy of colonizing purple states with liberals. Start new companies in blue states on the border with purple states, reside in the purple state but work and play in the blue state. Come election time, vote in the purple state and turn it blue.
The other solution is have larger families. If every blue couple in a purple state had one more child we'd be rid of the Cancer Right in one generation. There would still be a right, as there always will be, but we could move Overton one s.d. to the left, so the Sane Right would be arguing for public option and the left would be arguing for single payer.
We are: smarter, more educated, richer, cuter, healthier, and MORE NUMEROUS. If we can drive the deep red into a few fortress states, we can then just ignore them. Significantly cut back government and end interstate payments, and let them live in their razor-wire-ringed RWNJ dystopias. Our kids can go thrill-seeking there on Saturday nights. Send brave scouts to administer the Bene Gesserit test and rescue the few human children born to each generation.
Last edited:
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
You can look at the Congressional delegations of each state to see where things are competitive, or look at percentages of the various districts where you lost. Then it's a matter of targeting those areas with Get Out the Vote campaigns for future elections. KS is lost to you, but IA and WI shouldn't be too hard to recapture, along with OH, PA, and a few others. It just takes a few states that have been ignored to turn the results.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Evidently you're not smart enough to position your peons in the "flyover" states to game the system... or does that offend you, and we have to say "develop" the "flyover" states...
Evidently you're not smart enough to position your peons in the "flyover" states to game the system... or does that offend you, and we have to say "develop" the "flyover" states...
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
They didn't show up in 2010 or 2014 either, and to my knowledge Hillary wasn't on the ballot. How does that square with your theory?
Case in point: WI in 2004. GWB won 1,478,120 votes in a losing effort. 2016, Trump won state with....1,405,284??? So for -70,000 LESS votes than a guy got 12 years earlier he won the state that Bush lost?
The problem is lazy Dems. Kerry wasn't exactly Mr. Inspiration himself, so what gives?
They didn't show up in 2010 or 2014 either, and to my knowledge Hillary wasn't on the ballot. How does that square with your theory?
Case in point: WI in 2004. GWB won 1,478,120 votes in a losing effort. 2016, Trump won state with....1,405,284??? So for -70,000 LESS votes than a guy got 12 years earlier he won the state that Bush lost?
The problem is lazy Dems. Kerry wasn't exactly Mr. Inspiration himself, so what gives?
Last edited:
Jimjamesak
Already insane, UAA making it worse
It isn't lazy Dems, it's s****y Dem candidates. Read the facts: Hillary was a terrible candidate that drove people away.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
It fits fine, actually. You're deliberately obfuscating by conflating midterm and presidential elections.
There is actually a scintilla of truth behind your 3-card Monty game. Dems do not show up in the same numbers as Republicans in off-year elections. However, there is absolutely NO evidence that those Democrats who don't show up are the left-leaners. The "lazy" Dems may in fact be the centrist Dems like you. In fact it makes more sense that they are, since (1) in presidential years it's centrists, not liberals, who are nominated, meaning it's centrists finally showing up, and (2) the watered-down, uninspiring candidates the centrists generate are far less likely to inspire turnout than radical lefties.
Your argument is fine as a criticism of Dems as a whole, and possibly as a criticism of centrist Dems, but it's self-refuting as a criticism of lefty Dems.
You're a bit like Trump in that no matter the topic you keep going into your little tantrum about the election. In your case, it's Dems who fail your citizenship test. The answer to that is pretty simple: you're the one who was dead wrong about the election, so you should probably shut the f-ck up about that. It wasn't your finest hour.
But more important is get over it and start working on solutions. We tried your girl and for whatever reason it didn't work. Do you want to fight about whose fault that was for the next 2 years, or do you want to join us and do something about it? We should no longer have any bone to pick. It's a clean slate on our side.
It fits fine, actually. You're deliberately obfuscating by conflating midterm and presidential elections.
There is actually a scintilla of truth behind your 3-card Monty game. Dems do not show up in the same numbers as Republicans in off-year elections. However, there is absolutely NO evidence that those Democrats who don't show up are the left-leaners. The "lazy" Dems may in fact be the centrist Dems like you. In fact it makes more sense that they are, since (1) in presidential years it's centrists, not liberals, who are nominated, meaning it's centrists finally showing up, and (2) the watered-down, uninspiring candidates the centrists generate are far less likely to inspire turnout than radical lefties.
Your argument is fine as a criticism of Dems as a whole, and possibly as a criticism of centrist Dems, but it's self-refuting as a criticism of lefty Dems.
You're a bit like Trump in that no matter the topic you keep going into your little tantrum about the election. In your case, it's Dems who fail your citizenship test. The answer to that is pretty simple: you're the one who was dead wrong about the election, so you should probably shut the f-ck up about that. It wasn't your finest hour.
But more important is get over it and start working on solutions. We tried your girl and for whatever reason it didn't work. Do you want to fight about whose fault that was for the next 2 years, or do you want to join us and do something about it? We should no longer have any bone to pick. It's a clean slate on our side.
Last edited:
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Rover, you were wrong in your pre-election predictions (most of us were, though less sensationally wrong than you were), so we understand your need to find an explanation. Most of us on this board supported her because she was vastly more qualified than Trump by every imaginable metric, including honesty and hand size. But she was not only a thoroughly uninspiring but also an alienating candidate, and she owns the no-show factor as much as the no-shows themselves do.
Rover, you were wrong in your pre-election predictions (most of us were, though less sensationally wrong than you were), so we understand your need to find an explanation. Most of us on this board supported her because she was vastly more qualified than Trump by every imaginable metric, including honesty and hand size. But she was not only a thoroughly uninspiring but also an alienating candidate, and she owns the no-show factor as much as the no-shows themselves do.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
The stereotype is more conservative couples have larger families.
The data is that more highly educated women have fewer babies.
But ... didn't college educated women break for Trump (52%) in this last election. Or was that just women (no sub-breakdown)?
So, honestly, your out- < bleep > them and have babies idea is probably < bleeped > from the outset.
The stereotype is more conservative couples have larger families.
The data is that more highly educated women have fewer babies.
But ... didn't college educated women break for Trump (52%) in this last election. Or was that just women (no sub-breakdown)?
So, honestly, your out- < bleep > them and have babies idea is probably < bleeped > from the outset.
Re: The States: Mad Scientist Laboratories of Democracy
Getting a lot of pushback from the people who want to see Bernie naked (Kepler, Jimjamesak, etc). One problem though. I've never pegged Sanders voters as the problem of low turnout!
Look it up. I don't know yet who didn't show this year. It could have been Sanders people. It could have been African Americans. It could have been women. Eventually those #'s will come out, but for right now its an unknown.
HOWEVER, a much, much larger point remains. For those who want to blame Hillary Clinton almost exclusively for this you're papering over much larger problems for the Democratic party. Their entire base, be it centrists, conservadems or flaming liberals aren't participating in elections at the same rate Republicans are, even though the GOP is working off of a smaller base. This has happened repeatedly.
Jim claims bad candidates keep people way. Well, that didn't seem to hurt Trump now did it? Furthermore, lets say people were uninspired by Hillary but would have voted for a true liberal? Great! Then why did uber-liberal Russ Fiengold get LESS votes in his senate race than Hillary did for Prez in Wisconsin??? If she was the problem, shouldn't he have won at least? Or at least out voted her?
Too many Dems, and I'll say its usually the hard left, think the problem is a lack of purity in the Dem candidates, even though I fail to see what was wrong with many of the Senate candidates the Dems put up last year. I say the problem is an expectation of purity or we won't vote out of Democratic voters. In politics, like life, you sometimes accept 80% of what you want because its better than 0%. Far too many lefty voters, no matter where they fall on the ideological spectrum, don't understand this. I'd also argue its most likely the moderate/centrist Dem voters who do get this more than the vegan co-op crowd.
But Kep, do us a favor and post all of your best Trump like sexist nicknames for Clinton that you used out here during the campaign. That really helped the cause.
Getting a lot of pushback from the people who want to see Bernie naked (Kepler, Jimjamesak, etc). One problem though. I've never pegged Sanders voters as the problem of low turnout!
Look it up. I don't know yet who didn't show this year. It could have been Sanders people. It could have been African Americans. It could have been women. Eventually those #'s will come out, but for right now its an unknown. HOWEVER, a much, much larger point remains. For those who want to blame Hillary Clinton almost exclusively for this you're papering over much larger problems for the Democratic party. Their entire base, be it centrists, conservadems or flaming liberals aren't participating in elections at the same rate Republicans are, even though the GOP is working off of a smaller base. This has happened repeatedly.
Jim claims bad candidates keep people way. Well, that didn't seem to hurt Trump now did it? Furthermore, lets say people were uninspired by Hillary but would have voted for a true liberal? Great! Then why did uber-liberal Russ Fiengold get LESS votes in his senate race than Hillary did for Prez in Wisconsin??? If she was the problem, shouldn't he have won at least? Or at least out voted her?
Too many Dems, and I'll say its usually the hard left, think the problem is a lack of purity in the Dem candidates, even though I fail to see what was wrong with many of the Senate candidates the Dems put up last year. I say the problem is an expectation of purity or we won't vote out of Democratic voters. In politics, like life, you sometimes accept 80% of what you want because its better than 0%. Far too many lefty voters, no matter where they fall on the ideological spectrum, don't understand this. I'd also argue its most likely the moderate/centrist Dem voters who do get this more than the vegan co-op crowd.
But Kep, do us a favor and post all of your best Trump like sexist nicknames for Clinton that you used out here during the campaign. That really helped the cause.
- Status