banneryear1868 @ banneryear1868 @lemmy.world

Posts

9

Comments

923

Joined

2 yr. ago

wtf did you just say? you don't wanna let Joe smell your hair? THIS IS HOW WE GET TRUMP!!

You know what, I'm just gonna say it. American's stupid political situation will destroy the world. There I said it.

If you talk about America in any negative light it's always assumed to be relevant to the election, and they feel obligated to interject with, "this is how you get Trump" at any opportunity. To accept criticism of America they need to make sure this phrase stating the obvious is included somewhere: "Democrats may be bad sure, but they're clearly better than Trump." Unless you express that specific sentiment you're assumed to either be an idiot or helping Trump get elected. Always very touchy when it comes to their asinine politics and obsessed with making sure everyone agrees with them or you're their worst enemy.

The Democrat superdelegates didn't want Sander because he threatened to alter the economic arrangement of Democrat donors, aligning instead with popular politics. Hillary was more of a Democrat vision than a viable candidate. Biden is too but he succeeded relative to Trump's failure.

This captures public sentiment towards the party itself not those towards a specific candidate, so really what you've said is the point of that poll. The question of why the Democrats, and Republicans for that matter, can't appeal to popular sentiment is to identify a problem with politics in this era. What if no candidate can fulfill the hyperreal brand that the party's construct? What if these politics no longer affect economic arrangements, which are consented to by both parties, and are merely a post-political spectacle to choose the aesthetic of the consenting economic arrangement.

Obama really committed the party to the policy-first thing, which requires inventing a popular politics, and he was very good at this and I think is the best the Democrats could offer in this political era. Convincing people something is right after policies that appeal to the party donors are formulated takes someone like Obama. You see this all the time from the former Obama admin Pod Save America guys where they're always desperately pleading with the audience about why a policy is reasonable, and of course from current Democrat hopefuls.

The exception is obviously Sanders who was polling well against Trump, but Democrat superdelegates and Democrats campaigned against him, because he appealed to popular politics and threatened the economic arrangement of party donors, most of which don't really care which party is in power. That's ultimately what has to happen, popular politics has to override the economic interests of the parties. Unfortunately every time that's appearing to happen in America's history the powerful manage to divide everyone. That's largely what Jim Crow did was impose an order to divide the Populists, who were black and white workers demanding better treatment and less corporate financial power driving policy.

So "specific Democrat" here isn't a who, it's a different mode of politics.

A lot of his political supporters and constantly shamed for supposedly helping Trump because we dare voice how terrible the Democrat party is, and are assumed to not understand how strategic voting works or that one party can be less bad.

enabling the fucking dictator

Do you think it's ironic how Hillary was so willing to drive them away by calling them deplorables, yet it only enabled them further by sloganizing the fact the Democrats hate them? I don't see the rationality in both accepting you need more voters in these swing states, while simultaneously pushing them further away. Seems like this is part of the downward spiral.

Ultimately nobody wanted to take the L on that one, this goes back to Obama too. Everyone knew how fast it would fall and how bad it would look and when it was put on the table they delayed it, Trump included. IMO it's one of the best things Biden did and showed his integrity on the topic, he was willing to be the loser and think about others, and go against the interests of the military contractors etc.

Biden actually took full credit and responsibility for that on a few occasions, I think he explicitly stated "this responsibility rests with me and me alone" or something to that effect. So "blaming" Trump for this good thing is ironically giving Trump credit.

Here's Biden vs Trump as well as other potential candidates in swing states to supplement that. He's losing by up to 8 points in 5/6 swing states as of this Nov 5th poll, that's also trending in the wrong direction.

And correct this isn't something where you can say "the poll says this so therefore it's determined to happen" because we can't know the future. That's why we have to take all these factors and see how similar situations turned out before and all that, never assuming absolute certainty.

Exactly the Democrat Superdelegates made it clear in 2016 they would choose the party stalwarts over someone who had a certain chance of winning against the opponent. The reason for that is simply the finances that support the party benefit from the current economic arrangement, and most of those big donors aren't exclusively Democrat donors.

This is why the position where we ought not to protest the Democrats, yet also consider them the party for change and progress, is irreconcilable with reality. If Democrats are the party of change and progress then it's necessary to protest and agitate to sway them, if that's a futile effort then it proves they aren't the party for the job.

The argument to vote Democrats now is they aren't Trump, which is valid of course, but it gives Trump incredible power as the locus this hinges on. The Democrat PACs funding ad campaigns for the fascist GOP primary candidates is this strategy in plain view. It works in the election cycle because it coerces votes out of fear, but it's a losing downward spiral because it actively shifts politics to the right.

Yup and they just disagree with arbitrary opinions they think are factual and downvote without consideration of how statistics work. If they respond with data it's some very niche thing extrapolated way beyond it's significance. Ultimately it's downvoting what they don't want to be true as what happens on all social media.

Show me data that tells otherwise then as I have done. Biden peaked at 55%, Trump didn't even exceed 50%, and both have been about the same approval/disapproval long term. Past presidents have tanked harder but none have consistently had this low approval and high disapproval ratings.

The relatives thing is weird anyway. I took the 23andMe test and downloaded my raw data and wrote a script to find different marker values. The other info I provided the site probably isn't accurate. Don't really care if someone gets my DNA markers either cause DNA isn't like what most people think it is.

They're both historically unpopular candidates, Biden took his first hit after the Afghanistan pullout and never recovered from the low 40s of approval, took his 2nd hit with Israel and is trending downward still.

As of November 5th "Unnamed Democrat" polls up to 8 points higher than Biden with Trump leading in 5/6 swing states. They're both historically unpopular candidates with Biden trending downward. Best thing Biden could do at this point is withdrawal set up another Democrat candidate to run. Downvoting these simple polling facts doesn't make them go away and make everything okay, cause it's very much not okay right now.

Here's Biden stacked up against presidents of the last half century for approval/disapproval. Him and Trump are historically unpopular candidates.

Psalty iykyk

Nah it's because some core apps are not supported by the vendors on non-Windows OSs and adding an extra layer just to run Windows apps virtually/remotely when we could run them on workstations is unnecessary.

We have fed you all for a thousand years, for that was our doom you know

From the days where you chained us in your fields, to the strike of a week ago

Jack Stratton still has the best take on Spotify