|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
A tent on a sidewalk is the only place thousands of San Franciscans have to call home. But if a few of the city’s tech billionaires and millionaires have their way, even that shelter could be taken away.
Sequoia Capital chairman Michael Moritz, tech angel investor Ron Conway, and hedge-fund investor William Oberndorf have donated $49,999 apiece to a divisive ballot measure intended to clear San Francisco’s streets of homeless encampments, according to campaign filings.
Zachary Bogue, a tech investor best known as husband to the Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, also pitched in $2,500.
Those sums may be chump change to the likes of Moritz (net worth $3.1bn), but they account for the majority of the approximately $270,000 campaign chest.
Proposition Q purports to address the most visible symptom of the city’s ongoing homelessness crisis, tent cities that crowd the sidewalks in certain neighborhoods. To the city’s housed residents, the encampments serve as a visceral reminder of the city’s gaping inequality – or as a nuisance that they wish would go away.
The proposed law would amend the city’s police code to ban tent encampments on city sidewalks. The city would be required to offer residents of an encampment 24 hours’ notice and a shelter bed or a bus ticket out of town, before being authorized to confiscate their tents and other belongings. The city would be required to store those belongings for up to 90 days.
“I strongly believe that it is not compassionate to allow human beings to live on our city streets,” wrote the measure’s author, supervisor Mark Farrell, in an op-ed. “Let’s help get the homeless into housing, not tents.”
Opponents of the measure point out that the proposed law does not include any funding for additional housing or shelters, and the city’s existing shelters have long waiting lists for beds.
“With Proposition Q, we’re just taking away someone’s tent and making them sleep on the cold concrete,” said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness. “They’re not going to disappear.”
Moreover, city workers already perform regular sweeps of homeless encampments, often working with groups of residents living in specific areas over the course of a few days or weeks to place people in shelters.
Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for the campaign, said that the measure will provide the city with “one more tool which incentivizes homeless people to get out of the tents”.
“The incentive is the 24 hours’ notice,” he said.
The San Francisco Chronicle, which spearheaded a media campaign designed to urge city hall to seriously address homelessness, agreed that the measure would be ineffective and included it on their list of propositions that “don’t belong on SF’s ballot”.
Friedenbach argues that the campaign has nothing to do with homeless people, but is instead a tool being used by politicians looking to draw political distinctions in a one-party town.
Source
|
On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them.
This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue.
Here, let me help you:
On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:
So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time.
His argument is that there is a correlation between voting anti-establishment and ending up with Hitler and Stalin. If you keep voting for people like Bernie who are anti-establishment, it increases your chance of ending up with Hitler and Stalin. That is what is written here. Is he strawmanning himself?
|
Anti bank is not anti establishment.
On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them.
This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue.
I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress
|
On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too.
I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one.
The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress
I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out.
|
Let's all make absurd comparisons to Hitler and Stalin to prove a point! What could possibly go wrong?
|
On October 13 2016 03:07 LegalLord wrote:
Let's all make absurd comparisons to Hitler and Stalin to prove a point! What could possibly go wrong?
I am sort of surprised it took this many pages for someone to point that out.
|
On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out.
That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post.
For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people."
|
Bernie's a great example of an anti-establishment politician who understood perfectly well that the most productive way to effect change is to play the game, not to sit out and bitch about it. That's why he ran as a Democrat. That's why he leveraged his voters to make gains with the party platform, but ultimately still endorsed when he did.
Too bad too many of his voters don't understand this as well as he does.
|
On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out.
On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2016 01:40 KwarK wrote:On October 13 2016 01:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 12 2016 17:54 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 17:27 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 16:59 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
You can support one more than the other. Your attitude works fine in PR but in FPTP you can insist as much as you like that not supporting one doesn't mean you support the other but that's unfortunately not how it works. If you have a preference you should express it. And I struggle to believe that anyone really can't have a preference this year. Trying to keep it simple is fine but the unfortunate reality of American democracy is that you don't get to vote for the person you'd like to support always, you only get to vote for the person of the two that you support most (or against the person you support least). That's just the system. That's how it's set up. You're trying to make it as simple as possible for yourself to play a different game than the game in question. You can always write in a candidate, can't you? I understand the point of view that you and TheYango share, but I couldn't in good conscience vote for someone who I see as a warmonger. And the argument of only being able to un-fuck the system by participating in it is a silly one. It is quite clearly just one of many ways to bring about change. What happens if less than 50% of the population turn up to vote? What happens if there's a 50% vote for "that bucket of water over there"? If only 10% of the people show up to vote then those 10% get to decide. It's a winner takes all system, writing in a candidate does nothing, there are only two candidates who can win. You either pick which one you want to win or you refuse to pick and someone else picks for you and then you live with their pick. That's the game. So you ask yourself "do I trust the American voting public to pick the one of these two I would pick" and if not then you join the voting public and nudge it towards your guy. All that happens when you refuse to vote for a viable candidate is you forfeit your opportunity to have a say and instead have to live with whatever the other people picked. And that's pretty disgraceful honestly. If you care at all who wins you need to vote. This is factually untrue. Specifically if enough people vote for the Green party candidate (Jill Stein) then next year the party would qualify for matching federal funds. Leveraging Democrats by showing them that people are willing to consider and back an alternative, while simultaneously gaining control of local Democrat groups is the best strategy to force the Democrats to pay attention to the millions of people who feel like they don't give a crap about them. This might be true if there had once and always just been the two parties that exist today, thing is, it isn't. Your argument that it's untrue is based on that if enough people do X then it'll be untrue. I don't know why you set your goals so low. Why not go "if enough people vote Greens then Jill Stein will be the next president". That's true too. I've said X is unlikely to happen so make a choice between Y and Z. You've attempted to argue "if precondition that makes X happen is met" then "X will definitely happen" so actually you should choose X. The problem is that the precondition isn't met. You don't have enough votes. You only have the one. The time to influence your party is in the primary, forcing them to market themselves to your interests in order to win your support to lead the big coalition of which you're a part. You don't influence your party by leaving the big coalition. If you don't vote for either of the big coalitions then your vote has no value to them, they won't try to win it. Voting Green is disenfranchising yourself, you might feel principled doing it but you cease to have any impact on the political process. 5% is far from impossible, the biggest obstacle is people convincing others that it's pointless. The primary already disenfranchised me from having a candidate I can vote for. If Hitler and Stalin were the "viable candidates" and there were other "nonviable" options, people who came to the conclusion that "well it's pointless to support anyone but Hitler or Stalin" would be as much of a part of the problem as either of the candidates. If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people?
I mean you didnt say anti establishment so there was probably just some misunderstanding there.
|
On October 13 2016 03:12 TheYango wrote:
Bernie's a great example of an anti-establishment politician who understood perfectly well that the most productive way to effect change is to play the game, not to sit out and bitch about it. That's why he ran as a Democrat. That's why he leveraged his voters to make gains with the party platform, but ultimately still endorsed when he did.
Too bad too many of his voters don't understand this as well as he does.
So much agreement with this.
|
On October 13 2016 03:12 TheYango wrote:
Bernie's a great example of an anti-establishment politician who understood perfectly well that the most productive way to effect change is to play the game, not to sit out and bitch about it. That's why he ran as a Democrat. That's why he leveraged his voters to make gains with the party platform, but ultimately still endorsed when he did.
Too bad too many of his voters don't understand this as well as he does.
It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously.
|
On October 13 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously.
I had that impression of him before, but honestly after the primaries, I'm just willing to say I was wrong about him. It's a shame that I didn't get that impression of him during the primaries, and that's probably in part due to his campaign not selling him that well, but also in large part because the media was much more favorable to Clinton and characterized him that way.
|
On October 13 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:12 TheYango wrote:
Bernie's a great example of an anti-establishment politician who understood perfectly well that the most productive way to effect change is to play the game, not to sit out and bitch about it. That's why he ran as a Democrat. That's why he leveraged his voters to make gains with the party platform, but ultimately still endorsed when he did.
Too bad too many of his voters don't understand this as well as he does. It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously.
Well, you make do with what you have.
Without his stubbornness he won't get the little amount of popular support he has. But with his stubbornness he is guaranteed to fail at actually implementing anything worth a damn. So he does the best he can with what he's given. Be loud enough to bring up important topics, but be hands off enough to prevent his ineptitude from bungling things up.
|
On October 13 2016 03:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously. I had that impression of him before, but honestly after the primaries, I'm just willing to say I was wrong about him. It's a shame that I didn't get that impression of him during the primaries, and that's probably in part due to his campaign not selling him that well, but also in large part because the media was much more favorable to Clinton and characterized him that way.
I think Bernie is capable of working within the democratic party to get what he wants. I still question if he would be able bridge the gap to the Republican party, which is going to hold some level of influence after this election.
|
On an April, 11, 2005, airing of “The Howard Stern Show,” Donald Trump bragged about some of the special perks he enjoyed while he was owner of the Miss USA pageant. They came not in a locker room but a dressing room.
“I’ll go backstage before a show, and everyone’s getting dressed and ready and everything else,” he said. “And you know, no men are anywhere. And I’m allowed to go in because I’m the owner of the pageant. And therefore I’m inspecting it.”
Stern replied, “You’re like a doctor.”
Trump responded: “Is everyone okay? You know they’re standing there with no clothes. And you see these incredible looking women. And so I sort of get away with things like that.”
CNN broke the story of his Stern show comments.
CBS 2 Los Angeles did a little fact-checking and, guess what, this time, no Pinocchios. Tasha Dixon, Miss Arizona in 2001, told the TV station that Trump just came “waltzing in” while contestants were nude or half-nude as they changed into bikinis.
Separately, BuzzFeed reported Wednesday that four women in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Trump walked into their dressing room while they were changing. Some were as young as 15, BuzzFeed reported.
Three spoke anonymously, and one allowed her name to be used. “I remember putting on my dress really quick because I was like, ‘Oh my god, there’s a man in here,'” Mariah Billado, a former Miss Vermont Teen USA, told BuzzFeed.
Trump, she told BuzzFeed, said “something like ‘Don’t worry, ladies, I’ve seen it all before.'”
Washington Post
So slimey
|
On October 13 2016 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:17 TheYango wrote:On October 13 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously. I had that impression of him before, but honestly after the primaries, I'm just willing to say I was wrong about him. It's a shame that I didn't get that impression of him during the primaries, and that's probably in part due to his campaign not selling him that well, but also in large part because the media was much more favorable to Clinton and characterized him that way. I think Bernie is capable of working within the democratic party to get what he wants. I still question if he would be able bridge the gap to the Republican party, which is going to hold some level of influence after this election.
So you're saying that Bernie is more capable than Hillary since you're still questioning that. There is no question of Hillary doing any better than Obama on that front (seeing as how she's Obama-lite). And we saw how Obama fared.
|
On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:On October 13 2016 01:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
If Hitler and Stalin were the viable candidates then I'd probably vote for whichever one I thought would win, and in a public way. I certainly wouldn't vote for a third party, that'd get me on a list that I don't want to be on. And before you say "but if everyone voted third party", you already specified the other options were non viable. They won't win, they'll just put me on the list. No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process. Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people."
If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect?
|
On October 13 2016 03:30 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:22 Plansix wrote:On October 13 2016 03:17 TheYango wrote:On October 13 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's actually sort of interesting to reconcile that viewpoint, that he is a clever politician who knows how to get things done, with the idea that he isn't a good candidate because he isn't flexible in the slightest and is too much of an ideologue. I could see some justification for that position but the weird thing is that the same people make both arguments simultaneously. I had that impression of him before, but honestly after the primaries, I'm just willing to say I was wrong about him. It's a shame that I didn't get that impression of him during the primaries, and that's probably in part due to his campaign not selling him that well, but also in large part because the media was much more favorable to Clinton and characterized him that way. I think Bernie is capable of working within the democratic party to get what he wants. I still question if he would be able bridge the gap to the Republican party, which is going to hold some level of influence after this election. So you're saying that Bernie is more capable than Hillary since you're still questioning that. There is no question of Hillary doing any better than Obama on that front (seeing as how she's Obama-lite). And we saw how Obama fared.
No. It could go just as bad or Bernie, but she has a history of working with republicans and to get things passed. It will depend on how the GOP fares in the election and if the DNC can learn how to win in the mid terms. As much as I would like some more progress on healthcare and student loan reform, I would rather see movement on issues that Republicans and Dems agree on.
Also, she isn't the first black president, which seems to be a sticking point for a subset of Republicans. But after this race, there may be no hope and I'm just waiting for the GOP to implode so we can form new parties.
|
|
|
On October 13 2016 03:30 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 03:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 03:06 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 03:01 Rebs wrote:Anti bank is not anti establishment. On October 13 2016 02:55 Rebs wrote:On October 13 2016 02:54 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 02:34 Nebuchad wrote:On October 13 2016 02:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2016 01:57 a_flayer wrote:
[quote]
No wonder that this situation exists. People don't have the guts do anything about it and would apparently happily vote for an actual fascist if they thought it would keep them safe instead of standing up and taking a risk to fix the democratic process.
Hitler was a populist anti-bank vote whose promise was to stop big bank's hold on the people. Much like Bernie. Lenin, the literal voice of the establishment, warned and told everyone not to trust Stalin. Much like Drumpf. So if you want to end up having to choose between Stalin/Hitler--then just vote anti-establishment every time. Every time you come up with things like that I love that you thought they made enough sense to be posted. Please tell me something, what is the reason why we hate Hitler? Is it because he was anti-bank? Can you think of someone, anyone in the history of humanity, who was anti-bank and didn't end up wanting to kill millions of people? Did Hitler run on the platform that he was going to gas millions of people or did he run on the platform that that Zionist Controlled the Banks and that that prevented hard working germans from getting the respect, jobs, and pride that they so rightfully deserve? Did hitler run on a promise to go to war with America and Russia or did Hitler run on an isolationist stance that emphasized the rebuilding of German industry? When Germans voted for Hitler did they do it before WW2 or after WW2? Please, tell me who these time traveling voters are who voted for Hitler. Damn, you just blew my mind, I guess you're right... All I would need to do to disprove your point is think of someone in the history of mankind who has had stances that were anti-bank but didn't turn out to be Hitler, but... I can't think of anyone. I guess being anti-bank is just a code word for being a nazi, there's no other possibility. Thanks for enlightening me man. Im missing the part where he ever claimed there was no other possibility. Exit strawman. Now if you want to challenge the veracity of his historical account thats a different issue. I do disagree that being anti establishment =/ Hitler Stalin, although most authoritarians do tend to be borne out of a pervasive anti establishment thinking combined with perceived social and economic regress I'm afraid I don't really understand your position. From where I stand, you seem to agree that what he says is wrong and then blame me for pointing it out. That's because of your propensity for deleting portions of other people's comments to fit your conclusion. Reread his post. For example, you deleted my initial argument to strawman this conversation to one about Hitler: "People always so proud to use their hindsight to make fun of people." If I hadn't deleted it, how would it have changed your post? My understanding of your argument was "If you vote anti-establishment, you increase the chances of ending up with someone like Hitler and Stalin, and so you shouldn't vote anti-establishment". Was I incorrect?
My argument is that you won't ever know if you will get a dictator until after the election. My argument is that everyone sounds like a good idea depending on how you view them and it isn't until you give them power that you find out how bad they are. My argument is that its stupid to call current candidates Hitler/Stalin because you are comparing candidates who have yet to show anything with the legacy of hindsight.
However, since you feel that its important for some reason, I do have this to say about anti-establishment for the sake of anti-establishment.
Voting anti-establishment is more guaranteed to do bad than voting establishment since voting establishment primarily keeps things running the same. A cookie cutter establishment candidate is more likely to keep things in the same spot as it was, while an actual anti-establishment candidate is as likely to go one way or the other when it comes to their results. Its like inertia. Things will stay in motion until something stops it. Establishment candidates primarily serve that role. Its not until you have a candidate who starts stripping away all the "useless/bad established norms" that you accidentally realize that there was a reason for those in the first place.
The primaries was a perfect example of this. Both the Dems and the Reps had a stubborn ideologue who did well with crowds. They were both shit in debates when policies were discussed, and had a tendency to either not really know what to say or complete fuck up any direct policy questions when they were not allowed to just repeat their sound bites.
However, Dems had more ways to support the safe candidate than Republicans. So Republicans got stuck with their ideologue while Dems got an actual good candidate on the ticket.
Wanting change at all costs, conservative voters were willing to jump to anyone whose promise was to change the way things were--so they voted for the anti-wallstreet, isolationist, who does not want to help Syrians. Without a way to maintain established order, the GOP got stuck with their people's anti-establishment choice.
The Dems were more aware of the importance of maintaining status quo and were able to beat their own anti-wallstreet, isolanist candidate who did not want to help Syrians. They did this by pushing the importance of maintaining the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
