Community > Renarima

Posts »

Page of 3
Community » Renarima
Dark_Young_Link posted...
You're intentionally acting like a dullard is what I'm trying to say. I say this because if you still do not understand the context of what Biden said and why, you're either genuinely unable to grasp metaphors or you're pretending to be unable to.

No, I fully understand the context. Explain it to me if you think I do not. I am tired of explaining myself in this topic and just having people give me side eye and REFUSE to say WHAT THEY MEAN. you TELL ME.
twitter etc and podcasts are also talking heads.
how so
oh yeah who is that kamikaze potato
I suspect that is because that same group of users just gets the entirety of their opinions from media talking heads, and for some reason still trust them even though they assured them for four years he was fine until his debate (which, honestly, was kinda mid compared to what anyone who knew he was far gone would have expected and not even a real disaster)
Alright I am tired of people implying things about me but being too cowardly to say what they mean. Shut up if you got nothing to say.
Biden was barely coherent and telling people if you dont vote for him you aint black. Just because the media finally turned on him doesnt mean he was fine before that.
UshiromiyaEva posted...
Oh you're one of those.
Yes I am a human being with eyes.
well how would we know because that is what happened

and then you guys pretended joe biden was fine for 4 years despite everyone knowing he was not fine, kicked him out by force after the primaries were over, and anointed a candidate with no say. now if she wins they get no input from progressives for 8 more years.

wonder why they hate you guys
Why is it so hard to consider that MAYBE, just MAYBE it's not a coordinated effort from the establishment that's out to get you?

because that is what happened, even if it would not have been necessary, that is literally what happened
i said what i said
kevwaffles posted...
Jfc I have never given any indication to you or anyone else of anything like this.

maybe try being better at life in the future
I make sailors look like sailor scouts
AriaOfBolo posted...
alrighty well let me know if you'd ever like to actually have a conversation I guess

keep in mind they are the person who told me in the last topic "to stop failing at life" despite knowing zero about my life, or me being good or bad at life being relevant to the conversation, because they did not like my posts. they just wanna be smug.
When's the last time Kamala mentioned it?

when she agreed that she used to support it but doesn't support it anymore

edit: thank god the democrats pushed joe to the left.
NFUN posted...
whichever has the most incest

the people have spoken
Also if you pick crusader kings lemme know if you want 2 or 3 and what area you are interested in
But anyway I appreciate it nfun now I know my former bro emerald is against me. Sad.
The logs completely support me lol
HanOfTheNekos posted...
Yes. He was told not to do it, did it anyway, and got banned (though really it was more of a kick). Steiner figured out auto-modding and told Cyclo he could come back since he wouldn't be able to make the same transgression, but he did not.

This is all well-documented and it is very indicating of the maturity level of Cyclo that he can't even own up to it.

I literally have said exactly what you said in this topic series except without the negative implications about my character. Also, just to be clear, and you can ask nfun for the logs if you dont believe me, I was never told by Steiner my coming back was relying on anything. He did it because he likes the power.
After I finish metaphor refantazio I intend to do one of these. Just trying to see if anyone is interested or not.
Yes from the game. I have strangely encountered the issue outside of the game, but I definitely only knew the term from the game.
Well yeah the clintons presided over the major, above anything else, reason for the beginning of the change. Nafta. Its more complicated than that, but that was a major major issue.
LightningStrikes posted...
Well this just isnt true. Union households went for Biden in 2020 by 16-17 points compared to 4.5 for the national average. And of course as weve spoken about in this topic before, contrary to stereotypes lower income voters are more likely to vote Democrat and higher income voters are more likely to vote Republican.

Its by far the lowest rates ever, if you look at the numbers. These kind of party swaps take time. But I grew up in Georgia. I knew lifelong democrats who now support trump. I knew lifelong republicans who now vote kamala. And for the second point, democrats get the vote of more of the wealthy of the country as a percentage now than republicans. Yes, if you just look at income brackets, dems get a higher percentage from the lowest. But the idea you would even find that contrary to stereotypes shows how much it has changed. The republicans were the professional class party and the Democrats the working class until clinton. Now, the dems are the professional class. It takes time for all of this to fully morph.
LightningStrikes posted...
Focus on winnable local races to build a support base and slowly push the Overton window to the left. Organise within the trade union movement and progressive organisations. Campaign for electoral reform. It will take a long time, and its definitely not sexy, but its what got people most of the decent things of the last 80 years.

Here is a major issue. Most unions left in the country....are mostly GOP voters. The working class increasingly is not supporting the dems. They feel betrayed by the dems. The dems are mostly professional class workers who do not have unions.
Dancedreamer posted...
O'Donnell is wrong anyway.

oh so you know better than the experts now???
the parties are amorphous, rejecting one does not tell them to be more leftist (outside of explicitly voting left wing or libertarian third parties). it tells them to change their tune based on demographics to be still right wing but in a different way. there is a uniparty blob. when people got fed up with the GOP after Bush, suddenly now you have the neocons endorsing democrats. Because they think they can get your stamp on their bullshit overseas and their mass surveillance and trampling your civil liberties if they say the right things about other issues. And the right does the same, employing people like RFK and Tulsi to make the right seem more palatable to people with concerns like industry capture, health, war, etc but ultimately they are gonna still be another Trump administration that doesn't come through. They see you all as marks and rubes and you fall for it every time.
Umbreon posted...
Is this going to reach the inevitable "Your vote doesn't really matter so you may as well stay home" destination so many online centrists like to direct only Democrat voters towards?

Because this is starting to look awfully familiar.

for anyone who didn't get it, I am not a centrist, never have been, and am a far leftist.
Inviso posted...
And there it is: if you don't get what you want, it must be because the rich and powerful elite are holding you back. It can't possibly be YOUR fault. It can't possibly be that YOU'RE wrong or YOU'RE causing the problem. No no, it MUST be the establishment and the elites.

If you are not willing to turn out for the Dems and say "You are better than the Republicans", so you have my vote, then why the fuck should the Democratic Party cater to you more than the portion of their base that IS willing to do that? I mean, you won't even acknowledge that that portion of the population exists and outnumbers you, because that would mean actually DOING something, rather than sitting back and talking a big game without having to lift a finger.


what problem am i causing?

how would "i have no standards here is my vote" make the dems cater to me more?

msnbc host Lawrence o Donnell once said, when he joined the company, that he used to work for the dems, and they happily ignored their voters because they were not ever willing to not vote for them. people who actually understand power get that. you just don't have a clue or are lying to get what you want, idk which.
Umbreon posted...
"But But, you didn't single handedly change things! That means you didn't actually do anything. Ignore how I'm refusing to list my personal accomplishments!"

Yeah, dude has nothing to bring to the conversation here. Just like most internet ""centrists"".

thats right, i am a centrist
lol the entire criticism is we do not work enough with power. when we try to build it ourselves now we just don't want it? incredible.
Dancedreamer posted...
What's even the point of saying you want to accomplish things, then? Unless you PERSONALLY do them, apparently it doesn't count. And you don't seem to be running for office. So tell me, what have you accomplished? Or are you just going to throw the question back, because you're a coward, 'bro'?

my idea of getting the things I want does not involve supporting people who do not want the things that I want. that is how I further those accomplishments. you are more interested in stopping the people you don't like because you are more worried about that than you are about getting the things you claim but don't much care about getting.
Inviso posted...

And the solution to THAT problem is to overwhelmingly reject the Right at every possible opportunity. Send a message to the Dems that they can actually move to the left,

no, they would ignore the left and do less because that is easier for them because all of their donors hate the left. they aren't like...looking to move left. they hate the left.
Dancedreamer posted...
Biden and Obama were elected. We got Same Sex Marriage rights thanks to Obama's Supreme Court. We got Student debt relief thanks to Biden. We got Affordable Care Act, which is a step in the right direction. Respect for Marriage Act was passed in case the current supreme court decides they want to fuck that up they do.

you had nothing to do with any of that bro
no I am the one who got banned because Steiner wanted to stroke his ego. I was immediately offered to come back, I just rejected it.
Dancedreamer posted...
And what have you accomplished so far?

what have you
Inviso posted...
No you absolutely do not. If you did, you would care about HOW to accomplish things instead of just broadcasting from your high horse how everything needs to change.

No, I just have a different opinion about it than you. And also I don't believe you, because people like you say that and then actually do not want to accomplish the things I do.
Inviso posted...
If you don't consider them your people, why should they consider you theirs?

they shouldn't. they made it clear they don't want me over multiple decades now. I was trying. They made it clear they want to stop the GOP more than they want to accomplish anything. I want to accomplish things.
Inviso posted...
Then why are you complaining so much about the Democrats? If everything's so great, then you should be fine with them understandably ignoring what you want when you actively choose to remove yourself from the political process.

how am I actively removed from the political process? I vote and organize locally. and I have said multiple times I get why they ignore me. you are their base. I do not consider them my people at all.
not being a centrist is not my problem its your problem. it works great for me.
I mean...this is just me spitballing...but maybe consider WHICH politicians you need to be sending the message to

I have done so and decided to go with the ones who are closer to where I am at instead of the ones who literally are nowhere near me.
Forceful_Dragon posted...
too late, already reported everyone

honestly completely believe this
Inviso posted...
I'd like to piggyback off what Thorn said above (because A, I agree with him, and B, I recall either earlier in this topic, or in the last topic, he felt that we'd completely ignored his contribution...and I definitely don't want to ignore that.) I think--and I fully acknowledge that this is likely where a lot of progressives are getting their belief in progressive popularity from--that if you took individual progressive policies completely in a vacuum, without any context or discussion of potential impact on taxes, most people would probably vote favorably. But the problem is that the only one of the two parties who makes any effort to address those popular policies...gets none of that popularity rubbed off on them. They are constantly told via elections that voters would rather put politicians in power that stand AGAINST those massively popular progressive policies. And the message THAT sends is that EITHER those policies aren't as popular as polling would suggest...OR they might be popular, but they're not as important as other policies are when it comes to determining which candidate to vote for.

ok well people like you call anyone who votes based on policies and red lines a massive piece of shit so how do you expect us to give politicians the hint that policies matter and send that message if we don't ever send that message

edit: you also don't want it sent in the primary so DO NOT SAY THAT
Inviso posted...
...WHAT? How...how do you see an election result of "Republican candidate gets approximately 49% of the vote, Independent candidate/Former Republican governor gets approximately 30% of the vote, Democratic candidate gets approximately 20% of the vote" and think "That spells moderate and the Democratic Party apparatus is just really bad"? Like, if you're adding the numbers and saying "50% didn't vote Republican compared to 49% that did"...okay. But you then HAVE to take the other side and say "79% didn't vote Democrat compared to 20% that did". Like...do you understand that, to me, that comes across as absurd levels of mental gymnastics, all to deny the statement of "American voters are not as progressive as we believe they are/should be"?

I lived in Florida at the time. People voted for Crist because they are moderate, or did not like Rubio, and he had a massive amount of money behind him. Meek had essentially no campaign and was just a filler D. Florida has literally no Democratic party basically. Crist is now basically the major Democrat there, and like you said, he used to be the Republican. And many states are like this. Only a small amount of them are remotely competitive. Basically the powerful people win because morons just go "oh yeah I liked what he said once" and move on with their life. That does not mean progressive policy is unpopular.
I mean, your example is in Connecticut. It tells me what I said, centrists are willing to work with Republicans to stop progressives. (which is why anyone who believes them when they call you a piece of shit etc for not voting for them to stop republicans is a mark, rube, etc.) My example is in Florida. it tells me Florida is pretty moderate and has an extremely weak Democratic party (and always has and still does).
In Florida, there was a race between Marco Rubio(R), Charlie Crist(I), and Kendrick Meeks(D). Charlie Crist is the moderate. He loses to Rubio, because all he really did was take all Kendrick Meeks voters. That is how that plays out in most scenarios. The Lieberman example is an outlier, because it is a really small state, he was a powerful politician, and because the state is so blue, voters were more willing to abandon the R nominee to get Lieberman over the progressive. It really is not a race, which btw was 18 years ago, that says anything about how popular progressive policy is.
Also I would add in that scenario you propose, the alternative to electing the progressive in the primary was just electing the guy who won anyway so how would nominating lieberman have been better???
so your point is that voters voted for what they want (a progressive), and then centrists and republicans teamed up to stop the progressive, and that means democratic voters don't want a progressive? no, they did, they voted for it. the fact that centrists will team up with republicans to oppose progressives is not something I dispute. It is why I do not bother trying with the Democratic party. I know no matter what, centrists will always abandon you even if you win fairly. So I do not consider them my allies whatsoever.
I think democratic voters prefer moderates more so because they are concerned about electability than because they are against the policies of the left wing. I think the polling supports that. If I am wrong though, all the more reason for leftists to organize somewhere besides the Democratic party.
LightningStrikes posted...
I think people are talking about different things wrt Republican voters. Internally its super bloodthirsty eg in primaries where its a constant purity test to be the most MAGA. Externally the general Republican voters will just vote for whoever, much more reliably than Democrats. Nobody is wrong here.

but that's exactly why they get what they want more. one of the things that dems say to jill stein voters etc is "purity tests are for the primaries" but democrats in the primaries STILL vote for the candidate they think is better for the general and not for the candidate they like the most. so the only possible explanations are that either those people are liars, and ARE actually voting for what they want the most, or they are acting not to get what they want, but to stop the other side from doing so.
Community » Renarima
Page of 3