On American Appeasement

Bells · Sep 2, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Ok and what do you want to do about it? bitch and whine? Or win back the goverment do something about it? no, bitch and whine, I got it, I understand. I would get aback the goverment on an economic justice platform and then implement pro-choice laws that would provide women those rights, you on the other hand would rather tell every man they hate women, run un-electable LOSER candidates, and then sit their and bitch and whine about problems you help cause by helping to elect the other-side, so then at least you can virtue signal.

We have been trying to tell you what to do about it. In response, you have spouted right wing nutbag conspiracies and their talking points as being the surefire way to win. In the process you have ignored what causes the economic discrepancies and you foolishly believe that you can fix the economy while ignoring the reality of what caused those issues to begin with.. Not to mention dismissing women, minorities and LGBT because their rights are somehow less important that that of white male voters because you have spent pages here and in other threads basically arguing that if women, minorities and LGBT are recognised as being equal, that somehow or other, white males lose something or other.. Hence your repeated whining of 'what about the white male voters' that you keep doing over and over again.

In short, you will never win if you are only focused on your white male privilege and ignoring and dismissing everything and everyone else. Your white male privilege is not the be all and end all and until you recognise that women, minorities and LGBT are equal to you and deserving of equal rights and protection, you will not succeed because you will not deserve to succeed. If you keep focusing solely on that at the expense of everyone else, you will lose women, minorities and LGBT voters.

ElectricFetus said:
This is beyond ad homium, this is slander

You have been repeating the same argument for pages in this thread and other threads. You have openly dismissed and discredited the plight of women, minorities and LGBT.

ElectricFetus said:
Tell me: what choices do men have?

You cannot strip women of their fundamental human rights. And you can not respond as though your rights are being taken from you at the very mention of equal rights and protections for women, minorities and LGBT.

It really is that simple.

ElectricFetus said:
I voted for him now? You going to deny I voted for Hillary Clinton now? Your saying I have similar arguments to him, name those arguments could you, be specific... the level of slander coming from you is unseemly, pathetic.

Don't particularly care who you voted for, dude. All you have done is present toxic and abhorrent arguments and tried to claim you were a 'lefty'. In short, I guess you are a typical Bernie Bro. You spout the same misogynistic bullshit that they spouted prior to the election. As for your similar arguments to Trump..

Go back and read your comments about women and misogyny. Go back and read your arguments about minorities and their rights. Hell, go back and read your comments about groups like antifa and then look at how Trump describes these groups. You even went so far as to repeat the same false narrative of Trump and the right about Clinton 'defending a rapist'..

ElectricFetus said:
Oh I don't control the goverment, but I thought you believe I voted for trump and that I spout right wing talking points, so then would I not control the goverment?

Considering you seem to barely be in control of your faculties...

ElectricFetus said:
So basically your like those Bernie voters that did not suck it up and vote Hillary?

You do realise I am an Australian, yes?

ElectricFetus said:
Slander, devoid of counter argument to me.

Say's the guy who keeps whining 'what about the men' each time the mere mention of women's fundamental rights should be recognised...

ElectricFetus said:
Bullshit, Bernie is the most like American politician alive now, he was polling over 10% points above trump much of the time in hypothetical match ups, Hillary could not even mange above 4%. None the less we will never know, what we do know with 100% certainty is that Hillary lost to he pig boar. So if we could repeate history you would rather go with the candidate that we know would lose rather then the one you in your hatefill spite claim would lose?

Actually he wasn't.

ElectricFetus said:
Oh I was there, hit piece blogs like that was the best that could be produced against Bernie.

Uh huh..

Meanwhile, he wrote it. Of his own volition. Those were his views and his words.

Bernie had a major issue with minority voters and women. And by the time he addressed it, it was too little and too late. His Bernie Bro's were launching misogynist attacks on female democrats and any who dared to question Bernie, not to mention the racism from some of his voting base.

ElectricFetus said:
Yeah and Hillary let off a pedophile as a lawyer
http://www.activistpost.com/2016/01...s-about-getting-a-pedophile-off-the-hook.html

Actually she didn't. But your repeat of right wing propaganda and rhetoric is noted. Again..

ElectricFetus said:
Are their women that have rape fantasies? do you deny such women exist? Are women human beings with varying opinions and varying interested and varying fetish, or are women a hive mind of which they all think like you?

You know, you aren't helping your cause or case much with idiocy like this.. You do get this, yes? You are literally proving my point for me.

Bells · Sep 2, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Denying basic reality is another reason we got here with president trump.

Which basic reality is that? Because thus far, your argument about 'basic reality' is that women's rights, minority rights and LGBT rights are not that important. In the words of a minority Bernie supporter who felt disturbed after going to see his idol speak:

On Sunday, I went to Bernie Sanders’s press conference in Washington DC. As a black voter who has “felt the Bern”, I wanted to see what he was going to do to reignite his dwindling flame – especially as I had just seen his slogan co-opted and reduced to “feel the burn” at a DC bus stop promoting check-ups for sexually transmitted diseases.

I left the press event extremely disappointed. Sanders lectured us about super-delegates. He obsessed over the possibility of Hillary Clinton failing to win enough pledged delegates. He spoke of a contested convention, and he recycled his well-worn talking points about inequality.

Two things he failed to mention: black and Hispanic voters, two constituencies whose support he has failed, repeatedly, to gain.

I get that he thinks the lives of people of color will be improved by reining in Wall Street, curbing financial inequality and confronting climate change. But any democratic socialist should know that the economic violence of capitalism is specifically gendered and racialized, that Wall Street explicitly harms black and brown people and that the effects of climate change are racist. Indeed, Sanders knows this and his platforms address it.

How, then, can Sanders still be failing to talk about racism, anti-blackness and anti-Latino sentiment at every turn, especially heading into the primary in California, a state with more Latinos than whites? If you listen to what Sanders is actually saying in this late stage of the game, he seems much more interested in open primaries, independent voters and super-delegates than he is in voters of color or the disenfranchised. That’s unsettling.

I have also noticed white leftists who feel the Bern starting to whisper that if Sanders doesn’t beat Clinton, it’s the fault of the unenlightened black and brown folks who didn’t vote in their own interest. Their condescension is misplaced; their ire should be with their candidate.

In short, people like you.. That is why you now have a President Trump.

You claim you voted for Clinton? Others like you refused to and instead saw fit to blame minorities and women for Trump winning.. something you have been doing consistently since the election.

ElectricFetus said:
You have yet to present a argument for how I am "Kowtowing to the right".

I think that is pretty clear thus far. Your avid disavowal of women and their rights, that of minorities and LGBT and your repeated assertion that their fundamental human rights is not that important and should not be addressed because you want to appeal to white voters, predominately white uneducated voters and you would rather sell out women, minorities and LGBT to do so, your repeated whining that the left is wasting its time focusing on what you deem to be non-issues.. Issues such as women's rights, minority rights and LGBT rights.. Your repeated dismissal, diminishing and discrediting of what women, minorities and LGBT experience by way of bigotry. Your repeating every single right wing conspiracy and dumbass theories against your own candidate and party. You're a sell out.

ElectricFetus said:
No, I voted for Clinton, while there were some bernie voters that did sit out, there were millions of former Obama voters that switch to Trump. Particularity in what was once the "blue wall" of what were once white industrial workers, white uneducated lower class, who people like you give zero fucks, thus giving Trump more votes then Mite Romney, enough electoral votes to win.

So your solution is to pander to the bigotry of the white uneducated voters and those who were caught up in fake and false promises and who fell into the 'brown people are coming for us' line of Trump in regards to immigration and 'the wall' and his theory that they don't have jobs because of Mexicans?

ElectricFetus said:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article147475484.html
Those Obama-Trump voters, in fact, effectively accounted for more than two-thirds of the reason Clinton lost, according to Matt Canter, a senior vice president of the Democratic political firm Global Strategy Group. In his group’s analysis, about 70 percent of Clinton’s failure to reach Obama’s vote total in 2012 was because she lost these voters.

I take it you did not bother to read the last few paragraphs of the article?

ElectricFetus said:
Honestly I laughed at this comment from you. Why do you hate jews so much Bells? Look at your self just shivering with rage screaming "why are you not in a gas chamber!?!?"

I have not said a thing against or about Jews. It's interesting, however, that you take this route when confronted with your pathetic denial of fundamental human rights of women, minorities and LGBT. As I noted above, you are simply making my argument for me, at this point.

ElectricFetus · Sep 2, 2017

Tiassa said:
Who here is treating Jews the way you're selling out the human rights of women?

And how am I selling the human rights of women? These are just baseless slanders from you.

Bells said:
You will never win back government with your talking points.

Claim, unproven claim, because we have operated with your said tactics which have provably, 100% fact, failed us and could not win against even a pig boar most hate presidential candidate ever.

On the one hand, your talking points are simply stupid and dumb.

Increase minimum wage, universal healthcare, college debt relief, free education... stupid and dumb?

Because your talking points appease the right and in doing so, you are literally arguing that women, minorities and LGBT are less deserving of human rights.

How? what rights am I asking be taken away from women, minorities and LGBTs? Tell me do you think women, minorities and LGBTs would not benefit, heck even want, free healthcare, free education, higher wages, basic income garentee?

I argue that women are equal human beings and your response is tantamount to 'but what about the men'..

yeah, BECAUSE THEY VOTE! So do white women mind you, yes uneducated people vote, and who did they vote for in majority last election?

When you are selling out women, minorities and LGBT, and their fundamental human rights, do you think you are going to win?

Again what rights am I asking be stripped from them?

Do you honestly think that the uneducated white voters would support a politician that recognised minorities as being equal to them?

Yes, I do, they fundamentally want better jobs, security and a future, if minorities get it as well, they don't care. Most importantly this is not about getting all of them to vote democrat, this is about getting just a few percentage of them to vote democrat, that all we need to total victory, are you arguing every single uneducated white person is unreachable? They did not vote Clinton in the last election because they believe she would do nothing new, that she was a standard politician, and they want to punish the "establishment", you would know this if you actually talked to this people instead of demonize them.

you have presented every right wing talking points and arguments and tried to claim you were a 'left' Democrat.

slander, what right wing talking points, again?

Now if you care about women clinics then the first goal is us win back the goverment, then we can open more clinic. But since you don't vote and are not a citizen, all you do is bitch and whine.

Look Tiassa & Bells answer me this one question:
If it was to come down to Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in 2020, would you vote for Bernie?

iceaura · Sep 2, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Yes, I do, they fundamentally want better jobs, security and a future, if minorities get it as well, they don't care.

Bullshit. They've been voting against better jobs, security, and the future of their children, to prevent these benefits from accruing to those others (minorities?), for a hundred years. It's the most consistent vote in the US.

ElectricFetus said:
Most importantly this is not about getting all of them to vote democrat, this is about getting just a few percentage of them to vote democrat, that all we need to total victory, are you arguing every single uneducated white person is unreachable?

That small fraction is not worth sacrificing anything to reach, and probably cannot be reached by sacrificing. The much larger - very much larger - pool of non-voters (who are more, not less, liberal than the pool of voters) is where the action is.

ElectricFetus said:
Tell me do you think women, minorities and LGBTs would not benefit, heck even want, free healthcare, free education, higher wages, basic income garentee?

That's why the Republican core voter votes against economic justice.

That's why trying to compromise on such things in order to sell economic justice to a Republican core voter is self-contradictory, and a waste of time. That's why it has failed since 1980.

Why do you advocate thirty years of failed strategy? Why do you post wingnut propaganda as argument on this forum?

Tiassa · Sep 2, 2017

#congenitaldishonesty | #WhatTheyVotedFor

Click for something about lies.

ElectricFetus said:
And how am I selling the human rights of women? These are just baseless slanders from you.

Look, dude, I am williing to accept the proposition that you lack the basic capability to recognize the content of your posts over the last year in general, or the last several years, as people have noted, but if that's what it comes down to, please realize the position your unreliability puts other people in, a circumstance in which there really is no reason to discuss anything with you because you have nothing to say.

So, yeah, you really want to run through your history, or is that just one of those things you'll ignore in order to keep behaving like an underprogrammed AI?

Look Tiassa & Bells answer me this one question:
If it was to come down to Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in 2020, would you vote for Bernie?

Try thinking that one through.

No, really, why wouldn't I, and why would Bells?

When you just make shit up in order to pretend you have a point, you remind everyone you have nothing to say.

So, look, ElectricFetus, answer me this one question: If you do not wish to be seen as selling out the human rights of women, why would you advise Democrats to back candidates who oppose the human rights of women?

ElectricFetus · Sep 2, 2017

Tiassa said:
Slander, blah blah, ad hominium, blah blah your evil blah blah jüdischen Dreck

Yes I get it your tactic is to pretend you do not understand my arguement, and then to slander me, can we move passed that?

Try thinking that one through.

No, really, why wouldn't I, and why would Bells?

Why would you our Bells not? Are you implying Bernie Sanders is equivalent to Trump?

When you just make shit up in order to pretend you have a point, you remind everyone you have nothing to say.

I present articles, I present evidence, I present arguments in every form I can, and this is the best you can do as a counter?

So, look, ElectricFetus, answer me this one question: If you do not wish to be seen as selling out the human rights of women, why would you advise Democrats to back candidates who oppose the human rights of women?

1. I do not care what you see me as, I know what I am, and ever time you claim I am something I'm not, I chuckle. You might as well be calling me a dirty scheming grubby jew.
2. Which candidate, name me this candidate? Are you saying Bernie Sanders opposes human rights for women?

iceaura · Sep 2, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
I present articles, I present evidence, I present arguments in every form I can,

You post rightwing propaganda videos and talking points, advocating a strategy that has failed an entire generation.

iceaura said:
That's why trying to compromise on such things in order to sell economic justice to a Republican core voter is self-contradictory, and a waste of time. That's why it has failed since 1980.

Why do you advocate thirty years of failed strategy? Why do you post wingnut propaganda as argument on this forum?

Tiassa · Sep 3, 2017

[#resist]

Democrats would be wise to take notice: While some around the DNC, and on down to local campaigns, would suggest the Democratic Party has room to bargain with supremacism in hopes of peeling off a few votes here and there in battleground states, word on the ground is that people are pretty pissed off about supremacism in general, so, you know, now probably isn't the time to be looking for reasons to accommodate supremacism:

A bar in Minneapolis, Minn., shut its doors Friday after it was revealed the owner had donated to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's failed Senate campaign, The Star Tribune reported.

Club Jäger closed down Friday, with staff protesting after local newspaper City Pages revealed that owner Julius De Roma had made a $500 donation to Duke's Senate bid last year.

Entertainers at the bar and staffers quit after the story about De Roma's campaign donation to the former KKK grand wizard emerged. Employees said the decision to close the business was made by those who ran the bar, not the owner, according to the Star Tribune.

(Thomsen↱)

Yes, this is worth a lot to people.
____________________

Notes:

Thomsen, Jacqueline. "Minneapolis bar closes over owner's donation to David Duke campaign". The Hill. 2 September 2017. TheHill.com. 2 September 2017.http://bit.ly/2iQHvAP

ElectricFetus · Sep 3, 2017

Tiassa said:
[#resist]

Democrats would be wise to take notice: While some around the DNC, and on down to local campaigns, would suggest the Democratic Party has room to bargain with supremacism in hopes of peeling off a few votes here and there in battleground states, word on the ground is that people are pretty pissed off about supremacism in general, so, you know, now probably isn't the time to be looking for reasons to accommodate supremacism:

A bar in Minneapolis, Minn., shut its doors Friday after it was revealed the owner had donated to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke's failed Senate campaign, The Star Tribune reported.

Club Jäger closed down Friday, with staff protesting after local newspaper City Pages revealed that owner Julius De Roma had made a $500 donation to Duke's Senate bid last year.

Entertainers at the bar and staffers quit after the story about De Roma's campaign donation to the former KKK grand wizard emerged. Employees said the decision to close the business was made by those who ran the bar, not the owner, according to the Star Tribune.

(Thomsen↱)

Yes, this is worth a lot to people.
____________________

Notes:

Thomsen, Jacqueline. "Minneapolis bar closes over owner's donation to David Duke campaign". The Hill. 2 September 2017. TheHill.com. 2 September 2017.http://bit.ly/2iQHvAP

What does this have to do with democrats? How is saying we are for higher wages, universal healthcare, free education, debt relief = bargaining with supremacism?

Also why have you not answered my questions? If it comes down to Bernie vs Trump in 2020, will you vote for Bernie?

iceaura · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
What does this have to do with democrats? How is saying we are for higher wages, universal healthcare, free education, debt relief = bargaining with supremacism?

How? When you propose achieving those things by having Democrats pander to and bargain with Trump voters for a few extra votes from them - a strategy that has been failing since 1980.

And you argue for it by, as noted:

iceaura said:
You post rightwing propaganda videos, propaganda memes, and talking points, advocating a strategy that has failed an entire generation.

Tiassa · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Also why have you not answered my questions? If it comes down to Bernie vs Trump in 2020, will you vote for Bernie?

Already answered↑ Why are you unable to be honest, ElectricFetus? All you're accomplishing is reminding everyone how low one has to go, how much one must hate basic living reality, in order to accommodate the right wing.

I know you think you're taking it out on ilk you disdain, but, really, self-denigration seems your basic M.O., and that just isn't especially effective or efficient about anything except humiliating yourself.

Bells · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Claim, unproven claim, because we have operated with your said tactics which have provably, 100% fact, failed us and could not win against even a pig boar most hate presidential candidate ever.

ElectricFetus said:
Increase minimum wage, universal healthcare, college debt relief, free education... stupid and dumb?

It's not stupid and dumb.

It is simply because Americans are known to distrust the Government to the extent that they would vote against such measures. For example, this was brought home glaringly in the last election in Colorado:

In Colorado, a more diverse state than Wisconsin, Bernie’s platform suffered another major setback. Sanders campaigned in Colorado in support of Amendment 69, a measure which would have created a universal healthcare system in Colorado called ColoradoCare. ColoradoCare would cover every single resident of the state of Colorado, and even pay for residents’ healthcare if they had traveled to another state. In order to pay for ColoradoCare, the state would establish a new 10 percent payroll tax, similar to the tax increase which would pay for the Bernie Sanders federal universal healthcare plan. Colorado has a Democratic Governor, a significant Latino population, and is a state that Clinton won by a margin of about 3 percent. If Bernie’s platform is highly popular with the Democratic base, then Amendment 69 should have passed in the state. But it didn’t. Not only did was Amendment 69 rejected, but nearly 80 percent of the voters voted no. Only 21 percent of Colorado voters supported the measure. Again, this is in a blue state, with a key tenant of Bernie’s platform, something that he passionately campaigned for in Boulder. And the voters overwhelmingly said no.

Now, explain to me how you would sell universal healthcare to right wing voters who are even more distrustful of the Government, when you cannot even sell it in a blue state?

At 8:30 p.m., with nearly 1.8 million votes counted across the state, the amendment was trailing 79.6 percent to 20.4 percent, according to preliminary state figures. Updated vote totals at 7 a.m., with 86 percent of the vote counted, the measure continued trailing at roughly the same percentage or 1,833,879 to 467,424. Throughout the campaign, the measure had polled better with Democrats than Republicans. But even in left-leaning Denver, the amendment was losing 2-to-1, according to early returns.

[...]

Amendment 69 would have eliminated most private health insurance in the state and replace it with a taxpayer-funded cooperative known as Colorado Care, which would have provided coverage to every single Colorado resident. It would have been paid for, largely, through a 10 percent payroll tax — workers at businesses would have been responsible for a third of the tax, while their employers would have picked up the rest; the self-employed would have paid the full 10 percent. The cooperative’s budget, at about $36 billion a year when fully implemented, would have dwarfed the state government’s budget.

Bernie couldn't even sell it to Democrats in Colorado. And you think you can sell it nationwide to Republicans and Democrats?

You should also be aware that white Americans, poor uneducated white Americans voted against increasing the minimum wage by voting for Trump. Just as they voted against the notion of a free education and college debt relief. And they certainly voted against what would have been the seedling of universal healthcare. Hell, Democrats and Bernie weren't even able to sell that to a blue leaning State.

As I said above, Americans are known to distrust the Government. That is why universal health care, something that would provide college debt relief and free education (things that are available in other Western nations and even 3rd world nations), would not work in the US. Because Americans are notoriously known to not like or trust the Government. Other countries where these measures do work, do have a much bigger Government and a more trusting populace who understand how these measures work, who accept that they have to pay more tax to ensure everyone has the same access to things like healthcare. Americans aren't really into that sort of thing, as we saw so well in Colorado.

In effect, you are selling women, minorities and LGBT out for something conservative white voters will not support regardless. And in doing so, you will lose your voting base as they will not appreciate or like the pandering and will question their voting choices.

ElectricFetus said:
How? what rights am I asking be taken away from women, minorities and LGBTs? Tell me do you think women, minorities and LGBTs would not benefit, heck even want, free healthcare, free education, higher wages, basic income garentee?

By refusing to acknowledge where the problem lies, by dismissing and demeaning those problems, by declaring that those rights are not important and by declaring that it is more important to court the white male vote, you are actively supporting the removal of rights from women, minorities and LGBT. I quoted a bit by a Sanders supporter in my previous post. I would suggest you read it again. Here is the pertinent part:

I get that he thinks the lives of people of color will be improved by reining in Wall Street, curbing financial inequality and confronting climate change. But any democratic socialist should know that the economic violence of capitalism is specifically gendered and racialized, that Wall Street explicitly harms black and brown people and that the effects of climate change are racist. Indeed, Sanders knows this and his platforms address it.

How, then, can Sanders still be failing to talk about racism, anti-blackness and anti-Latino sentiment at every turn, especially heading into the primary in California, a state with more Latinos than whites? If you listen to what Sanders is actually saying in this late stage of the game, he seems much more interested in open primaries, independent voters and super-delegates than he is in voters of color or the disenfranchised. That’s unsettling.

You cannot address things like free healthcare, free education, higher wages and basic income guarantee if you fail to address why women, minorities and LGBT are historically locked out of healthcare, free education, higher wages and income guarantees.. Saying that you will provide it and somehow 'they will come', will result in you not winning. Because the people who would vote against it are voting against it because they cannot fathom or want actual economic equality, regardless of where they are on the economic ladder. To wit, uneducated white people who voted for Trump, literally voted against policies that would have benefited them, because they believed that it would also benefit women, gays, lesbians and black and brown people just as well.

When your argument is tantamount to telling women, minorities and LGBT that their fundamental human rights are not that important of an issue to campaign on or about, and that they should just vote for your side because you will provide them with free healthcare, etc, they won't vote for you. Because their historic exclusion from those things stems directly from entrenched bigotry. And the uneducated white people you are pandering to will not vote for you, because they do not want women, minorities and LGBT to have equal access to it. Coupled with a populace that distrusts the Government to begin with, you are literally setting yourself up to fail.

Bells · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
yeah, BECAUSE THEY VOTE! So do white women mind you, yes uneducated people vote, and who did they vote for in majority last election?

Now ask yourself why you feel you need to make this argument when the crux of the matter is that you should not ignore or dismiss and demean the fundamental human rights of others. You are literally attempting to pander to only one particular group of voters at the expense of the rights of other voters.

ElectricFetus said:
Yes, I do, they fundamentally want better jobs, security and a future, if minorities get it as well, they don't care.

So why do they refuse to vote for it?

Look at Colorado as a prime example. You are attempting to push policies that have been known to fail in the US for decades. The reason it fails is because when the left does this, they always ignore and forget the plight of minorities, women and LGBT. Bernie Sander's campaign is a prime example of it. He failed to gain minorities and women. Why? Because he failed to address the issues that directly affect them. Economy? You cannot sell universal healthcare, when you fail to address the inherent bigotry that prevents them from accessing healthcare to begin with.

ElectricFetus said:
Most importantly this is not about getting all of them to vote democrat, this is about getting just a few percentage of them to vote democrat, that all we need to total victory, are you arguing every single uneducated white person is unreachable? They did not vote Clinton in the last election because they believe she would do nothing new, that she was a standard politician, and they want to punish the "establishment", you would know this if you actually talked to this people instead of demonize them.

They also voted against what Bernie Sanders supported, such as universal healthcare in Colorado. Why?

You are saying that you can win voters over with stuff like this and Democrats voted against it in Colorado. And you think you can sway uneducated white voters, who distrust the Government to handle things like healthcare, education, etc, and who vote against such measures because 'brown people' would have equal access to it, to vote for universal healthcare? And you wonder why we are repeatedly asking you why you are pushing policies that have failed the Democrats for decades?

ElectricFetus said:
slander, what right wing talking points, again?

Now if you care about women clinics then the first goal is us win back the goverment, then we can open more clinic. But since you don't vote and are not a citizen, all you do is bitch and whine.

How are you going to open more clinics without addressing the misogyny and violence that saw them close to begin with?

What? Open more and hope for the best that people will not harass, shoot, bomb or murder clinic staff? Are you going to override local Governments that close them? Because Americans luurrvvee that type of Government overreach..

If you cannot educate the populace as to why these clinics are necessary, simply opening more will not work.

ElectricFetus said:
Look Tiassa & Bells answer me this one question:
If it was to come down to Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in 2020, would you vote for Bernie?

I adore this..

I'll refer to Tiassa's response:

Tiassa said:
Try thinking that one through.

No, really, why wouldn't I, and why would Bells?

When you just make shit up in order to pretend you have a point, you remind everyone you have nothing to say.

So, look, ElectricFetus, answer me this one question: If you do not wish to be seen as selling out the human rights of women, why would you advise Democrats to back candidates who oppose the human rights of women?

Which you clearly did not understand:

ElectricFetus said:
Why would you our Bells not? Are you implying Bernie Sanders is equivalent to Trump?

Unbelievable!
You know how he commented on you making shit up to pretend you have a point? This is a prime example of it.

ElectricFetus · Sep 3, 2017

Tiassa said:
Already answered↑

Except that is not an answer, just an assortment of ad homiems and slander. Try this, answer my question without referring to me, try arguing against my argument, rather then me.

I know you think you're taking it out on ilk you disdain, but, really, self-denigration seems your basic M.O., and that just isn't especially effective or efficient about anything except humiliating yourself.

Yes yes I'm a dirty jew, so dirty, anyways about those questions: would you vote for Bernie in 2020? Does a focus on economic justice to win votes somehow mean women and LGBT rights are out the window? Is everyone that disagrees with you a right wing nazi?

Bells said:
Unbelievable!
You know how he commented on you making shit up to pretend you have a point? This is a prime example of it.

Well then just answer the question: would you vote for Bernie in 2020?

Here is what has happened when I asked that question:
1. You two obfuscate, refuse to answer clearly and attack me.
2. I interpret that as a possible no, I ask further question on why.
3. You claim I am making shit up, continue to attack me, without answering the question

Is a simple "yes or no" answer that hard?

Bells · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Except that is not an answer, just an assortment of ad homiems and slander. Try this, answer my question without referring to me, try arguing against my argument, rather then me.

You really did not understand what he meant when he said why wouldn't he, or I for that matter, vote for Sanders?

ElectricFetus said:
Well then just answer the question: would you vote for Bernie in 2020?

To reiterate what Tiassa pointed out earlier..

Why wouldn't we? More to the point, is there a reason why you believe we would not?

ElectricFetus said:
Here is what has happened when I asked that question:
1. You two obfuscate, refuse to answer clearly and attack me.

No, the question was answered. It is not our fault if you decide to go out of your way to invent something we did not actually say because you fail to understand simple words.

ElectricFetus said:
2. I interpret that a a possible no, I ask further question on why

How in the world could you have interpreted it as a "possible no"?

When someone tells you "why wouldn't I do something" in response to a question about whether they would do that something, it usually (as in always) means that of course 'I' would because there is no reason why I would do otherwise.

No, really, how the hell can you take that and then invent a refusal and then worse still, whine about what you made up?

ElectricFetus said:
3. You claim I am making shit up, continue to attack me, without answer the question

You took a very clear answer and lied and invented another answer which you then used to whine about.

ElectricFetus · Sep 3, 2017

Bells said:
You really did not understand what he meant when he said why wouldn't he, or I for that matter, vote for Sanders?

To reiterate what Tiassa pointed out earlier..

Why wouldn't we? More to the point, is there a reason why you believe we would not?

No no Tiassa said "why wouldn't I and why would bells".

You two appear to me to intentionally be officiating, so I demand a simple yes or no answer, is that so hard? You two seem to imply you would not, even going so far as implying he is a misogynist for a decades old article about how traditional gender role force people to closet their desires, because you two believe that issues of sex and race are more important then class. But please if I'm wrong please explain otherwise. Do you not believe sex and race is more important then class?

When someone tells you "why wouldn't I do something" in response to a question about whether they would do that something, it usually (as in always) means that of course 'I' would because there is no reason why I would do otherwise.

And yet refer to Bernie as a misogynist in the next breath, very confusing.

Tiassa · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
You two appear to me to intentionally be officiating, so I demand a simple yes or no answer, is that so hard?

Your question—

Why wouldn't I? — You have precisely no reason under the sun to ask the question. The answer is and always has been, quite clearly, of course I would. I mean, after years of reminding that I run well to the left of the Democratic Party, having explicitly said I would support Sanders as the Democratic nominee, and explained that my primary challenge in promoting a Sanders nomination would be selling the package in the general—something neither candidate nor movement ever could figure out—and even having put myself on record supporting someone like Sen. Lindsey Graham in the GOP primary on the grounds that this nearly archenemy, to me, Republican from South Carolina would, at the very least, be a competent steward of the Oval Office, the idea that I wouldn't vote for Sanders over Trump is the sort of extraordinary make-believe only a desperate provocateur would attempt, and for obscure internal reasons. (No, really, if desperate provocateurs were more effective communicators, they wouldn't feel so much neurotic pressure toward belligerence as pretense of camouflaging inefficacy; that is to say, if you knew better how to pretend you were some manner of liberal or Democrat in order to posture yourself as qualified to give Democrats advice, you wouldn't be wasting anyone's time on such pathetic, whining distractions.)

Why would she? — Why would my friend travel across an ocean to commit a crime by trying to vote in our elections? Is that what you would do, or something?

—is a stupid, worthless joke.

And yet refer to Bernie as a misogynist in the next breath, very confusing.

It is only confusing because you're not paying attention.

History informs, and reminds, over and over again, that when it comes to compromise, American female voters have, by necessity of survival, mastered the art of voting for misogynists because, much like a liberal voting for Democrats, there really isn't much of an alternative, else one becomes, to borrow a phrase, always a bridesmaid, an existentialist-identity third-party self-interest vote that only every now and then sees a candidate who meets the non-misogynist criterion actually elected to any public office.

You need not be a woman to grasp this particularly straightforward aspect of American history; you need only pay attention.

That doesn't mean leaving it to half-wit YouTubers and social media trends to tell you what reality is.

Meanwhile—

... because you two believe that issues of sex and race are more important then class. But please if I'm wrong please explain otherwise. Do you not believe sex and race is more important then class?

—I dare you to explain that, because I don't think you're capable.

Let us put it this way: There is an obvious answer, here, and either you already know it, or, well, you're you, and that means you're standing there making a classist argument that no identifying liberal, leftist, or egalitarian should ever be witnessed to utter.

You cannot stratify justice; machinations intending to neuter the very concept of classism only exacerbate classist divisions. Again↑, it is quite clear where your sympathies are invested. What narrative↑? (chortle!)

• "But please if I'm wrong please explain otherwise. Do you not believe sex and race is more important then class?" — That you must ask makes the point.

iceaura · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Here is what has happened when I asked that question:
1. You two obfuscate, refuse to answer clearly and attack me.
2. I interpret that as a possible no, I ask further question on why.

That "interpretation" is a regurgitation of a rightwing propaganda meme, a repost of a standard wingnut talking point like the dozens of others you post; it is also a standard wingnut tactic to attack, by reflex, rather than respond to the content of posts, as that illustrates.

You have been feeding yourself a steady diet of wingnut videos, you have inculcated not only their framing but their standard pattern of changing frames, and that has crippled your ability to think coherently. Kangaroo boy owns your world.

Need evidence? In your world "Antifa" not only exists (an illusion in itself) but is important.

And appeasing those in thrall to that propaganda feed, those who accept such fantasies as the frame of their world, is a waste of time. It's a moving target, for one thing - those in thrall cannot be appeased, because they're collectively a puppet created to lead its appeasers on.

(White Identity Group - WIG. I like it. Chasing Will-o'-the-WIGs is how the Dems got lost in the swamp)

ElectricFetus · Sep 3, 2017

Once again Tiassa you are incapable of separating winning elections from your ideology. You say justice can't be stratified, ok fine, keep that too yourself though, because if you don't prioritize economic justice when campaigning and instead tell white people that microaggression as just as important as their lack of a good job, then we get what we presently have, total republican domination and a pig boar as president.

Yes please explain to me how misgendering someone is equal to not being able to feed ones children. I don't care if you think it right wing fascism to say we need to prioritize raising the minimum wage, get universal healthcare, get debt relief, free education, etc over what bathrooms people piss in. I would be fine with unisex restrooms, all restrooms unisex, but I don't make that a political demand, I don't campaign over that at the DFL booth because that is not a issue that will get traction with enough voters.

Your whole argument is about calling me a rightwing misogynist, my argument is about winning back the goverment from people you refuse to directly confirm are worse then me and mine.

Lets go over the facts again: your chosen candidate lost to a pig boar, you and Bells claim my strategy is appeasement and will lose, yet your strategy as a matter of present reality has lost us everything. And the best you can muster to my pointing out this fact is to call me names.

What arguments do you have? Compromise? what compromise? what rights am I asking be stricken from women or gays or trans, I'm merely asking we sell ourselves better, you would rather we lose everything as we have, then do that?

What that those other people are evil? That kind of talk is exactly how we got here: your and your ilk have chased out so many on the liberal side that now we lost the whole fucking goverment.

parmalee · Sep 3, 2017

ElectricFetus said:
Once again Tiassa you are incapable of separating winning elections from your ideology. You say justice can't be stratified, ok fine, keep that too yourself though, because if you don't prioritize economic justice when campaigning and instead tell white people that microaggression as just as important as their lack of a good job, then we get what we presently have, total republican domination and a pig boar as president.

Yes please explain to me how misgendering someone is equal to not being able to feed ones children. I don't care if you think it right wing fascism to say we need to prioritize raising the minimum wage, get universal healthcare, get debt relief, free education, etc over what bathrooms people piss in. I would be fine with unisex restrooms, all restrooms unisex, but I don't make that a political demand, I don't campaign over that at the DFL booth because that is not a issue that will get traction with enough voters.
...

You cannot possibly be this incapable of comprehending the written word. I mean, sure, it's possible--plenty of people are functionally illiterate--but a person functioning at that level, in a context which relies almost wholly upon the written word, is apt to stand out.

So, I can only conclude that you are willfully trolling, yes?

On American Appeasement

Bells

Bells

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

iceaura

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

iceaura

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

iceaura

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

Bells

Bells

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

Bells

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

iceaura

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone

parmalee

peripatetic artisan