Bernie/Biden task force presents suggestions
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
I'm sure legally it's seen that way. But it would seem to me that Her Majesty's Opposition, by its position as the legally-recognised democratic alternative, should have its integrity ensured legally as well (just as legal regulations exist to ensure parity in spending between the gov and the opposition). And that defrauding the official opposition (or, indeed, the party in government) should be seen as an offence against the public: it undermines the choice we're legally entitled to.
Such a sentiment is childish. There is nothing more childish than voting out of a desire to flip the bird.
Only imbeciles and those in poor control of their faculties, those who have no desire to put any thought into their actions, who are ignorant of what it means to have any sort of responsibility, vote out of spite.
Voting is a responsibility. That is why only adults are eligible to vote.
You are welcome to vote for Trump for actual reasons, be it accelerationism or you agree with his dogma. You are also welcome to not vote at all due to ideological reasons, especially you, Revy, who don't believe in bourgeios democracy in the first place. But if you wish to engage in such a system, at least think your decisions through and cast your votes with at least a bit of maturity.
I looked at Biden's housing policy. He or rather his handlers go on long tangents on housing policy, when you can literally solve the homeless crisis by providing small houses to homeless people. But no his donors wouldn't like that so here we are.
I will never vote with maturity under bourgeois democracy I will continue to write in “a large phallus” you cannot stop me I am too powerful.
I imagined the polls this year having an extra option that's just an empty box that asks you to draw a picture of a penis if you want none of the options.
Please, i implore you to reconsider.
At the very least, write in "Penis Man" instead.
They atleast seem to have a platform.
In the UK, you mark a box next to the candidat name on a piece of paper with a cross. But as I'm aware, if you don't use a cross but some other symbol, an election official will decide whether it's valid or not. A tick, or a smiley face for instance, would almost certainly be accepted. But I'm curious to see what you could put in that they wouldn't. What if you drew a little turd, or wrote "Meh"?
Do I, or are you trying to identify me in accordance to political archetypes rather than respond to my opinions as an individual?
Then explain how exactly it is "coalition building" for the DNC platform committee to expressly reject at least five election-defining policy positions (the three I mentioned, plus GND and CJ reform), three of which are of existential import, that are supported by between 70-80% of its own voters. Because the way I see it, that is the complete opposite of "coalition building" to fail to represent three-quarters of your own party.
It's also one I have taken as a complete wash, social security won't be around by the time I'd be old enough to draw from it regardless who's in office. All it is, is a carrot and stick to bring olds to go to the polls.
You don't want to admit it, but I am talking about the election. My argument is past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, Biden is a key architect of the very socioeconomic conditions that allowed Trump to win -- hell, run -- in the first place, it's the same people making the same mistakes who allowed Trump to win once and expecting different results, and the Democratic party is by and large a completely lost cause. Period.
Trump's your average shit tier Republican President, there are approximately two things different about his Presidency: one being he's honest about what he does and that's really why other Republican pundits and politicians are pissed, and for the first time since Bush the media actually reports on the fucked up, monstrous shit our own government does. Frankly, Trump isn't even half as bad as Bush on his best days.
We are when they're not honest analyses that prop up "right flanks" and run interference for wholesale moral, ethical, organizational, and strategic failures.
And again, wish in one hand, shit in the other.
I guess not blaming Bernie supporters, and inventing elaborate conspiracy theories about the FBI and Russia, is "selective description", now. Because Chuck Schumer sure as fuck didn't have the first idea what we was talking about when he said there were more votes to be gained tacking right to appeal to white suburbanites, than Rust Belt voters.
That's not my argument. You're pretending it is. My argument is cable news viewers are polarized into locked-in Democratic and Republican blocs. Democratic-leaning viewers are voting Democratic, Republican-leaning viewers are voting Republican. They're not cross-party voters, which is the definition attributed to "moderates" to propagate this fantasy of appealing to the center. They either turn out to vote for the party with which they identify, or they stay home.
That's where Schumer and the Clinton campaign fucked it, they tried to appeal to people who don't vote Democratic and won't vote Democratic, least of all this year. The best Democratic strategists can hope for is for them to stay home. You tell me, with a 91% approval rating among Republicans, do you think they're going to stay home?
Last edited:
I mean in comparison to the other socialists on this forum. You seem to have a much more nuanced and informed view on things.
I'm sure I've heard of one particular instance where a guy, unhappy with any of the candidates available, drew a dick in the box of one of them. The officials decided that it fitted the requirements of "your mark in the box" and accepted it as a vote. Assuming thats not apocryphal then it seems there's a lot of leeway in what you can write
It's risky. Due to being under the discretion of the returning officer, a dick is well into danger territory, and it's entirely possible another returning officer might have rejected it.
I have doubts this is a real campaign, largely as these kinds of things often have watermarks at the bottom when they're official, though they very much could be.
That said, at a certain point, it's not a bad message: it's okay to settle for the less bad option even if you're not happy with it. Like, part of my job is often convincing my own client of the merits of settling, which is often more than financial as dealing with the situation in and of itself, even when it is being handled by a professional, is fucking stressful.
The same can be for campaigns: we live in a time where everything is demanding your attention in detailed ways, and having an out, a means to no longer need to be engaged with the topic, can be comforting in its own way.