Relampago. Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 7 minutes ago, FameFatale said: She heard us today About damn time But I guess it kinda makes sense in hindsight. Doing it now means there's not going to be a ton of time to pick it apart and spin narratives before the debate. She gets to introduce it to the country during the debate on her terms and be the person who gives the first impression on the laid out policy rather than try to battle all the arguments about it once they've built up. Okay Kamala, I see you. Now let me go read through these… Edited September 9 by Relampago. 4 2
Tovitov Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 7 minutes ago, FameFatale said: She heard us today Probably smart to have it up post debate too. If the NYTs poll is remotely accurate and 28% of voters dont know enough about her, a good chunk of them might google her during/after the debate and they'll get the campaign website. Someone suggested the Harris campaign might be using the debate as an introduction for Kamala. It might be the first time many Americans see her outside of ads and scripted campaign stops. Edited September 9 by Tovitov 5
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Genuinely upsetting that Democrats don't support universal healthcare or even a public option anymore. We've honestly lost 30 years of healthcare progress now with Dems. 10
GhostBox Posted September 9 Posted September 9 14 minutes ago, FameFatale said: She heard us today Great. Now watch the same ones who made "where's her policy page on her website???" Move on to something else 😂
FameFatale Posted September 9 Posted September 9 2 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Great. Now watch the same ones who made "where's her policy page on her website???" Move on to something else 😂 Now time to fuss about lack of interviews and media appearances 1
Relampago. Posted September 9 Posted September 9 5 minutes ago, GhostBox said: Nate can go eff himself 😂 Okay, I know I was in here saying that Shapiro might have been a smarter pick just a few days ago since he might have helped with PA but Kamala picking Walz is possibly the ONLY thing she's done thus far to not "tack to the center" And ultimately, I think the dynamic Walz and Harris have is pretty remarkable. The awkward power struggle and inevitable intraparty division that Shapiro would have caused would have been a terrible way to start the campaign. No one reasonable was upset at a Walz pick, but there would have been a million reasons to be upset at a Shapiro pick. All we would have gotten from that is some help in PA, which would still admittedly be very nice, but possibly at the cost of decreased enthusiasm in certain demographics and states like MI. He's so out of touch lately. Everything he says and puts out reads as bitter and pressed commentary that he was wrong or biased about something, not actual meaningful commentary. If Harris loses, it will not be because she wasn't appealing to the center, goodness. 7
Mr. Mendes Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 1 hour ago, Communion said: Shocking leftists who'd vote Green don't like Democrats for anti-democratic actions and don't hope they win as they see them as no different than Republicans! I have to say, I'm incredibly disappointed to see you talking this way. I have been avoiding saying it so bluntly because there's a great many leftists that I respect very deeply. There are leftist policies I am incredibly supportive of. But this whole rhetoric and belief that many leftists have latched themselves onto about the two major parties being the same is just infuriatingly dismissive of the reality of the situation we're all living in right now. It is a belief that is actively holding back leftists from achieving their goals, and I don't know how they do not see that. I am not going to sit here and tell you that there is one party of the major two that is a total good vs one that is a total bad. But to claim they're the same? That's a statement that can come only from privilege or denial. The Republican platform of 2024 is not a standard conservative opposition to whatever a Democrat supports. It is a platform that actively seeks to cause people harm. It is a platform that seeks to destroy the lives of queer people, of trans people, of women, of people of color, of immigrants, of the sick, and of the poor. It is a platform that is designed to cater to one specific type of person and their deep, festering desire to see anyone who is different from that either suffer or disappear. Saying so invites a barrage of comments saying that it's nothing but a fear tactic to say so. It isn't. That is the platform that they have laid out. Those are the issues and promises they are campaigning on. Those desires were not made up by Democrats who seek to turn Republicans into a boogeyman, they are beliefs and intentions that have come directly from the mouths of the leaders of the Republican party. It seems, truly, that there are a lot of leftists that feel they can survive a second Trump administration and I have to ask myself is it because they're not afraid of his policy or because they don't stand to suffer for it. A great many of us do have to be afraid of he and his party's policy. A lot of us can and will be hurt by it. I've gone into great detail about my own story, the perils that face myself and my loved ones should the Republicans gain control of anything again, and yet I'm still called stupid or blind or deranged for supporting a Democrat candidate simply because they don't carry views and hold a platform that actively wants to cause me and my loved ones suffering. Not from you specifically, thankfully. But it is very disappointing to see you carry that tone with others. I know you are very passionate about your views, like all leftists very admirably are. It is one of the greatest qualities of a leftist. Their unwavering commitment to their views and beliefs is impressive and sometimes even inspiring. But unfortunately, there are times when that commitment to those beliefs leads to a conversation where no alternate view is acceptable. If we don't feel or think the same way, don't feel or think that both parties are the same and engage in politics with that in mind, then we're talked to like we're unworthy of even being engaged with. There are people in this country who are in an incredibly vulnerable position, and it frankly seems like the longer this election cycle goes on, the less and less those people matter to some leftists. It's been an incredibly troubling development to watch unfold. Why do those people not matter? Why does the very real threat that the Republicans pose to them not matter? I've asked before in different terms but I would like to ask again in more explicit terms because it just doesn't make sense to me: do you want Donald Trump to win or to lose? We know a third party candidate isn't going to win. It's going to be Trump or Harris. No one else. So which of those two is your preference? Not which will you vote for because I know neither, but which is the preference? I have tried to gain a clearer understanding of your goals and what motivates the stances you take because from your posts, especially recently, a picture is being painted of someone that I don't believe you really are. And I would very much like to have your exact views on this election specifically clear, because they grow more unclear to me the longer this goes on. Edited September 9 by Mr. Mendes 3 1
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 2 minutes ago, Mr. Mendes said: And I have to say, I'm incredibly disappointed to see you talking this way. There is no imaginable universe the Green Party is going to tweet out: "We have been kicked off the Nevada ballot by the Democratic Party. Please vote for us by write-in, but if you don't, the party who kicked us off the ballot are still a great choice." Before we can get into anything else, we need to first establish - you earnestly are expecting a party who spent weeks gathering 29,000 signatures from Nevada supporters for ballot access to then endorse the political party who sued to get them off the ballot and steal the ability to vote away from those 29,000 people.. ?
Blade Posted September 9 Posted September 9 I think horseshoe theory is not only unhelpful as it only acts as a lame gotcha! that blue MAGA uses but it's also not based in reality. The majority of leftists would never vote for Trump. HOWEVER the minority of leftists that DO make that turn are losers with no morals. So it's not shocking that Jill Stein's corrupt ass is supporting Green voters voting for anything but Dems even if it means a vote...for Trump 2
Mr. Mendes Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Communion said: There is no imaginable universe the Green Party is going to tweet out: "We have been kicked off the Nevada ballot by the Democratic Party. Please vote for us by write-in, but if you don't, the party who kicked us off the ballot are still a great choice." Before we can get into anything else, we need to first establish - you earnestly are expecting a party who spent weeks gathering 29,000 signatures from Nevada supporters for ballot access to then endorse the political party who sued to get them off the ballot and steal the ability to vote away from those 29,000 people.. ? No, I do not. My statement is not about the Jill Stein liking a comment, my statement was about the "the two parties are the same" rhetoric that got introduced in your response. I don't expect the Greens to do any sort of endorsing of the Democrats. Nor would i have expected them to even tread near a comment that includes "vote for Republicans" even if there's a small "or Greens" tacked on. They, unlike the candidate they've for some reason chosen to represent them, have enough tact and skill to not do that. They as a party are mostly rather intelligent. Jill Stein (or her team), liking a comment like that is not to me on the Green Party, it's on her and her piss poor way of attempting to demonstrate what that party is actually representative of. So no, I do not. And that isn't what I want to have a conversation about either. The conversation I want to have the same conversation I've been trying to have for some time now, but have not yet been allowed to. Edited September 9 by Mr. Mendes
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 7 minutes ago, Communion said: There is no imaginable universe the Green Party is going to tweet out: "We have been kicked off the Nevada ballot by the Democratic Party. Please vote for us by write-in, but if you don't, the party who kicked us off the ballot are still a great choice." I can't speak to whatever weird conversations might be happening on Twitter, but at least in this thread, I don't see anyone who's expecting the Green Party to do this or chastising them for not doing it? The criticism against Stein in this latest conversation stemmed from her liking a comment that explicitly stated that voting for Trump is preferable to voting for Harris. Actively encouraging people to vote for Trump is very different than simply remaining silent and not endorsing a party you don't support. Now people are free to have their range of opinions on whether or not Stein liking some social media post is malicious vs. just a careless mistake, but I at least hope we're all in agreement that the Green Party shouldn't intentionally be supporting messaging that endorses actively voting for Trump as a way to "stick it to the Dems." 1
Blade Posted September 9 Posted September 9 4 minutes ago, shelven said: I can't speak to whatever weird conversations might be happening on Twitter, but at least in this thread, I don't see anyone who's expecting the Green Party to do this or chastising them for not doing it? The criticism against Stein in this latest conversation stemmed from her liking a comment that explicitly stated that voting for Trump is preferable to voting for Harris. Actively encouraging people to vote for Trump is very different than simply remaining silent and not endorsing a party you don't support. Now people are free to have their range of opinions on whether or not Stein liking some social media post is malicious vs. just a careless mistake, but I at least hope we're all in agreement that the Green Party shouldn't intentionally be supporting messaging that endorses actively voting for Trump as a way to "stick it to the Dems." Agreed. I still cringe when I see "voting 3rd party is a vote for Trump" because it's not. It's a vote for a 3rd party. But when a 3rd party candidate endorses voting for Trump if that party is not an option on the ballot...well that quite literally IS a vote for Trump. It's indefensible. Someone that promotes that is not a leftist. A leftist is better off not voting or voting downballot than voting Green if that's the message being sent from the top of the Green ticket. 2
Armani? Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020. Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 4 minutes ago, shelven said: that explicitly stated that voting for Trump is preferable to voting for Harris Except this is not what the comment in question said: 1 hour ago, Communion said: "or vote for the Green Party" Again, one can only be mad at her liking the comment in question if they think the Green Party owes it to be supportive of Democrats or argue in Democrats' favor over Republicans. Taking in praise from right-wing independents (specifically in response to Democrats kicking parties off of ballots) that Democrats suck and that the commentator in question is either voting for Republicans or Greens =/= endorsing the idea that Republicans are a viable option. So again... what solidarity does the Green Party owe to work in coalition and collaboration with the Democratic Party that does not want them to exist? Why would they not utilize disaffected independents who think both Democrats and Republicans suck and that the Green Party is the only viable progressive choice? The post with the multiple anti-Dem comments she liked are - again - on the news that Dems kicked them off the ballot in Nevada.
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 6 minutes ago, Armani? said: Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020. Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump Yeah I noticed this too, but I also noticed the totals don't add up to 100%. Not sure what's going on there because their 2020 exit poll does add up to 100% on that question, and only 4% of respondents in this poll either refused to disclose their race or answered "more than one", yet the weighing on this question adds up to 90%. Not sure if it's a typo in the weighing section or if I'm just missing something in the methodology Doesn't really change much overall though. It would maybe just move the poll back to a tie instead of a Trump +1, but people would still be melting down over that
Sannie Posted September 9 Posted September 9 22 minutes ago, Armani? said: Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020. Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump Their methodology is "we have a vested interest in portraying this race as a tossup so more people view our websites". They're giving Nate Silver with this BS. ---- YES. YES. YES. A POLICY PAGE, AND A GOOD ONE AT THAT. The biggest thing Trump could've brought up at the debate, now donzo.
shelven Posted September 9 Posted September 9 1 minute ago, Communion said: Except this is not what the comment in question said: Again, one can only be mad at her liking the comment in question if they think the Green Party owes it to be supportive of Democrats or argue in Democrats' favor over Republicans. Taking in praise from right-wing independents (specifically in response to Democrats kicking parties off of ballots) that Democrats suck and that the commentator in question is either voting for Republicans or Greens =/= endorsing the idea that Republicans are a viable option. So again... what solidarity does the Green Party owe to work in coalition and collaboration with the Democratic Party that does not want them to exist? Why would they not utilize disaffected independents who think both Democrats and Republicans suck and that the Green Party is the only viable progressive choice? The post with the multiple anti-Dem comments she liked are - again - on the news that Dems kicked them off the ballot in Nevada. You're again responding to a version of the comment that is simply not what the comment actually says. The comment very clearly states that the Dems need to be stopped and the reader should do one of two things, with option #1 being "vote for Trump" and option #2 being "vote Green." The objective logic of that comment is that the commenter thinks that either option is preferable to voting for Harris. Again, I'm not particularly interested in debating whether Stein liked the comment with full knowledge of that message or if she read it quickly and liked it despite that message. But... that is the message. Factually. It's the objective logic of how the comment is written. So either Stein didn't read the comment properly, just quickly saw Green Party support in it and liked it as a result (in which case she was careless and should fix that habit if she wants to be considered a serious third-party leader), or she properly understood the objective logic of the full comment and liked it anyways (in which case I would argue she is actively harmful and malicious). Either way, defending her liking the comment is an odd stance that I frankly can't understand someone who has always claimed to not want to see Trump elected taking. Once again, nobody (in this thread at least) is expecting the Green Party to show the Dems solidarity or to work with them, but we all should expect them to not go around endorsing people who say that either voting Green or voting Republican is an appropriate action to "stop the Dems." 5
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Mr. Mendes said: No, I do not. My statement is not about the Jill Stein liking a comment, my statement was about the "the two parties are the same" rhetoric that got introduced in your response. Why would someone who just spent weeks gathering 29,000 signatures not easily stumble into this mindset after experiencing Democrats kicking their party off the ballot? This is - again - evidence that left-punching doesn't actually do what Democratic partisans hope it does. Harris is showing to be much weaker in Nevada than Biden. Clinton only won the state by 27,200 votes. What motivation do the now 29,000 supporters of Jill Stein have to support Democrats now that the party came out against their right to vote for the party of their choice? Of course Democratic partisans are going to have intensely negative, polarized reactions to a Green Party explicitly saying they feel no responsibility in helping Democrats beat Republicans. It comes down to people who fundamentally believe in the Democratic Party not grasping the idea that people to their left can and do fully hate their party as much as Republicans and the misguided idea that somehow not constantly defending Democrats as a better choice than Republicans =/= an endorsement of Republicans. *I* wince and get an inherent knee-jerk sense to argue *some* Democrats are still better than Republicans when in a space where Republicans are being praised but because I am an idiot and still have a sense of belief in Democrats as a partisan voter for them for now years despite seeing no return on investment from them and actively having my views and support be framed as unhelpful and unwanted by the party. This just has no room to be a serious conversation because people who feel a sense of duty to see Democrats win are never going to be able to reconcile with the reality that.. some people simply do not feel the same duty! And it'd be much easier to have sympathies for those with hesitation to that view (that it's whatever if Dems lose) if we were also not discussing Democrats deciding democracy isn't actually important. Edited September 9 by Communion
Sannie Posted September 9 Posted September 9 Kamala: 19 policies on her Issues page. Trump: 15 policies on his Issues page. MSM Headlines: Harris Confuses the Public With Her Extensive Policy Page. 1 7
Communion Posted September 9 Posted September 9 9 minutes ago, shelven said: The comment very clearly states that the Dems need to be stopped and the reader should do one of two things, with option #1 being "vote for Trump" and option #2 being "vote Green." The objective logic of that comment is that the commenter thinks that either option is preferable to voting for Harris. Yes, and it's not the Green Party's responsibility to shore away right-wing independents from this mindset in favor of Dems instead of just thanking them for the support.
clee95 Posted September 9 Posted September 9 How is this election this close? America is truly stupid....I cant. 1
byzantium Posted September 9 Posted September 9 33 minutes ago, Armani? said: Idk if you guys have noticed but the Siena poll has both the Black & Hispanic vote electorate at only 10% which would be less than 2020. Idk what their methodology is to explain decreasing both by a point or 2, but that shifts the vote to Trump Either way I feel like engaging in polling denialism is not really productive. Especially for national polls which do not matter because we don't have national elections. Based on 2016, and 2020, we need to assume trump will get 46-47% of the national vote and 46-49% in any particular swing state and that is exactly what the siena poll states.
Sannie Posted September 9 Posted September 9 1 minute ago, byzantium said: Either way I feel like engaging in polling denialism is not really productive. Especially for national polls which do not matter because we don't have national elections. Based on 2016, and 2020, we need to assume trump will get 46-47% of the national vote and 46-49% in any particular swing state and that is exactly what the siena poll states. Sure, it's counterproductive, but it's also important to point out weird inconsistencies like this. Polling is the only way to know what's going on so if there are polls trying to push a narrative, it's good to point it out.
Recommended Posts