Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39
Thanks Tree26Thanks

Thread: Progressives angry at getting "steam rolled" in New Jersey

  1. #11
    Thought Provocateur NightSwimmer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    36,059
    Thanks
    33447

    From
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    There is a test that is as enjoyable as talking about where they once stood and that is hearing where they stand now. I am pretty sure we will find that Democratic Candidate Mr. X will run on bland and more bland followed by the words "separate my personal belief...bla bla bla"

    Apply this to every candidate and this candidate is unlikely to be an exception. I'm just glad he is not running in my district.

    If he ran in your district, he'd probably get "steam rolled".
    Thanks from Minotaur

  2. #12
    Veteran Member Dr.Knuckles's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    99,618
    Thanks
    6812

    From
    Vancouver
    If the KKK makes a political party based on KKK beliefs then the KKK rep in NY should represent that party. They shouldn’t run a gay Jewish accountant because it will help them “win”. Then go out everywhere else saying how the party stands for KKK values.

    This concept is what, to me looking in, is tying Americans up into angry frustrated knots. The political parties are trying to “win”. By any means necessary.

    What they do once they’re in? Who cares. Not newsworthy. What’s important is winning the election. If a dried up piece of shit is running and you like his party? Then go out there and lie. Say how good he is. Sell your country down the rivier. It’s important to get that “win”.

    Politics isnt sports. You NEVER root for the home team. Never.

    Voters are supposed to be the judge. Not the fucking cheerleaders.
    Thanks from bajisima and boontito

  3. #13
    Human Bean KnotaFrayed's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    14,202
    Thanks
    11744

    From
    Here
    HRC was the favorite for the 2016 election.

    She won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, but lost the EC.....even if by a slim margin, when it came down to number of votes that affected the EC.

    Why did she lose?

    A lot of progressives refused to listen to their progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders, when he said if progressives think HRC is bad, Donald Trump was 100 times worse. He said he and they could work with HRC, but Trump would be more inclined to work against them.

    Who did they end up with?

    Progressives might actually see more progress if they go with candidates that mostly agree with them on most issues, rather than split votes and go with people who oppose them on most issues.

    There also may be a reason the candidate is the odds on favorite to win, that weigh heavier on some other things, than the two issues progressives are concerned with.

    I think it might be good to remember, if you don't like a few things about a candidate, but they mostly are aligned with your ideology, going with them is better than rejecting them, making it possible for the candidate that is mostly against your ideology, to win.

    My take is most Americans are looking for moderation, in order to make some progress and move forward to tackling more progressive issues, they want to deal with as much as progressives, but see resistance and push back on, meaning no progress is made and as we have seen, a President that has tried his best to remove any trace of any progress, modest or otherwise, that his predecessor made.

    In short, sometimes pushing too hard, ends up resulting in an equally hard resistance and push back, risking more defeat than by taking smaller steps, and being able to get things accomplished to achieve the same overall progress, it may take longer or it may take some trade-offs up front, to be able to get in the door and in a position to change things. If one's stances are strongly resisted by the opposition and they can't get elected as a result, they can't do anything to precipitate change on any progressive issues and they can't while in office where they can contribute to change, be moved to vote for progressive issues, such as gay marriage and gun control.

    In other words, you can't change anything in any direction if you can't be elected or get someone who mostly aligns with you, elected. If 50 people are for your opposition and 50 people have progressive ideologies, but are split evenly (50%/50% = 25 to 25) on whether they are moderates or radicals....all wanting mostly the same things, with some differences on approach and some issues, it means the opposition only needs 26 votes to win, not the 50. America has mostly always been split between two main ideologies. There are third and more parties, but their ideologies mostly align with one of the two main ideologies or they are so radical, they rarely if ever can muster enough of a majority to win larger scale elections. When a political ideology is split into sub-groups, it risks running against a unified opposition and not only losing something closer to their own ideology, but the whole enchilada and handing it to their opposition.
    Last edited by KnotaFrayed; 16th April 2018 at 01:28 PM.
    Thanks from NightSwimmer and Minotaur

  4. #14
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,712
    Thanks
    26088

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Minotaur View Post
    There is a test that is as enjoyable as talking about where they once stood and that is hearing where they stand now. I am pretty sure we will find that Democratic Candidate Mr. X will run on bland and more bland followed by the words "separate my personal belief...bla bla bla"

    Apply this to every candidate and this candidate is unlikely to be an exception. I'm just glad he is not running in my district.
    This kind of thing just bothers me since when I was a registered republican, this kind of thing happened and the GOP didnt care as long as they had an R next to their name. They could be the biggest racists, bigots on the face of the Earth but as long as they had that R all was good. Particularly in districts like this where Trump won by a lot. How long before the racists decide putting a D after their name and they get elected? Maybe Trump will see this and change his affiliation..lol

  5. #15
    Established Member
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    4,941
    Thanks
    1292

    From
    The cloud
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    I think the Democratic party can live with both a progressive wing and a conservative wing. Sure there will be infighting, but we are talking about politics, so it would be weird (and awfully Republican) if there were no infighting.
    Dear lord where have you been for the last several years, under a rock? It's hard to be that mis-informed.

  6. #16
    Chaos in fourteen lines Minotaur's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    20,244
    Thanks
    16337

    From
    USA
    Quote Originally Posted by NightSwimmer View Post
    If he ran in your district, he'd probably get "steam rolled".
    Never.

    lol

  7. #17
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,712
    Thanks
    26088

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles View Post
    If the KKK makes a political party based on KKK beliefs then the KKK rep in NY should represent that party. They shouldn’t run a gay Jewish accountant because it will help them “win”. Then go out everywhere else saying how the party stands for KKK values.

    This concept is what, to me looking in, is tying Americans up into angry frustrated knots. The political parties are trying to “win”. By any means necessary.

    What they do once they’re in? Who cares. Not newsworthy. What’s important is winning the election. If a dried up piece of shit is running and you like his party? Then go out there and lie. Say how good he is. Sell your country down the rivier. It’s important to get that “win”.

    Politics isnt sports. You NEVER root for the home team. Never.

    Voters are supposed to be the judge. Not the fucking cheerleaders.
    American politics has become a team sport with all the nastiness and hooligans like soccer. We deserve what we get stuck with.

  8. #18
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    18,415
    Thanks
    12535

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    I get that for the most part but I do think there are certain things that dont fly. Coming out against gay marriage could be one of them. It was used so much as a tool during Obama/Biden and again for dems in 2016 as it was asked that they were on board. I understand this particular district is heavily anti gay and anti immigrant but I dont know thats a good thing to elect someone on. Its just curious.
    It’s settled law, I don’t see legislators needing to address the issue again.Personally the man may be against gay marriage based on his personal views and religion but he may be able to separate his personal beliefs from his political duty. As long as he finds no need to advocate to change the law I have no problem with it, same goes for abortion. You are personally able to hold beliefs without having the burning desire to change the law to fit your personal views. I don’t believe in divorce unless in cases of physical or mental abuse but I’m not going to push for a change in divorce law to suit me.
    Last edited by Eve1; 16th April 2018 at 12:16 PM.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,712
    Thanks
    26088

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    It’s settled law, I don’t see legislators needing to address the issue again.
    So is abortion. Yet if you get enough who oppose it and are patient, it could change. Thats why this is problematic.

  10. #20
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    92,634
    Thanks
    69776

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by BitterPill View Post
    I think the Democratic party can live with both a progressive wing and a conservative wing. Sure there will be infighting, but we are talking about politics, so it would be weird (and awfully Republican) if there were no infighting.
    There was a time in this country's history when most major parties had both conservative and liberal wings. Ideology hasn't always been the dividing force it is today.
    Thanks from BitterPill

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26th October 2016, 04:16 AM
  2. Replies: 74
    Last Post: 3rd January 2016, 06:31 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 25th March 2014, 12:03 PM
  4. Replies: 128
    Last Post: 8th August 2012, 02:11 PM
  5. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 7th August 2012, 01:28 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed