Democrat or Republican?

[blackrobe]

On 1/12/2021 at 7:11 AM, TC1127 said:

I mean, this is literally an appeal to authority. “Cancel culture” as it’s often portrayed is misleading at best. Think of the people who were “canceled” 5 years ago. Find what they’re doing now. The overwhelming majority are still doing just fine and often are as popular as they once were. You can find examples like Kevin Spacey and Bill Cosby (both of whom honestly deserved it), but those are the exceptions. 

There's a truth here that I think bears teasing out and acknowledging. 

Actions, and speech can be an action, have consequences. Free speech doesn't mean freedom from critique of that speech. A lot of what people brand as "cancel culture" I see as simple accountability for the positions, and the actions, that people take. The consequences of these things are, in my opinion, very weak tea indeed. 

The fact that these kinds of forces function to help discuss and define cultural norms and let people know when they're butting up against them is somewhat comforting. If only that mechanism had been working for governmental and institutional norms over the last few years.

The ethical bankruptcy and bald-faced hypocrisy of the right and of the religious right in the US has been startling to observe. One thing I could not get past was how many people felt they needed to assert they were not racists for voting for the Republican Presidential contender in 2016. What I took away from that was that, while they may not have been racists demagogs themselves, they decided that the candidate's transparently racist views and policies weren't a deal breaker for them. 

It was then that I decided that there really was an "unfuckable" category of men. I decided I wasn't rewarding crypto-racist fascists with access to my cunt. 

[Guest]

Progressive.

[Fuzzypup]

Neither. Politicians, regardless of party or position, lie. Their morals are bought and sold by the highest bidder, not by the people they control. And honestly, I'm tired of people that have never met me thinking that they know the best way that I should live my life. 

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, Fuzzypup said:

Neither. Politicians, regardless of party or position, lie. Their morals are bought and sold by the highest bidder, not by the people they control. And honestly, I'm tired of people that have never met me thinking that they know the best way that I should live my life. 

 This "bothsidesism" is the stupidest take on politics I've seen and I've been a diligent observer of the political process for 40+ years.

Of course both sides have politicians who lie. That isn't the fucking point. Anyone who thinks there is any political figure who has the perfect nature attributed to JFC is, well, naive as can be and probably shouldn't be allowed to go out in public without an escort. 

What matters is which party's candidates come closer to what you believe in, among the *actually electable* candidates on the ballot for a given race. Anyone who votes for someone other than the candidate who comes closer to his views isn't voting; he's doing political masturbation disguised as performance art.

[Fuzzypup]

8 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

 This "bothsidesism" is the stupidest take on politics I've seen and I've been a diligent observer of the political process for 40+ years.

Of course both sides have politicians who lie. That isn't the fucking point. Anyone who thinks there is any political figure who has the perfect nature attributed to JFC is, well, naive as can be and probably shouldn't be allowed to go out in public without an escort. 

What matters is which party's candidates come closer to what you believe in, among the *actually electable* candidates on the ballot for a given race. Anyone who votes for someone other than the candidate who comes closer to his views isn't voting; he's doing political masturbation disguised as performance art.

Alright. Then what would your option be if out of the only main two political parties, neither came anywhere close to representing what I feel aligned to? If a look into either parties history is fraught with lies, deceit, and flat out wavering on everything, where would one go? If time after time people vote whoever played the part better just to get elected, followed by having that politician, regardless of party, falter and fail on doing anything to further the goals they set out in their run up to office? Should we as the people just stop caring? Since no one in politics can hold to anything they've said they would? Should we become completely apathetic about who is holding a position, as long as they run under our "preferred party"? I'm at a loss of what to do in any sense of political or governmental step, because it always falls short of the bare minimum of what's expected.

[BootmanLA]

Just now, Fuzzypup said:

Alright. Then what would your option be if out of the only main two political parties, neither came anywhere close to representing what I feel aligned to? If a look into either parties history is fraught with lies, deceit, and flat out wavering on everything, where would one go? If time after time people vote whoever played the part better just to get elected, followed by having that politician, regardless of party, falter and fail on doing anything to further the goals they set out in their run up to office? Should we as the people just stop caring? Since no one in politics can hold to anything they've said they would? Should we become completely apathetic about who is holding a position, as long as they run under our "preferred party"? I'm at a loss of what to do in any sense of political or governmental step, because it always falls short of the bare minimum of what's expected.

I'll try to make what I said in plain English clearer: it's a question of which of the two parties is *closer* to what you feel aligned to.

I understand that if you're a neo-Nazi even the modern Republican Party isn't authoritarian enough for you, and if you're a radical anarchist who believes no one should own property of any sort whatsoever, the Democratic Party will seem repressively conservative. But even so, one of the two parties would still be *closer* to what you believe than the other, because there are undeniable massive differences between what the two parties support - down to the point now where Republicans don't even believe in small-d democracy if it means the people elect leaders that the GOP doesn't approve of (hence their moves across the nation to gerrymander, to restrict voting rights, to reduce voter eligibility and opportunity, etc.).

It's frankly bullshit to say that both parties are "fraught with lies deceit and flat out wavering on everything". Yes, it's true that sometimes candidates make pledges they're unable to fulfill. That's the nature of politics in a closely divided country. The Republicans were unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 despite having broadly campaigned on that precise issue in 2016, because a handful of members of their very slight majority in the Senate wouldn't go along with it. Does that mean the Republicans should have abandoned the fight to the Democrats because it failed to deliver this key item - even though the GOP DID deliver the huge tax cuts that they also campaigned on, and the buttload of radical right-wing judges that they also promised?

Conversely: the Democrats got a bare majority (for tied questions) in the Senate this round, meaning that not only do all the members have to stick together to vote to pass something (with the VP breaking a tie), but it can only happen on bills that affect the federal budget (because of the exception to the filibuster) or when at least 10 Republicans join them trying to pass a bill. Does that mean Democrats should abandon the playing field to the Republicans, even though they delivered on the COVID package?

I don't know, frankly, what you consider the "bare minimum", but it sounds like you want there to be a magic fairy wand that, once a party has the slightest majority, it can wave said wand and make anything and everything their supporters want to happen, happen. It doesn't work like that. Politics is long, hard work, with incremental progress offset at times by significant backsliding. The way to guarantee you never will get what you want is to refuse to compete at all - either by not voting or by cosplaying a voter by throwing away your vote on a candidate who cannot win.

[Fuzzypup]

On 3/19/2021 at 4:55 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'll try to make what I said in plain English clearer: it's a question of which of the two parties is *closer* to what you feel aligned to.

I understand that if you're a neo-Nazi even the modern Republican Party isn't authoritarian enough for you, and if you're a radical anarchist who believes no one should own property of any sort whatsoever, the Democratic Party will seem repressively conservative. But even so, one of the two parties would still be *closer* to what you believe than the other, because there are undeniable massive differences between what the two parties support - down to the point now where Republicans don't even believe in small-d democracy if it means the people elect leaders that the GOP doesn't approve of (hence their moves across the nation to gerrymander, to restrict voting rights, to reduce voter eligibility and opportunity, etc.).

It's frankly bullshit to say that both parties are "fraught with lies deceit and flat out wavering on everything". Yes, it's true that sometimes candidates make pledges they're unable to fulfill. That's the nature of politics in a closely divided country. The Republicans were unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017 despite having broadly campaigned on that precise issue in 2016, because a handful of members of their very slight majority in the Senate wouldn't go along with it. Does that mean the Republicans should have abandoned the fight to the Democrats because it failed to deliver this key item - even though the GOP DID deliver the huge tax cuts that they also campaigned on, and the buttload of radical right-wing judges that they also promised?

Conversely: the Democrats got a bare majority (for tied questions) in the Senate this round, meaning that not only do all the members have to stick together to vote to pass something (with the VP breaking a tie), but it can only happen on bills that affect the federal budget (because of the exception to the filibuster) or when at least 10 Republicans join them trying to pass a bill. Does that mean Democrats should abandon the playing field to the Republicans, even though they delivered on the COVID package?

I don't know, frankly, what you consider the "bare minimum", but it sounds like you want there to be a magic fairy wand that, once a party has the slightest majority, it can wave said wand and make anything and everything their supporters want to happen, happen. It doesn't work like that. Politics is long, hard work, with incremental progress offset at times by significant backsliding. The way to guarantee you never will get what you want is to refuse to compete at all - either by not voting or by cosplaying a voter by throwing away your vote on a candidate who cannot win.

Sorry, been away a few days. You make a lot of fine points, and you obviously have years over me being so involved in this level of political dissonance, so I'm going to respectfully bow out. Have a good one. 

[drscorpio]

On 3/19/2021 at 3:41 PM, Fuzzypup said:

Alright. Then what would your option be if out of the only main two political parties, neither came anywhere close to representing what I feel aligned to? If a look into either parties history is fraught with lies, deceit, and flat out wavering on everything, where would one go? 

I would say make sure you support efforts to abolish the Electoral College. It is probably the biggest thing that shores up the Two-Party system in the USA. 

[7bb86]

From a LGBT point of view Democrat, from a sleazy secret behind the facade naughty role play bit of fun Republican all the way. Reps deffo have more secrets in the closet. 😈

[PendragonSpirit]

If we're just talking taking the load? Probably a Republican. I feel like they're more sexually repressed outwardly, so in a situation where they could really cut loose? It'd probably be wild, raunchy, and hot.

They'd hate themselves after, but that's more of a "them" problem.

[408curious]

On 3/19/2021 at 1:27 PM, BootmanLA said:

 This "bothsidesism" is the stupidest take on politics I've seen and I've been a diligent observer of the political process for 40+ years.

Of course both sides have politicians who lie. That isn't the fucking point. Anyone who thinks there is any political figure who has the perfect nature attributed to JFC is, well, naive as can be and probably shouldn't be allowed to go out in public without an escort. 

What matters is which party's candidates come closer to what you believe in, among the *actually electable* candidates on the ballot for a given race. Anyone who votes for someone other than the candidate who comes closer to his views isn't voting; he's doing political masturbation disguised as performance art.

Someone said once: 

"It's the Democrats' job to tell us life isn't fair.  It's the Republicans' job to make sure it's not fair."

[hntnhole]

On 3/27/2021 at 12:36 AM, 7bb86 said:

From a LGBT point of view Democrat, from a sleazy secret behind the facade naughty role play bit of fun Republican all the way. Reps deffo have more secrets in the closet. 😈

Like a certain Rep from Ohio, maybe ???  Diddler of the wrestling team ???  Biggest loudmouth, liar, humanoid in the House ???

[chargedodger]

offered such a choice makes one believe celibacy is the best option.Everything achieved in battle  by dedicated soldiers in uniform gets pissed away by politicians in suits.

[hntnhole]

Lifelong Liberal Democrat.  I've been politically active since my teens, I have never missed an election (even when I was traveling constantly, building a business, living out of suitcases), and I have never voted for a Conservative - ever.

If any of you think that the Republikans will leave us alone, think again.  Once they're finished re-establishing their depraved sense of White Privilege, they'll come for us.  They've probably read this before you did. 

Political Conservativism is merely anachronistic terminology for belief in White Privilege.  These people are interested only in preserving their position of privilege in this Nation, and will do anything to defend it.  Consider for a moment:  it was a collection of Caucasian landowners who imported human beings from another Continent, which people looked different from Caucasians. This would be in important distinction, since the importees were destined for slavery in the fields of our Great Hallowed Forefathers.  Washington, Jefferson*, other signers of the Declaration of Independence were men who actually owned other human beings, grew rich off the blood, sweat and tears of their "property", and this long before there was a United States of America.  The depravity of White Privilege,  (whether actively taught( mostly in states of the former Confederacy) or merely absorbed via passive handing down of cultural attitudes), has soaked into the very dirt beneath our feet, from rising sea to polluted, shining sea.  It is this filth that the former president - hardly intelligent, but still somewhat clever - managed to tap into, prying up the rocks under which these hatemongers have lived, feeding their disappointments in the false, so-called Lost Cause.  People who have sqatted upon the top of the heap, whether they live in mansions or in dirt-floored trailers, will do anything to maintain their assumed position of privilege.  These people attend "churches" that do not reflect they profess, they belong to "social" organizations that may or may not permit a token non-white member or two. These people are so deeply infused with cultural hatreds they cannot see any possible way but to fight with everything they have to maintain their fading position of privilege.  

If the cause of Justice, Equal Rights for All, basic human decency, or preserving our Republic doesn't appeal to you, then maybe a sense of self-preservation will.  If the WP crowd prevails, what would make them hesitate for one eye-blink about coming after you?  Us?  Every one of us?  Those of us that are Caucasian will be special targets, since we look like them - we are them.  We hear a very different drummer than they do, but we're physically invisible to them.  We Caucasians, devoted to breeding each other, steeping ourselves in ever deepening and thrilling pig-pens are all the more worthy of expungement by these WP folks.  Does anyone actually believe that states with conservative" state governments will stop the repressions, once they've stifled women's reproductive rights?  Abortion is almost nothing, compared to what we do.  

Since I'm about it - you simply must register and vote, in every local, state, and national election  - if not for any higher purpose, then only to preserve your own freedom / way of life.  

*ask the descendants of Sally Hemmings, who are with us to this day.

[Usemyholes]

Very liberal Democrat here but I’d scream Trump 2024 if my republican top told me that was the only way he’d give me his full blown poz load.