You already said that on page 53. Give it more time.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
I tried telling people that, the truth is in any political forum where there is a vocal minority, there will always be toxicity. Ive just joined Smogon, but I've spent a lot of time reading through the lore and posts. Ive noticed that the only thing keeping Cong alive is the friction between a bunch of well-educated liberals (Myzozoa and tcr ) engaging in constant battle with 3-4 stubborn conservatives. Its a constant battle of two factions, each 100% certain they are correct. Its an eternal cycle that keeps both sides coming back for more. Its batman and joker. The fox and the hound. US Policemen and unarmed black teenagers. Its passionate and exciting.
Look at the Christopher Columbus thread. kilometerman is a closet racist fool who doesn't want change. Look at the thread about Gun Control. And look at the result? Its entertaining to watch him directly insult chaos, call Shrug a "sassy black girl" and subsequently get banned. This is the natural chemistry that binds Cong together, whether we all realize it or not.
So enjoy it. Appreciate the circle of life. As it stands there are really only two outspoken conservatives left who frequent Cong: Dece1t and Deck Knight
And like it or not we would turn into r/politics without them.
Tl;Dr as long as any form of political discussion is allowed cong will always devolve into a flame war but thats good because it's not unique to cong, this applies to any forum and it's fun to watch and keeps everyone engaged
Anyways.
I would like to politely disagree. While most forums that are politically oriented and allow all POV do end up becoming a flame war, I have experienced several cases where it does not spiral into this madness, despite a wide range of opinions (from anarcho-communist all the way to conservative). If I had to guess why, it would be because everyone involved agreed to chill down and didn't want to start a flame war, and thus acted appropriately. I just want to keep this civil, if possible.
You gotta remember that Smogon is primarily a website about the competitive gameplay of Pokemon. So assume that almost every single user on the site:
- Has a near-encyclopediac knowledge about the semi-hidden mechanics of a video game marketed towards children
- Cares enough about said game enough to seek out an online community of like minded people.
- Wander on a subsection of said website that has to do with general discussion and not Pokemon.
I can guarantee you that almost every single active user, from the regular users to the admins, is under the age of 30. For example, I'm 17. I didn't check your profile but I can guarantee youre probably under 30.
Now of course it would be silly to assume that age makes your opinion count more in politics, but it does lead to a bunch of young adults, a lot of them not even American, openly liberal and quite frustrated at our current state of politics. Coupling this with the fact that many of the conservatives so far in Cong seem like trolls, this leads to a toxic environment which is impossible to truly fix without sudden, strictly enforced rules.
Another tl;Dr because of the modus operandi of Smogon the demographic of people in Cong will naturally be frustrated at each other
pulsarb u made a post in the lgbtq thread to complain abt other ppl posting lgbtq history so forgive all of us for not taking you seriously when you come into yet another thread with a content-less post about how you feel like other ppl are doing it wrong. if other forums have it so figured out go discuss things there.
idk when the trump presidency is gonna end but by the time it does I'm gonna be living in the forest making medicine out of pine needles and the rest of you would be so lucky to share that fate. I think we'll get an election this year cause he has the advantage there so no need to risk a power grab, but wait for 2024, then we'll see the emergency suspension of electoral politics we've come to expect.
idk when the trump presidency is gonna end but by the time it does I'm gonna be living in the forest making medicine out of pine needles and the rest of you would be so lucky to share that fate. I think we'll get an election this year cause he has the advantage there so no need to risk a power grab, but wait for 2024, then we'll see the emergency suspension of electoral politics we've come to expect.
Completing the Bernie ticket now that Warren is out of the question is a bit of a predicament. For the record I’m for someone like Pramila Jayapal or Barbara Lee.
If AOC were old enough I’d go with her— the star power and absolute clarity, youth and alignment with Bernie is ideal. But she’s not 35... Looking at the squad this takes us to Ilhan Omar, but I think she has much of the same weaknesses as the candidate that is so obvious and comes up so often...
Tulsi Gabbard, and the weakness shared with Ilhan is very poor favorability with Democrats. I’m actually really torn on whether Gabbard is a good pick— despite being a former Gabbard donor and voter in Hawaii. We can acknowledge her strengths—she’s a fighter who clarifies the anti-establishment stance, takes strong principled stances, and appeals to independents and Republicans along with firing up the base (the portion of progressives and non-elite voters who like her). Gabbard also, for all her bad takes, does have good takes that many progressives wish Bernie would move to-- legalizing ALL drugs, forgiving all whistleblowers, siding with journalists by name, etc. And her consistent SOLIDARITY with Bernie in political fights from 2016 up through now-- there's just no question that on a personal level, she's better than Warren. Trump's team will have a field day highlighting the which-is-a-liar skirmish; Tulsi and Bernie have a unified front.
It really took me by surprise that Kyle Kulinski, who has been diligently objective, critical, and even-handed between Tulsi/Yang/Warren went on The Hill to call for Tulsi to be Bernie's VP and named her as his 2nd pick. 3rd Yang, 4th Warren-- with the explanation that while Warren might be closer to his ideal on policy, he doesn't believe in her convictions, where at least with Yang you can expect greater commitment to pieces of his platform.
So that all I get and agree with. Just like Kyle, I've once again come to like Tulsi a lot more as of late... Distantly, but she is my #2 again. But then we get to favorability.
Tulsi is the only Presidential candidate to consistently have NEGATIVE favorability, and in some polls REALLY BAD favorability (like - double digits). There are lots on the left criticizing Bernie for being too congenial, for not just calling Biden a corrupt warhawk to his face-- but there's a reason why Bernie's favorability numbers are sky high and he's again been found by Morning Consol to be #1 most popular Senator. The left/liberal base just acts differently, has a different response to conflict than the conservative base. You can't just be the Trump of the left and call Biden "low energy" to win in a Dem primary imo.
I do think that for all the "Blue no matter who" posturing, if Tulsi Gabbard is Bernie's VP pick, you WILL see some liberal vote depression and tons of wine moms and party faithful putting up blank ballots in the general or just not going. That is where Warren's strength as a VP pick electorally would have been very good.
If you can assume that Democrats will vote Democrat no matter what, Tulsi is strategically the best pick imo. Fire brand, huge profile, popular with Trump votes and independents of diverse stripes-- but will they pick VP Tulsi over Trump? BIG question mark there. Will the Dem Party faithful/moderates vote for a Bernie/Tulsi ticket? That's actually a big question mark given her favorability.
While I think a Tulsi endorsement would be great
Last edited:
I used to be under 30, lol.
I would say though to not discount everyman type people from being interested in Pokemon. One of the Transportation Supers where I worked has kids and got into Pokemon Go, and a lot of blue collar people grew up on video games, and Pokemon was one of them of that era. You'd be surprised how many 40 year olds have a passing familiarity with Pokemon because they were in their late teens/early 20s when it came out.
Anyway, not my party, not my thread. Popcorn season has arrived now that there can be only one victor. Not surprised at who started the mud throwing. Very thankful that not even 2020 woke Democrats are going to nominate someone who is going to give Massachusetts an even worse national reputation than Dukakis and Kerry gifted us. There is a God, and he is merciful.
What I've learned from this is that conservatives definitely hate woke culture more than socialism. lol
The number of conservative articles/content that was Bernie > Warren was pretty amazing.
this isn't a surprise at all to anyone who's ever actually listened to a conservative... which i guess excludes most of this thread lol
ffs one of Trump's big campaign promises was a reinvestment in american infrastructure, a la the TVA, while hillary ran on continuing current economic policy. The main party divide of late has always been cultural.
Since the southern strategy and the politicization of evangelism the Republican Party has always been motivated by white Christian identity politics. It’s literally the least surprising thing of all time.
The southern strategy has been debunked. Multiple times over. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy Honestly it's so wierd that y'all are the only ones that hear these dog whistles. Pretty strange huh?
The only racists I see is the ones who won't condemn their anti-semetic representative.
Opinion piece by (convicted felon and right wing hack) Dinesh D’Souza
lol, aight
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
“In 2005, Republican National Committeechairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.”
if it’s not real why are they apologizing for it?
lol, aight
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
“In 2005, Republican National Committeechairman Ken Mehlman formally apologized to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a national civil rights organization, for exploiting racial polarization to win elections and ignoring the black vote.”
if it’s not real why are they apologizing for it?
just saying equating criticism of israeli policies (especially in the context of discussing the complex geopolitical situation) to antisemitism is no different than liberals saying criticism of george soros is anti-semitic. It is also no different than saying that siding with israel over palestine is anti-islamic, or really siding against any of those ME nations. It is equally possible that both sides are a complex misinformation machine and that taking one side or the other is simply a viewpoint, not rooted in any hate or prejudice
just so I've got you straight;
refusal to unreservedly support israel's governmental corruption and saber-rattling - anti-semetic
chanting 'jews will not replace us' - totally kosher, right
to me I think conservatives have nothing against woke culture (look at the young conservative movement) beyond it providing them with another talking point they can sneer at and reflect on the good old 1850s sorry 1950s when all members of american society knew their place and didn't buck the status quo. although I disagree that the divide between parties has only been cultural, certainly clinton and obama were significantly left of their republican competitors (although that doesn't say much considering how far right reagan drove the party), and the resurgence of the democrats' progressive wing has definitely made an impact on american politics. not quite certain whether that'll turn to electoral success yet but there's clearly something there.
Steve King was condemned, completely across the board. I'm well aware of that, and I think he's equally as disgusting in my opinion. I do not like any racists, period. I don't care what party they are.
And tweeting Jews are hypnotizing the world and the Benginans are legitimate criticism of Israeli policy? I'm with you until that point, I agree it's one thing to criticize just policy, but that is not what Omar has done, hence why she is rightfully concieved as an anti-semite. This is why the Omar issue is not the same as the Steve King issue.
Are you going to read the article and the facts being stated or are you gonna keep bitching about how he broke campaign finance laws and got the maximum possible sentencing because Obama didn't like the movies he made about him? There's a reason why he was pardoned. You're doing a great job copy/pasting TYT talking points though.
But to answer your last question, that does not change the facts in front of you. I find it quite hypocritical since Dems were the party of Jim Crowe most recently (and on that token by-in-large opposing the Civil Rights act compared to the close to 90% Republican support) and Slavery further back, and y'all are still today the ones focusing on racial differences between us instead of seeing everyone plainly as Americans. It's clear Republicans were not reaching out to Dixiecrats, every single Dixiecrat bar one stayed racist old Democrats until the day they died, until that generation died off. And once again, y'all have yet to point out what those dog whistles were that attracted these racist voters and politicians, you're plainly saying it happened, they apologized in 2005 as a means to attract black voters to vote Bush since he had next to none, and here it is. Explain that one Einstein.
Last edited:
Why do you think Bush (and other Republicans) have “next to no” black voters?
Because y'all practically pander for it. Y'all are the party of Welfare which is widely supported, and Reparations. Anything else, or are you actually going to answer my inquiries on the dog whistles you're referring to when you reference the Southern Strategy?
Edit: When you reference other Republicans, maybe you should remember Trump's current building of Black support as of late. That's a bit of a rash statement.
Last edited:
“Welfare queen” was a dog whistle explicitly mentioned in the southern strategy Wikipedia entry.
why do you think poc support candidates who support social security programs like welfare?
polling shows Trump to be about in line with other republican presidents among minorities ftr, unless you’ve seen polling I haven’t.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
we rehash this once a year, but linking to career anti-intellectuals like d'souza and repeating revisionist history over and over still won't make it true, everyone admits the southern strategy was real. just like critiquing israel's war crimes and human rights abuses isn't antisemitic, actual jewish person over here to set u straight.
ill admit that thehill.com is probably the most legit source ive ever seen deciet use tho cant argue w this user showing gradual improvement
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
we rehash this once a year, but linking to career anti-intellectuals like d'souza and repeating revisionist history over and over still won't make it true, everyone admits the southern strategy was real. just like critiquing israel's war crimes and human rights abuses isn't antisemitic, actual jewish person over here to set u straight.
ill admit that thehill.com is probably the most legit source ive ever seen deciet use tho cant argue w this user showing gradual improvement
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ers-trump-democrats-2020-daniel-henninger.amp
"This unlikely straw has been in the political winds recently because in three opinion polls—Emerson, Marist and Rasmussen—President Trump registered about 30% support among black voters."
Now, why POC by in large support welfare. Roughly 75% of Black families are fatherless, it's pretty difficult to live off of one paycheck, hence why the poverty rate is sadly much higher than anyone else in the American population. On a personal level I do not think that's the best answer because you're marrying people to the government and giving no real answers on how to get out of poverty, leaving people in a vicious cycle. I think as a culture we need to solve Black farherlessness.
So you agree that we should fix racial biases (and biases against poor people) in the justice system as well as end the war on drugs I presume? Also support comprehensive sex education and more easily available contraception (both have been tied to lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy rates). Obviously there has to be some way to address poverty regardless, especially since areas with high poverty rates also have higher crime rates, I’m not sure what you’d suggest instead of welfare, but I’m open to hear it. Good to know there’s some common ground.
no need to answer deceit i got u bro:
there is no connection between the incarceration of black ppl and black fatherlessness, really the best solution is to lock up all the black families together so they'll be sure to stay together, this shud please opponents of family seperation which btw was begun under obama
there is no connection between the incarceration of black ppl and black fatherlessness, really the best solution is to lock up all the black families together so they'll be sure to stay together, this shud please opponents of family seperation which btw was begun under obama
Depends on the situation on the first point, you're gonna have to go into specifics. Sex Education, yea I'm with you there believe it or not, although parents should have the right to opt their kids if they so desire, because it's their kids not the government. I've mentioned this before. I don't think the government should be the ones giving out the contraceptives either, but sure, you're life, buy contraceptives I'm not forcing anyone not to. I'm pretty libertarian there. As for solutions instead of welfare, lemme get back to you I'm out rn, but I'll gladly give you my take.
Stay on topic and also maybe don't suggest that other users die pls
All the people who think abortion should be legal, should of been aborted. There can be exceptions, only when the life of the mother is in danger, and can cause death, should only then abortion be an option.