-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
The Amazonian Rainforest
Banned deucer.
Nicholas Cage would've been a better Superman.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
For anyone who needs a refresher on how Iowa works (including new rules) and how it's currently expected to play out, here's a great rundown.
On that note, how does Cong feel about caucuses vs primaries? Should all caucuses switch to traditional primaries?
Last edited:
fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
Honestly, I don’t want to get into the fall in line in the general argument too much since it’s not the time for that. It’s time for fighting for your preferred primary candidate now. Or if you’re a trump fan, laughing at them I guess. Or whatever you guys do. Anyway, Bernie 2020!
All the primaries should be on the same day too, but that’s another conversation for another time.
I do feel like the remaining caucuses should switch to primaries. The nature of the caucus system encourages lower voter turnout which is exactly the opposite of what we want when even in general elections we have low voter turnout. I don’t know what the argument for keeping the caucuses would be besides tradition, which isn’t compelling imo.
All the primaries should be on the same day too, but that’s another conversation for another time.
“—and the entire prospect is that we trigger real change in this country. Whether we take over the Dems, or destroy the party splitting it in half, either way both are progressive steps forward for this country. Look, Bernie might stick to his word and endorse Bloomberg. He probably would. Bless him, but his time will then be over. We’ll love Bernie, he’ll be Moses— never makes if to the promised land but lead us to the precipice. But his time will be over, the Dem party becomes the wigs and all of US will keep moving forward.” —Chapo
Yup.
You need to provide evidence to support your claims, my guy. You can't sling heavy accusations---"Bernie didn't actually do shit"---with zero supplying of evidence on your end. Warren Gunnels is literally Sanders' senior policy adviser and has been a staffer of his for two decades; he's very much an authoritative source due to his intimate involvement with the candidate (the twitter thread has sources for his claims, as well, but obviously you're not going to bother with those). Even if we pretend we are talking about a Trump staffer instead of Gunnels, you still need to fight from an intellectually honest position lest you stoop to the level of those that don't deserve to be taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to to least offer analysis without sub-kiddy pool depth or cite your own credible source---spoilers, you yourself are not a credible source! Honestly, if anything, your credibility has sunken below the default thanks to how thoroughly you've carpet bombed this thread with some of the most inane bullshit I've seen in online discourse in awhile.
Here are some additional sources you will baselessly discount with the most batshit insane mental gymnastics online forums have ever seen (I'm not linking these for you; they're here in case others want to read them):
Here's an article about his legacy brimming with citations for each claim.
Here's a .gov page about what Sanders has done with direct links to voting lists that indicate Sanders' active participation in shaping US policy.
If you want to call bullshit, you need to cite an authoritative source that has analytical depth far beyond the insufferable drivel your fingers struggle to produce every time you open this thread. Maybe if you were Noam Chomsky or a similarly revered intellectual I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're not---you're an actual IQ blackhole that should have stopped posting awhile ago.
Finally, whatever milquetoast status quo defender you end up voting for doesn't change the fact that you've thrown your support behind the camp of candidates perfectly fine with allowing obscene injustices to continue---like how 40,000 US residents a year die due to lack of accessible healthcare. Everyone but Sanders and Gabbard have backed off of M4A, with Warren having switched from a outright proponent of M4A to adopting a convoluted plan of pushing for a public option, THEN introducing M4A legislation in her third year. Given that you are absolutely not voting for Sanders and that it would ideologically make zero sense for you to be a Gabbard supporter, you are absolutely an avid co-sponsor of having tens of thousands of people die annually due to healthcare inaccessibility. Own up to it, at least.
It's baffling to me how inconsistent the moderation of this forum is. I get that moderating this forum and topic are very difficult and I guess there aren't that many mods willing to touch a thread like this (I mean there's a mod who hasn't posted in this forum for almost a year now...) but it's just very confusing to me what exactly the line is for good conduct, almost like the mods themselves are not quite clear on what unacceptable conduct is (how can you tell people to stop bickering while editing people's posts to make fun of them...i mean i dont care lol but then lets not go and pretend we dont want people to "bicker").
Like I had a post deleted for "baiting" a user in a fairly contentious thread a time ago which was pretty soft but ok fair enough mods don't want a fight to break out! But then you have this thread and beyond a very vague and what looks to me like a fairly unenforced "no more bickering pls!!!" post, anything pretty much goes? it's ok to bait mikedawg and accuse him of "co-sponsoring tens of thousands of people's death" (lol.)? So which is it?
personally ive always felt that mods should be more strict on deleting off topic/troll/bad faith posts and what not but if people would rather have the thread self moderate, so be it. If people really want to obsess over every word mikedawg types and let him live rent free in their heads so be it. if dece1t wants to derail the thread with prageru and assorted junk that has nothing to do with the thread then let people respond appropriately (or we could just delete that but i suppose that sort of activity might be asking too much). making a half effort to moderate by telling people to "stop bickering!" does nothing except frustrate people. do one or the other.
thanks
-thread lurker
Like I had a post deleted for "baiting" a user in a fairly contentious thread a time ago which was pretty soft but ok fair enough mods don't want a fight to break out! But then you have this thread and beyond a very vague and what looks to me like a fairly unenforced "no more bickering pls!!!" post, anything pretty much goes? it's ok to bait mikedawg and accuse him of "co-sponsoring tens of thousands of people's death" (lol.)? So which is it?
personally ive always felt that mods should be more strict on deleting off topic/troll/bad faith posts and what not but if people would rather have the thread self moderate, so be it. If people really want to obsess over every word mikedawg types and let him live rent free in their heads so be it. if dece1t wants to derail the thread with prageru and assorted junk that has nothing to do with the thread then let people respond appropriately (or we could just delete that but i suppose that sort of activity might be asking too much). making a half effort to moderate by telling people to "stop bickering!" does nothing except frustrate people. do one or the other.
thanks
-thread lurker
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Given that you are absolutely voting for a dude with no plan to pass or pay for any healthcare plan, you are absolutely an avid co-sponsor of having tens of millions of people die annually due to healthcare inaccessibility. Own up to it, at least.
This is why everyone in the real world thinks you people are a basket of clueless idiots. You really don't see the absurdity in saying that the 90% of the country that isn't voting for Bernie or Gabbard (lmao) wants tens of thousands of people to die? It's especially ironic considering the whole idea behind pragmatism is to minimize loss, whereas your ideology is literally "If I don't get exactly what I want, then fuck everyone else!"
Lord help us.
Last edited:
Uh, using Chapo Trap House to bolster an argument might be the easiest way to lose credibility in an argument. Yes, the socialists who go against the system and bring those in power down a notch who have abused the system to making a crap ton of money by offering their goods in a free market and then letting the people decide to support them so they offer nothing to society other than laughs promoting pure, full on communism. Just so you know, in a communist state, if they went against the leaders, they'd either be shut up (either killed or threat of death) and forced to actually do work, not sit around gaming and insulting politicians who aren't promoting Marx and the communist manifesto.
EV
Banned deucer.
The so-and-so isn't credible argument died when we elected celebrity doofus Donald J Trump as president and he stocked his cabinet with self-made xperts a la Devos and Carson who're running their departments into the ground based on bunk science and pseudo-intellectualism. Nowadays, every opinion must be lavishly tethered to buoys to keep itself afloat in this post-sink or swim political climate. There are no more wrong answers. Please be considerate of that loudmouth YT cloutivist parading theirself as legitimate news and analysis.
How The Onion hasn't been inducted as a permanent fixture of the White House Press Corps is beyond me.
How The Onion hasn't been inducted as a permanent fixture of the White House Press Corps is beyond me.
Ill be honest with u sometimes I forget to copy the deleted reason into thenotification field. I have no idea why the forum software is like this. If u think a post of yours is deleted and you didn't get a notification then let me know and I'll find the reason.
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
Last thing I'll say on this: it's obvious you didn't even read that Twitter thread of "sources". If you did, you wouldn't be so smug. Plus, the idea that a campaign senior staffer (no less a sanders one, who are notably toxic) would be a reliable, non-biased source is wild.dk said:
For the viewers at home, let's go through a few of them:
He said Disney sucks 2 years ago and went to one rally, so that makes him responsible for Disney raising minimum wage? The fuck?
Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he can take primary credit for this. In that case, he can also take credit for the loss in bonuses that caused tons of take home pay to go down
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/09/technology/amazon-workers-pay-raise.html
Here he's just lying. He says Bernie passed the most roll call amendments in a specific range of years (lol), then turns around to say he was the "amendment king". First of all, that title, as mentioned in the previous sentence, was "ROLL CALL amendment king" (he actually has a pretty poor record on passing normal amendments, just like his record on passing bills). Secondly, exactly one person called him the "roll call amendment king", and it was a Rolling Stones writer. Unlike someone like Amy Klobuchar, who was officially the most effective senator, period.
So he proposed something 13 years ago, couldn't do it, and we're supposed to give him credit for it happening over a decade later due to "the contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"? Sounds like a great example of Bernie being ineffective, and someone else actually getting the job done...
Thanks to Tom Harkin and multiple other senators. Bernie's name is nowhere to be found. He did not play a notable role, so this is not his accomplishment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_Wage_Fairness_Act
Cool, another case where Bernie wanted something, couldn't get it done, so someone else did it over half a decade later. Once again, Bernie played no notable role.
Thanks, Rep. Carolyn B. Malone!
Literally from the link he provided:
Sponsor: Rep. Bachus, Spencer [R-AL-6] (Introduced 06/26/2003)
lmao Bernard wasn't even one of the 58 cosponsors. Absolutely not his acheivement.
Looks like he didn't even give a source or explanation for this one. Probably because once you read past the Twitter meme, turns out Bernie royally fucked it up:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-veterans-scandal-on-bernie-sanderss-watch
The best part is his justification for not taking action was "the complaints are just republican talking points" (god he's like a parody of himself). Turns out he was right: they were Republican talking points, which is why Republicans had to swoop in and save the program.
I could go on, but I've already put in infinitely more effort than you linking to a Twitter thread. In fact, where's tcr to tell you to get your own ideas instead of just linking to Twitter like he told me a couple pages ago? Hm...
Last edited:
Sure. Why was my latest reply replaced with the post you originally deleted with a video to troll me? I feel as though replacing my post with that video in the first place is unprofessional behavior from the moderation team.
Because it was a long race-baiting post where you asked people to prove to you that Trump is a racist in a democratic primary thread. (Still not an invitation to commandeer the thread this way)
Why are you blaming Gato for something I told you in advance that I would do? Seems disingenuous. But if it's going to be as distracting as your posts are anyway, then I'll stop doing it.
I'm blaming him for removing my "Bernie is a commie" response with a video to make me look stupid, then for whatever freaking reason put it back in place of my latest post. I made a statement saying people need to stop saying Trump is racist willy nilly, its annoying as all shit especially without evidence. I see nothing wrong with pointing that out.
*Him*? I just said it was me. I told you so earlier in a private message. Why are you deliberately blaming Gato?
I'm used to being the punching bag of people who want cong to be r/politics. Please, continue all complaints against me and don't misdirect them at our best moderator.
Hm
Also, I recieved no such private messages.
Nonetheless, whoever it was that's inconsistent and unprofessional modding. You should not be doing shit like that, especially in my latest post it was **in response," let alone to changing my response completely to a stupid video. That is not modding, that is trolling me. Once again where does it say in the rules that I am not allowed to challenge the "Trump is racist" notion, especially given I did not start that topic, Im simply challenging it.
Also, I recieved no such private messages.
EV
Banned deucer.
Fuck Gato, that's why!
Hasn't this already been attempted? I'm remembering this exchange ... somebody posted the video of Trump announcing his campaign run with a tirade against Mexicans and a pledge to build the wall ... you replied with some cheeky "that's not racism," deflection.
Or did I Mandela it?
The Great Wall was racism but it was also built two thousand years ago. And I get flak for trolling post like this.
It was in defense of the Huns, who constantly attacked the Chinese, was it not?
Yea, I am giving you flack, stick to your job and quit trolling me.
Edit: thanks for admitting to it
Last edited:
Screen shot of Des Moines Register before they took it down leaked
Attachments
MikeDawg
Banned deucer.
tbf (and i hate defending mudkipbro), there's a big difference between deleting/trolling a dumb 2 sentence comment and one that someone clearly put a ton of effort into and was at least half reasonable. If mods editing posts is the norm now, could've just snipped the second half about race, because the first part was entirely on topic. Unless the goal is to heavily discourage participation, then carry on.
Also, Cong already is r/politics if we're going by A) demographics and B) the inconsistent and clearly biased moderation (You delete his comment but not the countless off-topic one-liners? Why does The Amazonian Rainforest have any comments still visible in this thread? Why are the handful of Chou Toshio's low-effort comments that are literally fake news still up, even after Sam called him out?*).
I genuinely appreciate your insistence that people stay on topic, but where's the action?
*Like the one directly above mine. Those aren't even close to the results of that poll. A legit fake news one-liner.
Last edited: