***Official Political Discussion Thread***

hipstermike

Supporter
10,097
8,898
Joined Feb 24, 2016
Would it be possible for the government to circumvent social platforms and designate their individuals users as publishers?

Then the "platform" would be required to help the government regulate the users.
 
7,864
13,563
Joined Jan 16, 2011
Hypothesis 1) She is a Russian asset.
Conclusion: Who cares. Ignore her...she is polling at 1%. Treat her like Marianne.

Hypothesis 2) She loves America and just sees things differently as evidenced by her voting record and friends.
The issue is not that she is polling low; the issue is, as you mentioned earlier, the fact that Democrats are ideologically diverse, and this diversity is easy to exploit in the winner-takes-all, no-need-for-51% electoral system we have here.
The third party candidate usually takes more votes from Democrats than Republicans because the GOP benefits from a more active base that understands the power of the vote. With maps that are gerrymandered to the point that a small Democrat majority does not guarantee a win at the polls, any benign attempt at reducing Democratic turnout or redirecting likely Democratic voters towards third party candidates has a tremendous effect on the chances of Republican electoral victory.
That is the context of Hillary's comment about Russia grooming 3rd party spoilers, and for some reason, the socialist wing of the Democratic party is still in denial about (or unwilling to address) the calculus that happens behind the scenes.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,887
71,776
Joined Jul 20, 2009
This situation is just like the "basket of deplorables". People dislike the messenger, so they take issue with Clinton's choice or words, or the fact she said anything at all, instead of seriously considering if she has a point.

gry60 gry60 is right.

Gabbard's poll numbers in the primary mean nothing. Most third party left wingers would get demolished in the Dem primary. The problem is that they could take enough votes from Dems in crucial states in the general, that would help Trump. This is what Clinton is warning people about, the general election. A lot of Dems are going to be pissed about who wins the primary. I won't call out any group so I don't upset anyone, :lol:. But there will be reactionary suckas around to exploit.
 

RustyShackleford

Supporter
38,887
71,776
Joined Jul 20, 2009
The issue is not that she is polling low; the issue is, as you mentioned earlier, the fact that Democrats are ideologically diverse, and this diversity is easy to exploit in the winner-takes-all, no-need-for-51% electoral system we have here.
The third party candidate usually takes more votes from Democrats than Republicans because the GOP benefits from a more active base that understands the power of the vote. With maps that are gerrymandered to the point that a small Democrat majority does not guarantee a win at the polls, any benign attempt at reducing Democratic turnout or redirecting likely Democratic voters towards third party candidates has a tremendous effect on the chances of Republican electoral victory.
That is the context of Hillary's comment about Russia grooming 3rd party spoilers, and for some reason, the socialist wing of the Democratic party is still in denial about (or unwilling to address) the calculus that happens behind the scenes.
Through all my interactions with socialist and leftist online and in person, I realized that many don't want to get all the way on board with that because it undercuts their argument that the Dems struggle to win elections is because of their ideology and tactics.

Not that they deny existence of these forces, it is just that if they do harp on them it weakens their case as to why they should run the party.

They don't like liberals so the discussion about a liberal losing an election should be focused on blaming said liberal. Not all the ways the other side cheated.

But let a more sympathetic candidate get screwed over, and they will accept more discussion about the finesse.

Tulsi Gabbard gain traction with some on the left because she took advantage of people's blindspots on this issue. Like put foreign policy to the side. Domestically Gabbard also repeats the same talking points Russian trolls used to get people mad at the DNC.
 
Last edited:
704
1,716
Joined Jul 15, 2018
Not for nothing Trump is a **** ing coward and we are
Would it be possible for the government to circumvent social platforms and designate their individuals users as publishers?

Then the "platform" would be required to help the government regulate the users.
Can you elaborate? I think I understand what your asking but I am honestly not familiar enough with the topic to be sure.
 
704
1,716
Joined Jul 15, 2018
The issue is not that she is polling low; the issue is, as you mentioned earlier, the fact that Democrats are ideologically diverse, and this diversity is easy to exploit in the winner-takes-all, no-need-for-51% electoral system we have here.
The third party candidate usually takes more votes from Democrats than Republicans because the GOP benefits from a more active base that understands the power of the vote. With maps that are gerrymandered to the point that a small Democrat majority does not guarantee a win at the polls, any benign attempt at reducing Democratic turnout or redirecting likely Democratic voters towards third party candidates has a tremendous effect on the chances of Republican electoral victory.
That is the context of Hillary's comment about Russia grooming 3rd party spoilers, and for some reason, the socialist wing of the Democratic party is still in denial about (or unwilling to address) the calculus that happens behind the scenes.
to be fair if the DNC keeps failing to do its job and let the cable news decide who gets to stay in the race everyone will be a spoiler for everyone else.
 

aepps20

Supporter
17,842
24,796
Joined Feb 8, 2004
This situation is just like the "basket of deplorables". People dislike the messenger, so they take issue with Clinton's choice or words, or the fact she said anything at all, instead of seriously considering if she has a point.

gry60 gry60 is right.

Gabbard's poll numbers in the primary mean nothing. Most third party left wingers would get demolished in the Dem primary. The problem is that they could take enough votes from Dems in crucial states in the general, that would help Trump. This is what Clinton is warning people about, the general election. A lot of Dems are going to be pissed about who wins the primary. I won't call out any group so I don't upset anyone, :lol:. But there will be reactionary suckas around to exploit.
Who are Bern Bros for $200 Alex
 
124
283
Joined Aug 23, 2019
I wish HRC would take a vow of silence. All she has accomplished is getting Tulsi in the news when she really, really needed it. Her campaign was on life support.

I think her concern is valid but she doesn’t need to be the one sharing it. It's probably best for everyone to ignore concerns over Gabbard until she declares as an independent.
 
1,497
2,413
Joined Jul 22, 2015
Bernie and Mike should can take Tulsi to a cookout with the NRA.

I'm probably not the world greatest Killary Klingon fan, but she simply echoed, what we already said up in here.
 
32,189
59,697
Joined Aug 11, 2012
Democrats really can’t help themselves sometimes. Being practical, unified, focused....always takes a back seat to a fake sense of white, faux moral superiority, unequal standards and false equivalence that muddies the water and gives red meat to clear bad faith actors from the far right.

Goofy ****, at a time when it’s clear what lines should be drawn.
 
Top Bottom