Sign In

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 868

This topic has been locked by a moderator.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

It was a meaningful response. What was he supposed to say?

“Cool” is a meaningful response? It was dismissive and lacked any substance.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

It sounds to me like the could do a lot worse. They could actually do all of the things that your favorite rightwing Youtube channels have told you that they’re doing.

Whatever man. I’m glad your inability to see what’s going on lends you some comfort. Stay angry, though. Seems to be a winning strategy for the left so far.

Handman said:

I’d say Bernie was as popular as he was precisely because he wasn’t your typical Democrat.

Anyone read this?

NPR – With Voters Sour On Major Parties, Group Recruits ‘None Of The Above’ Candidates

The effort comes at a time when voters are dissatisfied with both major political parties. Nearly 70 percent of voters say Republicans and Democrats fail to adequately represent the American people, according to a recent survey from the nonpartisan Democracy Fund.
Politics

A Colorado-based group called Unite America is trying to use that dissatisfaction to elect more independent candidates to office nationwide. They have endorsed 29 unaffiliated candidates running for all levels of office from across the country.

Among the statewide candidates with the group’s support are Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska, the country’s only unaffiliated governor, and Greg Orman, who’s running for governor in Kansas.

In Colorado, they’ve helped five state legislative candidates qualify for the ballot, campaign, and get their names out with promotional videos.

When the time comes, vote them out.

Yes. No more party-line votes. No more pity votes. Kick out all these partisans and get some sensible people in there who won’t cater to the worst at the extremes.

Every time someone tells you that not voting Democrat is effectively voting for a Republican, let them know that they’re the problem, not you. Repeated emotional votes in favor of blind nationalism on the right and divisive identity bullshit on the left has put us on the road to mediocrity. Maybe the tens of millions who skip voting might be inspired to take part if their best option wasn’t always the slightly better one between two trash choices.

your post above it seemed just about as meaningless and dismissive imho. i was just more to the point.

No, you were an ass.

cool

Not smart.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

There was no point to argue in his post. The entire point was to act like an ass.

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

Egging him on? Had nothing to do with him. It was about the way you hammer us for things that you do yourself all the time. But of course the last time you completely misrepresented what I was saying, I ended up banned for a month. So I’m done.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

According to your own forum’s rules, since he isn’t engaging in any personal attacks or insults, it’s actually up to Duracell to decide whether those kinds of posts are welcome in his thread.

Rules are for other people.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

Possessed said:

Lol I don’t know why you guys are surprised that the guy who says things like “Daddy’s home, time to shut the fuck up!”

I’m trying to remember, when did he say that?

Saying someone is an ass and saying someone is being an ass isn’t the same thing anyway.

It was several months I don’t feel like looking forward to it but I promise he did. I remember using it in the Out of Context thread.

Not like me, who always and has always posted with such style and grace the gods themselves could envy me.

Support my bandcamp page! https://jacobmartin2.bandcamp.com/

The cat in question

Author
Time

Back to politics… A Cherokee Nation official says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” While I still consider her actions bizarrely disingenuous, I also have to admit that the right’s actions obstructing native American vote is substantively worse.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Back to politics… A Cherokee Nation official says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” While I still consider her actions bizarrely disingenuous, I also have to admit that the right’s actions obstructing native American vote is substantively worse.

I very much agree with this statement – the concept of tribal membership has a fraught history. A Cherokee chief (Wilma Mankiller) once said: “An Indian is an Indian regardless of the degree of Indian blood or which little government card they do or do not possess.” There’s a long history of non-Native people telling Native Americans that they’re not real Indians (Sharice Davids, for a current example) because they don’t fit whatever image they had in their head. There are entire tribes still fighting today for formal recognition as “legitimate Indians”. Issues of tribal membership are and should be very much the exclusive purview of the tribes. So on issues of tribal membership, I defer to the tribes. A genetic test cannot support claims of specific tribal membership, only Native ancestry in a general sense.

While clearly Warren’s family history was largely correct, and she never claimed more than the tiny fractional ancestry that she recently found evidence to support, I think her family was far enough removed from tribal politics that they didn’t recognize the implications of naming a specific tribe. It’s likely that her Native American ancestor did speak Cherokee, which is why she was identified as such by Warren’s family, but that’s not the same thing at all as being a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren conflated those concepts and should not have, and in doing so stepped over the line of tribal sovereignty. The Cherokee Nation is rightly aggrieved. Warren’s Native American ancestor may have spoken Cherokee, but she was not Cherokee. Needless generalizations help no one.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

Problem for your claim of accuracy is you don’t know if any particular g-g-g gma had NA ancestry. You don’t know which ancestor.

Sure, her family story could have been wrong in part. It could have been her great-great-great grandfather, but the evidence does support the claim she made, down to the ethnicity and approximate number of generations back she specified, which lends the entire family story some credibility. But yes, which g-g-g grandparent may have been off, that is true.

I’m giving “substantial” a meaning of “sufficiently high enough to claim identity as a member of that minority.” I’m not sure what that amount is, but if you have to go 6-10 generations back to maybe find one ancestor, I don’t buy it.

See, that’s actually a point of agreement hiding in here, and why I like arguing with you. We actually do agree about stuff from time to time and it feels like a revelation every time it happens. We’re pretty polar opposite but we don’t just go to our respective corners and throw spitballs.

When you’re filling out a form and there’s checkboxes that say “check all that apply”, and you know for certain that you have approx 1/32nd ancestry from one of the listed groups, I can understand that you might want to check the corresponding box. Because you were instructed to “check all that apply” and it does apply. And the most charitable interpretation of checking that box under those circumstances is that you were being a little too literal with your instructions, without taking into account the larger context of why the boxes are there in the first place. If you recognized that there was a limit to the statistical value of particular parts of your ancestry, you would (and should) leave those boxes unchecked. You are not disavowing your ancestors, you are providing more useful data. Swallow the guilt and leave them out. Otherwise everyone would mark African because that’s where humanity started and we all have ancestors from there, right? Where that limit should be is up for some debate, and possibly a bit dependent on the purpose for which the data is being gathered, but I’d certainly place the bar higher than a single individual five generations back in almost all cases.

The less charitable interpretation involves embracing the exotic as a means to make your life’s story more interesting than it really is.

Those who write the questions probably don’t consider that anyone will answer for any percentage less than 1/8th. It’s unusual for people to go around knowing that they’re 1/32nd Native American. But with genetic testing becoming more commonplace, it’s increasingly normal. I’d suggest that people who write those questions suggest what a “significant portion” is, rather than leaving it as an exercise for the reader.

Similarly, it’s far too easy outside the checkbox scenario for people to throw around tiny fractional ancestries as if they mean something.

Nevertheless, she didn’t make it up. She and her family may be guilty of romanticizing or exoticizing, overstating the relevance of the native ancestry, but there is no indication that they were mistaken about, or lied about, or even exaggerated, the basic facts of their ancestry. This is what she was accused of, and she just shut down that line of criticism with evidence supporting her family story, exactly as it was told to her. Which is why the criticism is now moving on to other angles. And some of those new criticisms may very well be valid, and perhaps they are the criticisms that should have been made all along, but that’s another argument.

You’re right the arguments seem to shift. There appear to be three main arguments/ criticisms that should be disentangled; I will take each in turn.

  1. Whether Warren has a Native American ancestor, regardless the correlation with family history.

Accepting the DNA analysis as true, the answer is yes. This is relevant to Trump’s offer, though as discussed there is a reason he could plausibly deny payment. But this is far from the controversy about her lineage. It wasn’t actually about whether she happens to have some Native ancestor, which is all that the analysis demonstrates.

  1. Whether Warren’s family history is accurate.

I looked back at older articles and the lore wasn’t simply that there was a g-g-g gma who was part NA. Apparently there is dispute in the family but there were statements that two of Warren’s grandparents were part NA, one to an unknown but notable degree. Based on the renditions of family lore I find in older articles, Warren holding herself out as part Native American makes decent sense. But you say she knew she was AT BEST 1/32 and that she was just confused when checking boxes. The DNA doesn’t help this argument. It merely shows that some version of her family lore could be right. That members of her family told stories about NA ancestors hasn’t been in dispute, however.

  1. Whether Warren properly held herself out as Native American.

According to your telling, no it was not. You say she was just mixed up about what it meant to identify as NA. The DNA analysis makes the representation really embarrassing. Does not help at all. Any ancestor could have been maybe 10 ancestors back, making even her g-g-g gma’s claim to be NA ancestry potentially embarrassing.


I think her family stories exaggerated the amount of NA ancestry and Warren innocently (for lack of a better word) believed it. On that you’re right there are glimmers of agreement between us. I disagree she was merely confused when holding herself out as NA. I think she was mistaken about the amount (and significance) of ancestry she had.

You’ve probably made the best argument that can be made about the DNA analysis, but it just doesn’t connect to the central criticism in a meaningful way.

The chief (punintended) value of the analysis is as a piece of paper to waive around in front of people who think it’s about whether she happened to have a NA ancestor. There is the potential to reframe the debate along those lines. When people get confused about what an issue is even about, having a piece of paper declaring a supposed fact does much work.

As I said, I think this was a shrewd political move. I’ve second-guessed that a bit after there has been criticism from actual NAs about the analysis. There is the cultural appropriation angle as Warren continues to beat the drum (I could help myself, if I wanted) about possible NA ancestry.

The blue elephant in the room.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Let’s not also forget if Trump ever pays up (hahahaha) it’s going to a Native American Woman’s charity.

If she hasn’t already I’d like to see Warren make a donation to it herself, either way.

I suspect she will (yay), but I suspect she’s timing it for better political/media impact (boo).

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Back to politics… A Cherokee Nation official says Sen. Elizabeth Warren “is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.” While I still consider her actions bizarrely disingenuous, I also have to admit that the right’s actions obstructing native American vote is substantively worse.

I very much agree with this statement – the concept of tribal membership has a fraught history. A Cherokee chief (Wilma Mankiller) once said: “An Indian is an Indian regardless of the degree of Indian blood or which little government card they do or do not possess.” There’s a long history of non-Native people telling Native Americans that they’re not real Indians (Sharice Davids, for a current example) because they don’t fit whatever image they had in their head. There are entire tribes still fighting today for formal recognition as “legitimate Indians”. Issues of tribal membership are and should be very much the exclusive purview of the tribes. So on issues of tribal membership, I defer to the tribes. A genetic test cannot support claims of specific tribal membership, only Native ancestry in a general sense.

While clearly Warren’s family history was largely correct, and she never claimed more than the tiny fractional ancestry that she recently found evidence to support, I think her family was far enough removed from tribal politics that they didn’t recognize the implications of naming a specific tribe. It’s likely that her Native American ancestor did speak Cherokee, which is why she was identified as such by Warren’s family, but that’s not the same thing at all as being a member of the Cherokee Nation. Warren conflated those concepts and should not have, and in doing so stepped over the line of tribal sovereignty. The Cherokee Nation is rightly aggrieved. Warren’s Native American ancestor may have spoken Cherokee, but she was not Cherokee. Needless generalizations help no one.

I don’t understand, how do we know Warren’s Native American ancestor wasn’t Cherokee? We don’t know anything about her. If she spoke Cherokee, isn’t that a good indication that she came from the Cherokee tribe?


E!-A!-G!-L!-E!-S! EAGLES!!!
SUPERBOWL CHAMPS!!!

Author
Time

My college puts out a Faculty reference guide every year, so that community and media can find an expert from the University on whatever timely topic they want to report on and need an expert opinion. Apparently she was listed in a similar reference at her university, as being specifically a native american minority. It sounds like I would have as much claim to this as she (as would probably half of us on this forum), and I’d be embarrassed if I were listed as such.

"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Warbler said:

Warren conflated those concepts and should not have, and in doing so stepped over the line of tribal sovereignty. The Cherokee Nation is rightly aggrieved. Warren’s Native American ancestor may have spoken Cherokee, but she was not Cherokee. Needless generalizations help no one.

I don’t understand, how do we know Warren’s Native American ancestor wasn’t Cherokee? We don’t know anything about her. If she spoke Cherokee, isn’t that a good indication that she came from the Cherokee tribe?

I only know enough about tribal politics to know it’s convoluted. At the most basic level, tribes keep records, and the Cherokee Nation in particular has very extensive records. They track all the things other sovereign nations track. They have birth, death, and marriage records, and they have a vested interest in knowing precisely who’s a member and who’s not. There’s also one hell of a lot of politics going on behind the scenes, for those who care to look, but the superficial view may be adequate.

Not all Europeans who speak German natively are German. Similarly, not all Native Americans who speak Cherokee natively are Cherokee. If the Cherokee Nation has no records supporting that her Native American ancestor was Cherokee, then that’s that. Warren said her Native American ancestor was named O.C. Sarah Smith and we have an approximate timeframe for when she lived. So either O.C. Sarah Smith was in their records or not, that part is pretty simple.

Also, I’m only assuming the designation of Cherokee came from the language she spoke. It could very well be from an even less-informed place, such as “she was Native American and most of the other Native Americans living nearby were Cherokee, ergo…” But language was frequently used by outsiders as the way to distinguish tribes, so that’s what seemed most likely.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

My college puts out a Faculty reference guide every year, so that community and media can find an expert from the University on whatever timely topic they want to report on and need an expert opinion. Apparently she was listed in a similar reference at her university, as being specifically a native american minority. It sounds like I would have as much claim to this as she (as would probably half of us on this forum), and I’d be embarrassed if I were listed as such.

Yes, I agree and expounded probably a bit too much in an earlier discussion with Mrebo (last page or so) that while all of her specific factual claims about her family history appear to be supported by the test, that it was either misguided or wrong of her to ever imply that the tiny fractional ancestry was particularly relevant. But again, that’s a different (and better) argument than “she made it all up”.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

According to your own forum’s rules, since he isn’t engaging in any personal attacks or insults, it’s actually up to Duracell to decide whether those kinds of posts are welcome in his thread.

The rules say we’ll defer to the OP, not that we’ll step aside and never make judgment calls.

I’ve repeatedly warned people (mostly Frink) about single-word snark responses in this and other threads. Do I need to officially codify “use your brain” into the forum rules?

Besides, this thread is merely a continuation of a previously locked thread and frankly only remains open because giving everyone a place to dump their political nonsense is the lesser of two evils when compared to politics spilling over into other threads.

I’ve had requests to lock it again and I’m giving those requests (as well as requests to ban political discussion entirely) serious consideration, but I question how manageable that is over the long term.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

It was a meaningful response. What was he supposed to say?

“Cool” is a meaningful response? It was dismissive and lacked any substance.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

It sounds to me like the could do a lot worse. They could actually do all of the things that your favorite rightwing Youtube channels have told you that they’re doing.

Whatever man. I’m glad your inability to see what’s going on lends you some comfort. Stay angry, though. Seems to be a winning strategy for the left so far.

Handman said:

I’d say Bernie was as popular as he was precisely because he wasn’t your typical Democrat.

Anyone read this?

NPR – With Voters Sour On Major Parties, Group Recruits ‘None Of The Above’ Candidates

The effort comes at a time when voters are dissatisfied with both major political parties. Nearly 70 percent of voters say Republicans and Democrats fail to adequately represent the American people, according to a recent survey from the nonpartisan Democracy Fund.
Politics

A Colorado-based group called Unite America is trying to use that dissatisfaction to elect more independent candidates to office nationwide. They have endorsed 29 unaffiliated candidates running for all levels of office from across the country.

Among the statewide candidates with the group’s support are Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska, the country’s only unaffiliated governor, and Greg Orman, who’s running for governor in Kansas.

In Colorado, they’ve helped five state legislative candidates qualify for the ballot, campaign, and get their names out with promotional videos.

When the time comes, vote them out.

Yes. No more party-line votes. No more pity votes. Kick out all these partisans and get some sensible people in there who won’t cater to the worst at the extremes.

Every time someone tells you that not voting Democrat is effectively voting for a Republican, let them know that they’re the problem, not you. Repeated emotional votes in favor of blind nationalism on the right and divisive identity bullshit on the left has put us on the road to mediocrity. Maybe the tens of millions who skip voting might be inspired to take part if their best option wasn’t always the slightly better one between two trash choices.

your post above it seemed just about as meaningless and dismissive imho. i was just more to the point.

No, you were an ass.

cool

Not smart.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

There was no point to argue in his post. The entire point was to act like an ass.

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

Egging him on? Had nothing to do with him. It was about the way you hammer us for things that you do yourself all the time. But of course the last time you completely misrepresented what I was saying, I ended up banned for a month. So I’m done.

Do you promise this time?

Every time you come back, your fan club gets riled up and this thread becomes trash. The invitation to leave is a standing one.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

According to your own forum’s rules, since he isn’t engaging in any personal attacks or insults, it’s actually up to Duracell to decide whether those kinds of posts are welcome in his thread.

Rules are for other people.

dahmage tried his best Frink imitation and I called him out on it, at which point you predictably fell back on “the rules” to try and churn up this old argument that I give you guys zero leeway while I’m prancing around the forum flouting the rules and throwing it in your face. It’s as tired as it was the last time you used this excuse to complain about how oppressed you are.

You’ve been warned repeatedly. Last warning for all involved: post a meaningful response or get out.

Next step is this thread is locked permanently and we try a zero-tolerance policy toward political discussion.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

i’m not sure if locking the thread or zero-tolerance towards politics would be necessary. the ratio of crap posts or crap discussions over the amount of general political discussions is very low, imo. there was an interesting conversation going on between mrebo, catbus, warb, mfm and puggo, for example, and i sure was paying a lot more attention to that than to the parallel conversation. you could try to ignore the responses you consider not meaningful and be done with it.

and i think that saying all we think politically is nonsense and that this thread is trash was a bit harsh. i’ve learned quite a bit with some people here and i would not like for this thread and political discussion in general to be banned. but it’s your forum after all, and you do as you please.

not to go too off topic, i agree with what mfm said a couple of pages back in saying it’s absurd to not vote for warren simply because she said she has a native american ancestral. sure that sounds very forced and whatnot, but if i’ve learned anything with my country’s politics is that we need a more unified left. there’s a crazy bastard who was praised by a fucking KKK leader earlier today that’s likely going to win the presidency. i’m close to hopeless.

Author
Time

God, so sorry Brazil. I forgot that’s where you were from. Stay safe.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

According to your own forum’s rules, since he isn’t engaging in any personal attacks or insults, it’s actually up to Duracell to decide whether those kinds of posts are welcome in his thread.

The rules say we’ll defer to the OP, not that we’ll step aside and never make judgment calls.

I’ve repeatedly warned people (mostly Frink) about single-word snark responses in this and other threads. Do I need to officially codify “use your brain” into the forum rules?

Besides, this thread is merely a continuation of a previously locked thread and frankly only remains open because giving everyone a place to dump their political nonsense is the lesser of two evils when compared to politics spilling over into other threads.

I’ve had requests to lock it again and I’m giving those requests (as well as requests to ban political discussion entirely) serious consideration, but I question how manageable that is over the long term.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

dahmage said:

Cool

Contribute meaningfully or don’t post at all.

It was a meaningful response. What was he supposed to say?

“Cool” is a meaningful response? It was dismissive and lacked any substance.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Cool

It’s ok dahamage, he’s right, I’m going to go back to my bosses at the DNC to let them know.

I’d say they couldn’t do any worse, but I suppose anything is possible.

It sounds to me like the could do a lot worse. They could actually do all of the things that your favorite rightwing Youtube channels have told you that they’re doing.

Whatever man. I’m glad your inability to see what’s going on lends you some comfort. Stay angry, though. Seems to be a winning strategy for the left so far.

Handman said:

I’d say Bernie was as popular as he was precisely because he wasn’t your typical Democrat.

Anyone read this?

NPR – With Voters Sour On Major Parties, Group Recruits ‘None Of The Above’ Candidates

The effort comes at a time when voters are dissatisfied with both major political parties. Nearly 70 percent of voters say Republicans and Democrats fail to adequately represent the American people, according to a recent survey from the nonpartisan Democracy Fund.
Politics

A Colorado-based group called Unite America is trying to use that dissatisfaction to elect more independent candidates to office nationwide. They have endorsed 29 unaffiliated candidates running for all levels of office from across the country.

Among the statewide candidates with the group’s support are Gov. Bill Walker of Alaska, the country’s only unaffiliated governor, and Greg Orman, who’s running for governor in Kansas.

In Colorado, they’ve helped five state legislative candidates qualify for the ballot, campaign, and get their names out with promotional videos.

When the time comes, vote them out.

Yes. No more party-line votes. No more pity votes. Kick out all these partisans and get some sensible people in there who won’t cater to the worst at the extremes.

Every time someone tells you that not voting Democrat is effectively voting for a Republican, let them know that they’re the problem, not you. Repeated emotional votes in favor of blind nationalism on the right and divisive identity bullshit on the left has put us on the road to mediocrity. Maybe the tens of millions who skip voting might be inspired to take part if their best option wasn’t always the slightly better one between two trash choices.

your post above it seemed just about as meaningless and dismissive imho. i was just more to the point.

No, you were an ass.

cool

Not smart.

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

There was no point to argue in his post. The entire point was to act like an ass.

TV’s Frink said:

dahmage said:

Warbler said:

Jay said:

No, you were an ass.

Jay said:

  1. Don’t attack other members personally. When debating, argue the point, not the person. Respectful criticisms of debate style (logical fallacies) are acceptable.

just saying.

its fine

Is it though?

Nope, so I’d recommend dahmage engage in the discussion or leave, and for you to stop egging him on.

Egging him on? Had nothing to do with him. It was about the way you hammer us for things that you do yourself all the time. But of course the last time you completely misrepresented what I was saying, I ended up banned for a month. So I’m done.

Do you promise this time?

Every time you come back, your fan club gets riled up and this thread becomes trash. The invitation to leave is a standing one.

I did not say I’m done with the forum. This shouldn’t need explaining, as you like to say.

And I’m not the one calling someone an ass. The very idea that it’s my fault this thread has turned to trash again is ridiculous.

Episode I: The Ridiculous Menace / Episode II: Attack Of The Ridiculousness / Episode III: Revenge of the Ridiculousness