[General US Politics]

Being terrible at winning doesn't mean you want to lose. I think every team that goes on the field comes with a desire to win.

It doesn't mean they know how to pitch.

I do think the core of the Democratic establishment is pretty centrist/moderate, though.

 

[General US Politics]

Okay.

I contended that Biden doesn't entirely represent what his voters want. And that's it. You disagreed.

I brought up the issues where Biden breaks from Democratic voters to support my claim. You're now arguing that these things his voters want are unrealistic or whether or not they matter enough to really complain about.

Since I'm not here to actually dissuade voters voting for the obviously much better presidential platform, I have little interest in actually tearing it apart, so I'm not gonna.

[General US Politics]

45 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

We as in the denizens of serenes forest, or we as in the US?

Democrats in the U.S. The party that nominated him. "Constituent" may have not been the correct term because that implies the country as a whole, if they choose to elect him, but whatever I'm clarifying it now.

45 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

70% of the people want M4A. Great! I still don't think M4A is viable during a Biden presidency.

That's a different argument.

45 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

The country is definitely not in favor of that. Seeing as he's pro-DACA, I'm not really sure what your gripe is unless you want fully open borders or something.

I don't think overturning the 90-year-old provision in U.S. immigration law that makes entering the country illegally a criminal offense is radical. It enabled the current administration to do what it wants to do. It makes being present in the United States without authorization open to criminal prosecution versus just a civil offense similar to a traffic violation.

In any other administration I doubt most of them are actually prosecuted, but you know.

After going out and looking at the polling instead of just relying on my memory, I'm not actually correct anyway so I'll concede that point. I know the Republicans certainly don't favor illegal (sometimes even legal) immigration in any meaningful form.

Source

woe is me thinking if it's a viable position to take during a democratic debate then it must be at least nominally popular lol

And yes, he's not in favor of expanding fracking.

That's kind of different than saying you're not gonna do it.

 

[General US Politics]

19 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

  

yes he does lol

you make good takes but you can't even read a platform before saying this? If so, what do the people actually want then? It sounds like his platform matches it pretty well. He did poach policy guys from other D campaigns, after all. What more do you even want?

Are we not pro Medicare for All, significantly decriminalizing illegal immigration and anti fracking?

How about wanting those things, or is that just a bridge too far?

[General US Politics]

11 minutes ago, XRay said:

If the left wing does not have the clout to even win a Democratic nomination, how can I expect them to win the national election? What can the far left even do to win over non-Democratic moderates who are even more likely to reject their message and ideas?

I think they will, eventually, and once the electorate tries on the SocDem policies the Republican propaganda machine has spent the last 40+ years vilifying -- and discover that they actually like them -- we can finally get something vaguely resembling a functioning republic once more. If Bernie's voters actually showed up en masse he might have had a chance. That's on them.

But I'm not deluding myself to thinking our current strategy is working, and we won't just see the same Republican gimmicks work time and time again because we let them work.

[General US Politics]

1 minute ago, XRay said:

And when people think of the word "Trump", they think of corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and incompetence. Biden might not be the shining city on a hill, but he does stand on a much higher moral ground compared to Trump.

It's strange that when I show you proof of what people are actually thinking, you still manage to spin it.

"Values" ranks 6th among his own voters. I'm guessing a good portion of the independents/previously undecideds/Never Trumpers aren't onboard because he's such a grand guy who follows the rules, but because Trump has shown himself to be an even bigger blatant moron than they previously thought and an active threat to our own national security, and electing a tomato can would be less harmful to the country.

As for why moderates are the only ones who win... well it's because they're the only ones who are nominated. And they're nominated not because they hold the views of most of their constituents (because lol Biden doesn't), but because we're afraid of alienating the middle and the Democratic establishment is essentially moderates themselves. So they always will nominate a moderate unless the left wing of the party can leverage enough clout to make them nominate something else.

And of course the moderate is vilified as a radical socialist bent on destroying our American way of life anyway.

 

[General US Politics]

13 minutes ago, XRay said:

Standing on the moral high ground absolutely gives us an edge. Biden is able to maintain his lead over Trump nation wide for the whole year by respecting democratic institutions, traditions, and norms.

If you are making that claim, then bring evidence to support it.

The polls says otherwise. Biden has been leading over Trump for practically the whole year.

Sure.

Source

If we're going to get into why they're voting for him, I think you need to do better than just pointing at the polling.

 

 

[General US Politics]

13 hours ago, Slumber said:

I feel attacked. I went for Jill in 2012 when the election wasn't nearly as dire and she wasn't loudly courting anti-vaxxers.

But I went for Clinton in 2016, and I'll go for Biden in 2020, even though I hate both of them as people and as politicians.

i feel compelled to attack you on principle but at least it wasn't 2016, i guess

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Democrats are not Republicans. Republicans have gerrymandering and electoral vote advantage. Democrats need moderate support much more than Republicans

we need to vote in the swing states

and we need to stop being so insistent on playing by a different set of rules because that thin veneer of respectability and righteousness gives us absolutely nothing

12 hours ago, XRay said:

We will go for tit for tat using established tactics. Government shutdowns, impeachments, having states lead a lawsuit, etc.

I'm sure all that will work this time.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

If Republicans make it up, we will clamp down on it or use it in the future against them.

Yeah re-tweeting all those clips of Republican lawmakers blatantly contradicting themselves has really made them stop and think.

12 hours ago, XRay said:

We are cracking the Republican party and independents right now with compassion, patience, and moderation.

No we're not.

This is what we tell ourselves when we want to feel less guilty about our impotence lol

12 hours ago, XRay said:

Texas is in the process of going purple right now. Cindy McCain is voting Biden. What is left of the moderate wing of the Republican donors are campaigning against Trump via the Lincoln Project.

All this is happening because Biden is not Trump, not because we're kind and morally superior individuals and all the Bush era Republicans have seen the light and changed their ways. It is rather telling that we apparently need the Lincoln Project to change minds.

10 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

I think what Crysta calls a moderate and an actual political moderate are two very different things. Crysta's more aiming at the radical "both sides are the same" bullshit moderates.

idk they're both pretty bad, but it's the latter that actively annoy me more, yes

The actual political moderates still love to complain very loudly when the Republicans do Republican things without their consideration and can't bring themselves to twist arms because that would be mean and alienate people.

 

[General US Politics]

1 minute ago, Excellen Browning said:

I personally think Bernie losing the primary fair and square broke their brains.

unfortunately I don't think there's a cure for broken brain  

[General US Politics]

Just now, Excellen Browning said:

Almost all I personally know voted for Clinton despite their misgivings.

But they're not voting for Biden this time around because...?

[General US Politics]

6 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

I don't disagree with what you say, but as far as I'm aware the democratic moderates are flocking to Biden in droves. It's the nutjobs who happen to be on the left who are swearing not to vote Biden.

If they showed up and voted for Bernie I might actually be concerned about them. I'm sure they went for Jill Stein in 2016, too.

[General US Politics]

The moderates too appalled with either choice stay home and forfeit the decision to the voters who can be bothered to show up.

Moderates worth their salt either don't remain moderates, or put aside their mild discomfort to choose the clearly better option for whatever goal they wish to pursue. If they're more comfortable with Trump and his crazies, they will vote that way. But I can't say I'll miss them or want to hear any of their advice on anything ever at this point.

[General US Politics]

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

It is true that knowing how to govern is not necessary for winning, but Democrats do not stand a chance of winning without moderates. Knowing how go govern is pointless until you know how to win.

You can't seriously expect me to buy this after the Republicans have repeatedly demonstrated that you can indeed win without moderates. You can't seriously be arguing we must continue doing the same thing and hope for a better result and another chance to actually implement governmental reform with a party who literally exists to just oppose everything we offer them.

We don't know how to win because we see "independents" hand-wringing about how hard it is to decide between the party who stands behind a cheeto-colored unapologetic fascist with the temperment of an irate toddler and the party that picked the most milquetoast moderate Democrat ever over the actual Democrat-Socialist, and we believe their concerns have actual merit. We listen to them and, gasp, we still lose.

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

There is a time and place for tit and tat, and I do not think now is the time for it.

When is the right time for it?

Stop worrying about potentially giving Republicans ammo. If they don't have any, they make it up.

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

And I think there are ways to do that within in the current framework by fixing things rather than trying to introduce new problems that can spiral out of control.

Insisting on working within the current framework doesn't work with an opposition party that has absolutely no interest in being civil or playing fair, and they're actively breaking the framework.

[General US Politics]

7 minutes ago, XRay said:

Without moderates, Democrats do not stand a chance at winning. You cannot govern if you did not even win the election.

Republicans have been pandering to the loudest, more conservative voices of the party for as long as we've been alive. They don't know how to govern but that's apparently not a requirement they need to win lmao

7 minutes ago, XRay said:

This is 2020. This is not 2050. Texas is still purple at best and plenty of boomers are still alive and kicking. Expanding the Court by two every four or eight years when the political pendulum swings the opposite direction does not seem like a good idea in my opinion.

Tit for tat is the only option unless you're fine with being a doormat.

[General US Politics]

GOP: We stole the court
DEMs: We're gonna steal it back
GOP: That's not fair
Pundits: Not fair
GOP: We'll just steal it more
DEMs: Ok we won't do it
Pundits: Dems avoid destroying America
GOP: We're gonna steal it more
DEMs: Fuck!
Pundits: So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt
Voters: ThEy'Re BoTh BaD hOw CaN i ChOsE

I'm done with moderates, quite frankly. I was one myself not too long ago, but their fingerprints are all over this and I don't need any further reminders of how terrible at actual governance they are.

Republicans do not exercise restraint and they're never expected to in the same way the Democrats are. They do not limit themselves because others have chosen to. They exercise every ounce of power they possess. The only reward for abstemiousness is failure. 

[General US Politics]

19 hours ago, Usana said:

In hindsight that was probably too much snark to reply to what I read as snark and I basically dodged your question without explaination.

I don't really care about your snark and the arbitrariness of the numbers you tossed out. I was simply repeating what you contended. I'm not surprised you chose to fixate on that instead of actually answering the question.

Nor do I care about some online quiz you took.

Which policies socdem policies are comparable to fascism? You don't need to write a book -- but I'm not fishing for these longwinded and undoubtedly very researched and nuanced viewpoints of yours if you already put them in the thread. I'm sure you can get it down to a few sentences.

[General US Politics]

1 minute ago, Hylian Air Force said:

It's less that they have bad policies, it's just that with the way American politics operates, they would be extreme and probably expand far beyond the scope of the original goal, and probably be overall unpopular because our education system keeps teaching us that unregulated capitalism is necessary for our society to function. What we want is usually far above what we need as a country. That's why we're in such deep shit.

I like how we stress out about what the socdems may hypothetically do and never elect them, then elect the fascists and compare those imagined hypotheticals against what they're actively doing.

[General US Politics]

2 hours ago, Usana said:

Its less equally bad and both bad. I mean I don't care if the cesspit is 75percent shit or 100percent shit. I am not wanting to wade in regardless. So my tactical voting ends up becoming very narrowly focused so as to avoid walking in shit as much as possible and in general with the aim to prevent anyone from flipping the board completely. So scum as usual bugs me less than piles of new scum being added making the mess even worse. And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.

Okay, what social democratic policies are 75% as bad as neo-fascist policies? Court packing isn't it, because I guarantee if the situation was in reverse the party positions would just swap. 

[General US Politics]

If you're still torn between the neo-fascists and the democratic socialists -- as if they're in any way equally bad -- then we have bigger problems.

[Favorite route narratively?]

11 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

They are indeed important to the story because they show just how Rhea's church worked and how everything about it revolved around her. There are also a number of comments that Seteth makes about the Empire under Edelgard as well as her death scene that are important to debunk a few common misconceptions. I suppose the DLC indeed expanded on Sitri by actually showing her, but SS already covered all the questions about what happened to Byleth.

It really isn't much of a question by the time you're done with the other routes, nor does it really add anything surprising. If you do SS first, it's better, but it's not particularly enlightening or compelling on it's own.

11 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

I said it's the "main" route because it's the first made and because the other two are clearly based on it. Forget the "canon"/"golden"/"true" epithets. It carries the main theme of making Edelgard out to be a subversion of the red emperor FE trope and a misunderstood antagonist that the director describes in that one interview everyone is talking about.

It's the first draft the others borrow from.

AM's last conversation with her, ironically enough, makes Edelgard more sympathetic than SS ever does after the TS -- at least in regard to her actual world viewpoint. Which is ironic because she's also at her worst in that route. After the TS cutscene, she's back to the same role she serves in VW in spite of being your former student and that apparently being relevant to the narrative.

11 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

I wouldn't dismissively call it a "first draft", especially in comparison to VW and how sloppily it handles Edelgard by pretending Byleth is still her special sensei that lead her class there.

VW clearly isn't the first route written, as we know now.

I would have preferred if they removed the dumb Rhea concern and sensei details, but is it really as sloppy as removing your former pupil entirely from the narrative? The removal is less jarring when she's not your student, because why would you even care?

11 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

It makes no sense why Rhea degenerates only in SS and Nemesis wakes up only in VW when the same exact events transpired. They probably moved the chapter with Nemesis over to VW to justify its existence because otherwise VW is a carbon copy of SS, map wise. If SS is a first draft then VW is a sloppy rewrite to fill out the one route per lord quota. The complaints about how it never shows Almyra despite how it constantly teases it are a staple too. Teasing something but never delivering on it is a major problem for a story.

I actually agree with this. Rhea going dragon cray cray is another ass pull. It would have made more sense to have Nemesis in SS, but they decided not to do that, and they wrote it first.

But AM doesn't differ much map-wise, either, and SS has a lot more wrong with it than the ending. Byleth is a husk, has Seteth as a foil, and the BEs are kind of an afterthought. You don't really get any in-depth knowledge of the Nabateans, and it would be an easy way to differentiate it from the other routes since Seteth and Flayn are the ones guiding you and this is where you get the Rhea S support, but naaaah. The two other lords don't really show up (Ghost Dimitri feels like an ad to encourage you to play AM/another route lmao) -- which I wouldn't really care about if emphasis was given to Edelgard instead due to her connection with Byleth... but, again, has about as much relevance as the route where you aren't her teacher. You can't even look forward to that angst.

imo the wasted potential of VW doesn't hold a candle to what SS could have been but decided not to be

11 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

Disclaimer: Claude is one of my favorite characters in the game that I was surprised to like as much as I did despite how I was predisposed to dislike him, which is a huge plus for me, but his route is just not as good. It might have been awsome when I played it before SS and AM, but in retrospect it's lacking.

I'm not even an SS fanboy, I already made another post about my favorite. I'm just saying that playing SS is vital to understanding the story and that the misleading notion that "VW is just SS but better" should be put to rest. 

VW >>>>> SS definitely for me, but I don't care if someone else disagrees. I just don't see it's selling points at all. I was bored and just faffed around with the DLC characters, but that may simply be because I played something essentially the same but a degree better first (VW).

Your opinion is noted, but opposing opinions don't need to be "put to rest".

[Favorite route narratively?]

3 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

The blood cult in the church revealed in the last chapter, Rhea degenerating like classic FE dragons, the origin of Byleth explained properly, Rhea confessing that she was wrong in her S support and more.

Such a pity that the lie that SS is a rehash of VW and not the inverse, kept going around for so long as it did which resulted in people missing so many basic plot points from what was intended to be the game's main route.

The blood cult reveal and the Rhea support is really the only unique lore that SS has, and that's hardly what I'd call "much more". Byleth's origins are better explained in the DLC, and after VW... I really don't think it's monumental details absolutely integral to anything in the story.

It is the dull first draft route, not the "main route".

[Great rival for Byleth (Student only)]

Leonie and Felix are the only ones I see having an interest.

And since Byleth is a husk, it'll still be boring.

[Favorite route narratively?]

8 hours ago, SRPG Tryhard said:

Did you play SS? It reveals much more than VW does.

Like what?

[Favorite route narratively?]

Story-wise, Crimson Flower. Narrative is focused and there's plenty of emotional resonance, there's a clear/middle/end, and you accomplish what you set out to do in a satisfactory manner. You get unique maps and get to see another side of Rhea and Dimitri. The only thing wrong is that I wanted more and actual quality cutscenes the other routes have. I also wish I could stab more Slitherers, but I understand how that would be difficult to implement in this particular route. It doesn't have what I find annoying in AM and in VW to a lesser extent.

Also, no God-Emperor Byleth!

As to which route I'd gravitate to if I wanted to play it again, I choose VW because I simply enjoy the house/gameplay more.  

[Revenge Crimson Flower route]

His arc isn't that relevant to her actual portrayal in the route. Edelgard's ending cutscene in SS is downright sympathetic. In AM, the stab is the last impression you get of her.