|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 20, 2021 18:27:28 GMT
The right likes to project alot, don't they? Hypocrisy, hyperbole, opportunism, and exploitation are not qualities exclusive to any collection of individuals. Life isn't about "right vs left", it shouldn't need to be any form of "us vs them". |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 20, 2021 19:18:56 GMT
True. But as long as they idolize horrible people like Trump and Limbaugh, it will remain. At least in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Feb 20, 2021 20:10:15 GMT
True. But as long as they idolize horrible people like Trump and Limbaugh, it will remain. At least in my eyes. Truth sounds like hate to people who hate the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 20, 2021 21:32:47 GMT
Considering your sources, your ideas of "truth" and "fact" are highly skewed.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2021 1:42:02 GMT
Careful you don't actually participate in the #cancelallDisneyProducts group, evileeyore. There is a difference† between boycotting a company*, and "canceling" a person. You do realize the later entails doxxing them, riling a mob to get them fired from their job, have business close to them, petitioning banks to close their accounts, and harassing them both online and in person. I'll always be fine with people joining boycotts and you'll be unable to find anywhere I've ever said otherwise. I am also generally okay with most businesses joining boycotts, within limits. Banks, utilities, hospitals, realtors, shopping centers, etc (basic needs purveyors) should never be allowed to join a boycott. To do so infringes on free market access. * Even if I call it "hashtagcancelDisney", I'm not going after Robert Iger, Bob Chapek, Josh D'Amaro, Kareem Daniel, Alan Bergman, etc... heck, I'm not even going after Kathleen Kennedy despite strong feelings that the WOKE rot starts with her. I'm just about ready to decide I don't need to watch, buy, etc anything that comes from a Disney until they straighten up and start flying right. And I'll happily urge others to do so as well. Which may be never. It's not like they'll ever set aside the massively lucrative racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, genocidal Chinese market. † Of course you already knew this, but couldn't resist the urge to be an ass. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 21, 2021 1:49:47 GMT
But yet you constantly supported Trump and Pence for their massively lucrative racist, sexist and anti-LGBTQ policies? The only thing they didn't do was genocide and that's because they weren't in power long enough. And don't tell me they wouldn't do that. That's where Trump's rhetoric was headed. Why do you think everyone who wasn't blinded by Trump's bullshit was horrified by the sheer evil behind it?
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2021 2:27:37 GMT
But yet you constantly supported Trump and Pence for their massively lucrative racist, sexist and anti-LGBTQ policies? None of Trump's policies were any of that (with one exception) and I never support Mike Pence. Again, you see someone saying, "No, you waterhead Trump isn't Hitler" and think to yourself "OMG! They support everything about him and are the evil!". Stopping illegal immigration isn't racist. Trying to end human trafficking and going after pedos isn't racist (politicians aren't a race anyway). Reducing legal immigration isn't racist. Trade war with a genocidal nation isn't racist. Calling COVID the "WuHu Flu" isn't racist. Blocking traffic from countries that support terrorism isn't racist. You'll have to point out which of Trump's policies that were sexist that I ever supported. Good luck. Only total morons think stopping trans from openly joining the military is anti- LGBQ, and only transphobes see it as 'anti-trans', as I've already explained. And this: But yet you constantly supported Trump and Pence for their massively lucrative racist, sexist and anti-LGBTQ policies? You can go fuck yourself. I never supported Trump in any way except his capacity to shitpost and ignore the media, and I didn't vote for him in either election. Inversely, you directly supported and voted for a known sexual predator who's spent the last 50 years doing the opposite of what you want and who has promised the rich and powerful that he'll keep most of Trump's policies that benefit them going forward (no minimum raise hike, no repeal of the tax reduction of the rich, no stimmy checks, no student debt forgiveness, increase in foreign conflicts and killing brown kids for oil, bending the knee to China, etc). So... I know which one of us feels guilty about their vote, and it ain't me. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 21, 2021 6:06:15 GMT
Honestly, Biden's strength wasn't his policies or his character, but as the most likely candidate to beat Trump in the 2020 Presidential election. He was (and still is) an "moderate" Democratic Party establishment candidate. He has made numerous gaffes over his political career, yet he (compared to Trump anyway) was considered more popular of the two candidates in the general election. Like 2016, a significant percentage of votes cast were based not by which candidate was more loved, but which candidate was more hated. Tragically, hate, spite, and fear are the most successful motivators of any movement (including the latest elections).
We need viable third-party candidates more than ever. The only way I can think to accomplish this is to weaken the two-party establishment is threefold: using ranked-choice voting to reduce/eliminate the spoiler effect that keeps the establishments in power; increase transparency of all campaign (direct and indirect) funds; limit contribution amounts (both individual and entity). Until that happens third-party candidates will remain a tool by those on other side of the political spectrum to weaken their adversaries.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2021 7:00:33 GMT
Until that happens third-party candidates will remain a tool by those on other side of the political spectrum to weaken their adversaries. When combined the other parties don't even get 5% of the votes? They aren't even that. Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgensen weren't some Ross Perot. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 21, 2021 12:59:55 GMT
Here's all of Trump's racist past and present and how he profited off of it:
He does have a history of racism. It doesn't matter how you pretty it up and he has profited off of it. Hell, it was a corner-stone of his election strategy.
Here's another article
There's tons of documented proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 21, 2021 16:31:23 GMT
Until that happens third-party candidates will remain a tool by those on other side of the political spectrum to weaken their adversaries. When combined the other parties don't even get 5% of the votes? They aren't even that. Gary Johnson and Jo Jorgensen weren't some Ross Perot. The other parties don't need to get to 5% of the votes to induce the Spoiler Effect.
Let us make very overly simplistic assumption regarding the 2020 Presidential Election. Although the total of votes cast for third party candidates did not exceed the difference between Biden and Trump nationally, they might have made the race much closer electoral-wise. If you assume a supermajority (> 66%) of voters that had voted for Jorgenson (Libertarian) ticket had decided to vote for Trump instead in Arizona (11 Electoral votes), Georgia (16), and Wisconsin (10), those votes would have provided Trump the votes needed to meet or exceed votes that were cast for Biden. This would have likely forced a recount in each of those states due to the exceedingly close margin. But had Trump won those three states, their 37 electoral votes would have resulted in a 269-269 tie that would have been broken by each state casting a single vote for one of the candidates. Since more than half of the states have Republican legislatures/governorships where the Republican candidate won the popular vote statewide, Trump might have been re-elected.
This assumption is overly simplistic for these reasons: - We don't know how many 3rd party voters would have cast their votes for the establishment party more aligned with their political leanings (Libertarian and Republicans are more conservative than not, while Green and Democrats are more liberal than not)
- If the 3rd party was not considered relevant to these voters, would they have even cast their vote in the election? We don't know how many would have chosen to abstain.
- Not taking into account other 3rd party votes that might have gone to the two establishment parties had they been considered irrelevant.
The results might have also been different had the supermajority of those who voted for Stein (Green) ticket had voted Democratic in 2016.
Jorgensen and Stein were not as popular as Perot was in the 1990s, but their tickets arguably were popular enough to help determine the outcome of their respective elections. The Spoiler Effect is very real when accounting for the Electoral College where campaign money and energy is focused on a handful of states where the political parties are more evenly balanced. An establishment ticket's presence is reduced/nonexistent in states where their candidate's likelihood of winning/losing appears more certain (flyover states), particularly those with fewer Electoral votes. Granted, Hillary Clinton didn't account for the Green Party and the center-drifting political movement of the Great Lake region (that was historically Democratic leaning/safe) further exacerbated by her noted absence.
This is my reasoning why the U.S. election process needs a serious overhaul. In its current form, it stresses the concept of a two-party system, which in turn contributes increased partisanship and the zero-sum mentality that plagues society. It has been argued that the EC helps prevent populism among the masses, but I don't believe this is the case. Once a populist candidate wins the Democratic or Republican primary (which is growing increasing less politically-centered than the general election) nomination, the centrist (often independent/unaffiliated) voting masses are left with deciding which candidate is less radical. The political pendulum swings back and forth, but seemingly more wildly over time. Those on the far side of the pendulum feel increasingly ignored/ostracized, growing more radical (and more extremist on the fringes), leading to more violence and the belief that their way is the "True" path validating insurrection as patriotism.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 21, 2021 21:33:57 GMT
The other parties don't need to get to 5% of the votes to induce the Spoiler Effect. But you'd agree they need to get more than 1% yes? They didn't quite manage 1% across all the thrid party tickets in 2020. Perot managed 8% on his on. And so long as there are a mix of third parties (Conservative leaning versus Left* leaning) they "spoil" both sides. * I no longer consider the Left to be liberal and am starting to refuse to use that term in conjunction with that side in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 21, 2021 22:02:30 GMT
The other parties don't need to get to 5% of the votes to induce the Spoiler Effect. But you'd agree they need to get more than 1% yes? They didn't quite manage 1% across all the thrid party tickets in 2020. Perot managed 8% on his on. And so long as there are a mix of third parties (Conservative leaning versus Left* leaning) they "spoil" both sides. * I no longer consider the Left to be liberal and am starting to refuse to use that term in conjunction with that side in any way. Yes! At minimum, a third party needs a candidate to garner more than 5% of the vote to secure public funding for the next election. To be invited to the general debates, the two parties (thanks to the success of Perot) now require a third-party candidate to have 15% in 5 major polls. The two major parties have stacked the deck against any upcoming minor parties to ensure their secure grip in U.S. politics. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Feb 21, 2021 22:22:41 GMT
You do know that she was given six chances, right? I don't care. When it's the company's bullshit bringing them waves (Uighur genocide camps, treatment of Finn in media, treatment of LGBTQ characters in Chinese releases, the company supporting a racist) Disney "pulls together" and "supports each other", but when it's an individual making mild waves, suddenly it's a problem. Yeah, I'm annoyed they bowed to the mob over Pedro's stupid remarks too. Fuck Disney. I'm about a hair's breadth from joining the #cancelallDisneyproducts group... and pretty much the only tv/movies I watch these days are Disney. Guess I can finally get back to reading all those books that keep piling up. Wow, that's all you took from that? Your perspective is whack. She broke her contract multiple times. You expect that won't get her fired? What universe are you living in? Many others didn't get that many chances. They really tried with her. They don't actually give a fuck what her personal politics are, but her contract doesn't allow her to make public statements that might adversely effect Disney. That's it. It doesn't matter which side of the aisle that the comments were from. Extreme leftist views would have gotten the same reaction as extreme right views, if they were in public statements. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 22, 2021 1:12:12 GMT
Wow, that's all you took from that? "All" I took? I list 5 things only one of which was firing Carano. Is that all you took from my post? Name one that wasn't conservative (Roseanne Barr) or smeared as being conservative (Felix Kjellberg). Remember James Gunn is back in with Marvel for Guardians of the Galaxy 3, and Jake Paul really did deserve to be cut from Disney (he deserves a lot worse, but eh, whatever). Skia Jackson doxxed a 13 year old over nothing, even doxxed the wrong 13 y.o. initially, got the kid expelled from school and his parents lost their jobs, and Disney backed her saying "We stand against racism". (and yes, I know she wasn't with Disney at the time, they still backed her) Nah, #canceldisney. |
|
