this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
422 points (88.1% liked)

Political Memes

5486 readers
4815 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] UsernameHere 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?

Less donors means less chance of winning. Democrats just lost while spending the most. So take those odds of winning and reduce them.

This is still feeling like a "more doners is more better" argument which they rejected with a "not this time" reply so no questions were avoided.

Maybe you should stop bringing your feelings into it and look at it objectively. Citizens united was passed for a reason. It was part of a strategy to buy politicians. How do we win elections to change things without donation?

No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it's always a confession.

It’s always a confession? I’ve never spoken to you before. This seems like an emotional knee jerk response.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

"every accusation a confession" is a common refrain to describe conservative behavior

Point 1: You accuse people of avoiding questions (they didn't), it's because you avoid questions. The question you avoided

I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without them?

The question you asked of them was how to win without donors. Not less donors.

Would you like me to extend to you the courtesy you denied me when accusing me of building a strawman. That "without" is an extention of "fewer" the same way "most" is an extention of "more". But that would take admitting they did, in fact, answer your question. Would you like to admit that? If so I'm good, that was all I wanted to highlight to you in the first place.

Point 2: you accuse people of building strawmen, I didn't, it's because you build strawmen. See above.

Regarding the pivot from "money" to "donors": did democrats have less donors this election? Just as an aside, what is it that these donors donate, what is it that citizens united allowed these donors to donate, that isn't money. Donors=money

Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn't work.

politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. - Oscar Ameringer

Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.

It seems our impasse is that's I've understood, and stated as such, your argument to be "more money, more better" which is counterfactual to this election. You reply

nuh uh, my argument is [defines "more" or uses the word "more"] [synonym for "money" or uses the word money], more better.

I don't think I can break through that level of double think.

[–] UsernameHere 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Point 1: you argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question.

Point 2: you nitpicking semantics is not me building a straw man.

Ignore people all you want but they, and reality, are clearly telling you that optimising for donations/money doesn't work.

Who is talking about ignoring people or optimizing for donations? Seems like you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.

Democrats are too focused on the latter, because reasons explained to you, and thus lost due to the former.

How are you quantifying how focused they are? How do you know they lost due to the former? The likely answer is you are making assumptions based off your feelings.

It seems our impasse is that's I've understood, and stated as such, your argument to be "more money, more better" which is counterfactual to this election.

Again I have to point out that I haven’t made an argument. I’ve just asked a question to someone other than you and you felt the need to insert yourself to argue semantics while avoiding the question you responded to.

I don't think I can break through that level of double think.

You’re literally quoting something that was never said.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Point 1, exactly my pount, that's exactly what you did. I demonstrated that to you and now we agree. You'll notice I keep grounding us in the comments under discussion: "I think your argument is this" and "how does that have relevance to the original comment". Every accusation is a confession.

Point 2, exactly what you did when you tried labeling my argument a strawman. Ev-ery accusation is a confession.

Who is talking about ignoring people.

Me, continually about you. You ignored the original answer to your question. You ignore my explanation to why it's a valid answer. You ignore my pointing out you ignoring people to ask who's talking about ignoring people.

How are you quantifying[...]

You argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question. E-v-e-r-y accusation is a confession.

Again I have to point out...

1 you haven't until now pointed out that you havent made an arguement. 2 it is absurd to do so. 3 you are a meme

You are quoting something that was never said

It's a summary, I made that quite plain.

[–] UsernameHere 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Still no response to the original question of ‘How do we win elections without/with less donors’?

I’ve played along with your avoidance of the question and all its led to is a discussion of semantics and nothing about the original topic. Seems like that is your intent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

As demonstrated we have been led here by you. You haven't played along with my avoidance of this question, I wasn't originally asked this question. I pointed out that you ignored their answer and then you got all accusey and semanticky.

Remember when you wanted to make a distinction between "donors" and "money", you sure dropped that in a hurry. Every accusation is a confession.

Still no response...

Doesn't respond to a single thing in any previous comment. Every accusation is a confession. This is also just a bald faced lie.

And for whatever reason they keep doubling down on refusing to do voter outreach and listening to what Dem voters want. Current leadership will never back away from the strategy of:

In the original comment you replied to. They could have done more outreach to determine what dem voters want by wasting less money elsewhere. Reality is you don't listen to yourself, let alone anyone else. I am over it. Thanks for proving to me, yet again, that talking to American liberals is futile. I can't dig you out of your dogma at all.

[–] UsernameHere 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You’re still dancing around a simple question.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

You have convinced me that you believe that to be true. Furthermore, you have convinced me that you cannot be convinced that it is not true. You are demonstrably unreachable.

[–] UsernameHere 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You still haven’t given an answer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Demonstrated to be untrue. I should have listened to the person telling you why you don't wrestle pigs... I should have listened to myself when I said American libs have shown me they are closed minded.

Your statements are counterfactual, your accusations are confessions, demonstrated to ignore anything anyone (including you says) and you are completely unreachable. On the whole a waste of my time except to re-teach me a lesson I had obviously forgot

[–] UsernameHere 1 points 3 days ago