2020 US Election (Part One)

[Zardnaar]

what do the conspiracy theorists call this? Constructive opposition. I mean it really feels that way as a millennial who has watched the elite tear down at the social contract of the nation in the last thirty years.


Chris Matthews wouldn’t stop to help you. Everyone should stop watching him because he’s mean.

I mean people should stop watching news altogether imo but that’s beside the point.

I stopped watching the news years ago.

I read the news on the BBC or Washington Post if I want US political stuff. Reuters and s local site as well.

 

[Narz]

 

[cardgame]

Any summary of that vid @Narz?

 

[Narz]

Sure : a few people & groups are bugging out that Bernie dares accept & promote Joe Rogan's endorsement of him cuz he's said some things they deem inappropriate over the course of tens of thousands of hours of hosting his show.

David is making the case that even if you assume the worst about his audience (for instance that they are generally right leaning or even far-right and transaphobic, etc) if he convinces them to vote for Sanders it would be a good thing & eventually change their views or even if it didn't change their views SANDERS WOULD BE PRESIDENT.

It's probably mostly hostile actors who do not support Bernie trying to get his fans riled up but it's embarrassing that it should be so easy. :\

 

[Gorbles]

Rogan himself is on record as speculating if being molested makes people gay. Among, uh, quite a few other things. He is not a good person. Next time you claim folks are "bugging out", maybe at least treat peoples' complaints as worthy of a second's consideration, instead of discarding them without even giving them that.

It's funny. When the situation is "what if a person with known hateful or bigoted views could help a progressive candidate", it's always "well sure let's give it a go". But conservative or otherwise right-leaning candidates are never encouraged to do the same. Doubly funny is the complete lack of the question that despite the possible (completely unproveable) assertion that widening Sanders appeal could bring a few former bigots under his umbrella, what about the potential cost of the opposite happening?

Most of the complaints I've seen are from marginalised folks on social media. There's a lot of leftist discussion about this (whether the benefits will outweigh any costs, and so on), but the massive glaring hypocrisy tends to be a centrist / more liberal argument. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy (why criticise Bernie if you're going to be silent on Warren's NYC endorsement, for example) but a progressive alienating his progressive base is Not An Ideal Thing, and should absolutely be taken seriously.

 

[cardgame]

A Sanders presidency so vastly outweighs whatever nontangible idpol crying there is about this. It shouldn't even be news, it's just anti-Sanders sandbagging like Narz suggested, from people who don't like him to begin with. I don't believe there is any other candidate who is more friendly toward LGBT issues, so this is a non-starter.

 

[Estebonrober]

Rogan himself is on record as speculating if being molested makes people gay. Among, uh, quite a few other things. He is not a good person. Next time you claim manufactured outrage, maybe at least treat peoples' complaints as worthy of a second's consideration, instead of discarding them without even giving them that.

It's funny. When the situation is "what if a person with known hateful or bigoted views could help a progressive candidate", it's always "well sure let's give it a go". But conservative or otherwise right-leaning candidates are never encouraged to do the same. Doubly funny is the complete lack of the question that despite the possible (completely unproveable) assertion that widening Sanders appeal could bring a few former bigots under his umbrella, what about the potential cost of the opposite happening?

Most of the complaints I've seen are from marginalised folks on social media. There's a lot of leftist discussion about this (whether the benefits will outweigh any costs, and so on), but the massive glaring hypocrisy tends to be a centrist / more liberal argument.

Yea I’m going to fall into that centrist liberal category on this one. I’m not a Rogan fan, but he doesn’t seem like a bigot to me on purpose. He’s probably ignorant of the stats on molestation and homosexuality like most of America. Assumes a correlation in his head is true and never bothers looking into it.

meanwhile Stephen Miller is killing people on purpose and crushing the dynamism of the USA.

 

[Takhisis]

Sorry, clearly Tom Steyer's enthusiasm got to me.

But in general I think your point about billionaires spending money to support Republicans is overly narrow, when you have billionaires spending money to support Democrats, too. It's a corrosive effect no matter what the letter after the name.

Let's get back to what I've said:

shift the Overton window back towards Gilded Age standards.

I never said that it was exclusive to the Republican party. The DNC too has generally been prey of this rightward shift in which the former extremists are now mainstream and there are new extremists further afield.

 

[IglooDame]

Let's get back to what I've said:

I never said that it was exclusive to the Republican party. The DNC too has generally been prey of this rightward shift in which the former extremists are now mainstream and there are new extremists further afield.

My apologies, I mistakenly assumed you meant Republicans only as maybe other than the one fellow I didn't recognize either way, all the names you cited were RNC donors.

 

[Narz]

Rogan himself is on record as speculating if being molested makes people gay.

"Speculating if" while high makes him "a bad person"?

Next time you claim folks are "bugging out", maybe at least treat peoples' complaints as worthy of a second's consideration, instead of discarding them without even giving them that.

Of course their complaints are a secondary consideration. Personal grievances should be put aside for the greater goal. That's why the right won 2016 and the left didn't. Lot of Trump's competition hates the guy but they know when to work together whereas the left is like "OMG, Bernie swatted a mosquito, where is the compassion? Lets let Trump win again"

It's funny. When the situation is "what if a person with known hateful or bigoted views could help a progressive candidate"

Rogan is not hateful, said some off-color stuff perhaps over thousand+ multiple hour conversations? Sure.

it's always "well sure let's give it a go". But conservative or otherwise right-leaning candidates are never encouraged to do the same. Doubly funny is the complete lack of the question that despite the possible (completely unproveable) assertion that widening Sanders appeal could bring a few former bigots under his umbrella, what about the potential cost of the opposite happening?

I don't follow this part.

Most of the complaints I've seen are from marginalised folks on social media.

You know know who you're dealing with on the Internet. Troll farms don't only prey on the right.

There's a lot of leftist discussion about this (whether the benefits will outweigh any costs, and so on), but the massive glaring hypocrisy tends to be a centrist / more liberal argument. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy (why criticise Bernie if you're going to be silent on Warren's NYC endorsement, for example) but a progressive alienating his progressive base is Not An Ideal Thing, and should absolutely be taken seriously.

Anyone alienated by this is so stupid that they are a liability not an asset.

 

[Kyriakos]

Rogan himself is on record as speculating if being molested makes people gay. Among, uh, quite a few other things. He is not a good person. Next time you claim folks are "bugging out", maybe at least treat peoples' complaints as worthy of a second's consideration, instead of discarding them without even giving them that.

It's funny. When the situation is "what if a person with known hateful or bigoted views could help a progressive candidate", it's always "well sure let's give it a go". But conservative or otherwise right-leaning candidates are never encouraged to do the same. Doubly funny is the complete lack of the question that despite the possible (completely unproveable) assertion that widening Sanders appeal could bring a few former bigots under his umbrella, what about the potential cost of the opposite happening?

Most of the complaints I've seen are from marginalised folks on social media. There's a lot of leftist discussion about this (whether the benefits will outweigh any costs, and so on), but the massive glaring hypocrisy tends to be a centrist / more liberal argument. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy (why criticise Bernie if you're going to be silent on Warren's NYC endorsement, for example) but a progressive alienating his progressive base is Not An Ideal Thing, and should absolutely be taken seriously.

If you watch any segments of his shows, it is pretty clear that he isn't mean spirited nor hateful. It is also good that he has such a massive audience - it would be worse if that audience was of some network media talking head, cause they are just paid liars and/or imbeciles.

 

[Sonereal]

Now that Sanders is going to win, when will the rest of the DNC bend the knee to Thanos and pray he only snaps away half their cash?

 

[Takhisis]

My apologies, I mistakenly assumed you meant Republicans only as maybe other than the one fellow I didn't recognize either way, all the names you cited were RNC donors.

The one Donald Trump I mentioned you'll probably recognise, because, as The Onion reported, he even became President of the United States. He spent years bankrolling Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was not a Republican Party member.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Of course their complaints are a secondary consideration. Personal grievances should be put aside for the greater goal. That's why the right won 2016 and the left didn't. Lot of Trump's competition hates the guy but they know when to work together whereas the left is like "OMG, Bernie swatted a mosquito, where is the compassion? Lets let Trump win again"

That cat skins both ways... Are folks going to be willing to "unite" behind Warren? Yang? Biden?

 

[Sonereal]

Why should folks unite around losers and choke artists?

 

[BenitoChavez]

Why should folks unite around losers and choke artists?

It's happened before. Why not again?

 

[cardgame]

Neither of them are going to win the primaries

 

[IglooDame]

That cat skins both ways... Are folks going to be willing to "unite" behind Warren? Yang? Biden?

Noooooo only my candidate can win in the general election, and all of you that selfishly insist on your favorite are letting the other party win!


Edit: To be fair, I've traveled a little way down this trail of tears myself, non-sarcastically.

 

[Commodore]

"Speculating if" while high makes him "a bad person"?

Of course. Because Gorbles is one of those "if you say something I disagree with then you are literally Hitler" types.

Moderator Action: And we'd all be better off if you were one of those "discuss the post, not the poster types." ~ Arakhor

 

[Gorbles]

@Narz

I'm not continuing this with you, seen as your post starts with a charitable defense of Rogan, and also ends with condemning anyone put off by his bigoted statements as "stupid". That's not a viewpoint that anyone can meaningfully discuss. You believe the best of Rogan, and immediately the worst of any of his unknown detractors. That's dogma.

Yea I’m going to fall into that centrist liberal category on this one. I’m not a Rogan fan, but he doesn’t seem like a bigot to me on purpose. He’s probably ignorant of the stats on molestation and homosexuality like most of America. Assumes a correlation in his head is true and never bothers looking into it.

meanwhile Stephen Miller is killing people on purpose and crushing the dynamism of the USA.

People that are worse doesn't mean that other people aren't also bad. You're being charitable, which isn't the same thing as what I was talking about r.e. centrists. I still consider your charity massively misplaced, and bear in mind that was just one example. He consistently courts alt-right and right-wing personalities, and while he may reach out to centrist and nominally left-leaning folks (when the best examples I can Google involve Russel Brand and Louis Theroux, I mean, sure, better than ol' Milo, but not what anyone outside of America would call actually leftist), he definitely slants an obvious way.

The point about his audience (that you didn't bring up, but I'm crossing the streams with the point below a bit, hah) is significant. If he has a large audience, it's far more likely that that audience, if swept under a Sanders voting block, would influence the existing voting block more than that block would influence them. Especially if the cultural lynchpin that spreads these views is Rogan himself (not Sanders - importantly).

If you watch any segments of his shows, it is pretty clear that he isn't mean spirited nor hateful. It is also good that he has such a massive audience - it would be worse if that audience was of some network media talking head, cause they are just paid liars and/or imbeciles.

You don't have to be mean-spirited or hateful to be discriminatory against minorities. In fact, that's what makes airing such views so dangerous - people focus on the tone of the message, rather than it's actual meaning.

Whether or not his audience is massive and his endorsement will actually translate that audience into a Sanders-candidate set of votes remains to be seen. It's one thing to take Rogan on merit. It's another thing to assuming a future positive voting block for Sanders - especially if you're not going to consider any votes lost by the same endorsement.

This isn't purity politics, and it's not like marginalised people are some singular entity that all have the same opinion, but I've seen enough pushback for it to be a perfectly valid stance to take. These are the people you should be courting, not because they're possible maybe Sanders votes. They're actual Sanders votes. Many of them (in my curated social media, anecdotal) will still vote Sanders assuming the opposite is Trump, but that doesn't mean we can't be cautious of Rogan's worse views (and repeated interviewees) impacting Sanders' progressive base.