The Left is No Longer Liberal. | The Rubin Report. - General

[QUOTE=Naught;51744587]which is because of hillary's campaign team being idiots, not people on universities. Notice how strong the left was doing with bernie, and how its recovering with bernie at the helm, with the same amount of sjw's wandering around.[/QUOTE] There's not much reason to believe that Bernie would have won the general beyond wishful thinking.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51744611]That's like wondering why a meat pie eating contest might not want PETA setting up shop.[/QUOTE] The pro-life group wanted to join in protest against Trump as fellow women. The fact that they demand ideological purity is a big deal. It wasn't a "women's" march. It was a left wing march.

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51744564]Since when did the popular vote matter? Do you honestly think that the 60%+ of California and New York that is Democrat represent all parts of the country. Honestly, if you the popular vote meant anything, there would be no strategic campaigning it would just be who could pander the most to California, Texas, Florida, and New York.[/QUOTE] Man... If I had a dollar for every time I heard this argument I'd be able to build Trumps wall. It [B]shouldn't[/B] matter where you're from to get your vote considered. Just because I live in the vaguely defined metropolitan area of a city in Texas doesn't mean that my vote should be worth any less. I am still as much of a human as someone who lives in a flyover state. The popular vote [I]does[/I] matter because it shows who the people voted for. Not the states, nor the counties, nor the electors, the people. If there are more people living in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, then why would they not be represented more? The electoral college (mostly the winner takes all system and gerrymandered districts parts) is inherently broken, outdated, and undemocratic. That's also discounting all of the other holes with this argument. That cgp grey video has been posted ad nauseum so I'm sure you've already seen it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744594]There's not much reason to believe that Bernie would have won the general beyond wishful thinking.[/QUOTE] you could have said the same thing about trump winning...well, anything. But theres no doubt that the party would have been less divided. But it also doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744491]How can you say it's fringe? It's prominent in universities, the place where our next generation of leaders will be coming from, and it's indistinguishable from groups like BLM or this recent Women's March ([B]For example, they refused to allow pro-life women's groups to participate in the march[/B]).[/QUOTE] As far as I'm aware this isn't true. They refused pro-life groups from sponsoring the march. How would they somehow screen all protestors to exclude pro-life women? It's as impractical as banning people from entering the US because of their religion. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;51744617]The pro-life group wanted to join in protest against Trump as fellow women. The fact that they demand ideological purity is a big deal. It wasn't a "women's" march. It was a left wing march.[/QUOTE] From the start one of the core ideological tenants of the protest was pro-choice abortion rights. It was called the "women's march" because it represented a large slice of primarily womens rights issues and grievances. Don't be so reductionist.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51744640]Man... If I had a dollar for every time I heard this argument I'd be able to build Trumps wall. It [B]shouldn't[/B] matter where you're from to get your vote considered. Just because I live in the vaguely defined metropolitan area of a city in Texas doesn't mean that my vote should be worth any less. I am still as much of a human as someone who lives in a flyover state. The popular vote [I]does[/I] matter because it shows who the people voted for. Not the states, nor the counties, nor the electors, the people. If there are more people living in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, then why would they not be represented more? The electoral college (mostly the winner takes all system and gerrymandered districts parts) is inherently broken, outdated, and undemocratic. That's also discounting all of the other holes with this argument. That cgp grey video has been posted ad nauseum so I'm sure you've already seen it.[/QUOTE] It's not supposed to be democratic for the exact reason you stated. If we depended on the popular, every "fly over state" wouldn't matter all. The point of having the electoral map is to allow every STATE to have a voice in the voting on our president. If you want a voice to matter, why dont you care about the voices of those who live in the "flyover states". They are almost always ignored and would continue to be ignored if it werent for the electoral system.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51744661]As far as I'm aware this isn't true. They refused pro-life groups from sponsoring the march. How would they somehow screen all protestors to exclude pro-life women? It's as impractical as banning people from entering the US because of their religion. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] From the start one of the core ideological tenants of the protest was pro-choice abortion rights. It was called the "women's march" because it represented a large slice of primarily womens rights issues and grievances. Don't be so reductionist.[/QUOTE] Does it not matter that the majority of women don't agree with the march's point of view on abortion ([URL]http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/americans-support-supreme-court-ruling-to-restrict-abortion-oppose-taxpayer-funding-300394731.html)?[/URL] It seems silly to call it a "women's" march and then deny groups that support the majority position of women into the march. Sure, the feasibility of denying all pro-life women into the march would make it impossible to deny them all, but that doesn't change the fact that they did not want those groups associated with them. It's safe to assume they don't want pro-life women associated with them either.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51744679]That's kind of hypocritical considering pro life is all about politicizing a part of women's health in order to satisfy an ideology not backed by fact. Would you be okay with climate change deniers being given a seat at the UN climate change conference?[/QUOTE] What do you mean by "not backed by fact?" The idea of personhood is totally, 100%, a result of moral assumption, not scientific fact. Does the UN climate change conference claim to be a "men's" group? Or anything similar? If not, then I don't see how it's relevant.

[QUOTE=dimitrik129;51744674]It's not supposed to be democratic for the exact reason you stated. If we depended on the popular, every "fly over state" wouldn't matter all. The point of having the electoral map is to allow every STATE to have a voice in the voting on our president. If you want a voice to matter, why dont you care about the voices of those who live in the "flyover states". They are almost always ignored and would continue to be ignored if it werent for the electoral system.[/QUOTE] But my question is that why should their influence be overstated? I agree that they should have a voice, but that voice should be equivalent to every other american citizen in the country. If you had two groups of people, one with 100 people and one with 1 person, which groups interests would you appeal to more? It should be patently obvious that the places with more people should get more say. The problem with your argument is that you're treating states as their own entities with population counts representing their proportional strength and "voice". Not as arbitrarily defined landmasses containing actual human beings.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51744689]But my question is that why should their influence be overstated? I agree that they should have a voice, but that voice should be equivalent to every other american citizen in the country. If you had two groups of people, one with 100 people and one with 1 person, which groups interests would you appeal to more? It should be patently obvious that the places with more people should get more say. The problem with your argument is that you're treating states as their own entities with population counts representing their proportional strength and "voice". Not as arbitrarily defined landmasses containing actual human beings.[/QUOTE] States are inherently their own entities in the US. That's what the entire [B]United States[/B] system was based on.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744713]States are inherently their own entities in the US. That's what the entire [B]United States[/B] system was based on.[/QUOTE] That's true, but it's not really relevant in the context of this argument. It's also somewhat outdated in a geopolitical landscape where people now mostly identify with their national identity rather than the identity of the state. The entire United States system was brought about in a very different US than the one we live in today, with much different interstate relations. Everyone in the US should be represented. The problem that I have with the electoral college is that it stifles the voices of millions of people due to the winner takes all system. The EC wouldn't be nearly as bad if it weren't for that or the FPTP system. The EC does take priority off of larger states, but it places that priority on swing states, not all states equally. It takes away the votes of citizens that voted opposite of the color of the state. That goes for the millions of R citizens in California as well as the millions of D citizens in Texas. One person, one vote is, in my opinion, the system that the country should go by. Or, at the very least, gravitate towards in the future.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51744726]That's true, but it's not really relevant in the context of this argument. It's also somewhat outdated in a geopolitical landscape where people now mostly identify with their national identity rather than the identity of the state. The entire United States system was brought about in a very different US than the one we live in today, with much different interstate relations. Everyone in the US should be represented. The problem that I have with the electoral college is that it stifles the voices of millions of people due to the winner takes all system. The EC wouldn't be nearly as bad if it weren't for that or the FPTP system. The EC does take priority off of larger states, but it places that priority on swing states, not all states equally. It takes away the votes of citizens that voted opposite of the color of the state. That goes for the millions of R citizens in California as well as the millions of D citizens in Texas. One person, one vote is, in my opinion, the system that the country should go by. Or, at the very least, gravitate towards in the future.[/QUOTE] The state system is incredibly vital to the US governmental system. Our system wouldn't even make sense without them. The system was never meant to make every vote equal. For example, the senate is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable, yet, for some reason, I don't hear much clamor to abolish the senate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744744]The state system is incredibly vital to the US governmental system. Our system wouldn't even make sense without them. The system was never meant to make every vote equal. For example, the senate is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable, yet, for some reason, I don't hear much clamor to abolish the senate.[/QUOTE] Well the thing with the senate is that it firmly fits into the US by its status as a representative democracy. Our Senators, unlike our President for some reason, are elected by popular vote. Each person has an equal voice to elect their representative. The election of our President is different. I suppose this is an ideological debate rather than a pragmatic one, but I think that the US as it stands today is unified by our President, and thus our process for electing our President should function entirely the same as the function by which we elect our Senators. While the States as functional units of our nation are incredibly important, they do ultimately exist to serve the nation's constituents.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51744768]Don't insult your own intelligence. You know that a cluster non differentiated cells, lacking a brain, that hasn't become conscious is incomparable to a person, and that a newly fertilized egg is not a person. Science discredited pro life like it did Climate change denial, without needing to even needing to ask people about their gut feelings. Be a little bit more subtle on changing the goal posts for that 2nd sentence.[/QUOTE] "Is incomparable to a person." Care to show me how you can back that up with scientific evidence of what constitutes a person? Also, what goalpost did I move? I actually don't know. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Duck M.;51744771]Well the thing with the senate is that it firmly fits into the US by its status as a representative democracy. Our Senators, unlike our President for some reason, are elected by popular vote. Each person has an equal voice to elect their representative. The election of our President is different. I suppose this is an ideological debate rather than a pragmatic one, but I think that the US as it stands today is unified by our President, and thus our process for electing our President should function entirely the same as the function by which we elect our Senators. While the States as functional units of our nation are incredibly important, they do ultimately exist to serve the nation's constituents.[/QUOTE] It's a fundamental ideological difference, I agree. Those who want the independent and importance of states at the forefront are generally in support of the electoral college. Those who want the state's independence diminished are generally in opposition. The senate is anti-democratic because of it's absolutely insane disproportionality. North Dakota, with less than 2 million people, has the same number of senators as California, with over ten times the population. I'm not sure how you can be in favor of a popular representational government while also being in support of the senate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744594]There's not much reason to believe that Bernie would have won the general beyond wishful thinking.[/QUOTE] The only definitive thing we he have is that he had much higher favourability than Clinton or Trump. Anything else is pure speculation. There's not much reason to believe that he would have lost the general beyond wishful thinking, either

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51744796]The only definitive thing we he have is that he had much higher favourability than Clinton or Trump. Anything else is pure speculation. There's not much reason to believe that he would have lost the general beyond wishful thinking, either[/QUOTE]both sanders and trump presented themselves as a being a sudden and dramatic change that would be a kick in washington's behind. sanders had the perk of political experience [sp]and not being a blatantly untrustworthy uncompassionate buffoonish monument to the worst of america's elite [/sp]

[QUOTE=Goberfish;51744796]The only definitive thing we he have is that he had much higher favourability than Clinton or Trump. Anything else is pure speculation. There's not much reason to believe that he would have lost the general beyond wishful thinking, either[/QUOTE] There were a lot of reasons as to of why bernie would have lost, he received less votes in the swing states during the primaries, he has a lot of concerning statements about various things that would get brought up, the republicans could paint him as a pure socialist which is the worst thing to be in an american election, and he's also not fantastic under pressure, meaning he would have probably done poorly during the debates by repeating his normal speech. Having high favourability locally doesn't mean he'll do well nation-wide. But probably the most important thing, he flat out did not appeal to minority voters. You can't earn black votes by going on about economic inequality because they've heard it 1000 times before and it usually leads to their concerns being ignored. In many cases you cannot address economic inequality without first addressing the systems that enforce it, such as institutional racism. They want a candidate who acknowledges their problems and promises to fix them, not somebody who specifically avoids talking about them because they want to appeal to white voters. [QUOTE=sgman91;51744559]The part were "SJW" ideals come into it is it's extremely strong form of identity politics. Hillary's campaign effectively demonized a large portion of the white population while trying to depend on minority voters that Obama got in huge numbers.[/QUOTE] Appealing to black voters is not "identity politics," (a term that is rapidly becoming as meaningless as SJW for me.) These people have their own priorities and issues, and generally in an election campaign you're going to try and appeal to them, especially for the democrats, who's massive support among minority communities allows them to be competitive with the republicans. So, if appealing to black voters is identity politics, what is Trumps consistent appeal to people working in manufacturing industries? Where he says he's going to snap his fingers and magically resurrect millions of jobs? Is that not identity politics? As clearly this work defines a lot of their lives. This narrative about the democrats "demonizing" white voters is stupid. Having an increased focus on black voters does not mean that white voters are being ignored, Trump posed some serious questions about race and discrimination, and the democrats wanted to make it clear that they opposed Trump and his policy. I cannot think of a single example where white voters were "demonized," unless you're going to pull out the ol' basket of deplorables quote, which is a sly admission that most white voters veered to Trump. Do you not think that black voters deserve a little attention once in a while? Or should we avoid addressing issues that specifically affect minorities to avoid offending white voters (who were going to vote Trump anyway, if this were really the case.)

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51744726]That's true, but it's not really relevant in the context of this argument. It's also somewhat outdated in a geopolitical landscape where people now mostly identify with their national identity rather than the identity of the state. The entire United States system was brought about in a very different US than the one we live in today, with much different interstate relations. Everyone in the US should be represented. The problem that I have with the electoral college is that it stifles the voices of millions of people due to the winner takes all system. The EC wouldn't be nearly as bad if it weren't for that or the FPTP system. The EC does take priority off of larger states, but it places that priority on swing states, not all states equally. It takes away the votes of citizens that voted opposite of the color of the state. That goes for the millions of R citizens in California as well as the millions of D citizens in Texas. One person, one vote is, in my opinion, the system that the country should go by. Or, at the very least, gravitate towards in the future.[/QUOTE] Swing states change every election and there are far more of them then there are very large states. [editline]29th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Streecer;51745128]There were a lot of reasons as to of why bernie would have lost, he received less votes in the swing states during the primaries, he has a lot of concerning statements about various things that would get brought up, the republicans could paint him as a pure socialist which is the worst thing to be in an american election, and he's also not fantastic under pressure, meaning he would have probably done poorly during the debates by repeating his normal speech. Having high favourability locally doesn't mean he'll do well nation-wide. But probably the most important thing, he flat out did not appeal to minority voters. You can't earn black votes by going on about economic inequality because they've heard it 1000 times before and it usually leads to their concerns being ignored. In many cases you cannot address economic inequality without first addressing the systems that enforce it, such as institutional racism. They want a candidate who acknowledges their problems and promises to fix them, not somebody who specifically avoids talking about them because they want to appeal to white voters. Appealing to black voters is not "identity politics," (a term that is rapidly becoming as meaningless as SJW for me.) These people have their own priorities and issues, and generally in an election campaign you're going to try and appeal to them, especially for the democrats, who's massive support among minority communities allows them to be competitive with the republicans. So, if appealing to black voters is identity politics, what is Trumps consistent appeal to people working in manufacturing industries? Where he says he's going to snap his fingers and magically resurrect millions of jobs? Is that not identity politics? As clearly this work defines a lot of their lives. This narrative about the democrats "demonizing" white voters is stupid. Having an increased focus on black voters does not mean that white voters are being ignored, Trump posed some serious questions about race and discrimination, and the democrats wanted to make it clear that they opposed Trump and his policy. I cannot think of a single example where white voters were "demonized," unless you're going to pull out the ol' basket of deplorables quote, which is a sly admission that most white voters veered to Trump. Do you not think that black voters deserve a little attention once in a while? Or should we avoid addressing issues that specifically affect minorities to avoid offending white voters (who were going to vote Trump anyway, if this were really the case.)[/QUOTE] There are countless examples of Democrats claiming Republicans are racists upon unfounded allegations. Theyre essentially claiming that minority voters have no choice but the Democratic party because otherwise theyd be disenfranchised, which is ridiculous. One of most notable example of this is the "he's gonna put yall back in chains" bit from Joe Biden talking about Romney at a rally. Oh and what about the "basket of deplorables" comment?

[QUOTE=sgman91;51744744]The state system is incredibly vital to the US governmental system. Our system wouldn't even make sense without them. The system was never meant to make every vote equal. For example, the senate is the most anti-democratic thing imaginable, yet, for some reason, I don't hear much clamor to abolish the senate.[/QUOTE] Would be fine with abolishing the Senate tbh. The reason you don't hear much clamor about it is that getting rid of the Senate would be impossible, whereas getting rid of the electoral college is only almost impossible.

[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;51746061]Would be fine with abolishing the Senate tbh. The reason you don't hear much clamor about it is that getting rid of the Senate would be impossible, whereas getting rid of the electoral college is only almost impossible.[/QUOTE] I think if we were planning on doing that it'd be better just switch over entirely to a parliament along with a new election system, it'd be about as difficult anyways so ya may as well.

[QUOTE=Streecer;51745128]There were a lot of reasons as to of why bernie would have lost, he received less votes in the swing states during the primaries, [/QUOTE] Hoo boy. Performance in a fairly closed primary where it's mostly Democrats deciding and when you're almost a complete unknown and the people who run the primaries hate your guts and collude against you is a big difference to how you'll perform in a general where everyone knows you and you have to appeal to everyone instead of just being the party darling [QUOTE]he has a lot of concerning statements about various things that would get brought up,[/QUOTE] Like what? [QUOTE] the republicans could paint him as a pure socialist which is the worst thing to be in an american election,[/QUOTE] Yeah and the democrats could've painted Trump as a sexist racist out-of-touch facist, we know how well negative campaigning works. Also Republicans slandering Sanders as a pure socialist. Who are they going to convince? Republicans who aren't going to vote Democrat anyway? [QUOTE] and he's also not fantastic under pressure, meaning he would have probably done poorly during the debates by repeating his normal speech.[/QUOTE] What. He's been in politics for ages battling everything from every which direction. Where are you getting that he's not fantastic under pressure. According to like everyone except establishment supporters he smashed Clinton in the few debates they had, and she's way better at debating than Trump will ever be [QUOTE] Having high favourability locally doesn't mean he'll do well nation-wide.[/QUOTE] I don't know where you're getting this "locally" from. He was highly favourable nation-wide [QUOTE]But probably the most important thing, he flat out did not appeal to minority voters. You can't earn black votes by going on about economic inequality because they've heard it 1000 times before and it usually leads to their concerns being ignored. In many cases you cannot address economic inequality without first addressing the systems that enforce it, such as institutional racism. They want a candidate who acknowledges their problems and promises to fix them, not somebody who specifically avoids talking about them because they want to appeal to white voters.[/QUOTE] Umm, Sanders did make a point of mentioning how drug offences disproportionately affect minorities, for example. He has been pretty critical of the prison-for-profit system as well. He has acknowledged their problems and did promise to fix them. To say he specifically avoids talking about them because he wants to appeal to white voters is laughable. Especially considering how his campaign noticed they weren't primarying well with minorities and put a lot of effort into trying to fix that. Oh, and remember how Clinton and Trump went to rallies in support of Standing Rock? Because I don't

While anecdotal, my father, who has voted republican in every presidental election, told me he would have voted for Bernie had he been the Democratic candidate. I've heard similar things from others. He had cross party support, especially from the middle and working classes because of his message.

[QUOTE=Naught;51744587]which is because of hillary's campaign team being idiots, not people on universities. Notice how strong the left was doing with bernie, and how its recovering with bernie at the helm, with the same amount of sjw's wandering around.[/QUOTE] You're completely ignoring hilary's social media push was directly to said idiots at universities. [url]https://twitter.com/HFA/status/772563031716982786?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/url]

We're facing difficulties in Sweden with extreme PC attitudes within the left and identity politics being a trending belief. This goes to the extent that a immigrant women and MP of a leftist party is called a racist for criticizing oppression of women in Islam. She was declared 'Swede of the Year' and was congratulated by right-wing parties while her own party remained silent. This is a problem, the left is having issues.

I hope there is a movement that has most left-wing ideas except it actually engages in discussions with the right and is willing to compromise and recognizes that identity politics is garbage. I call it: the alt-left. I gotta find a meme for it. Anyone got any ideas?

[del]what exactly is identity politics anyway? i feel like some aspects of (what i think is) identity politics are legitimate, but others are ridiculous[/del] [img]http://i.imgur.com/pptKFxs.png[/img] nvm identity politics seem terrible

[QUOTE=343N;51769591]what exactly is identity politics anyway? i feel like some aspects of (what i think is) identity politics are legitimate, but others are ridiculous[/QUOTE] "How oppressed you are is important. We should identify ourselves as belonging to different groups. Race, sex, religion. Also we should get better treatment, because we deserve it." It varies in how extreme it is. It becomes bad when this social equality pushes away economic equality. Then class and poverty is no longer important. Only how oppressed you are matter (except for class).

Damn, it's going to be hard to watch the Mega64 Tudd Fudders videos now after seeing the things he posts here on Facepunch. :cry:

[QUOTE=Revan564;51769758]Damn, it's going to be hard to watch the Mega64 Tudd Fudders videos now after seeing the things he posts here on Facepunch. :cry:[/QUOTE] If I were you, I would take notes during those videos and send me a PM at which moments you could tell I was destined to be a Trump Supporter. [sp]But seriously, I can leave politics at the door in the real life just like most everyone else.[/sp]