What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[West Leas Oros 2]

This grinds my gears, but California and New York are Liberal, not Leftist. If they ain’t seizing the means of production, that shit ain’t leftism!

I wish we lived in a world where the "Commiefornia" name-calling was actually accurate. I want General Secretary Gavin Newsom of the Sacramento Politburo to seize my means of reproduction and treat me like a filthy landlord uwu

Same here. Unfortunately, California is considered “communist” because of some whiny liberals who would probably be among the first out in a real communist revolution as the proletariat stormed their gated communities and set fire to their gaudy mansions. Well, a guy can dream.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Everything i dont like is communism, and other things to tell yourself as an american.

[Rojava Free State]

If you end the electoral college the USA will transition into effectively a one party leftist state due to california and new york along with major city's.

This grinds my gears, but California and New York are Liberal, not Leftist. If they ain’t seizing the means of production, that shit ain’t leftism!

I don't know how California could be communist when silicon Valley has so much power out there. Poor people live on the street in places like Frisco because gentrification raises the rent till they cant afford anything but a cardboard box.

[Rojava Free State]

Everything i dont like is communism, and other things to tell yourself as an american.

The three boogeymen of American society:

•Communism
•Islam
•Atheism

[The Emerald Legion]

It's more that cities are rotten and inherently corrupt the Democratic process with their own unsustainability.

I'm going to take that as a "yes but let me try to rationalize it so I don't look like another elitist misanthrope".

Then you'd be wrong. Cities are giant gaping maws for resources. This was fine when we primarily relied on American Manufacturing, because the whole reason cities got as big as they did is because they were hubs for manufacturing.

That's mostly gone thanks to outsourcing. So they serve no purpose. so they decline, and the people stuck there are in a perpetual state of voting for people who promise to feed them while also ruthlessly working to destroy any means those same people might have to be able to feed themselves.

It's unhealthy, and frankly I would go so far as to say Extortionate.

[Gormwood]

I'm going to take that as a "yes but let me try to rationalize it so I don't look like another elitist misanthrope".

Then you'd be wrong. Cities are giant gaping maws for resources. This was fine when we primarily relied on American Manufacturing, because the whole reason cities got as big as they did is because they were hubs for manufacturing.

That's mostly gone thanks to outsourcing. So they serve no purpose. so they decline, and the people stuck there are in a perpetual state of voting for people who promise to feed them while also ruthlessly working to destroy any means those same people might have to be able to feed themselves.

It's unhealthy, and frankly I would go so far as to say Extortionate.

"Grrrr, Cities BAD!"

[The Emerald Legion]

Then you'd be wrong. Cities are giant gaping maws for resources. This was fine when we primarily relied on American Manufacturing, because the whole reason cities got as big as they did is because they were hubs for manufacturing.

That's mostly gone thanks to outsourcing. So they serve no purpose. so they decline, and the people stuck there are in a perpetual state of voting for people who promise to feed them while also ruthlessly working to destroy any means those same people might have to be able to feed themselves.

It's unhealthy, and frankly I would go so far as to say Extortionate.

"Grrrr, Cities BAD!"

Question. You have a car. It's a good car. But you moved and now can walk, or use a good public transit system. And that car costs 70% of your income in upkeep.

Do you just keep maintaining the car when it's not doing what it's meant to do? Because that's what we've done.

[West Leas Oros 2]

This grinds my gears, but California and New York are Liberal, not Leftist. If they ain’t seizing the means of production, that shit ain’t leftism!

I don't know how California could be communist when silicon Valley has so much power out there. Poor people live on the street in places like Frisco because gentrification raises the rent till they cant afford anything but a cardboard box.

Broke: California is communist
Woke: California is AnCap

[Liriena]

I'm going to take that as a "yes but let me try to rationalize it so I don't look like another elitist misanthrope".

Then you'd be wrong. Cities are giant gaping maws for resources. This was fine when we primarily relied on American Manufacturing, because the whole reason cities got as big as they did is because they were hubs for manufacturing.

That's mostly gone thanks to outsourcing. So they serve no purpose. so they decline, and the people stuck there are in a perpetual state of voting for people who promise to feed them while also ruthlessly working to destroy any means those same people might have to be able to feed themselves.

It's unhealthy, and frankly I would go so far as to say Extortionate.

As I said: this is a cynical rationalization for political cowardice and misanthropy that reeks of overgeneralizations and pre-modern economic theory. And a very hypocritical rationalization at that, since economically parasitic rural voters are arguably one of the most pandered-to political groups in the United States, given how supposedly cost-averse right-wing politicians keep giving them subsidies.

You've given me no serious, honest argument as to why you are justified in disenfranchizing urban voters instead of trying to appeal to them. Do you really have so little courage in your convictions and the persuasive abilities of your preferred political party that you'd rather advocate for denying those voters political representation proportional to their human scale?

Cities serve no economic purpose because the productive economy has declined and thus a lot of city inhabitants can no longer rely on industrial labor? Ok. What does that have to do with the legitimacy of their vote as a group and as individuals? What makes an urban voter inherently lesser than your oh so idealized rural voters?

[Major-Tom]

Remember, land is more valuable than people because...it, like, all that red looks bigger on a map or something.

I do so adore the "I don't want popular vote because city people bad" logic. It's a beautifully accidental admission that your brain is just drowning in the pre-modern ideology juice that (correctly) treated medieval boroughs and the rising bourgeoise that inhabited them as a threat to the continuity of feudal society.

It's just basically a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't want the libs to win even if they win." I can wrap my head around a lot of conservative talking points and say to myself "well, I completely disagree, but I can respect what you've put into your own argument." But not with this talking point, it's just crockery.

I live in one of the least dense counties in the contiguous US. It's massive in land size, mostly sparsely populated and full of diverse political opinions and lifestyles. And often in my state, the demands of the major city receive more attention than our own county. I don't like that, but I'm also not going to be silly enough to suggest that my vote be worth more than those in the major city, it's asinine for me to suggest that.

[Liriena]

"Grrrr, Cities BAD!"

Question. You have a car. It's a good car. But you moved and now can walk, or use a good public transit system. And that car costs 70% of your income in upkeep.

Do you just keep maintaining the car when it's not doing what it's meant to do? Because that's what we've done.

So your solution is to politically disenfranchize the people who live in the cities. Even though your rhetoric points to the underlying problem being one of economic history.

Sounds to me like you're trying to cure the disease by killing the patient, but ok.

[The Emerald Legion]

Question. You have a car. It's a good car. But you moved and now can walk, or use a good public transit system. And that car costs 70% of your income in upkeep.

Do you just keep maintaining the car when it's not doing what it's meant to do? Because that's what we've done.

So your solution is to politically disenfranchize the people who live in the cities. Even though your rhetoric points to the underlying problem being one of economic history.

Sounds to me like you're trying to cure the disease by killing the patient, but ok.

I mean. My actual solution is to destroy the economic conditions that lead cities into their present state. or in so far as the metaphor goes, moving back to where the car has a use. Freed from the exploitative 'votes for welfare' cycle, cities would be able to properly participate in democracy again.

Because unfortunately we can't just switch off cities and leave them to rust the way we can a car we don't want to maintain.

[Liriena]

I do so adore the "I don't want popular vote because city people bad" logic. It's a beautifully accidental admission that your brain is just drowning in the pre-modern ideology juice that (correctly) treated medieval boroughs and the rising bourgeoise that inhabited them as a threat to the continuity of feudal society.

It's just basically a thinly veiled way of saying "I don't want the libs to win even if they win." I can wrap my head around a lot of conservative talking points and say to myself "well, I completely disagree, but I can respect what you've put into your own argument." But not with this talking point, it's just crockery.

I live in one of the least dense counties in the contiguous US. It's massive in land size, mostly sparsely populated and full of diverse political opinions and lifestyles. And often in my state, the demands of the major city receive more attention than our own county. I don't like that, but I'm also not going to be silly enough to suggest that my vote be worth more than those in the major city, it's asinine for me to suggest that.

Not to mention that a lot of the justifications for selective geographic disenfranchisement rely on an implied mythology of people according to their geographic location, not anything material about who they actually are and how they live. It's borderline metaphysical.

[Ethel mermania]

Then you'd be wrong. Cities are giant gaping maws for resources. This was fine when we primarily relied on American Manufacturing, because the whole reason cities got as big as they did is because they were hubs for manufacturing.

That's mostly gone thanks to outsourcing. So they serve no purpose. so they decline, and the people stuck there are in a perpetual state of voting for people who promise to feed them while also ruthlessly working to destroy any means those same people might have to be able to feed themselves.

It's unhealthy, and frankly I would go so far as to say Extortionate.

"Grrrr, Cities BAD!"

In terms of covid exposure, yes.

[Rojava Free State]

I don't know how California could be communist when silicon Valley has so much power out there. Poor people live on the street in places like Frisco because gentrification raises the rent till they cant afford anything but a cardboard box.

Broke: California is communist
Woke: California is AnCap

California is classic American liberalism. Die hard capitalism mixed in with some empty words about "vulnerable communities and gay people and women's rights," things that get totally forgotten in the capitalist clusterfuck.

[Liriena]

So your solution is to politically disenfranchize the people who live in the cities. Even though your rhetoric points to the underlying problem being one of economic history.

Sounds to me like you're trying to cure the disease by killing the patient, but ok.

I mean. My actual solution is to destroy the economic conditions that lead cities into their present state. or in so far as the metaphor goes, moving back to where the car has a use. Freed from the exploitative 'votes for welfare' cycle, cities would be able to properly participate in democracy again.

I'm curious about how you think most people choose the party or candidate they vote for, given how obsessed you are on welfare recipients' electoral choices. Do you think welfare recipients are specially prone to voting based on the economic benefit of it and, if so, why? How do you feel about other voters who choose their party or candidates based on the economic benefits they might receive (i.e. businesspeople looking for tax breaks or subsidies, CEOs looking for deregulation, union members looking for labor protections, etc.)? Do you think that personal economic interests are only relevant to the votes of welfare recipients? How do you even know that 'votes for welfare' are a thing? If the possibility of worsening one's economic conditions is an extortive factor in voters' choices, does that not mean that every voter is being extorted in some way, by virtue of the fact that the state is in charge, not only of welfare, but also of taxation, labor and financial regulations, and business subsidies?

And, again, your rationalization still depends on a selectively misanthropic view of voters. It only works if we accept the implied premise that you or your preferred party would be incapable of persuading city voters of abandoning this allegedly extortive status quo and earning their vote in good faith. It implies a very bizarre sort of geographic essentialism that treats urban voters as a lost cause... which I guess is awfully convenient for your political goals, since it allows you to be shamelessly condescending and authoritarian towards them, refusing them any genuine political representation and unilaterally imposing your politics on them without their consent.

So, what does it feel like to be on the same level as the early 20th century proponents of electoral fraud?

[Rojava Free State]

I mean. My actual solution is to destroy the economic conditions that lead cities into their present state. or in so far as the metaphor goes, moving back to where the car has a use. Freed from the exploitative 'votes for welfare' cycle, cities would be able to properly participate in democracy again.

I'm curious about how you think most people choose the party or candidate they vote for, given how obsessed you are on welfare recipients' electoral choices. Do you think welfare recipients are specially prone to voting based on the economic benefit of it and, if so, why? How do you feel about other voters who choose their party or candidates based on the economic benefits they might receive (i.e. businesspeople looking for tax breaks or subsidies, CEOs looking for deregulation, union members looking for labor protections, etc.)? Do you think that personal economic interests are only relevant to the votes of welfare recipients? How do you even know that 'votes for welfare' are a thing? If the possibility of worsening one's economic conditions is an extortive factor in voters' choices, does that not mean that every voter is being extorted in some way, by virtue of the fact that the state is in charge, not only of welfare, but also of taxation, labor and financial regulations, and business subsidies?

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

[Liriena]

I'm curious about how you think most people choose the party or candidate they vote for, given how obsessed you are on welfare recipients' electoral choices. Do you think welfare recipients are specially prone to voting based on the economic benefit of it and, if so, why? How do you feel about other voters who choose their party or candidates based on the economic benefits they might receive (i.e. businesspeople looking for tax breaks or subsidies, CEOs looking for deregulation, union members looking for labor protections, etc.)? Do you think that personal economic interests are only relevant to the votes of welfare recipients? How do you even know that 'votes for welfare' are a thing? If the possibility of worsening one's economic conditions is an extortive factor in voters' choices, does that not mean that every voter is being extorted in some way, by virtue of the fact that the state is in charge, not only of welfare, but also of taxation, labor and financial regulations, and business subsidies?

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

Yes, that's another gap in Emerald Legion's argument: lots of welfare recipients vote for neocons and their austerity politics.

[Gormwood]

I'm curious about how you think most people choose the party or candidate they vote for, given how obsessed you are on welfare recipients' electoral choices. Do you think welfare recipients are specially prone to voting based on the economic benefit of it and, if so, why? How do you feel about other voters who choose their party or candidates based on the economic benefits they might receive (i.e. businesspeople looking for tax breaks or subsidies, CEOs looking for deregulation, union members looking for labor protections, etc.)? Do you think that personal economic interests are only relevant to the votes of welfare recipients? How do you even know that 'votes for welfare' are a thing? If the possibility of worsening one's economic conditions is an extortive factor in voters' choices, does that not mean that every voter is being extorted in some way, by virtue of the fact that the state is in charge, not only of welfare, but also of taxation, labor and financial regulations, and business subsidies?

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

And the Trump Bux is shameless pandering with welfare.

[Galloism]

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

Yes, that's another gap in Emerald Legion's argument: lots of welfare recipients vote for neocons and their austerity politics.

I honestly think if someone actually ran left on economics and right on social issues they'd run away with the election.

[Rojava Free State]

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

Yes, that's another gap in Emerald Legion's argument: lots of welfare recipients vote for neocons and their austerity politics.

They get distracted by their personal social issues. Basically you can have Trump giving corporations tax breaks and failing to bring industry home like he promised, but it's okay cause he made some brown kids suffer.

Voters often get convinced to vote against their economic interests when politicians play to their social interests, like their views on abortion, or religion, or national pride, or in the case of Trump extreme virulent racism.

[Rojava Free State]

Yes, that's another gap in Emerald Legion's argument: lots of welfare recipients vote for neocons and their austerity politics.

I honestly think if someone actually ran left on economics and right on social issues they'd run away with the election.

Trump kinda did that with his (hypothetical) protectionist policies, end to cheap foreign labor and anti elite mentality. The issue is he was a con artist and his new trade deals are alot like the old ones, he wants MORE immigrant labor, he already was using illegal immigrant labor on his property and he gave tax breaks to the same elite.

So he basically has no good policies to outweigh his bad policies, like stealing medical equipment from states.

[Rojava Free State]

I will say this, there were a hell of alot of people who voted for Trump who were on welfare, so it isn't like welfare=Democrat strongholds.

And the Trump Bux is shameless pandering with welfare.

"Vote for me, I'll pay you." -Trump

[Gormwood]

And the Trump Bux is shameless pandering with welfare.

"Vote for me, I'll pay you." -Trump

"With other people's money, so I won't feel the pain of giving away money!"

[Rojava Free State]

I honestly think if someone actually ran left on economics and right on social issues they'd run away with the election.

Of course they would. Even some of the Democrat's strongest constituent groups (blacks, Hispanics, etc) lean right on social issues. There isn't exactly a ton of black support for trans issues. The Dems only take up these issues to appeal to certain special interest groups.

Whoever does this in the future needs to really tone down the racism. You can't get black or latino votes without showing some love.