A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 537 of 725
Quote:What does the word "like" mean for you, 6ix, because you can't know a politician well enough to "like" them socially. You have to "like" for some other reasons. You "like" their policy? You "like" their party? You "like" a tax cheating scoundrel?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I vote for whoever I like. I've voted for a lot of Democrats in my life. I still do to this day, particularly on the local level. I benefit from living in a state where the Democrats are centrists, and not insane fringe Leftists like in California, New York and Illinois. It just so happens that in the last decade I vote for more Republicans than Democrats.
But I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for a Democrat for Indiana Governor last time... Not in 2020, but Holcomb has to go. Rainwater, the Libertarian candidate got 11.4% of the vote this time, which was up nearly 8% from what the Libertarian got the prior election.
The voters of Indiana didn't agree with you that Gov. Eric Holcomb has to go. Holcomb got 51.38% of the vote in 2016. His "likeability" must have increased because he got 56.51% in 2020. When Libertarian Donald Rainwater received 11.44% of the votes proves nothing about Gov. Eric Holcomb being "unlikable" but does prove that 11.44% of voters don't understand that Libertarians lose elections. The 11.44% should have not voted for anybody rather than a Libertarian who cannot win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Holcomb#Electoral_history
Libertarians do NOT win. By voting for a Libertarian, the message the voter is sending is that they don't understand a damn thing about how a winner-takes-all election system works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)#Libert
arians_in_office
Why Libertarians Lose
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting#Fewer_political_parties
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I vote for whoever I like.Quote:
What does the word "like" mean for you, 6ix,
I'll rephrase it to mean what I meant to say...
"I vote for whoever I like to vote for."
Quote:
because you can't know a politician well enough to "like" them socially.
The same works with hate, you stupid fuck.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you're anything like Texas Trumptards, you've avoided the reality about yourself all your life, except when reality punches your face or stabs you in the back or rots out your teeth. Most Trumptards, almost without exception, say things are going well. 6ix says it. I'd believe 6ix, except for the Trumptards I know things are NOT going well. Why do Trumptards say what is false? Maybe they don't know any better? Maybe nobody can convince them to stop? Trump knows perfectly well his Trumptards cared very little about the truth or about honestly paying their taxes. I'm certain, from decades of experience with them in war and peace and business, that Trumptards will do what pleases them and the results will often be crappy, but they can't tell the difference because they aren't as smart and sane as they imagine themselves, avoiding reality. It's why Trumptards struggle to stay in the middle class. Avoiding reality. It's why things are forever going wrong in their lives and it couldn't be their fault. It's the Democrats' fault! Always those mean Democrats triggering Trumptards' anger at the world and reality!
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Could say the same about a lot of minority "communities" and post-reality libtards living in mom and dad's basement, with useless psychology degrees and a lot of student loan debt.
Originally posted by second:Quote:If you're anything like Texas Trumptards, you've avoided the reality about yourself all your life, except when reality punches your face or stabs you in the back or rots out your teeth. Most Trumptards, almost without exception, say things are going well. 6ix says it. I'd believe 6ix, except for the Trumptards I know things are NOT going well. Why do Trumptards say what is false? Maybe they don't know any better? Maybe nobody can convince them to stop? Trump knows perfectly well his Trumptards cared very little about the truth or about honestly paying their taxes. I'm certain, from decades of experience with them in war and peace and business, that Trumptards will do what pleases them and the results will often be crappy, but they can't tell the difference because they aren't as smart and sane as they imagine themselves, avoiding reality. It's why Trumptards struggle to stay in the middle class. Avoiding reality. It's why things are forever going wrong in their lives and it couldn't be their fault. It's the Democrats' fault! Always those mean Democrats triggering Trumptards' anger at the world and reality!
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You could say a lot of things, and Trumptards do because it's one of their defining characteristics, but you'd be trying to mislead. This is true: Once again, America is becoming a nation of drunks
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Could say the same about a lot of minority "communities" and post-reality libtards living in mom and dad's basement, with useless psychology degrees and a lot of student loan debt.
Few things are more American than drinking heavily. But worrying about how heavily other Americans are drinking is one of them.
The Mayflower landed at Plymouth Rock because, the crew feared, the Pilgrims were going through the beer too quickly. The ship had been headed for the mouth of the Hudson River, until its sailors (who, like most Europeans of that time, preferred beer to water) panicked at the possibility of running out before they got home, and threatened mutiny. And so the Pilgrims were kicked ashore, short of their intended destination and beerless. William Bradford complained bitterly about the latter in his diary that winter, which is really saying something when you consider what trouble the group was in. (Barely half would survive until spring.) Before long, they were not only making their own beer but also importing wine and liquor. Still, within a couple of generations, Puritans like Cotton Mather were warning that a “flood of RUM” could “overwhelm all good Order among us.”
George Washington first won elected office, in 1758, by getting voters soused. (He is said to have given them 144 gallons of alcohol, enough to win him 307 votes and a seat in Virginia’s House of Burgesses.) During the Revolutionary War, he used the same tactic to keep troops happy, and he later became one of the country’s leading whiskey distillers. But he nonetheless took to moralizing when it came to other people’s drinking, which in 1789 he called “the ruin of half the workmen in this Country.”
Hypocritical though he was, Washington had a point. The new country was on a bender, and its drinking would only increase in the years that followed. By 1830, the average American adult was consuming about three times the amount we drink today. An obsession with alcohol’s harms understandably followed, starting the country on the long road to Prohibition.
What’s distinctly American about this story is not alcohol’s prominent place in our history (that’s true of many societies), but the zeal with which we’ve swung between extremes. Americans tend to drink in more dysfunctional ways than people in other societies, only to become judgmental about nearly any drinking at all. Again and again, an era of overindulgence begets an era of renunciation: Binge, abstain. Binge, abstain.
. . . this longing for oblivion resulted from America’s almost unprecedented pace of change between 1790 and 1830. Thanks to rapid westward migration in the years before railroads, canals, and steamboats, more Americans lived in isolation and independence than ever before or since. Meanwhile, in the more densely populated East the old social hierarchies evaporated, cities mushroomed, and industrialization upended the labor market, leading to profound social dislocation and a mismatch between skills and jobs. The resulting epidemics of loneliness and anxiety led people to numb their pain with alcohol.
The temperance movement that took off in the decades that followed was a more rational (and multifaceted) response to all of this than it tends to look like in the rearview mirror. Rather than pushing for full prohibition, many advocates supported some combination of personal moderation, bans only on hard liquor, and regulation of those who profited off alcohol. Nor was temperance a peculiarly American obsession. As Mark Lawrence Schrad shows in his new book, Smashing the Liquor Machine: A Global History of Prohibition, concerns about distilled liquor’s impact were international: As many as two dozen countries enacted some form of prohibition.
Yet the version tha
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Changing Composition of Support for Left and Right Parties
by Pranab Bardhan
Some decades back the typical voting pattern in many democracies used to be that the rich and upper middle classes used to vote in general for right-leaning parties, while the relatively poor voted for left-leaning parties. But in recent decades this pattern has been shifting: many of the professional or more educated voters in some of those countries are increasingly going for left or green parties, while many of the poor working-class voters are turning to right-wing parties, sometimes led by populist demagogues. Thomas Piketty and his associates in a new paper issued by the World Inequality Lab have provided data to show that for 21 western democracies the more educated voters have over the years become more left supporters than the less-educated voters. Piketty has described this elite division between high-education and high-income people colorfully as that between the Brahmin Left and the Merchant Right. He does not go much into explaining this pattern but it is clear that as education expands (measured by average years of schooling of the adult population) the left or center-left parties now can have a viable base even in the relatively rich or upper middle classes. Education often makes one appreciate more liberal values, which may sometimes outweigh their worries about higher taxes that the left parties may inflict.
But this still leaves unexplained why the less-educated poor are leaning right.
More at https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2021/06/the-changing-composition
-of-support-for-left-and-right-parties.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I posted was true
SIGNYM:
Could say the same about a lot of minority "communities" and post-reality libtards living in mom and dad's basement, with useless psychology degrees and a lot of student loan debt.
SECPMDRATE: You could say a lot of things, and Trumptards do because it's one of their defining characteristics, but you'd be trying to mislead.
Quote:Why do you hate Americans so much, SECONDRATE?
SECONDRATE: This is true: Once again, America is becoming a nation of drunks ... American ... drinking heavily... Mayflower .... beer... RUM... ... George Washington ... alcohol...blah blah blah ... and let me toss in a few more distrators so I can avoid having to address SIGNY'S point as much as possible ...
American ... alcohol ...
And do you really think that nobody notices that when your brain has run dry of rebuttal (which is most of the time) that you fling irrelevant shit against the wall, hoping something will stick?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
THUGR posts about Putin so much, he must be in love.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It all stems from how much he hates himself and his own life.
--------------------------------------------------
Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How to Make Rational Mammals / Reasoning as a Social Project
(but you can't let retards work on your projects unless you crave project failure)
Reasoning well about what is true profiteth a mammal little. It does not reliably help a mammal in its selfish strivings, since it is often better for the mammal to believe all sorts of falsehoods that give it undue confidence (hope), or steer it clear of dangers (superstition), or hate its competitors (envy and jealousy). Nor does reasoning well about what is true help the mammal in terms of sociability, since a mammal is often more sociable by being stubbornly loyal to its clan (tribalism), or by taking on risks or burdens on behalf of the group (altruism), or caring for those who offer it no advantage (selfless love). Selfishness, sociability, and rationality: pick two, but you can’t have all three.
Given this predicament, we will have to give up on the original goal and settle for a next-best alternative, which is to create groups that reason well about what’s true, instead of individuals. This we can do. We first have to make sure our mammals have different opinions about what’s true. (Good news: this turns out to be easy to achieve.) Second, we have to have them talk to one another (already done). Third, we have to have them want to persuade one another to adopt the persuader’s opinion. This seems to accord pretty well with selfishness. But what counts as “acceptable means of persuasion” will have to be tempered somewhat to meet the requirements of sociability: if we allow for threats of force or bullying then we place our group’s cohesion at risk. So in the end we will need to establish social standards which tell us when we should or shouldn’t change our minds, on the basis of the claims our fellow mammals make. We can identify these standards as reason, near enough.
What we will get in the end are mammals who do not reason very well on their own — they fall into hope, superstition, envy, and other familiar mammalian foibles — but who reason exceptionally well in groups. Mammal A puts forward an opinion, only to be challenged by mammal B, with mammals C and D looking on, and a great many words are exchanged; in the end the group settles on an opinion which may be A’s, or someone else’s, or a new one that no one had considered before. But there begins to emerge a sense of what is right to conclude, independently of any individual’s opinion. We have at least a social process that functions in the way that “reason” is supposed to, even if we haven’t established that what counts as “right to conclude” is exactly the same as reasoning well about what is true.
. . . This overall engineering of mammalian reason is the account Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber offer in their 2017 book, The Enigma of Reason. The “enigma” they seek to explain is how humans are both fantastic and lousy reasoners. Humans, as we know, have calculus and the standard model and economic strategies and chess; but they also buy lottery tickets and adopt conspiracy theories and fail at all sorts of tasks set by crafty psychologists. Mercier and Sperber argue that we need to think of reasoning as a group project rather than as an oracle housed in each brain.
. . . Two interesting consequences follow from this view of reasoning as a social project. The first is that the individualistic ideal of human beings as free and independent judges of what is reasonable and true does not accord well with what we know ourselves to be. We need each other in order to reason well;
More at https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2021/06/how-to-make-rational-mam
mals.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These myths about Social Security are drawing attention from what’s really going on
Talking with family and friends, listening to cable news or following public debate about the future of Social Security, you’ve likely heard one or more of the following comments asserted as incontrovertible fact:
Social Security is going bankrupt, going broke, in crisis; young people will never see a penny in benefits.
Social Security’s trust funds are simply an accounting gimmick, worthless IOUs.
Social Security is unsustainable. There just will not be enough working-age people to support retired boomers.
Social Security is unfair to younger Americans.
Here is a point-by-point refutation of each of these assertions and how these claims undermine confidence in the future of Social Security and distract attention from what is really going on.
More at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-myths-about-social-security-ar
e-drawing-attention-from-whats-really-going-on-11622834550
The article does not say but the spreaders of these myths are Trumptards. I wonder what happened to those who lean Republican, even if they don’t always vote for only Republicans, to make them this way?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME