361
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
361 points (88.7% liked)
Political Memes
5456 readers
2646 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Because of citizens united, money decides election wins. So how do we win without donors?
They outspent and lost this time.
That doesn’t mean we can win without donors. Republicans had foreign bots and billionaires buying votes.
Ever hear the one about wrestling a pig in the mud?
Why are you avoiding the question?
There isn't a question in your previous comment.
And apparently you haven't heard the one.
You don't wrestle a pig in mud because it gets mud all over you and the pig likes it.
It will only drive up donorship to the Republicans and foster more lenient ~~bribery~~ donation policy from the Democrats going forward.
The Democrats need to actually submit themselves to overhauling campaign funding if they want to make any headway. But they want that money. They want it more than they want any of their alleged policy goals.
This was the question that you are avoiding.
To overhaul campaign funding they need to win. For that to happen they need donors.
Also, just because a saying exists doesn’t make it right.
They didn't avoid it
Is a refutation of the premise. If, as you say, donation money decides elections then the democrats, having gotten and spent more, should have won.
So, did money decide this election win?
Republicans spent money and won. So yes it does. I never said spending the most money guarantees a win. That’s a straw man argument you are trying to build.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with thought, you meant most money.
This was the original comment I responded to.
My question was how do we win elections without donors?
I don't see them arguing to remove all doners and thus win without 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.
No wonder you were so quick to level accusations of strawmanning. It was a confession, it's always a confession.
Less donors means less chance of winning. Democrats just lost while spending the most. So take those odds of winning and reduce them.
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?
It’s always a confession? I’ve never spoken to you before. This seems like an emotional knee jerk response.
"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
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.
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
I don't think I can break through that level of double think.
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.
Who is talking about ignoring people or optimizing for donations? Seems like you are refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion.
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.
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.
You’re literally quoting something that was never said.
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.
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.
You argue semantics to steer the conversation away from the original question. E-v-e-r-y accusation is a confession.
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
It's a summary, I made that quite plain.
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.
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.
Doesn't respond to a single thing in any previous comment. Every accusation is a confession. This is also just a bald faced lie.
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.
You’re still dancing around a simple question.
Was your argument that "democrats have to spend some money"? The position that would be arguing against is that others believe they spend no money.
Not trying to build strawmen, I'm just genuinely confused. No-one is saying they spend no money, or court any donations. Which is why I, and seemingly the person you were having a discussion with, thought you meant most money.
part interests me. Before citizens united were parties forbidden from spending money?
Edit to answer your question:
They don't. But, because we've established they don't need the most money to win they can be more selective in their choices. Taking donations from oil companies at the cost of votes, bad plan. Taking donations from genocidal governments at the cost of votes, bad plan. Promise voters that you'll level wealth inequality at the cost of money, good plan. They don't need all the money.
They were pretty limited because donors have a maximum donation amount, so once you're maxed that's it.
Unless you're a PAC then as long as you follow some rules, people can donate as much as they like to the PAC and the PAC can use that money to do basically everything a normal campaign organization would do...all legal because of citizens united.
The rules are poorly written and even more poorly enforced.
Coordinate with a candidate before they announce their candidacy?
Pass
Coordinate with an individual who is then hired as an advisor to the candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the children / spouse of an incumbent candidate?
Pass
Coordinate with the candidate themselves through means that prevent detection?
Pass
Coordinate with a candidate explicitly in broad daylight while making no attempt to hide it and leave a paper trail, electronic records, notarized documents, and a plan to do so again in the future and market your services doing so to other candidates?
Candidate elected; you are at a sub 1% chance to be charged with a misdemeanor if investigated by the DoJ because the FEC can't be arsed
I answered the question in an edit for the sake of fairness. Tldr: they don't. The doners don't need to cost votes.
I don't see the relevance. So long as people aren't saying they spend no money, which they didn't, why bring it up? It still implies a "most money" argument to me.
Edit: I don't read usernames and it bites me everytime