Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Acceptable_Sir2536 t1_iymbi0a wrote

Reply to comment by MethBearBestBear in Shaheen blasts proposal to move SC ahead of NH primary by fins4ever

We're talking about the Democrats lying about wanting to change the location of the primary. You for some reason are incapable of discussing that without bringing up other political parties.

This is about the Dems. It's apparent Republicans live rent free in your head, but they are literally irrelevant in this conversation lmao

−1

MethBearBestBear t1_iymcix2 wrote

Ok, just sticking with democrats, follow me here. The Democrats we elected are fighting to keep NH first, there are more then just them who get to pick who goes first, they are possibly and most likely out numbered in the vote. No other democrate pledged to fight to keep NH first. Not sure what you don't understand here

2

Acceptable_Sir2536 t1_iymf897 wrote

Wow I'm really proud of you for actually managing to write something without completely and utterly changing the topic. It took a while but you finally learned. Way to go!

Plenty of other Dems supported keeping it in NH every time they come up to stump for it. Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren. Even Biden a few years ago. Not going to spend my entire morning compiling a list of every single dem who supported keeping it

Now here they are, lying about it. Waiting until after the midterms because they knew it was going to be unpopular and it could affect their poll numbers. It's incredibly shitty of them

−1

MethBearBestBear t1_iymgpck wrote

Who is lying? Do you have the vote split? Every democrate from the northeast could support and vote for NH primary and yet that isn't enough for a majority. Also this is a proposal not the final say we are talking about here.

What reason other then "because we always are" is there to keep the first primary in NH. A state which very is not very representative of the country as a whole. What argument do you have against moving it on a national level not a "it hurts our state economy because people pay less attention to us" level? It makes more sense to have primaries in states which are more representative of the country because that is what a primary is about.

3

valleyman02 t1_iymuauh wrote

One could argue that New Hampshire by forcing early primaries in hopes of staying relative. Is one of the reasons that our election cycle is close to 2 years now.

2

MethBearBestBear t1_iyn1bwh wrote

I would say NH having it early lead to Iowa being early but the big push over the last decade where politics = marketability is both a good thing (people paying more attention to politics) and a bad thing as people become saturated with politics.

I think it is more of a small cause at the start of the race to be first but is now a symptom of the hyper political situation we find ourselves in where "above all else we must fight to stay first so we stay relevant" because if we really cared about voting then we would have easy early voting for all. This is a political and economically driven effort not actually something that should matter as much

3

Acceptable_Sir2536 t1_iymn1sg wrote

Fucking lmao a vote split? Dude you're trying too hard. My entire point has been that prominent Dems have said they have no intention of changing it, then immediately after midterms to protect their votes, the most prominent dem in the country and his office is now going against that when it's politically advantageous and not hurting their chance at getting votes . That is slimy. There is literally zero other argument against it.

Have I defended keeping the primary here? No I haven't you dumb cunt lmao. Nice strawman though. Ffs you are literally incapable of sticking to the topic at hand, aren't ya bud?

0

MethBearBestBear t1_iyn0ovh wrote

Yes do you know how the votes for the decision were cast? You claim these people are lying yet you openly admit to not knowing how they voted. Apparently you think a handful of people can make the decision for a body of a few hundred.

>Have I defended keeping the primary here? No I haven't you dumb cunt lmao.

Wow so civil such argument. Good ad hominem bad attempt to use strawman claim when it was not a strawman claim.

The topic at hand is you claiming Democrats lied. The when i address that specific argument (not strawman) by genuinely asking if you know how those who supported voted because they could...wait for it...be out voted 🫢 which means they wouldn't have turned against it and the same outcome could still happen.

Then i go onto the topic of NH having the first in the nation primary because as part of the argument about a vote split the question becomes would enough other Democrats be in favor of NH first or other arguments against NH first. I provide multiple reasons why those who never gave their word would push to place another state first and ask for a counter argument besides the only one there is "because we we first". All of which is relevant to your assumption that "these Democrats must have lied because someone else proposed something that is against what they said."

Ain't your bud, pal

2

Acceptable_Sir2536 t1_iyn3o83 wrote

>Apparently you think a handful of people can make the decision for a body of a few hundred.

Are you really trying to claim that the president isn't capable of doing that? Fucking lmao.

Oh you actually care about staying on topic now? You've been deflecting and changing the topic every single post. Glad to hear calling you a cunt hurt your feelings enough to get focused a bit.

Democrats advocated for keeping the primary in NH before midterms. Now after midterms, the most powerful dem in the country is moving to try and change that. Clearly no votes have been cast yet because this just came out? Unless you think that we aren't allowed to discuss what politicians want to do or advocate doing until after the votes have been tallied. That's clearly the best way. I've never heard of voters wanting to complain to their elected officials before a vote is cast.

Yes, when the leader of the free world proposes something that goes against what has been said before, I'm going to call out the hypocrisy of it. I can't fathom trying to defend political bullshit like this first by screeching "but the Republicans!!?????!!!", then by arguing that it hasn't been officially voted on so why worry?

Ffs bud, it's ok to say that politicians are being scummy. It's not that hard

1

MethBearBestBear t1_iyn5i14 wrote

Yeah i am saying the president cannot make that call some. Haven't been changing, honestly don't care what some troll calls me a cunt just calling it out as an ad hominem throughout your rambling statements. Honestly find it a bit funny you cheeky lad that you were so worked up your resorted to count haha 😂

Yes, Democrats around in here have been advocating, but now I'm confused as you are both saying it is Biden alone who decides then saying people went back on their word.

The whole votes not cast thing is exactly what I have been saying this whole time. The article you are commenting on is literally a NH democrate getting pissed off sticking to her word of fighting to keep NH first, then you claim they aren't doing that because they decided, then I say wait for the vote or do you know the anticipated vote split to properly call people out, to which you deflect and say it doesn't matter. I'm so confused by you and questioning how many goal posts you move while claiming you are standing still

I didn't defend this position, i said it will make less impact as the political capital lost by removing NH first is a lot less than the political capital of their opponents (primarily the republicans)

Yeah, politicians suck, but i reserve my final opinion until something actually happens or they change their stance publically. You claim Biden supported NH first but don't provide evidence and all those who did support NH first are blasting the Whitehouse for supporting SC first and not "going back on their word"

My other point in the original comment which was about republicans was simply saying the republicans can keep NH first they don't have to match SC with the Democrats. Honestly each party can do whatever they want

2

Acceptable_Sir2536 t1_iynlkm4 wrote

You refuse to realize you were arguing strawmans and using Whataboutisms and deflections and goal posts being moved left and right, but get hot and bothered at being called a cunt. This is peak Reddit right now lmao

>then I say wait for the vote or do you know the anticipated vote split to properly call people out

Ah yes, I'm sure everyone who read the leaked Dobbs decision just patiently waited for the actual decision, and didn't do anything about it. After all, can't do anything until the votes are in. My God, your back must be killing you from reaching this hard. "Don't call out hypocrisy until it's finalized" fucking lmao

1