Hypothetical Election

[vcczar]

Made this poll because I found out two serial killers had been staunchly political. This was prompted by overhearing that a much higher % of serial killers are Republicans. I don't know if that's true or not. It was from a movie.

[vcczar]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Oh, what the Hell. I'll be, "that guy," and make a write-in for Pol Pot. At least his genocidal tendencies weren't based on demographic bigotry. 🤬

The last option is for you then, since it is effectively doing the same thing. 

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Not as worded...

Don't forget to do your presidential tiers

[Rezi]

Gonna be honest, I didn’t see Ilhan Omar.

[Pringles]

Fuck all of them lol. Omar is the least of evils probably but that still doesnt warrant a vote for her. 

[Kitten]

I'll write myself in 🙂 I'm more qualified than these individuals.

[vcczar]

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

I still can't fathom by Omar and Taylor-Green are in with the rest of them. And why Hitler's stated as a member of Mussolini's party. Can you explain these inexplicable bizarraties, there, @vcczar?

I wanted to see what it would take to get someone to vote for Omar or MTG. Also to see if someone opposed them so much that they’d vote for one of the others. The pedantry regarding Hitler doesn’t matter in this. I mean he isn’t American or still alive, so what does the party matter. Don’t forget to do the Pres tier. 

[jnewt]

23 hours ago, vcczar said:

The pedantry regarding Hitler doesn’t matter in this. I mean he isn’t American or still alive, so what does the party matter.

It's also a small-f fascist, so it doesn't signify a party, just an ideology.

[jnewt]

11 minutes ago, Patine said:

Except that all of the others are listed by party, specifically (except for Omar and Taylor-Green), so my point stands.

No it doesn't stand. The way the others are listed does not change what's written next to Hitler.

[Dobs]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Except that all of the others are listed by party, specifically (except for Omar and Taylor-Green), so my point stands. In fact, that labelling is a bit inconsistent and screwed up, now that I think about it, and SHOULD be EITHER all parties, or all ideologies. Ted Bundy was not ideology a polemic advocate of the replacement of Monarchy by a structured form of Citizen's Representation with Balanced Framework for the Common Good on a pure ideological level, as Republican means on that level, and John Wayne Gacey was not a strong activist for the Direct Empowerment of the Masses, as Democrat means on a pure ideological level. Neither really gave a damn about these things, at all, from any indication The mix is sloppy, and makes it look ill-thought-out, and difficult to take seriously (although it's also those things for other reasons).

You make people want to throw themselves from lofty structures.

[jnewt]

4 hours ago, Patine said:

Hey, I would left it be, but @jnewt had to pick the scabs, inexplicably. Give them Hell, this time.

I corrected you because you falsely claimed vcczar mislabeled Hitler. You’re the only person on this forum who can’t admit they’re wrong. 

[Cal]

Something interesting here that maybe some of the more conservative minded members of the forum could confirm or deny. 

It seems as though in the past year, conservative media has moved more from utilizing AOC as a bogeyman (the way Democrats did Gaetz, MGT, etc) and more towards Omar and the other members of the squad. I feel like a part of this has been some genuinely controversial behavior from the other members of the squad, but what is more important I feel has been AOC being relatively uncontroversial in her behavior. Sure, she's done a few wacky stunts but nothing that genuinely offended anyone. She's been under less scrutiny in the bits and pieces of Fox News that I see when out in public. 

Could @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 or someone weigh in here?

[jvikings1]

2 hours ago, Cal said:

Something interesting here that maybe some of the more conservative minded members of the forum could confirm or deny. 

It seems as though in the past year, conservative media has moved more from utilizing AOC as a bogeyman (the way Democrats did Gaetz, MGT, etc) and more towards Omar and the other members of the squad. I feel like a part of this has been some genuinely controversial behavior from the other members of the squad, but what is more important I feel has been AOC being relatively uncontroversial in her behavior. Sure, she's done a few wacky stunts but nothing that genuinely offended anyone. She's been under less scrutiny in the bits and pieces of Fox News that I see when out in public. 

Could @jvikings1 @ConservativeElector2 or someone weigh in here?

She has definitely lost the focus that other members of the squad still have. Though I do think Biden is also responsible. Since Dems are now in power, the focus is now on their failures (especially with inflation, Afghanistan, etc.). The more immediate focus is on exposing those since they are very easy to point to.

[Cal]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't think, as I said, any of them are responsible for the shift in media coverage. Biden puts people to sleep. AOC is just not as combustible in headlines as Omar. If she becomes so, the focus will change. You and @Cal seem to be believing this focus is based on deserved material by actual policy coverage. As I said above, that is wrong. Not's how the modern media works. It's all about sensationalism. You're both over-analyzing beyond this, and expecting more rationality here.

Why do you think that Omar is more "combustible" than AOC? Are there actions that you can point to?

[Cal]

42 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't believe she has a permanent status as more, "combustible." Media focus seems to be like short-lived and fickle fashion fads, and thus will likely gravitate back to AOC eventually, unless she somehow drops from relevance - in which case it will go to another imminent flashpoint politician. Do you see what I'm saying, here?

I fully understand what you're saying, and I fully agree! The sensationalist nature of the media in the modern era lends itself to short-lived, fickle, and often times very negative focuses on current events and popular politicians. It's something that I think is not talked about enough in the modern political climate. Gone are the days of legitimate news cycles reporting on pertinent issues to the American people. I love that you bring this up, and how the media tends to focus on these flashpoint politicians disproportionately. 

However, I don't think that our two statements are contrary. In fact, I would find them to be quite complimentary! The sensationalist media clings to any kind of action that can be considered controversial. Clicks pay the bills, and extreme reactions from both sides are sure to rake in a fortune. There is little money on putting the focus on a woman such as AOC that has not done such controversial actions in some time. The things that she has done have been relatively expected out of her. Her political image is stable, expected, and she doesn't garner the same contempt that she once did. There's just no money in that. 

Now, put Omar into the mix. She's done some objectively controversial things this year that have been criticized by both sides of the spectrum for various reasons. She's a money machine! Her actions have led to the media latching on to her because the media feeds off of the reaction it can get by making her into one of the flashpoint politicians of today. Sensationalism!

So, in short, I think that you raise a valid concern about the sensationalist media of today, but that your opposition to the focus being as the result of AOC and Omar's respective actions is actually contrary to that view. If Omar had done nothing controversial, there just wouldn't be the money for the sleazebags to squeeze out of her image. 

I am basing this comment on my understanding of your previous two comments. If there is a misunderstanding on my end, feel free to correct me to continue the conversation. But I do really think that we agree at the end of the day on both points and that there's no conflict between the two positions 🙂

Edited November 14, 2021 by Cal