|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/robby-mook-hillary-clinton-email-leakquote:The 2016 presidential campaign arrived fully formed on Friday when ABC News published the contents of an email list managed by one of the top contenders to be Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
As long as Clinton refrains from rehiring Mark Penn (and similar douchenozzles), I'll be happy. Remember Mark Penn? What a human turd.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. Reminder: primaries. Try to get an alternative candidate nominated in the first place 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Well, Sean Wilentz is back at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. Lanny's already back. He sets up a table outside of the Benghazi hearings and hands out pro-Hillary pamphlets. I'm totally serious.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Lanny's already back. He sets up a table outside of the Benghazi hearings and hands out pro-Hillary pamphlets. He's not actually on the campaign or officially affiliated with Hillary in any way though. That's just part of his extra-curricular activities, like defending African strongmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Pretty sure defending African or Central Asian or Latin American strongmen is a job requirement for working in management on the Clinton campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Pretty sure defending African or Central Asian or Latin American strongmen is a job requirement for working in management on the Clinton campaign. You forgot Eastern European, and Mid-Eastern.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. Haha, barf. Now I remember why I volunteered for Obama in the primaries so vigorously last time around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You forgot Eastern European, and Mid-Eastern. And NFC East
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I see either hide or hair of Penn, Howard Wolfson, or that puling little racist poo poo Lanny Davis, and I will find the nearest third-party candidate. I'm voting Green, as I do in every federal election. California's jungle system may make me choose between neoliberals and holy-gently caress-you're-insaners, but at least I can vote for who I want on the federal level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Did those talks between Penn and Hilary that were reported on go anywhere or is it still hush-hush?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
AYC posted:I'm voting Green, as I do in every federal election. I'd yell at you for being a dumbass, but at least you live in California and your vote doesn't matter, anyway. As long as you filled out your census.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:I'd yell at you for being a dumbass, but at least you live in California and your vote doesn't matter, anyway. As long as you filled out your census. I agree with Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want and get it." I refuse to perpetuate our neoliberal status quo if I can help it. Really, I'm already assuming a President Clinton. My main interest is in the various marijuana referendums.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Debatable, but we should all agree that ranked choice ballots are long overdue for this system
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
AYC posted:I agree with Debs: "It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than vote for what you don't want and get it." I refuse to perpetuate our neoliberal status quo if I can help it. So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. For (relatively) well-off white guys it's either the Greens or the
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Debatable, but we should all agree that ranked choice ballots are long overdue for this system You may want to take a look at how ranked choice ballots work in practice, at least in places like Australia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
2016 Presidential Primary: Crushing it Mafia Style
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. I said I agree with Debs on this particular issue; I didn't say I was a revolutionary socialist (I'm a European-style Social Democrat). Really, I'd like something approximating the German system where we get a combination of proportional and single-district representation. Gen. Ripper posted:For (relatively) well-off white guys it's either the Greens or the Guilty as charged; I like our current system so long as it has a significant social safety net for poorer communities and better government oversight over business/less money in elections. When I stay "neoliberal status quo" I'm mainly referring to neoliberalism in its extremely right-wing "gently caress poor people and make them enjoy it" American context. I'm opposed to the libertarians on everything but drugs & porn. AYC fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 07:05
|
|
|
AYC posted:I said I agree with Debs on this particular issue; I didn't say I was a revolutionary socialist (I'm a European-style Social Democrat). A socialist party is closer to social democrats than the Green party is. Like seriously if you're really after voting your conscience, greens probably aren't the way to go unless you're an aging hippie who hasn't paid attention to things in years, or you're very centrist person who leans every so slightly to the left and believes in pseudoscience. AYC posted:
Ok, here's a case in point: the national Green Party supports sweeping deregulation of healthcare providers, by allowing and promoting the sale of alternative medicines that science has proven not to work. That means less oversight over the area of business that literally can mean life and death for people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A socialist party is closer to social democrats than the Green party is. Like seriously if you're really after voting your conscience, greens probably aren't the way to go unless you're an aging hippie who hasn't paid attention to things in years, or you're very centrist person who leans every so slightly to the left and believes in pseudoscience. All good points (I do hate anti-vaxxers); I'll check out some more far-left parties as we get closer to the election. Though as I said, I'm 90% sure Clinton will be elected regardless of who else runs. Thanks for giving me something to think about. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:So why do you want a mealy mouthed center left at best party with hilarious anti reality baggage over actual Socialists? You have them on the ballot in California. Not sure who Party for Socialism and Liberation is running in 2016 yet (will it be Peta Lindsay again?) but they'd almost certainly be a better choice, for example. You've got a serious hang-up about this poo poo, don't you? But guess what - it wasn't the Greens who are responsible for all this anti-science woo medicine bullshit! No, that was a joint effort between the Democrats and Republicans (the guy responsible served time as both) to push this poo poo nationwide and really sink it into the national conscience (while conveniently making it legal when it really shouldn't be). And this poo poo is supported by politicians worldwide of all stripes, including in Europe. The greens are a coalition party and there's definitely a lot of kooks in it, and I'm glad the local Greens don't support this junk, but this blind hatred you've got for the national org is just downright absurd. They are literally advocating nothing but continuing the status quo the two big parties have set up. There is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about their stance on these issues, except they are a third party whose wingnuts get a bit more influence when publishing the national "platform", which individual candidates seem perfectly content to ignore. It's the equivalent of the Texas Republican platform, where it's content is literally just political favours to those who can't be rewarded with anything meaningful cause they are crazy as gently caress. Plus there aren't any decent socialist parties running a candidate for president. All the decent ones are fairly regional and don't have a national presence at all, to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You've got a serious hang-up about this poo poo, don't you? But guess what - it wasn't the Greens who are responsible for all this anti-science woo medicine bullshit! No, that was a joint effort between the Democrats and Republicans (the guy responsible served time as both) to push this poo poo nationwide and really sink it into the national conscience (while conveniently making it legal when it really shouldn't be). And this poo poo is supported by politicians worldwide of all stripes, including in Europe. The Greens as a party do however support exacerbating the issue. The national org is a piece of poo poo, and they deserve to be hated. The whole problem with using them as a protest vote is what you just said - that they want to continue the status quo on a pretty important issue where the status quo already sucks! So why vote for a status quo reinforcing party as a protest against major parties who... maintain the status quo. And yes all the decent ones are fairly regional, but almost every state where people are able to freely vote third party because it's guarenteed to go Democrat in the presidential election, there's not just a Green party candidate, but also one or more regional actual leftist candidates. And conversely, in most states guarenteed to go Republican, there's often no Green Party access at all, and the available third parties tend to be crap like Libertarian Party or other right wing third parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
I was a Green Party member in college, but it was 100% because of Nader 2000. I didn't stay past 2004 because regardless of positions (many more people were there for Nader then than for the pseudoscience stuff, though being anti-nuke was common and I've changed my position on that), they were a waste of time in my part of the country. I do know that of the most involved members, most moved on to more left-wing groups. I know a couple ended up with PSL after moving to NYC. The top issues, I would say, in the state party when I was there were ballot access, weed, farmworker organizing, and above all else opposing the Iraq War. There were plenty hippies involved, but aside from I think some anti-GMO stuff (which I never cared about, really), their issues rode far behind Iraq in 2001-2004 for obvious reasons. I came for Nader and weed as an 18 year old and stayed because of the war and labor rights. I will say that, based on what I remember of our allies with the Libertarians who we worked with on ballot access, they had a sizeable pseudoscience contingent as well. A lot of why they oppose the AMA and FDA isn't just for Milton Friedman reasons, but also because they think they suppress "real natural cures."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Goddammit. I complain about the two-party system, but all the third parties are either full of whack jobs or even more irrelevant than the big three (Constitution, Green, and Libertarian). Who should I, as a European Social Democrat who supports a strong social welfare state (on the level of France), vote for? Convince me, SA, because I'm in limbo right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
AYC posted:Goddammit. Someone you like in the Democratic primary. You can worry about the general after that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Someone you like in the Democratic primary. You can worry about the general after that. So Bernie Sanders?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
AYC posted:So Bernie Sanders? Yeah, or Kucinich, or the like. Primaries matter and forcing the mainstream candidate to tack towards you (even if they'll tack back afterwards to some degree) has real value. If you're unhappy with the Democratic party you should definitely vote in its primaries, even if you won't then vote for the winner in the general if you don't like them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Someone you like in the Democratic primary. You can worry about the general after that. NOTE: This only works for the presidency if your primary is before April. If your primary is April or later, too bad, the nation doesn't care what you think anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
It's not like there aren't plenty of people in the major parties who believe in utterly wrong and unscientific things. Everybody who shows up at the National Prayer Breakfast, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not like there aren't plenty of people in the major parties who believe in utterly wrong and unscientific things. Believing that showing up to the Prayer Breakfast will help get you voters isn't wrong or unscientific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Believing that showing up to the Prayer Breakfast will help get you voters isn't wrong or unscientific. Neither is being anti-nuke to get hippies in your coalition. When you talk about politicians, it's a waste of time wondering who is sincere or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
I voted for Rocky Anderson in 2012 (voting in Nebraska, it didn't matter), and the Justice Party platform seems pretty cool:quote:The Justice Party supports a universal single payer health system ; marriage equality; ending wars of aggression; closing many military bases; reducing the budget; immigration reform; repealing the Patriot Act, protecting and rewarding whistle-blowers, and ending the war on drugs. The Party seeks to prosecute individuals whose illegal conduct led to the economic melt-down. They are supportive of an equal rights amendment for women. He got 43k votes nationwide, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
AYC posted:Goddammit. Have you considered not voting, I think you would do well with it. That way you can at least feel pure since you are NEVER going to find a party that supports everything you like while unequivocally opposing everything you dislike, let alone one that actually has a shot at changing everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:NOTE: This only works for the presidency if your primary is before April. If your primary is April or later, too bad, the nation doesn't care what you think anyway. Right here is the truest poo poo because literally in the United States, 5 or so states control the narrative entirely every four years. To be elected president of the entire country you first have to be elected leader of the party by some of the most irrelevant and full-of-idiot states in the nation. At least if it were California or Texas, it'd be representative. Didn't one of the states try to move their primary up so they would have more of a say and that led to them getting blackballed or something? edit: I mean seriously, what's even in New Hampshire? Dartmouth, the dumbest 'ivy league' school, and a bunch of libertarian pumpkin rioters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Right here is the truest poo poo because literally in the United States, 5 or so states control the narrative entirely every four years. To be elected president of the entire country you first have to be elected leader of the party by some of the most irrelevant and full-of-idiot states in the nation. At least if it were California or Texas, it'd be representative. Didn't one of the states try to move their primary up so they would have more of a say and that led to them getting blackballed or something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
quote:In August 2006, the Democratic National Committee adopted a proposal by its Rules and Bylaws Committee stating that only the four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina would be permitted to hold primaries or caucuses before February 5, 2008 Exactly. I mean, what's even the reasoning of these four? Nevada is a hellhole hemorrhaging jobs because it turns out gambling isn't a sustainable economy when other states legalise it, South Carolina is South Carolina, Iowa at least has some agricultural leanings, and New Hampshire is see previous post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Right here is the truest poo poo because literally in the United States, 5 or so states control the narrative entirely every four years. To be elected president of the entire country you first have to be elected leader of the party by some of the most irrelevant and full-of-idiot states in the nation. At least if it were California or Texas, it'd be representative. Didn't one of the states try to move their primary up so they would have more of a say and that led to them getting blackballed or something? But Bruce Rauner went to Dartmouth, clearly it's a great school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:40
|
|