|
So I know a guy who ever since Arizona what was it SB1070, the "Where are your papers" bill passed had been insisting that Liberals are no better than the Tea Party in being delusional and now last night he claims there no better than the Westburo Baptist Church, 'cause I shared a Vice article about how teen girls in Canada and Feminists have been encouraging them to wear crop tops to school after a lot cases of being told they had to change because it was distracting to the boys and they feel this is well the article didn't say it but one of those building blocks of Rape Culture where women are responsible for the actions of men. And I just find this notion that somehow Liberals are the equivalent of these people cause of fighting stuff like this to be absurd. And yet I can't shake the feeling that this love of thinking isn't rare among the American voting populace KomradeX fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Sep 14, 2015 |
# ? Sep 14, 2015 14:22 |
|
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 09:45 |
|
Kim Davis has caved - she won't stop issuing of marriage licenses by the office, instead opting for a pissy "issued in compliance with a federal order" in place of the county authorization. Which is lovely, but the important point is people are getting married and she is obeying
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 14:39 |
|
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 14:41 |
|
Bob Ojeda posted:The real question is, could Thomas Brackett Reed? Thank you for mentioning Reed, because it caused me to look up his Wikipedia article, and to find this jem: quote:Reed's solution was enacted on January 28, 1890, in what has popularly been called the "Battle of the Reed Rules".[4] This came about when Democrats attempted to block the inclusion of a newly elected Republican from West Virginia, Charles Brooks Smith.[5] The motion to seat him passed by a tally of 162–1; however, at the time a quorum consisted of 165 votes, and when voting closed Democrats shouted "No quorum," triggering a formal House quorum count. Speaker Reed began the roll call; when members who were present in the chamber refused to answer, Reed directed the Clerk to count them as present anyway.[6] Startled Democrats protested heatedly, issuing screams, threats, and insults at the Speaker. James B. McCreary, a Democrat from Kentucky, challenged Reed's authority to count him as present; Reed replied, "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Brackett_Reed American politics everybody!
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 14:47 |
|
Tubgoat posted:Non-white I can totally see, but would not the poor be just as hosed under Clinton? She wouldn't dare try to match The Donald's slightly left-of-the-crazy-super-duper-Nazi-far-right positions (tax billionaires, spend it on infrastructure, we're not ever gonna build an anti-immigrant wall). quote:Clinton said she would not hesitate to prosecute individuals in the finance sector who commit fraud, while also instituting incentives for companies to share profits with their workers, and creating an economy that works for “the struggling, the striving, and the successful.” http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028 Also quote:Released on Mother's Day, the video touts Clinton's commitment to fighting for paid family leave, citing her own mother and daughter as inspirations. "At a time that should be so exciting and joyful, I see so many women who are just distraught," she states. "They have to immediately go back to work. They don't know how they're going to manage." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/hillary-clinton-paid-family-leave-mothers-day_n_7257370.html Also that's discounting the power of Presidential appointees for administrative agencies like the NLRB, etc. EDIT: And about Trump taxing billionaires quote:So, it is to be expected that some would call Trump and Bush’s plans to close the loophole a “populist” policy position. But they also both propose to pile tax cuts on the rich many times larger than the roughly $2 billion a year that could be raised by taxing carried interest at the same rate as normal compensation. quote:As for Trump, if his soon-to-be-released tax plan resembles his most recent tax reform proposal, anti-tax conservatives and wealthy investors won’t have anything to fear after all. In his 2011 tax reform proposal, Trump proposed to eliminate the corporate income tax and the estate tax, drop the tax rate on capital gains income and cut marginal income tax rates. This would result in huge tax cuts for the wealthy. The roughly $500 billion annual cost of eliminating the corporate income tax would pay back wealthy investors 250 times over for the tax hike they’d see from closing the carried interest loophole. http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2015/09/bush_and_trumps_populist_tax_r.php Shageletic fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Sep 14, 2015 |
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:13 |
|
Shageletic posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-economic-policy-speech-nyc-120028 This is the kind of thing that I unabashedly salute Sanders for. He's not going to get into the general but that was never the plan - he's torqued the party's dialogue sharply leftward.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:21 |
|
Brave of politicians to come out against fraud now that the statutes of limitations for 2008 have passed.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:23 |
|
FAUXTON posted:This is the kind of thing that I unabashedly salute Sanders for. He's not going to get into the general but that was never the plan - he's torqued the party's dialogue sharply leftward. Yeah, I think that's indisputable as of now. But he's not alone in shifting the dialogue leftwards. Look at Hillary's comments regarding the viability of federal family leave circa 2014 and now. There was a shift there, and its due to a lot of changes and movements in the party's base and major supporters. EDIT: The article I posted about Hillary is slightly out of date. She has endorsed the $15 dollar minimum wage. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Sep 14, 2015 |
# ? Sep 14, 2015 15:26 |
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Brave of politicians to come out against fraud now that the statutes of limitations for 2008 have passed. This, right the gently caress here, is what really pisses me off about Clinton's sudden support for policy positions left of Cheney, and why it rings so hollow to me. Also, holy poo poo, less than a decade is long enough to lay low stealig stealing billions of dollars, both in economic activity AND peoples' loving houses, and destroying the lives of millions (more than were already destroyed by neo-[con/lib, literally doesn't matter, same result] policies? Meanwhile, if that American hero who dressed as an armored truck employee and robbed Wal-Mart ever gets caught, he'll get murdered before he gets processed. Everyone keeps saying Sanders was never meant to win, well WHY THE gently caress NOT? If you think Clinton would make an acceptable president, then surely Sanders would be even better, and if you think Sanders would do TOO good a job for the country, why the gently caress not just fill in the bubble for whatever humanoid biohazard golem gets anointed by billionaires? ("You" in this context refers to whomever specifically is trying to tell me that Sanders is unelectable/will ruin everything) If the statute of limitations on sex crimes is multiple decades, then SURELY we should be able to treat the perpetrators of the END OF THE loving WORLD to the CIA's famous hospitality suite until the former prays for death from the same false deities they hid behind to fool the poor into railing against their and their neighbors' self-interest? God loving drat it. There isn't enough alcohol in the world. So please, resolute Clinton supporters, PLEASE just loving vote for Sanders in the primary, Jesus Christ, it costs no one anything and might even result in America not being the most uniquely loving horrifying country in the history of Terra. Democracy is within reach, all we need do is reach out and grab it, turn out in such numbers that no amount of election and voter fraud can distort the result in the GOP's favor.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:07 |
|
Shageletic posted:Yeah, I think that's indisputable as of now. But he's not alone in shifting the dialogue leftwards. Look at Hillary's comments regarding the viability of federal family leave circa 2014 and now. There was a shift there, and its due to a lot of changes and movements in the party's base and major supporters. Yeah, about that: "I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments,". I don't know how anyone could seriously think Clinton is shifting anything to the left considering that she has only 'evolved' her views on Gay marriage, the PATRIOT ACT, and the Iraq war after they went from popular to unpopular.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:13 |
|
Tubgoat posted:This, right the gently caress here, is what really pisses me off about Clinton's sudden support for policy positions left of Cheney, and why it rings so hollow to me. We tried that in 1972, it's why the Democrats have super-delegates now.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:20 |
|
Tubgoat posted:Everyone keeps saying Sanders was never meant to win, well WHY THE gently caress NOT? If you think Clinton would make an acceptable president, then surely Sanders would be even better, and if you think Sanders would do TOO good a job for the country, why the gently caress not just fill in the bubble for whatever humanoid biohazard golem gets anointed by billionaires? ("You" in this context refers to whomever specifically is trying to tell me that Sanders is unelectable/will ruin everything) You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about. Zeroisanumber posted:We tried that in 1972, it's why the Democrats have super-delegates now. Yeah, when times get bad and politics start getting too radical the liberals sort of sour on the whole 'democracy' thing too, lol.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:30 |
|
Maarek posted:You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about. Its not that sanders is too far left. Because hes not, he's the only self declared socialist in history that doesn't actually want to nationalize anything and he is just as hawkish as Hillary on drones and blowin stuff up, supporting an actual leftist may be kinda neat actually. Its that he has zero political capital or support and would enter the office with a limp wrist in the off chance that he didnt get destroyed worse than Kerry in the public image arena, which he would.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:34 |
|
Maarek posted:You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about. What Sanders says does resonate, but it doesn't matter for poo poo if he can't get elected. Maarek posted:Yeah, when times get bad and politics start getting too radical the liberals sort of sour on the whole 'democracy' thing too, lol. McGovern was a good man, but a very bad candidate.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:36 |
|
Maarek posted:I don't know how anyone could seriously think Clinton is shifting anything to the left considering that she has only 'evolved' her views on Gay marriage, the PATRIOT ACT, and the Iraq war after they went from popular to unpopular. That's a hell of a sentence right there. "She only changed her views on things after millions of other Americans changed their views on those things." Either she changed her views for the same reasons millions of other people did, or because she's frigid and calculating and hews to public opinion. You're right, not only is the latter the most reasonable option, nobody could seriously consider the former.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:38 |
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Its not that sanders is too far left. Because hes not, he's the only self declared socialist in history that doesn't actually want to nationalize anything and he is just as hawkish as Hillary on drones and blowin stuff up, supporting an actual leftist may be kinda neat actually. Its that he has zero political capital or support and would enter the office with a limp wrist in the off chance that he didnt get destroyed worse than Kerry in the public image arena, which he would. Sanders is well to the left of Clinton, Biden, and the O'Malley as Governor. Yes, he's a socialdem at best, but since there's no commie candidate stumping around Iowa with a guillotine there's no compelling reason for a leftist to support the other candidates over him. Zeroisanumber posted:What Sanders says does resonate, but it doesn't matter for poo poo if he can't get elected. No matter how much you tell yourself that it is justified, having a system where party apparatchik can overrule the voters and decide the candidate is undemocratic and a terrible idea. American voters are incredibly apathetic and feel that their opinions and votes do not matter and thanks to our peculiar electoral system they have a drat good point. Geoff Peterson posted:That's a hell of a sentence right there. Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:42 |
|
Maarek posted:You need to look at the election through the eyes of someone who literally only cares about the election as a vehicle to get SCOTUS appointees to fight for their side on the social wedge issues that dominate our politics. Just as there are tons of diehard GOP supporters who do not give a gently caress about cutting capital gains taxes but will vote for that guy as long as he gives them a modern day Robert Bork to outlaw abortions, there are plenty of democrats who have very little interest in the (theoretical) economic platform of the party. What Sanders is saying does not resonate with them and they cannot imagine it broadly appealing to voters who they assume, like them, will think he is too far left to win the election. Ultimately what you are missing is the disconnect between what they say they support in regards to poverty and inequality and what they actually care about. Well there's a bunch of stuff in this post but one point I want to make is that getting SCOTUS appointments also matters for political & economic issues, not just for social issues. To take an obvious example, getting Citizens United overturned would be a good, important first step in limiting the influence of wealth in our politics and making it easier to promote policies and candidates with the kind of economic platform you're endorsing. Also social issues are important in themselves Also thinking that Bernie Sanders has issues with electability does not mean that you are radically uninterested in economic policy, jeez dude. Bob Ojeda fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Sep 14, 2015 |
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:46 |
|
Maarek posted:Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start. I want to pick the candidate who has the best chance of being elected so that we can lock in the gains of the last 8 years and make a few more over the next 8. As much as I'd love to indulge my idealism by Berning down the house, the fact of the matter is that Clinton, however imperfect, is our best bet for doing that. This is doubly-true in light of the fact that the other side will do everything in their power to roll back those gains and set us on a path to a major war with Iran.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:50 |
|
Wherein we actually believe that there's more than a few inches between Bernie and Hillary.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:51 |
|
Maarek posted:Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start. A politician changed their views based on the opinions of their constituents? Well I never!
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:51 |
|
Geoff Peterson posted:That's a hell of a sentence right there. This seems to be a common thing. "I as an enlightened person have changed my views on matters (or retroactively claimed I never had those views) because of reason X" "Hillary is a shill and a complete politician because she changed her views on matters." Also it is absolutely horrible that a representative would change her attitude towards matters as her constituents have.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:51 |
|
Maarek posted:Sanders is well to the left of Clinton, Biden, and the O'Malley as Governor. Yes, he's a socialdem at best, but since there's no commie candidate stumping around Iowa with a guillotine there's no compelling reason for a leftist to support the other candidates over him. So you'll only vote for people who are ideologically pure since birth. Also people who change their minds are untrustworthy. Got it.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:52 |
|
Maarek posted:Let me help you out: I don't want a front-running candidate who will start to believe gay people are human beings when 50%+1 of the public does. If you want me to vote for you that should be part and parcel of your ideology from the start. Obama didn't campaign on marriage equality, and then they lit up the light house with a rainbow when the scotus decision was handed down. I'm not sure how the evolution there lead to an undesirable outcome.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:55 |
|
oh poo poo is this today, i might actually go see him if it's open to the public and even if it isn't it's not like liberty is hard to sneak into
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:55 |
|
mandatory lesbian posted:oh poo poo is this today, i might actually go see him if it's open to the public they have gay detectors set up now like in dishonored
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:56 |
|
"I want my candidate to not be a bigot even if being bigoted is politically popular" -- an incredibly divisive statement in 2015 D&D.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 16:58 |
|
More important than political capital, why are people assuming Sanders simply can't win the general? He'll be running against Scott... Walker, or Trump, or another completely inept orator. And it's such a mathematically good election for Democrats they SHOULD push a candidate further to the left, just to attempt to drag the Overton window back towards the center.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:00 |
|
Maarek posted:"I want my candidate to not be a bigot even if being bigoted is politically popular" -- an incredibly divisive statement in 2015 D&D. You sound like the left's version of a Freeper, dude.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:03 |
|
Donald Trump has as much chance of being in the general as Bernie Sanders. Make of this what you will.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:03 |
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:More important than political capital, why are people assuming Sanders simply can't win the general? He'll be running against Scott... Walker, or Trump, or another completely inept orator. And it's such a mathematically good election for Democrats they SHOULD push a candidate further to the left, just to attempt to drag the Overton window back towards the center. Those are different questions, and frankly, even if he were electable -- I don't think he is -- he's got Jimmy Carter written all over him. Also: Luigi Thirty posted:Donald Trump has as much chance of being in the general as Bernie Sanders. Make of this what you will.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:03 |
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:More important than political capital, why are people assuming Sanders simply can't win the general? He'll be running against Scott... Walker, or Trump, or another completely inept orator. And it's such a mathematically good election for Democrats they SHOULD push a candidate further to the left, just to attempt to drag the Overton window back towards the center. He'll be running against Bush, who'd squash him.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:03 |
|
Yeah guys it's very cool that Obama and Hillary eventually came around and hung up rainbow crepe paper when all the heavy lifting was done but it would have been even cooler if they were actually on our side a few elections back when the electorate was tomahawk dunking on gay people across the country and 'our' party largely shriveled up like a salted snail out of fear of making bigots angry. This doesn't disqualify Clinton or Obama from holding office but surely you can agree that makes them less desirable than someone who has always been in favor of gay rights? DemeaninDemon posted:You sound like the left's version of a Freeper, dude. lol
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:04 |
|
Scott Walker's down to 2% in the latest poll, so he's chucking a hail-Mary toward the owner's suite:quote:Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who rose to national prominence by battling his state’s public-sector labor unions, is set to unveil Monday a plan to strip power from unions nationwide.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:05 |
|
Maarek posted:Yeah guys it's very cool that Obama and Hillary eventually came around and hung up rainbow crepe paper when all the heavy lifting was done but it would have been even cooler if they were actually on our side a few elections back when the electorate was tomahawk dunking on gay people across the country and 'our' party largely shriveled up like a salted snail out of fear of making bigots angry. I am a gay male and to be frank, that's fairly low on my list of reasons to support a candidate at this point.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:05 |
|
Maarek posted:"I want my candidate to not be a bigot even if being bigoted is politically popular" -- an incredibly divisive statement in 2015 D&D. There's an incredible difference between this and what you posted above. It is possible, in the year 2015, for a human being too historically make a decision that at the time was the morally supported one, only to later have that moral support flip on its head. In the face of such a change in their constituents, would you rather she accede to her constituents demand, or double down? I would submit that inability to compromise or change ones position, ever, leads to poor government and the situation we're in now, where any attempt at compromise is considered "weakness".
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:06 |
|
DemeaninDemon posted:You sound like the left's version of a Freeper, dude. Only in this thread. Luigi Thirty posted:Donald Trump has as much chance of being in the general as Bernie Sanders. Make of this what you will. Your cynicism is gross dude. Get a new attitude.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:08 |
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:Scott Walker's down to 2% in the latest poll, so he's chucking a hail-Mary toward the owner's suite: When placed in danger, the Domestic Walker's first instinct is to drop to his knees and offer a blowjob to the nearest billionaire.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:08 |
|
Maarek posted:Yeah, about that: "I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments,". I don't know how anyone could seriously think Clinton is shifting anything to the left considering that she has only 'evolved' her views on Gay marriage, the PATRIOT ACT, and the Iraq war after they went from popular to unpopular. What does it matter why she does it (following an increasingly leftist democratic voting bloc), as long as she does it? If she shifts to a national $15 wage, then why care about her views beforehand? This is how politics change, left or right.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:11 |
|
Bernie Sanders supported gay rights in the 1980s. Hillary Clinton supported gay rights when it became politically feasible to do so. I think this single statement kinda boils down the issues that leftists have with Clinton, and why they like Sanders.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:14 |
|
|
# ? Jun 11, 2024 09:45 |
|
JT Jag posted:Bernie Sanders supported gay rights in the 1980s. Hillary Clinton supported gay rights when it became politically feasible to do so. It still circles back to them having this weird, almost Republican fetish with calling her an "unprincipled politician who isn't Really One of Us." Mind you, they weren't howling about Obama having literally the same positions as Hillary on these issues eight years ago. And to a degree, you have to wonder if Hillary were a man, if they would question her like this at all.
|
# ? Sep 14, 2015 17:17 |