|
Nanomashoes posted:No but I have a vid of Hillary comparing them to animals I don't really care about that thanks for your help tho
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
I will also vote for Hillary because I voted for Kay Hagan two years ago, and she's a much worse candidate, so I've already sold out all integrity I have as a voter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
The results are in, baby hitler wins big!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I think he stays in and tries to get the Democratic party to adopt campaign finance reform on the party platform. Out of curiosity, why's that? And I think he could probably get a bunch of other stuff in the platform that he's already gotten Clinton to agree to in much easier. Neurolimal posted:He said start a movement, not resurrect blue dogs. Yeah man, who needs compromise in a system built on it! gently caress that, only ideologically pure candidates in my party. ...  WHY DO THE REPUBLICANS KEEP WINNING CONGRESS AND CUTTING PROGRAMS I LIKE?I don't give a gently caress if you're Karl Marx or a warmed-over blue dog, if you vote for a Democrat for Speaker and judicial nominees then you're okay by me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:No exit polls in Alaska either. RIP in pieces. Alaska is loving weird.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:no reason you can't do both Yes, there is. There's no way to restrict spending in campaigns without also restricting speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:no reason you can't do both I don't know why the system we're all supposed to be so mad about that just got opened up doesn't work well. The one that lets you give to candidates and fund downticket/local party stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:How did Friend Ben do tonight? he won five delegates!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Meanwhile Tea Party McFuckwad wins another two year membership to the Tortilla Coast. Because they engage with their community and present candidates that their base wants. Blue dogs won by voter apathy and lesser evil pragmatism, and were ousted by exciting candidates. You don't emulate the Tea Party's success by learning none of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:A Democratic party that continues to push moderates is leaving themselves wide open to be outmaneuvered by Republicans. Were is the evidence for this. Also taking the stance "all moderates are bad" is what turned the GOP into a flaming shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Yeah you are. Unless you vote against him your saying "I endorse you, donald trump, to gently caress my rear end because I let you get 1 more vote that wasn't matched with an opposing one". That's not how elections work but please try your damnedest to convince me otherwise. You're really winning me over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
This is a beautiful day, and I can say with confidence that the winner today was MAXIMUM CHAOS. He has my vote.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yes, there is. There's no way to restrict spending in campaigns without also restricting speech. Corporations are people, my friend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Joementum posted:I mean, if you look at the results in the party primaries this year, objectively yes. Hasn't Bernie made statements in favor of public financing? Aside from the tangible impact of dark money, the appearance of impropriety is pretty bad on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:A Democratic party that continues to push moderates is leaving themselves wide open to be outmaneuvered by Republicans. Where as our "only true scotsman" approach has totally been effective in giving us exactly one branch of government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Trump, while ruining the GoP, doesn't actually represent the national republican platform. So feel free to vote against the establishment in November. Don't let Hitlery's Eichmann's dissuade you. God bless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Were is the evidence for this. Also taking the stance "all moderates are bad" is what turned the GOP into a flaming shitshow. All moderates are bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yes, there is. There's no way to restrict spending in campaigns without also restricting speech. What about additional disclosure requirements?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yes, there is. There's no way to restrict spending in campaigns without also restricting speech. Why not
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Shinjobi posted:That's not how elections work but please try your damnedest to convince me otherwise. You're really winning me over. Do you know what FPTP is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Where as our "only true scotsman" approach has totally been effective in giving us exactly one branch of government. The source of democrat ills is identity politics, agreed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Lu Yan posted:What about additional disclosure requirements? I'm totally in favor of that. Let people give unlimited donations to campaigns and parties and disclose all donations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Noooo Vermont has been declared for Trump! RIP total chaos Kasich win. Rubio's percentage is going down slightly to 19.3%
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Nanomashoes posted:So does America It's weird how the bottom ~20 are all women. Also who the woman after the first man on the list is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The source of democrat ills is identity politics, agreed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
To believe that money = free speech like it's a law of nature is really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Darth Windu posted:Why not Because you can't decide who is and isn't allowed to give support to candidates so even with strict caps and all you're gonna get people maxing out things easily? Like no matter what Clinton would be having tons of people giving her a large amount of money, you can't say 'no no THESE people are bad' about elections so what are you gonna do make it a fifty dollar cap or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Also you folks adore supreme court justices too much. They're scum for 2000
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because they engage with their community and present candidates that their base wants. Blue dogs won by voter apathy and lesser evil pragmatism, and were ousted by exciting candidates. You don't emulate the Tea Party's success by learning none of this. Leftism cannot fail it can only be failed. Blue dogs rolled in on the Obama wave. Then got ousted by assholes staying home in 2010. Get it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Rubiowned might be striking out in Texas with zero delegates. Only at 17%. Sad!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/secupp/status/704894866778628098
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Do you know what FPTP is? gently caress President Trump Preemptively? Joementum posted:I'm totally in favor of that. Let people give unlimited donations to campaigns and parties and disclose all donations. Seems like the only realistic shot at reform to me. At least it brings dark money into the light.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:To believe that money = free speech like it's a law of nature is really dumb. Contributing to a campaign is an act of political speech.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Sometimes this forum makes me really glad back in reality the dem base is fine voting for Bernie or Clinton and isn't full of gigantic ideologue babies
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Sanders (and much of the Internet Left) love to focus on CU to the exclusivity of everything else; it's a little myopic. On the merits CU was mostly decided correctly. Money is a form of speech, Congress overreached in setting limits the way they did. A better campaign finance law would fix the problem but no one is really interested in that, and divided Congress means that it'll never happen anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Bernie's brother said in an interview last week that Bernie's ultimate goal is to restructure the Democratic Party in his own vision. If he concedes, there is 0% chance he gets that done. It's also why he wants to help downticket races. I think he cares more about the future of the party than about being president. Being president is a means to an end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Didn't he not campaign at all in any of those states? (oh maybe some marginal stuff in TX) LA is on Saturday, there's no time to campaign. This is the issue with all these states, there's no more embedding yourself in a state unless you're willing to concede the others before it. While that might work on the GOP side cuz the field is so split and you have winner-take-all states, it won't work for the Dems because every race Bernie doesn't win by 5+ points increase the lead he needs to make up in the remaining contests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
The margins in CO and MN are pretty nuts I thought those were supposed to be pretty close?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Sometimes this forum makes me really glad back in reality the dem base is fine voting for Bernie or Clinton and isn't full of gigantic ideologue babies Right but you're trying to win internet arguments, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Were is the evidence for this. Also taking the stance "all moderates are bad" is what turned the GOP into a flaming shitshow. Again, recall what "moderate" means in the modern political context. Tacking to the center today means just cutting SNAP as opposed to dismantling it, and other such examples. The GOP's increasing extremism was an effect of a deliberate strategy. There's no reason why the Democrats need to hold on to Third-Wayism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
