|
Why is Hillary being singled out here? When she was signing up to support gay marriage, Bernie still wanted it to be up to the states which is reprehensible for basic human rights. She wasn't for it from the start? She's the devil, nuance be damned. Oh and please ladle our candidate with money and airtime and campaign infrastructure even though he's only been a Democrat for a week
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
pumpinglemma posted:Then allow me to be exactly as enthused about Clinton as I am for most other Democrat politicians, which is to say: fighting down nausea. That's an improvement on fighting down terror, which is my response to Republican politicians, but still not exactly stellar. Yeah, he fought so hard in 2006 when he said civil unions were fine and the federal government shouldn't force states to recognize gay couples.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Your posting history in uspol says otherwise Please explain more to the thread how I don't actually mean what I say. After all, nobody is enthusiastic about Hillary. Esp after you explain that anyone who appears to be so is just faking. This is how we know her voting totals are fraud, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Plenty of people are enthusiastic about Clinton, in fact pretty much every poll throughout the primary had her enthusiastic support at higher levels than Sanders' They are just people who aren't so public about it because Trump/Sanders people tend to fly off the loving handle, and trend older so don't feel the desire to Facebank all day and get in fights in the comments sections of youtube videos. This means they're very poorly represented on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I don't get why people get so angry about politicians changing their beliefs and stances over the course of their careers. I voted for Bernie but criticizing 90s Clinton or college Clinton rather than 2016 Clinton makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
remember: all of this started when some goons started posting about those drat berniebros and bernouts see you guys in 10 pages
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
CaptainCarrot posted:Yeah, he fought so hard in 2006 when he said civil unions were fine and the federal government shouldn't force states to recognize gay couples. The thing from 83 was when he was mayor of Burlington they wanted to hold a pride parade, and he said he said yes on the basis of freedom of speech and expression.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
One of my poster feats is a sense of when the probehammer is about to hit so that was totes my last post on the subject of Berniebros In other news, it looks like the lawsuit against Trey Gowdy for altering official documents to incriminate Hillary is going forward. Also he's being sued for defamation and discrimination by a former staffer. Also he's doing all the Benghazi Committee business through a private e-mail server. Also he's a bad person and his pet project is blowing up in his face at the worst time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:remember: all of this started when some goons started posting about those drat berniebros and bernouts My last probation was for engaging in VPchat at the tail end of one of these, and I accepted and deserved my penance. Edit: oh my god, thanks Epic, must be Christmas. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because some people prefer authentic politicians to politically effective ones? Great, vote for your local dog catcher. The only "authentic" people gunning for President are authentic whackjobs like the wackier guys in the Republic primary who got trounced by a hair squig.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Why am I suddenly is MSR/YCS?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Great, vote for your local dog catcher. The only "authentic" people gunning for President are authentic whackjobs like the wackier guys in the Republic primary who got trounced by a hair squig. actually the hair squig is the most authentic because the base that gave him the primary literally doesn't give a poo poo about policy proposals. all they want to do is drag people down and yell obscenities at people with a higher melanin content than them
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because some people prefer authentic politicians to politically effective ones? "I don't want to get anything done ever." -you, 2016
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:remember: all of this started when some goons started posting about those drat berniebros and bernouts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQJrem2w6oo
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:They're a crucial part of the dynamics of any primary postmortem and any PUMA tendencies they have play a role in the General Election moving forward-both of these are relevant to USPOL, so I can see why it would come up with some frequency. Polls show that a vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, but the thread really wants to talk about it as if the opposite is true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Lessail posted:Polls show that a vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, but the thread really wants to talk about it as if the opposite is true. don't forget talking about how online forums posts are inconsequential and then immediately extrapolating bernie supporters' behaviors and feelings from reddit posts
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502quote:"The Democratic Members of the Congressional Black Caucus recently voted unanimously to oppose any suggestion or idea to eliminate the category of Unpledged Delegate to the Democratic National Convention (aka Super Delegates) and the creation of uniform open primaries in all states," says the letter, which was obtained by POLITICO. "The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow members of the House and Senate to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process." I'd say that's probably the death blow for the idea of removing superdelegates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502 Why would we want to remove superdelegates (Bernie's agenda notwithstanding)? It's such a good idea that the Republicans will probably adopt it by 2020 to avoid Trump redux.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Are we assuming that Democrats are finally going to go nuclear and destroy the filibuster, or that they get a 60-vote majority? Because I can't see Republicans playing nice and allowing an up-or-down vote. Yes. In the case of a SCOTUS nominee, Schumer would certainly do so in the same manner that Reid pushed certain appointments back in 2011.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Why would we want to remove superdelegates (Bernie's agenda notwithstanding)? It's such a good idea that the Republicans will probably adopt it by 2020 to avoid Trump redux. Idealism of democracy has just encountered the reality of a private org owning 48% of the nations political capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superdelegates-224502 This, by the way, is what DWS was talking about in that clip of her explaining super delegates. It's just that the crazy fringe internet left was too dumb to understand and thought she meant something else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Why would we want to remove superdelegates (Bernie's agenda notwithstanding)? It's such a good idea that the Republicans will probably adopt it by 2020 to avoid Trump redux. I'm wondering what this means for Bernie's goals of getting his positions written into the plantform. This is a very strong rebuke. Is it purely because the removal of superdelegates and open primaries would diminish the power of the African-American voters within the Democratic Party or has the party run out of patience with his refusal to concede and endorse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because some people prefer authentic politicians to politically effective ones? Those people sound really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Because some people prefer authentic politicians to politically effective ones? Do you think that Clinton is 'inauthentic' on gay rights/marriage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Superdelegates are a terrible idea and the idea that they protect the Democratic party from trump types is stupid. If you have to overturn the popular vote in your party to keep an unelectable cheetoman, there's no way to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Superdelegates are a terrible idea and the idea that they protect the Democratic party from trump types is stupid. RuanGacho posted:Idealism of democracy has just encountered the reality of a private org owning 48% of the nations political capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Superdelegates are a terrible idea and the idea that they protect the Democratic party from trump types is stupid. Clinton's own husband voted against her in 2008, in the end. They exist to prevent a contested convention aka to force things to be sorted out beforehand. Their alternative is to not require a 50%+1 amount of support to get the nomination, which is actually a far less popular option than Superdelegates and honestly, one that's more likely to make things messier and more corrupt, especially in a post-CU world
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
OK if they want every national level Democratic politician to have a super delegate seat, that's like 280 delegates right now, not 700 and whatever. Having nearly 15% of total delegates not beholden to the outcomes of primaries makes people think that the establishment is putting too heavy of a finger on the scale and it rubs some the wrong way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:Superdelegates are a terrible idea and the idea that they protect the Democratic party from trump types is stupid. Sure, but that's not the defense offered in the article.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
rscott posted:OK if they want every national level Democratic politician to have a super delegate seat, that's like 280 delegates right now, not 700 and whatever. Having nearly 15% of total delegates not beholden to the outcomes of primaries makes people think that the establishment is putting too heavy of a finger on the scale and it rubs some the wrong way. There are a LOT of party insiders who would always be delegates but are not themselves elected politicians. Think local union bosses, chairs of wealthy DTCs, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
rscott posted:OK if they want every national level Democratic politician to have a super delegate seat, that's like 280 delegates right now, not 700 and whatever. Having nearly 15% of total delegates not beholden to the outcomes of primaries makes people think that the establishment is putting too heavy of a finger on the scale and it rubs some the wrong way. Considering that overturning the primary results is such a dangerous business it almost doesn't even make sense to give it to yourself as an option. It's like keeping a pistol with one bullet in it to shoot yourself - what kind of plan is that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:There are a LOT of party insiders who would always be delegates but are not themselves elected politicians. Think local union bosses, chairs of wealthy DTCs, etc. But that's not the defense offered in the letter
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Do you think that Clinton is 'inauthentic' on gay rights/marriage? Nah, I'm all in for Abuela. But that's it is about "authenticity" when people argue that all Democrats serving any office in the 1990s be purged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:Considering that overturning the primary results is such a dangerous business it almost doesn't even make sense to give it to yourself as an option. It's like keeping a pistol with one bullet in it to shoot yourself - what kind of plan is that? Sometimes Suicide is the better option? Kidding aside, right now it would be so much better for Ted Cruz/Rubio/Kasich to be the nominee even if It torches their presidential nod. Because it would mean Senator's and house members up for re-election wouldn't have to constantly defend, and denounce and answer questions about Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
It feels like using previous support for gay rights as a litmus test for politicians is probably close to worst thing a progressive person can do if they really care about gay rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:It feels like using previous support for gay rights as a litmus test for politicians is probably close to worst thing a progressive person can do if they really case about gay rights. For example: Trump used to be nominally in favor LGBT rights, yet would bring untold cataclysm upon the LGBT Rights movement if elected
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
rscott posted:But that's not the defense offered in the letter See if you can adapt what it says in the letter just a little bit to make the same reasoning apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
I've been excited for both Hillary and Bernie this entire time. Also gently caress a green.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Sometimes Suicide is the better option? I'm not so sure that you're right. The whole point of pickingTrump was that these people were tired of empty suits who spout conservatism while the whole world is liberalizing before their eyes. Pulling Trump and putting up an empty suit and hoping he can dogwhistle good enough to put humpty dumpty back together again is a fantasy. Purging the party of it's extreme faction doesn't leave them with enough voters to win anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:See if you can adapt what it says in the letter just a little bit to make the same reasoning apply. "The Democratic Party benefits from the current system of unpledged delegates to the National Convention by virtue of rules that allow our wealthy benefactors to be seated as a delegate without the burdensome necessity of competing against constituents for the honor of representing the state during the nominating process." Not really a good look imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:49
|
|