|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. This is it, you guys. this is the internet petition that's really gonna change things Nocturtle posted:It's satisfying to beat up on the current incarnation of the Democrats, but this didn't happen in a vacuum. Unions around the world have been crushed, and progressives are struggling in almost every single western country. If you think the Democrats have it bad look at Labor in the UK, at least the Democrats still have the popular vote majority. .I'm not an expert on UK politics, but isn't the left in trouble in the UK because the left parties all went even further right than the Democrats, and are currently in the process of trying to destroy their version of Bernie Sanders?
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Condiv posted:this better not happen 5 million people thinking the country's destroyed either way seems low.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Point. But since the reality of the situation implies it would be in their best interest to side with the common folk even if only for cynical reasons, and since they are generally more well educated and live in an environment which allows them to learn more easily if they would like to, it explains why so many rich people do not side with the GOP. Historically this has only happened when the owner class has been explicitly threatened with a socialist revolution. FDR implemented the new deal to save American capitalism from itself
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:she also allegedly supports UHC but just that it "wasn't attainable" And they will continue to be unattainable until we sink into the sea if progressives don't actually start organizing, running, and voting consistently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Unless you work for a health insurance company. Or have money invested in a health insurance company. In that case, universal health care could be bad for you This is the big thing. These insurance companies own almost everything or have their fingers in every part of our economy. I mean, aren't the 5 biggest banks in the world all under the umbrella of one insurance co. or another?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:If this sparks a civil war then I'm moving to China. Not going to die for liberals. pfeh, leeberals
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she thought $15 was too much for the whole US and should be passed on a state-by-state basis with $12 being the federal baseline
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Almost 5 million signatures. Sore losers. This is exactly what people were hating on Trump for saying he would do. He won fair and square - in fact, an absolute landslide, with Republicans in control of all branches of the US government. This was no close victory. The "popular vote" has no relevance in the US electoral system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:"ugh this party ignores wages" Such nonsense. People are fighting for (and winning!) a $15 minimum wage. Dems are divided on the issue, and Clinton pushed for a lovely compromise. Democratic city councils in Seattle and Minneapolis have been working to defeat it. So yes, (many) dems are ignoring wages, specifically in that they are ignoring a poplular movement to increase those wages to $15 an hour
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Carlosologist posted:I actually found the source, this is obviously just some guy but I think the logic is solid. the guaranteed overtime is probably a non-starter among companies, and this plan requires a revitalization of the unions, to which, lol I love this sort of techno-utopian thinking. Like, the solution to a growing productivity and wage gap, rising inequality, and slackening demand is to hope technology will rescue us and usher in a post-scarcity future? Get real. Obviously it'd be a great thing for people to work less overall, but let's talk about properly compensating them for the work they do first. What's that? Empower unions?! Redistribute wealth? Let's try to stay realistic here!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
*spits on ground, gestures w/ Gauloise* leeberals
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Hey man, if jury nullification can get yallqaeda off, I'm fine with electoral college nullification, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this better not happen How would this destroy the country more than what happened in 2000? Or the republicans hijacking the SCOTUS? As long as we're blowing up norms that can work in both ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Guys, enough faithless electors to sway the election is soooo not happening that it's literally a waste to consider.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How would this destroy the country more than what happened in 2000? Or the republicans hijacking the SCOTUS? As long as we're blowing up norms that can work in both ways. if we reversed this election with faithless electors we would be viewed at best as having stolen the presidency. and chances are it would cause a civil war
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Frankly, that makes the American public that voted Trump preposterously stupid. Yourself included. Keep berating for worrying about their own future. Maybe you'll finally figure it out when trump wins reelection. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
There's no loving way it's happening, this is just the first time I've seen anything near those numbers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:About 20% of the country is functionally illiterate. They cannot interpret maps, they cannot read sentences, and they get by by memorizing phrases and recognizing individual words or phrases like "Hamburger" and "Molson Canadian Draft". Many of them possess high school diplomas anyways, due to the lax standards of the American educational system, and the overburdened and underfunded nature of our schools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Even if they did flip the EC with faithless electors Hillary would be an illegitimate president with a hostile Congress. It would be a pointless exercise. Probably still better than Trump if only because she could veto poo poo, but we'd 100% lose in 2020 to someone more competent than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How would this destroy the country more than what happened in 2000? Or the republicans hijacking the SCOTUS? As long as we're blowing up norms that can work in both ways. The Republicans aren't hijacking SCOTUS, you moron. The president nominates Justices and the Senate votes to approve the appointments. Just because you don't like the Justices appointed doesn't mean they're illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Keep berating for worrying about their own future. Maybe you'll finally figure it out when trump wins reelection. Keep thinking your orange god will make your life better as he appoints bankers and nazis to high office and rips apart the last vestiges of the system that might help you while signing every trade deal that touches his desk regardless of how good they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:This is it, you guys. this is the internet petition that's really gonna change things All you need to know about the UK Labor is after Brexit rather than stick it to the party that caused it they tried to back stab their popular leader. If that's not enough not only did they put up the biggest losers that one by one dropped out as they realized they had no popular support but they tried to limit voting and increased the monetary cost to vote in an attempt to suppress the votes of Corbyn's supported. The icing on the cake was the labor politicians claiming that there was no way they could work with Corbyn after Brexit, resigning, and then when it became clear that the coup was going to be unsuccessful crawling back with no shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The Republicans aren't hijacking SCOTUS, you moron. The president nominates Justices and the Senate votes to approve the appointments. Just because you don't like the Justices appointed doesn't mean they're illegitimate. I'd argue they effectively are, since they deliberately obstructed obama's pick for no reason, just so they could get someone to pick the court.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Even if they did flip the EC with faithless electors Hillary would be an illegitimate president with a hostile Congress. It would be a pointless exercise.  it would be a giant nightmare and would just ensure (if we didn't get thrown out immediately) that we'd never recover as a party
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:It's satisfying to beat up on the current incarnation of the Democrats, but this didn't happen in a vacuum. Unions around the world have been crushed, and progressives are struggling in almost every single western country. If you think the Democrats have it bad look at Labor in the UK, at least the Democrats still have the popular vote majority. Protectionism would, however, place even automated means of production within physically accessible range of the consumers and (former) workers, which is sort of significant for people whose only tools for making themselves matter to the powerful have always been their bodies and their numbers. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:*spits on ground, gestures w/ Gauloise* leeberals Yeah man let's post on Twitter some more about how woke we are while poor black people have literally negative wealth and the wage gap between black and white people is the highest it's been in over 40 years. gently caress outta here Liberals haven't done poo poo for minorities
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:"white exclusion" Power word RADICAL ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
What's the city most like Avignon, Hillary can take up residence there
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'd argue they effectively are, since they deliberately obstructed obama's pick for no reason, just so they could get someone to pick the court. This. The Republican Senate declared that Obama's presidency ended in 2014. That's horseshit. That seat was his to fill.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Yeah man let's post on Twitter some more about how woke we are while poor black people have literally negative wealth and the wage gap between black and white people is the highest it's been in over 40 years. *nods sincerely, flicks cigarette butt at passing dog* leeberals
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
thechosenone posted:Point. But since the reality of the situation implies it would be in their best interest to side with the common folk even if only for cynical reasons, and since they are generally more well educated and live in an environment which allows them to learn more easily if they would like to, it explains why so many rich people do not side with the GOP. Rich people are callous rear end in a top hat. gently caress most companies pay people as little as possible and work them to the bone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'd argue they effectively are, since they deliberately obstructed obama's pick for no reason, just so they could get someone to pick the court. to be honest, i don't think obama fought this hard enough, specifically because he thought we would win again. it was a dumb loving choice cause he skipped a fight which wouldn't hurt him much in exchange for a bunch of risk that he didn't need to worry about before
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:*nods sincerely, flicks cigarette butt at passing dog* leeberals it's cool you treat minorities with the same disdain you treat white progressives
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:The Republicans aren't hijacking SCOTUS, you moron. The president nominates Justices and the Senate votes to approve the appointments. Just because you don't like the Justices appointed doesn't mean they're illegitimate. have you heard of Merrick Garland
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'd argue they effectively are, since they deliberately obstructed obama's pick for no reason, just so they could get someone to pick the court. They also never allowed it to go to a Senate vote. It really was removing a seat that should have been replaced by a sitting President elected by the people and shouldn't be thought of anything other than stolen. It should have been a humongous scandal and abuse of power but it's the sort of thing that can only be punished by voters so WELP. That should have been the real dead canary in the mine that all civic civility was dead and anything goes so be as dirty as possible because you will get nothing from playing by the rules now that the GOP has realized that they are slowly losing demographics and need to remain in power by any means necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's cool you treat minorities with the same disdain you treat white progressives unfortunately unless you envision some cross-ideological uprising of the working class, liberals are someone that progressives have to work with to enact their platform. and more than anything im just tired of this loving back-biting and relitigation of the primaries. and really its just uspol posters that i hold in contempt
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
On faithless electors, it's more likely Trump just says "gently caress it, give my votes to Hillary" and releases his electors than enough faithless electors sway the vote and I'd say the chance of Trump doing that is 0%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:On faithless electors, it's more likely Trump just says "gently caress it, give my votes to Hillary" and releases his electors than enough faithless electors sway the vote and I'd say the chance of Trump doing that is 0%. This would be the most preposterous outcome. ... I give it 20%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if we reversed this election with faithless electors we would be viewed at best as having stolen the presidency. and chances are it would cause a civil war We already had the SCOTUS steal the presidency and the republicans are in the process of stealing the balance of power on the court. Guy Goodbody posted:The Republicans aren't hijacking SCOTUS, you moron. The president nominates Justices and the Senate votes to approve the appointments. Just because you don't like the Justices appointed doesn't mean they're illegitimate. OF COURSE they are stealing it. Garland was nominated a year ago they refused to vote on him or any other nominee from the president to steal the seat for a president Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This would be the most preposterous outcome. Listen, it's a 0% chance. Though, in my heart, I would love it so, so much if he did do that. They couldn't blame Hillary because Trump did it and it would cuck the alt-right so hard they'd actually walk in to find their lovers cheating on them. But, it's never happening. We all got corncobbed and got to just accept that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:32
|
|