|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I wasn't talking about Hillary; I was simply just responding to the dude who was mad about the idea of a house seat field being cleared for Chlesea to run. OK. They shouldn't be clearing a seat for her but I could see the temptation to. She has a lot of name recognition.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:OK. They shouldn't be clearing a seat for her but I could see the temptation to. She has a lot of name recognition. But it's not like clearing a field for a congressional race is uncommon. It's done all the time. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But it's not like clearing a field for a congressional race is uncommon. It's done all the time. Chelsea is a lovely person- Bernie is a good person In bernies instance it was a good idea In Chelsea's instance it will be a nightmare Hth
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So it's just "I don't agree with it" = Very Serious Thinking. WampaLord's explanation wasn't good, but a better definition of "Very Serious Thinking" is thinking that is either an attempt to justify the status quo or an attempt to justify limiting a change to the status quo. This is because powerful entrenched interests generally do not want to make any big changes to the status quo (though there are exceptions depending upon the interest), so they put the weight of their influence and reputation behind the opinions they support. "Very Serious Thinking" isn't even necessarily wrong in all cases, but it's main flaw is that it has a strong bias (in favor of the status quo) but pretends to be unbiased and rational. The dumber leftist posters in these threads may post dumb stuff, but at least they don't try to assert some ideological neutrality along with it. Basically, "Very Serious Thinking" takes what are absolutely ideological viewpoints and asserts them to not be ideological.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Chelsea is a lovely person- Bernie is a good person It really doesn't matter if she's a lovely person if her name recognition can flip a republican seat....
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:WampaLord's explanation wasn't good, but a better definition of "Very Serious Thinking" is thinking that is either an attempt to justify the status quo or an attempt to justify limiting a change to the status quo. This is because powerful entrenched interests generally do not want to make any big changes to the status quo (though there are exceptions depending upon the interest), so they put the weight of their influence and reputation behind the opinions they support. Yes, a better summation. Very Serious Thinking gets us poo poo like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGDKCy0bWGY
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
The definition of "Very Serious Thinking" should be: Heard on the set of Morning Joe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The definition of "Very Serious Thinking" should be: Heard on the set of Morning Joe. Then my point about Bernie passes that test.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It really doesn't matter if she's a lovely person if her name recognition can flip a republican seat.... sorry to burst your bubble but if Chelsea runs that seat is going to be held by republicans until the sun goes supernova. No one likes the Clintons, no one likes Chelsea, no one likes venture capitalists. It will be a very dumb idea in a long list of dumb ideas that the Dems have come up with
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:sorry to burst your bubble but if Chelsea runs that seat is going to be held by republicans until the sun goes supernova. I'm inclined to agree with you but it depends on what the polling says.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/843896952400109568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw lmao democrats are literally the worst, sorry JC I guess it's taken already
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm inclined to agree with you but it depends on what the polling says. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:sorry to burst your bubble but if Chelsea runs that seat is going to be held by republicans until the sun goes supernova. That isn't really true. I mean, I don't like Hillary Clinton (though I would still vote for her over any Republican), but there are a bunch of people who do like her, even if I disagree with them. Clearly not enough people to win an election, mind you, but they do exist. Also, Hillary isn't really much worse than your average Democratic politician, so I'm not sure how useful it is to focus so much anger specifically on her. It would make more sense to target the majority of Democratic politicians in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Who cares if she's a back bencher in some house district if she flips a seat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The Dem field was cleared for Bernie to run for Senate in Vermont the first time. http://www.ourherald.com/news/2006-09-07/Front_Page/f02.html quote:In his attempt to be the Democratic candidate for U. S. Senate, U.S. Rep Bernard Sanders is faced by four little known candidates: Larry Drown of Northfield, Craig Hill of Montpelier, Peter D. Moss of Fairfax, and Louis W. Thabault of South Burlington.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who cares if she's a back bencher in some house district if she flips a seat? Because the media would not treat her as a back bencher. She's Chelsea Clinton, in public office, during the Trump administration. Unless she does a 180 on her family's political legacy, she will be a very public symbol for third way centrism at a time when that is not something the Democrats, or America, can afford.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:There were three other candidates in the Democratic primary in 2006, which Bernie ran in and won. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as some sort of gotcha when this is now the third time I've pointed out that you're just completely wrong. Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:There were three other candidates in the Democratic primary in 2006, which Bernie ran in and won. I don't know why you keep bringing this up as some sort of gotcha when this is now the third time I've pointed out that you're just completely wrong. BI Now? Completely wrong? Color me shocked
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The Dem field was cleared for Bernie to run for Senate in Vermont the first time. well at least they learned their lesson and didn't put a republican into office like the democrats did in 88 by splitting the vote
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:That isn't really true. I mean, I don't like Hillary Clinton (though I would still vote for her over any Republican), but there are a bunch of people who do like her, even if I disagree with them. Clearly not enough people to win an election, mind you, but they do exist. I mean, obviously I wasn't literally saying that 0 people like her, but the vast majority of the electorate are sick of the Clintons and the corruption they represent
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate. this erasure of Roque De La Fuente will not stand
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate. You don't even know what you're arguing anymore beyond how much you hate Bernie Sanders, man. Should the Democratic Party make use of the fact they have the most popular politician in America right now in order to help win votes, y/n.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:BI Now? Completely wrong? Color me shocked I wasn't, but keep tilting at windmills dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:You don't even know what you're arguing anymore beyond how much you hate Bernie Sanders, man.  NO!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:You don't even know what you're arguing anymore beyond how much you hate Bernie Sanders, man. I don't hate Bernie at all. Just pointing you guys come up with poo poo but never seem to care if Bernie broke or breaks them so long as you can complain about "Centrists" or "Clintons" or someone you disagree with. I already said we should use him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Because the media would not treat her as a back bencher. She's Chelsea Clinton, in public office, during the Trump administration. Unless she does a 180 on her family's political legacy, she will be a very public symbol for third way centrism at a time when that is not something the Democrats, or America, can afford. Wait, wouldn't this be a good thing? It's an opportunity for a centrist - a Clinton, no less - to lose to a leftist in a hilarious, humiliating fashion. The party can run Chelsea, and the party can support Chelsea, but ultimately it's up to the voters to decide who wins. And if the left can't even overcome a political nobody running entirely on the strength of their (widely-unpopular) name and connections in a safe blue district, there's not much hope for the revolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Wait, wouldn't this be a good thing? It's an opportunity for a centrist - a Clinton, no less - to lose to a leftist in a hilarious, humiliating fashion. The party can run Chelsea, and the party can support Chelsea, but ultimately it's up to the voters to decide who wins. And if the left can't even overcome a political nobody running entirely on the strength of their (widely-unpopular) name and connections in a safe blue district, there's not much hope for the revolution. They're not loving going to put a Clinton in anything less than a cleared field in a safe seat. Just pray it's not a senate seat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
What do you have against Chelsea Clinton's politics?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What do you have against Chelsea Clinton's politics? Third way centrism writ large, her first public appearance in the primaries was as a very serious person there to explain why the public option was a pipe dream that would never happen, she's married to a venture capitalist, she is a venture capitalist. She's literally everything wrong about liberal upper class types.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:What do you have against Chelsea Clinton's politics? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Chelsea is a lovely person- Bernie is a good person My team good so backroom deals are good. Chelsea on bad team, so hypothetical backroom deals are skullduggery. Me no hypocrite! Just make sense. Good smart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:My team good so backroom deals are good. My team lose horribly to orange fascist Me wanna run daughter of loser Me smart
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Because the media would not treat her as a back bencher. She's Chelsea Clinton, in public office, during the Trump administration. Unless she does a 180 on her family's political legacy, she will be a very public symbol for third way centrism at a time when that is not something the Democrats, or America, can afford. Any speech from the floor would experience the same effects as her children's books. Normally, there are people that get degrees in children's literature and people still cross their fingers when submitting to these companies, but celebrities in general are exempt from that, because they have their brand to sell it, people click the articles announcing them, etc. She gets to talk about a lot of inspiring people and how young people should go out there and be inspired, and it comes with an air of a valedictorian victory lap speech and trying to make it look like she's done inspiring things herself. She would get an Associated Press article with every 5 minute floor speech, whereas with every other representative they'd just say something like "I yield my remainder of my time" and it's back to business, and most of the clicks on every article would be from people worried about a third way dynasty in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Third way centrism writ large, her first public appearance in the primaries was as a very serious person there to explain why the public option was a pipe dream that would never happen, she's married to a venture capitalist, she is a venture capitalist. She's literally everything wrong about liberal upper class types. single payer, not public option
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:My team lose horribly to orange fascist I don't want to run Chelsea Clinton for anything. That doesn't matter. But I'm tired of Bernie poster's transparent double standard when it comes to party politics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I wasn't, but keep tilting at windmills dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't want to run Chelsea Clinton for anything. That doesn't matter. But I'm tired of Bernie poster's transparent double standard when it comes to party politics. Lol your idea of what constitutes a double standard is hilarious my dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't hate Bernie at all. Just pointing you guys come up with poo poo but never seem to care if Bernie broke or breaks them so long as you can complain about "Centrists" or "Clintons" or someone you disagree with. Aren't you the guy who couldn't wrap his mind around the phrase "Medicare for all"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:19 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Such as? Who were these high-profile folks who were going to crush it in the Democratic primary, but dropped out after getting a note from the DNC that read "no thanks, we'll take the socialist?" http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/?page=full MooselanderII posted:Aren't you the guy who couldn't wrap his mind around the phrase "Medicare for all"? My argument was that nationalized healthcare won't look like medicare so why call it that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:55
|
|