|
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 | ||
|
exactly how much should I hate chelsea clinton if I want the democrats to pick up seats in 2018
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Polygynous posted:exactly how much should I hate chelsea clinton if I want the democrats to pick up seats in 2018 Bernie would have won She literally told a group of voters that Bernie wanted to eliminate Medicare. She's loving hot garbage. Frijolero fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
How long this time before somebody clicks the link and figures out what misleading headlines are? C'mon, gotta make sure you fall for right wing propaganda every single time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:exactly how much should I hate chelsea clinton if I want the democrats to pick up seats in 2018 you should probably not feel warm towards any clintons in 2017
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How long this time before somebody clicks the link and figures out what misleading headlines are? Factcheck is right wing, lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Factcheck is right wing, lol. Considering you've defended your constant spewing of nazi propaganda direct from Breitbart to here, you're doing a grand job of illustrating exactly what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Ah there we go with Breitbart again. "Everyone who disagrees with Fulchrum reads Breitbart." 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Perhaps you should be a Republican. That way you can read all of Breitbart, not just the parts about Hillary, Obama and the dem leadership that is totally trustworthy and you feel the need to keep spreading. This is you. You are bad. Stop posting. Also, anyone who thinks that all Trump voters are "chimps" is not discussing in good faith. Either that or you really wanna loving lose next year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How long this time before somebody clicks the link and figures out what misleading headlines are? Politifact is now Right Wing propaganda, For fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Politifact is now Right Wing propaganda, For fucks sake Any disparaging story on the Clintons is part of the 25 year conspiracy and anyone who shares the stories is not a good Democrat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:This is you. You are bad. Stop posting. You're right, voting for an obvious lying conman who has no goddamn clue about politics in the slightest and has every intention to gently caress you over because reading is hard, is definitely a smart and savvy person. And it does say a lot that calling out people repeating Breitbart crap is treated as worse than doing it. Gee, wherever have I seen that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Politifact is now Right Wing propaganda, For fucks sake But I'm sure you are totally consistent that Politifact is always a bastion of objective credibility. So you'll agree that Romney and Ryan wanting to destroy medicare really was the biggest lie of 2012. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If they had said what Frijolero claims they said, yeah. Good thing they exist in reality, not your incoherent haze of rage against the Clinton's. Right here is the loving quote Daughter of Privilege posted:Hitting the campaign trail on her mother’s behalf, Chelsea Clinton attacked Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ universal health care plan. By your logic we shouldn't trust anything the New York Times says because of their often conservative view points. Christ I prefer snopes but Politifact will do in a pinch Have you ever considered that people might rightfully be angry at the Clintons for their actions in the 90s making life pretty loving hard for people on welfare and continuing that legacy of dismantling the public good for private profit. Christ I voted for Clinton cause what I thought the unlikely case was too horrible to imagine. But she failed us, in her hubris she failed us. I'm sorry that I also don't look forward to the sons and daughters of our current politicians becoming the newest members of the ruling class based on family names. We're not supposed to have an aristocracy why the gently caress are you obsessed with having one? We must forever be haunted by the names of the politicians of my childhood. It'll be too loving soon if I ever have to see the names Clinton or Bush involved in American politics again it'll be too loving soon
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Right here is the loving quote quote:Have you ever considered that people might rightfully be angry at the Clintons for their actions in the 90s making life pretty loving hard for people on welfare and continuing that legacy of dismantling the public good for private profit. Oh and, I assume you despise FDR for sharing genes with a past president?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
quote:A group of Senate Democrats is beginning to explore trying to extract concessions from Republicans in return for allowing Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. A group is beginning to explore trying. The two Senators named are Manchin and Coons. quote:Another ambitious possibility: Some Democrats want to confirm Gorsuch only with an agreement that another justice retire and is replaced with Garland. The idea has almost no chance of success. But it’s being pushed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who said that there’s too much “distrust” in the Senate to believe Republicans are willing to make a deal on a future vacancy, so they must make a deal now on Garland. This is all just spitballing, it isn't Chuck Schumer's secret strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:45
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:We're not supposed to have an aristocracy why the gently caress are you obsessed with having one?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:A group is beginning to explore trying. The two Senators named are Manchin and Coons. Shhh! You're bringing reality and context in - it upsets the native goons, they think it steals their souls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:48
|
|
|
Schurmer being the man who wanted to appeal to white flight suburbs so the dems wouldn't be burdened by working class voters anymore. Also lol at the implication that Clinton treated voters like adults. She treated demands on the left like those of spoiled brats who want new toys. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
In that she gave virtually everything and they still threw a tantrum and said it's not good enough, I hate you, I'm running away?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
People the Democrats don't need to win an election according to Hilary fans: Whites, the left, the working class, the middle class, LGBT people, men. So really they just need to lock down the coveted straight black female Wall Street CEO demographic and it's all smooth sailing from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
People that the Dems need to demonize according to leftists - the rich, anyone who hates the Klan, anyone who talks about racism, anyone who talks about civil rights except to say it's a distraction from economic inequality, anyone opposing Vladimir Putin, civil rights heroes, feminists, Puerto Ricans. Good job no-one in America respects anyone in any of those categories. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:People that the Dems need to demonize according to leftists - the rich, lobbyist, Wall Street. Ftfy
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Ftfy Well then let's hear how much you respect John Lewis. Particularly his sage wisdom in who he backed in the primaries. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
He shouldn't be "demonized." I think he was wrong in backing Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:People that the Dems need to demonize according to leftists - the rich, yes, this unironically, forever. the democrats need to stop gently dipping their toes in the water and openly come out against the 0.1%. that would literally be the thing that fixes the democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well then let's hear how much you respect John Lewis. Particularly his sage wisdom in who he backed in the primaries. It's perfectly possible for people to make mistakes or feel they owe a debt to people who you don't agree with. Putting Lewis on a pedestal like he can do no wrong is actually mildly creepy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well then let's hear how much you respect John Lewis. Particularly his sage wisdom in who he backed in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:yes, this unironically, forever. Okay. Hey, Oprah, gently caress you, you're an atrocious human being. That will surely make America love them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
You think the GOP would go to bat for Oprah and this would be a major flaw in the strategy? Are you serious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Can't go after the capitalist class, some of them might be gays or minorities. Like Peter Thiel and Oprah. This is what neoliberalism looks like
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:yes, this unironically, forever. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
What if oprah gave everyone in the audience the means of production
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
"Hey, Waltons, gently caress you, you're atrocious human beings." That would make Americans like Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You think the GOP would go to bat for Oprah and this would be a major flaw in the strategy? Are you serious? I think that since 98% of the people who are respected in America make more than $200,000 a year, that argument is gonna fall flat on its face the second you try it to the point Republicanswon't even need to respond. You could try to in any loving way refine the argument by allowing that being rich is not a sin, but thinking the rich should not have to pay taxes is, but then that would mean you cannot attack Dems as much. Can't have that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
"Hey, insurance companies, gently caress YOU. We are going to bust your asses."
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I think that since 98% of the people who are respected in America make more than $200,000 a year, that argument is gonna fall flat on its face the second you try it to the point Republicanswon't even need to respond. This is the weak own of someone who is trying to defend class interests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I think that since 98% of the people who are respected in America make more than $200,000 a year,
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:"Hey, insurance companies, gently caress YOU. We are going to bust your asses." Hmm, if only there was some difference between the insurance companies and Oprah. Some kind of distinction you could make about how they feel the rich should give back to others. Nah, that would mean you can't just chant eat the rich. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Mar 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Most people have other people in their lives that make less than $200,000 and respect them And that's why Republican efforts to demonize the poor among the poor has always, always, failed. They definitely didn't do the barest amount of messaging refinement to allow demonization of the poor without implicating people that individual Republicansrespected. What? Lazy moochers? Nah, impossible, they never said that. They always, every single time, said the words "the poor".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
It doesn't matter if the GOP has failed to demonize the poor among the poor. We wouldn't need to demonize the billionaires among the billionaires. They are already extremely class conscious anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2017 06:46
|
|