|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Texas Democrats doin work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6JqbQU09oA
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think we might have a clashing definition of centrist here. Centrists almost exclusively went for Hillary this election, even the ones that supported Romney last time around. Centrism is an actual political stance and value system of it's own, it doesn't cover all moderates and independents. I think you might be right. I was using as a blanket term to cover the political middle ground between parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:See, I have the exact opposite experience. left leaning types in california (where i've lived my entire left util 3 months ago) are extremely anti gun. I've never associated pro-gun stances with progressive politicians other than Bernie and that one democrat that did the campaign commercial assembling a rifle and being pro background check (which I also am) It may just be a California thing. I mean, again, that's the state where Reagan convinced Republicans to go all in on gun control too. Are the anti-gun leftists you've met more regular people, wage earners and laborers and such, or are they more the wealthy affluent entertainment/tech/finance "socially liberal but economically conservative" coastal types? I don't really know anything about the situation on the ground in California though, I'm a New England guy. So that's just a stab in the dark. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think you might be right. I was using as a blanket term to cover the political middle ground between parties. Hillary's aide talking about why Georgia was the future because the Centrists there broke so hard for Hillary is pretty telling, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
call to action posted:Of loving course it's the dude saying "are you making a RACIAL argument.......?" that's advocating to keep medicine outside of the poor's hands Sure dude, because that something that happened
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think you might be right. I was using as a blanket term to cover the political middle ground between parties. Why assume that Trump's victory was thanks to the middle breaking for him, instead of the same people who voted for McCain and Romney voting for him, and the people who voted for Obama deciding to stay home? Recall what we know about voter turnout in this election; down across the board for Democrats, about the same for Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Sure dude, because that something that happened Remember that time you said voting against even signaling cheaper drugs for poor people was a good idea for Democrats because Cory Booker did it It was kind of embarrassing tbh
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It may just be a California thing. I mean, again, that's the state where Reagan convinced Republicans to go all in on gun control too. it's the latter. The every day working types love guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Remember that time you said voting against even signaling cheaper drugs for poor people was a good idea for Democrats When did i say it was good, or that democrats should do it. All i did was say that Cory Booker shouldn't be hung out to dry for it. Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:When did i say it was good, or that democrats should do it. quote:So wanting safe imported drugs is a bad thing now, got it. Do you guys see centrist monsters under your bed? What kind of grotesque, non-centrist monster would vote for legislation to make drugs cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Gun control isn't a leftist/centrist thing, it's a white/nonwhite thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Hey JC going to answer if HRC was a traitor for being mean to Obama back in 08. I mean you seem to think that lefties were traitors for being mean to her in 16.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What kind of grotesque, non-centrist monster would vote for legislation to make drugs cheaper. That doesn't indicate I think it was good, just that it is his position, and that it wasn't as terrible as it was being made out to be. Considering the bill idnt pass, and was never going to, it doesn't really matter what amendments were voted on. I feel like its the equivalent of arguing over deck chairs on the titanic. That bill wouldn't have made drugs cheaper anyway as it was completely symbolic, and again, wasn't going to pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:That doesn't indicate I think it was good, just that it is his position, and that it wasn't as terrible as it was being made out to be. Considering the bill idnt pass, and was never going to, it doesn't really matter what amendments were voted on. I feel like its the equivalent of arguing over deck chairs on the titanic. That bill wouldn't have made drugs cheaper anyway as it was completely symbolic, and again, wasn't going to pass. And so, we circle back around to the question you shied away from answering. Why did the man who offered hope and change to people do so much better than the woman who offered them nothing? That you do not consider spitting on the poor to be bad policy is understandable, but consider that given recent events there's evidence suggesting it's bad strategy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey JC going to answer if HRC was a traitor for being mean to Obama back in 08. I mean you seem to think that lefties were traitors for being mean to her in 16. I'd happily classify the PUMAs as traitors to the party. I don't begrudge Bernie for attacking Clinton during the primary. But he wasn't willing to walk it back afterwords. Like he was unwilling to say she could be trusted after the Primary, he'd just pivot to Trump is worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Gun control isn't a leftist/centrist thing, it's a white/nonwhite thing. Why are you so bad at politics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Maybe do a google search for gun control race poll and consider editing your post?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd happily classify the PUMAs as traitors to the party. I don't begrudge Bernie for attacking Clinton during the primary. But he wasn't willing to walk it back afterwords. Like he was unwilling to say she could be trusted after the Primary, he'd just pivot to Trump is worse. Bernie isn't a Democrat. Also, there's nothing to walk back. He was right, and was still right. The reason he told everyone to vote for Hillary is because of Trump (lesser of two evils wins the left). What's so bad about the truth? We have a hosed up two party system and you're complaining that an independent who only put a D next to his name to be able to participate in the process wasn't backing a racist friend of the banks? What do you expect? NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd happily classify the PUMAs as traitors to the party. I don't begrudge Bernie for attacking Clinton during the primary. But he wasn't willing to walk it back afterwords. Like he was unwilling to say she could be trusted after the Primary, he'd just pivot to Trump is worse. When did your Abuela walk back any of what she said in 2008 about Obama?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Maybe do a google search for gun control race poll and consider editing your post? This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020? Warren is the strongest candidate IMO. If not her, possibly Sherrod Brown, Kamala Harris, or Al Franken. Sanders is too old, and I don't think he actually wants to be President. I think he ran as hard as he did against Clinton because he saw her weaknesses all too clearly and wanted to avert what ended up happening. I think he'd be happy being a kingmaker and knowing that he's moved the party in a constructive direction. Alienwarehouse posted:This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police. Arming minorities to fight back against police abuse is a nice thought in theory, but I don't think it will turn out quite the way you want it to. You would probably end up with more civilian deaths, more heavy-handedness from the police, and would almost certainly lend credence to Trump's "the non-whites are out to get you, white people!" fear-mongering. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Apr 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Arming minorities to fight back against police abuse is a nice thought in theory, but I don't think it will turn out quite the way you want it to. You would probably end up with more civilian deaths, more heavy-handedness from the police, and would almost certainly lend credence to Trump's "the non-whites are out to get you, white people!" fear-mongering. I also don't support disarming minorities in neighborhoods that the police don't give a poo poo about. 911 doesn't work for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:And so, we circle back around to the question you shied away from answering. God drat you sure are sanctimonious about positions I don't have. I wonder if that has as much of an effect of driving people away from your positions as much as you think my beliefs do. The answer to what Obama offered that Clinton didn't was a pragmatic centrist vision of the government being a force for good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The answer to what Obama offered that Clinton didn't was a pragmatic centrist vision of the government being a force for good. Which was then not really delivered on as effectively as it should have been and helped bring in the vast and complex mess we see now. A lot of the blame for that can be laid at the door of the Republican Party. Some of it however must go to the fact that during the first few years of utter domination of the senate and house more was not done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020? Gilibrand seems tolerable and also likely to win
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police. Support for gun control is significantly correlated with race. Latinos are by far the most supportive of gun control.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Which was then not really delivered on as effectively as it should have been and helped bring in the vast and complex mess we see now. Joe Lieberman. The Centrist everyone should hate is literally the main reason more didn't get done.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Joe Lieberman. The Centrist everyone should hate is literally the main reason more didn't get done. From what I had heard a fair amount of it also came from "Well we need to be okay with the Republicans" and a willingness to try and reach across the aisle. Also the continual wars and backing for dictators. There is such a void between foreign and domestic policy on how people act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:God drat you sure are sanctimonious about positions I don't have. I wonder if that has as much of an effect of driving people away from your positions as much as you think my beliefs do. Dear me, someone treating you with less respect than you feel you're due. How upsetting that must be. Obama offered a vision of the government being a force for good for people. The same people you introduced yourself to the thread by proclaiming they deserve to be electrocuted for being gay for the crime of being outvoted by Republicans. They must have -chosen- to suffer, after all. Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, and you, personally, here and now, offer a "pragmatic," "centrist" vision of helping people being a waste of the Democratic Party's time and energy. For some reason, this strategy resulted in people who had voted for Barack Obama not voting for Hillary Clinton. To my mind, pragmatism would entail changing this strategy, now that it has lost the Democratic Party all voice in American government beyond the strongly-worded tweet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police. Nobody will ever use a gun against cops and come out on top.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:So, leaving Booker aside for a moment - who would you guys support as a candidate in 2020? You got a bunch of answers. I have a question, who would you support?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Gun control isn't a leftist/centrist thing, it's a white/nonwhite thing. You know I am struggling and I really cant figure out whether its the whites or nonwhites that are supposed to be antigun in your worldview
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Anyway in good news for the Democrats they seem to be turning to Quists race big time right now
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Dear me, someone treating you with less respect than you feel you're due. How upsetting that must be. quote:God drat you sure are sanctimonious about positions I don't have. I wonder if that has as much of an effect of driving people away from your positions as much as you think my beliefs do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:by proclaiming they deserve to be electrocuted for being gay for the crime of being outvoted by Republicans. They must have -chosen- to suffer, after all. This is an incredibly disgusting mischaracterization of what he said and you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL. Ze Pollack posted:And so we arrive at the blue-state centrist's core argument. Look at this sick gently caress supporting US military adventurism in foreign lands.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think you might be right. I was using as a blanket term to cover the political middle ground between parties. I mean, technically you'd be correct if you define centrist as "in the center of the American political spectrum." People in this thread (and most leftists in general) are defining leftism by a commitment to specific values, rather than where it stands in relation to the surrounding political climate (in the US that is; when compared with other developed nations our definitions are more accurate). For example, to be a leftist a person must, generally speaking, actively support labor rights/protections as well as social issues like race/LGBT rights/etc. Gun rights are an example where it's difficult to clearly assign it a position on this spectrum (which is why a single "left <-> right" axis isn't a very accurate way to represent political views). While Republicans almost universally are against gun control, views on the left are rather split. Being strongly in favor of gun control is very much a mainstream Democrat position, which means it can be called either centrist or center-left. Among more ardent leftists, I would say that there isn't really a strong consensus in favor or against gun control. Another thing to keep in mind is that "far left" is generally defined in two very different ways. When mainstream Democrats think of the "far left" they're often thinking of people like Jill Stein voters, who are motivated most strongly by a somewhat vague "anti-establishment" sentiment and define their views more based upon cultural indicators than actual ideology. For example, someone who is part of this "far left", when thinking of what "defines a leftist" has a certain type of person in mind rather than a certain set of political views. This brand of leftist identifies most strongly with issues like environmentalism and drug legalization and also often holds some bizarre views, like being anti-vaccinations or anti-nuclear power. When people on this forum (and elsewhere) refer to leftists, they're primarily referring to a specific economic ideology (that is usually also accompanied by support for socially liberal policy as well). Most important to these leftists are issues like a strong safety net, universal healthcare, fighting racism/sexism with concrete policy, increased minimum wage, labor protections, strong regulations (particularly in areas like finance, pharmaceuticals, etc where mainstream Democrats are very weak), etc. Most of these leftists describe themselves as either Social Democrats (this would be like Bernie Sanders or what you see in Nordic countries) or actual Socialists. There are a number of views that can fall under the umbrella of the latter term, but most Socialists are also in favor of pushing for Social Democratic policy until their ideas become more palatable to the general public. This type of leftist is also in favor of stuff like environmentalism or ending the war on drugs, but those issues usually aren't quite as central to their ideology as they are the type mentioned in the previous paragraph. I'm sure there are some inaccurate things in this post, but I think it gets across the general gist of my point. Of most importance is the fact that the latter type of leftist mentioned has some very serious disagreements with the mainstream Democratic Party. Until very recently, Democrats were almost universally against significant expansions to the safety net, universal healthcare, significant increases to the minimum wage, or any sort of corporate regulation with actual "teeth." Even now, most are weak on these issues, with some only beginning to get tepid support largely as a result of Sanders' performance in the primary. To many of us, certain issues (like universal healthcare, for example) are non-negotiable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
There is a way to avoid being accused of not caring about people. It is to stop saying things that demonstrate that fact. I get that you did not -mean- to say that the minority population of any state that voted for Trump deserves whatever they have coming. You just forgot that they existed when you said, and I quote, "If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault?" Welcome to democracy. The people who Cory Booker says are worth less than pharmaceutical industry profits get to vote. This is why Cory Booker saying they are worth less than pharmaceutical profits is a bad thing, strategically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is an incredibly disgusting mischaracterization of what he said and you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL. Real slap in the face to be reminded what the human cost of the democratic party abandoning red states is, ain't it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Which was then not really delivered on as effectively as it should have been and helped bring in the vast and complex mess we see now. I do think it should be kept in mind that the first objective for Obama and the Dems was to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and even though that wasn't a perfect piece of legislation, it was really important that it get done. And they managed to get it passed, relatively quickly, but with almost no support whatsoever from the Republicans. That should have been a big red flag to Obama that there was no convincing the Party of McConnell to not be atavistic fuckwads, and they definitely should have gotten more done, even with the obstruction they faced. But credit where credit's due, the Dems didn't get nothing done with their supermajority (and indeed, it's possible that they wouldn't have gotten the ARRA passed without that supermajority).
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL. drat turns out the intolerant ones were the centrists the whole time maybe take a step back from the keyboard friend
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd happily classify the PUMAs as traitors to the party. I don't begrudge Bernie for attacking Clinton during the primary. But he wasn't willing to walk it back afterwords. Like he was unwilling to say she could be trusted after the Primary, he'd just pivot to Trump is worse. quote:Who cares? Trump got dunked on by his entire loving party right up to election day. You literally had very well respected party members making GBS threads all over him and saying poo poo like he's wholly unfit, but poor Hillary had one primary challenger who CAMPAIGNED FOR HER for months after the primary and you're crying and calling it backstabbing. So are you trying to claim that a single primary challenger who campaigned on her behalf after the primary was somehow more damaging than the entire party of the opposition candidate making GBS threads all over their own candidate at every opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2017 23:50
|
|
