|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
My take is that Clinton didn't do that because 1) She's a third way true believer. I mean, she helped build the DLC (and you won't find a purer avatar of that group that HRC), and economic populism is a non-starter with that crowd. 2) Making promises (even vague ones) can get you elected, but it can actively harm your chances for re-election when those empty promises can be used by your opponents to damage you. Clinton didn't want to be a one-term president, so at least one eye was on the longer term and imagining her future "legacy." 3) She was the front-runner, and conventional wisdom suggests that the front-runner in a political contest needs to focus on not making mistakes, rather than being bold and taking risks. Plus all the reasons that have already been brought up.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean castigate the ACA exchanges for what they are, but the Medicaid expansion was a major strengthening of the safety net It certainly was. It's a shame she didn't run on that loudly and proudly, particularly in those states that swung the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? by Thomas Frank. I highly recommend A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey as well: https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Neoliberalism-David-Harvey/dp/0199283265/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa). Because Virginia
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa). -Bilingual to shore up the Hispanic vote, especially in Florida -Deeply religious to shore up conservative suburban voters -"Double down on what you are" -Virginia -The South, because of Virginia
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa). He's a conservative Democrat to appeal to the "center", and a Harvard graduate to pander to white collar professionals and signal to the banks that they're safe. Mister Facetious fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Apr 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa). Especially since they have now decided that being pro life is bad and hes an ardent pro life dude. Based on Perezs most recent statement they would refuse funding if he ran again (they wont)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Especially since they have now decided that being pro life is bad and hes an ardent pro life dude. oh word? http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Tim_Kaine_Abortion.htm
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Came to post this, cause that's just plain ignorant of who Tim Kaine is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
that's the stance mello is taking now too
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's the stance mello is taking now too It's the right stance to have for people that want to follow their faith. I'm fine with it, and the Democratic party should be as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that's the stance mello is taking now too So what's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It certainly was. It's a shame she didn't run on that loudly and proudly, particularly in those states that swung the election. It is But she had the most progressive campaign website ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It is LOL, yeah, well - I hope that provides some small consolation for Robby Mook et al. e: Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It's the right stance to have for people that want to follow their faith. I'm fine with it, and the Democratic party should be as well.  , particularly given that this is Nebraska we're talking about. One of the issues where I've always liked Hillary Clinton's stance is in saying that abortion needs to be "safe, legal, and rare." If somebody is having an abortion, that is often a symptom that the system has failed them (on access to birth control, on sex ed, etc). I think the most workable left-wing position on reproductive rights is to say, "Our platform will lower abortion rates to the minimum, because it will make them completely unnecessary."
Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:So what's the problem? i don't have one
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
If a condom breaks...isn't that capitalism failing
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Came to post this, cause that's just plain ignorant of who Tim Kaine is. In non abortion terms he's also been strongly pro-death penalty and anti-gay marriage. He turned around big time as a Senator, and I believe his beliefs have genuinely changed (or he's a pure political opportunist, whatever) but considering the extent to which Mello and Bernie's support of Mello is being attacked... it feels a little bit like 'rules for me, not for thee" in the Democratic party right now. Leftists seem to be held to much higher purity standards. So congratulations, you got the point! (Also Pelosi has come out explicitly in favour of supporting pro-Life dems)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/congressional-scorecard#/VA/450/ 100% rating from PP. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288952-pro-abortion-rights-group-give-kaine-nod-of-approval NARAL approved of him in 2016. You're talking out of your rear end or are actively living in the past.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Leftists seem to be held to much higher purity standards. They do this to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:You're talking out of your rear end or are actively living in the past. Did you not bother to read the post? He explicitly states Kaine moderated his anti-choice views in recent years. And the article you think bolsters your case? http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/288952-pro-abortion-rights-group-give-kaine-nod-of-approval quote:Major pro-abortion rights groups moved quickly to applaud Hillary Clinton's vice presidential pick Sen. Tim Kaine, looking past his more conservative opinions on the issue to downplay what is seen as a big weakness on the left. The point you're missing or evading is that plenty of Democrats, including Clinton's running mate, have past records on abortion rights far worse than Mello. But rather than demand total loyalty the groups and individuals using Mello to stick a knife in Sanders extenuated the lapses of establishment Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Did you not bother to read the post? He explicitly states Kaine moderated his anti-choice views in recent years. Living in the past it is. You're talking about poo poo that was solved a decade ago. Seriously look at my previous link, he made those decisions back in 2008. That poo poo happened so long ago that groups like PP and NARAL no longer care. There is no conspiracy to use abortion as a wedge issue come on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Living in the past it is. You're talking about poo poo that was solved a decade ago. Seriously look at my previous link, he made those decisions back in 2008. DOn't give me that poo poo. You lying creatures are using this as a wedge and you know it. Stop lying to us. This is why we have to force you guys out of the party. We don't need lying creatures in it. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:They do this to themselves. At least this rear end in a top hat is honest about using it as a wedge issue. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:At least this rear end in a top hat is honest about using it as a wedge issue. How am I making it a wedge when I'm the one accepting pro life Democrats? The people making it a wedge are those demanding the purge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
There's a reason I ignore Crowsbeak, dude. That said, yeah Sanders really stepped in it: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/103098/heath-mello/2/abortion#.WQAfiYjyuUk Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 05:19 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
KillerQueen posted:This may be out of left field, but why did Clinton choose Tim "who-the-gently caress-is-Tim-Kaine" Kaine as a running mate? I remember thinking back during primaries that I wouldn't mind a Clinton/Sanders ticket (or viceversa). Attempt at appealing to sexist white men on the fence and suburban Republicans. Also essentially a wink and a nod to the national security establishment and the banks that she would not be rocking the boat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:How am I making it a wedge when I'm the one accepting pro life Democrats? The people making it a wedge are those demanding the purge. Really? I mean was it the left that demanded Mello be punished or was it Clintonites? I mean I think Kaine should be properly coralled so he understands that he no longer answers to the financiers. But I also am not going to move to primary him unless he starts some really blatant poo poo against the party. I also love that some here seem to think that putting everyone they cannot agree with on ignore means they no longer have to actually deal with people challenging their views. I mean one comes to DnD to debate and discuss. If you ignore all you cannot agree with is there much of either going on? I am of course just making a observation. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
The democrats are out because all the "progressive" things they ever care about are some Angelina Jolie type poo poo that doesn't touch their class interests and they are incapable of representing the working poor. It would be best if they disappear completely and are replaced by some other entity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Living in the past it is. You're talking about poo poo that was solved a decade ago. Seriously look at my previous link, he made those decisions back in 2008. SSNeoman posted:That said, yeah Sanders really stepped in it: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/103098/heath-mello/2/abortion#.WQAfiYjyuUk quote:May 29, 2009 LB 675 Establishes Procedures for Ultrasounds Performed Prior to Abortions
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
I was talking about Kaine. Mello is a different story
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
What the poster who cannot deal with posters actually disagreeing with them saying is that they gladly have a double standard. That being that they'll care about abortion when it makes Bernie look bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 06:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/856827515364683776/photo/1?ref_src=tw i guess obama didn't get anything done cause he really didn't want to get anything done. republicans were just an excuse
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It's the right stance to have for people that want to follow their faith. I'm fine with it, and the Democratic party should be as well. That's right, and you should use this argument to highlight when bad dems make exceptions from this maxim to take hypocritical potshots at their internal rivals. It would be very stupid to tactfully look away from the past mistakes of competing politicians when their allies highlight the very same failings on your side and show themselves to be incapable of self-reflection. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/JStein_Vox/status/856827515364683776/photo/1?ref_src=tw "when he himself is made of carbon"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:"when he himself is made of carbon" how is the complaint that obama is making noise about money in politics the day he takes a big fat check from wall street disingenuous? then again, i dunno why i'm bothering to ask you since you always deflect with nonsense when someone criticizes a centrist in this thread Condiv fucked around with this message at 08:34 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Because NATURALLY a politician is going to be taken care of by special interests, it can't be avoided. That's just how things are, and best we can do is some hand wringing over it. Just move on and pretend that your resignation on ethics is a sign of maturity rather than of weakness.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how is the complaint that obama is making noise about money in politics the day he takes a big fat check from wall street disingenuous? then again, i dunno why i'm bothering to ask you since you always deflect with nonsense when someone criticizes a centrist in this thread Okay let's try a different tactic. Explain to me how it's hypocritical for Obama to accept 400k from Wall Street while also making a point about the corrupting effects of money in politics. Especially since this is past his presidency. This is technically your claim so burden of proof is on you. Next, why does this apparently retroactively taint his presidency? As per your post: Condiv posted:i guess obama didn't get anything done cause he really didn't want to get anything done. republicans were just an excuse What should he have done instead? Turn down fleecing some CEO out of 400k? Why? Party purity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
The point of the "is made of carbon" quip is that it's not hypocritical for people not to immediately defy the inevitable, and that which is forced upon them by forces much more powerful than them, like natural laws. So by using this as an argument, you are essentially saying that Obama has no say in accepting money from special interests, he is just a man, a poor ragdoll kicked around by much more powerful forces he can't reasonably resist. Which is the default defense of all people caught in corruption scandals, a denial of one's own agency to be stripped of responsibility for questionable actions. Sadly one needs to have agency to (selectively) reject having agency - if the person in question was incapable of making decisions all along, he should have been locked up in an asylum, not elected to lead a country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
I love this idea that by taking scraps from companies with multibillion valuations, politicians are fleecing them. That is such a disgustingly transparent lie. What Obama and his peers do instead is set up an example - that if you play by the rules, if you protect the right interests, you are going to get a taste of the good life, you are going to be given a life of luxury and rubbing elbows with celebrities and elites. It normalizes the integration of politics and corporations, it erases the distinction and frames political office as an intermediary stepping stone in a broader career path, which often begins with corporate advocacy jobs, and ends with corporate advocacy jobs It erases the notion that the goal is to serve people, to represent people, and turns representation merely into a necessary tool that must be utilized in protecting particular interests - democracy becomes a part of corporate operations, securing votes through political operatives embedded in the corporate world just an necessary operating expense. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Take a break from this thread, Stein. You don't even get simple forum jokes anymore. The point of the quip is that it's a trite and pointless criticism used to tear down a person or idea. As in "isn't it hypocritical to talk about reducing carbon when you yourself are made of carbon?" and the answer to that question is "no it's loving not, idiot" Same thing here, no it's not hypocritical to fleece money from dumbshit banks to talk about the corrupting power of money in politics. Unless you guys have proof that this money was used to fun anti-DNC activities, then all you're doing is the same leftist firing squad I've been mocking since this thread began. And I know you guys don't have this evidence because this was the same tract they used to discredit Hillary and her speeches, and it was equally without merit. That's why Republican attacks using that rhetoric was just verbal finger-pointing. And you all ate that poo poo up. You are regurgitating right wing talking points ffs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 08:50
|
|