|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
DaveWoo posted:Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy. All that your ilk is doing here is pissing and moaning because people ITT think that their ostensible political representatives should be held accountable, which apparently is bad and equal to apathy for some reason. Like, I know that you just want to be contrarian, but come the gently caress on.
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The last time this happened 47% of Democrats were suspicious enough that they refused to trust the candidate's word about her speeches. I strongly support BHO releasing a transcript of this speech before he runs for office. Cerebral Bore posted:All that your ilk is doing here is pissing and moaning because people ITT think that their ostensible political representatives should be held accountable, which apparently is bad and equal to apathy for some reason. Like, I know that you just want to be contrarian, but come the gently caress on. Ah yes. My political representative BHO.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
I bit my tongue and voted Clinton, but the behavior of Dems in general is making me never want to vote for a poo poo Dem again. Too bad I live in NY so my vote is meaningless anyhow! quote:Ah yes. My political representative BHO. Are you loving retarded?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Agitation = apathy Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ah yes. My political representative BHO. Yeah, at least according to Nancy Pelosi. DaveWoo posted:Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy giant_expanding_ironicat.gif
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Remember when Hillary had some random guy campaigning for her? Bill something? What was that about, he didn't represent me
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I strongly support BHO releasing a transcript of this speech before he runs for office. If you weren't talking about a serious matter, your trolling would be funny.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy What did you expect to find on a message board exactly? In a thread about how bad the democrats are? steinrokkan posted:If you weren't talking about a serious matter, your trolling would be funny. He's not trolling, not joking this is what most centrists believe. You have to remember for all the threats of "what are they going to do, vote Republican?" most of them would be absolutely fine with the GOP leadership. Low taxes and low regulation = do whatever the gently caress you want as long as you have the $
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Agitation that doesn't go beyond whining about Dems on a message board = apathy How can you gauge the level of engagement outside posting on a message board from only observing a message board.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you weren't talking about a serious matter, your trolling would be funny. The classic, "you disagree with me so you must be trolling." Truly a powerful argument.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The classic, "you disagree with me so you must be trolling." Truly a powerful argument. He's trying to do you a kindness, rather than assume you're a fuckin' idiot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The classic, "you disagree with me so you must be trolling." Truly a powerful argument. i think he was giving you the benefit of the doubt, cause your expressed opinions are p repugnant and more resembling a strawman than the opinions a human with a working brain would hold edit: gently caress beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Some literal baddem.txt here. Former presidents apparently appear out of the ether and live in the political equivalent of a hermetically sealed bubble. Anybody who might be concerned by appearances of impropriety is an idiot who should be ignored even if they make up almost half the electorate. Giving a poo poo about incompetents running the party into the loving ground is dumb and also apathy. We can take everybody who disagrees for granted because they have no other choice. It's like we've fallen through a time portal half a year into the goddamn past. All that's missing is some hillman turning up and demanding the posting of a map.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:He's trying to do you a kindness, rather than assume you're a fuckin' idiot. You knowers of absolute truth do a lowly wretch such as me great kindness for daring to differ in thoughts and feelings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Some literal baddem.txt here. Former presidents apparently appear out of the ether and live in the political equivalent of a hermetically sealed bubble. Anybody who might be concerned by appearances of impropriety is an idiot who should be ignored even if they make up almost half the electorate. Giving a poo poo about incompetents running the party into the loving ground is dumb and also apathy. We can take everybody who disagrees for granted because they have no other choice. Corporate money is a hell of a drug
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You knowers of absolute truth do a lowly wretch such as me great kindness for daring to differ in thoughts and feelings. "Thoughts" is a bit strong for what you've been posting. You're literally arguing that half the electorate should be ignored so that politicians can enrich themselves. It's idiotic
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:"Thoughts" is a bit strong for what you've been posting. You're literally arguing that half the electorate should be ignored so that politicians can enrich themselves. It's idiotic No, I'm only arguing that the bolded portion is completely ridiculous as are the hot takes on this issue from most of this thread. But if I dare suggest that a leftist is overreacting I become a centrist. Which definition of centrist? No really, is centrism a stance or is it just not being leftist enough for the thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:fygm dem in 2020: you can't prove putin paid for trump to lift sanctions! he offered the money and trump took it, there's nothing wrong with that! we can't replace a wartime president!! No I'm not the least bit curious why Putin keeps giving him all this money. If Putin offered me money I'd take it no questions asked!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No, I'm only arguing that the bolded portion is completely ridiculous as are the hot takes on this issue from most of this thread. But if I dare suggest that a leftist is overreacting I become a centrist. Which definition of centrist? No really, someone tell me I can't tell from context. Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous that someone would say that we should ignore half the electorate I don't understand how centrists don't loving get it yet. The electorate is sick to loving death of corporations and the wealthy having outsized influence in government. That's why an orange buffoon was able to round up enough electoral votes to become president, because he highlighted the very IDEA of government corruption and hammered it. It's why Sanders also did as well (especially among the middle class) as he did. So how do you not understand that people see this and get infuriated? This is a president who did NOTHING to hold these people responsible for ruining people's lives, and he's getting paid extorbitant fees by these same groups, for essentially nothing. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i wasn't attacking your post or you. i think it sucks that betsy devos bought her position. i think it sucks that democrats are generally ok with that as long as it's not a republican doing it and i want both sides to cut all this corrupt bs out (starting with trump being prosecuted when he leaves office) Oh woopsie. I've just got so used to posts being like "YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT WHEN DEMS DID IT LOL CHECKMATE LIBERAL CUCKFLAKE" that I just also go into brainless mode there, but yeah both sides are equally lovely and it's a shame this will happen forever because they have the power to step on anyone who even tries to get a footing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:27
|
|
L
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous that someone would say that we should ignore half the electorate Who said that? I think you misunderstood my post, the ridiculous thing is you and your insistence on misinterpreting "i think you are being ridiculous" as "no one cares what half the electorate thinks". You are not half the electorate, nor do you have some special insight into them. Dizz posted:both sides are equally lovely  Comedy option, that's racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Who said that? I think you misunderstood my post, the ridiculous thing is you and your insistence on misinterpreting "i think you are being ridiculous" as "no one cares what half the electorate thinks". You are not half the electorate, nor do you have some special insight into them. On what do you base your assumption that a negligible amount of people care about paid speeches to banks. Because I already posted polling that two thirds of the electorate were so suspicious that they refused to take a candidate who had done so at her word about the content of those speeches. It seems to me that making two-thirds of the voters disbelieve the words coming out of your mouth when you're asking them to trust you to govern the country is a pretty big risk to take for, once again, no reason. Do you have better data, or are you just going by your feels on this one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/samknight1/status/822509573311438851/photo/1 obama sure loves him some wallstreet. that must be why he let them all off the hook for their crimes.it sure shows people how much the dems care about them when wallstreet steals their livelihoods and lifesavings and dems bail them out and shield them from any of the consequences of their crimes and then are paid large sums of cash for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Why is a financial services firm paying Obama half a mil to talk? Would they pay that much for Bernie Sanders?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Why is a financial services firm paying Obama half a mil to talk? Probably not, he's not a very good speaker. Vitalsigns, I don't think the data you are using is relevant at all for what should be obvious reasons. I do appreciate that you found the right link eventually I think (the last one I saw was about emails after the first time it was fixed) but the fact is that he's not a candidate for anything an this thread seems to expect him to act like he's one. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
You're a poo poo head
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
ahahahahahahahha jesus loving christ re:obama the dems really are a joke, and it's a cruel injustice that poor black and brown people will bear the brunt of the suffering caused by its leaders while those leaders themselves get fat checks from goldman sachs
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Vitalsigns, I don't think the data you are using is relevant at all for what should be obvious reasons. I do appreciate that you found the right link eventually I think (the last one I saw was about emails after the first time it was fixed) but the fact is that he's not a candidate for anything an this thread seems to expect him to act like he's one. It's not obvious to me. Obama is an influential figure in the Democratic Party; he just used his influence to support the new DNC chair's candidacy. I do not understand why a major figure in the party who uses clout to affect the outcomes of internal elections, primaries, and who will undoubtedly be tapped to campaign for future candidates should be unconcerned about appearances of a conflict of interest. So far all you've offered is "well ignoring the appearance of impropriety enriches him personally so that's a benefit" and "well hopefully the whiners will vote Republican instead of bothering us about it" and this isn't convincing for what should be obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
To be honest, I still had some slim hope that Obama wouldn't go this far this quickly, In the end, the biggest difference between him and Hillary might be he is just a much better actor. Also, it is corruption...an American style of corruption but corruption nonetheless, but it also shows how power and wealth work in this country and why if anything how impossible democratic change might actually he in the US. In the end you have two parties who absolutely don't give a poo poo about their electorate and how of them know there is absolutely no way another party could pressure them based on our broken 18th century constitution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Nevvy, do you give people in your personal life the same insane level of benefit of the doubt?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Nevvy, do you give people in your personal life the same insane level of benefit of the doubt? About what? I unironically can't wait to see how ridiculous these comparisons will be. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:About what? I unironically can't wait to see how ridiculous these comparisons will be. About anything? I';m not going to make car analogies or whatever
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
God this whole conversation is really depressing. We can't even convince leftists to take a firm stand against money in politics anymore, even if its obvious that no good (electoral or otherwise) is going to come out of it. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath and I'm not sure that its going to be against the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:God this whole conversation is really depressing. We can't even convince leftists to take a firm stand against money in politics anymore, even if its obvious that no good (electoral or otherwise) is going to come out of it. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath and I'm not sure that its going to be against the GOP. I don't see the Left getting our poo poo together before then. I'd be surprised if we even get a decent challenger for 2020.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:I don't see the Left getting our poo poo together before then. I'd be surprised if we even get a decent challenger for 2020. Me either, until the Democratic Party is completely dissolved it will continue to be the Washington Generals of politics; which is exactly what the donors are paying for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
If today Obama announced that he was going to receive Ribbon of St. George from Putin, would it also be absolutely fine because he was no longer a president, and therefore it had no relation to his presidency? E: All it would take to dispel the mistrust would be for Obama to announce he was donating the money to charity, or even donate time to speak for healthcare NGOs, but lol, he's handling it Hillary style.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money? "You people complain that I sell weapons to Assad, well, shouldn't you be happy that he has less money to buy weapons with?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:What I don't get is you guys all hate Wall Street and Obama is taking money away from them. Shouldn't that be seen as a good thing so they can't eat babies or do whatever other delusional thing you people think Wall Street does with their money? Not sure if self-parody or just incredibly stupid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:36 |
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Not sure if self-parody or just incredibly stupid. I'm being serious. Everyone itt hates the nefarious bankers for I dunno, not all killing themselves and having more money than them and being ~*neo-liberals*~, so why isn't reducing their money by giving it to a former POTUS a Good Thing. Feldegast42 posted:God this whole conversation is really depressing. We can't even convince leftists to take a firm stand against money in politics anymore, even if its obvious that no good (electoral or otherwise) is going to come out of it. 2018 is going to be a bloodbath and I'm not sure that its going to be against the GOP. I mean he shouldn't do it because it pisses people off but I'm arguing that the people being pissed off shouldn't give a poo poo and should actually be happy since it means EVIL BANKERS have less money. But these people will literally never be happy as they just spend their time looking for reasons to get mad at the Big Bad Evil Dems so if it's not this, it'll be some other thing that justifies their complete inaction and whining on the sidelines. That said, it does seem to piss a lot of people off so just don't do it. axeil fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 16:26
|
|