|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Ytlaya posted:It's obvious that you personally dislike leftists, rather than just disagreeing with them. If I come off that way, then I'm sorry it's not my intention. I don't hate leftists, though I hate most of the usual suspects in this awful thread; they're noted D&D threadshitters. I don't mind talking civilly with you or Majorian. Ytlaya posted:As I think I've mentioned before, most people have a tendency to treat stupidity/ignorance in defense of the status quo much more kindly than stupidity/ignorance attacking it. The same people who frequently attack leftists in threads like this are usually silent about dumb pro-Clinton liberals or liberals who voted for Clinton because they thought she'd make it like the 90's again. This is likely because those two dumb/ignorant views are generally intended towards the ends of supporting a mainstream political group (in this case mainstream Democrats). But ultimately such views actually aren't any less dumb than a leftist who thinks Clinton is exceptionally corrupt or whatever. Alright, fine. I suppose you're right about this. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 26, 2017 |
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I am pissed off at these people because we're supposed to be the intelligent side. We're not supposed to jump on every hot take like the right wing do. We don't throw around words like RINO and cuckservative. Our decisions are supposed to be nuanced. Right now we need more political power. Our side is getting its rear end kicked and we're playing leftist musical chairs. You're a goddamn idiot who's conflating all legitimate criticism with buying into some rightwing conspiracy. Newsflash: That's how you end up with incompetent and out of touch leaders who go on a eight year long losing streak, culminating with being completely shut out of power and yet feel like they should still get to run the party by divine right. Then we also get people like you who are a hundred times more mad at the people who think that all this is hosed up and has to stop than you are at the people who lost all that power in the first place due to their own stupidity, which is one of the big reasons reason why said incompetents will likely get to keep running the party even more into the ground. And most strange of all you write this dumbshit lecture with literally no self-awareness, which makes me wonder how the gently caress you even function in normal society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:At least Killroy was tasteful god dammit you beat me
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're a goddamn idiot who's conflating all legitimate criticism with buying into some rightwing conspiracy. Newsflash: That's how you end up with incompetent and out of touch leaders who go on a eight year long losing streak, culminating with being completely shut out of power and yet feel like they should still get to run the party by divine right. Then we also get people like you who are a hundred times more mad at the people who think that all this is hosed up and has to stop than you are at the people who lost all that power in the first place due to their own stupidity, which is one of the big reasons reason why said incompetents will likely get to keep running the party even more into the ground. I don't get how you reached the bolded conclusion. It seems really suspect. It's also exactly the kind of accusation that is impossible to prove and makes internet discussion worse. Literally "you are arguing with us, why aren't you arguing with someone else somewhere else instead who is clearly more wrong" Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Ironic calls for death and serious calls for death. Equivalent according to the person doing it seriously. But as usual, it's okay when your side fucks up or acts like hypocritical assholes, because I guess you're doing it For The Good Of The Realm or whatever. But if leftists start getting a bit agitated that the only opposition party in sight is too busy rearranging their deck chairs and making sure only the right sort of people can sit in them, to mount an effective defense against NSDAP v2.0: Now With Nuclear Weapons - well when that happens better focus on shutting them out above all else. Wouldn't want a Democratic party that actually does poo poo. Like, this speech is quid pro quo for installing Tom Perez as DNC chair and making sure that the Democratic party is still friendly to Wall Street. That's literally what it is. And you're defending it. I don't wish you death, but I do wish you and people like you would cease to have any influence on Democratic party politics - any politics for that matter. And, as we slide closer to the abyss, I'm getting a lot less concerned about the path we take to that goal. The fascists must be stopped, and you're getting in the loving way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I am pissed off at these people because we're supposed to be the intelligent side. We're not supposed to jump on every hot take like the right wing do. We don't throw around words like RINO and cuckservative. Our decisions are supposed to be nuanced. Right now we need more political power. Our side is getting its rear end kicked and we're playing leftist musical chairs. You want the Dems to get political power? Good, so do I. The "third way" centrist strategy has been the default in the Democratic Party for literally decades. It has had its successes in the past, but now, it is a losing one. At this point, the Democrats have an "outside consultant" in the form of Bernie Sanders, who seems to be very popular nationally, and is particularly popular among those voter groups who have abandoned the party and handed over power to Trump. He is giving clear advice that is a departure from the strategy in the past, but not too much of one. In fact, it is a course correction that brings the party closer to its economic populist roots from the 30's to the 60's. Yet people who have a similar mindset to yours are saying, "Mmmmm...nope. No, we're not doing that. We're going to keep following our default strategy, thank you very much." And yet those of us who think Sanders is right, get told that we are the ones who want the Democratic Party to fail, that we want the ACA to fail, that we are willing to sacrifice real-world political victories for ephemeral moral ones. Can you see why that's kind of infuriating to a lot of us?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Like I said, I didn't even call for anyone's death, in as many words. You literally did.  "in as many words" Kilroy posted:Like, this speech is quid pro quo for installing Tom Perez as DNC chair and making sure that the Democratic party is still friendly to Wall Street. That's literally what it is. Anything at all to support that? I think you are the first person to claim it as an actual QpQ and not just a vague appearance of corruption. Kilroy posted:you're getting in the loving way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't get how you reached the bolded conclusion. It seems really suspect. It's also exactly the kind of accusation that is impossible to prove and makes internet discussion worse. Literally "you are arguing with us, why aren't you arguing with someone else somewhere else instead who is clearly more wrong"  Your ilk has spent hundreds of pages defending the Dem establishment to the hilt and making GBS threads on people who want the party to reform. I'd call this gaslighting, but it's so inept that I don't think it counts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
My posts in this thread are truly the all of my being
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:My posts in this thread are truly the all of my being
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wishing death on people because they disagree with you online. Truly The Enlightened Left. Death? Thats horrible reeducation in the Alaskan tundra?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:My posts in this thread are truly the all of my being Claiming that you're only ironically arguing that a bunch of proven failures have a self-evident right to run the Democratic party in perpetuity is a new one, I'll admit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
I mean if I said they should kill themselves IRL instead of heavily implying that others should do it for them, we'd still be here arguing over why it's different when you do it, wouldn't we? Nevvy Z posted:Anything at all to support that? I think you are the first person to claim it as an actual qpq and not just a vague appearance of corruption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
i dont wish death on any of you, but i do hope yall's souls get trapped in the shadow realm for eternity
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
Hahaha this, after you spent pages making an alternative reading of Obama's very clear words
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Hey guys, I don't want to fight anymore. I don't like your means of trying to improve the party because I feel it tears it down more than it helps, but my political party needs you to make sure we don't descend into a fascist hellscape. Let's try and turn this circular firing squad into a well regulated militia. 1. What candidates for national office can we agree upon supporting in 2018? 2020? 2. Can we accept candidates that don't meet our standards 100%? what standards aren't we willing to compromise on, what are we willing to compromise on? 3. Do we think that a push for our standards can build a large enough coalition in order to compete with the right wing in the many different districts we have to defend and win in order to turn this ship around. 4. How do we keep our focus on the future of the party, and improving it, without tearing it down from the inside? My answers so you can rip them apart in good faith. 1. 2018: No Senator elections in CO this year. I'll do my best to vote in a D rep, but I can't seem to find a list of candidates at this time. 2020: my hope is to get to vote against Cory Gardner in 2018 for the senate. If CO can vote in a D senator we will have two! I have no idea if there is even a D running at this point. For the big job I would like to vote for Kirsten Gillibrand or Elizabeth Warren. I would accept Joe Biden, Cory Booker, or John Hickenlooper. 2. I think we need candidates that are diverse, and have varied ideologies. However, I have been convinced that certain positions cannot be compromised due to the attrition and loss of enthusiasm. I will not compromise on the Death Penalty, Reproductive Rights, and support of single payer healthcare. I am willing to compromise on almost anything else, including attachments to the financial sector. 3. I worry that it will not be, and that a nuanced message will be destroyed by the simplistic messaging of the right. because of this, I don't want to push too hard on the issues I feel are not the most important during the current cycle. 4. People like me must be willing to listen to the (sometimes hard to listen to) criticism of those that feel the party is corrupted, despite it being our best hope for defending the type of government we wish to have. I do also think that we have to be able to communicate in a way that acknowledge the failures of previous office holders, while not destroying the remaining structure of the party. If the democrats fail in 2018, and again in 2020, we will be far far worse off than had we elected a wall street friendly similar to Barack Obama. I really want to try this in good faith. Please don't attack me. Oh yeah, I also think democrats should run on FuriousxGeorge posted:Legalize it! Heck Yes! Loam! fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Legalize it!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Claiming that you're only ironically arguing that a bunch of proven failures have a self-evident right to run the Democratic party in perpetuity is a new one, I'll admit. That's not my claim. Dumbass. Kilroy posted:I don't give a gently caress because this isn't a court of law. I don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before I say "get this fucker out of my party and out of politics". His first act as ex-President was to gently caress with his party's leadership election to make sure that centrists who are friendly to Wall St remain in power rather than compromising somewhat with people who aren't. I mean what are you asking for here? You want a loving tape recording? Politician does some poo poo that's favorable to a group. Politician gets massive payout from that group. Good enough for me. On the one hand that's fair but on the other you are quick to throw sentences around so maybe you should try to offer more evidence before you advocate Obama dying too. PS, you never answered how I'm in the way of this glorious revolution you will begin any day now. PPS I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain to you idiots how being unserious is different from being serious. FuriousxGeorge posted:Legalize it! Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I don't want to fight anymore. I don't like your means of trying to improve the party because I feel it tears it down more than it helps Well, hold on a second, though - why do you feel that way? In what way is the Bernie wing of the party trying to tear poo poo down? What we're trying to do is bring the focus back to the working class, as well as underprivileged people throughout the country. That's building poo poo up, from my viewpoint. quote:1. What candidates for national office can we agree upon supporting in 2018? 2020? 1: I'm in California, so for 2018, I'd like it if someone more left-wing primaried Feinstein, but meh. She'll get reelected, because that's how California politics works. For 2020, Warren, Sherrod Brown, or possibly Kamala Harris, Al Franken, or Biden would be my picks. Warren's my top choice. 2: Of course we can. I think Jon Ossoff is probably the best that GA-6 will get for the foreseeable future. I also think Keith Mello is probably the best choice Omaha will be getting, particularly since he has promised to not obstruct women's reproductive rights. Bear in mind, Clinton supporters have their own seemingly-arbitrary purity tests as well. But here's the thing: at this point, the problem with a lot of Democrats isn't that they are necessarily wrong on their stated positions, or are so incredibly wrong on any position that it disqualifies them. The problem is that they simply don't tend to run on those positions, no matter how popular they are. They feel they have to apologize for left-wing principles, that they must preface their speeches with, "I mean, I'm left of center, but I'm not THAT left of center, okay?" I mean, that's pathetic, and it doesn't really win you any good will from voters. I sometimes listen to Pod Save America, and I was encouraged to hear what they were saying in their most recent episode. When it comes to elections themselves, the Democrats have a problem of language and messaging. They think that by muddling up and softening their promises as much as possible, they're going to win those white suburban college-educated voters that Schumer promised they'd pick up last year. But that doesn't really work. So now the strategy has to be, "Be loudly and proudly left-of-center." Recapture the Democratic base by giving them a candidate who actually energizes them. Give them someone who actually believes in the stuff they put on their website, not someone who is embarrassed by it. And I think I've pretty much answered questions 3 and 4 in that rambling answer, so I'll spare you. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:
Lol since when does defending Obamacare constitute backtalk to the financial industry? And the assumption that Obama's going to spend this money on rims rather than charity or political advocacy is precious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Hey guys, Look, to be blunt here this attitude is literally part of the problem. The Democratic Party as of right now is a goddamn shambles. There's nothing to tear down anymore, because it's all loving gone due to the incompetence and stupidity of the people who have been running it for the past 20-30 years. These very same people are still running the party and since they're just as stupid and incompetent as before they're likely to keep losing. Therefore they've gotta go and somebody else has to reform the party into something that doesn't lose election after election to a bunch of complete madmen or else we're all totally hosed. Hence the idea that you're not allowed to criticize or get mad at the fuckups of the leadership is tremendously goddamn unhelpful because it literally is making it harder to break the GOP stranglehold on the country by keeping proven failures in power. When people ITT call the current Democratic party the Washington Generals of politics it isn't actually a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol since when does defending Obamacare constitute backtalk to the financial industry? JC I have extremely bad news for you about the events of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 House and Senate elections. "Or else government's going to step in." Christ. Can you imagine a more laughable person to voice that threat than Barack "the only reason Medicare still exists is the Freedom Caucus wouldn't let me cut it" Obama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Hence the idea that you're not allowed to criticize or get mad at the fuckups of the leadership is tremendously goddamn unhelpful because it literally is making it harder to break the GOP stranglehold on the country by keeping proven failures in power. I agree completely but where are you seeing this? Majorian posted:But here's the thing: at this point, the problem with a lot of Democrats isn't that they are necessarily wrong on their stated positions, or are so incredibly wrong on any position that it disqualifies them. The problem is that they simply don't tend to run on those positions, no matter how popular they are. They feel they have to apologize for left-wing principles, that they must preface their speeches with, "I mean, I'm left of center, but I'm not THAT left of center, okay?" I mean, that's pathetic, and it doesn't really win you any good will from voters. I sometimes listen to Pod Save America, and I was encouraged to hear what they were saying in their most recent episode. When it comes to elections themselves, the Democrats have a problem of language and messaging. They think that by muddling up and softening their promises as much as possible, they're going to win those white suburban college-educated voters that Schumer promised they'd pick up last year. But that doesn't really work. So now the strategy has to be, "Be loudly and proudly left-of-center." Recapture the Democratic base by giving them a candidate who actually energizes them. Give them someone who actually believes in the stuff they put on their website, not someone who is embarrassed by it. Tell people about the good things you are gonna do for them. All the time. The thing Hilary forgot to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I agree completely but where are you seeing this? They have great policies. Just terrific policies. That the American people love and support. It's gonna be great!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:They have great policies. Just terrific policies. That the American people love and support. It's gonna be great! Well. That and targetting the right people (states).and actual policy. and russia. and like a thousand different little ways it could break different shutup "go to my website" is the definition of missed opportunity. She wasted a lot of time repeating what the media was already reporting. Ytlaya posted:And this really cuts to the core of it, doesn't it? I won't deny that there's a really tiny minority of dumb leftists, but I think you need to take some time and ask yourself why they bother you so much. There are plenty of different stupid people of every possibly ideology, so why is it that ignorant leftists bother you so much? He might come across that way but he might just be an rear end in a top hat, and not necessarily mad at leftists specifically. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:And this really cuts to the core of it, doesn't it? I won't deny that there's a really tiny minority of dumb leftists, but I think you need to take some time and ask yourself why they bother you so much. There are plenty of different stupid people of every possibly ideology, so why is it that ignorant leftists bother you so much? I would say that it mostly stems from the fact that in some way or another what makes people centrists, is that they don't want change. Real change anway. They rationalize that you should get a little bit better healthcare, a little bit better education, but not any groundbreaking stuff when it comes to the framework of politics, economics and culture at large. That's why they stay with gradualism and are fearful of big sudden power structure modifications. Opening a big whole in those fields is the only way to get a space for real change. But that's scary, you might lose something of what you have. So yeah, conservatism lite. Centrism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
It's incredible to me that we hold middle management grunts managing relationships with contractors to a higher standard than a former POTUS who is actively involved in party politics. If you were working for a company managing third-party outsourcing and were found to be receiving checks from one of those contractors you'd be fired and possibly sued. And, you can rest assured that no one would jump to defend you on grounds of "so what if he took a bunch of money from our contractors, if he wants to fleece them for six-figures I'm not going to stop him - hell I'm jealous  " And even if it were somehow actually above board you'd still avoid it because even the appearance of impropriety could cost you your job.Picture some dude working at Boeing or something where he's got to decide between two contractors and one of those contractors is cutting him six figure checks and try to figure out how long he's going to have that job once his company finds out about it. And bear in mind that it won't even matter if he chooses the other company. Like, even if you think Obama is just fleecing these Wall St rubes or whatever the poo poo, in the private sector he'd be out on his rear end immediately. I mean at the level of national politics I can kind of understand throwing up your hands and going "all these fuckers do it, what's one more". What I can't understand is actively going to bat for  You're defending literal corruption, all because you think this corrupt politician is on your side (he isn't) and because you have a burden of proof that is actually higher than what you'd find in a court of law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Hey guys, There are a couple major misconceptions I think you have (which I will explain in bullet points just because): - There is a difference between who a person votes for and what opinions/views they express. Personally, I will be voting for whatever Democratic candidate ends up on the ticket, regardless of whether I like them or not. However, this doesn't mean I think those candidates are acceptable, and I won't hesitate to express how much I would rather have someone whose views more closely align with my own. I voted for Hillary for example, despite spending most of my time criticizing her in online discussions. I will always disagree with any leftist who is willing to vote against a Democratic candidate in a swing state, because I consider voting to basically be a pragmatic action (as opposed to voicing opinions/activism, which can depend upon my actual views). Basically, I feel like your argument only makes sense when applied to voting. Voting for Democrats remains the correct pragmatic decision in most cases, but Leftists have no obligation to not express their displeasure with mainstream Democrats in discussions/activism. - You seem to be looking at things from the perspective of there being two primary groups - Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats - and there being relatively minor differences of opinion within those groups but with the people involved generally having the same ultimate goals (i.e. "Leftists and Democrats may differ some on the specifics, but they have the same end goal in mind"). The problem is this isn't accurate at all. Leftists have genuine ideological disagreements with mainstream Democrats. Just like Republicans differ ideologically from Democrats, Leftist ideology differs from that of mainstream Democrats. The primary disagreement stems from the fact that mainstream Democrats generally don't want to change much about the power relationships in our society. They may be willing to improve conditions for the poor or fight discrimination (which makes them better than Republicans), but ultimately they aren't willing to cross a line where the wealthy have to make any real sacrifices or risk losing their status relative to the rest of the population. They also have a generally positive view of big business and aren't willing to fight monopolies (the fact that very few Democrats are in favor of breaking up the biggest banks is a good example of this). Also, it's kind of weird that you consider single payer non-negotiable, since there are a hell of a lot of Democrats who are against single payer (or rather universal healthcare in general). That by itself puts you far to the left of mainstream Democrats. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:it's likely to be something like "Y'all need to make sure Obamacare works or the government's going to take over when it fails". In your fantasy of Obama's speech, he's helping Wall St. plan a strategy to indefinitely profit from sick people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Tell people about the good things you are gonna do for them. All the time. The thing Hilary forgot to do. Well, broadly speaking, yes. But you also have to find out what the people in that particular group, in that particular region of the country, wants most from you, and you have to be convincing when you tell them you're going to give it to them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
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? hahahahaha okay. Is that why we're investigating Trump's financial ties to Putin then? So if they're true we can give Trump the Medal of Freedom for impoverishing Russia? And yet: axeil posted:That said, it does seem to piss a lot of people off so just don't do it. Exactly, you get it. You don't have to hate banks, hell you can think bankers are Galtian supermen, and still be capable of noticing that most of the country hates it when politicians take money from bankers, and that if we want to win elections we should stop. JeffersonClay posted:The optics are still bad here though. The last thing democrats should be doing is triggering the Sanders wing. Tie trump to Wall Street, not yourselves, dummies. Even you get it. I salute your pragmatism, that's what's so incredible to me about the other Democrats defending this: in this instance the ethical and the pragmatic action are the same! Don't accept money from the people you are/were supposed to be regulating, even after you leave office. It looks really bad regardless of whether you're corrupt in your heart of hearts! JeffersonClay posted:There'd be a lot more room for suspicion if this weren't a public event designed to attract financing for healthcare companies. Obama has a vested interest in healthcare companies getting investors so his signature healthcare bill doesn't death-spiral. Not only that, President Obama has a lifetime six-figure pension and is an independent millionaire. Therefore, if he's doing this to altruistically shore up the country's health care system, then all he has to do is donate his fee to charity to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. It's so easy to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot here, because the ethical and pragmatic action are the same in this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's incredible to me that we hold middle management grunts managing relationships with contractors to a higher standard than a former POTUS who is actively involved in party politics. If you were working for a company managing third-party outsourcing and were found to be receiving checks from one of those contractors you'd be fired and possibly sued. And, you can rest assured that no one would jump to defend you on grounds of "so what if he took a bunch of money from our contractors, if he wants to fleece them for six-figures I'm not going to stop him - hell I'm jealous Keep in mind that speaking at conferences isn't the crime here. Its accepting any kind of recompense for doing so that is the corruption. Govt ethical standards for mere mortals preclude even the receipt of any material gain if it could infer the appearance of impropriety. This includes things like commemorative plaques or other symbolic gifts. If Obama actually cared about the prestige and importance of his office or the political future of the American people, he'd be emulating Truman and not vacationing with Richard Branson on billionaire island.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:2: Of course we can. I think Jon Ossoff is probably the best that GA-6 will get for the foreseeable future. I also think Keith Mello is probably the best choice Omaha will be getting, particularly since he has promised to not obstruct women's reproductive rights. Bear in mind, Clinton supporters have their own seemingly-arbitrary purity tests as well. What do you think about Keith Mello btw? I don't really like the guy from his voting record, but if Bernie chose to throw his lot in with him, I'll give the guy some rope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:JC I have extremely bad news for you about the events of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 House and Senate elections. I'm pretty sure you're confused. Isn't Obamacare neoliberal bullshit designed to stave off demands for a real government healthcare system? How would intimating that be some profound leftist statement? Fansy posted:In your fantasy of Obama's speech, he's helping Wall St. plan a strategy to indefinitely profit from sick people. Fansy gets it! But he's undercutting the Majorian assertion that no bernie supporters want Obamacare to fail so I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Fansy gets it! But he's undercutting the Majorian assertion that no bernie supporters want Obamacare to fail so I dunno. wait do you seriously believe there's some great portion of bernie supporters who want Obamacare to fail?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Only in this thread I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:40
|
|
|
axeil posted: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. You do notice that you've built a straw man (you hate WS for having more money than you) that you then refuted? You're asking him to justify his own belief that you have actually constructed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Only in this thread I guess? I didn't know that allowing people to have a federal insurance program that would be subsidized by rich people taxes means wanting to get rid of Obamacare. Could you please explain how this weakens Obamacare?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
axeil posted: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. People hate the evil bankers because they caused the 2008 crisis. They swindled people by carelessly giving out subprime mortgages and when those people couldn't pay up, the banks realized they were holding a bunch of useless properties with no way to get their money back. At this point they slashed and burned through banking regulations to get this scam going, which caused a mortgage bubble which eventually burst. These repeals started sometime during the Reagan administration and got worse and worse until eventually we had a crisis. Then they come to the government, hat in hand, asking to be bailed out because if they didn't, our economy would be impossibly hosed. Obama had no choice but to do this, and unfortunately the people responsible for this got a slap on the wrist compared to the damage they did and the lives they ruined. Some even got paid, a necessary evil to keep the economy going. It was a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't decision for Obama, but he made the most of it in the long run. Dodd-Frank was established to prevent that from happening again, but people argue it's not harsh enough given how much damage banks can cause. So nah, we have rel good reasons not to like Wall Street types. I don't know why people in this thread can't use their words to type this out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:37 |
|
|
Obamacare is a federal insurance program subsidized by rich people taxes. It just doesn't have a public option. A public insurance option wouldn't stop Wall Street from indefinitely profiting from sick people, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:13
|
|