|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
We have had contentious primaries before and never had this many faithless electors for a presidential candidate. Never ever. Running a bad candidate and then whining that chimp-brain decides to punish you and itself instead of being a logical android executing its rational self-interest programming like every voter ought to do is real dumb. The politicians and the party are the ones with the agency who control the platform, control what they tell voters during the primaries, control their record, and control whether they act shamelessly corrupt. Whining that you are  the logical choice because Republicans are so bad doesn't change human nature and doesn't make it morally okay or smart to, oh for example, take money from Wall Street and try to hide it.Centrists complain that the moral thing to do in politics just isn't practical because you have to win. But now it turns out that selling out to banks, dodging FOIA requirements, lying shamelessly, palling around with war criminals, cynically passing the buck on starting a war to President Coked-Up Fratboy, cutting social security, and telling everyone that the superior health care system other countries have is magically impossible and will never happen, are not only morally terrible but electorally terrible as well. It's a win-win, we can do the right thing and win elections because turns out that's what the voters want after all. (E: it's not a win-win because all the above things were really what """"""moderates"""""" wanted to do all along, so for them it's a lose if they don't get to cut the safety net and murder foreigners) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:34 on May 4, 2017 |
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
twodot posted:Apparently not meaningless if you're complaining about it. I'm just saying that claiming "the only reason faithless electors existed was because Clinton supporters couldn't be assed to show up and vote for better electors" is a really weird defense for Clinton supporters. I responded to this brain dead comment. gtrmp posted:Of all the hilariously dumb things about this election cycle, this might be the one that takes the cake. Clinton's camp spent weeks desperately urging Trump's electors to instead vote their conscience, and the result of that final post-campaign campaign was that she had more faithless electors than Trump did. Are you defending it? Call Me Charlie posted:So explain to me how 3 of the 5 faithless electors that were suppose to vote for Hillary ended up voting for loving Colin Powell. Because there was a half-baked effort to get enough republican and democratic electors to vote for Colin Powell to deny Trump the presidency.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because there was a half-baked effort to get enough republican and democratic electors to vote for Colin Powell to deny Trump the presidency. JeffersonClay posted:And the Bernie-supporting electors that were chosen at those caucuses were the ones that ended up being faithless electors. I'm not angry about it, because it didn't end up mattering. But the suggestion that it somehow reflects badly on Clinton that Bernout electors ended up being faithless is real dumb. JeffersonClay posted:All the faithless democratic electors were chosen in caucuses dominated by Bernie supporters, held so late in the primary that everyone but the craziest Sandersnistas knew it was over. So weird that Bernie supporters supported a half-baked (dare I say, pragmatic centrist) effort like that.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I can see this self-deception that seems endemic to Bernie voters about basic facts of the election becoming an issue in 2020 and becoming a more general leftist "stabbed in the back" cultural myth a la Chapo Trap House "actually the Russians aren't that bad compared to hated Killary" bullshit. You should stop invoking Chapo Trap House when you clearly know nothing about them. I mean, what, do you just get your entire worldview from Kurt Eichenwald tweets, because if so, your posting makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:You should stop invoking Chapo Trap House when you clearly know nothing about them. he's just trolling
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Yeah click shrike82's his little '?' He was trolling Clinton supporters earlier in this very thread, now I guess he got bored so he flipped. Also he voted Trump for the lulz and is complaining about third-party voters ushering in fascism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:You should stop invoking Chapo Trap House when you clearly know nothing about them. Nah, I gave them a listen and it's a patreon-funded million dollar payout for a bunch of educated unemployed white men playing at leftists while not engaging in any real activism. Slacktivism at its best but I love Bernie voters coming out of the woodwork to defend them.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Nah, I gave them a listen and it's a patreon-funded million dollar payout for a bunch of educated unemployed white men playing at leftists while not engaging in any real activism. Tell us more about the epic 1968 election and also how you voted for Trump for the "lols."
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
*votes for Hitler ironically* "Ugh how did Hitler get so many seats in the Bundestag, this is all the KPD purists' fault!" This is like if that "I didn't think Brexit would win when I voted for it" guy went on a tirade about lazy people staying home instead of voting Remain.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Pretty hilarious to see Sanderites who themselves voted for Trump (e.g., Call me Charlie), or third party losers like Stein (e.g., Kilroy and VitalSigns) have to resort to accusing Democrats of voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah click shrike82's his little '?' He was trolling Clinton supporters earlier in this very thread, now I guess he got bored so he flipped. So the Eichenwald comparison isn't that inaccurate after all.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I didn't realize Trump won the election with 80% of the vote. It's really too bad Bernie with the popularity of leftism in the country couldn't even win the primaries. What that means is that they aren't desperate enough to vote towards fascism yet over a party that doesn't represent them and never has. Let's assume you get your wish and Bernie doesn't run and the leftist uprising is quashed and they're kicked out of the Democratic party. What exactly is the endgame here? Now what? There status quo is not sustainable, too many people are getting hurt by it. This isn't just America, but the entire Western world. Brexit happened and France could very possibly elect a xenophobic, racist, theocratic as it's next leader. This is all before we really start getting hammered by climate change. A viable alternative needs to be presented and fought for and soon or else we're all loving screwed.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Let's assume you get your wish and Bernie doesn't run and the leftist uprising is quashed and they're kicked out of the Democratic party. What exactly is the endgame here? Now what? He goes back to trolling the other side, that's what.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
No, I agree that Bernie should run against Corey Booker in 2020. We'll test the hypothesis in real life of whether personality killed Abuela's campaign or whether it was neoliberalism. My personal bet is that Booker will win so having a healthy culling of Sanderites especially since Bernie will be pushing 80 in 2020 isn't a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:No, I agree that Bernie should run against Corey Booker in 2020. That would explain why you voted republican.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
other than residency requirements is there anything preventing a person being a senator for multiple states. bernie as NJ-vermont's joint senator would be lol
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
There's something to be said about how the leftist movement is so vacuous that they'll have to draft an 80-year old man to lead their movement.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
a better troll would have disappeared for a little while by now
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:he's just trolling I can't believe someone would lie on the internet like this.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
shrike82 scolded this thread for not knowing American history, and then in the very next sentence referred to LBJ losing an election to Dick Nixon. He's totally full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:So explain to me how 3 of the 5 faithless electors that were suppose to vote for Hillary ended up voting for loving Colin Powell. sure: the ringleader of the effort, Bret Chiafolo, was a Sanders supporter who, like a big idiot, thought that by pushing for Powell, he'd get Trump's electors to say "sure, Trump's insane, we're all going to en masse defect for Powell as a compromise"
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Sanders electors voting for Powell is something stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure: So basically trying to do what the clintonites were clamoring for the very same week. It was stupid either way.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
*walks into thread sipping latte, lifts sunglasses* warren would have won
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
anime was right posted:*walks into thread sipping latte, lifts sunglasses* warren would have won Hell, Biden would've won.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:So basically trying to do what the clintonites were clamoring for the very same week. It was stupid either way. much like everything else about the election
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Hell, Biden would've won. biden actually would have been the best person to run out of the entire field
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/02/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-obama-erin-burnett-cnntv/index.htmlquote:The former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee came out swinging Tuesday night in defense of former President Barack Obama's plan to accept $400,000 for a speech to Wall Street in September, urging critics such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren to mind their own business.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
anime was right posted:biden actually would have been the best person to run out of the entire field And that's why it wasn't about wall street or neoliberalism, because Diamond Joe's record is worse than Clinton's on both. Call Me Charlie posted:So weird that Bernie supporters supported a half-baked (dare I say, pragmatic centrist) effort like that. At least they didn't vote for Trump!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
quote:"With all due respect to anyone who chooses to comment publicly on what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone earns as a member of the private sector," she said, "it's just, like, MYOB -- it's none of your business."  Of course she sees nothing wrong with Barry getting his bribes. Did we even have to ask? I also love that right after this line she's grilled about all the bankers that never went to jail and she, without the slightest bit of irony, proceeds to say how gross that was but then immediately pivots to how the money is still nobody's business and Barack's record is "pristine". It's loving bizarre. But enough about DWS. Let's go back to discussing how people who refuse to vote for these ghouls are worse than Hitler.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Stuff like this and the DNC saying in court that they aren't obliged to hold fair primaries should make the average leftist why they bother voting for Democrats at all. Just vote third party in 2020.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And that's why it wasn't about wall street or neoliberalism, because Diamond Joe's record is worse than Clinton's on both. Not really, the likelihood that a candidate less hated than Clinton could have eked out a win on a Obama's-third-term-but-even-less-popular platform, with another 4 years of an obstructionist congress, unable to pass anything but the social security and medicare cuts you want, while the Democrats continue to bleed support and lose state-level races, is not exactly an auspicious sign for your ideology. Like yeah maybe neoliberalism would have gotten an unpopular third term while the country gets worse, and the midterms are another bloodbath, before losing to some stupid rear end in a top hat in 2020 with a Republican senate supermajority, that wouldn't fix any of the fundamental problems that brought us here. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:01 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
anime was right posted:biden actually would have been the best person to run out of the entire field He's loving garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Being able to beat Donald Trump in a general election is like the lowest possible bar for a presidential candidate to clear.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Sadly you have to pick your poison - Sanders and Warren carry water for the Israeli occupation Biden opposes weed legalization and pushes for capital punishment Stein is an antivaxxer
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Andrast posted:Being able to beat Donald Trump in a general election is like the lowest possible bar for a presidential candidate to clear. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not really, the likelihood that a candidate less hated than Clinton could have eked out a win on a Obama's-third-term-but-even-less-popular platform, with another 4 years of an obstructionist congress, unable to pass anything but the social security and medicare cuts you want, while the Democrats continue to bleed support and lose state-level races, is not exactly an auspicious sign for your ideology. I tend to agree. Had Clinton won, she'd be mired in constant Benghazi congressional hearings at this point while all of her cabinet/judicial picks were held up indefinitely. She would be unable to get any legislation passed, and given what her negatives looked like before her presidency, it's hard to imagine her winning a second term after 4 more years of scandals and gridlock. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder what would have happened had Trump lost the primary (especially late in the game) and Republicans selected Cruz or Rubio. By any objective standard Trump ran one of the worst (or second worst) campaigns in history and still won, so I'd be hard pressed to imagine Clinton faring any better against virtually any other likely Republican nominee who isn't on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. Frankly, one of the biggest obstacles to Republican domination is Trump's unceasing incompetence. Imagine a President Cruz with a Republican majority who knows how to move bills through Congress and form complete sentences.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Sorry, being able beat Trump is the second lowest bar
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And that's why it wasn't about wall street or neoliberalism, because Diamond Joe's record is worse than Clinton's on both.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 06:26
|
|