|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:Exactly, and I'm a little mystified at people being so drat certain that Gabbard is a bona fide leftist, too. She's good on single payer, but there's really nothing in her platform that strikes me as particularly out-of-step with the standard left-Dem's - except for the rather unpalatable points we've already discussed at length here. The only evidence the Gabbard fans here seem to be relying on are, A: she supports single payer (but woop-de-poo poo, so do a lot of likely candidates), and B: the DNC hates her. That's a pretty weak foundation for casting her as the next Sanders IMO. She wants real regulations against wall street, PAC money out of elections, she actually went to Standing Rock and she's unbelievablely good at explaining to the average person why progressive policy is good. Plus she's a fighter so she's less likely to roll over once getting into power like your average New Democrat. hurf durf why would anybody see any value to that? better to smear her and make her toxic years before the primary 
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jul 7, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:She wants far stricter wall street regulations, PAC money out of elections, she actually went to Standing Rock and she's unbelievablely good at explaining to the average person why progressive policy is good. These are not exactly uncommon positions among left-Dems though. Like, the only thing here that isn't equally true with Sanders, Warren, Brown, etc, is actually having gone to Standing Rock. None of this makes her so incredibly unique or valuable that it eclipses the truly execrable parts of her platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:She wants real regulations against wall street, PAC money out of elections, she actually went to Standing Rock and she's unbelievablely good at explaining to the average person why progressive policy is good. Plus she's a fighter so she's less likely to roll over once getting into power like your average New Democrat. The Truth About Tulsi that has the MAINSTREAM Scared!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:hurf durf why would anybody see any value to that? better to smear her and make her toxic years before the primary Where's that happening? Is a smear just not liking someone you like now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where's that happening? Is a smear just not liking someone you like now? That's the other thing, yeah - Call Me Charlie, are you under the impression that everyone who thinks Gabbard is bad is an agent of the DNC or a doctrinaire neoliberal or something? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
i mean i know i definitely am a paid DNC astroturf operative
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Hillary is a hawk that could have potentially started WW3 by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria when the Russians were the main group doing bombings. (I kinda think that shooting down a Russian jet over Syria would be considered an act of war) The Russians wouldn't nuke anyone over Syria even if every single plane with a Russian flag on it was shot down tomorrow. They'd scream their heads off but at the end of the day it's not something worth destroying the world over.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:The Russians wouldn't nuke anyone over Syria even if every single plane with a Russian flag on it was shot down tomorrow. They'd scream their heads off but at the end of the day it's not something worth destroying the world over. Yeah, the much more likely outcome would have been increased Russian involvement in the region, which would have been a very bad thing. The No-Fly Zone was a terrible idea, but let's not pretend like it was going to lead to nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Obama was an establishment candidate, the point is that the field is open to non-establishment candidates in a way it wasn't before - okay, if you track internal dem elite politics, you can track new guys, but that's not the people that matter now Lol were you like 10 in 08 or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A: she supports single payer (but woop-de-poo poo, so do a lot of likely candidates) Nope. There aren't actually that many potential candidates that have supported single payer for more than 3-4 years. Trusting Warren about her commitment to single payer when she was vocally against it during Obama's final term is foolish. But of course, Gabbard's the triangulator, not Warren.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
call to action posted:Nope. There aren't actually that many potential candidates that have supported single payer for more than 3-4 years. Hey remember that time(yesterday) when you refused to admit Gabbard was a racist and thought I wouldn't say that Clinton had slaves, and you keep disappearing when I point this out?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Hey remember that time(yesterday) when you refused to admit Gabbard was a racist and thought I wouldn't say that Clinton had slaves, and you keep disappearing when I point this out? Say she's a slaveowner and I'll say Gabbard's a racist (in exactly the same way Clinton is)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
call to action posted:Nope. There aren't actually that many potential candidates that have supported single payer for more than 3-4 years. Trusting Warren about her commitment to single payer when she was vocally against it during Obama's final term is foolish. But of course, Gabbard's the triangulator, not Warren. Where is some information on Gabbard's history of supporting single payer? I'm not asking this because I think it's necessarily false, but I'm curious and a quick Google isn't helping much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
call to action posted:Say she's a slaveowner and I'll say Gabbard's a racist (in exactly the same way Clinton is) so you're fine supporting a racist? :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
call to action posted:Say she's a slaveowner and I'll say Gabbard's a racist (in exactly the same way Clinton is) I did. Now you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so you're fine supporting a racist? :/ Did you vote for a slaveowner? Jaxyon posted:I did. You never actually used that word. Now do it, if you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
call to action posted:You never actually used that word. Now do it, if you want. lol jesus dude
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Lol were you like 10 in 08 or something? Wait, aren't you they guy who bragged about kicking out homeless people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
call to action posted:You never actually used that word. Now do it, if you want. Ahahaha you're a joke. Like you'd think you'd pick up on the fact that I'm specifically rewording my answer to call her that and yet allow you to look like a baby but holy poo poo it keeps working.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is too regressive for 2020, he vocally supported a slaver for president for Christ sake!!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
call to action posted:You never actually used that word. Now do it, if you want. Dude Jaxyon posted:Hillary did have slaves, they were working for her as first lady of Arkansas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
When you think about it, having a suboptimal opinion on Syria is kinda like using unpaid "African Americans" with high "emotional intelligence" to file down the bunions on your feet
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Sure, she tried to torpedo the Iran deal, but did you hear about how the other woman likes someone the first one does too??
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, the much more likely outcome would have been increased Russian involvement in the region, which would have been a very bad thing. The No-Fly Zone was a terrible idea, but let's not pretend like it was going to lead to nuclear winter. Just because WWIII wouldn't have happened literally the next day doesn't mean Clinton's war hawk Syria policy wouldn't lead to nuclear winter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
call to action posted:Nope. There aren't actually that many potential candidates that have supported single payer for more than 3-4 years. I couldn't possibly give less of a poo poo about whether or not someone has supported single payer for more than 3-4 years. What I am interested in is whether or not they will promise it, fight for it, and make it happen if they have the chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Just because WWIII wouldn't have happened literally the next day doesn't mean Clinton's war hawk Syria policy wouldn't lead to nuclear winter. Just because you hate her, for perfectly valid reasons, doesn't mean it would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Just because WWIII wouldn't have happened literally the next day doesn't mean Clinton's war hawk Syria policy wouldn't lead to nuclear winter. I'm not really seeing how the no-fly zone would have led to a nuclear war with a greater degree of certainty than Trump's ongoing mismanagement of the situation. Sketch me out a chain of events on how the no-fly zone would have led to a nuclear war, if you would. I will, of course, have questions for you on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
call to action posted:Did you vote for a slaveowner? no
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
call to action posted:When you think about it, having a suboptimal opinion on Syria is kinda like using unpaid "African Americans" with high "emotional intelligence" to file down the bunions on your feet When you think about it, calling a the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including specifically targetted hospitals and schools, "suboptimal" totally isn't hilariously hosed up. Oh wait
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
call to action posted:Sure, she tried to torpedo the Iran deal, but did you hear about how the other woman likes someone the first one does too?? Clinton was skeptical of the Iran deal, but there's no evidence that she did anything to torpedo it, as far as I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
call to action posted:Trusting Warren about her commitment to single payer when she was vocally against it during Obama's final term is foolish. I missed this the first time around. When was she vocally against it? Please post a quote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Everyone is hosed if the bar for 2020 is "better than Hillary"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
lol dems https://twitter.com/dwsNY/status/883443517523210240
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm not really seeing how the no-fly zone would have led to a nuclear war with a greater degree of certainty than Trump's ongoing mismanagement of the situation. i don't think this is "exactly what would happen" but i believe the "no fly zone = potential war with a nuclear power" argument looks like this: 1) no fly zones aren't just a couple planes. you need huge numbers of troops and equipment to make it all work. the planes, the carriers, the carrier battle group, and potentially enough land forces to back up an inherently provocative action. so basically, there are going to be tens of thousands of soldiers, airmen, and sailors in whatever region you want to start your no fly zone. 2) let's say russia decides to challenge your commitment to the no fly zone. why wouldn't they? the no fly zone would exist to deter their interests as much as the assad regime. so russia flies a military sortie through your no fly zone do you shoot it down immediately? if you just let it slide, what if they then decide to launch strikes against their enemies through your no fly zone? the US would functionally have to take military action. 3) the US shoots down a russian plane (or sortie or whatever). well, that's an act of war. one that would certainly legitimize reciprocate action. 4) russia takes reciprocate military action. they shoot down one of your planes. or they torpedo a ship. or they do something else. 5) now you're at war with a major nuclear power which can clearly lead to the use of nuclear arms. like say, a tactical strike on that massive concentration of military force you brought along to enforce your no fly zone anyway, just my two cents on that specific thing. i don't think trump is threatening actions that directly risk military confrontation with the russians, but i don't know because i haven't really been following his presidency. he's bad and dumb and he's going to do bad and dumb things, but at least he'll be challenged by some of the institutional powers in the US, unlike hillary who would most likely be celebrated when she did horrible poo poo. regardless, the democrats totally suck and its very tragic there seems to be no viable alternative to their hold on power.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I missed this the first time around. When was she vocally against it? Please post a quote. https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/03/31/heres-where-elizabeth-warren-stands-on-a-single-payer-health-care-system
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:When you think about it, calling a the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including specifically targetted hospitals and schools, "suboptimal" totally isn't hilariously hosed up. You sound exactly like the folks that got us into both Iraq wars. Let me guess, we need to "do something"
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:4) russia takes reciprocate military action. they shoot down one of your planes. or they torpedo a ship. or they do something else. This is the part where the scenario breaks down a bit, though. Russia shooting down an American plane or torpedoing a ship doesn't necessarily automatically lead to both countries being at war. It can mean that, but the logic of deterrence makes it not a terribly likely outcome, at least directly, IMO. What's more likely to happen, is the usual when this sort of thing happens between two powerful countries: mutual recriminations from both sides, followed by a doubling down on the proxy war at hand. I get that you're posting what could happen, and you're right, it could. But I think the more likely (albeit less dramatic) outcome out of a No-Fly Zone is enough to make it a not-worth-it policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
call to action posted:https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/03/31/heres-where-elizabeth-warren-stands-on-a-single-payer-health-care-system Sounds like she wasn't vocally against single payer at all: quote:As MassLive reported, the senator said her support for switching to single payer would depend on whether Democrats (currently the minority party in the House and Senate) can find Republican colleagues to work with to improve the ACA. Meanwhile she's said now is the time for Single Payer: quote:“President Obama tried to move us forward with health-care coverage by using a conservative model that came from one of the conservative think tanks that had been advanced by a Republican governor in Massachusetts,” she told The Wall Street Journal in an interview last week. “Now it’s time for the next step. And the next step is single payer.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
What does it matter in the face of Russia being directly given access to elections with this hen house service the White House agreed to set up at the G20? Even if all the Dems were great no one will be able to vote for them anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/factcheck_does_elizabeth_warre.html She has been against single payer recently. Who gives a poo poo what someone's pivoted to in the wake of Piss Baby. I mean, I get why you all don't think that's a big deal - because 3/4 of you were complete shitheads for Hillary until you were all proven wrong. The rest of us see y'all as weathervanes and poo poo allies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 23:53
|
|