Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
---|---|---|---|
B | 77 | 25.50% | |
K | 160 | 52.98% | |
M | 65 | 21.52% | |
Total: | 229 votes |
|
People who brought up real flaws (which her foreign policy was particularly full of but it felt like just about everything she offered would be means tested garbage that ultimately ended up like Cuomo's education plan, and of course her inability to come out against things like DAPL) were repeatedly told that these things were irrelevant or conspiratorial. Her endless lust for war, particularly wars AIPAC happens to want very much (like Iraq in 03, Lebanon in 06 (which while the US wasn't involved she vocally supported) or obliterating Iran (her words) at an unknown future date) was said to be a meaningless critique borderline on the level of bringing up Benghazi. Right wing attacks happened but there was some really big exasperation at the fact that anything that was meaningfully bad about her was effectively brushed off through the primary and I can understand how it would get there. Besides she herself has never been above right wing smears, which she heaped on very thickly during the 08 primaries.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:21 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 10:19 |
|
Agnosticnixie posted:obliterating Iran (her words) at an unknown future date) I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:33 |
|
Mister Facetious posted:I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that? We would, uh, totally obliterate them. Haw- haw!
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:37 |
|
Fulchrum posted:No. They move to the left because of political opportunity. They move to the RIGHT because of political pressure. Hence why refusing to vote for them because they aren't left enough is the most self defeating backwards idea possible. They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1996/10/clintons_medicare_cuts.html Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich I mean you're boys really tried their hardest. To destroy what little was left. @ everyone else. Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:42 |
|
Taintrunner posted:We would, uh, totally obliterate them. Haw- haw! Yeah, I somewhat misremembered the details; she was cheerleading war with Iran, whether preemptive or retaliatory.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:44 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996. since that didn't succeed it means Clinton didn't actually attack those entitlements which means he is actually good
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:48 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996. And Monica Lewinski is laudable as an American hero for sidelining this poo poo.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:50 |
|
"Stop saying we're too much like Republicans! This is exactly why we need to become more like the Republicans so we can get voters that don't say things like that!"
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:52 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996. Now, I know you are not a smart person. Most concepts elude you. But, and I think you might find this illuminating, 1996 and 1997 come after 1994.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 09:20 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Now, I know you are not a smart person. Most concepts elude you. But, and I think you might find this illuminating, 1996 and 1997 come after 1994. So we have, "well he tried doing good once and that makes every bad thing he did excusable.".
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 09:53 |
|
From what I've been able to gather, the Fulchrum brand of leftism seems to consist of the idea that we can't push actual good policy because that could lead to right-wing backlash and the GOP gaining power, so instead we have to push centrist half-measures which actually led to the GOP taking power. Also everybody who disagrees with this idea is a racist nazi traitor. Is this about it?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:06 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:So we have, "well he tried doing good once and that makes every bad thing he did excusable.". This is my fault, I keep forgetting how stupid you are. Lemme try and break it down further. In 1994n big country you are in had big e-lec-tion. That's when all the people get to, and they all say who they want. Now, 94 was not a year where the president - the man in the big house who leads America - Was chosen. But it was a year for Congress to get chosen. Republicans - those are the bad guys - won because leftists - that's you - didn't bother to even try. Did I make it simple enough for you?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:09 |
|
Oh, so the flailing is just a panic attack at losing relevancy to right wing imbeciles and childish socialists.Crowsbeak posted:They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996. Crowsbeak posted:Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses? Edit: called it! Mister Facetious posted:I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that? E2: Fulchrum posted:This is my fault, I keep forgetting how stupid you are. Lemme try and break it down further. Stop supporting terrible candidates with terrible policies. You're the one backing someone who was never polling outside the margin of error against TV Mussolini. Your candidate failed, your policies failed, and people have literally gone with noted honest genius Donald Trump over the poo poo you can't hawk without a thumb on the scale. You're projecting your incompetence, failure, and moral bankruptcy on anyone else because your empty soulless trash candidate is an indefensible failure. Sneakster fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jul 21, 2017 |
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:14 |
|
Speaking of 1994, why did that happen?quote:In 1994, the Democrats lost control of the House after turnout amongst labor households and non-unionized working class families declined. Polling found that upset about NAFTA’s passage and specifically about local representative’s support of NAFTA moved many traditional Democratic party voters to stay home on election day. The 1994 elections were remarkable in that low turnout — not swings from Democratic to Republican party support — decided many of the seats which switched parties on margins of fewer than 1000 votes. Oh.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:41 |
Fulchrum has been posting in this thread for 11 hours straight by the way. That's a lot of dedication to defending Hillary and the center-right blue dogs. Mister Facetious posted:Yeah, I somewhat misremembered the details; she was cheerleading war with Iran, whether preemptive or retaliatory. Cheerleading wars? Why I never. SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:47 |
|
Incoming: "well it's the working class' fault for not supporting us as we stabbed them in the back, they let conservatives in! Obviously our decision to gently caress over our own voters is beyond question, of course, it is they who should have chosen not to get demoralized after we hosed them over"
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:52 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Speaking of 1994, why did that happen? Its almost like under thee Clintons the democratic party betrayed every value it ever held, sold out the poor as a captive audience, and pandered to the middle class while embracing everything the GOP did through obscenely right wing economic, social, and legal policy that stomped on the poor, gays, and minorities. Then Obama came a long, and basically betrayed all of them again through complete in action with the only progress being made out of sheer inertia in every other part of the government. Then Sanders offered the base hope, and the old gentry backed the hollow ghost of the southern democrats past to throw the primary. So he were are with Trump. And here's liberal saying to go to the center. Should probably ignore them, like everyone did in the election.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:53 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Speaking of 1994, why did that happen? i love that she wanted to pass nafta 2, nafta harder as well
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:59 |
|
quote:Why the lack of dialogue with reformist notions? Simple. Centrists, as a group, are not concerned with progressive ideas. They believe in the status quo. However, they prefer to see themselves as enlightened liberals. Part of their reason for being centrist is class-bound: they are fine with keeping the world as it is. Some of the disdain is social: most of them have been educated and brought up in an order which rewards middle-class and upper-middle class values. https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/the-hall-monitors-tale-the-centers-war-on-chapo-tr.html FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jul 21, 2017 |
# ? Jul 21, 2017 12:09 |
|
Fulchrum posted:They have an inherent desire to move things left, Also pepole are mad at Hillary not only for her many policy weakness incompatible with leftism, but because despite being the "most qualified candidate", SHE LOST. And what she represents will continue to lose. Time to reinvent yourself. Fulchrum posted:Yes, Bernie Bros https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 12:45 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Kay. They did. The ACA. Guess the gently caress what? You shitters HATED it with a fiery passion and said it was a betrayal. it was funny how "Crazy" leftists who are totally unelectable also happen to have the most popular politician in America oh well, let's bomb some more brown people, clinton/zuck 2020
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:00 |
|
Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a that shouldn't be opened.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:07 |
VitalSigns posted:Nitpick: Hillary won Tim Kaine's home state of Virginia As a Virginian I don't think that he mattered either way. It was super close (the state is getting more and more blue but who knows if that will continue in Trump's America) and I don't know a single person that gave a poo poo about Kaine. He was a lame pick unless there's some actual real data I haven't seen reported. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:38 |
|
Avirosb posted:Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a that shouldn't be opened. Open it if you want I doubt you'll find supporters of that turd of a bill here though
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:46 |
|
Radish posted:As a Virginian I don't think that he mattered either way. It was super close (the state is getting more and more blue but who knows if that will continue in Trump's America) and I don't know a single person that gave a poo poo about Kaine. He was a lame pick unless there's some actual real data I haven't seen reported. Virginia actually wasn't really any closer than the previous two presidential elections. Clinton beat Obama's 2012 performance in both votes and the spread; Obama got a much higher percentage in 2008, but that was a wave election. Trump did even worse than Romney. 2016 Clinton - 1,981,473 (49.73%) Trump - 1,769,443 (44.4%) 2012 Obama - 1,971,820 (51.16%) Romney - 1,822,522 (47.28%) 2008 Obama - 1,959,532 (52.63%) McCain - 1,725,005 (46.33%) Trump's not really that popular in Virginia. Even my religious family from central Virginia who voted for him hate him--they just hate Clinton more.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:51 |
B B posted:Virginia actually wasn't really any closer than the previous two presidential elections. Clinton beat Obama's 2012 performance in both votes and the spread; Obama got a much higher percentage in 2008, but that was a wave election. Trump did even worse than Romney. I think "Trump's really not that popular they just hate Clinton more" sums up a good amount of the 2016 election. That's cool about the spread since I went to bed before they finished counting NoVa as it was lost at that point. Go Virginia.
|
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:53 |
|
Mister Facetious posted:I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that? Aside from other folks chiming in, and unless there was some other instance of this, it was actually a bit worse as the rough gist of this statement got bandied about to show how tough the Dems were on national security at the very first Primary debate---because coming off of Bush's adventure you totally want to double down on ~No Options Off The Table~ rhetoric. IIRC, Gravel and Kucinich were about the only ones to not affirm it---Gravel in particular flipping his poo poo on "Who the hell do you wanna nuke, Barack?" Obama was one of the things that quickly marshaled the DNC machine to get him/them kicked out ASAP by whatever means as there was no room for anything approaching doves in the shiny new Democratic high echelons.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 14:20 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:So anyone advocating the government provide its citizens with better skills through state funded education is in fact a capitalist running dog. Good to know. College shouldn't be a job training program. If business needs workers with particular highly specialized skills, it should be businesses paying for that, not the workers or the state. Fulchrum posted:And where were the leftist voters in 2010 to prevent them getting that power? Oh, I know, indulging in a belief they had been betrayed because Obama didn't wave a magic wand and change everything permanently. Sitting at home because they'd elected Democrats in a massive sweep only to see fuckall for it? The Dems dug their own graves for 2010 by packing the stimulus with tax cuts and defanging most of the useful bits, quietly drowning the public option while letting the insurance industry write their health insurance reforms, and disappointing many traditionally pro-Democrat groups by punting on various civil rights and worker's rights issues.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 14:20 |
|
So it turns out the LA Review of Books has a loving awesome comment section:Raffey posted:Guilty as charged. In my work, the pressure to use data and statistics to support my findings was overwhelming. As a result, I relegated the most valuable findings to paragraphs labeled "anecdotal" evidence (which were the tales real people told about themselves, their families and their communities). In response to these real stories, those who paid for the studies declared my subjects were wrong - they did not know what was happening to them - only smart people could understand it all. Dan posted:'Managerial liberalism'... I cannot think for the life of me of a more apathy-inducing, static, dead-eyed reptillian form of political thought. In practical terms, it's conservatism without the cranks. I've been watching with interest from Britain, it seems to me to be what’s being presented is not, despite appearances, a tactical question. It’s not even a political choice, it’s a either more of the same in general or something else, between the possibility or a slow decline into incoherent corporate bureaucracy.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:05 |
I have to admit I have a perverse joy in occasionally looking up Jim Messina's anti-Trump tweets and seeing the only replies being people telling him to shut the gently caress up since he's traitorous scum. That guy shouldn't be able to walk around in public without tomatoes being hurled at him.
|
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:20 |
|
rudatron posted:Clinton lost to Trump. The thing that's throwing people under the bus rn is corporate centrism, not principled populism. It's funny that some dipshit had the balls to throw in the 'electability' argument when, despite several months of the Trump administration, Hillary Clinton is more unpopular than Trump still lol: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:22 |
It's also amusing when people throw out the "Bernie lost the Democratic primary how good could he be??" when the Democratic primary has chosen one winner in two decades and also Clinton lost it too and was then rewarded with a fantastically expensive campaign eight years later.
|
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:26 |
|
Avirosb posted:Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a that shouldn't be opened. I brought it up briefly some pages back, as an example of 'centrist' bipartisan crap that is the bread and butter of the current mindset, but it got lost in the FulchrDammerung. It's actually a bit creepy. Pretty much every pol asked about First Ammendment concerns and such replies with the same canned "The US and Israel are friends. They will forever be friends" non sequitur. It's almost Hypnotoad-wrothy.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:30 |
|
Radish posted:It's also amusing when people throw out the "Bernie lost the Democratic primary how good could he be??" when the Democratic primary has chosen one winner in two decades and also Clinton lost it too and was then rewarded with a fantastically expensive campaign eight years later. But that doesn't answer how good he could be.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:31 |
Avirosb posted:But that doesn't answer how good he could be. So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election.
|
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:32 |
|
Sephyr posted:I brought it up briefly some pages back, as an example of 'centrist' bipartisan crap that is the bread and butter of the current mindset, but it got lost in the FulchrDammerung. Agreed. I'm as green as they come when it comes to politics and I don't know the whole history but what goes on in Ukraine and Israel doesn't seem all that different to me. Radish posted:So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election. Obviously
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:36 |
|
call to action posted:So it turns out the LA Review of Books has a loving awesome comment section: These are good comments.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:36 |
|
Radish posted:So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election. I've come around to this way of thinking.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:44 |
|
Avirosb posted:Agreed. I'm as green as they come when it comes to politics and I don't know the whole history but what goes on in Ukraine and Israel doesn't seem all that different to me. So, odds that the next Dem presidential candidate will be a "BDS is a felony" backer: 100% or 120%?
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:49 |
|
|
# ? May 11, 2024 10:19 |
|
Ah back to the good old "Reagan lost the 76 primary to another loser, he's finished for good" argument.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:50 |