|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Jizz Festival posted:Wow you really got him Considering I was quoting a guy that said we should start primaring Democrats that didn't vote for the troll single payer bill... Maybe I was less going after Bernie and more going after alt-left dorks who react before thinking.
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
Peachfart posted:Considering I was quoting a guy that said we should start primaring Democrats that didn't vote for the troll single payer bill... yeah no, i already considered the chance that the republican amendment would be a lovely healthcare bill way before you decided you needed to pretend the alt-left is a thing Condiv posted:hmm. i can't help but be thankful for this. we'll get to see just who should be primaried! how's legitimizing the alt-right feel btw? it's so odd that centrists like you help fascists pretend there's an equally hosed up movement on the left
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Democrats a waste on both sides of the Pacific  https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/890475623512252416
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Considering I was quoting a guy that said we should start primaring Democrats that didn't vote for the troll single payer bill... Alt-right is just PC for neo-nazi, so please define wtf you mean by "alt-left".
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:to pretend the alt-left is a thing Is that supposed to rehash, "Anyone left of center-right is racist / Economics is for racists (eat the poor)," or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
It means that if you aren't 100% on board with whatever suicidal plan the DNC has any given week, you are a dumb kiddo who has no place in a room full of adults.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Is that supposed to rehash, "Anyone left of center-right is racist / Economics is for racists (eat the poor)," or what? It was cooked up by the alt-right to pretend there were leftists that were as bad as them and so it was ok they're nazis. Centrists latched on cause they want to pretend they're the left while taking millions from big business and letting peeps die of preventable diseases
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:It means that if you aren't 100% on board with whatever suicidal plan the DNC has any given week, you are a dumb kiddo who has no place in a room full of adults. Hey, I've felt this before. Nice wordsmithing my dude. Edit - I'm not really sure where this movement to create a misogynistic alt left bogeyman is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Okay, lets start with this guy: Bernie isn't a democrat  Isn't that what your ilk keep harping on? Just like fake news and popular votes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Shuka posted:Hey, I've felt this before. Nice wordsmithing my dude. From the neurotic failures of the consultant corps and commentariat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It was cooked up by the alt-right to pretend there were leftists that were as bad as them and so it was ok they're nazis. Centrists latched on cause they want to pretend they're the left while taking millions from big business and letting peeps die of preventable diseases Just a pedantic note, but I believe Alt Left actually existed before Alt Right, but it was used to refer to hippy types that believed in healing crystals and the like. How and why it's used now is exactly as you describe though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Oh boy, mister "single payer isn't good enough because it's not full communism now comrades" is here to explain to us why electing coal robber baron capitalists to the Senate is good, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:It's not about the primary, it's about what strategy to take after the primary's over if I don't much like the nominee. Voting for right wing democrats has entrenched their power in the party and has led to the material conditions people face in 2017. Continuing to vote for them is continuing to vote for wealth distribution upwards, the destruction of the middle class and austerity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Shuka posted:Edit - I'm not really sure where this movement to create a misogynistic alt left bogeyman is coming from. it was Hillary's anti-Obama strategy in 2008, they just ran a quick find/replace on all instances of his name with Bernie's in 2015 once it became clear he was an actual threat. it demonstrates the flaws in the consultancy class pretty neatly: it maybe, -maybe- works on people who have to be on Twitter for work, and so will have run into some rear end in a top hat kid who comes off as really misogynist who is also into Bernie Sanders. and people who are already Hillary diehards will cling to it as a reason to distrust Sanders fans. anyone else takes a look at it and says "what" "huh" and then dismisses it
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
tekz posted:Voting for right wing democrats has entrenched their power in the party and has led to the material conditions people face in 2017. Continuing to vote for them is continuing to vote for wealth distribution upwards, the destruction of the middle class and austerity. yep yep. and these right-wing democrats don't just get elected and sit by and let you elect leftists. no, they intentionally sabotage leftists because the lesser of two evils is not a thing for them, or for anyone in/with power. look at tony blair saying he would rather lose to tories forever than win with corbyn. the lesser-evil theorem is a way for centrists to keep control of the party without actually representing anyone, and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
I would like to be referred to as the Konami Code Left, thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:remember ossoff, and how shittily he did. it's cause when it came down to it the biggest differences between him and his opponent was which party was backing them. and hey, ossoff's party is somehow even less liked than the republicans or trump Even putting aside the ideological stuff, the Ossoff disaster was a good example of just how broken the Dem leadership is. In the first place, the only reason anyone thought that race was winnable was because the Republicans were all heavily divided and campaigning against each other as well as against Ossoff. The moment he failed to get 50% in the runoff, he was done - there was simply no way he was going to pull better numbers when Republican support and campaign machinery were all united behind one single Republican opponent. And after all, the whole thing had been a rather long shot anyway, a red district that had gone 61-38 for the GOP only a few months before, an opportunity that had only been made possible by Republican incompetence and chaos. Instead of pulling back after Ossoff's failure, though, they made the gigantic mistake of doubling down. As they poured record amounts of money into a single House seat, they practically took over Ossoff's campaign, which spent over ten million dollars on TV ads and hired over ten times as many staffers as his opponent. It was a stupid thing to do, but they were caught up in the enthusiasm - and, more importantly, they were desperate to prove their theory that the way forward for the party was flipping white conservative-leaning suburbs. yronic heroism posted:Seems to depend on the state/district and the candidate. Ossoff probably isn't more conservative than Manchin even though WV is way more conservative than GA-6. There are still blue dogs who get elected. Some of them are more eager to associate with Sanders than with Clinton. Doesn't mean they need to be beloved figures by the left, but if there is a more leftist alternative by all means let them take a shot at the primary. This is why we have primaries ffs. The Blue Dogs were a gigantic failure, though. They refused to support traditional Democratic priorities, their unreliability had serious consequences for Democratic initiatives, and in the end most of them found that running as a Democrat who votes like a Republican gave them very little room to fight back against actual Republican challengers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
when the dems lost brutally in 2016, did they embrace the lesser of two evils and welcome leftists (including the most popular politician in the country) into the discussion of what to do next? no, they stonewalled leftists and elected empty suits who were totally unqualified. they did not adopt lesser evilism for their "better deal" either, instead opting to appeal only to centrists with warmed over corporate friendly policy from 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Even putting aside the ideological stuff, the Ossoff disaster was a good example of just how broken the Dem leadership is. In the first place, the only reason anyone thought that race was winnable was because the Republicans were all heavily divided and campaigning against each other as well as against Ossoff. The moment he failed to get 50% in the runoff, he was done - there was simply no way he was going to pull better numbers when Republican support and campaign machinery were all united behind one single Republican opponent. And after all, the whole thing had been a rather long shot anyway, a red district that had gone 61-38 for the GOP only a few months before, an opportunity that had only been made possible by Republican incompetence and chaos. i would not be a fifth as critical as i am towards ossoff if they hadn't blown millions trying to make him win, and let every other special election candidate fend for themselves. especially when he didn't improve on the numbers from a literal fake democrat. also, trying to flip white conservative districts and only those really speaks to how seriously centrist dems are taking the racial justice they supposedly care about
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
What democratic initiatives have been better since the GOP took those seats?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:What democratic initiatives have been better since the GOP took those seats? The grand bargain Cause it was killed by the right wing extremists that replaced the blue dogs, who would've happily passed it
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Well the neckbeard quote isn't how I'd go about softening them up but whatever. Maybe they love being told "gently caress you" by way of a neckbeard in a beret. I like posts like this because they act as a window to what the poster's views really are (and almost always happen at some point if someone is involved in a conversation long enough). For example, this guy is posting a bunch about how to be pragmatic and increase Democratic chances of winning or whatever, but ultimately what's motivating him is his distaste towards a particular strawman of "a Bernie-supporting leftist" that he has in mind. I think this can actually be said for a pretty large portion of anti-leftist Democrats, who seem to be motivated largely by an outdated idea of what leftists are like. When they think of leftists they still think of their university's College Communists organization or something, but we're now in a world where Bernie Sanders is a very popular politician and their assumptions are no longer accurate (not that they ever really were, but now they're especially wrong). yronic heroism posted:They'll just change their position. That's politics. Happened with same sex marriage. Same sex marriage was not a position that had a massive amount of corporate money opposing it. It was a position that existed almost entirely for the purposes of winning over voters, but being anti-single payer is a position that exists for the purposes of winning over donors and other forms of corporate/wealthy support. edit: In general, the reason the Democrats were able to continue moving left on social issues is that financial interests didn't really stand to lose from them doing so. The same is not true for single payer (or any other policy that would require either a significant increase of taxes on the wealthy or be harmful to a powerful business interest). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think this can actually be said for a pretty large portion of anti-leftist Democrats, who seem to be motivated largely by an outdated idea of what leftists are like. When they think of leftists they still think of their university's College Communists organization or something, but we're now in a world where Bernie Sanders is a very popular politician and their assumptions are no longer accurate (not that they ever really were, but now they're especially wrong). That is because the overton window has moved so far to the right that being a moderate, market based, social democrat (ie. 'Bernicrats' or whatever you want to call them) means that such a person would self-describe as a socialist or leftist, despite not really being either of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i would not be a fifth as critical as i am towards ossoff if they hadn't blown millions trying to make him win, and let every other special election candidate fend for themselves. especially when he didn't improve on the numbers from a literal fake democrat. The Dems have a real problem with treating many of the groups under their umbrella as mere items on the list of groups to pander to, rather than actual people with real interests. They focus on trying to bring new groups into the Democratic coalition with generous concessions and heavy targeting, while longtime Democratic stalwarts barely warrant a couple sentences and a few token administrative measures. After all, minorities and unions are already solidly in the Democratic tank, and they're not going to vote for the party that actively hates them, so why bother doing anything to appeal to them? It's part of the technocratic obsession with hyperoptimizing political activity - why "waste" a single iota of effort, money, or political capital appealing to people who have no alternative when you could be spending it on winning over new voters? They assumed they didn't need to appeal to minorities or labor, and thus didnt bother with anything more than token moves. yronic heroism posted:What democratic initiatives have been better since the GOP took those seats? Why, it's almost like having Blue Dogs in those seats isn't actually any better than having Republicans in those seats! I don't see any particular value in having seats held by anti-choice anti-poor racist Dems instead of anti-choice anti-poor racist Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
"Bend the knee" is pretty much only in popular culture because of George RR Martin, hence the neckbeard joke (this is still something awful dot com right? hough the CTH guys do give out that vibe too if I'm being honest). More's the pity if you don't know the other, original bad thread. Come to the book barn and post about Gurrm.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:"Bend the knee" is pretty much only in popular culture because of George RR Martin, hence the neckbeard joke (though the CTH guys do give out that vibe too if I'm being honest). More's the pity of you don't know the other, original bad thread. Come to the book barn and post about Gurrm. as a side note before anybody rides to the defense of team chapo on this charge, please consider that their most recently released episode is the fourth episode of them playing a politics-themed call of cthulhu game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Considering I was quoting a guy that said we should start primaring Democrats that didn't vote for the troll single payer bill... Primarying ones who voted against it, which Bernie did not say he was going to do. You're not even correct by "idiot pedant trying to score points by being technically right" measures. You suck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Goddamn the blue dogs sucked. I'm glad they all got routed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
The stupid quibbling over "is the phrase 'bend the knee' sexist" is exactly the distraction centrists would love us to focus on instead of the real issues. Don't play into their game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Dems have a real problem with treating many of the groups under their umbrella as mere items on the list of groups to pander to, rather than actual people with real interests. They focus on trying to bring new groups into the Democratic coalition with generous concessions and heavy targeting, while longtime Democratic stalwarts barely warrant a couple sentences and a few token administrative measures. After all, minorities and unions are already solidly in the Democratic tank, and they're not going to vote for the party that actively hates them, so why bother doing anything to appeal to them? It's part of the technocratic obsession with hyperoptimizing political activity - why "waste" a single iota of effort, money, or political capital appealing to people who have no alternative when you could be spending it on winning over new voters? They assumed they didn't need to appeal to minorities or labor, and thus didnt bother with anything more than token moves. I believe that this political strategy is something that might work okay during a time when enough voters are more or less satisfied with the status quo. Even if people might want more, as long as they feel the status quo is "acceptable enough" they'll be willing to turn out to vote against an opponent that would make things worse. But in recent years we've gradually crossed over a threshold where a significant portion of the population finds the status quo unacceptable to the point that merely perpetuating it is flat-out distasteful. I think that the political class (and I guess well-paid professionals in general) have been mostly insulated from this, because they still live in communities where most people actually are okay with the status quo. Even if they receive statistics indicating otherwise, it still doesn't really feel "real" to them, because all the people they actually know and interact with (on a deep enough level to learn their political views, at least) are still mostly okay with the way things are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The stupid quibbling over "is the phrase 'bend the knee' sexist" is exactly the distraction centrists would love us to focus on instead of the real issues. I'm not quibbling over whether it's sexist. I'm quibbling over whether it's neckbeardy as all gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Goddamn the blue dogs sucked. I'm glad they all got routed. The DCCC wants to bring them back as the future of the dem party
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I'm not quibbling over whether it's sexist. I'm quibbling over whether it's neckbeardy as all gently caress. Posting on this site is neck beardy af Seems like a silly thing to quibble about here in that context
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:35
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I'm not quibbling over whether it's sexist. I'm quibbling over whether it's neckbeardy as all gently caress. Thank you. That's much more productive!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The DCCC wants to bring them back as the future of the dem party Anyone can run in the primaries. If your district has a progressive majority they can easily nominate someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Posting on this site is neck beardy af Posting bout neckbeards in SA? I never.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Anyone can run in the primaries. If your district has a progressive majority they can easily nominate someone else. not really when the dems have their thumb on the scales. i wonder what slimy tricks they'll pull to subvert the will of the people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
It's extremely telling how Hillarymen are so focused on appearances. It's always "some fat neckbeard BERNIEBRO in a beret" or something about "stroking your [ugly, fat, retarded] beard", and honestly I haven't really heard much in the way of appearance insults tossed back at them
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
i like how perez did the exact same thing to get a job he's completely unqualified for
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:17 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Anyone can run in the primaries. If your district has a progressive majority they can easily nominate someone else. If democracy and dictatorship of the majority are so awesome and just, why are you not satisfied with total GOP domination? They control everything, that means they are universally popular.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 18:02
|
|