|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
JailTrump posted:So you want better treatment for prisoners than for the general public? Prisoners should get substandard treatment because Americans are too poor to afford good treatment? It seems like that makes little sense.
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
i wish nevvy z would get his idiotic "why won't you whiny transgendered people shut up and like kamala harris" bullshit out of this thread. if you wanna be anti-trans, go do that with all your lovely centrist friends nevvy
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:But can you do it without losing voters and elections? It's so in the weeds that anyone who could be mobilized by it is certainly against you and probably already voting. I'm not sure persuadables care at all about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I'm really not sure if Gender Reassignment Surgery is a medically necessary procedure. Considering Health Insurance will not cover it. All companies have different policies, but there are major health insurers that cover it as reconstructive surgery when accompanied with a gender dysmorphia diagnosis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Reik posted:You asked Condiv, but this is a forum thread and not a set of PMs so I responded. I care about this because I want to help reform the Democrats in to an actual progressive party and I don't know if someone like Harris is that person, not because I want to get upset at her. She's not that person. Anyone who goes and meets with Clinton backing, large spending corporate donors cannot be that person. You're already putting donor needs above those of the people you're going to be asking to vote for you. Unless of course, you do what Bernie did and make those voters your donors. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
seriously nevvy z, if you wanna prove how smart and right you are go and tell @xychelsea how she's wrong on twitter. she's been swatting away dipshit cis-lords like yourself all day, one more can't hurt right? plus it'll be entertainment for the whole thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:If Harris came out and said that denying the prisoner was a mistake would you all accept it? as someone who's trans, yeah, i'd be a little bit trepidatious tho
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i wish nevvy z would get his idiotic "why won't you whiny transgendered people shut up and like kamala harris" bullshit out of this thread. if you wanna be anti-trans, go do that with all your lovely centrist friends nevvy Remember how right after the election nezzy would frequently imply non bad dems were bigots?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:She's not that person. Anyone who goes and meets with Clinton backing, large spending corporate donors cannot be that person. You're already putting donor needs above those of the people you're going to be asking to vote for you. Unless of course, you do what Bernie did and make those voters your donors. This. Harris is definitely a regular dem politician and not someone you want to pin future leftists hopes on, for reasons that have nothing to do with that time she was boss of a guy who did a thing in court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:But can you do it without losing voters and elections?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I'm really not sure if Gender Reassignment Surgery is a medically necessary procedure. Considering Health Insurance will not cover it. That's something you really should have said earlier if that was your primary concern. You having not done so earlier suggests you were trying to hide this sentiment for as long as possible in order to bolster your support for a candidate as being socially liberal, and implicitly pro-trans, while believing transgendered people are liars. Transsexuality has a double-standard as a mental illness requiring therapy (expensive therapy, $120/hr for a week and as much as a year of it) before qualifying for the surgery, and yet its treatment is specifically exempted under federal law. If it were only cosmetic, then transsexuals could at least skip the therapy and just get the surgery like any other "cosmetic" surgery. Insurance companies say a lot of things. My dad is in the hospital getting a second stent in his heart and his black, gangrenous toe amputated, and his insurance runs out by the end of the month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It's certainly not as good as having a progressive out there, and I would personally like to see many of these candidates taking on pro-union, social contract (in terms of farm bill, Medicare, SSA etc.) stances, but if that's the candidate that we have, it is objectively better than losing to a Republican within reason. I don't know, it doesn't seem like a good long term strategy to me. Like let's take Stephanie Murphy for example. The DNC cleared the path for her so she didn't have to primary and she was barely able to squeak out a win against John Mica (noted piece of poo poo and 24 year House member) Great, right? Team (D) has another seat! Except you'll never be able to primary her in the future since she has the full backing of the DNC. So no matter how left the country moves in the future or who appears on the progressive scene, we're stuck. And since she's a blue dog, her policies aren't going to satisfy the left. That means that Murphy's going to be holding the line for however many terms she can squeak out wins. (or worst she gets over the hump and becomes a permanent fixture in the party like Bill Nelson, which isn't a good thing. see: http://www.politico.com/states/flor...-contest-109614) The person who succeeds her isn't going to be a GOPe style republican. It's going to be the hardest of hardcore right wing boogieman. And the election or re-election of that boogieman will be used as an example that people in this area just don't want progressive policies. We have to compromise just a little bit more to regain the seat. Instead of just taking the L today and trying again in 2 years, you've now potentially dragged it out 4-8+ years (while still losing power to the thing you fear the most) and made the hill for progressives to climb up that more difficult. Also, if you want a laugh, see who the Dems ran against Mica in 2014. quote:Wes Neuman, the Democrats' candidate running for Congress against U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park, has vanished from public view for the past month. quote:On Wednesday Wes Neuman, the Democrat in that race, told the Orlando Sentinel that he had no money and was no longer campaigning in Congressional District 7. It was no surprise, since no one in Central Florida politics had seen or heard from Neuman in a month, and the Nov. 4 election is fast drawing near. Neuman has not formally withdrawn from the race, and his name will be on the ballot, but he made it clear he was through. Why do we keep losing  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-john-mica-wes-neuman-missing-20140924-story.html - edit From that article on Bill Nelson from Politico. Just because it's ridiculous. quote:“Democrats are now using the tea party playbook and, yes, it worked for Republicans,” said Democratic consultant Eric Johnson, who advised Murphy in his Senate race. “But what Republicans did was primary their members and pull the GOP to the right. That would bring the house down if it happens on our side. What it will do is get rid of the people who want to get along.” (in an article that Rick Scott, our nearly universally hated governor, is a legit challenger to take his seat) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I don't know, it doesn't seem like a good long term strategy to me. If you're asking me to trade a sure win now for the possibility of a win in the future, I don't see why I don't take the sure win now. There's no guarantee that a better candidate really does come along.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I dunno. Maybe she didn't disagree. That doesn't mean she hates trans people or doesn't think they should receive surgery, just that state law didn't allow this person to receive surgery at the state's expense. Because that's the issue at question. Look, I completely understand how you have an instinct to doubt what some of the dumber leftist posters on the internet say (and I'm not saying this ironically). But that doesn't mean that any position they hold is intrinstically wrong. In this particular discussion, for example, there exist posters who are making the counter-argument in a reasonable manner (Reik, for example). You seem to be letting "the fact that other people making the argument in a more stupid way exist" factor into the way you're approaching the discussion, but this is intellectually dishonest. It seems like, at best, you could argue "Harris did something that isn't ideal here, but that isn't necessarily a reason to not support here", but I'm not seeing anything defensible about this particular thing she did. I see this a lot from several posters on this forum. There will be a position where there is a completely reasonable leftist argument, but you guys will feel the need to jump to the defense of the (usually more "establishment/centrist") politician because there exist dumb people who are against them. Just like it is stupid for leftists to be against centrists on the basis of people who think most Bernie Sanders supporters are Russian bots existing, it's equally intellectually dishonest to not address arguments on the basis of the best point made in defense of them. Also, more generally speaking, it isn't unreasonable for someone to be inherently doubtful and skeptical of the candidate more centrist/establishment Democratic donors/figureheads are rallying behind. There are very good reasons to believe that a variety of very important political goals (like some effective form of UHC, greatly improving living standards for the poor/working class through social programs funded by significantly increased taxation of wealthy people/corporations, effective regulation in areas like the financial sector and private prisons, etc) will never occur under mainstream Democratic leadership (folks like Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc). As a result, it makes sense to assume that a politician supported/preferred by the same individuals and organizations who supported other prominent Democrats will just lead to (at best) a continuation of the status quo with very minor improvements. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It seems like, at best, you could argue "Harris did something that isn't ideal here, but that isn't necessarily a reason to not support here", I agree with everything except this, in that it is even unknown what she did, other then be AG at the time. A non ideal thing happened while she was AG, and the state went to court about it and lost. That's the extent of her factual involvement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I don't see why I don't take the sure win now. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate? She doesn't seem to have any sort of unique positive take, or have any particular accomplishments other than "got elected"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Sure seems it
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I agree with everything except this, in that it is even unknown what she did, other then be AG at the time. A non ideal thing happened while she was AG, and the state went to court about it and lost. That's the extent of her factual involvement. If she wasn't actually involved then she should have no trouble explaining that to her critics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate? Democrats base their choice of candidates at this point almost completely on who Buzzfeed said totally ROASTED Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
uninterrupted posted:Democrats base their choice of candidates at this point almost completely on who Buzzfeed said totally ROASTED Donald Trump. kill me
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate? you're kidding right or do you just want everyone to state the obvious
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate? Hilary Primary Voters love her for being interrupted for refusing to let Sessions not-answer her questions and ordered to let him bullshit his 5 minutes away. That's the first time people I know started talking about her, on either side of the primary. I'm sure she has some positives. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:If you're asking me to trade a sure win now for the possibility of a win in the future, I don't see why I don't take the sure win now. There's no guarantee that a better candidate really does come along. You're missing my point. Let's focus on the upcoming Bill Nelson election for 2018. He's one of the few blue members from Florida. (despite there being more registered democrats than republicans in the state) He's been in office since 2000. He has a reputation of being a bipartisan centrist problem-solver. Everything's aces, right? Except things have changed. What was once a sure thing is now in question. The left is fired up and they don't want a bipartisan centrist problem-solver. So he's facing opposition in the primary. That's not that big of a problem, nobody has a real chance of beating him there, but there is serious talk that Rick Scott (our skeletor governor) is going to run for his seat. That's a big problem.  bold text CAPITAL LETTERS curse word loving PROBLEM . Nelson doesn't have the stuff to energize his base, he's facing somebody with insanely deep pockets and he can't slide right enough to pick up moderates. So the election's going to become a straight partisan affair the same as the governor election in 2014 between Charlie Crist (former republican that left the party because he was losing to Marco Rubio in the primaries and supporter of ACA) versus Rick Scott (a former insurance CEO that literally defrauded medicare on an unheard of scale/venture capitalist)Is it really winning when you're enabling such horrible people from the right to get into power later on and smothering any chance of a better alternative from the left? I'd argue no. Centrism is the slow road to ruin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Real talk: Despite issues with IDPoll and that many of the worst conservative monsters in recent political history have been women, I think women taking positions of power is probably a good thing in and of itself. Despite Clinton being a transparent and odious demon who's entire career has been exploiting and stomping on the most vulnerable, I don't see anything particularly appealing about Harris, but I would like a decent female candidate. This is probably sexist, but I think that despite the unique positions that Collins and Murkowski have (Democrats are pretty close to classic New England Republicans, and Murkowski has independence from the GOP), a feminization of political power is a shift to a matriarchal/nurturing power structure. Some guy that had been abroad in the military once said you can pretty much draw a straight correlation between a society being less lovely and women having a right to physical autonomy and education. That the democrats are sliding back on abortion rights, literally the most basic human rights of women, and not in a real-politik-making-practical-progress-with-pro-lifers, is one of the most disgusting morally bankrupt things I've ever seen and more than anything might signal that we're entering a time where we may need to restructure the civic structure of the country and organize to do it in a way only the internet would effectively allow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Kamala Harris 2020: Because The Ballot Line Can't Just Literally Read "Generic Democrat"
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:a feminization of political power is a shift to a matriarchal/nurturing power structure. What does a matriarchal/nurturing power structure look like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:What does a matriarchal/nurturing power structure look like?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Was reading a book about liberal democratic decadence today between classes, and it mentioned the former Mass. governor Deval Patrick as an example of politicians from ridiculously blue states that fell short on delivering Communism Now, and instead fell in line with financial interests and 'innovators' every time. I get home, and guess who Obama is tapping to run next election? p.s- Holy crap, he was a bigshot at Bain Capital. It'll be hilarious see the liberals scrub twitter of all the righteous Romeny jokes they did over that little vulturefest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:You can discern virtually everything you need to know about someone by their views on single mothers and how society should treat them. Okay, so what would a matriarchal/nurturing power structure look like? I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
I'll add that I'm curious because I'm skeptical of the notion that women in power will value their empathy for other women over their class interests when push comes to shove.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:before we get into whether Harris is bad, why should anyone support her over any other plausible candidate? She traveled to the Hampton's and received the blessing of some of Hillary's top donors so now she's the anointed one. She received their blessing because she is bad. http://www.colorlines.com/articles/california-parents-could-get-jail-time-if-kids-miss-school quote:The initiative was pushed by California attorney general hopeful Kamala Harris, a rising star in the Democratic Party who "Today" show host Matt Lauer dubbed "the female Obama." Harris has smartly tied crime rates with dropout rates; the correlation between kids' educational achievement and the rate of their criminal convictions is direct. And yet the solutions are alarmingly punitive. Iron Twinkie fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Okay, so what would a matriarchal/nurturing power structure look like? I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean. Strong social safety nets: public education, child rearing services, mincome, abortion rights. That women are uniquely biologically burdened with raising children and that society should supply means necessary to raise children without dependence on a male provider. You know, racist and misogynistic Bernie Bro stuff that black women support the most. Democrats under Clinton destroying AFDC was further right than Republicans would have ever dared go. Clinton's work on healthcare was NOT a push for UHC, but a sleazy conjob to push smaller insurance companies out of the market and assemble larger ones under a system similar to Obamacare with less of medicaid expansion. After that, Clinton went after social security and failed, and the democrats have only gone further right since. The influence of the DLC wing of the democrats is analogous to the interception of union breakers hired by management, and is so fundamentally broken that the democrats cannot be saved without the bare minimum of dismantling current leadership, because unlike the Republicans, their assaults on the poor are actually effective. The DLC is the largest and most dangerous threat to every vulnerable group in the country and is the most effective, competent, and active force working to dismantle every social safety net. Clinton losing in the long run is for the best, the strengthening of their influence would guarantee dismantling of social security that would have been virtually guaranteed under a Clinton administration that Trumps bumbling would never manage. Democrats against everything that would help single mothers. Officially the DLC, Clinton Democrats, blue dogs, liberals, but you can consider them effectively Red Pill Democrats. Sneakster fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:She traveled to the Hampton's and received the blessing of some of Hillary's top donors so now she's the anointed one. Holy crap. When you think they are running out of ways to throw black/brown people in jail.... "Your kid had missed too many classes. Don't have two grand? Come with us, mister. Hey, stop resisting!" BANGBANGBANG
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:I don't mean in a specific academic way, and my point about the welfare of single mothers essentially encapsulates any extrapolations. Your description of Clinton's unwillingness to bridge the class divide in the name of sisterhood makes me wonder why you feel like women in power in the abstract is an inherent good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:I don't mean in a specific academic way, and my point about the welfare of single mothers essentially encapsulates any extrapolations. And yet this isn't what we see happen here in reality as more women come into positions of power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Over Easy posted:Your description of Clinton's unwillingness to bridge the class divide in the name of sisterhood makes me wonder why you feel like women in power in the abstract is an inherent good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:I consider Clinton more emblematic of capitalists and sociopaths than women or feminism. Well yes, those are the sorts of people that are ushered into power whether they're women or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:29 |
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:And yet this isn't what we see happen here in reality as more women come into positions of power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 00:27
|
|