|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Radish posted:On twitter yesterday I saw a self professed "ally" of Trans people tell Chelsea Manning that she should be grateful for the left's support of her being out of jail and that she should be careful not to lose it by being critical of Harris. Between that and the hinting at being open to anti-choice candidates by 2020 I half expect Democrats to be supporting Sessions removing affirmative action. i posted it in this thread yesterday and Nevvy Z spent all his time saying that chelsea manning doesn't know what she's talking about when she says she doesn't like kamala harris. he then went on to claim that transgender people being denied medically necessary treatment wasn't harmful to them, and kamala harris was just doing her job by fighting californian law to try to prevent transgender people from receiving medically necessary treatment. he probably would've told chelsea the same thing that guy did if he had to argue against her directly Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Aug 2, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I can no longer follow anyone on Twitter apparently without them retweeting insults about leftists and Bernie Sanders. the hillary crew demands fealty to the wishes of the unelected Dem leadership, or you're the most evil person on earth
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:the whole "neoliberal doesn't even mean anything!" kind of fell flat on its face after centrists adopted the term as their own My favorite comment quote:“We care about the poor”? Your lot most love them — it never stops making more! And the reason for that is point number one, your adoration of the “free” market. The “invisible hand” belongs, given the evidence of the real world, to a psychopath. The market doesn’t care about individuals. The market doesn’t care if X can’t pay for health care or Y can’t get enough to eat or Z is sleeping on the streets because he’s on a zero hour contract.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the hillary crew demands fealty to the wishes of the unelected Dem leadership, or you're the most evil person on earth There's this weird (and gross) level of conditional alliance with disadvantaged people that some of these guys have. Like they are doing them a favor by supporting their human rights which can be retracted at any time if insufficient loyalty is shown or if it's no longer pragmatic to do so. It kinda gets back to how leftists are always to blame for Democratic losses. There's always someone else at fault and it's never the party leadership which has the ability to change platforms or message, it's always voters backstabbing them or minority groups not knowing what's best for themselves. I'm already seeing female leftists being told they are being sexist if they don't support Harris which is the laziest of attack angles and isn't going to work in 2020 any better than it worked in 2016. I just have to hope those kinds of lovely Democrats aren't as big a fraction of the voters as they would like everyone to believe. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:There's this weird (and gross) level of conditional alliance with disadvantaged people that some of these guys have. Like they are doing them a favor by supporting their human rights which can be retracted at any time if insufficient loyalty is shown or if it's no longer pragmatic to do so. It kinda gets back to how leftists are always to blame for Democratic losses. There's always someone else at fault and it's never the party leadership which has the ability to change platforms or message, it's always voters backstabbing them or minority groups not knowing what's best for themselves. I'm already seeing female leftists being told they are being sexist if they don't support Harris which is the laziest of attack angles and isn't going to work in 2020 any better than it worked in 2016. well it's either that or they erase the person they disagree with into white males https://twitter.com/VABVOX/status/892278844115255296 https://twitter.com/Drew106/status/892373070027128833 and yes, they pretend they are the majority. somehow, bernie haters are the majority of democrats even though poll after poll shows a vast majority of dems love bernie
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
Tell me if I'm wrong here, but it's been my impression that, though Bernie stayed in the primary too long, since it ended he has done literally everything asked of him by the Democratic party and been completely non combative. He was 100% supportive of Clinton and had done strategically the things they asked him to. What is warranting all the loving hate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:First priority is to get good people with good ideals they will hold on to strongly while in power. Then you worry about the demographics. Good news is that I'm sure there is more than enough minorities who have what we need so it shouldn't be an issue having both a good AND representative group in power. If you're genuine about wanting both of course. It might not work out if you're using "diversity" as an excuse to shove bad candidates down people's throats and crying prejudice when they gag on the prospect. That's the thing though: by using a "subjective" measurement of candidates, women will never be viewed as the equal or better of equally qualified cismen candidates. That's an easily observable phenomenon in business and in politics, and not recognizing this is covering up for the patriarchy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Tell me if I'm wrong here, but it's been my impression that, though Bernie stayed in the primary too long, since it ended he has done literally everything asked of him by the Democratic party and been completely non combative. He was 100% supportive of Clinton and had done strategically the things they asked him to. he didn't stay in the primary too long. clinton stayed in the primary for a good deal after she was mathematically eliminated and then raised a huge stink when she won the popular vote (but didn't know enough about delegates to win those) hillary failures just wanted bernie to go away and they hate him because he stole abuela's non-existent thunder
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That's the thing though: by using a "subjective" measurement of candidates, women will never be viewed as the equal or better of equally qualified cismen candidates. That's an easily observable phenomenon in business and in politics, and not recognizing this is covering up for the patriarchy. paula swearengin is better than manchin and should replace him. that's an example of a good candidate vs a bad candidate. leftists hate a lot of the current dem roster (which is majority male, wouldn't you know!) so there's lots of male baddems to replace with female gooddems. kamala harris is a bad dem though (hillary too)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i posted it in this thread yesterday and Nevvy Z spent all his time saying that chelsea manning doesn't know what she's talking about when she says she doesn't like kamala harris. he then went on to claim that transgender people being denied medically necessary treatment wasn't harmful to them, and kamala harris was just doing her job by fighting californian law to try to prevent transgender people from receiving medically necessary treatment. Lol that's not what happened you sack of poo poo. Sorry you are too stupid to understand the argument I made I guess, but this portrayal of it is so off that I can only assume you are just making poo poo up like usual.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol that's not what happened you sack of poo poo. Sorry you are too stupid to understand the argument I made I guess, but this portrayal of it is so off that I can only assume you are just making poo poo up like usual. All of us saw it happen, you can't gaslight the thread, the posts are still there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:All of us saw it happen, you can't gaslight the thread, the posts are still there. His portrayal is inaccurate guy. Sorry you didn't understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Tell me if I'm wrong here, but it's been my impression that, though Bernie stayed in the primary too long, since it ended he has done literally everything asked of him by the Democratic party and been completely non combative. He was 100% supportive of Clinton and had done strategically the things they asked him to. Lefties want Dems to do actual work, instead of sitting on their rear end and attending fundraisers. As for the non-politician whiners, they don't care about politics, they just want to have a superficially pleasing mascot heading their team, and they couldn't give less of a poo poo what substance that person brings with them. So when somebody proposes a different leader, they take it as a personal affront, and as an attack against the superficial reasons for which they picked their champion in the first place - in short, as an assault against their own ego. So now Harris is Hillary by proxy, and if you are opposed to her just taking the throne, you are against all the middle class egos that have been invested into her, and the Clinton legacy she continues. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol that's not what happened you sack of poo poo. Sorry you are too stupid to understand the argument I made I guess, but this portrayal of it is so off that I can only assume you are just making poo poo up like usual. Nevvy Z posted:Please tell me more about how Kamala Harris personally harmed this trans person Nevvy Z posted:Yes and? God forbid anyone disagree with a trans person in court? Nevvy Z posted:Agreed. That doesn't make it evil or all that lovely for an attorney to file an appeal in court.  it isNevvy Z posted:why doesn't everyone understand how woke i am!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Tell me if I'm wrong here, but it's been my impression that, though Bernie stayed in the primary too long, since it ended he has done literally everything asked of him by the Democratic party and been completely non combative. He was 100% supportive of Clinton and had done strategically the things they asked him to. I think a lot of it is not really about Sanders versus Clinton as it connects to the actual people themselves. The problem is that among a group of people who supported Bernie Sanders, there has been a lot of nastiness and inability to let the primary go. The same is true for Clinton people. It's not incredibly helpful on either side, particularly since a better play for everyone would be to incorporate more of Sanders' ideas into the party while respecting the needs of all parts of the party to have a voice. Unfortunately, ecumenism isn't en vogue right now. In short, the primaries have perpetuated with a momentum of their own and have run away from the actual facts of the contest, which was, for the most part for most people, less acrimonious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That's the thing though: by using a "subjective" measurement of candidates, women will never be viewed as the equal or better of equally qualified cismen candidates. That's an easily observable phenomenon in business and in politics, and not recognizing this is covering up for the patriarchy. There’s much less gender bias in politics than you think. The most important thing is to get more women to run. Once they run, they usually do about as well as a male candidate. But if you are asking if they should be given slack for bad policy and decisions? gently caress no. Slack for things like having to deal with the unfair criticisms and standards that face women but not men? Sure, I think everybody here is on board with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Oh look again cherry picked quotes are supposed to prove that Condiv isn't just making poo poo up, yet if you actually read the thread or understand anything about anything...
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh look again cherry picked quotes are supposed to prove that Condiv isn't just making poo poo up, yet if you actually read the thread or understand anything about anything... go ahead and make the non-bigoted version of your argument nevvy z 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh look again cherry picked quotes are supposed to prove that Condiv isn't just making poo poo up, yet if you actually read the thread or understand anything about anything... I read the thread and you are wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:That's the thing though: by using a "subjective" measurement of candidates, women will never be viewed as the equal or better of equally qualified cismen candidates. That's an easily observable phenomenon in business and in politics, and not recognizing this is covering up for the patriarchy. Yes when you are picking between specific people that happens easily. That's why you choose for who is qualified first, make sure they meet the bar, then you worry about demographics. I didn't say you pick the best person and then throw up your hands if it doesn't work. You restrict the field to only those worth considering on their own merits, then you try to pick the best people that conform to a representative sample of the population. If you flat-out don't have enough qualified women or whatever you re-examine your qualifications or look to better recruit/train minorities for the roles. There's a huuuuuge range of options between gently caress women don't do anything to fix the demographics and oh look this anointed of the great centrists and moneyed interests is a woman so we can't not support her for the demographics you see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh look again cherry picked quotes are supposed to prove that Condiv isn't just making poo poo up, yet if you actually read the thread or understand anything about anything... We get it, you disagree. Are you just going to have that whole argument over again? Don't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I read the thread and you are wrong No I'm pretty sure I know what I was expressing yesterday. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough for you. But that doesn't make Condiv's nonsense any less bullshit. FuriousxGeorge posted:We get it, you disagree. Are you just going to have that whole argument over again? Don't. I don't plan to, but as long as people lie about me I'll tell them to shut the gently caress up and suck my dick. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think a lot of it is not really about Sanders versus Clinton as it connects to the actual people themselves. The problem is that among a group of people who supported Bernie Sanders, there has been a lot of nastiness and inability to let the primary go. The same is true for Clinton people. It's not incredibly helpful on either side, particularly since a better play for everyone would be to incorporate more of Sanders' ideas into the party while respecting the needs of all parts of the party to have a voice. Unfortunately, ecumenism isn't en vogue right now. The nastiness started from the Hillary camp, buddy, and a lot of the "not letting go" has to do with literal cheating being used with impunity to ratfuck anybody not called HRC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:paula swearengin is better than manchin and should replace him. that's an example of a good candidate vs a bad candidate. leftists hate a lot of the current dem roster (which is majority male, wouldn't you know!) so there's lots of male baddems to replace with female gooddems. kamala harris is a bad dem though (hillary too) I think that's fine and good, but it's also important to remember that women do face challenges that men don't in politics, and that we can't pretend that gender doesn't exist when evaluating candidates. I also think that there's nothing wrong with wanting more inclusion of women in politics as an overall goal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:i know in my heart of hearts that i'm not a bigot, so you're all wrong about my argument (which can't have been bigoted cause i made it!)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think that's fine and good, but it's also important to remember that women do face challenges that men don't in politics, and that we can't pretend that gender doesn't exist when evaluating candidates. I also think that there's nothing wrong with wanting more inclusion of women in politics as an overall goal. If you are concerned about challenges, why don't you help women who struggle to get ahead in politics instead of somebody who apparently got picked to be the next failed experiment by some arcane behind the scene powers. This sort of opaque bullshit is keeping people, including women, down, not helping them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think that's fine and good, but it's also important to remember that women do face challenges that men don't in politics, and that we can't pretend that gender doesn't exist when evaluating candidates. I also think that there's nothing wrong with wanting more inclusion of women in politics as an overall goal. It's wrong only as far as it can lead to people getting complacent when that goal is achieved. It shouldn't be the goal, because the goal shouldn't be 50% women running a system still built on garbage and inequality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think that's fine and good, but it's also important to remember that women do face challenges that men don't in politics, and that we can't pretend that gender doesn't exist when evaluating candidates. I also think that there's nothing wrong with wanting more inclusion of women in politics as an overall goal. true, and there were probably some people who didn't vote for hillary and wouldn't vote for kamala based on them being women. but there were a lot of real reasons not to vote for them too. the best we can do is promote the good dems we find that are minorities
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:I think a lot of it is not really about Sanders versus Clinton as it connects to the actual people themselves. The problem is that among a group of people who supported Bernie Sanders, there has been a lot of nastiness and inability to let the primary go. The same is true for Clinton people. It's not incredibly helpful on either side, particularly since a better play for everyone would be to incorporate more of Sanders' ideas into the party while respecting the needs of all parts of the party to have a voice. Unfortunately, ecumenism isn't en vogue right now. I'm just not seeing it from the "Bernie" side. Maybe I don't follow enough of them, but usually anything negative they're saying is just some snark and a bit of ribbing. Everything I'm seeing from the "Clinton" wing for lack of better term is "gently caress Lefty's they're all loving white male mysoginists, look how loving racist you all are". I see a few responses of "can we cool and not fight each other?" And then "NO, YOU ELECTED TRUMP. YOU HATE WOMEN." "I voted for Hillary in the general" "Sure you did, you liar". I wish I could say I was being hyperbolic and I know this sounds like the "NOT ME! I'M DUMB AND SO GODDAMN CRAZY" comic, but I see literally this every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Condiv posted:and yes, they pretend they are the majority. somehow, bernie haters are the majority of democrats even though poll after poll shows a vast majority of dems love bernie But the narrative! Al Borland Corp. posted:I'm just not seeing it from the "Bernie" side. Maybe I don't follow enough of them, but usually anything negative they're saying is just some snark and a bit of ribbing. Everything I'm seeing from the "Clinton" wing for lack of better term is "gently caress Lefty's they're all loving white male mysoginists, look how loving racist you all are". I see a few responses of "can we cool and not fight each other?" And then "NO, YOU ELECTED TRUMP. YOU HATE WOMEN." "I voted for Hillary in the general" "Sure you did, you liar". I post over at the TPM forum every now and then and their demo trends older and middle class/upper middle class, establishment types, and what it seems like they want more than anything is to be able to believe in the competence of the party apparatus. They loved Barack Obama because he exuded competence, ditto for Clinton, and they just can't seem to square the circle created by her defeat to someone supremely not competent. Kamala Harris is playing the game the way they like it, taking a route that has proven successful in the past, biracial first term senator amenable to big business with a generally blank slate for a resume. Egg Moron fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
I have no problem with the bernie-wing of the party being skeptical of Kamala Harris. Hopefully they don't vote. I mean it's not like there's any other up and coming Democratic figures. Embrace 4 more years of Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I'm just not seeing it from the "Bernie" side. Maybe I don't follow enough of them, but usually anything negative they're saying is just some snark and a bit of ribbing. Everything I'm seeing from the "Clinton" wing for lack of better term is "gently caress Lefty's they're all loving white male mysoginists, look how loving racist you all are". I see a few responses of "can we cool and not fight each other?" And then "NO, YOU ELECTED TRUMP. YOU HATE WOMEN." "I voted for Hillary in the general" "Sure you did, you liar". Do you see it from ordinary people, or from privileged people who are used to always getting their way? If it's the latter, then you know the answer, they are throwing a temper tantrum because they were denied what they so clearly deserve. Spoiled brats like that won't change, but they are a small minority. Only if it's the former, there is a reason for concern.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I have no problem with the bernie-wing of the party being skeptical of Kamala Harris. Wrap it up, it's half a year into Trump's term, and clearly there isn't enough time to have more of a debate on Democratic leadership (let's ignore the fact that there never was a debate in the first place, and that Dems are going "lalalala can't hear you" to any suggestion there should be one)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
It's gonna be a bizarre primary. It's going to be more stuffed than 2015's Republican primary, debates will look like a trainwreck. Except it will be a stage full of mostly good people with reasonable positions who want to use government to help the poor, with minor disagreements of how to do that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:I have no problem with the bernie-wing of the party being skeptical of Kamala Harris. there's plenty of good ones. why should we be giving harris an easy time? if she ends up not running that's one less bad dem to deal with in the primary
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
" I mean it's not like there's any other up and coming Democratic figures. " - Everybody, 2015
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
bernie would be a better up and coming dem figure than bigoted harris. bernie with keith as veep would be 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there's plenty of good ones. why should we be giving harris an easy time? if she ends up not running that's one less bad dem to deal with in the primary Name Three.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:true, and there were probably some people who didn't vote for hillary and wouldn't vote for kamala based on them being women. but there were a lot of real reasons not to vote for them too. the best we can do is promote the good dems we find that are minorities This isn't really about one particular candidate. Posters in this thread were literally against the idea that more women should be included in politics as a general good, which is a gross idea. It's not about promoting a certain candidate, but the idea that we can be entirely gender blind is as bad as the idea that we can be race blind. And promoting women is a good thing inartistically, because more diverse viewpoints lead to better outcomes and more bros consensus among the people the left should be representing. This is not response to your post, but I don't think of survey data as a great response to the lived experience of women who apparently incorrectly "perceive" the sexism of their daily lives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:10 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol that's not what happened you sack of poo poo. Sorry you are too stupid to understand the argument I made I guess, but this portrayal of it is so off that I can only assume you are just making poo poo up like usual. That is what happened. Now gently caress off to the gop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:36
|
|