|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
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. It's cynical use of anti-racism to steamroll political opposition. It's hard seem progressive if they support policies that favor elites so instead they shout "white male" over and over to pretend they are supporting women of color against the white-supremacist patriarchy.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
JailTrump posted:Name Three. bernie. keith ellison. paula swearengin. jaffe. iron stache. hth
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. I don't think anyone in this thread is against the idea that women should be involved in politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. No. We objected to the idea that women should be in power. Not equal share of power. The power. The poster was not "I think there should be equal representation" they full-on wanted women to take over because of feminization of power or whatever. "I want women in positions of power because the lack of that is unfair" and "I want women in power because they are special" are super different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Democrazy posted: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. i got the impression they were against pushing in women regardless of political ideology as a panacea for the problems facing america
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted: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. And don't forget trying to co-opt and neuter the #Resistance movement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted: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. i love when the hillaries still try to pretend the primary was a fair contest or that they can draw conclusions from a rigged primary what idiots 
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
it's kinda ironic that the "democratic" party is anything but. it follows the naming guidelines like "affordable care act" though
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
I don't really think the primary was rigged on anything except name recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I don't really think the primary was rigged on anything except name recognition. the body responsible for conducting a fair primary was intentionally helping one candidate over all others. that's rigged. the dnc leads were even leaking debate questions to HRC, cause she's so worthless she can't answer a question well without weeks of prep beforehand
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i got the impression they were against pushing in women regardless of political ideology as a panacea for the problems facing america People literally said that there was no reason to consider people's genders in politics, that sexism should not be a concern for women in politics, and that someone arguing for women in politics must automatically be backing people they don't like, all of which is super bad and hostile to women in politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:People literally said that there was no reason to consider people's genders in politics, that sexism should not be a concern for women in politics, and that someone arguing for women in politics must automatically be backing people they don't like, all of which is super bad and hostile to women in politics. Quote? Because while I believe someone said that, I suspect it was one person who was immediately told to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
I don't think Bernie was winning the primary since institutional inertia was so behind Clinton (that part isn't cheating but it is dumb) and Bernie who was previously not a big name outside of certain groups pretty much threw together his run last minute to push her left. The fact that they put their finger on the scale even though she was almost certainly going to win is a perfect example of Clinton self owns where she needlessly gives just enough of the appearance of corruption that it dominates the message instead of the positive stuff she's pushing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the body responsible for conducting a fair primary was intentionally helping one candidate over all others. that's rigged. Oh come on. I've seen those leaks. They were nothingburgers. I don't think an idiot at CNN mailing about the Flint debate saying "They're gonna ask about Flint!" made any difference at all, and the various dnc emails with various people being uncomfortable with Bernie were pretty much all replied to with some variation of "Don't use this channel for this purpose". There is no evidence of thumbs on the scale when it comes to any electioneering activity. There's just evidence some people at the DNC didn't like Bernie, which, no poo poo. They don't appear to have done anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
How could a primary consisting of HRC, Bernie Sanders, that guy who really loved talking about killing that one guy, the guy whose best excuse was it was my first day, and some other dipshit possibly not be in reality the democratic cream of the crop??? Truly, it was a grand contest and not some insane fake coronation ceremony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
Apart from her awful stances on prison slave labor and transgender rights, Kamala Harris refused to prosecute a bank that had illegally foreclosed people's homes. And then you have gems like this:  ; which show just how out of touch she is with regular everyday Americans.Is it really so hard for liberals to understand why people don't want another awful empty suit like her anywhere near the presidency?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Radish posted:I don't think Bernie was winning the primary since institutional inertia was so behind Clinton (that part isn't cheating but it is dumb) and Bernie who was previously not a big name outside of certain groups pretty much threw together his run last minute to push her left. The fact that they put their finger on the scale even though she was almost certainly going to win is a perfect example of Clinton self owns where she needlessly gives just enough of the appearance of corruption that it dominates the message instead of the positive stuff she's pushing. bernie might've won, but he started off as a protest campaign and it's a lot of work to switch gears from protest to real campaign. the dems were using more than inertia though, they were inventing and repeating fake news to discredit bernie "bernie hacked us, bernie is violating election laws, bernie supporters are throwing chairs". then there were other acts of putting their finger on the scale like working with the hillary campaign to do oppo on bernie, leaking debate questions, etc. and that's just what we know from a hosed up organization that wants to pretend none of that happened, or even if it did it was fine. there is no doubt way more poo poo the DNC was pulling in 2016 on hillary's favor, and the same vermin that were running the show in 2016 are still running it in 2018 (and torpedoing leftists in a sad attempt to keep centrism from looking bad)!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:Is it really so hard for liberals to understand why people don't want another awful empty suit like her anywhere near the presidency? liberals are largely awful empty suits so it's not so much they don't understand as much as it is a lawyer who attempts to deny transgender people rights is so into the rules it warms their cockles. i mean, did you see Nevvy Z's fetishization of "the process". The ideal president is one that can do nothing because their hands are tied and the law says so. That way nothing changes, especially their tax rates. and I mean, why do they have to appeal to the left? she's better than Trump and you only get two choices!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Oh come on. I've seen those leaks. They were nothingburgers. I don't think an idiot at CNN mailing about the Flint debate saying "They're gonna ask about Flint!" made any difference at all, and the various dnc emails with various people being uncomfortable with Bernie were pretty much all replied to with some variation of "Don't use this channel for this purpose". There is no evidence of thumbs on the scale when it comes to any electioneering activity. There's just evidence some people at the DNC didn't like Bernie, which, no poo poo. They don't appear to have done anything about it. no, they did a lot about it. DWS was personally spreading fake news about bernie and his supporters during the election (remember the chair throwing? entirely made up). and what info we have is incomplete. i do not doubt the dnc was doing more, cause everything points to the leadership of the DNC acting in favor of one particular candidate
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
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. His supporters booed Hillary when it became clear that the primary was a sham, despite Bernie telling them not to boo and getting booed himself. After the election, Bernie wouldn't completely abandon policy for fundraising/protecting our abuela or commit self-immolation outside of the White House for his sin of getting Trump elected. Oh and some of them are so unhinged that they legitimately believe that every person on Twitter that confronts them is a racist misogynist Russian bot designed to cause chaos within the democratic party (not that people could actually disagree with them or judge others based on anything besides their genitals/skin color) JailTrump posted:Name Three. Tulsi Gabbard Bernie Sanders (if he runs) Elizabeth Warren (not my favorite and I don't think she could win but still better than Kamala) And you realize that 2020 is going to be a clowncar primary of possibly 16+ candidates, right? Everybody's going to try to make a go of it for the easy slam dunk on Trump...unless the DNC pulls some serious strings. Al Borland Corp. posted: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.  I don't think so Tim Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Scent of Worf posted:awful stances on prison slave labor All I can find about this is related to this incidence https://thinkprogress.org/california-attorney-general-says-her-offices-defense-of-prison-labor-evokes-chain-gangs-5c768fd447a4 Where again she was the boss while someone else went to court and did a lawyer thing. Is there more to it than that? I'm not a big harris fan, but I do like my opinions to be based on things she actually did .
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Condiv posted:bernie might've won, but he started off as a protest campaign and it's a lot of work to switch gears from protest to real campaign. the dems were using more than inertia though, they were inventing and repeating fake news to discredit bernie "bernie hacked us, bernie is violating election laws, bernie supporters are throwing chairs". then there were other acts of putting their finger on the scale like working with the hillary campaign to do oppo on bernie, leaking debate questions, etc. and that's just what we know from a hosed up organization that wants to pretend none of that happened, or even if it did it was fine. there is no doubt way more poo poo the DNC was pulling in 2016 on hillary's favor, and the same vermin that were running the show in 2016 are still running it in 2018 (and torpedoing leftists in a sad attempt to keep centrism from looking bad)! A Bernie Sanders staffer hacking into the Clinton campaign VAN is not fake news. I should know, I met the person who did it. Nice guy, by the way. Made a mistake, but a lot of the people I know (including the Clinton supporters) say he's a good guy and that he certainly would never do it again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Where again she was the boss while someone else went to court and did a lawyer thing. Ahh yes the classic "why would you hold the leadership responsible for the actions of the organization?" In fact, the Attorney General of California is a fluff position with no real decision making power there just hasn't been a chance for Kamala Harris to prove herself to the bernie bros
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Perfect Potato posted:How could a primary consisting of HRC, Bernie Sanders, that guy who really loved talking about killing that one guy, the guy whose best excuse was it was my first day, and some other dipshit possibly not be in reality the democratic cream of the crop??? Truly, it was a grand contest and not some insane fake coronation ceremony. ikr? the idea the field was cleared for hillary is still treated as insane  Nevvy Z posted:All I can find about this is related to this incidence yes, she had absolutely no idea her underling was going to go in and argue against releasing inmates that have been ordered released. she also had no idea what he was gonna argue, so she was very surprised when he argued that they shouldn't be released cause their slave labor was needed c'mon nevvy, even you can't believe that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:All I can find about this is related to this incidence "I didn't do it, it was my underlings. I technically didn't do this." Sounds like Kamala has been watching too many mafia movies. This really isn't any kind of defense, and in fact, it actually makes her look like even more of an empty suit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:A Bernie Sanders staffer hacking into the Clinton campaign VAN is not fake news. I should know, I met the person who did it. the staffer accessing things he shouldn't have been able to isn't the problem. it's when DWS made it into "bernie's trying to hack his opponents so we're going to illegally rip away access to voter data from his campaign" she was v obviously trying to get rid of him then and there, plus she was smearing him (yet again)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
2020 is going to be completely insane. Presuming the Republicans don't steamroll 2018 and ban the Democrats with a Constitutional amendment, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the staffer accessing things he shouldn't have been able to isn't the problem. it's when DWS made it into "bernie's trying to hack his opponents so we're going to illegally rip away access to voter data from his campaign" The person who did it certainly thinks it was a problem that the Sanders campaign accessed and pulled data it shouldn't have. A staffer on the Sanders campaign did wrong. That's not fake news, the Sanders campaign did hack their political opponent and pulled data from the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The person who did it certainly thinks it was a problem that the Sanders campaign accessed and pulled data it shouldn't have. A staffer on the Sanders campaign did wrong. That's not fake news, the Sanders campaign did hack their political opponent and pulled data from the campaign. he was ordered to hack the opponent? last i heard, he was fired as soon as they found out? that's quite a claim, that bernie was intentionally hacking the hillary campaign meanwhile, DWS blew things way out of proportion. as you just said, the guy who did it isn't a bad guy and made a mistake. so why was DWS so eager to handicap a candidate's campaign? cause she was trying to end bernie's campaign then and there and was only forced to back off after he filed suit against the dems so again, the bernie poo poo was fake news. he wasn't trying to hack clinton, though dws did her best to make it sound like that, and the heavyhanded approach she took was completely unwarranted
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
reminder that the collusion that was revealed was so bad DWS was forced to step down, and then hillary gave her a reward position in the HRC 2016 campaign none of this is significant to centrists, cause the cheating thumb on the scale was helping their preferred candidate. then they whine like hell when they get cheated by someone else in 2016
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
That "reward" position was an unpaid honorary title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:That "reward" position was an unpaid honorary title. That's just Hillary Clinton's style. Corruption for corruptions sake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:That "reward" position was an unpaid honorary title. yeah, you guys argued this constantly back when it happened too. if it's such a worthless position, why did hillary have to give it to DWS? if it wasn't a reward, why was it being offered even though it made hillary's campaign look terrible to the exact people she needed to bring in (and she loving knew it would hurt her too!) doesn't make much sense for hillary to harm her campaign by bringing on trash like dws for absolutely no reason. especially when said trash was just found to be colluding with her campaign and was an obvious liability Condiv fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Condiv, Call Me Charlie posted:bernie. Bernie Sanders (if he runs) Clearly a "Up and Coming" Dem figure Condiv posted:keith ellison Yeah I'm sure people are going to vote for a muslim. Call Me Charlie posted:Tulsi Gabbard  Call Me Charlie posted:Elizabeth Warren (not my favorite and I don't think she could win but still better than Kamala) Yeah I'm sure the new Hillary Clinton will do well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:Yeah I'm sure people are going to vote for a muslim. rust belters certainly did. why don't you gently caress off bigot
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:2020 is going to be completely insane. It's going to be crazy on both sides. I'm having a hard time imagining there not being a primary on the GOP side, especially if Trump's approval rating is anywhere close to where it's at now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, you guys argued this constantly back when it happened too. if it's such a worthless position, why did hillary have to give it to DWS? if it wasn't a reward, why was it being offered even though it made hillary's campaign look terrible to the exact people she needed to bring in (and she loving knew it would hurt her too!) Cause DWS was a personal friend and in her eye deserved to leave with some shred of dignity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:Yeah I'm sure people are going to vote for a muslim. "I'm a progressive and I say, Muslims must categorically sacrifice their ambitions to protect my party's viability"
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
JailTrump posted:Clearly a "Up and Coming" Dem figure There's that liberal racism and arrogance again. It's like 2016 taught them nothing lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:14 |
|
|
We had a Muslim president for 8 years already guys.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2017 15:40
|
|