Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
Tom Perez B/K/M?
This poll is closed.
B 77 25.50%
K 160 52.98%
M 65 21.52%
Total: 229 votes
[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

 
  • Locked thread
call to action
Jun 10, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Agnosticnixie posted:

If I wanted to be fair I'd say she was being very deferential in a very public position to a visiting head of government and that it was just politicians' politeness even if the other guy is a fascist.

But then it looked like this.

https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/878658287809564672

Something tells me the "B-b-but Gabbard supports BROWN GENOCIDE" crew isn't going to care about this one. Wonder why.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
My introduction to Kamala Harris was, "if you criticize her, you're racist/sexist," poo poo on Twitter.

Racism and sexism should be taken more seriously than to cynically be used as a combination shield-cudgel by people who are working night and day to gently caress over minorities and women. If this is what the Democrats want to go with in '20, I won't be voting in the presidential.

Cerebral Bore
Apr 21, 2010


Fun Shoe
It's pretty funny to see the blatant double standards that the usual suspects deploy when it turns out that the next Great Centrist Hope is actually pretty bad on minority issues.

Iron Twinkie
Apr 20, 2001

BOOP

Call Me Charlie posted:

Kamala Harris wrote a book called Smart On Crime.

Transcribed from page 131


jesus gently caress

Sure she's written op-eds and a book where she brags about doing this, but how do I know any of it is real? We could all be programs in an elaborate simulation. Obviously until this can be dis-proven I will assume all criticism of Kamala Harris is rooted in deep-seated virulent racism. :colbert:

Accretionist
Nov 7, 2012
I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES
Kamala Harris is a lifeboat. Support her and be saved (from our toxic discourse)

call to action
Jun 10, 2016

by FactsAreUseless
So are there any legitimate criticisms against Gabbard now that the Great Centrist Hope is pro genocide herself?

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


call to action posted:

So are there any legitimate criticisms against Gabbard now that the Great Centrist Hope is pro genocide herself?

eh, that's still a legit criticism. there's also the "gabbard meets with trump" stuff that gives me pause. but if we're comparing gabbard vs harris, i dunno how you would ever pick harris?

steinrokkan
Apr 2, 2011



Soiled Meat

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Goddamn this is not a good look. You're basically acting like the Bernie version of Hillary supporters who feel compelled to defend to the death any tiny criticism of her.

It was wrong. If you're holding Hillary responsible for the actions of all her staffers you look like a hypocrite for not doing the same for Bernie. It's okay to admit that no campaign is 100% perfect and above reproach in all ways.


:golfclap:

People arent holding Hillary responsible for her staffers, they are holding her responsible for her personal collusion with DWS and other officials.

John Wick of Dogs
Mar 4, 2017

A real hellraiser


call to action posted:

Hillarymen just love telling people to "get over" things, don't they? If they'd won, they'd be telling us to get over Bernie. They lost, they're telling us to get over Bernie. They deliver pizza slogans, Jon Ossoff, and utter failure to communicate a single positive reason to vote for them... and they're telling us to get over the most popular politician in the US.

Y'all should lose the right to speak and be forced to listen for, like, a whole year post 11/9.

That's the thing. I'm not a Hillary man. I voted for her in the general only but Bernie in the primary got my support, volunteer hours, and money. Hillary was a terrible candidate. I think anyone would be insane not to think that. But I also think you'd have to be equally as insane to still be focused on DWS thumb on the scale and DNC unfairness. Far more egregious a cuplrit than them in favoring Hillary was media coverage and simple name recognition, and Jeff Weaver repeatedly making Bernie look bad.

The DNC was frankly far too incompetent to have a large effect on the primary.

John Wick of Dogs fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Aug 2, 2017

Call Me Charlie
Dec 3, 2005

by Smythe

Condiv posted:

eh, that's still a legit criticism. there's also the "gabbard meets with trump" stuff that gives me pause. but if we're comparing gabbard vs harris, i dunno how you would ever pick harris?

Meeting with Trump to try to be the voice of reason on Syria and our failed CIA program where we try to arm 'moderate' terrorists rebels shouldn't be a bad thing.

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


And another good dem throws her hat into the ring

quote:

I refuse to believe that most Americans (or even most Republicans) can look at today’s GOP and see their own values reflected in its erratic leader. But even though, as we Democrats are fond of repeating, our values are the values of the majority of Americans, Trump won because so many people stayed home. And why did they stay home? Because they didn’t really believe that we believed what we said we believed. And why should they, when we keep compromising and hedging?

Let’s not forget who the most reliable Democratic voters are—women of color, who are most likely to suffer the consequences of Democrats “compromising” on reproductive rights. Texas Latinas are twice as likely to be uninsured and lack healthcare access as white women in Texas, and nationwide, black women are four times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications as white women. And one more thing: Who has powered the resistance against Trump, and who will inevitably be the most motivated voters in the next election? Women. I was initially shocked to discover that my own resistance group, Daily Action, was 86 percent female, but it’s consistent with all the other data about the postelection landscape. We are the ones showing up and marching and placing calls and fighting to take back our country while our party heads fiddle.

It’s a truism to say that my state, Texas, isn’t a red state: It’s a nonvoting state. We consistently rank in the bottom five states in the country in voter turnout. Perhaps Texans, especially the Democrats among us, stay at home because they don’t have any clear sense of what we stand for. I have one idea of how to get more Democratic women to polling stations: Stand up for them. Let’s cut out the whimpering and stop reducing us to an “interest group.”

We are the base of the Democratic party, so let’s start talking about what happens in states like mine where reproductive rights have been attacked and eroded over and over and over again, and let’s start defending women’s rights to make their own decisions about their health and families. And let’s extend the principle of treating people decently—regardless of their sex, religion, race, or sexuality—and start talking to them like adults. It’s about time we had some of those in Washington.

The Ol Spicy Keychain
Jan 17, 2013

I MEPHISTO MY OWN ASSHOLE
e- wrong thread

JailTrump
Jul 14, 2017

by FactsAreUseless
Lujan made the right choice, probably influenced by the positions on the issue of his community.

call to action
Jun 10, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

This sounds like something Hillary would say, though.

Mecha Gojira
Jun 23, 2006

Jack Nissan
I don't think Hillary would ever accuse anyone in the DCCC of abandoning basic human rights.

Seriously, it's an entire piece about how the Democratic party abandoned its base - only paying lipservice to their causes while either hindering or actively harming them - and that this disconnect is why people don't vote for them. She isn't claiming the Democrats have a messaging problem, they have a policy problem.

Eggplant Squire
Aug 14, 2003


Frankly they have both but decent policy would help on the messaging side.

Call Me Charlie
Dec 3, 2005

by Smythe

JailTrump posted:

Lujan made the right choice, probably influenced by the positions on the issue of his community.

I'm conflicted. I agree with JailTrump...but JailTrump is literally wrong about everything...so am I wrong on this??? :negative:

quote:

After all, Luján’s assertion that there will be no “litmus test” for Democratic candidates who oppose abortion seems like the kind of big-tent cliché with which it is hard to disagree. “As we look at candidates across the country,” Luján said yesterday, “you need to make sure you have candidates that fit the district, that can win in these districts across America.”

(...)

So yes, we realize that we live in a huge and diverse country, and that our party is huge and diverse as well. We can acknowledge that there are anti-abortion Democrats, just as there are pro-choice Republicans (including the state rep who represents my Houston district).

nope. 'a broken clock is right twice a day'

You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth with, yes the party is huge and diverse and there are anti-abortion Democrats and pro-abortion Republicans...but we need a hardline litmus test on abortion regardless of area or situation.

Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 2, 2017

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


JailTrump posted:

Lujan made the right choice, probably influenced by the positions on the issue of his community.

disagreed. again, you centrists have a great time chasing the regressive right rightwards. we're gonna help people instead

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

C. Everett Koop posted:

All the people bitching about how we're in the worst timeline are loving stupid. Considering the circumstances of 2016 we're actually in the best case scenario:

-Abuela loses but is able to hide the fact that she owns slaves to a popular vote victory, meaning there's reason to for worthless children to bitch and whine that :qq: she'd have won if the rules were different :qq:. If she'd have narrowly squeaked it out Trump would still be disputing the election, meaning we'd have an illegitimate president given our systems.
-Due to that Trump comes in with historically low approval ratings for a new president, meaning there's no grace period nor any real mandate for the party to follow. The same would have been said for Abuela, but without full control of Congress the excuses would be flying out of everyone's mouth.
-Trump's ineffective for his first six months with no real policy wins and in-fighting among his staff. Damage is kept to a minimum, as opposed to what a Ted Cruz presidency could have looked like. Abuela would be the same way; we'd still be at eight Supremes and motions of impeachment would be coming out of the House on a weekly basis. It's also reasonable to assume that her Cabinet would mostly be unfilled as every nominee is shot down.
-The GOP wasn't prepared to actually have to try and overturn Obamacare and with the unexpected sweep in gov control had to rush to try and get something across the goal line, only to suffer a massive own goal instead that'll have ramifications down the line from the voters and more importantly the donors. Abuela in charge means Ryan/McConnell get to obstruct and kick the can down the road to 2020 (whether they're prepared by then is a whole other deal but they'd have a better shot at being prepared by then).
-An Abuela victory hides how worthless the centrist dems really are and gives them reason to shout down the leftists. Taking such a massive L means the dems can move to the left if they can stop being fundamentally worthless for just two seconds. It's the very definition of taking a painful short term loss for significant long term gains if only they're not the dumbest piles of poo poo in existence.


We're better off today with President Trump in charge and we have the potential to be significantly better off down the line. People who don't realize this are blind to reality and should be cast aside like the filth they are.

The people unironically agreeing with this, while simultaneously calling Kamala Harris a racist transphobe, while Trump dismantles affirmative action and bans trans people from the military.
:discourse:

Sneakster
Jul 13, 2017

by R. Guyovich

TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:

we say, as we buy our 9th iphone while eating mcdonalds and being the biggest consumers of any generation
I only have my Reagan-Food-Stamp phone though.
Can't raise taxes, women in the bag, and want them Trumpets. We need to be rational adults: we can't be having these purity tests over MUH ABORTION, cis women :rolleyes:

Cerebral Bore posted:

It's pretty funny to see the blatant double standards that the usual suspects deploy when it turns out that the next Great Centrist Hope is actually pretty bad on minority issues.
Fines are a great alternative to taxes, and can instill discipline. Plus DA's can benefit from it, and we can raise revenue from slave labor in prison instead of raising taxes.

Mister Facetious
Apr 21, 2007

I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

:canada:

Condiv posted:

And another good dem throws her hat into the ring

"If voters are given the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they’ll choose the real Republican every time."

:smugdon:

Sneakster
Jul 13, 2017

by R. Guyovich

JeffersonClay posted:

while Trump dismantles affirmative action and bans trans people from the military.
:discourse:
And polling better then your candidate. Don't forget that part.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

JeffersonClay posted:

bans trans people from the military.

Yea, this didn't actually happen, because the military is smart enough to realize Tweets aren't orders, so kindly gently caress off again.

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich
I bet Kamala Harris threatened to put parents guilty of child neglect in prison too, that racist!

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


JeffersonClay posted:

The people unironically agreeing with this, while simultaneously calling Kamala Harris a racist transphobe, while Trump dismantles affirmative action and bans trans people from the military.
:discourse:

which people are these? you're one of the only two people to have even acknowledged that post as far as i can see, so i guess you agree with it too?

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002

Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

JeffersonClay posted:

I bet Kamala Harris threatened to put parents guilty of child neglect in prison too, that racist!

That's one spicy take!

Sneakster
Jul 13, 2017

by R. Guyovich

JeffersonClay posted:

I bet Kamala Harris threatened to put parents guilty of child neglect in prison too, that racist!
I'm not saying you're human garbage, but you've created an amazing simulation of it.

Agnosticnixie
Jan 6, 2015

JeffersonClay posted:

The people unironically agreeing with this, while simultaneously calling Kamala Harris a racist transphobe, while Trump dismantles affirmative action and bans trans people from the military.
:discourse:

It's possible to hate both you disingenuous bourgie gently caress

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

WampaLord posted:

Yea, this didn't actually happen, because the military is smart enough to realize Tweets aren't orders, so kindly gently caress off again.

Oh right, he only tried to ban trans people from the military therefore it's totally irrelevant. Clearly you've got the interests of the trans community in the forefront of your mind.

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

JeffersonClay posted:

Oh right, he only tried to ban trans people from the military therefore it's totally irrelevant. Clearly you've got the interests of the trans community in the forefront of your mind.

Everyone sees through this tactic, JC.

Obviously it's bad that he even tried to do it, but you can't claim he actually did a thing when that thing didn't happen. Words mean things.

Trabisnikof
Dec 24, 2005

Even though I'm sure Moser will be wrong on some issues I'm glad she's running. I bet talking smack about the DCCC will help in the general in that district to be honest, so I can't fault her for doing it.

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


Trabisnikof posted:

Even though I'm sure Moser will be wrong on some issues I'm glad she's running. I bet talking smack about the DCCC will help in the general in that district to be honest, so I can't fault her for doing it.

the dccc deserves every bit of smack talking. we're talking about an org that threw millions at a candidate that couldn't outperform a name on a piece of paper and left every other dem out in the cold

The Ol Spicy Keychain
Jan 17, 2013

I MEPHISTO MY OWN ASSHOLE

JeffersonClay posted:

I bet Kamala Harris threatened to put parents guilty of child neglect in prison too, that racist!

Why do centrists love the police state so much?

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

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.

I think it makes more sense to care about gender in a broad sense (i.e. it's bad if women aren't proportionately represented among politicians), but when looking at a specific candidate it's secondary to their actual actions/policy (though being a member of a minority group might lend credibility to their support for policy that would benefit that minority group, assuming two candidates were the same otherwise).

The problem, at least among Democrats, stems more from women/minorities not becoming involved in the early steps towards becoming a politician than it does from voters saying "I like this candidate less because they're a woman/minority." So the issue is more that fewer women/minorities are given access to the career pipeline that leads to becoming a prominent politician (attending an elite school, getting elite jobs, making the necessary connections, etc) than it is that voters are saying "we want white men."

As a side note, this absolutely doesn't mean that Democratic voters aren't bigots. It's just that a bunch of Democrats are the sort of bigoted where they really like minority groups as long as they act in a way they approve of. Since politicians are generally educated, somewhat charismatic, talk in a "neutral" accent, etc, they're unlikely to face much push-back from your average Democratic voter (and if anything they might benefit from a white person's desire to express their "lack of racism/misogyny").

JeffersonClay
Jun 17, 2003

by R. Guyovich

Matt Zerella posted:

That's one spicy take!

What's the difference between willful neglect of your child's physical and emotional needs and willful neglect of your child's attendance at school?

Condiv posted:

which people are these? you're one of the only two people to have even acknowledged that post as far as i can see, so i guess you agree with it too?

It seems like there should be people calling it out if you think "Trump is better than a democrat" is so obviously wrong, and yet, as you say, only a couple of people talked about it, and they agreed.

readingatwork
Jan 8, 2009

Hello Fatty!


Fun Shoe

JeffersonClay posted:

I bet Kamala Harris threatened to put parents guilty of child neglect in prison too, that racist!

Have you considered that there may be reasons kids aren't able to make class other than bad parenting?

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


Scent of Worf posted:

Why do centrists love the police state so much?

just world theory

everyone who's in jail deserves it to them

everyone who gets killed by rabid cops deserved it

that's why hillary embraced all lives matter at first until she got backlash

Sneakster
Jul 13, 2017

by R. Guyovich

Scent of Worf posted:

Why do centrists love the police state so much?
The opportunity to rob the poor instead of raising taxes, you know, put their skin in the game.

Matt Zerella
Oct 7, 2002

Norris'es are back baby. It's good again. Awoouu (fox Howl)

JeffersonClay posted:

What's the difference between willful neglect of your child's physical and emotional needs and willful neglect of your child's attendance at school?

Even spicier!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mister Facetious
Apr 21, 2007

I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

:canada:

Scent of Worf posted:

Why do centrists love the police state so much?

Because centrist God King Bill Clinton won a second term by outdoing even Reagan on the issue in his callousness and melevolence.

  • Locked thread