|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Hmm, did Peachfarts phrase things in such a way that resonated such that it made you feel uncomfortable with yourself?
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Not to distract from this really good conversation, but I got a question about the Democrats. What would they do if Trump isn't president in 2018? If he resigns or dies or something, what then?If Democrats can't run under the message "Trump is bad" what would their message be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Presence of a womb, whatever. Pretend I used whatever proper word salad to avoid triggering histrionic narcissistic rage. Male right to intrude on female spaces is more fundamental than even female physical autonomy. The liberal ouroboros has eaten itself. Its so beautiful. Lightning Knight posted:Women's rights aren't racism, women trying to exclude other women (because transgender women are women) is transphobia, however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Not to distract from this really good conversation, but I got a question about the Democrats. What would they do if Trump isn't president in 2018? If he resigns or dies or something, what then?If Democrats can't run under the message "Trump is bad" what would their message be? Trump isn't going to resign, or be impeached. That said, they'd probably try and run against the Republican Congress, which is also super unpopular. In practice, not much would likely change, it would likely not work as well however.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Not to distract from this really good conversation, but I got a question about the Democrats. What would they do if Trump isn't president in 2018? If he resigns or dies or something, what then?If Democrats can't run under the message "Trump is bad" what would their message be? They're going to lose regardless of who's president
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:They're going to lose regardless of who's president Oh sure, at this point I genuinely doubt that Democrats even want to be in power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Not to distract from this really good conversation, but I got a question about the Democrats. What would they do if Trump isn't president in 2018? If he resigns or dies or something, what then?If Democrats can't run under the message "Trump is bad" what would their message be? "Vote for us because we don't have an R next to our names, therefore we deserve all your votes" *gets smashed by Republicans who actually do the lovely things their base wants them to*
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Not to distract from this really good conversation, but I got a question about the Democrats. What would they do if Trump isn't president in 2018? If he resigns or dies or something, what then?If Democrats can't run under the message "Trump is bad" what would their message be? Your first mistake was assuming that the dems are going to have a plan. Seriously though, it depends on whether the bad dems still keep their rictus grip on the party or not. If yes then it doesn't look good, if no then there's a shot at huge gains. Sneakster posted:Presence of a womb, whatever. Pretend I used whatever proper word salad to avoid triggering histrionic narcissistic rage. Pretty hosed up that women who've had to have a hysterectomy aren't considered to be of the female sex anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Presence of a womb, whatever. Pretend I used whatever proper word salad to avoid triggering histrionic narcissistic rage. Are trans men actual men in your view?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
I suggest you folks just use the ignore feature like I did, considering they're just trolling
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Known a few Trans peeps and they've said the same thing when it comes to trans rights. It has it's own uniques set of challenges and can't be just connected to men's or women's rights. Alot of people here talking like it's only male > female trans. There's female > male too and they stand in solidarity together. vvv: Once they make the transition (if they so choose, there are trans folks that don't transition), alot of women's right groups don't recognise them as women still. That's also part of the trans groups' fights. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Sep 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Known a few Trans peeps and they've said the same thing when it comes to trans rights. It has it's own uniques set of challenges and can't be just connected to men's or women's rights. Alot of people here talking like it's only male > female trans. There's female > male too and they stand in solidarity together. Yes, but the notion that rights of transgender people are mutually exclusive with women's rights is disengenous and stupid. They're complimentary, not adversarial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Oh sure, at this point I genuinely doubt that Democrats even want to be in power. Oh, make no mistake, they absolutely want to retain power... But their ultimate focus is power within the party, and if they have to sacrifice their chances of achieving meaningful power within government in order to retain that, then that's just the price they have to pay. This isn't unique to the Dems, it's what you'll find with liberals in parties all over the world. To be fair, many leftists aren't much different. While plenty of leftists are willing to sacrifice their ideals in the name of electability and compromise, many would rather build up a genuine left alternative to the status quo even if it costs whatever party they theoretically belong to seats, because they take the longer view of things (socialism or barbarism). Whether or not the latter group is growing within the West remains to be seen, but historically centrist libs have depended on the former type of leftists to get elected (because the alternative is worse.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
It makes sense for leftists to want to turn against the alliance with liberalism as it's fundamentally not a compassionate ideology. It's straight up not compatible with any leftist ideology in the long term and you'll never be able to create any truly good society while allied to liberals. Trick is you need them until the left is strong enough to go it alone, but simply allying with the liberals makes it harder to grow the left. I think we're going to have to step up to permanent uneasy alliance mode and constant infighting if the left ever wants a chance to change society. The liberals complain about leftist circular firing squads and purity tests but more and more I'm thinking that's just liberal wank, and the left actually thrives off of the debating and jostling for ascendance amongst itself, provided it's still also trying to be effective at the same time. You need passion to grow the left. How can you have passion if you're playing the polite non-confrontational game the liberals want? I think turning away from that is the solution, rather than breaking away from liberals entirely. Just don't play their game while we use them to stave off conservatives and try to grow the movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
http://www.theroot.com/someone-tell-the-democrats-to-stop-acting-like-the-poli-1798709248
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:The female sex has the right to association, even to the point of excluding trans women. If they do not have this right, they have no rights, and if trans women have no right to female spaces, they have no rights. It does not appear there is a resolution to this legal and moral paradox without dissolving the legal rights of the female sex, or trans women. This is ridiculous. As peachfart pointed out, you can apply this same reasoning to ethnic or any other sort of grouping. If some women really want to exclude trans women from their women-only spaces or whatever, there are plenty of ways to skirt the law, just as white racist groups find ways to create whites-only spaces. It's the dumbest possible reason to oppose the rights of trans people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Oh sure, at this point I genuinely doubt that Democrats even want to be in power. Being on the pay-roll of the losing organization is way better than winning and things changing
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
To clarify, the point of having legal rights for trans people is so they can't be fired or denied an apartment or denied services just for being trans. It's not so trans women can infiltrate TERF meetings or whatever the gently caress you think is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:http://www.theroot.com/someone-tell-the-democrats-to-stop-acting-like-the-poli-1798709248 This is pretty rich, whining that it's the Bernie wing of the Dems that are really responsible for the party's limp-wristed response to Charlottesville. That said, the Dems could do a lot worse than unite behind Warren pushing a Jesse Jackson-style messaging platform.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
I'd be behind just about any candidate who actually talked about the things that are bad about the country in specific terms and promised to do specific things to fix those wrongs. But nope gotta peddle that "hope" and "change" and other words you don't have to convert into actual policy. Wouldn't want to offend all those donors who are way more important than their constituency. Also something something yucky poors something something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Being on the pay-roll of the losing organization is way better than winning and things changing You can certainly make the argument there is more money to make losing and keeping patrons and lobbyists happy then by pissing them off with trying to do anything different. The Democrats really are a hollow shell of a party that only exists due to the fact official one-party state under the GOP would too unstable to manage the country effectively. (Sort of like the Potemkin opposition parties that existed parts of Latin America during the 1970/80s.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
If the Democrats are smart, they'll strike a deal between their corporate donors that they keep getting their bribe money as long as they continue to suppress any left-leaning progress from ever happening on any level in the country. They're legally allowed to rig their primaries and even admitted to it at this point, what do they have to gain from doing anything else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:This is pretty rich, whining that it's the Bernie wing of the Dems that are really responsible for the party's limp-wristed response to Charlottesville. I don't really think that he was saying Bernie is responsible for it. Just highlighting that from his perspective, Bernie has a different set of problems. It's just a different take on "the Dems are incompetent" than "we need to focus on white blue collar Midwesterners."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Trevor Noah's terrible take on the shooting of protesters went well beyond that one comedy bit: https://twitter.com/That_Edward/status/904487548260679680
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/904484186291089408
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
I take it back, she's totally gonna run again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
What a useless goddamn website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Could be paid endorsement
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Could be paid endorsement Click the link. It's basically "hey, come talk to other people who are mad Hillary lost." Also with a specific shoutout to the hashtag "still with her."
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
quote:Hillary Clinton faced relentless vilification, imbalanced media coverage, and foreign propaganda, yet still attracted more votes than any presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama in 2008. Just lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Click the link. It's basically "hey, come talk to other people who are mad Hillary lost." Also with a specific shoutout to the hashtag "still with her." #stilldoesnthaveberniesmailinglist
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
100% of political emails are spam and garbage, whether they're from the DNC or Bernie. It's always some variation of "bad thing happened, can you donate to us so we can vaguely attempt to address bad thing?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Oh my god https://verrit.com/bernie-sanders-and-the-mainstream-media-helped-put-trump-in-the-white-house/ quote:As it became clearer Clinton would win the nomination, Sanders riled up his supporters further instead of dialing back the attacks. His team talked of a “rigged” primary and expressed open antipathy toward the DNC. All while knowing Donald Trump was the likely Republican nominee. When a person of Trump’s temperament and worldview is anywhere near the presidency, all comparisons with previous cycles are moot. Self-interest and personal ambition must be set aside for the greater good. Lamentably, that’s not what Bernie Sanders chose to do. Someone pay her to go away
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
I don't have as much of an axe to grind with social media as some on SA do, but seeing an article like that plastered with Daou's own tweets is loving embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Oh sure, at this point I genuinely doubt that Democrats even want to be in power. Oh, they do, if only because you have to be a contender to get donations and prestige in order to keep your operation going. Our blessed ruling class did not get so hideously rich wasting cash on perpetual losers. The party just wants the power without any onus of actually delivering most of the things that keep a voting block going: benefits, education, health, social advancement, security. Any measure that makes real advances have been deemed impossible by the Serious People except in the most incremental, lateral approach, and even then you better be happy with spending two dollars on bribing existing power structures for every buck that goes toward service to a poor/brown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Our blessed ruling class did not get so hideously rich wasting cash on perpetual losers. The problem is that that's how you buy stability. But nope, got to be ideological about sticking it to the poor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
The concept of democracy helped put Trump in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The concept of democracy helped put Trump in the White House. And what would you do about this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
EugeneJ posted:
hell, i mean, if verrit says so
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:24
|
|
