|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Sephyr posted:Oh, they do, if only because you have to be a contender to get donations and prestige in order to keep your operation going. Still pretty sure they can be a shell of an organization because "have you seen the other guys" and they really ran with that.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Calibanibal posted:hell, i mean, if verrit says so I didn't think "verrit" was an actual word, but https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verrit quote:third-person singular present active indicative of verrō https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verro#Latin quote:I scrape, sweep out or up, brush, scour, clean out. It's basically latin for "I cleanse", 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
The hell even is this site https://twitter.com/cd_hooks/status/904496429128876032
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Could be paid endorsement That whole site is run by former Hillary staffer Peter Daou.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Most humourous part of the "12% of Bernie voters went to Trump!" thing is that almost all of that 12% were Republican registered/aligned voters, mean Sanders had cross party appeal so lauded by the establisment Dems.Motto posted:The hell even is this site It's the new push to combat "False News". In that it's basically Propaganda that doesn't challenge them and they verify it it so. Trust them!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/verrit/status/884057831858720769
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:Most humourous part of the "12% of Bernie voters went to Trump!" thing is that almost all of that 12% were Republican registered/aligned voters, mean Sanders had cross party appeal so lauded by the establisment Dems. This is a very charitable reading. There's a lot of people who are still registered Democrats but who haven't voted Dem since Reagan, thanks to the realignment of the '60s-'80s, combined with people like those in this thread who went Bernie->Trump essentially to be accelerationist trolls. Not that Bernie (or any candidate in general) doesn't have "cross-party appeal." It's just that "cross-party appeal" is kind of a useless metric that isn't worth considering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:http://www.theroot.com/someone-tell-the-democrats-to-stop-acting-like-the-poli-1798709248 It speaks to the sheer dishonesty of Arceneaux that nowhere in his piece does he mention that most of the counter protesters in Charlottesville, including the woman who died, were either Bernie supporters or closer ideologically to Bernie than Hillary. It is also pretty telling that Bernie is somehow responsible for the 10% of his supporters who went for Trump, but Obama isn't responsible for the 11% of his supporters who went for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:It's basically latin for "I cleanse", Oh, nice. "Veni Vidi Verritt" - Accretionist, 2017 Kokoro Wish posted:Most humourous part of the "12% of Bernie voters went to Trump!" thing is that almost all of that 12% were Republican registered/aligned voters, mean Sanders had cross party appeal so lauded by the establisment Dems. Excuse me but could I have your 7-digit identifier for this, "fact?" Have they implemented pundit ID numbers yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It speaks to the sheer dishonesty of Arceneaux that nowhere in his piece does he mention that most of the counter protesters in Charlottesville, including the woman who died, were either Bernie supporters or closer ideologically to Bernie than Hillary. It is also pretty telling that Bernie is somehow responsible for the 10% of his supporters who went for Trump, but Obama isn't responsible for the 11% of his supporters who went for Trump. That's not really the part of the article I thought was interesting, but I was phone posting. You don't have to agree with him, I just think it's worth having black perspectives on "what are the problems with the Democratic Party" and "what is the way forward?" He poo poo on Pelosi and the Democratic establishment too. Edit: also, my understanding of his point was more so "the only thing that matters to me and many other black people is 'who is going to stand up to racism?', and also that you can go to any number of sources and find people making GBS threads on centrists dems, but from his perspective, Bernie's and his supporters' poo poo also stinks, so to speak. Again, you don't have to agree with him, but it's a different perspective that is still drawing the conclusion of "the party is broken and also too conservative." Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:That whole site is run by former Hillary staffer Peter Daou. Jesus he is Actually Insane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
I would like to point out I am arguing in good faith, I'm not comfortable with my views, and this is one of the few times an argument has the capacity to change someones mind.Falstaff posted:Hmm, did Peachfarts phrase things in such a way that resonated such that it made you feel uncomfortable with yourself? Cerebral Bore posted:Pretty hosed up that women who've had to have a hysterectomy aren't considered to be of the female sex anymore. Peachfart posted:Are trans men actual men in your view? This is the fundamental problem. A meaningless platitude about treating people properly cannot function as a legal frame work. I can say say a bunch of disingenuous mealy mouthed poo poo about how people should be treated, but in terms of how I think the law should recognize them, no. Jizz Festival posted: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. Undermining women's right's by refusing them the right to association and distinct legal identity (they can "skirt the law", what the gently caress is wrong with you?) is not acceptable. You equivocated women's rights to white supremacy, do you have that much contempt for them, or just think cis men need to help guide them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/904503594132668417
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Women's subjugation is absolutely unique to birth control and interpersonal violence in ways that make this analogy so fundamentally broken that I'm going to assume you're desperate to paint feminism as racism as a knee jerk reaction because you didn't think your argument out at all, and I mean that respectfully. But you can establish your very own TERF Treehouse Club, or any other trans-exclusionary space. You just can't define it as a women's space, and then exclude some women from it. The goal of this rhetoric is solely to force people to accept your terms that trans women aren't women from the beginning and then argue from that position, forcing them to concede the basic argument at the very beginning of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
That site does seem pretty dumb. It would be better to try to court bernie voters. Considering Trump just ended DACA and has put 800,000 people at risk, though, it kind of outweighs it. Like, I can't get mad because, even if she basically tweeted "all berniebros must die" today, it would still be less bad than threatening the livelihood of 800,000 people. I bet this is what Fox News will focus on tomorrow to avoid talking about DACA repeal, though, so expect it in the news cycle. Whenever HRC does something post-2016, Fox News usually uses it to cover over Trump's most recent atrocity. It is good for a laugh, though, as this does mean she is probably going to try to run again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/904507332687736832 Site's getting heavy traffic, and instead of apologizing for the downtime, he's already claiming to be a victim Jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:"Vote for us because we don't have an R next to our names, therefore we deserve all your votes" Dems now polling 10 points ahead of Republicans on congressional ballot. What will this thread's spin be if they manage to flip the House?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Dems now polling 10 points ahead of Republicans on congressional ballot. It's not the House where they're gonna have a bad time, it's the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Considering the congressional majorities, how would the democrats best oppose DACA repeal? They need a veto proof majority to stop it. I feel such things are impossible without public support. So, they might go the symbolic route and hope that protests can sway some Rs. Considering Trump's influence, I feel many Rs would be afraid of turning against Trump to protect DACA. However, the Dems have an ace up their sleave: the Rs need a veto-proof majority for the budget and they know the HFC and senate Rs won't play ball with each other. So, the dems can make this and Obamacare one of their "pass this or the gov't shut down on your watch" demands. However, Dems have not been know for such audacity, but it could work. I suppose we will see. I imagine, considering the large number of people effected and the population effected being loyal blue dogs, that they will definitely be willing to go symbolic, at the least, and consider it in budge negotiations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Dems now polling 10 points ahead of Republicans on congressional ballot. Hell, if there's a miracle/Trump pulls off a self-inflicted recession and the Democrats take the Senate, what will the spin be?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
William Contraalto posted:But you can establish your very own TERF Treehouse Club, or any other trans-exclusionary space. You just can't define it as a women's space, and then exclude some women from it. The goal of this rhetoric is solely to force people to accept your terms that trans women aren't women from the beginning and then argue from that position, forcing them to concede the basic argument at the very beginning of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:It speaks to the sheer dishonesty of Arceneaux that nowhere in his piece does he mention that most of the counter protesters in Charlottesville, including the woman who died, were either Bernie supporters or closer ideologically to Bernie than Hillary. It is also pretty telling that Bernie is somehow responsible for the 10% of his supporters who went for Trump, but Obama isn't responsible for the 11% of his supporters who went for Trump. This is true, but Arceneaux is also correct in his thesis, as much as it galls me to admit it. Sanders didn't think he was going to be running anything more than a single-issue "vanity campaign," intent on dragging Clinton to the left. He didn't tweak his economically populist message to speak specifically to minority primary voters until the Clinton campaign had successfully bludgeoned him over it. Once he did course-correct, he did so pretty well, but by then it was too late. You only get to make one first impression, at least per election cycle. I'm pleased to see that Arceneaux thinks that Warren is communicating more successfully to POCs, because I think she is too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It's not the House where they're gonna have a bad time, it's the Senate. Structurally that's almost unavoidable with the number of seats they need to defend and they could still break even or even pick up a Senate seat. If Democrats under Pelosi take the House, I think this thread will collectively set its hair on fire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Women's subjugation is absolutely unique to birth control and interpersonal violence in ways that make this analogy so fundamentally broken that I'm going to assume you're desperate to paint feminism as racism as a knee jerk reaction because you didn't think your argument out at all, and I mean that respectfully. It's not undermining their rights in any meaningful way. By "skirt the law" I mean that if the rights of trans people are recognized (so they can't be fired, denied services/housing etc.) there are plenty of ways to set things up so you can have cis-women only spaces if you really want them. Recognizing the rights of trans people won't make it impossible for women to exclude trans women from some dumb private club if that's what they want to waste their time doing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:And women's shelters and cis lesbians right to exist and associate? Well, if you seriously believe that the existence of trans lesbians is genocidal violence, I would suggest going outside, looking at the flowers, breathing the fresh air.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Also nobody is going to force lesbians to date trans women. This is the dumbest poo poo and I think you've got a real weird view of the world, sneakster.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Hey "smart guys" what if you are proved wrong? huh? What then? You would look preetty ridiculous in that scenario wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Centrist Dems winning pity seats because Trump hosed up so bad is not a great endorsement of Dems but rather like stumbling into success. Pretty sure their policy prescriptions aren't going to suddenly be less bad, though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
If transgenderism is genocide, i welcome it. They are a proud, noble and gentle people. They will be the stewards this world needs. May cis-kind be a forgotten relic of a more brutish age
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:If transgenderism is genocide, i welcome it. They are a proud, noble and gentle people. They will be the stewards this world needs. May cis-kind be a forgotten relic of a more brutish age Counterexample: Caitlyn Jenner. (that said, yeah, every trans person I know is pretty much the best)
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's not really the part of the article I thought was interesting, but I was phone posting. I would be very, very weary of treating the root as representative of "black perspectives." It's a gizmodo (former gawker) website and the politics part is run by a democratic political consultant. It's a "black perspective" in exactly the same sense that jezebel is a woman's perspective. Additionally, the author of the article is a gossip columnist who occasionally writes articles bashing Trump and bashing Sanders in almost equal proportion: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/michael-arceneaux https://kinja.com/michael-arceneaux And is in general completely dishonest about doing it. In particular, the point that he tries to make about Bernie and race has been consistently debunked. Not only is Bernie the most popular politician among people of color, not only are Bernie's policies disproportionately more likely to benefit minorities. So the entire premise that he bases his criticism of Sanders is false. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Sep 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattbruenig/status/904512539240878080 Imagine getting dunked on by Olbermann.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I would be very, very weary of treating the root as representative of "black perspectives." It's a gizmodo (former gawker) website and the politics part is run by a democratic political consultant. It's a "black perspective" in exactly the same sense that jezebel is a woman's perspective. Additionally, the author of the article is a gossip columnist who occasionally writes articles bashing Trump and bashing Sanders in almost equal proportion: Well, but he still trailed behind Clinton pretty decisively among PoC primary voters. A big part of that was ratfucking from her campaign and the media, but I think it's fair to say that there are lessons to be learned from the Sanders campaign on how best to reach out to PoC voters. Arceneaux is a dishonest, pearl-clutching centrist shitlord, though, you'll get no arguments from me on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:It's not undermining their rights in any meaningful way. By "skirt the law" I mean that if the rights of trans people are recognized (so they can't be fired, denied services/housing etc.) there are plenty of ways to set things up so you can have cis-women only spaces if you really want them. Recognizing the rights of trans people won't make it impossible for women to exclude trans women from some dumb private club if that's what they want to waste their time doing. William Contraalto posted:Well, if you seriously believe that the existence of trans lesbians is genocidal violence, I would suggest going outside, looking at the flowers, breathing the fresh air. Neither of these address the right of cis lesbians right to association and legal existence, or women's shelters, or women's right to association. You're literally calling for the establishment of women's legal existence to supplant cis men's right to their spaces. If people want to discriminate against trans gendered people, they'll still find a way, even if you managed to dismantle women's rights in the mean time. Arguing that some clandestine illegal discrimination might have be done for the sake of dismantling half the population legal right to exist and associate is insane. You're downplaying it because you aren't considering the ramifications. I would like trans people to have legal protections and rights, but I can't conceive of any legal framework that protects them in a way that doesn't equate to effectively dismantling women's rights for mostly a subset of men. If its effectively one or or the other I'm not comfortable with sacrificing women's rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is true, but Arceneaux is also correct in his thesis, as much as it galls me to admit it. Sanders didn't think he was going to be running anything more than a single-issue "vanity campaign," intent on dragging Clinton to the left. He didn't tweak his economically populist message to speak specifically to minority primary voters until the Clinton campaign had successfully bludgeoned him over it. Once he did course-correct, he did so pretty well, but by then it was too late. You only get to make one first impression, at least per election cycle. I'm pleased to see that Arceneaux thinks that Warren is communicating more successfully to POCs, because I think she is too. Agreed. It's worth remembering that every campaign goes through adjustments and changes, though; they don't spring fully-formed from the forehead of Zeus. Obama was smart to shift his tone when the Financial Crisis hit and when oil prices exploded due to speculation. I still don't know if Hillary was right or wrong to bring up the Deplorables in a speech. And of course, there is always the issue of whether the narrative will even acknowledge your stance on an issue, no matter if it's been there from the start or if it's a course correction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is true, but Arceneaux is also correct in his thesis, as much as it galls me to admit it. Sanders didn't think he was going to be running anything more than a single-issue "vanity campaign," intent on dragging Clinton to the left. He didn't tweak his economically populist message to speak specifically to minority primary voters until the Clinton campaign had successfully bludgeoned him over it. Once he did course-correct, he did so pretty well, but by then it was too late. You only get to make one first impression, at least per election cycle. I'm pleased to see that Arceneaux thinks that Warren is communicating more successfully to POCs, because I think she is too. Apparently you can make more than one first impression, because Bernie is the most popular politician in office among all minority groups. Not to mention that in the campaign age was a more significant factor than race (so called millenials of color were evenly split between Bernie and Hillary, older ones went heavily for Hillary).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but he still trailed behind Clinton pretty decisively among PoC primary voters. A big part of that was ratfucking from her campaign and the media, but I think it's fair to say that there are lessons to be learned from the Sanders campaign on how best to reach out to PoC voters. Calibanibal posted:If transgenderism is genocide, i welcome it. They are a proud, noble and gentle people. They will be the stewards this world needs. May cis-kind be a forgotten relic of a more brutish age
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Sneakster posted:Neither of these address the right of cis lesbians right to association and legal existence, or women's shelters, or women's right to association. You're literally calling for the establishment of women's legal existence to supplant cis men's right to their spaces. If people want to discriminate against trans gendered people, they'll still find a way, even if you managed to dismantle women's rights in the mean time. It's pretty simple. You and all the hateful people can self-segregate away into random basement meetings and hooking up with neo-Nazis, but you can't enforce your beliefs about who constitutes a woman on the rest of humanity. You also can't do this while serving the public, so you can't conspire to murder all trans people by taking over shelters and support groups. I guess if you believed that freedom of association extended to murdering people you don't like, you might believe this to be true, which explains very well why "leftist" transphobes cozy up to fascists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Sephyr posted:Agreed. It's worth remembering that every campaign goes through adjustments and changes, though; they don't spring fully-formed from the forehead of Zeus. Obama was smart to shift his tone when the Financial Crisis hit and when oil prices exploded due to speculation. I still don't know if Hillary was right or wrong to bring up the Deplorables in a speech. It was a pretty bad move on the whole, imo. If she had run a populist campaign, and then said, "But hey, guess what? A lot of Trump's supporters are white supremacists, and we're not going to get their votes, and we don't want their votes," that would have been one thing. But she ran a distinctly non-populist campaign, and said what she did, and that just kind of made it look like she was pooh-poohing the working class as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:00 |
|
|
Sneakster posted:Neither of these address the right of cis lesbians right to association and legal existence, or women's shelters, or women's right to association. You're literally calling for the establishment of women's legal existence to supplant cis men's right to their spaces. If people want to discriminate against trans gendered people, they'll still find a way, even if you managed to dismantle women's rights in the mean time. I read this and my takeaway is that you're incapable of expressing yourself coherently. Obviously people will still discriminate against trans people, but giving them legal rights gives them the standing to challenge that discrimination in court. What you haven't shown is how this will be used to somehow dismantle women's rights. The only "right" it would dismantle would be the right to exclude trans people from public life. Private TERF clubs and whatnot are not a part of that, neither is the dating lives of lesbians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2017 02:36
|
|