|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Lightning Knight posted:Now see, it's not that I somehow do not understand this. It's just that my experience has been that of someone from a mixed face family living in a Republican district of an increasingly Republican state. The democrats deported my family, the only reason why you feel like Dems care about minorities is because you haven't been targeted yet.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
white sauce posted:The democrats deported my family, the only reason why you feel like Dems care about minorities is because you haven't been targeted yet. I don't have anything meaningful to say to this other than that I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:The cynic in me feels they 100% knew the Republicans would sabotage everything but didn't really want to shake things up as much as the public wanted so it was safer to just walk into Republican land mines and claim they couldn't do better. Obama getting his SCOTUS seat stolen I think probably shocked them a bit since they still felt that bipartisanship was somehow a thing and they wouldn't go THAT far but they were idiots to believe that. Didn't Obama let it get stolen? If I recall correctly, he had the option of a recess appointment, and deliberately ignored it in favor of publicly guilt tripping the GOP for "not being professional and doing their jobs" 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Didn't Obama let it get stolen? If I recall correctly, he had the option of a recess appointment, and deliberately ignored it in favor of publicly guilt tripping the GOP for "not being professional and doing their jobs" Recess appointments aren't permanent iirc, they needed the Republicans to play ball for something permanent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Now see, it's not that I somehow do not understand this. It's just that my experience has been that of someone from a mixed face family living in a Republican district of an increasingly Republican state. no disagreement. but if you expect centrist democrats to protect you from these people, as white sauce demonstrates, hoo loving boy do you have another thing coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:no disagreement. I increasingly do not, and I am increasingly unhappy with the party as it stands. I was just voicing my frustrating with McCloud's argument. It's one thing for "we can't or won't pass progressive legislation but we'll protect minorities, by making GBS threads on Republicans at every opportunity." It's another thing for them to pass up good opportunities to shiv Republicans and lick the blade. That's what frustrates me about Obama's first two years more than anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
McCloud posted:I'm not complaining about the leftists, I'm saying that there was a rationale behind the dems actions and strategy, and that if it wasn't sound at least there was some reasoning behind it. It didn't pan out for a multitude of reasons, but there's a lack of nuance on the topic, and especially around Obama, which is irksome. Dems have done a lot of good. Can they have done more? Yeah, sure. And them being pulled to the right along with the overton window is infuriating. I agree to all that. I think the assumption that most Democratic politicians (or Obama to use a specific example) actually have leftist beliefs but were forced to compromise is very, very wrong, and there's not really any evidence to support such an assumption in the first place. Obvious you can't dig into someone's head, but, at the very least, I see absolutely no reason to assume that Obama and other Democrats genuinely wanted to move to the left but just haven't been able to due to "political realities." Heck, Hillary explicitly said how she thinks the political center works best in a recent interview. (Obama also has some past quotes that strongly indicate he isn't actually left-leaning; I don't really feel like digging them up, but maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.) Even if you want to view things purely "pragmatically", there isn't really any benefit to assuming good will on the part of politicians unless they have a proven track record supporting such issues (Bernie is one of the very rare examples of this). Also, the idea that Americans independently hold beliefs that politicians (/media/etc) are all responding to is also nonsense and doesn't reflect reality. If Democratic politicians circa 2004 or something all started talking about how single-payer UHC was good and "a thing good liberals should support", you'd suddenly see liberal support for such a program skyrocket. Heck, we literally saw proof of this with Trump. Republican attitudes towards certain issues (like free trade) dramatically changed in response to Trump's rhetoric redefining what it means "to be a Republican/conservative." Generally speaking, the opinions people have are directly affected by the combination of what sort of person they identify as and what they see and hear from politicians and the media. Basically, as I mentioned before, your worldview is reliant upon a set of assumptions that don't really reflect reality. edit: Also, generally speaking, I'm pretty sure no one ever thinks "I have literally no reason for doing what I am doing and/or think what I'm doing is wrong!" Obviously the Democrats had some reason for thinking what they did was best (and I also have no doubt what they thought was "best" was heavily influenced by what happened to be best for them personally). It's just that what they thought was "best" actually totally wasn't and was, in fact, really bad! Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
even in Bernie's case, guy's very clearly willing to make his compromises on the regions he doesn't care about, noteworthy among which the vast majority of foreign policy and the military. wave hello, Vermont's little piece of the F-35 pie! in the universe where He Won (as He Would Have) he still touches the Orb, he probably launches the same perfunctory airstrikes on Syria, and we still launch a mini-surge in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:in the universe where He Won (as He Would Have) he still touches the Orb, he probably launches the same perfunctory airstrikes on Syria, and we still launch a mini-surge in Afghanistan. I think this is really uncharitable, I don't imagine he'd be great on foreign policy given his record (in comparison to what we need to change, not compared to previous presidents) but he wouldn't be in the same ballpark as Trump and I highly doubt he'd commit to any kind of surge. I'm gonna hold his attempt to dump waste in poor Hispanic communities against him until he apologizes though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think this is really uncharitable, I don't imagine he'd be great on foreign policy given his record (in comparison to what we need to change, not compared to previous presidents) but he wouldn't be in the same ballpark as Trump and I highly doubt he'd commit to any kind of surge. I mean, dems in general have been poo poo on this stuff. Or are we forgetting both hillary and obama being fine with the dapl going under the water source for native americans. Yeah, Bernie's got his weaknesses. He's bad on Israel, bad on war, etc. But he's the best choice we've had in a long time
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:I mean, dems in general have been poo poo on this stuff. Or are we forgetting both hillary and obama being fine with the dapl going under the water source for native americans. Oh I know. That just particularly annoys me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Didn't Obama let it get stolen? If I recall correctly, he had the option of a recess appointment, and deliberately ignored it in favor of publicly guilt tripping the GOP for "not being professional and doing their jobs" West Wing Brainworms / Decorum obsession exhibit a.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
The thing with Bernie is that I don't think anyone on the left fully subscribes to all his beliefs (which makes the whole thing about him getting his supporters to vote for Hillary even more annoying). Bernie himself was already a compromise by a lot of the left. But even with all his faults, he has probably had as big an impact on the democratic party as anyone within the party. The democratic establishment hasn't had to defend itself from the left in a long time, which has led both to the endless string of triangulation candidates from the democrats as well as the radicalization of the republican party (since they learned that the way to keep winning elections is to keep democrats moving further and further right as they try to triangulate). With Bernie, that has changed. No need to even bring up the current medicare for all proposals. Just look at how Clinton was clearly trying to run to the right of Obama on immigration and foreign issues: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1406/17/se.01.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/world/syria-exposes-split-between-obama-and-clinton.html?mcubz=0 She was clearly going to run as a lot more hawkish, a lot tougher on immigration and deporting minor children than she ended up doing, and it was because of Bernie. I think a lot of the unspoken resentment that comes through her new interviews regarding Bernie is that it's obvious that she clearly resents having to switch her strategy instead of being able to go full triangulation "bomb and deport" mode. Ytlaya posted:I think the assumption that most Democratic politicians (or Obama to use a specific example) actually have leftist beliefs but were forced to compromise is very, very wrong, and there's not really any evidence to support such an assumption in the first place. Obvious you can't dig into someone's head, but, at the very least, I see absolutely no reason to assume that Obama and other Democrats genuinely wanted to move to the left but just haven't been able to due to "political realities." Heck, Hillary explicitly said how she thinks the political center works best in a recent interview. (Obama also has some past quotes that strongly indicate he isn't actually left-leaning; I don't really feel like digging them up, but maybe someone else knows what I'm talking about.) Even if you want to view things purely "pragmatically", there isn't really any benefit to assuming good will on the part of politicians unless they have a proven track record supporting such issues (Bernie is one of the very rare examples of this). Actually, we can get really close to digging into someone's head. Again, the British election is exhibit 1a. Not only were Obama staffers working for May, but Obama himself clearly had a preference. And May's entire campaign focused precisely on being tough on immigration, tough on Muslims, rolling back the NHS and allowing more private insurers, and continued austerity. Obama was already out of office, as were his staffers. It was something with literally zero strategic considerations for them. We can safely assume that their support was based on sincerely held beliefs. joepinetree fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Yeah it's 100% clear that Hillary resents her most progressing platform in history and if she had been allowed to go scorched earth on Bernie while keeping her original vision she surely would have gotten all the upper middle class working professionals in the swing states.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:West Wing Brainworms / Decorum obsession exhibit a. I've never seen West Wing.  I am Canadian, so forgive me if I'm missing certain particulars of American government procedure. I learned most of it lurking in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:I've never seen West Wing. You're not missing anything. There are YouTube clips that are funny but the show overall is a waste of time. I think the only memorable scene I legitimately enjoyed was the one where they joke about invading Canada while the military guys awkwardly pretend to not actually have Canadian invasion plans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:I've never seen West Wing. No, I don't mean you, I mean Obama and Co. They're obsessed with this line of thought that the answer is always in the middle, politics is debate club, and always appear to completely respect the ideals of the founding fathers (there, now you've seen The West wing). It's complete garbage, and a lot of democrats worship it like it's real life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Is this the democrats thread that the Trump thread has banished primary chat to?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is this the democrats thread that the Trump thread has banished primary chat to? it's the one the whiners redirect people to yeah oddly enough, primary chat isn't a huge component of what goes on here, but people in the trump thread are allergic to discussing anything but how terrible republicans are
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's the one the whiners redirect people to yeah *Tim Allen confused grunt* edit: gently caress I didn't read the "but" there. Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:*Tim Allen confused grunt*  they definitely are terrible, but the dems need to improve a lot. this thread is for arguing about the democrats
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
the thread for arguing that trump is worse than andrew jackson is --->
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
the democratic party is a whale fall, and we're the hagfish trying to get up in them guts
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Recess appointments aren't permanent iirc, they needed the Republicans to play ball for something permanent. This is such a poo poo excuse. What was the worst the Republican's could respond with? You probably can't even find a total of five worse alternatives to Gorsuch for the Supreme Court. For the full duration of 2017, the time under which we could have had whoever Obama wanted to appoint, we get as close to the worst situation we could have all because Obama didn't want to push the issue a year out and snub the Republicans. And in a best case scenario the Republicans would have been so fractured under the Trump Presidency they wouldn't have been able to vote anyone else in and let Garland/whomever stay by default, which is basically the situation we're heading towards come Jan 2018 had Obama actually done it. nessin fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is this the democrats thread that the Trump thread has banished primary chat to? Kind of, sort of, but usually not really. The primaries usually come up as contextualization for the state of the party over the past eight years - the past several decades if you really want to dig - and understanding the spiritual crisis that has been lying dormant beneath this farcical 'end of history' era hell we're living in. It's also where Hillarybook gets posted so, uh, yes it's also primary chat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Kind of, sort of, but usually not really. The primaries usually come up as contextualization for the state of the party over the past eight years - the past several decades if you really want to dig - and understanding the spiritual crisis that has been lying dormant beneath this farcical 'end of history' era hell we're living in. i mean, hillarybook is concentrated primary chat so that's a bit unavoidable 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
thinking about closing this thread so the whiny people won't have a thread to whine people should go to anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
yeah hillary's garbage book basically thrust the civil war right back to the surface
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
I'm tired and misread you post, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I'm tired and misread you post, my bad. no problem
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:yeah hillary's garbage book basically thrust the civil war right back to the surface it will fade in time. she does persist in being astonishingly bad at misjudging the national mood/how to time things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
white sauce posted:The democrats deported my family, the only reason why you feel like Dems care about minorities is because you haven't been targeted yet. Remember that the Republicans consider freeing the slaves the biggest mistake they ever made. The democrats consider passing the Civil Rights Act their biggest mistake. If you're darker than flour, neither party is on your side.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thinking about closing this thread so the whiny people won't have a thread to whine people should go to anymore was a good idea for a thread, but i've found it hard to read for a while because there's so much personal bickering between people. not a good signal to noise ratio. i don't know how to counter that though when there's some pretty serious divisions in people's politics right now and you also don't want to make threads that censor other points of view. better luck in the next one i suppose
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:They're obsessed with this line of thought that the answer is always in the middle, politics is debate club, and always appear to completely respect the ideals of the founding fathers (there, now you've seen The West wing). It's complete garbage, and a lot of democrats worship it like it's real life. The best description I have for people's relationships to the West Wing is imagine if somebody watched all of John Woo's action movies and walked away thinking that the legit best way for police to fight crime was to give every cop two pistols and a license to start shooting "bad guys". Then started actually unironically incorporating this into their worldview and 100% sincerely voting with it as a standing principle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thinking about closing this thread so the whiny people won't have a thread to whine people should go to anymore Merge this thread with the trump thread without notifying the trump thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thinking about closing this thread so the whiny people won't have a thread to whine people should go to anymore I can see an argument for either option, I guess it's up to you. I still enjoy the thread, though. Also, if you kill it, the rule will just be "no primary chat ever"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I can see an argument for either option, I guess it's up to you. is it really a rule though? is there any actual mod decision that there's "no primary chat ever" where primary chat is whatever whiners get a hair up their rear end about that day? apparently discussing the GE is primary chat. also hillary's book. also hillary. can't talk about bernie either. nancy pelosi? only if you praise her
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
There needs to be a thread that is not quite the suck zone, not quite the trump thread. This one fulfills a niche that is important, as evidenced by the traffic it draws. If anything, it may need a refresh with a new OP and new rules against the most obvious trolling efforts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There needs to be a thread that is not quite the suck zone, not quite the trump thread. This one fulfills a niche that is important, as evidenced by the traffic it draws. If anything, it may need a refresh with a new OP and new rules against the most obvious trolling efforts. Nah, ya'll should just move over to the Suck Zone because it's a very good thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:07 |
|
|
The succ zone is good because it outsources serious flame wars to this thread. If you merge the two threads, the resulting product will sink to the level of the inferior one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 22:57
|
|