|
JeffersonClay posted:I, Jeffersonlay, hereby announce my intention to unseat senator Elizabeth Warren in the 2022 democratic senate primary. You would lose. You're a transparent sociopath.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Alright, I agree with that. lieberman was an example of dems acting to protect their coworker instead of doing what was right. all the extra benefits dems give incumbents is for the same reason, not for selecting the best candidate. if the incumbent is so good at winning elections they can surely win a fair primary with no problems. if they can't, they clearly aren't ready for the general
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Your argument is "since I saw stickers on a table, the party cannot be corrupt" which is predictably stupid coming from someone who has sufficient brain damage that they can't spell their own name. My argument is the only evidence of “rigging” in that tweet is the stickers, and we have no clue who put them there. Do you think this weird focus on spelling is making you look like the smart, well adjusted one here?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i don't think that the seat would've been lost to a republican if dems had supported the official dem candidate, so your question is moot. i'm not asking that they cede the seat to the republicans, i'm asking that the dem party not betray democratic candidates in favor of independents. by giving lieberman that promise, which he campaigned on, they gave him an edge against their own candidate! Look man, I was a volunteer for the Ned Lamont campaign back in 2006. I won't defend the way the national party treated Lamont. I will, however, defend making nice with Lieberman after he won because, however distasteful, it was justified by the end of giving the democrats control of the senate. I'll also defend the national party giving its support to Joe Manchin because he has a demonstrable edge in the general as an incumbent and his seat is very important to the goal of taking back the senate (which is very important for thousands of reasons). I assume that the left leaning candidate would lose in the general because it is probably true. None of this, by the way, is comparable to the national party favoring Hillary over Bernie because Hillary was not an incumbent. Do you think the party had an obligation to remain neutral in the primary contests between President Obama and his various whack-a-doodle primary challengers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Take back the Senate so the next round of people-killing welfare cuts gets to have a Democrat stamp on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:You would lose. You're a transparent sociopath. No poo poo I’d lose, you idiot, that’s not the point. The point is I can turbofuck Liz warren and the Massachusetts Democratic Party by announcing a primary challenge well in advance of the election. “Look! The corrupt democrat establishment is fundraising for and promoting my opponent! Chuck Schumer is saying nice things about her! It’s all rigged!” And then when I lose I can keep whining in perpetuity about how my campaign was sabotaged by the DNC, and morons like you will eat it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Look man, I was a volunteer for the Ned Lamont campaign back in 2006. I won't defend the way the national party treated Lamont. I will, however, defend making nice with Lieberman after he won because, however distasteful, it was justified by the end of giving the democrats control of the senate. I'll also defend the national party giving its support to Joe Manchin because he has a demonstrable edge in the general as an incumbent and his seat is very important to the goal of taking back the senate (which is very important for thousands of reasons). the issue isn't after he won though, no matter how much you want it to be. lieberman was given that gift before he won. he was able to campaign on that to his benefit. the voters were given the choice of rookie dem with no perks and limited ability to bring money back to the state, and lieberman with all his seniority and committee perks. that's a hugely stacked deck against their own official candidate quote:I assume that the left leaning candidate would lose in the general because it is probably true. yeah remember when the transgender death-metal band dem lost to the bathroom bill passing ultra republican? you're right, left-wing dems just can't win in republican areas quote:None of this, by the way, is comparable to the national party favoring Hillary over Bernie because Hillary was not an incumbent. Do you think the party had an obligation to remain neutral in the primary contests between President Obama and his various whack-a-doodle primary challengers? yes i do Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the issue isn't after he won though, no matter how much you want it to be. lieberman was given that gift before he won. he was able to campaign on that to his benefit. the voters were given the choice of rookie dem with no perks and limited ability to bring money back to the state, and lieberman with all his seniority and committee perks. that's a hugely stacked deck against their own official candidate Okay. That was bad. But knifing the winner of a state primary contest is one thing, doing routine fundraising for an incumbent before the contest is something else. quote:yeah remember when the transgender dem lost to the bathroom bill passing ultra republican. you're right, left-wing dems just can't win in republican areas Have a look at the partisan lean of that district and compare it to the partisan lean of West Virginia. quote:yes i do Condiv thinks that the democratic party had an obligation to remain neutral in the contests between President Obama and, among others, Vermin Supreme and a convicted felon. He is dumb. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
I'm deeply troubled by rumors of condiv's low intelligence and I demand he provide evidence to the contrary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Technically the party has no obligations, because it is a loving private Ponzi scheme, but it is not good for the OpTiCs to negate any elements of democratic structures within the party, regardless of whether they inconvenience the incumbent POTUS or a POTUS hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay. That was bad. But knifing the winner of a state primary contest is one thing, doing routine fundraising for an incumbent before the contest is something else. not really, they're both done in the name of protecting their buddies. lieberman was applauded by dems when he returned to the senate after abandoning his own party. the party loved him and the party loves manchin. and what they're doing is to protect him, not to have the strongest candidate for the general. if manchin's as strong as claimed, he should win a fair primary fairly easily quote:Have a look at the partisan lean of that district and compare it to the partisan lean of West Virginia. hmmm ok! *district had a ultra-right wing republican shithead as incumbent* oh i see yes that was an easy district to win quote:Condiv thinks that the democratic party had an obligation to remain neutral in the contests between President Obama and, among others, Vermin Supreme and a convicted felon. He is dumb. how's that dumb? what's the negative results of obama running in a fair primary in your twisted mind? Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how's that dumb? what's the negative results of obama running in a fair primary in your twisted mind? somebody could force him to take accountability for his flaws, thus making him more robust when facing Republican opponents not permissible the idea that mentioning and addressing the obvious flaws of a politician is always a liability, even if everybody is painfully aware of them, is a staple of lanyard politics
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:I'm deeply troubled by rumors of condiv's low intelligence and I demand he provide evidence to the contrary. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:My argument is the only evidence of “rigging” in that tweet is the stickers, and we have no clue who put them there. The fact that I'm not you really, really helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Christ. Does anyone not in their jurisdictions have any means of pressuring people like Schumer or Perez? In what way is Perez involved in this? The only connection I see is a seemingly random @dnc tag in the tweet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Christ. Does anyone not in their jurisdictions have any means of pressuring people like Schumer or Perez? Do you mean "Pelosi" instead of "Perez?" Are you a big donor or a union leader or someone with authority in party circles? The issue with Schumer is that New Yorkers like him. If you picked out a not-so-consistent Manhattan Democrat and asked him what kind of senator he'd like, Chuck Schumer probably checks all the boxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Your argument is "since I saw stickers on a table, the party cannot be corrupt" which is predictably stupid coming from someone who has sufficient brain damage that they can't spell their own name. That isn't remotely his argument, but I'm sure you already knew that. His argument is "stickers? from who?"But you can't answer that apparently. The idea that dems shouldn't support their sitting president against a primary challenger is absurd. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Nobody in New York likes New York politicians, we just vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I will, however, defend making nice with Lieberman after he won because, however distasteful, it was justified by the end of giving the democrats control of the senate. "Democrat control of the Senate" means nothing when the critical votes are held by Dems that vote like GOP. Nevvy Z posted:The idea that dems shouldn't support their sitting president against a primary challenger is absurd. The idea that a decent sitting president couldn't beat a primary challenger is absurd. You're literally protecting incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:That isn't remotely his argument, but I'm sure you already knew that. that you consider "i don't give a poo poo about corruption in the democratic party, therefore noone else should" not only to be an argument, but a non-laughable one, is a tragic state of affairs
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:that you consider "i don't give a poo poo about corruption in the democratic party, therefore noone else should" not only to be an argument, but a non-laughable one, is a tragic state of affairs Those corrupt stickers. Who put them there? Megaman's Jockstrap posted:"Democrat control of the Senate" means nothing when the critical votes are held by Dems that vote like GOP. You are right, better to let the Republicans pass their whole agenda. Better for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
If you convince yourself that the only form of corruption in the Dem party is stickers, it really seems like a minor issue. Also you are brain damaged.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Those corrupt stickers. Who put them there? congratulations on realizing your "corruption? meh" argument was totally untenable can we skip ahead to the part where you demand the leftists die for making you feel bad about your choices in hills to die on, I've always enjoyed that one
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You are right, better to let the Republicans pass their whole agenda. Better for everyone. Weird how you can only make arguments under the assumption that going left will absolutely, 100% of the time, result in a loss to the Republicans, and never in a victory that allows for positive change. It's almost as though you exclusively argue in bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:Weird how you can only make arguments under the assumption that going left will absolutely, 100% of the time, result in a loss to the Republicans, and never in a victory that allows for positive change. It's almost as though you exclusively argue in bad faith. Don't you realize, passing a leftist agenda would be even worse than a Republican agenda, because it would raise Nevvy's taxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No poo poo I’d lose, you idiot, that’s not the point. The point is I can turbofuck Liz warren and the Massachusetts Democratic Party by announcing a primary challenge well in advance of the election. “Look! The corrupt democrat establishment is fundraising for and promoting my opponent! Chuck Schumer is saying nice things about her! It’s all rigged!” And then when I lose I can keep whining in perpetuity about how my campaign was sabotaged by the DNC, and morons like you will eat it up. The fact you think you'd have any effect, rather then maybe get to attend a debate where you'd get laughed at. To me, is rather telling. Maybe you should talk to someone about that megalomania. Condiv, I am going to need to see you talk to another institution, till I believe you. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No poo poo I’d lose, you idiot, that’s not the point. The point is I can turbofuck Liz warren and the Massachusetts Democratic Party by announcing a primary challenge well in advance of the election. “Look! The corrupt democrat establishment is fundraising for and promoting my opponent! Chuck Schumer is saying nice things about her! It’s all rigged!” And then when I lose I can keep whining in perpetuity about how my campaign was sabotaged by the DNC, and morons like you will eat it up. Heh, so people who got screwed by the DNC death cult should shut up because of some hypothetical counterfactuals that live in your head? That is an argument straight from Milo's textbook.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
this... *puts on glasses* yeah. this checks out  I would ask forums poster ogmus to retract their libelous statement with haste
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You are right, better to let the Republicans pass their whole agenda. Better for everyone. I remember when the Blue Dogs stopped the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and the Telecom Immunity Act. Likewise I remember when the GOP got control of the entire federal government in 2017 and immediately repealed the ACA. This sort of fear-mongering isn't going to work anymore. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you convince yourself that the only form of corruption in the Dem party is stickers, it really seems like a minor issue. Also you are brain damaged. The current discussion, insofar as it deals with specifics, includes "what should the state or national parties be able to do regarding fundraising and other events during a primary season". In this particular quibble, it actually is somewhat important whether and how Manchin was included and his opponent was maybe excluded. The more she was excluded or he was favored BY THE PARTY STRUCTURE, the worse it is and the less justifiable it becomes. I actually relatedly give nearly zero shits about Schumer's endorsement because he has no obligation to be fair or nonpartisan. I give many, many more shits if the party apparatus was preferential.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:The current discussion, insofar as it deals with specifics, includes "what should the state or national parties be able to do regarding fundraising and other events during a primary season". In this particular quibble, it actually is somewhat important whether and how Manchin was included and his opponent was maybe excluded. Well, Clinton literally picked and chose party officials because she controlled the treasury... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Okay, so now we're at "there really is no difference between democrats and republicans anyway". Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay, so now we're at "there really is no difference between democrats and republicans anyway". Got it. Okay, so now we're at "the centrist throws a baby tantrum because people do not immediately buy into his reframing of the issue"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
Congrats!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
i don't see a verrit code sooooo... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:39
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, Clinton literally picked and chose party officials because she controlled the treasury... Yes, and I am decidedly not delighted about that or the circumstances that led to it (ie DNC and its consultant culture being a grifting shitshow). I am strongly in favor of reforming the national and state parties in sane, productive ways, and I pondered a sort of Fairness Doctrine measure in fundraising events during primaries a page or two ago to mitigate incumbent skew without crippling general election fundraising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:The current discussion, insofar as it deals with specifics, includes "what should the state or national parties be able to do regarding fundraising and other events during a primary season". In this particular quibble, it actually is somewhat important whether and how Manchin was included and his opponent was maybe excluded. This, and we don't know who put the stickers there. If it was the DNC, that's bad. If it was another group, meh. Assuming you accept the premise that the DNC has to be neutral. I like that idea, but I understand arguments against it. sirtommygunn posted:Weird how you can only make arguments under the assumption that going left will absolutely, 100% of the time, result in a loss to the Republicans, and never in a victory that allows for positive change. It's almost as though you exclusively argue in bad faith. Weird how you lost track of what we were talking about so you just started guessing.Unless you think kicking Lieberman off committees after he wins is somehow "going left". In which case... nonsense. Is the argument that that offer gave Lieberman a winning advantage? that's also a really dumb argument. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
drat, weak dodge there Nevvy. Try actually addressing the part where your argument completely falls apart without the assumption that supporting good policies automatically makes you lose elections. Oh, good edit, you can't address my actual post so you created a new one in your head to take down in its place. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:drat, weak dodge there Nevvy. Try actually addressing the part where your argument completely falls apart without the assumption that supporting good policies automatically makes you lose elections. Nah, your post was nonsense and stupid. Feel free to clarify if you think you had any point beyond lukewarm attempts at burns tho. No you are right giving the republicans a 50/50 chamber while they have the VP won't definitely give them power that was a bad assumption. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:No you are right giving the republicans a 50/50 chamber while they have the VP won't definitely give them power that was a bad assumption sirtommygunn posted:Oh, good edit, you can't address my actual post so you created a new one in your head to take down in its place. Twice in a row you not only dodge my post with insults but create an entirely different argument to shove in my mouth instead, bravo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:48
|
|