|
"Oh Kucinich? Isn't he the guy who brought a pie chart to a radio debate once? Yeah, he seems like a lovable doof--" "WHY DO YOU RELISH IN THE DEATHS OF 1 MILLION IRAQIS, YOU MONSTER?!?!" "...what?"
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
twodot posted:Kucinich was backing Medicare for All back in 2007. GreyjoyBastard posted:also he brought a pie chart to a radio debate, what's not to like twodot posted:1) Opposed to wars
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Opposing civil unions was something even they didn't do. I'm not really convinced that's any better. People who oppose civil unions obviously believe in a bunch of stupid nonsense about gay people. But supporting civil unions yet opposing gay marriage means you know that all the rhetoric about gay people not being able to have to have meaningful relationships is all bullshit, so there's no reason to oppose gay marriage beyond "well gay people suck" E: "Okay black people can have the same legal benefits as whites but they can't call what they do 'marriage', just because" Trabisnikof posted:But agreed, they're all bad 2020 candidates. If the litmus test is "never opposed gay marriage once in their lives, ever, regardless of whether they changed their minds later" which candidates meet this purity test.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not really convinced that's any better. People who oppose civil unions obviously believe in a bunch of stupid nonsense about gay people. No the litmus test should be “didn’t oppose gay marriages in 2012.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No the litmus test should be “didn’t oppose gay marriages in 2012.” Why is that the magic number. Like if you opposed them in 2010 it's okay but there was a miraculous event in 2011 that turned all good liberals pro-gay and put the bad liberals on a one-year timer so you know they're bad, or what are you saying. E: Why not get even more specific, you can oppose gay marriage no later than 3:57pm EST February 3rd 2012. But you better not have opposed it at 3:58pm VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why is that the magic number. Well, when in your mind is it too late for the 2020 Democratic nominee to have used the phrase “homosexual extremists” is it 2016? 2008? 2000? You have to draw the line somehwere and the spineless political windsocks who were too scared to support gay marriage in 2012 are indicative of both an inability to see political changes underfoot and an unwillingness to stand up for their beliefs. Either should be disqualifying when our country needs such dramatic changes to survive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 06:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the litmus test is "never opposed gay marriage once in their lives, ever, regardless of whether they changed their minds later" which candidates meet this purity test. I think you can credibly argue Bernie meets this metric, at least as phrased (he didn’t support gay marriage officially until 2009 but never explicitly or implicitly opposed it as far as I can find). Also I think the radio pie chart joke was fair and didn’t denigrate Kuncinich. Like that’s a genuinely funny and harmless thing to do and makes him more relatable, at least to me?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:00
|
|
|
Kucinich is a weird name to see pop up since he's deader than a doornail in (national) politics and seems to have realized it himself, given that he's tried to take furtive steps to hop on the right-wing media gravy train.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Sulphagnist posted:Kucinich is a weird name to see pop up since he's deader than a doornail in (national) politics and seems to have realized it himself, given that he's tried to take furtive steps to hop on the right-wing media gravy train. From Wikipedia but with Sources posted:Syria and Bashar al-Assad Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
edit know what i already made my point, sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 08:46
|
|
|
So he stands with the Lion, so what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
he's smart enough to recognize the curse of assad is real
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 12:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think you can credibly argue Bernie meets this metric, at least as phrased (he didn’t support gay marriage officially until 2009 but never explicitly or implicitly opposed it as far as I can find). quote:In November 2000, just before Election Day, Mr. Sanders and the state’s two senators accompanied Robert T. Stafford, the 87-year-old Republican elder statesman, to a news conference where Mr. Stafford asked, “What is the harm?” in allowing gay unions. When it came time for Mr. Sanders to speak, he deplored the demonization of gay people but complained that the virulent opposition to civil unions diverted attention from prescription drug costs, health care and other economic issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:So he stands with the Lion, so what? My dude, what the gently caress is with you and Assad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think you can credibly argue Bernie meets this metric He might, but I don't think you should put too many eggs in the belief a man born in 1941 has always had perfectly modern views on gay rights. Even if he was sympathetic the whole time because he was always a good man that is a big ask for him personally to have come up with modern views on everything instantly at birth. He probably has at some point held less than modern beliefs on things that he later evolved his opinions on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:39
|
|
|
there's a difference between someone's views evolving and them only coming around to gay marriage because it's now politically ok. can you imagine a candidate saying they weren't supportive of interracial marriage until the 90s (it didn't have majority support until 30 years after it was made legal)?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:41
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:can you imagine a candidate saying they weren't supportive of interracial marriage until the 90s (it didn't have majority support until 30 years after it was made legal)? jesse helms was my senator at the time so yes, yes i can
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:48
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:https://twitter.com/zackstanton/status/1053392639943495685?s=21 The Lion did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:He did, in 2006, with his usual framing of "why are we worrying about civil rights when there are millionaires and billionaires still at large". He's generally been good on LGBT rights though. I stand corrected.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, when in your mind is it too late for the 2020 Democratic nominee to have used the phrase “homosexual extremists” is it 2016? 2008? 2000? But if they still hate the gays or are cowards in 2010 it's fine?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
I think we can all agree that the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is the second or third best choice for Dems in 2020 is a pretty damning indictment of the Democrat party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But if they still hate the gays or are cowards in 2010 it's fine? When do you think we should draw the line then? It’s weird that you seem like you’re trying to gotcha me about supporting people who used to hate homosexuals all in support of Gabbard who used to at least act like she hated homosexuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:there's a difference between someone's views evolving and them only coming around to gay marriage because it's now politically ok.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Assad utterly crushed his enemies and to deny this is delusion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:When do you think we should draw the line then? quote:It’s weird that you seem like you’re trying to gotcha me about supporting people who used to hate homosexuals all in support of Gabbard who used to at least act like she hated homosexuals. I don't know what's in any of their hearts, but me personally I have more respect for someone who started out a bigot, realized they were wrong, changed their ways, and started fighting on the right side than I do for someone who knew what was right all along yet fought against my civil rights anyway out of cynical career opportunism. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I think we can all agree that the fact that Tulsi Gabbard is the second or third best choice for Dems in 2020 is a pretty damning indictment of the Democrat party. i'm not at all sure we can all agree that Tulsi Gabbard is the second or third best choice for Dems in 2020 outside of tragically overobsessed politics junkies, i don't think you can even lean on the "but name recognition means she'll crush the lesser known hypothetical candidates!", because a good few even semi-engaged people would go "tulsi who?" the idea that you need connections with other established politicians is a better leg to stand on, but i sure ain't sold she's got a ton of chops on that either I'd tentatively vote for at least Gillibrand or Jerry Brown over Gabbard, for example, although I''m probably convinceable. Possibly Duckworth depending on where her platform wound up landing. (well, okay, the platform matters for all of them, but Gillibrand's been racing leftward since she moved from being a House Rep for a somewhat bad district to a Senator, and afaik Jerry Brown's pretty alright) Speaking of which, I think all three of those are pretty valid thread topics, so if anyone wants to opine about particular things that make them Good or Bad, that'd be cool. 
Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:no i'm genuinely sad that pramila jayapal isn't even eligible
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:26
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:i'm genuinely sad that pramila jayapal isn't even eligible I hadn't heard of her before. She seems at least a little cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I hadn't heard of her before. She seems at least a little cool. also I feel like I'm bringing this up whenever someone mentions Kucinich but he was a hardcore pro-lifer until 2004, so if Liz Warren being a republican in 1992 or whatever is disqualifying, that should be as well
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:outside of tragically overobsessed politics junkies, i don't think you can even lean on the "but name recognition means she'll crush the lesser known hypothetical candidates!", because a good few even semi-engaged people would go "tulsi who?" I don't think either of those matter. I supported Bernie in 2016 so clearly I didn't care about name recognition, and Donald Trump is president so clearly having support from the political establishment doesn't matter
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
What the gently caress does Duckworth have to offer. She's a Rahm crony through and through and no one from that network should be elevated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:i'm not at all sure we can all agree that Tulsi Gabbard is the second or third best choice for Dems in 2020 Duckworth at least should definitely be a hard no compared with Gabbard (since she has directly shown opposition to MfA and anyone who wasn't willing to back it that late into things can't be trusted), and Gillibrand is debatable on the basis of her being even less trustworthy than Gabbard in terms of reliably supporting something like MfA in the future (but depending on her actions could still end up preferable). But all of them except for Sanders still fall under the category of "people I wouldn't vote for in the general election since I don't live in a swing state." If I did live in a swing state, I would be deeply unhappy about voting for anyone remotely on the 2020 radar except for him, even though I would still do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I don't think either of those matter. I supported Bernie in 2016 so clearly I didn't care about name recognition, and Donald Trump is president so clearly having support from the political establishment doesn't matter I might not have been entirely clear with where I was going with that / may not have fully enunciated it early in the thread, so: Stating categorically that, say, Bernie-Warren-Gabbard in that order are the only acceptable candidates in a thread where there are like twenty possibilities in the OP (none of whom are Jerry Brown!) shows a lack of imagination regarding who might potentially run. The name recognition and back-scratching support are the two main reasons at this precise moment to disqualify people none of us huge politics nerds are remembering offhand, but Gabbard doesn't (necessarily) have those to any meaningful degree either, so saying Gabbard's a better candidate than Trotsky McSocialist (D-CA) or, I dunno, Ed Markey or something, is imo not a solidly established point. And therefore, I'm dubious even of "there are only two conceivable really good candidates", although Sanders and Warren do have a leg up on both those early-advantage factors. Oh Snapple! posted:What the gently caress does Duckworth have to offer. She's a Rahm crony through and through and no one from that network should be elevated. I am entirely convinceable to adjust my ranking on pretty much all of the possibilities mentioned so far (and imo so should everyone else be who isn't pretty comprehensively familiar with the people in question). Duckworth's going to keep coming up, so things like Ytlaya posted:Duckworth at least should definitely be a hard no compared with Gabbard (since she has directly shown opposition to MfA and anyone who wasn't willing to back it that late into things can't be trusted), and Gillibrand is debatable on the basis of her being even less trustworthy than Gabbard in terms of reliably supporting something like MfA in the future (but depending on her actions could still end up preferable). are welcome and good even if I have some disagreements with the rest of the post. edit: i am not endorsing ed markey at this time, i know nothing about him except that three minutes ago i googled 'most progressive senators' and he was in there, which is why i tossed him in as a "I have no idea who this guy is and he might be Good or Bad, and I bet there are people who might be Good who any given other poster doesn't remember either" Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:58
|
|
|
I assume support for Duckworth is based purely off being darkly curious what heinous poo poo Trump would say
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I might not have been entirely clear with where I was going with that / may not have fully enunciated it early in the thread, so: It doesn't matter who else might potentially run because the historical accident that allowed Bernie to be treated as a serious candidate is not going to be repeated. There was no one else for the talking heads to really talk about in 2016, this time around there's a million people to talk about and no need to ever give any air time to the hypothetical Trotsky McSocialist (D-CA).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk who cares. What people did in the past isn't important, what matters is what they will do in the future. Bob Byrd went from a KKK Grand Wizard to an A+ rating from the NAACP. "You can't know their hearts" is the last resort of scumbags, and gently caress you for willfully confusing cynical pandering with sincere conversion to polish that well-worn tool. It is not your place to seek or offer forgiveness for another. I remember "can't be bothered" and it is unforgivable that she and the administration she served under could not be bothered to uphold equal protection under the law because it might anger some stain upon the world. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:For the record there is also a difference between someone’s views evolving, and someone’s “views evolving” when they state it explicitly in those terms and it’s obviously triangulated poll-tested bullshit. Category A is forgivable. Obama was in category B and should never ever be forgiven for it. That too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:It doesn't matter who else might potentially run because the historical accident that allowed Bernie to be treated as a serious candidate is not going to be repeated. There was no one else for the talking heads to really talk about in 2016, this time around there's a million people to talk about and no need to ever give any air time to the hypothetical Trotsky McSocialist (D-CA). I disagree entirely with this assertion and not just because it means the thread would be hecka more boring. Even people who believe it, though, probably have interesting reasons why Gillibrand or Jerry Brown or *glances at list* this Hickenlooper guy are Bad other than that their names don't rhyme with Vernie Banders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Jerry Brown is a weird outlier in terms of his policy stances (really lovely in some ways but in others better than some on the left give him credit for) but the dude is two years older than Bernie, and that should be reason enough to not consider him
SousaphoneColossus fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Jerry Brown is a weird outlier in terms of his policy stances (really lovely in some ways but in others better than some on the left give him credit for) but the dude is two years older than Bernie, and that should be reason enough to not consider him Oh, I didn't realize that. Yeah, that'd pretty well do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Perfect. Make Brown his VP pick. Make Bern look younger by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 00:01
|
|
