|
ChairMaster posted:If Bernie is the only candidate then he's the only candidate, and others will have to be made out of younger people in the 4-8 years he has as president. It would be excellent if there was an alternative to take his place, but so far the only ones that compare to him are too young to run or older than he is. because a ten year record, while less nice than a forty year record, ain't nothing
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
ChairMaster posted:If Bernie is the only candidate then he's the only candidate, and others will have to be made out of younger people in the 4-8 years he has as president. It would be excellent if there was an alternative to take his place, but so far the only ones that compare to him are too young to run or older than he is. Obama touted bipartisanship and unity ad nauseam as pillars of his 2008 platform. He gave no indication that he would push aggressively for left-wing reforms. Gillibrand has at least engaged in some "gently caress Trump" rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
I cannot imagine any circumstance in which I'd vote for someone who wanted to imprison the parents of truant children. I'd sooner spoil my ballot, and I'm far from the only one. That single issue alone is enough to make her completely unacceptable, even without taking into account all the other horrible poo poo about her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:I see you've already moved the goalposts from "the Harvard law professor was a dilettante" and "she was pretending to be a Person of Color." Not really, I don't pretend to know what was in her mind as a 48 year old Republican on the Harvard faculty, dilettante seems like a kinder reading then someone who was a heartfelt devotee of the Party of Reagan and Gingrich. You're the one trying to have it both ways on her being a woman of of substance and principle who was simultaneously not responsible for her actions or beliefs. ChairMaster posted:Why should young people trust Gillibrand to not pull an Obama and gently caress everyone over again?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Obama touted bipartisanship and unity ad nauseam as pillars of his 2008 platform. He gave no indication that he would push aggressively for left-wing reforms. Gillibrand has at least engaged in some "gently caress Trump" rhetoric He can say whatever he wants because he's charismatic enough to get away with it. He had millions of people believing that he actually believed in change, ala his slogan "hope and change" repeated ad nauseum. Turns out Obama doesn't actually believe in anything and ran the same conservative government that every other president does. It's not good enough anymore. GreyjoyBastard posted:because a ten year record, while less nice than a forty year record, ain't nothing It's nothing as long as she supports apartheid and loves the NRA. She bends and moves with the winds, she has no principles. You can't expose the country to a politician with principles, a genuinely good person, and then give them another establishment piece of poo poo and expect them to be okay with it. It's not good enough anymore. DynamicSloth posted:I don't but I don't believe the Presidency is enough on it's own anyway. Even a Bernie in the White House isn't enough if there isn't a movement outside the White House to pressure the President on the left. The president is incredibly powerful as far as influence and support of the voters goes, and Sanders (or preferably someone even better) could definitely drag the Democrats to the left. People loving love him, and those same people are making progress on a smaller scale and electing people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to kick out the establishment ghouls and try to make the Democrats something respectable and worth electing. This is happening directly in the face of overwhelming powers trying to prevent it at all costs. If these people had the support of the most powerful person in the world on their side they would be making much more progress than they are now. The people of your country want change, they want to have the option to vote for good people who give a poo poo about them, but they can't do it without leadership. If there's nobody else good enough then it has to be Bernie. I'd rather there be some 50-year old candidate who is anything close to him or Corbyn, but I haven't seen it yet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
The main lesson I'm learning is that no one on paper is going to make anyone happy and most of the obvious people have flaws that the internet will turn into dealbreakers for at least one segment of Democratic voters. The 2020 Democratic primary will at least play some role in separating the better campaigners from the weaker ones because no one has a grip on the DNC apparatus like HRC had back in 2016. Unfortunately, no one knows if the person who will come out will be able to deal with Trump's magical (and unreplicable) mix of meanness, idiocy and authenticity. At least I know why I'll have an ulcer by December 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:The main lesson I'm learning is that no one on paper is going to make anyone happy and most of the obvious people have flaws that the internet will turn into dealbreakers for at least one segment of Democratic voters. This is not true at all, Bernie Sanders would make almost everyone happy, and the dipshits who voted for Hillary in the primaries would still vote for Bernie in the general, which is the election that matters the most. A poo poo load of people swallowed their disgust and voted for Hillary in the 2016 general, and she was a genuine monster. This idea that internet purity tests are making Republicans win everything is silly, all the Democrats need is a single fuckin qualified candidate who isn't a horrible person. It's not that huge of an ask.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:and the dipshits who voted for Hillary in the primaries would still vote for Bernie in the general, which is the election that matters the most. ehhhhhh i'm not sure about that given PUMAs/hillaryis44 turning into a trump website
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:The main lesson I'm learning is that no one on paper is going to make anyone happy and most of the obvious people have flaws that the internet will turn into dealbreakers for at least one segment of Democratic voters. I'm already settling in to my inevitable future as a defender of Gillibrand as an acceptable option if something goes wrong with Bernie, apparently! Although I should also do some actual dredging on the lesser known possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:51
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:ehhhhhh i'm not sure about that given PUMAs/hillaryis44 turning into a trump website yeah but they're exceptionally loving crazy and represent a negligible number of Hillary supporters
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Not really, I don't pretend to know what was in her mind as a 48 year old Republican on the Harvard faculty, dilettante seems like a kinder reading then someone who was a heartfelt devotee of the Party of Reagan and Gingrich. You're the one trying to have it both ways on her being a woman of of substance and principle who was simultaneously not responsible for her actions or beliefs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:yeah but they're exceptionally loving crazy and represent a negligible number of Hillary supporters its a shame interest in them died off after '09 because charting the descent of that group of nutters would make fascinating reading
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:This is not true at all, Bernie Sanders would make almost everyone happy, and the dipshits who voted for Hillary in the primaries would still vote for Bernie in the general, which is the election that matters the most. A poo poo load of people swallowed their disgust and voted for Hillary in the 2016 general, and she was a genuine monster. This idea that internet purity tests are making Republicans win everything is silly, all the Democrats need is a single fuckin qualified candidate who isn't a horrible person. It's not that huge of an ask. I appreciate the depth of your belief. I would vote for Sanders despite my misgivings about him, but I know a lot of people who would not vote for him and the socialism baggage throws a lot of other things off when you get to the general electorate. Plus, Sanders brings a real risk of someone like Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. I'm sure you'll just say I'm wrong about all of this. I'm willing to let Sanders prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:ehhhhhh i'm not sure about that given PUMAs/hillaryis44 turning into a trump website I mean, what was the peel off percentage in 2008? 18%? I think losing 18-20% of pro-establishment primary voters as a percentage of the total Democratic electorate wouldn't be overwhelming if we also assume that Bernie will bring back a non-trivial number of people who voted in 2008-12 but did not vote in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:poo poo dude, we should put you on the Harvard Law faculty instead of superficial dilettante, endowed chair Elizabeth Warren, a preeminent, top-cited scholar in commercial and bankruptcy law and editor of various legal textbooks. You really seem fixated on the word dilettante, but don't seem to have noticed I was taking that from your premise that her being a 48 year old Republican somehow doesn't count presumably because she was only dabbling at politics at that point in her life. I'm not diminishing her academic bona fides, I agree they're every bit as austere as any other Harvard Republican.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:poo poo dude, we should put you on the Harvard Law faculty instead of superficial dilettante, endowed chair Elizabeth Warren, a preeminent, top-cited scholar in commercial and bankruptcy law and editor of various legal textbooks. I can't keep track of this particular weird slapfight, but do you really think that someone who fell for a trap that her opponent (a childish fascist with dementia) set for her without even knowing he was doing it, and blew it this hilariously badly is really going to be good enough for 2020? What she's done in the current political climate is insane. It shows tremendous ignorance of the entire context her position in society and how it relates to the group of people she's managed to piss off. She could have asked a single person under 30 if it would be a good idea to publish her 23andme results but apparently she didn't. She's not an inhuman monster like Clinton, but the stupidity on display is too much. Brony Car posted:I appreciate the depth of your belief. I would vote for Sanders despite my misgivings about him, but I know a lot of people who would not vote for him and the socialism baggage throws a lot of other things off when you get to the general electorate. Plus, Sanders brings a real risk of someone like Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. Trumps fascist baggage was supposed to throw things off too, but Sanders is the most popular politician in the country by a wide margin. The boogieman of socialism is played out, people heard about how Obama was a socialist for 4 years straight, and he annihilated the pathetic puppet that he stole his healthcare ideas from in 2012, and would have won again in 2016 if not for term limits. Aside from all that, Sanders gives a poo poo about the people who live in America. He cares, he spoke to the people suffering all across your country at the hands of the abusive wealthy ruling class. That message could only resonate more loudly after 4 years of fear and hate and sadness and pain being spread across your country by the actual billionaire sociopath in charge of it. Cautious moderate incremental bullshit is dead, it doesn't work and everyone saw Obama's scam and won't fall for it again that easily. The Democrats need to evolve or stay dead until the corpse of their establishment is finally cleared out by the ground level progress of a new generation. That work can be sped up exponentially by having an actual good person in charge. It's your only hope. ChairMaster fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. That bitch better not step
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
ChairMaster, while I appreciate your commitment to advancing international socialism, I'm going to take your emphatic and categorical statements about the American electorate with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I can't keep track of this particular weird slapfight, but do you really think that someone who fell for a trap that her opponent (a childish fascist with dementia) set for her without even knowing he was doing it, and blew it this hilariously badly is really going to be good enough for 2020? What she's done in the current political climate is insane. It shows tremendous ignorance of the entire context her position in society and how it relates to the group of people she's managed to piss off. She could have asked a single person under 30 if it would be a good idea to publish her 23andme results but apparently she didn't. She's not an inhuman monster like Clinton, but the stupidity on display is too much. You seem to know much nicer people than I do. I'm jealous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
The thing about America is that you guys are in charge of the internet and the entirety of North American culture. Your country wears it's mood on it's sleeve, and everyone in my country pays closer attention to your politics than our own. The divide is generational, it's not the information-permeable border that prevents only the physical flow of people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I can't keep track of this particular weird slapfight, but do you really think that someone who fell for a trap that her opponent (a childish fascist with dementia) set for her without even knowing he was doing it, and blew it this hilariously badly is really going to be good enough for 2020? What she's done in the current political climate is insane. It shows tremendous ignorance of the entire context her position in society and how it relates to the group of people she's managed to piss off. She could have asked a single person under 30 if it would be a good idea to publish her 23andme results but apparently she didn't. She's not an inhuman monster like Clinton, but the stupidity on display is too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The thing about America is that you guys are in charge of the internet and the entirety of North American culture. Your country wears it's mood on it's sleeve, and everyone in my country pays closer attention to your politics than our own. Sure. I didn't actually mean to say you're definitely wrong, even if that's how the colloquialism may have come out. also I look forward to meetings between President Sanders and Prime Minister Ford
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
In the threads title are we the Donkey, the performer, or the audience?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Oh I think it was an incredibly stupid move politically and was saying in this very thread before the DNA test kerfuffle that she should not run in 2020. That's not the same as alleging she is a dilettante who has masqueraded as a Person of Color™ when any honest person with access to Google can see that's not the case. The woke left's backlash to the whole affair has been almost as cringey as the ad she put out about it. Almost. The "woke left," including actual Native American organizations, correctly noting that she was listed as a "person of color" among Harvard staff for a decade. Mm. Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Oh I think it was an incredibly stupid move politically and was saying in this very thread before the DNA test kerfuffle that she should not run in 2020. That's not the same as alleging she is a dilettante who has masqueraded as a Person of Color™ when any honest person with access to Google can see that's not the case. The woke left's backlash to the whole affair has been almost as cringey as the ad she put out about it. Almost. I mean I'm not gonna stand for anyone else's take on it, she did something dumb and clearly doesn't understand the position or struggles of a group of people that were abused by her country for hundreds of years. This poo poo is not that hard to understand in 2018, and she failed to even try. It's not that racist, it's just tone-deaf and ignorant. It's not like that other poster is saying she should be executed or something, it doesn't really matter that much either way what people think about her outside of her eligibility as a candidate in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:The thing about America is that you guys are in charge of the internet and the entirety of North American culture. Your country wears it's mood on it's sleeve, and everyone in my country pays closer attention to your politics than our own. You're not from the US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:35
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:You're not from the US? I have determined empirically that he is probably Canadian, although I guess he might be Mexican or Haitian actually, Jamaica would make more sense than Haiti, it's part of the Commonwealth
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
I mean if you don't count Canada as the 51st state, then I'm not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I mean I'm not gonna stand for anyone else's take on it, she did something dumb and clearly doesn't understand the position or struggles of a group of people that were abused by her country for hundreds of years. This poo poo is not that hard to understand in 2018, and she failed to even try. It's not that racist, it's just tone-deaf and ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:38
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I mean if you don't count Canada as the 51st state, then I'm not. No wonder you give the US electorate more credit than it deserves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:No wonder you give the US electorate more credit than it deserves. You have no idea how much better Americans are than Canadians, my dude. Your country has young people that give a poo poo versus old monsters who are holding more and more tightly onto their wealth and power as they grow less popular and less relevant as their ignorant racist supporters die of obesity and are replaced by a new generation. You've got a chance, even if your stakes are high and the worst people in your country are worse than the worst in mine. My country has nothing but con artists and gullible rubes who fall for the same poo poo every time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
2020 candidate is a paper tiger no matter what. Trumps getting 8 years. Sorry. Run someone progressive in 6 years and dems may get ahold again. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 07:42
|
|
|
fury_road_that's_bait.gif
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 07:53
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:yeah but they're exceptionally loving crazy and represent a negligible number of Hillary supporters Yeah, I think it's very important to distinguish between "_____ voter" and "_____ supporter" (and this cuts both ways and applies to Bernie voters also). Most people who voted Hillary did not have any particularly negative feelings about Bernie, and people voting for Bernie doesn't necessary imply that they would continue to support Bernie against other candidates (though I think a greater portion are direct supportive of him). While they're obvious on the internet (and disproportionately represented in the media and political spheres), the type of person who really dislikes Bernie or the radical left is not very common among the American public. The main barrier is the disproportionate influence they have over the media people consume, etc (this is why Bernie's performance in the 2016 is so remarkable; he managed to do that well despite media generally being against him and himself and similar candidates doing poorly in the past). That influence allows people to paint such candidates as fundamentally "not serious/viable," but it isn't quite what it used to be anymore. Lightning Knight posted:I mean, what was the peel off percentage in 2008? 18%? I think losing 18-20% of pro-establishment primary voters as a percentage of the total Democratic electorate wouldn't be overwhelming if we also assume that Bernie will bring back a non-trivial number of people who voted in 2008-12 but did not vote in 2016. The peel-off percentage itself isn't what you want to look at; you want to look at the peel-off percentage relative to a "normal" peel-off percentage if you want to get some idea how he'd perform relative to past candidates. As far as I know, Sanders' peel-off percent was basically just normal, so there's no reason to really try that as a loss or gain. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:poo poo dude, we should put you on the Harvard Law faculty instead of superficial dilettante, endowed chair Elizabeth Warren, a preeminent, top-cited scholar in commercial and bankruptcy law and editor of various legal textbooks. I'm pretty sure being good at things has literally no bearing on how good of a person someone is. Brony Car posted:I appreciate the depth of your belief. I would vote for Sanders despite my misgivings about him, but I know a lot of people who would not vote for him and the socialism baggage throws a lot of other things off when you get to the general electorate. Plus, Sanders brings a real risk of someone like Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. There is no rational reason to think this, and if anything there are reasons to assume the opposite (like Sanders having a better showing with "independents" than other Democrats). The vast majority of available polls show Sanders as considerably more popular than all other options except Biden, and I'd hope that you'd agree that Biden is ideologically repulsive. If you disagree with the actual ideological/policy goals of the left, that's another issue entirely (though this thread probably isn't the place to discuss it). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 08:32
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Biden and Booker are both worse than Harris. Harris thought the solution to children being tardy to school was imprisoning the parents. Harris fought to defend the system of using poorly trained prison slaves to fight forest fires. Biden or Booker would be terrible presidents, but Harris genuinely scares me. She has never found a problem that she didn't think could be solved by sending people to prison.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I appreciate the depth of your belief. I would vote for Sanders despite my misgivings about him, but I know a lot of people who would not vote for him and the socialism baggage throws a lot of other things off when you get to the general electorate. Plus, Sanders brings a real risk of someone like Bloomberg coming out to gently caress everything up. The "socialism baggage" isn't real. Medicare for all has majority support among Republicans. When it actually comes to the general elections, when the debates happen, Sanders will be up there advocating for policies that people want because they would materially benefit them. The only real question is if that's enough to overcome voter disenfranchisement. Which is the thing every Democrat would face anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
the right has diluted the term "socialist" so much that every group but i think whites prefers socialism to capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 14:11
|
|
|
"A majority of people polled say they support medicare for all" is true in the narrow sense, but it's not a finding that's very robust. The Kaiser Family Foundation did a poll last year that tested different messages. "Do you support medicare for all" had 54-43 support, but that 43 number opposed shot up to 66% when people were asked "what if you knew that it would increase many Americans' taxes", and to 60% when asked "what if you knew it would eliminate the role of employers in health care". People, by a 47-42 margin, even thought that they'd be able to keep their current health insurance plan under medicare for all! I'd love to think that m4a is a political slam dunk, but every single fight to change something about the health care system has been a tough slog, and I think people focusing on "it's wildly popular!" re:m4a are fooling themselves a bit. It's probably the right thing to do, but I'm not convinced that polling is a reason for Dems to embrace it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The quality you want in a politician is demonstrated commitment to principles, not being an Etch-a-Sketch. Not if those principles suck tho, like someone changing their mind bc they're afraid of losing their job when gay marriage ticked up in popularity is emminetly better then the republicans who still think the gays should all be killed
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
those questions leave out half the equation. it's more "would you support it if it meant your taxes increased but you paid half as much as you do under your current plan?" you're right that even if it didn't have majority support they should still be pushing for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2018 14:28
|
|