Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


pumpinglemma posted:

Wow, that completely refutes my position that the Dem leadership is good and progressive. I love Schumer and Pelosi, as anyone who follows my posting is well aware! Guess we'd better just roll over and die because fighting is hard, right?

it refutes your smarm about "you should've changed things in the primary". people tried to change things in the primary, but the dem leadership was far more interested in getting blue dogs in. now we have blue dogs that won't deal with climate change and you're still blaming us.


quote:

Soo... you want massive change in the form of a climate denialist government in the hope that maybe ten years down the line things will be better? When it's already too late for anything more than damage limitation and every passing year costs us more? :ironicat:

no, i want the dems to stop rigging their elections for blue dogs that won't address climate change, and I want them to start advocating for climate change policies that might actually work. don't try to pin arguments I haven't made on me idiot.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.
Gritty is the People’s Hero.

Eggplant Squire
Aug 14, 2003


Also "Hillary and Bill crossed crossed a strike on their first date" comes from her own book Living History.

"We both had wanted to see a Mark Rothko exhibit at the Yale Art Gallery but, because of a labor dispute, some of the university's buildings, including the museum, were closed. As Bill and I walked by, he decided he could get us in if we offered to pick up the litter that had accumulated in the gallery's courtyard. Watching him talk our way in was the first time I saw his persuasiveness in action. We had the entire museum to ourselves. We wandered through the galleries talking about Rothko and twentieth-century art. I admit to being surprised at his interest in and knowledge of subjects that seemed, at first, unusual for a Viking from Arkansas. We ended up in the museum's courtyard, where I sat in the large lap of Henry Moore's sculpture Drape Seated Woman while we talked until dark."

Things people on the left use to complain about the Clintons often come from her own books since she is fairly tone dead on stuff that is bad but to her isn't a big deal.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




Data Graham posted:

Doesn't Paul directly contradict himself in another verse where he's all like "Women can be as loud as they want in church, they just need to wear hats"

Not all the letters of Paul are Paul, a fair bit of the shittier stuff is other writers. Gotta read the NT with an understanding of what groups won the internal fights early. The Jews and women (some rich, some with more valid leadership claims and one even an apostle!) lost so the Greeks poo poo on them, rewriting to poo poo on them.

Stexils
Jun 5, 2008

Radish posted:

Also "Hillary and Bill crossed crossed a strike on their first date" comes from her own book Living History.

"We both had wanted to see a Mark Rothko exhibit at the Yale Art Gallery but, because of a labor dispute, some of the university's buildings, including the museum, were closed. As Bill and I walked by, he decided he could get us in if we offered to pick up the litter that had accumulated in the gallery's courtyard. Watching him talk our way in was the first time I saw his persuasiveness in action. We had the entire museum to ourselves. We wandered through the galleries talking about Rothko and twentieth-century art. I admit to being surprised at his interest in and knowledge of subjects that seemed, at first, unusual for a Viking from Arkansas. We ended up in the museum's courtyard, where I sat in the large lap of Henry Moore's sculpture Drape Seated Woman while we talked until dark."

A lot of the attacks on the Clinton's from the left come from her own books since she is fairly tone dead on stuff that is bad but to her isn't a big deal.

the funniest thing about "hillary owned slaves" is that it also came from her own book but people didn't realize until after the election because absolutely nobody actually read her book

pumpinglemma
Apr 28, 2009

DD: Fondly regard abomination.

Prester Jane posted:

The modern-day Democrats are not going to save us from climate change either.

The attitude that your post embodies reminds me of a passage in Oliver Twist wherein one of the men who operates the orphanage Oliver Twist was in explains how his organization thinks about the children in their care: they were intentionally underfeeding all the kids with the full knowledge that many of them would die from malnutrition and or starvation. This was justified because they believed that a prolonged death in a shelter was preferable to a quick one on the streets. (In fact not only was it justified but they all wore custom buttons that featured an image of the Good Samaritan.)

The promise that you and a lot of the privileged centrists operate from a is that a pro long agonizing descent into destruction is much preferable to a quick one. This is entirely incorrect.

The Democrats as presently constituted are only offering to give us a prolonged descent into climate change that will mitigate the worst of the impacts on wealthier portions of the population- but leave the poor to fend for themselves. This is simply not acceptable under any circumstances.

One of the reasons I bang on so much about the privilege of the majority of posters in this thread is because your lived experience has been one that if you don't get your way you sit down and don't rock the boat. In a stable environment where in you're not immediately threatened this makes sense, but in our present condition this attitude is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing. We should be doing goddamn jumping jacks until the captain of the boat is terrified into kowtowing to our demands. We should not simply go along with things and hope for a better result at the next opportunity.

We need to start making our own goddamn opportunities and not giving the tiniest of poo poo's about how much comfortable people will complain about the interruption to their privileged lives that the process of making new opportunities causes. They're going to scream and kick up a fuss and raise holy hell and make threats and abused their position. None of that matters.

The present course that we are on is unacceptable. It is like we are on a large boat in a river that is headed towards a waterfall. One team is actively trying to row us faster towards the waterfall and the other team wants to half-rear end piddle around and do an occasional backstroke against the current. Both of these teams need to be thrown the gently caress over board, and if that isn't an option then we need to start jumping up and down and threatening to swamp the entire boat in order to force those two teams into acquiescing.

This attitude that once the primaries are over you should stop criticizing Democrats and just wait for the next opportunity is the most privileged ignorant arrogant bullshit, and it's naive stupidity is letgal under the present circumstances.
Except for the part where you're not just threatening to swamp the entire boat, you're actually doing it. Even though there's a third team (the DSA) which has a legitimately good chance of knocking out the second team and steering to safety if we can survive long enough. And even though the captains of the second team have demonstrated, over and over again, that they are impervious to reason and will call your bluff even if it means letting the whole boat sink. If the "force a big loss to make the Dems turn left" strategy was ever going to work, if it was ever going to provoke any amount of soul-searching, it would have been after 2016 when their favoured candidate lost to a clearly-senile nakedly-criminal fascist with the charisma of a sack of rotting fish. And the leadership just doubled down on centrism and :decorum:.

I mean, we even have a perfect blueprint for how to recapture a political party that's out of touch with its base! It's called the tea party and it worked really well! And it worked by primarying everyone who stepped out of line and protesting anyone who got through, not by voting libertarian. (And I would be entirely down with e.g. daily protests outside Schumer's office, which would inconvenience him a hell of a lot more than a single green party vote.) The reason that I prefer a strategy with a reasonable chance of working over a strategy with no chance of working has nothing to do with privilege.

Condiv posted:

it refutes your smarm about "you should've changed things in the primary". people tried to change things in the primary, but the dem leadership was far more interested in getting blue dogs in. now we have blue dogs that won't deal with climate change and you're still blaming us.

no, i want the dems to stop rigging their elections for blue dogs that won't address climate change, and I want them to start advocating for climate change policies that might actually work. don't try to pin arguments I haven't made on me idiot.
You do realise I was replying to a post suggesting people should refuse to vote for bad dems post-primary, right? Also, the only reason I'm saying "you should've changed things in the primary" rather than "we should change things in primaries" is that I don't live in the US so I physically can't volunteer in primaries. I am not a centrist. I'm not sitting there smirking at your distress while my people run the party. I want basically the same things you want. I just think that withholding votes from Democrats, specifically, is an incredibly stupid and self-destructive way of going about it.

pumpinglemma fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Nov 17, 2018

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008

by Hand Knit

pumpinglemma posted:

I mean, we even have a perfect blueprint for how to recapture a political party that's out of touch with its base! It's called the tea party and it worked really well! And it worked by primarying everyone who stepped out of line and protesting anyone who got through, not by voting libertarian.


This is such a disingenuous and ahistorical argument. Setting aside the fact that the Tea Party was an astroturfed movement funded by billionaire insiders- the Tea Party never for even a fraction of a second stopped bitterly criticizing Republicans who they thought were not pure enough. And they pretty openly refused to vote for candidates who were insufficiently right, which is a big reason* why their effect on the primaries was so dramatic.


*Perhaps even the primary reason.


Edit: Like..... do you not get that posters like myself are way way way way closer to a leftist tea party dragging the party left than you are? I mean the very first step of dragging the party left is relentlessly criticizing leadership when it acts against the will of the people- not keeping our criticisms in the designated "Free Speech Zone" of the primary season and then falling in line and bleeding in unison thereafter.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Nov 17, 2018

Stexils
Jun 5, 2008

pumpinglemma posted:

I mean, we even have a perfect blueprint for how to recapture a political party that's out of touch with its base! It's called the tea party and it worked really well! And it worked by primarying everyone who stepped out of line and protesting anyone who got through, not by voting libertarian. (And I would be entirely down with e.g. daily protests outside Schumer's office, which would inconvenience him a hell of a lot more than a single green party vote.) The reason that I prefer a strategy with a reasonable chance of working over a strategy with no chance of working has nothing to do with privilege.

that's true of the leadership but it also inspired a new slew of progressive candidates with much bolder positions to run, since it was obvious those leaders were out of touch and couldn't be relied on to win. saying losses have no chance of forcing change is just wrong.

Owlofcreamcheese
May 22, 2005
Probation
Can't post for 9 years!
Buglord

Radish posted:

Also "Hillary and Bill crossed crossed a strike on their first date" comes from her own book Living History.

"We both had wanted to see a Mark Rothko exhibit at the Yale Art Gallery but, because of a labor dispute, some of the university's buildings, including the museum, were closed. As Bill and I walked by, he decided he could get us in if we offered to pick up the litter that had accumulated in the gallery's courtyard. Watching him talk our way in was the first time I saw his persuasiveness in action. We had the entire museum to ourselves. We wandered through the galleries talking about Rothko and twentieth-century art. I admit to being surprised at his interest in and knowledge of subjects that seemed, at first, unusual for a Viking from Arkansas. We ended up in the museum's courtyard, where I sat in the large lap of Henry Moore's sculpture Drape Seated Woman while we talked until dark."

Things people on the left use to complain about the Clintons often come from her own books since she is fairly tone dead on stuff that is bad but to her isn't a big deal.

That is why everyone should brace for it to be 10 years from now and instapot to turn out to be owned by a guy that is bad or something and every internet superstar to breathlessly post that AOC is a nazi supporter who does free advertisement for nazis because she live streamed her mac and cheese thing for fun.

pumpinglemma
Apr 28, 2009

DD: Fondly regard abomination.

Prester Jane posted:

This is such a disingenuous and ahistorical argument. Setting aside the fact that the Tea Party was an astroturfed movement funded by billionaire insiders- the Tea Party never for even a fraction of a second stopped bitterly criticizing Republicans who they thought were not pure enough. And they pretty openly refused to vote for candidates who were insufficiently right, which is a big reason* why their effect on the primaries was so dramatic.


*Perhaps even the primary reason.
How did you take a post in which I advocated daily protests outside Schumer's office and turn that into "we shouldn't criticise bad dems, purity tests are counterproductive"? And yes, the Tea Party was astroturfed. The DSA, however, doesn't need astroturfing in order to be viable, because their ideas are actually popular with both the base and the public at large. They've already taken a couple of high-profile scalps, and they're gaining momentum rather than losing it.

If the Tea Party actually did refuse to vote for insufficiently rightwing candidates in the general (not just the primaries), and that was a major part of why they were effective, then that's news to me - do you have a link?

Stexils
Jun 5, 2008

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

That is why everyone should brace for it to be 10 years from now and instapot to turn out to be owned by a guy that is bad or something and every internet superstar to breathlessly post that AOC is a nazi supporter who does free advertisement for nazis because she live streamed her mac and cheese thing for fun.

people keep posting that she'll be the victim of the smear machine but the thing you're missing is that people actually like AOC and she actually believes the things she says. it's much harder to smear someone in the bernie mold than the clinton mold.

Condiv
May 7, 2008

Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod


Owlofcreamcheese posted:

That is why everyone should brace for it to be 10 years from now and instapot to turn out to be owned by a guy that is bad or something and every internet superstar to breathlessly post that AOC is a nazi supporter who does free advertisement for nazis because she live streamed her mac and cheese thing for fun.

uh, if you think being a scab is something that wasn't recognizably bad back when hillary did it, i dunno what to tell you

eke out
Feb 24, 2013



pumpinglemma posted:

How did you take a post in which I advocated daily protests outside Schumer's office and turn that into "we shouldn't criticise bad dems, purity tests are counterproductive"?

it's almost like you'll never win this argument that prester jane has made every single day for the past year plus

Twinty Zuleps
May 10, 2008

by R. Guyovich
Lipstick Apathy

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Gritty is the People’s Hero.

Gritty is a forced meme that's becoming uncomfortable to watch happen.

Stexils
Jun 5, 2008

"forced meme" aka "popular meme i don't like"

Eggplant Squire
Aug 14, 2003


Condiv posted:

uh, if you think being a scab is something that wasn't recognizably bad back when hillary did it, i dunno what to tell you

It's more of the same bullshit where AOC can't use any product created by capitalism (like clothes) without being a hypocrite but breaking a strike and bragging about how romantic it was is a smear since I guess that was cool at the time.

joepinetree
Apr 5, 2012

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

That is why everyone should brace for it to be 10 years from now and instapot to turn out to be owned by a guy that is bad or something and every internet superstar to breathlessly post that AOC is a nazi supporter who does free advertisement for nazis because she live streamed her mac and cheese thing for fun.

Yeah, because crossing picket lines and being a scab is something that was only recognized as an issue decades after the fact and based on information that wasn't publicly available.

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.

Twinty Zuleps posted:

Gritty is a forced meme that's becoming uncomfortable to watch happen.

Sorry people like Gritty.

Twinty Zuleps
May 10, 2008

by R. Guyovich
Lipstick Apathy

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

Sorry people like Gritty.

It is cargo-culting a Leftist Pepe into existence two years too late.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


man you do not know how words work.

Prester Jane
Nov 4, 2008

by Hand Knit

pumpinglemma posted:

How did you take a post in which I advocated daily protests outside Schumer's office and turn that into "we shouldn't criticise bad dems, purity tests are counterproductive"?



You know what I glazed over that portion of your post and that's on me, I apologize.

That's said I think the nature of our disagreement here is that I simply do not believe that going along and supporting bad/weak leadership in the face of this kind of crisis is a good idea. I come from the school of thought that half-measures* are often ultimately much worse then doing nothing at all, and the Democratic party has present constituted is premised on the idea that half measures are the best that you can ever achieve anyways- so they often compromise down to quarter measures.

*e.g. the ACA, while a genuine improvement over the status quo; it is turning out to have accomplished little more than kicking the can of total collapse of American Healthcare down the road a few more years. It ultimately changed nothing about the underlying dynamics that cause the unfairness of American Health Care, and in reality further entrenched those dynamics in such a way that it will be much harder to undo later.

Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 17, 2018

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1063555385020375045

osker
Dec 18, 2002

Wedge Regret

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

In 40 years kids are going to get face tattoos as a popular trend almost entirely because of the amount it flips the wig of our generation. It's going to be people our age as old people at future thanksgiving absolutely melting down into tears seeing their grandkids with dickbutt on their face. It feels almost sad that we are going to eventually run out of escalation for new generations making the past generation absolutely freak out about the moral evil of tattoos.

I mean that is pretty much the entire appeal of takashi sixty nine

Crow Jane
Oct 18, 2012

nothin' wrong with a lady drinkin' alone in her room

Twinty Zuleps posted:

It is cargo-culting a Leftist Pepe into existence two years too late.

What's it like, to have so little joy in life? Gritty looks like he just did the world's biggest coke bump and all he wants to do is skate and kill fascists, how can you not love him?

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004
I know a lot of people look at Pelosi's "super majority for taxes on the poor" thing poorly, but I kind of love it. Any argument about what Republicans might do is invalid, they are already doing this bullshit in statehouses and if they think they have the votes they'll do it nationally no matter what dems do. There is no slippery slope, the Republican party is gonna dive as deep as they can no matter what.

So why this 80% rule? It's like the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule prevents us from doing good things in a specific way in one chamber, and when the house tried to do those good things and things went sideways in the senate they had the byrd rule to bullshit on and say "too bad, can't do this with 50 votes". This works similarly in the house, but any bill it shuts down, the people who won't make it passable in the house, they are trying to raise taxes on the poor. It also fucks with the tedious republican strategy of "lower taxes, wreck the economy, make the democrats fix it and be the bad guys". New defense spending bill. But how will we pay? Certainly not by raising taxes on the loving bottom 80%.

Shifty Pony
Dec 28, 2004

Up ta somethin'



Twitter could trim a whole lotta low-hanging fruit with minimal effort if they just one day banned everyone with emoji in their usernames. Sure a number of regular folks would get caught up in it, but the hit-rate for chuds, facists, and MLM-sellers would be drat near 100%.

pumpinglemma
Apr 28, 2009

DD: Fondly regard abomination.

Prester Jane posted:

You know what I glazed over that portion of your post and that's on me, I apologize.

That's said I think the nature of our disagreement here is that I simply do not believe that going along and supporting bad/weak leadership in the face of this kind of crisis is a good idea. I come from the school of thought that half-measures* are often ultimately much worse then doing nothing at all, and the Democratic party has present constituted is premised on the idea that half measures are the best that you can ever achieve anyways- so they often compromise down to quarter measures.

*e.g. the ACA, while a genuine improvement over the status quo; it is turning out to have accomplished little more than kicking the can of total collapse of American Healthcare down the road a few more years. It ultimately changed nothing about the underlying dynamics that cause the unfairness of American Health Care, and in reality further entrenched those dynamics in such a way that it will be much harder to undo later.
The thing is, though, actual honest-to-god medicare for all is now considered a litmus test among most of the base. If you can get that through, that's not a half-measure, it's an actual solution. Same for abolishing ICE. And AOC's Green New Deal looks like it's heading the same way. Yes, it will probably take kicking out the current leadership to get any of this stuff in place. But once that does happen - and it could be as early as 2020 if Warren wins the primary - there's the prospect for real change. And it can happen, too. The Labour party in the UK was in basically the same position the dems are in now pre-Corbyn, having surrendered all the big-picture arguments to the right in exchange for short-term gains from triangulation, and complete with the leadership using every dirty trick in the book against any leftist insurgency. And then Corbyn won the leadership contest anyway. Now they're a pretty legitimate left-wing party.

joepinetree
Apr 5, 2012

Nevvy Z posted:

I know a lot of people look at Pelosi's "super majority for taxes on the poor" thing poorly, but I kind of love it. Any argument about what Republicans might do is invalid, they are already doing this bullshit in statehouses and if they think they have the votes they'll do it nationally no matter what dems do. There is no slippery slope, the Republican party is gonna dive as deep as they can no matter what.

So why this 80% rule? It's like the Byrd rule. The Byrd rule prevents us from doing good things in a specific way in one chamber, and when the house tried to do those good things and things went sideways in the senate they had the byrd rule to bullshit on and say "too bad, can't do this with 50 votes". This works similarly in the house, but any bill it shuts down, the people who won't make it passable in the house, they are trying to raise taxes on the poor. It also fucks with the tedious republican strategy of "lower taxes, wreck the economy, make the democrats fix it and be the bad guys". New defense spending bill. But how will we pay? Certainly not by raising taxes on the loving bottom 80%.

People think of it poorly because it's the dumbest loving idea that gets you nothing while essentially making things like M4A substantially more difficulty. And the 79th percentile in income isn't poor. Just like a multimillionaire who has negative income in one year because of specific losses isn't poor. And if they can't raise taxes to pay for the military, it's not like that has ever, at any time, stopped them before.

LinYutang
Oct 12, 2016

NEOLIBERAL SHITPOSTER

:siren:
VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!!!
:siren:
80% percentile is right around the "low-income" threshold of San Francisco 😎

Mantis42
Jul 26, 2010

pumpinglemma posted:

The thing is, though, actual honest-to-god medicare for all is now considered a litmus test among most of the base. If you can get that through, that's not a half-measure, it's an actual solution. Same for abolishing ICE. And AOC's Green New Deal looks like it's heading the same way. Yes, it will probably take kicking out the current leadership to get any of this stuff in place. But once that does happen - and it could be as early as 2020 if Warren wins the primary - there's the prospect for real change. And it can happen, too. The Labour party in the UK was in basically the same position the dems are in now pre-Corbyn, having surrendered all the big-picture arguments to the right in exchange for short-term gains from triangulation, and complete with the leadership using every dirty trick in the book against any leftist insurgency. And then Corbyn won the leadership contest anyway. Now they're a pretty legitimate left-wing party.

Warren's not winning the primary.

Kreeblah
May 17, 2004

INSERT QUACK TO CONTINUE


Taco Defender
An actual good rule would be one requiring a supermajority to cut taxes on corporations and the top 20% of individuals. But that'd piss off their donors, so it'll never happen.

Mr Ice Cream Glove
Apr 22, 2007

https://mobile.twitter.com/JoeMyGod/status/1063807017293234177

The world would be so much better without christianity




Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


https://twitter.com/timothywjohnson/status/1063506458585833472

Crow Jane
Oct 18, 2012

nothin' wrong with a lady drinkin' alone in her room

Yup, shoulda just grown Mr Fantastic arms

Goatse James Bond
Mar 28, 2010

If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:



The world would be so much better without christianity


now there's a spicy take

up with Mithraism! Down with the Nailed God!

Junior G-man
Sep 15, 2004

Wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma


GreyjoyBastard posted:

now there's a spicy take

up with Mithraism! Down with the Nailed God!

I've always believed that the world would've been so much more fun with the Greek or Roman pantheons still around as major religions. Goat offerings, orgies, good-time stories and entrail reading - what's not to love?

pumpinglemma
Apr 28, 2009

DD: Fondly regard abomination.

joepinetree posted:

People think of it poorly because it's the dumbest loving idea that gets you nothing while essentially making things like M4A substantially more difficulty. And the 79th percentile in income isn't poor. Just like a multimillionaire who has negative income in one year because of specific losses isn't poor. And if they can't raise taxes to pay for the military, it's not like that has ever, at any time, stopped them before.
It is a dumb idea, but it doesn't make medicare for all any more difficult because you wouldn't pay for that out of increasing income taxes on the bottom 80% anyway - you'd either tax the rich/corporations specifically, or you'd make a new tax that applied to everyone. And while people earning $80,000 a year can absolutely afford to pay more taxes, the amount of tax revenue you're giving up by making it the bottom 80% rather than the bottom 50% and not carving out exemptions for temporarily-low-income millionaires is pretty negligible - about 85% of income tax comes from people earning $80,000 or more*, and another 5% comes from people earning $50,000 or less.

* I'm guessing a little bit there since the brackets on that site don't cover the full range, but it's definitely at least 80%.

Basically, the low-hanging fruit on tax really is taxing corporations and the ultra-rich until their bones creak. Trying to squeeze everything possible out of the merely rich is viscerally satisfying, and a good idea in the long-run, but not actually necessary short-term.

Mantis42 posted:

Warren's not winning the primary.
Yeah, that's what everyone said about Corbyn too. He literally only entered the race because it was his turn to be the shattered remnants of the Labour left's token representative. The system was even set up so that you can't even run for leadership without getting support from a certain number of MPs, and a lot of right-wingers just shrugged and gave it to him because they figured he'd crash and burn. It's also what everyone said about Sanders, and while he didn't win he did a hell of a lot better than anyone anticipated despite having some fairly major problems as a candidate. It's also what everyone said about Trump, who similarly ran on a platform of giving the base what they actually wanted rather than dogwhistles and platitudes. I'm not going to toxx on it or anything, but I'm optimistic someone decent wins the primaries this time round.

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


medicare for all would have most people's taxes go up.

warren isn't corbyn. bernard is.

RuanGacho
Jun 20, 2002

"You're gunna break it!"

Junior G-man posted:

I've always believed that the world would've been so much more fun with the Greek or Roman pantheons still around as major religions. Goat offerings, orgies, good-time stories and entrail reading - what's not to love?

Goat offerings, orgies, good time stories and entrails reading.

You've never been to Florida have you?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Stexils
Jun 5, 2008

warren isnt winning not because of ideology but because of lack of charisma and political savvy

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply