|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
VH4Ever posted:Funny, I don't even need to say anything. You already got owned by KM. Imagine caring about the mods in 2019
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Lycus posted:I don't know, she's explicitly deriding the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value is garbage dreamed up by capitalist liberals trying to figure out how to monetize people's lives - like much of Marx, it was using liberal concepts to argue against liberalism but it was still garbage. I, uh, don't think this is a step up mind, but we can definitely do better...
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The labor theory of value is garbage dreamed up by capitalist liberals trying to figure out how to monetize people's lives - like much of Marx, it was using liberal concepts to argue against liberalism but it was still garbage. Watch out ladies this guy’s too Marxist for Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The labor theory of value is garbage dreamed up by capitalist liberals trying to figure out how to monetize people's lives - like much of Marx, it was using liberal concepts to argue against liberalism but it was still garbage. Okay, but I wasn't being serious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Basically, the thing notable about the Marianne thing is that people are correctly lambasting her for the vaccine thing, but do not apply nearly the same standard to the other candidates for supporting things at least as harmful (especially when you consider the president's amount of influence in those specific areas). Other candidates being either implicitly or explicitly cool with the violent killing/displacement of thousands/millions abroad and domestically through foreign policy/deportations doesn't warrant the same instant cancellation, even if those posters might say they disagree with it. Heck, the candidates not willing to pursue any significant climate change policy even work better for this comparison. Or those unwilling to significantly change US healthcare policy. None of these things trigger the same "lol get off the stage, you're cancelled" response. And they probably should! It basically ties into the fact that many liberals (and even some on the left) just sort of treat status quo harm as a "default" that doesn't warrant the same sort of reaction as harm associated with departure from the status quo. This also ties into their reactions to Republicans vs. their reactions to Democrats, despite most harm being bipartisan in cause. It's an understandable reaction, but it is still wrong. Solvent posted:1. Warren is going to get the nomination unless there is some kind of gigantic sea change in politics over the next year and a half. Bill Maher said it today to great applause, Bernie is an American hero. I can’t say the only sure shot Democrat’s have is Oprah, but I’ve loved Warren since the financial crisis that defined my generation. Me and my my wife are gonna send in 40 bucks for a pair of T-shirt’s... my wife’s got a plan we worked together on, and I’m really proud of that. It's been kind of creepy seeing a bunch of liberals explicitly echo this "Bernie a great guy and hero, but it's just not his time" stuff. It seems like that's the angle a lot of media is taking to try and thread the needle of arguing against him without having to directly attack his ideas. And I think it helps the liberals in question avoid the cognitive dissonance associated with not supporting the person who is transparently the best on the actual issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
bunch of posts but I haven’t seen anybody refute that 1.Bernie 2.Marianne Everybody else a far far third . I live in Michigan and if it comes down to Biden vs. Trump , I’m writing in Marianne. How many blue no matter who people will throw away all their morals and values and vote for the monster Biden ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:37
|
|
|
biden literally has no idea how to go 'i was wrong and im sorry,' even insincerely. the words just cannot leave his mouth. and this is probably, sadly, a good thing in a political candidate in terms of winning votes, but the issue is that unlike trump who just goes 'and gently caress you for implying i was wrong' biden just kinda mumbles and wanders off and then makes the exact same point people were mad at him for somewhere else. he's a stubborn idiot and he doesn't even want to fight about it. but Obama so he'll still probably make the final four.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
I think the thing is that the other candidates are wrong and bad in ways that liberals still have to be trained out of accepting as a given while there is a pre-existing and extremely justified and good backlash to the slightest whiff of anti-vax because it's something you immediately have to put your foot down on as firmly as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Endorph posted:biden literally has no idea how to go 'i was wrong and im sorry,' even insincerely. the words just cannot leave his mouth. Biden is literally just distilled Boomer. Weapons-grade. He's a privileged white man who has spent his entire life patting himself on the back for every inch of social progress in the US over the past 50 years. If you want to think like Biden just watch Forrest Gump 1000x times Ludovico style. It's just what Boomers do. Appropriate, take credit, ignore every other American experience, repeat. LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I think the thing is that the other candidates are wrong and bad in ways that liberals still have to be trained out of accepting as a given while there is a pre-existing and extremely justified and good backlash to the slightest whiff of anti-vax because it's something you immediately have to put your foot down on as firmly as possible. On issues like social justice or foreign policy, there are powerful stakeholders on the "wrong" side, and it's inevitable that most candidates will feel that they need to engage with at least some of these in order to build a winning coalition. Being anti-vax is just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
Personally I think Kucinich: Breath of the Wild is a welcome new addition to a veritable franchise that had become dated and frankly lost track of the core appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Irrespective of any bullshit with Luckyellow, you were wrong to be upset by Gravel though. Nah. I regret nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Nah. I regret nothing. Doesn't really matter if you regret it, you were wrong. Issue candidates - especially for issues that have basically no representation in national politics like anti-imperialism - are good and important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:On issues like social justice or foreign policy, there are powerful stakeholders on the "wrong" side, and it's inevitable that most candidates will feel that they need to engage with at least some of these in order to build a winning coalition. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Doesn't really matter if you regret it, you were wrong. Issue candidates - especially for issues that have basically no representation in national politics like anti-imperialism - are good and important. Right. I'll gather up some McChickens and magic crystals and give a toast to the "issue candidates."
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Right. I'll gather up some McChickens and magic crystals and give a toast to the "issue candidates." Marianne Williamson is not an issue candidate, she's a hilarious weirdo. There's a difference between that and candidates like Inslee and Gravel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'll take a stand on this, I would rather support an idiot with good convictions over an intelligent person who has correctly understood their best path to power is the destruction of other humans beings, and pursues power by sacrificing the poor and weak.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:17
|
|
|
I want Marianne Williamson to use sorcery to defeat Donald Trump in the 2020 General Election
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
for the record williamson is hilarious and tons of other candidates are equally bad on other issues but even pretending to throw a bone to those people is 100% disqualifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
how could anybody not like mike gravel , the anti imperialist candidate . You guys want everything to be like the West Wing . Lmao
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Endorph posted:anti-vax also destroys the poor and the weak. edit: And if the response is "The people in favor of American forever wars are also trying to be helpful", then my response is that they too are idiots, and claims of idiocy fail to distinguish between candidates. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
Marianne Williamson will commune with the skies and solve the coming climate crisis
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
Supporting a candidate who will cause pain and suffering through liberalism? Pragmatic Supporting a candidate who will cause pain and suffering because they're bad on vaccines? Aggrivating! Like we all swallowed Hillary in 2016, and can you honestly tell me that letting people have a hundred bullshit exceptions from vaccines (aka, what we have now) is really that much worse than Hillary's hundred faults? E: I got the avatar back. Cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:37
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Supporting a candidate who will cause pain and suffering through liberalism? Pragmatic I'm saying they're both disqualifying. People are probably saying 'williamson is anti-vax, and that's why we have to vote Biden,' but I'm not one of them. I'm just saying the response to that shouldn't be to downplay how bad anti-vax is. Endorph fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Imagine caring about the mods in 2019
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
Endorph posted:I'm saying they're both disqualifying. Williamson is anti-vax, and that's why we have to vote Sanders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
Endorph posted:I'm saying they're both disqualifying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 04:47
|
|
|
i think its less bad in some ways and worse in other ways. on one hand its obviously worse in terms of how it affects people and the world (though if anti-vax continues to grow instead of being snuffed out that's a comparison that could get muddier) but on the other hand there's centuries of massive government corruption that encourage someone to have at least vaguely hawkish tendencies, either out of selfishness or out of some weird view of 'electability.' not that that makes those positions okay to hold but there's at least a reason why someone would hold them beyond plain agreement with them, which isn't something you can say for anti-vax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Endorph posted:there's centuries of massive government corruption that encourage someone to have at least vaguely hawkish tendencies, either out of selfishness or out of some weird view of 'electability.' not that that makes those positions okay to hold but there's at least a reason why someone would hold them beyond plain agreement with them, which isn't something you can say for anti-vax.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
A lot of the time I feel like two separate discussions are happening in parallel in situations like this. Some people are arguing about how they perceive politicians as people, while others are arguing about the actual likely material outcomes from electing them. I think this at least partially explains the people who support Warren over Sanders; to them Warren is someone they personally like who just "feels" competent to them (a sentiment which I understand, since I'd probably feel the same if I saw both candidates without knowing anything else about them). But if you're talking about actual likely outcomes, there's not really any question that Sanders is the most reliable advocate for the issues he supports (and he's also just concretely better, even if you trust Warren on things like M4A, simply due to his superior explicit positions on foreign policy and student debt cancellation - and that's ignoring the important points about his general approach to political change/activism, which are arguably the most important reason to support him, even if it's harder to quantify). The pro-Warren arguments usually rely upon treating Warren as a default and finding reasons to dismiss the arguments against her (like with the M4A thing, the simple fact that it's plausible that she supports it is enough for them, when any remotely "objective" assessment would find that it's common sense to support the consistent advocate over the one who has repeatedly changed their position on the issue; it's frankly a strange perspective when you're talking about something with potentially millions of lives hanging in the balance). And while I used Warren as an example because she has the most non-Sanders supporters on this subforum (that's the only reason I focus most of my criticism at her - she's the only other candidate really competing for left-y votes), this is even more true for the non-Sanders/Warren candidates, who most people prefer entirely due to a vague perception of them being nice/competent and representing their mental image of "a president I want." Most people never even find out the various things these candidates have said/done*; they decide entirely based on what they say in debates and ads. * This is part of the reason I think young Americans will end up significantly different politically from older generations. Due to the internet and stuff like Twitter, we generally hear about things politicians have said/done, while older Americans just hear what's on television/radio (or from other old people on Facebook or whatever). Obviously material reality is probably the biggest reason for the political difference, but I think this also plays a role. Even when the posters on this forum disagree about stuff, for example, we're still arguing with each other using actual information about the politicians' histories. This is something that almost all older Americans just don't do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
Late night thought: I actually liked when Bennett attacked Biden over the Obama admin's capitulation on taxes and spending to the Republican congress in 2011 and 2013, it was about drat time someone mentioned that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 05:54
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:On issues like social justice or foreign policy, there are powerful stakeholders on the "wrong" side, and it's inevitable that most candidates will feel that they need to engage with at least some of these in order to build a winning coalition. Endorph posted:i think its less bad in some ways and worse in other ways. on one hand its obviously worse in terms of how it affects people and the world (though if anti-vax continues to grow instead of being snuffed out that's a comparison that could get muddier) but on the other hand there's centuries of massive government corruption that encourage someone to have at least vaguely hawkish tendencies, either out of selfishness or out of some weird view of 'electability.' not that that makes those positions okay to hold but there's at least a reason why someone would hold them beyond plain agreement with them, which isn't something you can say for anti-vax. You two do realize that what you're doing here is cutting slack to someone for essentially choosing to commit or at least condone mass murder in the pursuit of personal power? Like, that's some hosed up priorities right there. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Robert Roarke would be electing a literal hacker Interesting
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:54
|
|
|
one of the elementary schools in my town has a vaccination rate of 42 fuckin percent. i don't want to hear excuses for an anti-vaxxer presidential candidate when there is a very real possibility (or perhaps more accurately, inevitability) that a whole bunch of kids in my town are gonna get extremely sick, possibly suffering lifelong debilitating complications and even death from a completely preventable illness. gently caress williamson and gently caress her apologists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:one of the elementary schools in my town has a vaccination rate of 42 fuckin percent. i don't want to hear excuses for an anti-vaxxer presidential candidate when there is a very real possibility (or perhaps more accurately, inevitability) that a whole bunch of kids in my town are gonna get extremely sick, possibly suffering lifelong debilitating complications and even death from a completely preventable illness. gently caress williamson and gently caress her apologists. She's as anti-vax as half the candidates including Biden, that's what so impressive about how bad they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
Is Marianne Williamson The OA? I think she might be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:The people who purposefully destroy the poor and weak to further their own ambition are arguably smarter, but we should not desire to place them in political office, because it seems likely they will continue to destroy the poor and weak for their own personal benefit. Cerebral Bore posted:You two do realize that what you're doing here is cutting slack to someone for essentially choosing to commit or at least condone mass murder in the pursuit of personal power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:That being said, I totally get that she is a politician, and her being actually president won’t help the country nearly as much as if warren was president, or Bernie’s policies were in effect. For me the thing that separates Warren most from the other candidates besides Sanders isn't really her policy - although as you say it is better - but rather that she won't immediately knife the Democratic left the instant she's in office and leading the party. Most of the other candidates will especially Biden and Harris, because unlike Sanders and Warren they aren't really getting much support from progressives or leftists, and don't consider that a base of support. If she gets the nomination I'll vote for her as well, but it's this quality that will be at the top of my mind - not any delusions of anything she ever said in the primary ever actually happening because of anything she's going to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 08:57
|
|
|
Chuka Umana posted:Late night thought: I actually liked when Bennett attacked Biden over the Obama admin's capitulation on taxes and spending to the Republican congress in 2011 and 2013, it was about drat time someone mentioned that. Yes I thought the same. Bennet seems like a pretty cool cat. His senate rant about the border was hilarious and true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
I know Trump misrepresented the healthcare-for-the-undocumented thing, but I would like in the future for candidates to talk about what that means, because as far as I know only Thailand has pulled this off to the fullest extent possible. I know a number of these candidates have caveats but aside from Bernie going ‘yes, like Thailand’ there hasn’t been a lot of real policy goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2019 09:31
|
|
