|
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 | ||
|
I’m just tired of “well you know (name) will not keep to their promises” as if that’s some kind of tangible negative. You’re predicting the future, and it’s deliberately hard to argue with someone who feels they can prognosticate eventual timelines. On top of that, this very forum was where I learned that you ask for everything if you want to accomplish even something. Warren asking for single payer healthcare and then “walking it back” is more likely to make things better than the idiots on the stage who think they can just ask for a public option and expect to get one. The problem is some people here have turned into the left’s equivalent of the abortion amendment people, tired of pols who not only tease their pet issue but want them to deliver with the passion of conviction. Also they need to have perfect histories on an array of social justice matters or else random minority Foo will fail to vote and Trump will win again.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
volts5000 posted:Could be “I won the base without your help. You’re stuck with me as the dem nominee now. Take it or leave it.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is a perplexing one for me, because while I could understand both "I'll take any idiot's money, their views won't corrupt mine" and "I won't accept money from rich people to demonstrate my commitment to loving over rich people", the stance of "Well I don't really need rich people's money in the primary, but I do need their money in the general" is devoid of both principles and practicality. I have no clue what she thinks she is signaling with that mixed strategy. I'm mixed on that too, but at the same time, it means she'll be massively outspent if she doesn't. Trump has an enormous money advantage. The regular people she's trying to represent don't have as much money to spare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do I get to choose the body part as well as the tattoo Yeah that’s ambiguous above isn’t it? How about this: you can pick the body part, but he body part must be 1. Ordinarily covered by my clothes 2. Not normally covered by my underwear. Edit: oh and if it’s extremely big or expensive, you might consider chipping in $, voluntarily. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's a strategy, but I don't see what's stopping donors from saying "leave it" if they actually believe that Warren's principles are in conflict with their interests. Presumably refusing their money in the primary is staking a claim she doesn't want to stump for the donor class, but if that were true bothering to accept money from people who don't even agree with you is a bizarre strategy. poo poo, i'll take any motherfucker's money if he just giving it away I dunno how I feel about that policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Chamberk posted:I'm mixed on that too, but at the same time, it means she'll be massively outspent if she doesn't. Trump has an enormous money advantage. The regular people she's trying to represent don't have as much money to spare. Right, I can understand the hesitancy to commit one way or the other. It can work in local or statewide elections, even a presidential primary, but I don’t think we’ve seen that kind of commitment, much less a result that ended in a win, in the general election for president, have we? I’m not necessarily excusing the stance, just honestly wondering how viable it is, given that elections are now blowing through (close to) a billion dollars each cycle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:11
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's a strategy, but I don't see what's stopping donors from saying "leave it" if they actually believe that Warren's principles are in conflict with their interests. Presumably refusing their money in the primary is staking a claim she doesn't want to stump for the donor class, but if that were true bothering to accept money from people who don't even agree with you is a bizarre strategy. Well, there’s also the DNC itself which will take any kind of money from any corporate donor or lobbying group. Even if Bernie’s the nominee, that money will find a way to him. Sure, they could tell the DNC “no corporate money” and they’ll be like “Haha! Sure. Ok grandpa”. It’s a long road but we gotta make ground somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
generic one posted:Right, I can understand the hesitancy to commit one way or the other. It can work in local or statewide elections, even a presidential primary, but I don’t think we’ve seen that kind of commitment, much less a result that ended in a win, in the general election for president, have we? Amount of money does not equal quality of campaign. See 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Amount of money does not equal quality of campaign. See 2016. nonsense i'm excited to see what president jeb! does in his second term
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:25
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:There’s a non-zero chance you come out of this with a new life as a Roger Stone cosplayer. Godspeed, sir. That's an interesting idea. I'm also considering Marianne, half-transformed into a being of light, ascending out of the USS Enterprise-D. Ogmius815 posted:
Sure VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:26
|
|
|
The main thing about foreign policy is that few of the candidates really expect it to matter, especially this early in the election, so for now all you can do is dig through the past (that Warren clip was from 2014). I expect all of them will be fairly flexible about foreign policy for a while, and yes, I mean all of them. Bernie Sanders has had a few takes like being anti-trade agreements, seeming a bit soft on the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and some galaxy brain takes on how Qatar should get involved in military adventurism to fight ISIS. The one biggest thing I liked about Bernie was how I heard that he was against constant bombing campaigns, but here he is in 2015 saying that he'd still do drone strikes as president. On the other side of the coin, here's Warren joining Bernie on a resolution condemning Netanyahu a couple weeks ago. Like it or not, you're not gonna get any clear answers on foreign policy right now. Domestically, I feel like Bernie Sanders may get lost in the weeds trying to tackle everything from every angle at once, and Elizabeth Warren's more focused approach seems more real to me. Particularly, her focus on getting a real antitrust snowball rolling really hits on a thing that's been making me really anxious lately, and just breaking up a lot of the big companies will go so far towards alleviating so much of the issues with corporate domination right now, and feels like it could be implemented faster. Aside from all that, Stephen Colbert did a third debate for one of the candidates left out of the big boy debates. Don't care about the guy, but it's funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SzkK1qxd8M
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:31
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Also they need to have perfect histories on an array of social justice matters or else random minority Foo will fail to vote and Trump will win again. Well, yes? Building a coalition is critical, we saw what happens when the campaign strategy is to promise as little as possible to just barely win, because the assumption is Trump will certainly lose. If we want to win, telling voting blocs to gently caress off and "we don't need your votes" seems like a bad idea!
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why would you want to discuss options if you've already picked a strategy? Some of us have late enough primaries where we might have to strategically vote for our second choice if things look bad for our first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
mods please add john delaney to the poll with the title of the face
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:45
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:Amount of money does not equal quality of campaign. See 2016. I agree that raising a lot of money doesn’t guarantee how well that money’s going to be spent. My point is, I don’t think there’s a candidate for president who has won the general election just off of small, individual donors, especially since the Citizens United decision, which is a significant factor. Election funding is hosed in the US, for the foreseeable future, until that’s been reconciled. Some state level initiatives have made headway there, but at the national level, yeah, hosed. Sanders made it clear it can be done effectively, but to much chagrin, he still came up short. Is the eventual nominee going to go up against the RNC with a fully unproven funding strategy and not have some concern? I’d love to think so, but I’d also like a Pegasus and a golden egg laying goose, while they’re at it. It’s cold, sure, but until there’s substantial election reform, it’s just the reality of the situation. It sucks. For loving real.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:54
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The main thing about foreign policy is that few of the candidates really expect it to matter, especially this early in the election, so for now all you can do is dig through the past (that Warren clip was from 2014). I expect all of them will be fairly flexible about foreign policy for a while, and yes, I mean all of them. Bernie Sanders has had a few takes like being anti-trade agreements, seeming a bit soft on the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and some galaxy brain takes on how Qatar should get involved in military adventurism to fight ISIS. The one biggest thing I liked about Bernie was how I heard that he was against constant bombing campaigns, but here he is in 2015 saying that he'd still do drone strikes as president. On the other side of the coin, here's Warren joining Bernie on a resolution condemning Netanyahu a couple weeks ago. Like it or not, you're not gonna get any clear answers on foreign policy right now. This is nonsense. Trying to compare Bernie saying that he'd do drone strike against an isolated terrorist (and Bernie specifically highlighting the isolated part) to Warren supporting the bombing of hospitals and schools is either disingenuous or ignorant. Bernie is far from perfect, but there is no comparison here. Also the idea that it is too early for it to matter in the campaign and that is why they are all so bad is ridiculous once you realize that every single front runner is either a currently sitting senator or former vice president with very long records. As for Warren, she signed a letter against Obama's abstention at the security council in 2016, voted for the Iran sanctions bundled with Russia stuff in 2017, voted for Trump's increase in the military budget for 2018, and defended sanctions on Venezuela in 2019. The idea that the foreign policy records of the people running are either incomplete, underdeveloped or unknown is ridiculous. Granted, makes about as much sense as preferring someone because they will try to do fewer things, but still ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Some of us have late enough primaries where we might have to strategically vote for our second choice if things look bad for our first. Leave them out if it! They want nothing to do with the nonsense that someone else might want to express that kind of opinion! That’s what I was told, at least. I’m sure you’ll get a similar reply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
generic one posted:I agree that raising a lot of money doesn’t guarantee how well that money’s going to be spent. My point is, I don’t think there’s a candidate for president who has won the general election just off of small, individual donors, especially since the Citizens United decision, which is a significant factor. I think we’ve hit a turning point. For decades (or centuries you could argue), politicians have been using their relationships with big donor money to create a buffer or barrier between them the regular public. “We’re up here making the big decisions while the plebs stay down there, focused on their own problems.” That’s why it’s always a big deal when an “average person” beats an incumbent politician, like AOC’s election for instance. People are getting more and more desperate to break down that barrier. You could argue that, in 2016, Trump manipulated the parasocial relationships he developed as a tv star/famous rich non-politician to beat an opponent who spent most of her career behind that barrier. An image as someone wanting to break down that barrier could be somewhat of a counter to “traditional fundraising”. Maybe I’m too much of an optimist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:
Wrap it up vaxailures,
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:25
|
|
If Marianne Williamson is the democratic nominee, I will get a tattoo of VitalSign’s choice on a part of my body ordinarily covered by clothing.
|
Lightning Knight posted:Perhaps my greatest disappointment with Warren other than her cavalier attitude towards Palestine, is that she’s admitted she plans to accept PAC and corporate money in the general election if nominated. She also took a bunch in her senate coffers before declaring and shifted it over from her senate account.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
volts5000 posted:An image as someone wanting to break down that barrier could be somewhat of a counter to “traditional fundraising”. Maybe I’m too much of an optimist. I think you and I agree on pretty much everything funding-wise, so I’m just gonna quote this part and reply. I do, unfortunately, think you’re an optimist there. Even without the Citizens United decision, there’s still PACs to contend with, and until poo poo gets pushed through legislatively, there’s not a whole lot that can be done. At the local election level, absolutely, it can be effective to rely off of small donors. poo poo, in the city of Seattle, we implemented public funded elections for local officials, where we’ve got “democracy vouchers” that are backed through tax funding, and we send those vouchers to candidates for their election donations. Could that work at the national level? Or, would that kind of concept even make it through Congress? No idea. Honestly, it’s still kind of a weird concept, but it’s a step in the right direction. I don’t know if we have time to wait for the type of change that we need. We’re already sitting on a climate change time bomb that’s set to go off if we don’t turn poo poo around in the next ten years (probably less, given how the info we get is just an optimistic estimate). So, we need to start somewhere, with something, and getting candidates in office that are committed to changing how the electoral process works and is funded should be a priority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:37
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Pretty sure Judakel, Phi, and Punk da Bundo would all agree with that statement? You seek to establish nuance while Palestinians die. Cool. "I can't believe posters like me were driven out of this thread for merely being logical."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Domestically, I feel like Bernie Sanders may get lost in the weeds trying to tackle everything from every angle at once, and Elizabeth Warren's more focused approach seems more real to me. Particularly, her focus on getting a real antitrust snowball rolling really hits on a thing that's been making me really anxious lately, and just breaking up a lot of the big companies will go so far towards alleviating so much of the issues with corporate domination right now, and feels like it could be implemented faster. This is nonsensical. Bernie is going to get lost in the weeds trying to tackle everything, but Warren has a focused approach? She may have a "plan" for everything, but she's just as guilty of proposing to "tackle everything from every angle at once."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, yes? Building a coalition is critical, we saw what happens when the campaign strategy is to promise as little as possible to just barely win, because the assumption is Trump will certainly lose. The counterpoint to this is that Bernie’s 2016 campaign did not hit all the perfect notes on race and it probably still would have won. It doesn’t stop a lot of (probably white) posters from saying that a woman of color will lose black voters because of how she’s more racist to POC than the white guy. I can’t speak for POC but that’ll never stop being hilarious to me. generic one posted:I agree that raising a lot of money doesn’t guarantee how well that money’s going to be spent. My point is, I don’t think there’s a candidate for president who has won the general election just off of small, individual donors, especially since the Citizens United decision, which is a significant factor. Keep in mind even if Bernie is the candidate and takes no large donors, MoveOn and other such organizations will, and will make ads that may overreach in attacking and make Bernie look bad. If the majority of Bernie ads are superpac ads screaming that Trump is a Russian mole, that’s not good. And then there’s the DNC and their bumper sticker and social media antics that are so out of touch that AOC dunks on it. Saying you won’t take big donor money is noble, but it means the advertisements are less “I’m Bernie Sanders and I approved this message: [cheerful music and discussion about health policy]” and more about a dramatic worrying horror movie soundtrack playing as a low intone voice mutters, “Donald Trump called Haiti a shithole, an indignity beneath the office. Donald Trump, unfit to serve. PaidforbyEnoughOfTrumpDotCom” As you can’t loving do anything about the cash flooding into politics without first attaining power, I see it as Warren wanting to make sure the ads that happen reflect her campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You seek to establish nuance while Palestinians die. Cool. To be fair, destroying the state of Israël will require a lot nuance so not sure why you critic him there
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:53
|
|
|
Judakel posted:You seek to establish nuance while Palestinians die. Cool. That’s not what they’re saying at all. You know it. You just want to try and out-woke everyone for some kind of non-existent contest for who can be the wokest poster in the thread. That’s the point folks are trying to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Guys Marianne Williamson is not going to be the democratic nominee. Enjoy having the world's first bernie sanders tramp stamp sander's face surrounded by roses
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Still can't tell why nerds are so passionately mad about the weird hippie woman, but has anyone posted this itt? https://twitter.com/lovewave_sw/status/1144834041029496832 e: SlothfulCobra posted:Domestically, I feel like Bernie Sanders may get lost in the weeds trying to tackle everything from every angle at once, and Elizabeth Warren's more focused approach seems more real to me. Particularly, her focus on getting a real antitrust snowball rolling really hits on a thing that's been making me really anxious lately, and just breaking up a lot of the big companies will go so far towards alleviating so much of the issues with corporate domination right now, and feels like it could be implemented faster. I am, absolutely, for guillotining motherfuckers and breaking up monopolies. But it feels like doing that in today's environment would just be putting slightly different old rich assholes in charge of the same oppressive systems. Unless we're putting these companies in charge of the workers (or just straight up nationalization*) there wouldn't be much change at all. The new people put in charge of Walmart West Coast Edition would still be beholden to the same shareholders and still have the exact same fiduciary duty to gouge customers while breaking every labor law they can possibly get away with. *Unironically nationalize the entire oil industry. Refineries, extraction, transport, pipelines, whatever. All of it. Marxalot fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
ChicagoIdeas.com a city famous for its ideas with regards to law enforcement broke: build more schools, less jails woke: build school-jails
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
so i saw this article posted about kamala harris in another thread: https://medium.com/@moon_bat/the-troubling-past-of-kamala-harris-f017207333cb it really illustrates the problems with kamala harris and why you should not, under any circumstances, support her i'd like to quote the whole post, as it's pretty heinous, but I'll just quote the section on her fighting to keep innocents in jail on technicalities quote:A Record of Incarcerating Innocents
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:25
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The main thing about foreign policy is that few of the candidates really expect it to matter, especially this early in the election, so for now all you can do is dig through the past (that Warren clip was from 2014). I expect all of them will be fairly flexible about foreign policy for a while, and yes, I mean all of them. Bernie Sanders has had a few takes like being anti-trade agreements, seeming a bit soft on the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and some galaxy brain takes on how Qatar should get involved in military adventurism to fight ISIS. The one biggest thing I liked about Bernie was how I heard that he was against constant bombing campaigns, but here he is in 2015 saying that he'd still do drone strikes as president. On the other side of the coin, here's Warren joining Bernie on a resolution condemning Netanyahu a couple weeks ago. Like it or not, you're not gonna get any clear answers on foreign policy right now. How exactly is this supposed to work? Even if we assume that you're right it doesn't matter how much to how little you try to do unless there's some seismic shift in Congress, because the usual suspects will just stonewall any and all progressive legislation no matter what. To me this just sounds like Hillmen back in the day insisting that Clinton would somehow get her agenda through a hostile Congress by dint of some monomaniacal act of willpower, and that's why she's better than Bernie. Also, as has been mentioned, a large part of Bernie's plans are in actual Senate bills that could be passed this instant if the political will were there, so how exactly is a wide approach worse if you have a large chunk of the agenda literally ready to go?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The counterpoint to this is that Bernie’s 2016 campaign did not hit all the perfect notes on race and it probably still would have won. Considering Harris's lackluster polling numbers among POC, it seems the white dude hilariously out of touch with minorities is you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
generic one posted:That’s not what they’re saying at all. You know it. You just want to try and out-woke everyone for some kind of non-existent contest for who can be the wokest poster in the thread. Dude. Sit down and stay asking why single payer is better or whatever poo poo you're doing now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m just tired of “well you know (name) will not keep to their promises” as if that’s some kind of tangible negative. You’re predicting the future, and it’s deliberately hard to argue with someone who feels they can prognosticate eventual timelines. This is dumb, because what you're saying basically amounts to "You can never know the future, ergo it's impossible to judge how trustworthy politicians are." While it's impossible to know for sure whether Warren will actually push for single-payer healthcare if elected, it IS possible to say that the change of her not doing so is significantly higher than it would be with Sanders. Also, I have no clue what you're trying to get at with the abortion thing, since there's a pretty fuckin huge difference between "people upset about politicians teasing doing a very important good thing and not doing it" and "people upset about politicians teasing doing something that will cause millions of women to suffer and not doing it." Like seriously, what the gently caress lol, I don't think you thought this out. Imagine I posted the @dril "there is no difference between good things and bad things" tweet joepinetree posted:This is nonsense. Trying to compare Bernie saying that he'd do drone strike against an isolated terrorist (and Bernie specifically highlighting the isolated part) to Warren supporting the bombing of hospitals and schools is either disingenuous or ignorant. Bernie is far from perfect, but there is no comparison here. Also the idea that it is too early for it to matter in the campaign and that is why they are all so bad is ridiculous once you realize that every single front runner is either a currently sitting senator or former vice president with very long records. As for Warren, she signed a letter against Obama's abstention at the security council in 2016, voted for the Iran sanctions bundled with Russia stuff in 2017, voted for Trump's increase in the military budget for 2018, and defended sanctions on Venezuela in 2019. The idea that the foreign policy records of the people running are either incomplete, underdeveloped or unknown is ridiculous. To be "fair," I think that poster is actually just pretty right-wing in terms of foreign policy, rather than one of the people trying to claim that Warren is left-wing. Like, they list Bernie being "soft" on Russia and opposing trade deals (I guess referring to NAFTA/TPP) as bad things. Craptacular! posted:It doesn’t stop a lot of (probably white) posters from saying that a woman of color will lose black voters because of how she’s more racist to POC than the white guy. I can’t speak for POC but that’ll never stop being hilarious to me. Uh, is it just me or are you basically saying "PoC will support the PoC candidate even if they're more racist to PoC"? That seems like a kinda messed up thing to think! Cerebral Bore posted:How exactly is this supposed to work? Even if we assume that you're right it doesn't matter how much to how little you try to do unless there's some seismic shift in Congress, because the usual suspects will just stonewall any and all progressive legislation no matter what. To me this just sounds like Hillmen back in the day insisting that Clinton would somehow get her agenda through a hostile Congress by dint of some monomaniacal act of willpower, and that's why she's better than Bernie. It's basically an attempt to retroactively rationalize their choice to support Warren (which initially stemmed from a "gut feeling" that she's good/competent). Unfortunately for them, there isn't really anything concrete to point to if you're trying to argue that Warren is better, so they don't really have any choice but to resort to weird things like that. It's actually kind of interesting to compare with the Hillary arguments from 2016; in 2016 the argument was a fairly straight-forward one of "Bernie's ideas won't pass and Hillary's are more pragmatic." But this time around their argument actually relies on the idea that Warren is actually going to support the same things as Bernie! So they can't rely on the pragmatic angle and need to come up with something else. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 08:04 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 07:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The problem is some people here have turned into the left’s equivalent of the abortion amendment people, tired of pols who not only tease their pet issue but want them to deliver with the passion of conviction. Also they need to have perfect histories on an array of social justice matters or else random minority Foo will fail to vote and Trump will win again. Like, do you realize that the problem with Republicans isn't that they tend to do a better job pushing their politicians to adhere to the principles they claim to support, but that the principles they claim to support are barbarous and wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 08:47
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m just tired of “well you know (name) will not keep to their promises” as if that’s some kind of tangible negative. You’re predicting the future, and it’s deliberately hard to argue with someone who feels they can prognosticate eventual timelines. In case you've missed the past ten-fifteen years or so, do you know what's interesting about those anti-abortion people and other sundry GOP fanatics who actually demanded that their politicians cater to them or they'd gently caress them over? They loving won. They managed to drag the entire country far towards their preferred politics, and even did that while being a minority of voters. So why exactly are you mad at people for wanting to do what works to get something good passed for a change?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Damage Case posted:ChicagoIdeas.com schools which resemble prisons which resemble factories etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 09:17
|
|
|
Damage Case posted:ChicagoIdeas.com the most woke option is to build schools that look like jails that are staffed by the kind of cruel and petty authoritarians that you will find at any job who will actively pick on people a quarter of their age for fun and also press criminal charges on children who get jumped outside of class
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 09:27
|
|
|
don't want to alarm anyone who posted Kamala Harris stuff on this page but have you considered that she might be a Cop? Marxalot posted:*Unironically nationalize the entire oil industry. Refineries, extraction, transport, pipelines, whatever. All of it. much rather that we abolish it altogether and have renewable energy lobbyists compete
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:50 |
|
|
Lastgirl posted:don't want to alarm anyone who posted Kamala Harris stuff on this page With the insane amounts of money the fossil fuel companies have made, couldn’t they shift their business model to renewable energy? They already have the engineers and scientists and money to tackle the problem in ways governments can’t. Also even if we ignore climate change we are going to run out of oil eventually, so why not diversify to gain a market advantage. I’m pretty sure Shell is heavily investing in renewables for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2019 12:50
|
|