|
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 | ||
|
centrists will side with fascists [voting for harris or warren] rather than supporting the leftist candidate [trump]
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
If biden is the nominee, the party of hashtag resistance and pussyhats has chosen as its standardbearer an avatar of white supremacist heteronormative rape culture patriarchy, and must be destroyed
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:If biden is the nominee, the party of hashtag resistance and pussyhats has chosen as its standardbearer an avatar of white supremacist heteronormative rape culture patriarchy, and must be destroyed while I must commend the poster's dedication to fighting Bidenism and willingness in seeking fresh allies against liberal centrism, I must caution him in his rather "cozy" relationship with the "white guards" and his "vote trump" general line casts doubt on his credibility as leftist. And one must wonder what other "reactionary" thoughts he might be hiding in his heart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
Typo posted:while I must commend the poster's dedication to fighting Bidenism and willingness in seeking fresh allies against liberal centrism, I must caution him in his rather "cozy" relationship with the "white guards" and his "vote trump" general line casts doubt on his credibility as leftist. And one must wonder what other "reactionary" thoughts he might be hiding in his heart.  These are the most prominent Bernie supporters on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:cuck isn't an alt right term settle down maureen dowd and complete your transformation into a corncob It absolutely is. And even worse, it’s an insult with no bite. Why even bother with it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn was referring to '"fishhook theory" when they mentioned alt-right terms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Except they overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. A cross between propaganda to keep democrats conspiring against candidates who want to reform the system and wishful thinking from tankies/accelerationists who'd rather see the world destroyed than risk budging an inch. It's worth noting that whatever happens, even after seizing the presidency, it's going to be an uphill battle to reform the system and make some real progress. A number of these candidates are going to end up working together, which is another reason why attacking Biden for trying to maintain his position as a moderate in the 70s is a safe go for now, once he's out of the race, he loses most of his influence. Everybody has to be ready for the long haul to overturn the current order and to be sure to keep an eye on their local congressional races too, especially in Kentucky.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Leftism isn't ascendant because Bernie run, it's ascendant because an entire generation has been completely hosed over by rampant inequality and the institutional collapse of capitalism, and because the Boomers who represent the last passionate adherence to the cult of American exceptionalism are dying off. Bernie was a catalyst that accelerated what was happening, but the material conditions of America are what are driving leftism. It will outlive him and surpass him, regardless of what happens in 2020. if he's a catalyst then it wouldnt've happened without him, because that's what catalysts do, they start poo poo the material conditions were right in 2008 as well, you had the economic meltdown, you had OWS, you had obama talking about marching with strikers, about the public option etc etc and then the people elected him and he took a dump on them
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Damage Case posted:if he's a catalyst then it wouldnt've happened without him, because that's what catalysts do, they start poo poo 100 pedants sneering and cracking their knuckles right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
No, I'm sure that if Bernie hadn't run in 2016, Hillary's coronation would have been challenged effectively by like, Jim Webb, and his colonel kurz rear end would have moved the Overton window exactly as far to the left. Great point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:She's also not running, so she's not being attacked like a presidential candidate would be. Yeah, she's getting it worse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:thank u, next (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Pander posted:Okay, let's say the general isn't trump/Biden, it's Kasich/Biden. Are y'all brokebrains voting for kasich? I wouldn’t vote . Let the chips fall where they may (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
 Okay, I'm officially putting an end to talk in this thread about who you'll vote for in the general election. Yes, I know that each and every one of the thread regulars have primary candidates that they really hate. But nothing seems to cause more meltdowns here than talking about what happens after the primary, which is kind of out of scope for this thread anyway. You can have all the nightmares you want about what happens if it ends up being your least favorite candidate vs Trump, but don't talk about them here or you're going to cat jail. Talk about it in some other thread, like this one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:What's wrong with Julian Castro? He seems good. He's a reasonable third choice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Nobody expects Bernie to fix the country overnight. Hell, not even in two terms. Are you really sure about that point? One of the things that comes up in this thread a lot is the assumption that if Bernie wins, he'll be able to get everything done. Ie we need Bernie because we need Medicare for All. There's an underlying assumption that if Bernie gets in, that means he will rally the base and therefore get so much done because Dems will have the Senate. I don't really think it's stretching it to say that assumption is flawed. The realistic outcome is more what you describe here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'll never really understand people who feel like the greatest threat is the second best option rather than the conservative wing of the party that is doing its damnedest to avoid social responsibility or civil rights. In our opinions Warren is closer to the "non-Bernies" than Bernie himself in terms of her politics and the likely outcome of her potential presidency. Captain_Maclaine posted:It's appallingly telling that your first instinct upon hearing it suggested that a politician could continue to cooperate with and function within the popular mass movement that got him elected is to dismiss same as just "inspiring rhetoric." It's characteristic of a sort of pseudo-empiricism that many liberals practice, where they act like the only thing worth consideration is that which can be directly and accurately quantified (and in the absence of a reasonable metric or proxy, they just take some unrelated value and assume it has to be used by default). For example, take the post below. In this post, Z. Autobahn is referencing a statistic that is not actually a proxy for the size of an active political movement (which is more defined by the number of active volunteers and engaged supporters). He's trying to view things in an empirical/"data-based" way, but this often results in very wrong opinions when the data doesn't actually exist to support or deny a particular claim (which is usually the case with things like this). Z. Autobahn posted:If Bernie genuinely created a popular mass movement, I'd be inclined to agree. He's currently limping into fourth in most polls and falling. What I see isn't a popular mass movement, but a fractional passionate base with a low ceiling. To specifically address Z. Autobahn's point, which he again makes in this post: Z. Autobahn posted:I mean, I fundamentally do not believe Bernie is going to launch a mass movement or general strikes or issue forth a revolution or radically transform anything. I just... don't, and I don't know how you can look at what's happening with his support and possibly think that. It was wishful thinking months ago and it's crossing into denialist fantasizing. The revolution's not happening. Maybe in 8 years when the generational turnover has gone further, climate change is hitting harder, and the leader of the movement is somehow with a wider reach like AOC. But it's not happening now. It just... isn't. This isn't how popular movements actually work. The Civil Rights Movement was not a result of 50+% of Americans (or whatever) all being onboard and pushing the cause. It only takes a dedicated base of several million+. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
even if bernie isn't able to achieve everything (or even just a fraction of what he wants), having someone in office who will actually push and try to achieve things will be 100x better than what we had before where dem presidents are eternally helpless blobs that can only pass republican legislation and handouts to wealthy industries
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:Are you really sure about that point? One of the things that comes up in this thread a lot is the assumption that if Bernie wins, he'll be able to get everything done. Ie we need Bernie because we need Medicare for All. I don't think any Bernie supporter is naive enough to think he would be able to accomplish even a quarter of his agenda...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think any Bernie supporter is naive enough to think he would be able to accomplish even a quarter of his agenda... Hmmm don't know about that. Condiv posted:even if bernie isn't able to achieve everything (or even just a fraction of what he wants), having someone in office who will actually push and try to achieve things will be 100x better than what we had before where dem presidents are eternally helpless blobs that can only pass republican legislation and handouts to wealthy industries I don't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
There is no end to the naivety displayed by Bernie stans in this thread and elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:It's characteristic of a sort of pseudo-empiricism that many liberals practice, where they act like the only thing worth consideration is that which can be directly and accurately quantified (and in the absence of a reasonable metric or proxy, they just take some unrelated value and assume it has to be used by default). For example, take the post below. In this post, Z. Autobahn is referencing a statistic that is not actually a proxy for the size of an active political movement (which is more defined by the number of active volunteers and engaged supporters). He's trying to view things in an empirical/"data-based" way, but this often results in very wrong opinions when the data doesn't actually exist to support or deny a particular claim (which is usually the case with things like this). You do realize that you just took a key word in my quote ("mass"), replaced it with a different word ("active"), and then argued that I'm not supporting... the very different argument that you just made? Of course Sanders' movement is *active*. He has a very passionate dedicated base of support. What I'm disputing is that it's a MASS active movement as opposed to a fringe active movement. A mass movement, by default, requires a *mass*, which is what the relative standing in the polls* can serve as a proxy for *obviously if you think the polls are all rigged/lies/wildly miscalibrated, this isn't true, but then we're also in the land of pure conjecture so shrug. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Arrest Mitch McConnell January 21, 2020. Then we can get somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Arrest Mitch McConnell January 21, 2020. Then we can get somewhere. Bernie won't even promise to abolish the filibuster
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Bernie won't even promise to abolish the filibuster Just FYI the president can’t do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just FYI the president can’t do that. I thought Bernie had incredible willpower and a mass movement behind him that could overcome any obstacle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:35
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I thought Bernie had incredible willpower and a mass movement behind him that could overcome any obstacle? I realize that you don’t believe that mass political power has any effect. But this isn’t the gotcha you think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:37
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I thought Bernie had incredible willpower and a mass movement behind him that could overcome any obstacle?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I thought Bernie had incredible willpower and a mass movement behind him that could overcome any obstacle? so are you just trolling at this point or something? cause no-one's said this
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1147963050990931968?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:Bernie won't even promise to abolish the filibuster https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18306132/bernie-sanders-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-medicare-60-votes hmm well I suppose the fact that Bernie has said 100% he gets 50 senators then you get medicare for all vs Warrens I'll get rid of the filibuster but there are many paths to healthcare coverage puts both candidates on an even footing. For a disingenuous hack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just FYI the president can’t do that. It’s not gonna happen unless the president is pushing it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Arrest Mitch McConnell January 21, 2020. Then we can get somewhere. The Hell of it is, would this even matter now? Aside from catharsis, anyway. The McConnell playbook isn't exactly a complicated one. Are we supposed to believe that it takes a uniquely indomitable strength of will to be an obstructionist jagoff as Senate leader, especially since it's proven now to be such a tremendous success?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/11/18306132/bernie-sanders-filibuster-budget-reconciliation-medicare-60-votes This might be equal footing if you only wanted to pass one bill, but if you want to do anything resembling the GND, free college, etc, the filibuster still leaves you dead in the water. More importantly, just saying "I'm willing to end the filibuster" is an important declaration that you both understand the extent to which Senate norms are a massive impediment to leftward progress and that you're willing to dismantle them. Condiv posted:so are you just trolling at this point or something? cause no-one's said this I'm exaggerating to highlight the ever-shifting goalposts itt. When you point out that there are still some decent things Biden would do like appoint non-chud justices, it's "well the senate will block him." Point out the Senate will block Bernie too, and it's "he's a tireless fighter who won't take that for an answer". Point out that he's on the record as unwilling to challenge the norms of the Senate, and suddenly it's "Well, the President doesn't really have much power there". You cannot simultaneously claim "The barriers of the Senate don't matter because of the power and strength of Bernie's movement" and "Well Bernie has to respect the filibuster because he's just the President, shrug". If his strength is in the movement behind him, removing the filibuster represents a vastly lower goal than taking the Senate itself. Z. Autobahn fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jul 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
edit: Realized this is forbidden
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:More importantly, just saying "I'm willing to end the filibuster" is an important declaration that you both understand the extent to which Senate norms are a massive impediment to leftward progress and that you're willing to dismantle them. I agree with this. I just don't think Warren has the spine to do anything useful after abolishing the filibuster because she would be arguing against democratic moderates as well as the republicans. Bernies a crabby old bastard who will keep on yelling from the white house lawn at least, and hey once hes passed the one bill, maybe people show up in the midterms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:edit: Realized this is forbidden das ist verboten.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:I agree with this. I mean, even in the absolute best most idealistic scenarios, we're looking at a Senate with enough moderate Dems to stamp down anything truly progressive, whether it's coming from Bernie or Warren. But if you want to get through something even incrementally good, the filibuster has to go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think any Bernie supporter is naive enough to think he would be able to accomplish even a quarter of his agenda... Most of the Bernouts I know personally honestly believe that if Bernie wins the Democratic nomination it means full socialism now. These are also the same people who don't know who their state representatives or senators are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 09:18 |
|
|
smg77 posted:Most of the Bernouts I know personally honestly believe that if Bernie wins the Democratic nomination it means full socialism now. These are also the same people who don't know who their state representatives or senators are. This is my experience as well with Bernouts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2019 01:56
|
|